06-25-1986 MinutesBOARD OF SUPER%-/SORS
MINUTES
June 25, 1986
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Chairman
M~. Harry G. Daniel, Vice Chairman
Mr. G. H. Applsgate
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Jesse J. Mayes
Mr. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Stafi in Attendance:
Mr. Stanley Balderson,
Dir., Econ. Develop.
Mr. Ed Beck, Asst. Din
of Utilities
Mrs. Dori~ DeHart,
Legislative Coord.
Mr. Gary Fenton,
Chief of Recreation
Mr. Michael Golden,
Acting Dir. of Parks
and Recreation
Mr, Bradford S. Hammer,
Assr. Co. Admin.
Mr. Robert Hodder,
Euildinq Official
Mr. William Howell,
Dir. of Gen. Services
Mr. Edward James, Dir.
of Purchasing
Mental Health/Retard.
Mr. Robert Masdsn,
Asst. Co. Admin. for
Mr. Richard McElfish,
Din of Env. Eng.
Mr. R. J. McCracken,
Transp. Director
Mr. Steve Micas, Ce.
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir. of News/Info.
Col. Joseph Pittman,
Chie~ uf Police
Mr. Russell Sink,
Airport Manager
Ms. Jean Smith, Dir.
of.Social Services
Mr. Jay Steqmaler, Chief
of Budget and Managemen
Mr. M. D. Stith~ Jr.,
Ex~¢. Asst., Co. Adm.
Mr. Frederick W. Willis,
Dir. of Human
Mr. Dodd called the meeting to order at the Airport Crosswind
Restaurant at 7:30 a.m. (EDST).
EXECUTIVE SESSION
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girene, the Board went
into Executive S~ssion to discuss personnel matters pursuant to
86-457
Section 2.1-344 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvenlng:
The Board recessed to travel to the Courthouse for the regularly
scheduled meeting.
Reconvening:
Mr. Dodd called the req~la~ly scheduled meeting to order at the
Courthouse at 9:05 a.m. (ESDT).
2. INVOCATION
Mr. Hedrick introduced Reverend Gerald ~. Martens, Pastor of the
Matoaca Baptist Church, who gave the invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
The ~ledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America was recited.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mrs. Girone, ~econded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the minutes of June 11, 1986, as a~ended.
Vote: Unanimous
5. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COM]4ENTS
Mr. Bedrick announced that Mr. James P. Zook, Director of
Planning, had officially notified him that he has accepted the
position of Direotor of Planning for Fsirfax County. The Board
wished Mr. Zook well in his new endeavor.
6. BOAP. D CO~ITTEE R~PO~{TS
Mr. Daniel announced that Mr. Applegate had been elected Chairman
of the Capital Region Airport Commission for the upcoming year.
The Board extended congratulations to Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Daniel stated he met with the Metropolitan Planning
Organization/Richmond Regional Planning District Commission which
passed resolutions endorsing the ~nvironmental Study for the
western alignment of Route 288. He stated he represented the
Board at the event honoring Mrs. Dawana Sheppaid who rcslgncd her
position as a member of the School Board, due to he~ husband's
job relocation. He stated he attended the flr~t of thc su~mer
Concert Series held at The Boulder~ which wa~ attended by nearly
3,000 citizens and enjoyed by all. Mr. Daniel stated he attended
functions at the Valentine Museum and the Marriott for the
premier showing of the movie on Richmond. Mr. Daniel stated he
went on a trip to the Raleigh/Durham area organized by Mr. John
Kidd, Executive Director of the RRPDC, along with other
86-458
representatives of the Richmond Region. He stated the group
visited Raleigh and the Triangle J Council of Governments for the
purpose of sharing/exchanging ideas on economic development. He
stated in North Carolina there is a mandate from the State
legislature to ensure economic development, particularly in this
region. Re ~tated the private and public ~eotor$ actively
participate in the role of enhancing economic development by
focusing on improving relationships with existing businesses as
well as turning away businesses that do not necessarily
contribute to the planned growth management within the community.
He stated the primary attraction in the area is the Research
Triangle Park, with the resources of three major universities
(Duke, University of North Carolina and North Carolina State)
being the major contributing factors to the high technology
development and economic growth. He reviewed the controls which
exist to make this area successful. He stated Mr. Hedrick has
been requested to put together a policy for the Board's
consideration and mince it appears to be working in other places,
Chesterfield should at least have a policy to talk about and work
through the public to see if they would be interested in our
government doing the same thing if we can use it as leverage to
attract business, as well as addreas roads and other tooal
improvements. He stated the County ie planning an Economic
Development Conference and it will be interesting to expand upon
some of the points discussed daring the trip. Tho County
Administrator was requested to include all a~pects in the policy.
Mr. Mayee indicated he had no reports at this time.
Mr. Applegate stated he had also met with the MPO/R~PDC. He
stated he had also met in Washington with Senators Warner and
Trible and Congressman Bliley to discuss potential funding for
tho expansion of the Richmond International Airport and met again
on a separate occasion with Congressman Bliley who has pledged
his support to provide assistance to obtain funding for the
project. He added he attended the ground breaking ceremony for
the Powhite Parkway Extension which he felt was the highlight
event of the County in many years. He stated he attended the
Capital Region Airport Commission meeting at which it was
reported the completion schedule for the expansion of the
terminal building has greatly improved. He stated he looks
forward to the upcoming year as Chairman of the CRAC and finds it
exciting to be involved with the International Airport.
Mrs. Oirone stated she attended the MPO/R~tPDC meeting and
indicated a letter was sent to the local government
representatives in the Rictm~ond Regional Planning District
Commission explaining the County's relationship with the Crater
Planning District Commission. She stated the water quality
monitoring progrom's future was also resolved at the RRPDC. She
stated she chaired the Goals Committee which took two years to
e~tablish new goals/objectives for the MPC. She stated she is
serving on the long range planning committee for Maymont which is
interesting and the Park is serving more and more citizens every
year.
Mr. Dodd stated he would be remims if he did not again mention
the ground breaking ceremony for the Powhite ~arkway ~xtension
which is the beginning cf the County's arterial road system that
has been in the planning stages for many years. He stated the
most significant road the County has is 1-95, which has had tolls
for the last 20-25 years, and to participate in the start of a
portion of this road which will really help the County and its
citizens is a distinct pleasure, especially having the Governor
and the Board present. Re stated it was exciting to see the
dream of this road materialize.
7. P~qUESTS TOPOSTPONE ACTION~ EMERGENCY ADDITION$ OR CHANGES
IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION
On motion of Mr. Ap~legate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
86-459
added Item 12.N., Executive Session to discuss legal matters with
legal counsel regarding K~I vs Chesterfield County and B~K vs
Walsey pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (6) of the Code of the
County of Chesterfield, 1950, as amended, which would be h~ard
just prior to Lunch; added Item 12.I.4.d., Request for Fireworks
Display by Richmond-on-the-James Cruises; added Item 12.O.,
Request to Na~e the 1-295 Bridge Over the James River, which
would be heard prior to 12.N., Executive Session; deferred Item
10.A., Consider Deferring the Condemnation of a Sewer Easement
for the Falling Creek Force Main to the July 9, 1986 Board
meeting; agreed to move Item 12.E., Airport Taxiway Access to
precede Item 12.J.; agreed to move Item 12.J.c.3., Authorization
to Proceed with Condemnation 0£ a Sewer Easement for the Spring
Run Trnnk Sewer to Serve Deer Ran Subdivision to immediately
follow Item 9.B.; replaced papers for Item 12.D. on the 1986-87
Appropriations Resolution; indicated Item 12.A., Re~olution
Adopted by General Assembly Bonoring Mr. Lewis B. Vaden would to
be heard when appropriate; and adopted the agenda as amended.
8. R~SOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION
8.A. RESOLUTION R~COGNIZING REVEREND EDWARD L. BOYCE
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
W~EREAS, Reverend Bdward L. Boyce, Pastor of the First
PenticostaI Boline~ Church of 828 Buford Road, Ben Air, has
diligently and faithfully pastored his congregation for 41 years,
the longest time anyone in his denomination has served a single
pastorate; and
WHEREAS, his congregation has qrown from 90 members in a
small frame building to 430 members in a $1,250,000 facility on
14 acres of land; and
WHEREAS, Reverend Seyce has represented his congregation as
a Board Member in I958-1961 and Secretary-Treasurer of the
Conference from 1961-1986; and
W~ER~A~, he has served on the international level as a
member of the Board cf Education, Board of Evangelism, and Board
of Institutions of the Church; and
W~EREAS, Reverend Boyce has contributed significantly to the
moral and spiritual strength of the Chesterfield community.
NOW, T~EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the members of the Board
of Supervisors of Chesterfield County do hereby wish Reverend
Boyoe a healthy and happy retirement with his wife, Jerusha, and
years of contentment and joy with his daughters, Brenda,
Gwendolyn and Beverlee, and his sons, Lawrence and Allen.
Vote: Unanimous
Mrs. Girone expressed appreciation for the 41 years of service
provided by Reverend Boyee to his pastorate and the community and
congratulations upon his retirement.
Mr. Hedrick stated Reverend Boyce was not present; however the
resolution would be presented to him at a retirement ceremony to
be held ~unday.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATIONS FOR THE JULY CELEBRATION
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
86-460
WI{E~EAS, the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation
Department functions to positively effect the quality of life of
those it serves; and
WHEREAS, the provision of high q~ality special events
represents an important aspect of the Department's services; and
W}rEREAS, the 1986 4th of July Extravaganza represents a
wholesome, enjoyable, family oriented activity; and
WHERF~AS, the 1986 4th of July Extravaganza represents an
opportunity to commemorate the renovation of the Statue of
Liberty; and
WHEREAS, WRVQ-94 and their sponsors have chosen to provide
significant support for this annual community wide event.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County
Board of SupervisOrs does hereby recognize WRVQ-94, Pepsi, Eskimo
Pie, Joe Dell Brokerage, Inc. (Imperial Chareoal/Castleberry
Chili), Eagle Snacks, Bill's Barbecue and Wonder Bread/Hostess
Cakes for their generous contribution to the event and the
quality of llfe in Chesterfield County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does
hereby express its sincere appreciation and gratitude to David
Owen representing WRVQ-94; George Oliver and Jim Wright
representing Pepsi; Mitzie Booth representing Eskimo Pie; Bill
Thompson representing Joe Dell Brokerage, Inc. (Imperial
Charcoal/Castleberry Chili); Donna McCown representing Eagle
Snacks; Steve Richardson and Michael Gooding representing Bill's
Barbecue; and Melvin Miller representing Wonder Bread/Hostess
Cakes for their goodwill and community concern.
Vote: Unan~ous
Mr. Gary Fenton introduced the following representatives of the
organizations contributing to the July Extravaganza event: Mr.
Jim Wright, representing Pepsi; Ms. Mitzie Booth, representing
Eskimo Pie; Mr. Forest Ford, representing Wonder Bread/~ostess
Cakes; Mr. Jerry Gershman, representing Bill's Barbecue; and Mr.
Dave Owens, representing WRVQ-94. Mr. Dave Owens, on behalf of
the contributors, presented Mr. Dodd with a check in the amount
of $5,000 to provide support the July 4th Extravaganza. Mr. Dodd
presented each with an executed copy of the resolution and
expressed appreciation for their assistance.
9. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS
9.A. CLAIM OF CLYDE WAI~2~EN CRAWPORD~ JR. FOE DAMAGES ARISING
FROM AN INJURY ~CEIVED WHI~E RES~0ND~NG TO A FIRE AS A
VOLUNTEER FIREFIGKTER
Mr. Dedd disclosed to the Board that the attorney representing
the claimant does work for his firm and although he did not feel
he had a financial conflict but rather a moral conflict, declared
a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive
Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting.
Mr. Micas explained the claim involves a volunteer firefighter
who was responding to a fire in a vehicle operated by a
volunteer. Ee stated the claim has been investigated by
appropriate staff and it was determined that the driver was not
negligent and there were no County employees involved and
sovereign immunity protects the County from having to pay the
claim. He stated, at this tim~, the volunteer is receiving
medical and disability expenses, through a policy which is paid
by the Board of Supervisors. He stated that this process is
86-461
preoonditional to filing a law suit. He stated staff is
recommending denial of the claim.
Mr. Greg Eooe stated the claimant's attorneys have reviewed
staff's recor~nendation and disagree with the matters relating to
liability. He stated he h~d information outlining Mr. Crawford's
injuries and expenses should the Board desire to review them. On
motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
resolved to deny the claim of Mr. Clyde Warren Crawford, Jr., in
the amount of $300,000, for damages arising from personal
injuries, sustained as the result of an accident occurring on
August 24, 1984, while responding to a fire as a volunteer
firefighter, as it involve~ volunteers only, not County employess
or officials and payment would constitute an impermissable waiver
of the County's sovereign immunity.
Ayes: Mr, Daniel, Mr. Applcgate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Dodd returned to the me,ting.
9.B. CLAIM OF USF&G COMPANY
Mr. Micas explained the claim of United States Fidelity and
Guaranty Company (USF&G) which involved an accident in the County
parking lot when a driver of a private vehicle backed into a
County refuse truck. Be stated staff has reviewed the claim and
felt there was contributory negligence by the insured. He stated
the insurance company has paid the claim and is now filing
against the County to recover those funds.
NO One came forward to address this matter.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
resolved to deny the claim of United States Fidelity and Guaranty
Company (USF&G) in the amount of $788.16 for alleged property
damage to a vehicle driven by Ms. Gwenda Goggin resulting from an
accident occurring in October of 1985, as it involves
contributory negligence and constitutes an impermissable waiver
of the County s Sovereign immunity.
Vote: Unanimous
12.J.3.e. AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH CONDEMNATION OF A SEWER
~A~MENT FOR THE SPRING RUI~ TRUNK SEWER TO SERVE DEEE
RUN SUBDIVISION
Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that he is a trustee and
part owner of property that could be served by the Spring Run
trunk sewer, declared a possible conflict of interest pursuant to
the Virginia Comprehensiv~ Conflict of Interest Act and excused
himself from the meeting.
Mr. Ed Beck stated staff had been previously authorized to use
the power of emiment domain to assist the developer of Deer Run
to obtain a sewer easement. He stated numerous disous~ion~ had
been held, changes in the routing of the lines, etc., but there
is still a difference in the monetary value requested. ~e stated
staff is recommending condemnation at this time.
Mrs. Charles Henry, a 30 year resident, cited her objections to
the 36' by { mil~ easement across her property and ~tated she
felt the developer should have the responsibility of negotiating
with them for the easement at a fair market price. She stated
she felt this was for private gain, the developer has not
tried to negotfate with them for the easement, the developer has
trespassed and cleared land without permission, etc. She
requested postponement of the matter in order for the developer
to consider their counteroffer.
86-462
Mr. Mayas stated in this particular case it appears that the
County has aided the developer but not the property owner; the
developer had machinery on the property b~fore the property owner
knew what was going on; there appears to be a breakdown in
communication and suggested that the issue should be settled in
court rather than by the Board, as he felt the property owner may
not have been treated properly. Be stated he was not certain the
developer had pursued all of the cour~es of action that were
necessary.
On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board denied
Dr. and Mrs. Charles Henry's counteroffer 0£ $11,250 and
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the followinq property owners if the amount
as set opposite their na~es i~ not accsptsd. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by registered mail on June 26, 1986, of the County's
intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the
subject of said condemnation proceedings. This action is on an
emergency basis and the County intends to exercise immediate
right of entry pursuant to Section 15.I-238.1 of the Code of
Dr. and Mrs. Charles Henry S86-12CD $2,524
Mr. Daniel stated that apparently there wa~ a zoning granted in
this case and somewhere there is a condition that the developer
provide sewer.
Mr. Micas explained the policy requires that the developer has
the obligation to acquire property to extend the sewer and water
to serve his development and, on occasion, when the developer is
unsuccessful in acquiring this property, he may petition the
Board ~or assistance in acquiring those easements. Be stated the
developer in every instance pays the full cost of that
acquisition and must adhere to a n~ber of serious criteria which
convince the County that he has exhausted all reasonable efforts
to acquire the easement, which policy has been upheld in Court.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Hayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting.
10. DEi~ERRED ITEMS
10.B. APPOINTMENTS - BELLWOOD/BENSLEY COSL~UI~ITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board appointed
Mr. Linwood Carroll, Mr. Eugene Presley, Mr. Bryan Walker, Mr.
Leo Myers, Mr. W. L. Sinclair, Mrs. L. L. Wilbourne and Mrs.
Rnffin Gregory, Jr. to the Bellwood/Bensley Community Development
Block Grant Citizens Advisory Group, whose =arms are effective
immediately and will expire with the termination of said grant.
vote: Unanimou~
i1. PUBLIC HEARiNgS
ll.A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANC~ TO A~r~D THE CODM
OF THE COUNTY OF C~ESTERFIELD~_...1978r AS AMEAIDED, BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 20-1.35 AND 20-1.30 RELATING TO COUNTY
WATER AND $~w~ SYSTEM
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
86-463
public hearing to consider an Ordinance to amend the County Code
by amending Sections 20-1.35 and 20.1-30 relating to the County
water and sewer system.
Mr. Deck explained the proposed ordinance and stated it had been
adopted on an emergency basis at the Board meeting on May 14,
1986.
No one came forward to address this matter.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adopted the following Ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TSE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD,
1978, AS AMENDED, BY AM_ENDING SECTION 20-1.30 and 20-1.35,
REI~TING TO COUNTY WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM
BE IT O~DAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Chapter 20 of the Cede of the County of
Chesterfield, Virginia is amended and reenacted by amending the
following sections:
Sec. 20-1.30 Required use of county water system.
Any individual structure for which a building permit has
been obtained after the effective date of thls ordinance and
which is within 500 feet of a water line shall connect to the
county water system. If a county water line is within or
adjacent to property to be served by the owner or developer, any
structure on such parcel shall connect to the county water syste~
regardless of the distance from the structure to the water line.
This section shall not apply if a valid septic tank permit was
obtained prior to April 1, 1986.
Sec. 20-1.35 Required use of county sewer system.
Any individual structure for which a building permit has
been obtained after the effective date of this ordinance and
which is within 500 feet of gravity sewer service shall connect
to the county sewer system. If county gravity sewer service is
within or adjacent to property to be served by the owner or
developer, any structure on such parcel shall connect to county
sewer regardless of the distance from the structure to the sewe~
line. This section shall not apply if a valid septic tank permit
was obtained prior to April 1, 1986.
Ayes: Mr. Dedd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone.
Abstention: Mr. Mayas.
ll.B. PUBLIC ~ARING ON ORDINANCE CHANGE FOR BUILDING
INSPECTION F~MM
Mr. Hedrick stated this data and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an Ordinance to amend Section 6-4 of
the County Code relating to building and related permit fees.
Mr. ~odder stated this proposed Ordinance amends the County Code
as it relates to building and auxiliary permit fees. Me stated
the increased fees have been discussed in detail with and ar~
supported by representatives from the plumbing, mechanical,
electrical and Home Build,rs Associations. Be stated approval o~
the increased fees will support the proposed organizational
changes which will expedite the process of issuing building
permits.
86-464
Mr. Nike Todd, President of the Bome Builders Association of
Richmond, slated his support of the proposed building permit fee
increases. Ee expressed appreciation to Mr. Fodder and his staff
for the time and effort expended with the Some Builders
Association on this matter. He stated the Building Inspection
Department greatly needs additional staff and automated
facilities %o increase its productivity and expedite the issuance
of permits. (A copy of their letter is filed with papers of this
Board.)
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Dodd stated he had understood there would be only nominal
increases~ however, the data presented to Board indicates that
the typical commercial structure fees, when compared to other
localities, are substantially increased above those areas.
Mr. Hodder stated staff de%ermined the propomed fee increases
based on tho volume of work being processed in the County. He
stated the sa~e actions/procedures are required for commercial
as are required for single family structures. He stated the
fnnd~ required for the proposed computerization and
organizational changes of his department would be afforded by the
permit fees adjustments and the benefit to the process will be
more efficiency, effectiveness and productivity for the
contractors and developers and will outweigh the difference in
the comparative costs.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adopted the following Ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO A~END THE CODE OF TEE
COLrNTy OF CHESTEP~IELDt 1978t AS AMENDEDt
BY AMENDING SECTION 6-4
RELATING TO BUILDING AND RELATED P~R~CIT FEES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board Of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
That Section 6-4 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield,
1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 6.4 Permit fees.
(a) Generally. Unless otherwise excepted, no permit to
begin work for new construction, alteration, removal, demolition
'or other building operation for construction required by the
several provisions of the Virginia Uniform 2tatewlde Building
Code shall be issued until the fees prescribed in this section
shall have been paid. No amendment to a permit necessitating an
additional fee because of an increase in the estimated cost of
the work involved shall be approved until the additional fee has
been paid. All much permits shall be issued by the building
official on forms approved and furnished by his office. The fees
for permits shall be based upon the project or area cost in
accordance with the following schedule:
Building:
a. Residential building:
Finishsd area .......................... $1.35
per 20 square feet,
1500 square feet minimum
Unfinished area ......................... 1.35 per 30 square feet
86-465
(2)
(3)
Accessory building, minimum fee ........ 16.00
Residential addition, minimllm fee ...... 16.00
b. Demolition ............................. 16.00
c. Moving or relocating buildings ......... 16.00
d. Commercial building structure,
excluding signs:
Two thousand dollars or less ......... $16.00
Each additional thousand or
fraction thereof ...................... 4.30
e. Mobile home, including buildings,
electrical and plumbing ................ 32.00
f. Signs:
Sign permit:
Two thousand dollars or less ....... 16.00
Each additional thousand or
fraction thereof .................. 4.30
Mechanical:
a. When the cost of labor and material (applicant's
cost) involved in installation, alteration,
replacement and/or repair is:
$0--300 ............................... $30.00
$301--500 .............................. 35.00
$501--1,000 ............................ 40.00
$1,001--2,000 .......................... 45.00
$2,001--3,000 .......................... 50.00
$3~001--4,000 .......................... 55.00
$4,001--5,000 .......................... 60.00
Over $5,001 ............................ 60.00
Plus $4.30 for each additional $1,000 er fraction
thereof.
~lumbing:
a. The fee for each plumbing permit issued shall
include the installation, alteration, replace-
ment, and/or repair of any o~e er all of the
following: Water service piping, building sewer
(including connection to the County water system);
water distribution piping; building sewer (in-
cluding connection to the County sewer system);
drain waste, and vent piping; qas piping; private
or public wells, pumps; storm drains; traps and
fixtures.
Wtlen the cost of labor and material (applicant's
cost) involved in installation, alteration,
replacement and/or repair
$0--300 .............................. $30.00
$301--500 ............................. 35.00
$501--1,000 ........................... 40.00
$1,001--2,000 ......................... 45.00
$2,001--Z,000 ......................... 50.00
$3,001--4,000 ......................... 55.00
$4,001--5,000 ......................... 60.00
Over $5,001 ........................... 6D.00
Plus $4.30 for each additional $1,000
c~ fraction thereof.
86-466
(4)
Active solar system:
When the cost of labor and matsrial (applicant's
cost) involved in installation, alteration, re-
placement and/or repair is:
$0--300 .............................. $30.00
$301--500 ............................. 35.00
$501--1,000 ........................... 40.00
$1,001--2,000 ......................... 45.D0
$2,001--3,000 ......................... 50.00
$3,001--4,000 ......................... 55,00
$4,001--5,000 ......................... 60.00
Over $5,001 ........................... 60.00
Plus $4.30 for each additional $1,000
or fraction thereof.
c, Ssp~io tank permit .................... 45.00
E1sctrlcal:
When the cost of labor and material (applicant's
cost) involved in installation, alteration, re-
placement and/or repair is:
$0--300 .............................. $30.00
$301--500 ............................. 35.00
$501--1,000 ........................... 40.00
$1,001--2,000 ......................... 45.00
$2,001--3,000 ......................... 50.00
$3,001--4,000 ......................... 55.00
$4,001--5,000 ......................... 60.00
Over $5,001 ........................... 60.00
Plus 4.30 for each additional $1,000
or fraction thereof.
(5) Eleotrical~ plumbin~ and building related
a. Master card ............................ $10.00
Examination ............................. 45.00
b. Journeyman card ......................... 10.00
Examination ............................. 35.00
b. Exemptions from fee requirement=
(1) No fee shall be required for building permits for con-
struction when the cost of such construction is less
than five hundred dollars ($500.00} and such construct-
ion would not involve securing any other permit as
required by section 109.8 of the Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code.
(2) No fee ehall he required to be paid for permits to be
issued for the construction of buildings designed for
and used to house religious assemblies as a place of
worship.
(c) Dispositions o£ ~ees. All permit fees required by this
~ection shall bs paid by the applicant to the county treasurer or
his deputy at the time the application for permit is filed with
the building official, and upon receipt of such fmcs, the
treasurer shall deposit same to the credit of the County general
fund.
(d) Refunds on application for pe~mlts cancelled oh request
of applicants. If an applicatio~ for a permit is cancelled on
request of the applicant before a permit is issued, the permit
86-467
fee shall be returned to the applicant if a written request for
said refund is received by the building official within six (6)
month~ after the date the application i~ received in the office
of the building official.
(e) Fee for reinspection of the sa~e type. In addition to
the fees set out in this section, there shall be a fee of fifteen
dollars ($18.001 for each inspection made in excess of two (2),
if such inspection trips are made necessary due to work not being
complete for inspection when request for inspection is made or if
corrections are not made before calling for reinspections.
11.C. PUBLIC ~EARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE
OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD~ 197B~ AS AMZNDED, BY
AMENDING SECTION 5-14 RELATING TO PENALTIES
Mr. Hcdrick stated this date and time has been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an Ordinance to a~end the County Code
by amending Section 5-14 relating to penalties.
Chief Pittman stated the Board of Supervisors requested staff to
study the fines imposed by Ordinance for animal control
violations in an effort to increase the deterrent effect and
establish an incentive for residents to obey the Ordinance. He
stated the proposed Ordinance accomplishes that action and
recommends the following:
Violation
Running mt large
Failure to license
Failure to inoculate
fer rabies
Current Pines
Recommended Fines
$0 - $100 $15 - $100
$0 - $100 $i5 -
$0 - $100 $25 - $100
Mrs. Girone stated she has received complaints from citizens in
her District that many residents ignore the Ordinance. She
stated she has been informed that many people just do not care
that they would have to pay a $5 or $10 fine for letting their
doge run at large and would rather take a chance at being cited
for violating the Ordinance. She stated the law is just net
working and she would suggest that the recommended minimum fines
of $15 be increased to $25 for violations of running at large and
failure to license and the $25 fine for failure to inoculate for
rabies be increased to $50.
Mr. Micas stated that should the Board decide to increase the
minimum fine rate the issue would require readvertisement. Be
stated that should the Board set too high any minimum fine the
Courts are unlikely to convict those cited for the violations.
He stated the historical pattern has been that the Courts do not
like to impose large fines on runninq at large violations and
will not convict.
Mr. Mayes stated if the laws are established they should be
enforced and if the laws are not enforced they should be taken
off the books.
Mr. Appleqate concurred with the recommended increase in the
penalties as suggested by Mrs. Girone. He stated the rabies
situation is becoming more critical and preventive measures
should be taken in whatever way possible. ~r. Daniel stated
there is citizen concern about rabies, control, etc. relative to
cats as well and that issue may be coming forward.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
deferred consideration of the proposed amendment for Animal
86-468
Control ~enalties and authorized readvertisement of the matter
order to amend and increase the recommended minimum fines to $25
for running at large violations, $25 for failure to license
violations and $50 for failure to inoculate for rabies violations
with a maximum fine of $100 for each viola%ion.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Hedrick stated that administratively staff would monitor the
convictions for a period of one (1) year to determine if the
incree~ed fees have an effect/impact On the effectiveness of the
Ordinance amendment.
ll.D. PUELIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO A~4~D THE CODE
OF TRE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY
AMENDING AND I~NACTING CHAPTER 4 ~ ART!CL~ III ~ R~LATING
TO MUSICAL AND ENTERTAINMENT FESTIVALS
Mr. Hedrisk stated this date and time has been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an Ordinance to amend the County Code
relating to musical and entertainment femtivals. Mrs. Girone
inquired if alcoholic beverages would be permitted and the Count'
Attorney advised that state law would prevail.
Mr. Micas explained the effect of the proposed Ordinance. NO On
came forward to address the matter.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Hoard
adopted th~ following Ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF CNESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING
AND REENACTING CHAPTER 4 ARTICLE III
REI~TING TO MUSICAL OR ENTERTAINMENT FESTIVALS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Chapter 4, Article III of the Code of the C0qn~~
of Cheste.r. fi. eld~ Virginia, 1978, ae amended, iE emended and
reenacted by amending the following sections:
Sec. 4-17. Definition.
(a) "Musical festival" as used in this article shall mean
any gathering of groups or individual~ for the purpose of
listening to or participating in entertainment which consists
primarily of, but not limited to, musical renditions conducted in
open spaces not within a permanent enclosed structure.
(b) "Entertainment festival" as used in this article shall
mean any gathering of groups or individuals for the purpose of
listening to or participating in entertainment which consists of
carnival shows, circus shews, exhibitions, rides, magic or
animals acts conducted in open spaces not within a permanent
enclosed structure. For the purposes of this article, a circus
tent shall not be considered a permanent enclosed structure.
o o o
(d) This section shall not apply to an entertainment or
mnsie festival in a county park Or other facility subject to
regulation by the parks and recreation department, provided that
the organization obtains a special events permit.
O O O
Sec. 4-18. Permit,--Required; applications; issuance.
(a) It shall be unlawful to state, promote or conduct a
musical or entertainment iestival from which the applicant,
promoter and ~ponsor will receive or potentially receive
86-469
financial benefit or gain within this county unless there shall
have first been obtained from the board of supervisors a permit
for each such festival.
(b) Application for a permit ehall be made in writing and
shall be filed in duplicate with the county administrator at
least thirty days prior to the date of such festival. Each
application shall have attached thereto and made a part thereof
the plans, statements and other dooumant$ required by ~4-20. If
the application doee not contain the necessary plans, statements
or documents required by the article, the county administrator
may refuse to accept such application for filing.
(c) The board shall act on a filed application within
thirty days of filing and shall not issue a permit unless the
requirements of this article are met. Each permit issued shall
be issued in writing and mailed by the county administrator to
the applicant at the address indicated in the application.
Failure of the board to take action on a completed application
filed in duplicate within thirty days a~ter the filing thereof
shall be deemed an approval of such applications.
o o o
Sec. 4-20. Same--contents of application.
Each application for a musical or entertainment permit shall
include the following plans, statements and other documents.
o o o
(f) A detailed plan for adequate sanitation facilities and
a plan for disposal of garbage, trash and sewage generated by the
persons who will attend the festival. Such plan shall include
provisions for removal from the festival area of garbage and
trash at the end of the festival and shall include the names of
the persons responsible therefor;
(g) A detailed plan for providing food, water and lodging,
where applicable, for persons who will attend the festival;
(h) A detailed plan designating the provisions for medical
facilities which shall be available for persons who will attend
the festival;
(i) A detailed plan designating the provisions for fire
protection which shall be available for persons who will attend
the festival;
(j) A detailed plan designating the provisions for adequate
parking facilities, crowd control and traffic control in and
adjacent to the festival area. The chief of police shall review
such plan and shall ba the sole judge of the adequacy thereof;
o o o
(1} A statement, signed by the applicant, certifying that
music shall be played, either by mechanical device or by live
performance, in such a manner that the sound emanating therefrom
shall not be audible beyond the property upon which the festival
will be located so as to constitute a nuisance to adjacent
property owners.
(m) ;% detailed plan for adequate security to protect
against personal injury of the persons attending the festival and
to further protect against property damage of any private and
public property. Such plan shall specify the amounts and types
86-470
of insurance which shall be obtained by the applicant, sponsors
or promoters to insure against such injury or damage. If the
festival will be held on public property, each insurance policy
shall name the ceunty as coinsured and certificates of insurance
so indicating shall be delivered to the county administrator at
least fourteen days prior to the musical or entertainment
festival. The chief of police shall review such plan and shall
be the sole j~dge of the adequacy thereof;
(n) A statement signed by the applicant and property owner
which authorizes the board, the county, its lawful agents,
employees, designees or law enforcement officers to enter upon
the property upon which the festival will be held at any time
prior to or during the feshival for the purpose of determining
compliance with the provisions of this article cz any state and
local statutes~ ordinances and regulations; and,
ooo
Sec. 4-22. Same--Deposit for police protection, traffic control
and fire
As a condition to issuance of a permit, the board shall
require the applicant to deposit with the county treasurer a sum
of money to pay for the cost of additional county services
occasioned by the festival which Services shall be necessary
meet the requirement~ of the plan~ and ~tatsments contained in
the application. The actual cost of such additional services
shall be paid to the county out of the deposit and the
difference, if any, shall be refunded to the applicant within
fourteen days after the festival. . .
ooo
Sec. 4-24. Bond.
After issuance of a permit by the board and fourteen day~
prior to commencement Of the musical er entertainment festival,
the applicant shall deposit with the county treasurer a sum of
money or, in vie~ thereof, a bond with corporate surety in an
amount determined by the board which bend shall be conditioned
upon the faithful compliance of each requirement of this article.
ll.E. PUELIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE
0F THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY
ANENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 2-42 RELATING TO
COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time has been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an Ordinance to &mend the County Code
by amending and reenactinq Section 2-42 relatin9 to competitive
sealed bidding.
Mr. Ed James stated that on occasions all bids received for a
particular County project exceed available appropriated funds.
He stated that in such situations the Virginia Public Procurement
ACt allows for negotiations with the lowest, responsible bidde~
to obtain a contract p~ice within available funds; however, under
state law, such negotiations may be undertaken only under
conditions and procedures described in writing and approved by
the Board prior to issuance of an Invitation to Bid.
Mr. Micas stated it is important to remember that the only time
negotiations of this type could transpire would be when there are
no appropriated funds; if the low bidder is within the
appropriated funding amount the County is obligated to accept the
Iow bid.
86-471
Mr. Mayes stated he felt the Iow bidder may not always be the
best bidder for the issue and if all bidders overbid the cost of
the item then the item should be rsbid--not negotiated with the
low bidder. Mrs. Girone stated that this procedure provides an
alternative which would allow the flexibility to neqotiate with
the low bidder if such action is desirable.
Mr. Daniel stated the decision to utilize this procedure depends
if one defines "responsible bidder", as one with a reputable,
quality reputation; then this procedure would permit staff the
privileg~ and flexibility of determing what it considers the
lowest, responsible bidder.
Mr. ~ayes expressed concern that this matter may not be handled
in a fair manner and reiterated his opinion that the if all the
bidders overbid the cost of the item then the item should be
rebid. He stated he had no doubts about the fairness of the
Purchasing Department in handling its business, however, he did
not feel the County should place itself in the position of
dealing with the low bidders.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone~ seconded by Mr. Applegate~ the Board
adopted the following Ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TEE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING
SECTION 2-42 RELATING TO COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDINQ
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Chapter 2 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, Virginia is amended and reenacted by adding the
following section:
Sec. 2-42. Competitive sealed biddinG; procedure; award.
For all contracts that are required to be based on
competitive sealed bidding pursuant to the provisions of Sections
2-40 and 2-41 of this article, sealed bids shall be solicited by
a written invitation to bid. Public notice of the invitation to
bid may, in the discretion of the purchasing agent, be inserted
at least once in a newspaper of county-wide circulation. Sealed
bids shall also be solicited by sending the invitation to bid to
prospective contractors and Dy posting the invitation to bid in
public place. Rids shall be based on specifications, terms,
conditions and any statement of requisite qualifications for
potential contractors, all as contained in the invitation to bid
Ail contracts shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and
responsible bidder. Special qualifications of potential
contractors, life cycle costing, value analysis and any other
criteria such as inspection, testing, quality, workmanship,
delivery terms and suitability for a particular purpose may be
considered in evaluating bids. Any and all bids may be cancelled
or rejected, provided the reasons for such cancellation or
rejection are made part of the contract file. Any informalities
in bids may be waived. If the bid from the lowest rssponsible
bidder exceeds available funds, the county may negotiate with the
apparent low bidder to obtain a contract price within available
funds, such negotiation may include but is not necessarily
limited to adjustment of the bid price and changes in the bid
scope or requirements in order to bring the bid within the amount
of available funds. N~gotiation shall be conducted by the
purchasing agent with assistance from the user department.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr, Applegate and Mrs. Girone.
Nays: Mr. Mayes.
Abstention: Mr. Dodd.
86-472
ll.F. PUBLIC EEARING TO CONSIDER THE CONVEYANCE OF 11.5± ACRES
AT AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK TO WESTERN RESERVE PLASTICS~
INC.
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time has been advertised for a
public hearing to consider the conveyance of 11.5± acres at the
Airport Industrial Park to Western Reserve Plastics, Inc.
It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes.
Mr. Balderson presented a brief summary of the request.
In response to a question by Mrs. Girone, Mr. Balderson stated
there is a set of restrictive covenants which apply to the
development of the sites in the Industrial Park, one of which
addressee the approval of the appearance ef the property through
submission of renderinge through the Planning Department. He
stated this process is in conjunction with routine site plan
approval and the applicant's site plans have been approved by the
Planning Department.
No one came forward to address the matter.
On motion cf Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the sale of an 11.5± acre tract (at
$32,500 per acre) in the Airport Industrial Park, located on the
north side of Whitepine Road across from the Reynold~ Metals Can
Research facility, to Western Reserve Plastics, Inc.
Vote: Unanimous
12. NEW BUSINESS
12.B. CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR INCREASE IN LITERARY LOAN FOR
MEADOWBROOK EIGE SCHOOL
Mr. Tom Fulghum stated the prepesed Soheol Board resolution
requests approval by the Board of Supervisors of an increase in
Literary Loan for Meadowbrook High School from $1,000,000 to
$2,000,000 to provide for the expansion and upgrading of its
existing facilities. He stated it may be conceivable that much
of the proposed additional expenditures might be absorbed at a
later time, however, the only way to assure that this would occu
would be to have the project wait in abeyance until Other bids
are received before the determination is made. Ee stated that
they felt the safest way to ensure that this project and others
proceed would be to recommend that the Literary Loan be amended
from the approved $1,000,000 to the state maximum allowable
ameunt of $2,000,000. He stated that ~ueh action does not mean
that the entire amount would be expended if it is not needed.
Mrs. Girone stated that this action i~ not within the planning
practices established by the Board; there is a School Capital
Improvement program that they developed, with projects and
amounts needed; and that the County has a budget with an amount
which we can afford to pay back on loans. She stated $70,880,000
dollars has been borrowed for schools since 1983 and we are
hardly through the last vote by the public and now we have a
project that is going to double in cost. She stated Literary
Loans are not free, it is just that the interest rate is lower
because the state endorses that type of borrowing but it has to
be paid back. She stated this has been done before and inquired
how many more of these are going to come. She inquired what good
is a capital improvements progra/~, or what good is a bond progra~
where we tell the public how much money we are going to borrow
a~d how much they are going to have to pay back out of their
86-473
taxes and nobody pays any attention to it.
Mr. Fulghum stated he understood Mrs. Girone's concerns however
no one could anticipate accreditation changes. He stated th~se
constant changes need to be brought to the attention of the
School Board and the Board of Supervisors and he wished the
system could derive a plan which would need no modification,
however, that is not possible.
Mrs. Girone inquired if the School Board could find, within its
$70,850,000 budget, $1,000,000 to accomplish its objectives for
Meadowbrco~ ~igh School.
Mr. Fulghnm stated he was not assured enough at this point that
he could proceed with this project, as well as all other
projects, and guarantee that they would he completed and find the
needed $1,000,000.
Mr. Daniel stated if the School System had the liberty to move
underruns around on Literary Loans from other projects that maybe
they could accumulate the $1,000,000 or so to do whatever this
project would allow them to do and fhe~ef0re it could operate
within the framework of $70,850,000. He crated if the other
projects come in low then we just do not borrow that money, but
this project is needed. Me stated that if it wez~ something that
was not needed, that the actual project had not been on the
Capital items for years to be done, only to forego for other
reasonz where there would be new schools, improvements to ~chool~
~ in worse conditions than Meadowbrook - then yes we should
probably not move. But this is one that has been hangin9 so
that we hav~ no other choice but to go %o the Literary Loans for
the funding knowing that some of the other projects are going to
come in under - they just can not tell us which ones and they do
not have the liberty of transferring that money. He stated he
realized that everything said is correct but it is just one of
those unfortunate situations.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, t~he Board
adopted the following resolution:
Whereas, the School Board for the County of Chesterfield,
the 25th day of June, 1986, presented to this Board, an
application addressed to the State Board of Education of Virginia
for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund $1,000,000
for adding to and improving the present school building at
Meadowbrook Migh School, to be paid in 20 annual installmentS,
and the interest thereon at 4 per cent paid annually.
Resolved, that the application of the County School Board tc
the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $1,000,000
from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is
hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said
amount for the purpose set out in said application.
The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year
durin~ the life Of this loan, at the time they fix the regular
levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash
appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this
loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required
Dy law regulating loans from the Literary Fund.
Mr. Mayas stated he was astounded by the request for a million
dollars without warning and he stated the people are going to
have to pay for it. Me stated that when consultants tell you how
much it is going to cost to develop and plan, their
reco~endation should be accurate so as not to have to come back
and then burden the taxpayer unexpectedly.
Mr. Daniel stated that if he had the liberty to do so ha would
adjust projects to save $1,000,000 so that the overall total
capital budget would not be placed in jeopardy which would
address the issues that C01oBel Mayas brought up so that we are
not takinq anything from the taxpayers, however, the system is
such that is does not allow such action. Me stated he did not
86-474
know what the answer i~ but this particular high school haE been
one of those major high schools in the County that has foregone
improvements year in and year out and that is not right.
Mrs. Girone stated the scope of the school project is not the
issue but increasing the project by 100%.
Mr. Daniel stated the money has to be approved to proceed with
the project for completion by the opening of the school year.
Mr. Applegate inquired if the scope of the project has changed.
~r. ~ulghum stated it is not identically the same; the major
instructional a~eas are basically the same but building codes,
traffic flows, etc., which create additional construction are
included. He stated those solutions ar~ more expensive than
anticipated. He stated the demands on the science curriculum in
that high school are much greater than they wens oniqinally.
Mr. Applegate ~tated he agreed this is not good planning. Mr.
Mayes stated he recalled that at the close of the budget
last year the Board permitted the school system to have
$2,000,000 0nly because it would cost more interest if they did
not gst it at that time. Mr. Fulghum stated that action occurred
prior to submission of Capital Improvement Projects, when the
state was just getting ready to change the interest rate from 3%
to 4% se we applied and those applications were good as approved
for a period of five years but all those projects were held in
abeyance until after acceptance of ths Capital Improvements
Program.
Mr. Daniel stated the timing is such that the proposal has to go
through but he would amend the motion to include that we would
apply for an additional Literary Loan of $1,000,000 with the
instructions that the School Board r~view all of their Capital
appropriations that they have on the books and they modify their
Capital Plan to take the million that they need for Meadowbrook
from somewhere else or do ~ot borrow to the limits that we have
already approved and that can be at their discretion. He stated
then the total amount of the Capital Plan does not exceed
$70,850,000; that we move fo/wand with the Literary Loan
application because that is the actual dollar funding mechanism.
Mr. Daniel withdrew his original motion.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
adopted the following resolution and understooding that the
funding for the project can only take place with an additional
Literary ~oan request of $1,000,000; that the Board ha~ approved
that request but it is expected that the School Board not exceed
their $70,850,000 Capital Plan; and that other project~ in the
Capital Plan funded by Literary Loans will be reduced and brought
in under budget by a total of $1,000,000 in order to offset the
increase approved for Meadowbrook High:
Whereas, the School Board for the County of Chesterfield, on
the 25th day of June, 1986, presented to this Board, an
application addressed to the State Board of Education of Virginia
for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund $1,000,000
for adding to and improving the present school building at
Meadowbrook High School, to be paid in 20 annual installments,
and the interest %hereon at 4 per cent paid annually.
Resolved, that the application of the County School Board to
the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of
from the Literary Fund ie hereby approved, and authority is
hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said
amount for the purpose set Out in said application.
The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year
during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular
levies, fix a rate o£ levy for schools or make a cash
appropriation sufficient for operation expensss and to pay this
lean in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required
by law rugulating loans from the Literary Fund.
86-475
Mr. Dodd stated he could understand the need at Meadowbrook as it
was not a new school and needed improvements.
Vote: Unanimous
The Board recognized Dr. Cain from the School Board
Administration who is retiring and expressod appreciation for his
past assistance.
Dr. Cain expressed his pleasure in working with the Board and
County Administration.
12.C. YEAR-eND BUDGET
Mr. Stegmaier stated the Budget is within the total
appropriations and the 1985-88 Fiscal Year will be concluded witk
a balanced budget. He stated that the exact Fund Balance cannot
be determined, at this time, however the final figure will be
available when the audit is completed.
Mr. Hedrick stated this request pertains to the routine end of
the year budget transfers necessary to bring the budqet within
balance within all departmonts and is a house-keeping
There was discussion reqardlng the reasons for tho overruns in
the various departments, employee turnover, unbudgeted salary
adjustments, telephona expenses, schools, overtime, Fair Labor
Standards Act, etc.
Mr. Daniel stated he had a previous commitment and excused
himself from the meeting.
Mrs. Girone stated the Budget for the County is $260,000,000 and
these adjustments amount to $200,000 which is not unreasonable.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Appleqate, the Board
approved the transfer of funds from departments with a surplus
departments with a shortfall and appropriated unanticipated
revenue and approved the transfer of $550,000 from School Debt tc
Instruction; and increased appropriations to Instruction by an
additional $450,000 as final adjustments to the 1985-86 General
Fund Appropriations. (A copy of which is ~ilad with tho papers
of this Board.)
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, ~r. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayas.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.D. 1986-87 APPROPRIATION Pd~OZUTION AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Mr. Bedrick stated that a substitute paper regarding the 1986-87
Appropriation Resolution had been distributed to the Board. He
stated it is staff's understanding that the Board would like the
opportunity to further consider the proposed Budget amendments,
therefore~ the matter before the Board for approval is only the
1986-87 Appropriation Resolution.
Mr. Mayas expressed concern that the proposed budget amendments
arc not included in the proposed material. It was ~nd~cated
those amondments will be voted un at the next regularly scheduled
Board meeting. Mr. Mayas stated ho clearly remembered that some
of the items were included in the proposed budget amendments with
regard to Data Processing and Social Services. It was indicated
that tho proposed budget amendment items are those items which
exceed the amount of dollars approved in the appropriation
resolution.
Mr. Stegmaier stated the item iS included in the appropriation
resolution and that particular budget amendment item has been
included because staff now knows that the mainframe upgrade is
going to cost less than originally estimated and Data Processing
is requesting to utilize those funds for additional purposes that
were not included in tho original Budget. He stated for Social
86-476
Services, it is a request for utilizing additional money that the
state has approved above and beyond what the Board adopted when
it adopted the Budget.
Mr. Dodd stated there is a difference of opinion on the proposed
budget amendments and the reason for deleting them from inclusion
with the Appropriation Resolution is SO that they can be reviewed
and studied more thoroughly.
Mr. ~ayes indicated he did not like having the revised papers
distributed during the meeting and having to deal with such a
significant issue on such short notice. Be stated too many
essential elements in the operation of the County will be
affected by this issue, especially those items dealing with
Social Services and Data Frocessing, for it to be handled in such
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is hereby
resolved that the following amountz be appropriated to the
designated funds and accounts from the designated estimated
revenue sources to operate the County department~, other agen-
cies, and non-departmental accounts for fiscal year 1986-87:
General Fund
Estimated Revenue:
From Local Sources
General Property Taxes
Other Local Taxes
Licenses, Permits
Fines & Forfeitures
Use of Money and Property
Service Charges
Recovered Costs
Miscellaneous
From Other Agencies
State, Federal & Other Localities
School Capital Improvements Fund
County Capital Improvements Fund
Revenue Sharing
Anticipated Fund Balance 7/1/86
Total Revenue
$ 85,534,300
22,399,900
3,013,400
565,000
1,914,300
1,098,800
1,372,500
466,700
24,296,800
2,100,000
2,784,400
308,000
10,317,700
$ 156r171~800
86-477
Appropriations:
Board of Supervisors $ 303,300
County Administrator's Office 370,000
Legislative Coordinator 60,500
Public Information 79,700
Risk Manager 50,000
General Services 522,000
Data Processing 2~22,800
Accounting and Budget 1,294,100
Personnel 371,000
County Attorney 359,900
Internal Audit 186,500
Purchasing 389,500
Assessment of Property 1,885,000
Collection and Disbursement of Taxes 1,064,700
Circuit Court & Clerk's Office 819,900
District Courts 85,000
Commonwealth's Attorney 448,300
Police Department 10,777,100
Sheriff and Jail 2,773,700
Fire Department 8,572,200
Civil nefense 7,300
Emergency Medical Service 112,900
Safety 44,400
Communications Center 1,380,400
Animal Control 267,500
Haman Services Administration
County Social Service Programs
Health Department
Mental Health & Mental Retardation
Juvenile Detention Home
Probation & Community Diversion
Co--unity Development
Economic Development
Planning Department
Transportation
Building Inspection
Engineering and Drainage
Solid Waste Service
~×tension Service and Agricultural Fair
Elections
Maintenance of Buildings & Grounds
Self Insurance Fund
Street Lights
Road Improvements
Recreation and Parks
Library
Employee Welfare & Benefits
Non-Departmental
Capital Projects
Debt Service
Law Library
Transfers
Reserve, Debt
Fund Balance Available for
Appropriation 6/30/87
Total General Fund
School Operating Fund
Estimated Revenues:
From Other Agencies
State and Federal Government
From the General Fund Total Revenu~
Appropriations
Administration
Instruction, Regular Day School
Pupil Transportation
FOOd Service
Operation and Maintenance of School Plan
Fixed Charges
Summer School
Adult Education
Other Educational Programs
Debt Service
Capital Outlay
Total Expenditures
Revenue Sharing Fund
Estimated Revenue:
From the Federal Government
Appropriations=
Transfers to General Fund
Total Revenue Sharing Fund
County Grant Fund
Estimated Revenue:
From the State
From the General Fund
Total Revenue
86-478
107,200
3,244,100
942,900
4,700
3,419,300
907,400
40,700
204,500
792,400
1,155,200
201,600
1,098,200
1,141,100
1,275,900
153,300
291,800
1,754,600
750,000
159,600
75,000
2,302,900
2,292,300
507,000
606,400
1,500,000
6,421,900
10,500
78,571,500
3,760,500
7~426~600
$ 156,171,800
$ 5,483,132
57,768,668
77~121~193
$ 140r372~993
1,763,220
73,506,940
4,290,617
5,152,753
13,968,840
22,658,630
421,200
139,700
1,831,177
13,181,337
3~458~579
140,372r993
$ 308,000
$ 308~000
308,000
308 000
$ 302,378
12,500
$ 314,,8,78
II
Apprepriatione:
Community Diversion
Total County Grant Fund
Count~ CIB Fund
Estimated R~venue:
Bond Interest
Reserve, Powhite
Reserve, FY86 Interest
Total Revenue
Appropriations;
Transfer to County General Fund
Total County CIP Fund
School CIP Fund
Estimated Revenue:
Reserve, FY86 Interest
Bond Interest
Total Revenue
Appropriations:
Transfer to County General Fund
Total School CIP F~nd
County Vehicle Maintenance
Estimated Revenue:
Sales
Transfer from General Fund (Debt)
Fund Balanoe 7/1/86
Total Revenue
Appropriations:
County Garage & Motor Pool
Two-Way Radio
Total County Vehicle Maintenance
County Airport Fund
Estimated Revenue:
Sales
Use of Money and Property
Transfer from General Fund
Total Revenue
Appropriations;
Airport
Total County Airport Fund
County Nursin~ Home Fund
Estimated Revenue=
Patient Care Services
Transfer from General Fund
Fund Balance 7/1/86
Total Revenue
Appropriations:
Nursing Home
Total County Nursing Nome Fund
Water Fund
Estimated Revenue:
Water Service Charges
Interest Earned
Sale of Service & Supplies
Reimbursements
Other Revenue
86-479
$ 314,878
$ 314~$75
$ 500~500
1,835,900
448r000
$ 2~784~400
$ 2r784¢400
$ 2,784,400
1,050,000
1 050 000
2,100 000
$ 2rlO0,O00
$ 2,100zOO0
2,361,000
134,600
70,300
2~565r900
2,335,600
230r300
2~565~900
$ 649,900
401,600
46r000
$ lt097,500
$ lr097r500
$ lt097,500
3,972,000
200,000
340,500
4,512,500
4,512,500
$ 4~512,500
$ 8,392,000
410,000
123,000
217,000
454,500
Fund Balance 7/1/86
Total Revenue
Appropriations:
Water Operating & Improvement
Water Debt
Central Stores
Transfer to Capital Projects
Anticipated Fund Balance 6/30/87
Total Water Operating Fund
Sewer Fund
4,123,700
$ 13~720~200
7,802,700
1,599,100
113,700
150,000
4r054rT00
13~720~200
Estimated Revenue:
Interest Earned $ 1,040,000
Sewer Service Charges 7,460,000
Sewer Connection Foes 5,465,000
Other Revenue 696,000
/tnticipated Fund Balance 7/1/86 8,065,500
Total Revenue $ 22~726~500
Appropriations:
Sewer Operating & Improvement $ 6,500,400
Sewer Debt 5,423,700
Transfer to Capital Projects 200,000
Fund Balance 6/30/87 10f602f400
Total Sewer Fund $ 22~726t500
Utility Capital Pre~ects
Estimated Revenue:
Water Bond Funds $ 3,215,000
8ewer Bond Funds 12,155,000
Transfers:
Water Fund Surplus I50,000
Sewer Fund Surplus 200,000
Total Revenue $ I5~720~000
Appropriations:
Capital Improvements
Total Utility Capital Projects
Be it further resolved:
$ lg,7~O, O00
$ 15,.720,0.0.0
That the County Administrator may authorize the transfer of any
unencumbered balance or portion thereof from One classification
of expmndlture to another withi~ thc same department or agency.
That thc County Administrator may transfer up to $10,000 from
the unencumbered balance of the appropriation of one department
or agency to another department or agency, including the
contingency account encompassed in the Non-Departmental appro-
priation. NO more than one transfer may be made for the sams
item causing the need for a transfer.
That the County Administrator may increase appropriations for
the following items of non-budgeted revenue that may occur
during the fiscal year.
a. Insurance recoveries received for damage to County
vehicles or cthe~ property for which County funds have
been expended to make repairs.
b. Refunds er reimbursements made to the County for which
the County has expended funds directly related to that
refund or rsimbursement.
c. Any revenue source not to exceed $10,000.
That all outstanding encumbrances, both operating and capital,
at June 30, 1986 are reappropriated to the 1986-87 fiscal year
to the same department and account for which they are encum~
bered in the previous year.
That appropriations designated for capital projects will not
lapse at the end of the fiscal year but shall remain appropri-
ations until the completion of the project or until the Board
86-480
of Supervisors, by appropriate resolution, changes or elimi-
nates the appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project,
staff is authorized to close out the project and transfer to
the funding source any remaining balances. This section
applies to appropriations for Capital Projects at June 30, 1986
and appropriations in the 1986-87 budget.
That the approval by the Board of Supervisors of any grant of
funds to the County constitutes the appropriation of both the
revenue to be received from the grant and the County's expendi-
ture recfaired by the terms of the grant, if any. And further
that the appropriation Of grant £unds will not lapse at the end
of the fiscal year, but shall remain appropriated until comple-
tion of the project er until the Board of Supervisors, by
appropriate resolution, changes or eliminates the appropri-
ation. Upon completion of a grant project, staff is authorized
to close out the grant and transfer back to the funding source
any remaining balances. This applies to appropriations for
grants outstanding at June 30, 1986 and appropriations in the
1986-87 budget.
At the close of the fiscal year, all unencumbered appropri-
ations for budget items other than Capital Projects, grants,
and donations restricted to specific purposes shall revert to
the Fund Balance Available £or Appropriation of the fund in
which they are included.
That the County Administrator may appropriate both revenue and
expenditure for donations made by citizens Or citizen g~eups in
support of County programs and that any remaining unencumbered
balance of a restricted donation at the end of the fiscal year
will be reappropriated into the subsecfuent fiscal year.
That the Treasurer is authorized to make transfers to the
various funds for which there are transfers budgeted. She
shall transfer funds only as needed up to amounts budgeted, or
in accordance with any~existing bond resolutions that specify
the manner in which transfers are to be made.
That the Treasurer may advance monies to and from the various
funds of the County to allow maximum cash flow e~ficiency. The
advances must not violate county bond covenants or other legal
restrictions that would prohibit an advance.
That the County Administrator is authorized to make
e×pendituree from the following Trust & Agency Funds £or the
specified reasons for which the funds were e~tabli~hed. In no
case shall the expenditure exceed the available balanc~ in the
fund:
a. Nursing Nome Patieat's Fund
b. M.W. Burnett Employee Award Fund
c. Drainage District Fund
d. Special Welfare Fund
e. T.F. Jeffress Memorial Fund
f. Insurance Fund
That the County Administrator may transfer any amount of the
Insurance Reserve funds to departments as needed and to the
Risk Management Department for use to hire additional personnel
in order to maintain the Insurance Fund.
Ayes: Mr. D0dd, Mr. Applegate, and Mrs. Girone.
Nays: Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.A. PP~ESENTATZON OF PJ~SOLUTION ADOPTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY
NONORING MR. LEWIS B. VADEN~ CIRCUIT COURT CL~R~
Delegat~ N. Leslie SaunderE, Jr. was present and stated the
1986 General Assembly adopted a resolution in memory of Mr.
Lewis H, Vaden because of his long and faithful ~ervice to the
Comz/onwealth. He stated it was felt to be appropriate that it
86-481
be presented in the County which ha loved and served so well.
He recognized the family of Mr. Lewis 2. Vaden and presented
them with the resolution.
12.F. SET DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
12.F.1. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONt~Y A FARCE5 OF 5AND
IN AIP~0RT INQUSTRIA~ PARK TO STILES L. BARTLEY AND
ASSOCIATES AND AUTHORISE EXECUTIVE OF CONTINGENT
SALES CONTRACT
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
went into Executive Session to discuss matters related to the
use and disposition of publicly held property as permitted by
Section 2.1-344 (a) (2) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
set the date of July 23, 1986, at 9:00 a.m,, to consider the
conveyance of a parcel of land in the Airport Industrial Park
to Stiles L. Bartley and Associates and authorized the County
Administrator to execute a Continqent Sales Contract.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Appteqate, Mrs. Girone and ~r. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.F.2. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER ORDT~A~C~ TO
A~4BND ARTICLE I, SECTION 14.1-1 OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF CEESTERFIELD~ 197Sr AS ~J~ENDHD a .~LATING TO
ADOPTION OF STATE LAW DEALING WITH MOTOR VEHICLE
OFFENSES
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
set the date of July 23, 1986, at 9:00 a.m., to COnsider an
Ordinance to amend A~ticle ~, Section 14.1-1 of the County Code
r~lating to adoption of state law dealing with motor vehicle
off~nses.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.G. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved the requests for street light installations at the
intersection of Cadillac Trail and Claybar Trail, with funds to
be expended from the Clover Hill District Street Light Funds;
and at the intersection of Southlake Boulevard and Branchway
Road, with funds to be expended from the Clover Hill/Midlothian
Districts Street Light Fends; and the Board further resolved
defer approval of the street light request for the intersection
of Southlake Boulevard and Courthouse Road until such t~e as a
determination is made regarding the installation/relocation of
a signal light at this intersection by the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation.
Ayes= Mr. Dodd, Mr. Appleqate, Mrs. Gircne and ~r. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
86-482
12.H. A~POINTMENTS
12.R.1. RICHMOND METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY
Mr. Hedrick requested that the Board suspend the rules to allow
n~mination and appointment simultaneously of Mr. Reade Goode to
the Richmond Metropolitan Authority.
Mr. Micas stated that there must be a unanimous veto cf the
full Board in order to suspend the rules for this purpos~ and
Mr. Daniel's absence would prevent this.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
nominated Mr, Reade Goode to the Richmond Metropolitan
Authority, whose formal appointment will be made at the July 9,
1986, meeting.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayer.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.H.2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TEE CAPITAL AREA AGENCY
AGING
On motion of Mrs. GirOne, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board
nominated Mrs. Janioe Mack to the Board of Directors of the
Capital Area Agency on AGing, whose formal appointment will be
made at the July 8, 1986 meeting.
Ayes: Mr. D0dd, Hr. AppleGate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayer.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.I. CONSENT ITEMS
12.I.1. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
Thi~ day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writinG upon his
examination of Clivendon Court, North Vickilee Road, Battenburg
Place and Battenburg Court in Heatheridge, portions of Sections
1, 2 and 3, Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mrs. Girone, it is resolved that Clivendon Court,
North Vickileo Road, Battenburg Place and Battenburg Court in
aestheridge, portions of Sections 1, 2 and 3, Clover Hill
District, be and they hereby are established as publi~ reads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
~iGhways and Transportation, be and it hereby is regnested to
take into the Secondary System, Clivendon Court, beginning at
the intersection with Clearlaka Road, State Route 1421, and
GoinG 0.09 mile Southerly to a cul-de-sac; North Vickilee Road,
beginning at the intersection with Clearlake Road, State Route
1421, and Going 0.04 mile southeasterly to tie into proposed
North Vickil~$ Road; Battenburg Place, beginning at the
intersection with Clearlake Road, State Route 1421, and going
0.05 mile northeasterly to the intersection with BattenburG
Court, then continuing 0.03 mile northeasterly to a cml-de-sac;
and Battenbur9 Court, beginninG at the intersection with
Battenburg Place and going 0.09 mile southerly to a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site dietance
and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage
These ~cads serve 29 lots.
And be it ~urther resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
ri~hr-of-way for all of these roads.
These sections cf Heatheridge are recorded as follows:
86-483
Section 1.
Section 2.
Section 3.
Plat Book $4, Pages 41 and 42, August 23, 1979.
Plat Book 38, Page 93, June 19, 1981.
Plat Book 42, Page 34, June 24, 1983.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Tokay Road and Tokay Court in Twin Oaks West and
a portion of Great Oaks, Section 1, Matoaca District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mrs. Girone, it is resolved that Tokay Road and
Tokay Court in Twin Oaks West and a portion of Great Oaks,
Section t, Matoaca District, be and they hereby are established
as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Tokay Road, beginning at the
intersection with Rollingway Road, State Route 2790, and going
0.09 mile northwesterly to the intersection with Tokay Court,
then continuing 0.04 mile northwesterly to a temporary
turnaround; and Tokay Court, beginning at tho intersection with
Tokay Road and going 0.10 mile southwesterly to a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance
and designated Virginia Department of Mighways drainage
easements.
These roads serve 18 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
right-of-way for all of these roads.
Twins Oaks West is recorded as follows:
Plat Book 43, Page 77, August 19, 1983.
Great oaks is recorded as follows:
Section 1, Plat Book 36, Page 90, August 28, 1979.
Ayes: Mr. ~odd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.I.2. REQUEST FOR BINGO/P~A~P~.~. PER/4IT
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs, Girone, the Board
approved the request for a raffle permit ior the Fraternal
Order of Police Association, Chesterfield Lodge $47, for the
calendar year 1986.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Appleqate, Mrs. oirone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.T.3. CANCEL UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Beard
approved the cancellation of uncollectible accounts in the
amount of $74,365.66 for the fiscal year 1985-86. (A copy of
the details is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: ~r. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. ~ayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
86-484
12.I.4. R~QUESTS FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAYS
12.I.4.a. BRANDERMI~5
MS. Karen Waldron stated Brandermill Cormmunity Association has
requested a permit to staqe a fireworks display at Brandermill;
however, has been unable to obtain a fireworks liability
insurance policy in the amount of $1,000,000 as required to
meet the applicable criteria under the Fire Prevention Cod~.
~r. Hedrick stated his conoe~n that all other applicants have
obtained a fireworks liability insurance policy in the amount
of $1,000,000 to stage their fireworks displays and that the
application of th~ policy should be uniform for all applicants.
On motion of Mr. Applegatev seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved a fireworks permit for Brandermill Community
Association to stage a fireworks display beside Swift Creek
Reservoir in Woodlake on July 4, 1956, subject to the
approval of the Fire Department and Risk Manager.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
It is noted that this Board action requires the fireworks permit
for the Brandermill community to be insured for $1,000,000 which
is consistent with requirements for other such fireworks permits.
12.I.4.b. SOUTHSIDE SPeeDWAY
On motion of Mr, Applega=e, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved a fireworks permit for Mr. Roger Bottorif to stage a
fireworks display at Southside Speedway contingent upon
approval of the Fire Department and Risk Manager in accordance
with the following conditions:
1. Submit a certificate of insurance for at least $1,000,000
naming County and Mr. Bulifant as co-insu~eds.
2. Mr. Bulifant must contact and obtain the approval of the
Fire ~arshal On the day before the display, July 3, 1986,
that conditions are not too dry to perform the display.
3. If conditions permit th~ display, $outhside Speedway
personnel must be statlened outside the fenced area with
proper equipment to extinguish any fires started by hot
debris falling from the fireworks.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.I.4.c. CR~STBRFIELD PARKS AND RECREATION
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved a fireworks permit for the Chesterfield County
Department of Parks and Recreation to stage a fireworks display
on July 4, 1986, at the County Courthouse Stadium, subject to
approval of the Fire Department and Risk Manager.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate~ Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.I.4.d. RICHMOND-ON-TRE-JAMES CRUISES
On motion of Mr. Appleqate, seconded by Mrs. Girone~ the ~oard
approved a fireworks permit for Richmond-on-the-James Cruises
to stage a fireworks display on July 4, 1986, at the Falling
Creek Marina, subject to approval of the Fire Department and
Risk Manager as well as their obtaining any other permit
necessary for an intercoastal waterway.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
86-485
12.I.5. SUBMISSION OF FEDERAL GRANTS PeR POLICE DEPARTMENT
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to submit any
necessary documents for six Federal Grants, in the ~mount of
$42,215 for the period of October 1, 1986 to September 30,
1987, for the Police Department which will assist in traffic
safety services projects, as follows:
1. Radar Units - Police Traffic Services $22,425
2. Traffic Safety Analysis Training 4,500
3. Advanced Accident Investigation Training 4,225
4. Accident Reconstruction 8,280
5. Accident Reconstruction - Special Problems
Seminar 1,440
6. Tire Forensics in Accident Investigation lr345
TOTAL $42,215
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.I.6. ACCEPTANCE OF PLACE~4~NT PREVENTION GRANT FOR SOCIAL
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
On motiou of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the
necessary documents applying for and accepting a grant, in the
amount of $46,680, for a period o~ 18 months, subject to 100%
reimbursement by the State Department of Social Services for
expenditures made by the local agency to hire a full-time Social
Worker beginning July 1, 1986, for a period of 18 months.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd~ Mr. Applsgate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.I.7. ACCEPT BIDS FOR ~ARROWGATE PARK PROJECT
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents awarding the bids for construction of
basketball courts, drainage improvements, slope stabilization,
etc., at Harrowgate Park to the low bidder, Shoosmlth Brothers,
Inc., in the amount of $63,696. Funds are included in the 1985
parks bond.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
AIRPORT TAX,WAY ACCESS
Mr. Howell stated Mr. Walter W. Marsh and Mr. James E. Lauck
have submitted a proposal which would permit direct access to
the main Airport taxiway from their private property on the
north side of the Airport off Cogbill Road. He stated the
Airport Advisory Board, the Airport Manager and County staff
have reviewed the proposal and recommend denial of the request
to access the Airport from the north end due to both ~afety and
development reasons, because it would be contrary to the
Airport Master Plan and it would establish a precedent for
approval of futur~ requests which would have to be considered
on a case by case basi~. He further stated the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) at Fails Church, as a general
rule, recommends against entering into ~uch agreements with
adjacent property owners, the principle for which is based
upon: (1) the competitive advantage afforded to off-base
operators which acts to the detriment of on-base operators, and
(2) the additional safety hazards and control problems
resulting from additional ingress/egress from off-site
86-486
properties. He stated it would also be unfair to other
Mr. Melvin Sheller stated the Airport Advisory Board's
opposition to this request is based upon the Airport Master
Plan which is followed very carefully in the development of
this valuable County facility. He eta%sd this proposal is
contradictory to the long range planning of the Master Plan and
has not bsen subjected to the process of an economic impact
study or the normal criteria applied to any proposal at the
Airport. He stated the Airport Advisory Board strongly urges
denial of thi~ request.
Mr. John Mazza reiterated the concerns that this proposal has
not been through the normal due process of analysis and that it
is contrary to the planning guidelines of the Master Plan.
Mr. Shaf£er stated the Master Plan would probably be due a
revision at some point in the future after the instrument
landing system is operational at the Airport and this proposal
could possibly be retained as an agenda item for consideration
by the Airport's consultants in approximately 5 or 6 years.
Mr. Lauck introduced the following persons: Bllie Culvertson,
representing Air Chesterfield; Jim Talbot, representing the
Chesterfield Pilots' Association; Ed Colax, representing the
Wingnuts Plying Club, Inc.; and Ron Cornell, private citizen
and user of the Airport facilities, all who spoke in favor of
this proposal, that it would not present a detriment to the
security and/or safety of the Airport facility, %hat if would
not be an unfair advantage to the applicants, etc.
Mr. Billy Davenport, representing the applicants, explained the
layout and access to the runway. ~e stated the applicants just
want the same rights and the same responsibilities that go with
those rights that the Airport Industrial Park users have been
granted. Be stated the applicants have agreed to pay for the
sod runway, the access and the permit fees; there is only a
buffer of trees separating the Airport, Industrial Park and the
Robins Community from this site; with approval of this request
will broaden the tax base because the construction of this
project will provide residential dwellings that will improve
the value of the land; it will serve as a liaison between the
Airport and the Robins Community; and the proposed project
would enhance the security and safety of the Airport area and
will provide the highest and best use of the land.
Mr. Marsh presented a brief summary of the proposed project and
expressed his desire to be able to build a residential
Community adjacent to the Airport and construe% airplanes on
the proposed site. He stated he does not have other options
for the development of his project as this particular site is
the only one in the County that works well with respect to
Mr. Dodd stated Mr. Daniel had to leave the meeting, however,
he had heard from some of hi~ constituency that were in support
of the project provided it did not adversely affect the
County's ability to acquire its landing surface.
Mr. Howell read excerpts from a portion of the FAA Compliance
Handbook, which addressed its position regarding agrssments
granting access to landing areas from adjacent properties.
stated the Agency's position, as a general principle,
recommends "that airport owners refrain from entering into any
agreement which grants access to %he public landing area by
aircraft normally stored and serviced on adjacent property, as
airport property, results in a competitive advantage to the
detriment ef on-base operations, introduces additional hazards
and complicates the control of vehicular and aircraft traffic,
86-487
and repreeents a substantial and continuing burden for the sole
benefit and convenience of such landholding neighbors."
Mr. Hedrick inquired if it would be feasible for the applicants
to purchase property on the opposite side of the runway and
construct their project so they can control conditions, etc.
He stated the applicants still have the option of acquiring
property in Industrial Park that has access to the runway and
erecting a facility in which there are controlled conditions
where one can construct and work on aircraft. He stated the
County has a tremendous investment in the Airport facility and
it would appear that the primary concern would be to protect
County options and preserve the integrity of the Airport and
futnre options as to what type development will occur at the
Airport through business decisions for the investment of
today's dollars as well as the investment of future dollars.
He stated there are alternatives available to the applicants.
Mr, Dodd stated he would like to see the appllcante addrees the
issues of the FAA question and an economic impact analysis; he
stated he did not have a problem with the sod runway or the
land use but he did have a problem with the long range future
planning for the Airport. He inquired if there are other
parcels in the area faced with this sa~e situation.
Mr. Howell stated there are other parcels located in the area
which could present the same dilemma as the subject proposal.
Mr. Hedrick stated this proposal would place a residential
project adjacent to the Airport facilities and inquired if such
a use would be compatible with the use of the Airport.
Mr. Applegate stated that not only did the Airport Advisory
Board and County staff but also the Federal Aviation
Administration recommended denial of this request. He
expressed concern that the County is self-insured and the
potential for accident or injury exists.
Mr. Mayes stated he did not feel it would he appropriate to go
against the recommendation of the Airport Advisory Board.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
denied the proposal by Marsh/Lauck to permit direct access to
the main Airport taxiway from private property on the north
side Of the Airport off Coqbill Road.
Ayes: Mr, Dcdd, Mr. Apptagate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayas.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.J. UTILITIES ITEMS
12.J.1. PUBLIC H~ARING TO CONSIDER AN 0RDINANC~ TO VACATE OLD
RIVERSIDE DRIVE WITHIN ROSALIE SUBDIVISION
Mr. Beck stated this date and time has been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an Ordinance to vacate 01d Riverside
Drive within Rosalie Subdivision.
An attorney was present representing the applicants,
No one was present in opposition.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adopted the following Ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE to vacate a 20 foot right of way within Rosali~
Subdivision, B~rmuda Magisterial District, Cheeterfield
County~ Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded
in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield
County in Plat Book 3, at page 80.
86-488
WHEREAS, James W. Blackburn, and Diane P. Blackburn have
petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County,
Virginia to vacate a 20 foot right of way within Rosalie sub-
division, Bermuda Magisterial District, Chesterfield County,
Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Blat Book
3, page 80, made by T. Crawford Redd and Bros., dated February
5, 1914. The right of way petitioned to be vacated is more
fully described as follows:
A 20 foot right of way within Rosalie Subdivision, the
location of which is more fully shown, on a plat made by
A.G. Harocopos & Associates, P.C., dated Septentber 27, 1984,
a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this
ordinance.
WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431
of the Cede of Virginia, 1950, as a~nded, by advertising; and,
WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of
the right of way sought to be vacated except as hereinafter
outlined.
NOW THEREFORe, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid right of way be and is
hereby vacated.
The grantees hereby convey unto the County and the County
hereby reserves a 20 foot sewer easement as shown on the attached
plat.
This Ordinance shall be in ~ull force and effect in
accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance,
together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no
sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section
15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is
to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion
of the plat vacated. Since the portion of Right of Way hereby
vacated is located on the periphery of the recorded subdivision
plat, this ordinance shall vest fee simple title of the entire
width of the right of way hereby vacated in the property owners
of the abutting lots within Rosalie Subdivision fr~e and clear o~
any rights of public use.
Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the na~es o~
the County of Chesterfield as grantor and Jam~s W. Blackburn and
Diane P. Blackburn, husband and wife; and ~lliffee Corporation;
or their successors in title, as grantee.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.J.2. WATER AND SEWER ITEMS
12.J.2.a. AWARD CONTRACT FOR PORTION OF WATER LINE FROM AIRPORZ
PUMPING STATION TO ROUTE 360
On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~econded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the
necessary documents awarding Contract Number W86-14B for
construction of a portion of a water line from the Airport
Pumping Station to Route 360 to Bryant Electric Company
Incorporated, in the amount of $835,448.15 in accordance with the
engineer's recommendations. Funds for this project were
86-489
appropriated under the i985-S6 and 1986-87 Capital Improvement
Budget; therefore, no additional appropriations are required.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.J.2.b. REQUEST FOR SEWER SERVICE FROM RESIDENTS ALONG
ALPAREE ROAD
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the Utilities Department to begin design
and eonstruotion of sewer lines to serve a portion of the
e×i~ing homes on Atfaree Road, and transferred $49,000 from
the 1986-87 Capital Improvement Program, Extensions Fund
(5P-5535-900R). (A copy of the plat is ~iled with the papers
of this Board.)
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.J.2.c. REQUEST FOR SEWER SERVICE FROM RESIDENTS IN P~MAINDER
OF F/YLTON PAP~K
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the Utilities Department to proceed with
the installation of public sewer service for the remainder of
Hylton Park, and transferred $134,500 from the 1986-87 Capital
ImprOvement Program, Extension Fund (5P-5835-900R) for the
project.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.J.2.d. REQUEST FOR SEWER SERVICE FROM TWO RESIDENTS ON
RIVER ROAD
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved and authorized tho Utilities Department to proceed with
the the design to construct sewer lines to serve two rosidsnts on
River Road, 4700 and 4622, and transferred $16,700 from the
1986-87 Capital ImprOvement Program, Extension Fund
(5P-5835-900R).
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.J.2.e. AWARD CONTRACT FOR S~EE EXTENSION ALONG POCOSHOCE
BOULEVARD AND ROUTE 360
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents, awarding Contract number S86-29C/7(8)629E
for the construction of sewer lines along Poooshoek to the Castl~
Equipment Corporation in the amount of $50,332.00, transferred
$53,350.00 from ths Capital Improvement Budget, Extension Fund
5P-5835-900R to 5P-5835-629E, authorized payment in the amount
$26.371.50 from the Highway Department to be transferred from
5N-2461-997 (advances by developer) to 5P-5835-900R.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, ~Lrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Danisl.
i2.J.2.f. AWARD CONTRACT FOR ~XPANSION OF UTILITIES
MAINTENANCE FACILITY
On motion of Mrs. Girone~ seconded by Mr. Mayos, the Moard
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
86-490
necessary documents to award contract $85-10IC for Expansion of
the Utilities Warehouse/Maintenance facility to Viking
Enterprises based on a low bid in the amount of $73,700, for
which funding in the amount of $45,000 was included in the
1985-86 Capital Improvement Program and further the Board
transferred $35,000 from the Contingency Fund, 5P-5835-901R, to
5P-5835-5A1R.
Ayes: Mr, Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.J.3. CONSIDER CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS
12.J.3.a. MASON C. AND CAROLYN B. WILEY~ W-86-14B
On motion of Mr, Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
authorized th~ County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the following property owners if the amount
a~ met opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by registered mail on June 26, 1986, of the County's
intention to enter upon and take the property which i~ to be the
subject of said condemnation proceedings. Th~s action i~ on an
emergency basis and and the County intends to exercise immediate
right of entry pursuant to Section t5.1-238.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
Mason C. and Carolyn B. Wiley W-86-14B/1 $178.00
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Appleqate, M-rs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.J.3.b. REX B. AND MARGARET C. SPRINGSTON, W-86-14B
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the following property owners if the amount
as set opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by registered mail on June 2~, 198~, of the County's
intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the
subject of said condemnation proceedings. Thiz action is on an
emergency basis and the County intend~ to exercise imediate
right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of
Virqinia.
Rex B. and Margaret C. Springston W$6-14B $480.00
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.J.4. CONSENT ITEMS
12.J.4.a. CONTRACT FOR WATER LINE INSTALLATION FOR BEXLEY WEST
SUBDIVISION~ SECTION ~
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following water contract:
Developer: George B. Sowers, Jr. & A~oc. Inc.
Contractor: Coastline Contractors, Inc.
Total Contract Co~t: $111,887.50
Total Estimated County Cost: $ 8,597.00
(Cash Refund)
Estimated Developer Cost:
~o. of Connections: 88
Code: Transfer $10,000 from 5M-5835-437N
to 5H-5724-6B99
$103,290.50
86-491
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone end Mr. Hayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.J.4.b. CONTBACT FOR SEWER EXTENSION ON SOUTH PROVIDENCE
ROAD
On motion of Mr. Applegate, secondod by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary document~ to award Contract Number S85-125C/7(8)5C5E
for the construction of the sewer extension to serve five (5)
existing homes along South Providence Road to the lowest bidder,
Bookman Construction Co., in the amount of $47,816.90. Funds
were previously appropriated. (A copy of the plat is filed
with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayer.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.J.4.c. APPROVAL OF THREE GAS COMFANY AGREeMeNTS IN
CONJI/NCTION WITH FALLING CREEK FORCE MAIN
On mation of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for Chesterfield County to enter into
agreements with Commonwealth Gas Pipeline Corporation,
Plantation Pipeline Company and Colonial Pipelino Company, to
coordinate the County's proposed sewer facility with the
existing and future gas companies' facilities, in conjunction
with the Falling Creek Force Main project. (Copies of which
are filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.J.4.d. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED OF DEDICATION FROM CHESTERFIELD
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD LOCATED B~TWEEN LE GORDON ROAD
AND CHARTER COLONY PARKWAY
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents to accept on behalf of the County a 0.15
acre parcel from the Chesterfield County School Board to
connect Le Gordon Road and Charter Colony Parkway at Midlothian
High School,
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.J.4.e. VACATION OF A PORTION OF A 16 FOOT SEWER EASEMENT
IN SH2%DOW RIDG~
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the Chairman cf the Board and the
County Administrator to execute a quit claim deed to vacate a
portion of a 16' sewer easement within proposed Shadow Ridge
Subdivision.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mre. Girone and Mr. Mayer.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.J.4.f. QUIT CLAIM FOR A FORTION OF RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED
ALONG JEFFERSON DAVI~ ~IGHWAY
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the ~oard
approved and authorized the Chairman and County Administrator to
execute a quit clai~ deed to vacate a portion of a 60' right of
way on Mr. James W. Blackburn's property located along Jefferson
Davis Highway.
86-492
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.J.5. R~ORTS
Mr. Beck presented the Board with a report on the developer watez
and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
12.K. REPORTS
Mr. Hsdrick presented the Board with a report on the status of
E-911 Litigation with C&P Telephone Company, and status reports
on the General F~nd Contingency Account, General Fund Balance,
Road Reserve Funds, and District Road and Street Light Funds.
12.0. JAMBS RiV~R BRTDG~
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted
thc followinq resolution:
WHEREAS, Interstate 295 is currently under construction in
Chesterfield and Henrioo Counties; and,
WHEREAS, this construction includes a bridge which spans
from Chesterfield County across the James River into Henrico
County.
NOW, TR~R~FQ~ BB IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation to name this bridge the Varina-Enun Bridge.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayss.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
12.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND LUNCH
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board went
into Executive Session to discuss legal ma~ters, KMI vs
Chesterfield County and HMK v~ Walsey, pursuant to Section
2.1-344 (a) (6) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
Ayes: Mr. Dedd, Mr. Appleqate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Applegate excused himself from the meeting immediately
following the Executive Session due to a previous commitment.
12.L. MOBILE HOME P~EQUEST
86S106
In Matoaca Magisterial District, HARRY S. VAUGHAM, JR.
requested a Mobile Home Permit to park e mobile home on
property fronting the east linc of Franklin Avenue,
approximately 70 feet south of Fairfax Avenue, and better known
as 21305 Franklin Avenue. Tax Map 180-15 (2) Radcliff, Block
A, Lot 12 (Sheet 52).
Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board that the applicant presently
resides in a mobile home park that he owns, declared a conflic~
of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of
Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting.
Mr. Peele stated staff has recommended denial of this request.
He stated, however, if in the Board's deliberations they find
that the applicant has ~irm plans to build a single family
dwelllng~ within the next (2) years, and remove the mobile home
from the property, then staff would recommend that this request
86-493
be approved for a period of two (2) years, subject to standard
conditions.
Mr. Harry Vaughan, Jr. stated he is presently moving from his
present location to property belonging to his father, Harry H.
Vaughan, Sr., and plans to locate a mobile home on the site. He
stated he intends to reside at this location for approximately
three to four years until such time as he can construct a
residential dwelling.
Mrs. Girone pointed out that should the Board approve the recfuest
the applicant would be permitted to resid~ at this site for only
two years and would then have to remove the mobile home from the
property.
M~. Vaughan stated he had been unable to contact two of the
adjacent property owners, One of whom presently resides in a
mobile home in the area. He stated there are three mobile
homes located within one-half mile of this property.
Mr. Mayes stated he would like to hear from the adjacent property
owners who did not sign the request.
No one came forward to address the mattes.
Mrs. Girone stated she felt it may be appropriate to defer this
request to allow the applicant an Opportunity to contact the
adjacent property owners who have not signed this request and
obtain their signatures.
Mr. Peele stated that the two adjacent property owners across the
street have not signed this request but were sent a copy of the
Mobile Home Report advising them of the date and time of the
public hearinq. He stated three adjacent property owners had
signed in favor of the request and indicated the location of
these properties on the plat.
Following a brief discussion regarding the adjacent property
owners, Mr. Mayes stated, given the circumstances, he felt the
request should be approved for a two (2) year period.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Nits. Girene, the ~oard
approved a Mobile Home Permit for the applicant for a period of
two (2) years, subject to the following standard conditions:
1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home. '
2. No let or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobil6
hume site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to b6
parked on an individual lot o~ parcel.
3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
4. NO additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
5. W-here public (County) water and/or sewer are available, the
shall be u~ed.
6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shal
then obtain the neceseary permitu from the Office of the
Building O£ficial. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
86-494
7. Any violation of %he above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting.
12.M. REQUESTS FOR REZONING
86S074
In Bermuda Magisterial District, CARLTON A. PALMER requested a
Conditional Use to permit two (2) two-family dwellings in a
Residential (R-7) District On a 0.46 acre parcel fronting
approximately 100 feet on the north line of Myron Avenue,
approximately 850 feet east of Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax Map
67-12 (4) Beltwood Addition, Block D, Lots 15 and 16 (Sheet 23).
Mr. Peele stated the applicant has requested withdrawal of this
on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
accepted the applicant's request for withdrawal.
Ayes: M~. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
85s168
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, TOMAHAWK PARTNERSHIP, LTD.,
A VIRGINIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP requested rezening 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 2,53Q feet on the north line
of Hull Street Road, approximately 420 feet west of Warbro Road.
Tax Map 62-3 (1) Parcels 2 and 3 (Sheet 20).
Mr. Peele stated the applicant desires to amend his application
and has requested that this case be remanded to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Gill, representing the applicant, stated that was correct.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Hoard
remanded this application to the Planning Commission for further
consideration.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
85S157
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, TURNER AND
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-7} to
Community Business (B-2) with Conditional Use Planned Development
to permit use and bulk exceptions on a 23.93 acre parcel fronting
in two (2) places on the southeast line of Hull Street Road for a
total of approximately 1,395 feet, also fronting approximately
1,420 feet on the north line of Walmsley Boulevard, and located
in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads.
Tax Map 39-12 (1) Parcels 1, 19, and 23 (Sheet
Mr. Peele stated the applicant has requested a sixty (60) day
deferral of this case.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
86~495
deferred consideration of this case until August 27,
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayas.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
1986.
86S088
In Bermuda Magisterial District, HUGH A. CLINE requested
a~endment to Conditional U~e Planned Development (Case 81S082) to
permit use exceptions in a Co~munity Business (B-2) District on a
1.3 acre parcel fronting approximately 135 feet on the north line
of West Hundred Road, approximately 160 feet west of Chester
Road. Tax Map 115-7 {1) Parcel 49 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission deferred this case for
sixty (60) days in order to resolve major oonoerns. He stated
that the request had been double advertised for the month of
June: however, since the Planning Commission did not take
action on the case, the Board should also defer the request for
sixty (~0) days until the Commission takes aotion.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, Seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board deferred
consideration of this request until August 27, 1986.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayas.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
86S048
In Midlothian Magisterial District, GERBER CHILDRBN'S CE~TE~,
INC. requested an amendment to Conditional Use Planned
Development {Cane 79S078} to permit use (child Care Center) and
bulk (parking spacel 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 01d
Buckingham Road. Tax Map 16-8 (2) Alverser Went, Block A, Lot 4
(Sheet 7).
Mr. Peele stated the Board acted cn this request in May, 1986 and
imposed certain conditions; however, following the Board's
action, it came to staff's attention that the case was not
advertised properly in the newspaper, as required by State Law.
He stated, therefore, the Board's action in May was null and
void, and the Board must reconsider the case. He stated the
Planning Commission recommended approval of this request subject
to certain conditions.
No one oame forward to address the matter.
There was no opposition prenent.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, Seconded hy Mr. Mayas, the Board
approved this requent ~ubject to the following conditions:
1. ~he following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Halzer and Associates, dated January 22, 1986, sh~ll be
considered the Master Plan. (p)
2. Concrete curb and qutter shall bn ~nstalled around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking area~. Drainage '
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedes-
trian traffic. (~E)
86-496
3. A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
northwestern property line. This buffer shall be exclusive
of any utilities, witi~ the exception of those which run
generally perpendicular through the buffer, tn conjunction
with schematic plan approval, a conceptual landscaping plan
shall be submitted to the ~lanning Commission for approval.
Prior to any site clearing, the buffer shall be flagged and
the Planning Department contacted for inspection. Within
ninety (90) days of rough clearing and grading, a detailed
landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planninq Depart-
ment for approval. (P)
4. The driveway and parking area shall be land~caped with
0rn~mental 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 Department for approval. (P)
5. In conjunction with th~ approval of this recfuest, the
Planning commission shall grant an exception to the required
number of parking spaces. Specifically, parking shall be
provided based upon the following ratio: one (1) space for
each 20 children enrolled up to a maximum of six (6) spaces
plus one {1} for each employee. Furthermore, an area for
drop-off and pick-up, which is separated from the main
parking area and connected to the main building by a side-
walk, 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 Susiness (o) District will be
applicable. Prior to obtaining buildinq permits or final
site plan approval, schematic plans must be approved by the
Planning Commis~ion.)
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
85S103
In Bermuda Magisterial District, GEORGE P. EMERSON, JR.
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 14.2
acre parcel fronting approximately 50 feet on the west line of
Old Centralia Road, approximately 750 feet south of Ceatralia
Road. Tax Map 97-7 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Peele stated that, at the Planning Commission meeting, the
applicant's representative indicated that Residential
zoning for the subject property would be acceptable. He stated
the Planning Commission recommended approval of rezoning from
Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) and acceptance of the
proffered conditions.
Mr. Jeff Collins stated the conditions were acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
this request for Residential (R-12) and accepted the following
proffered conditions:
1. All homes in the subdivision will have the iollowing square
footage:
a. Ranchers - 1,400 square feet finished floor area
b. Cape Cods and Tri-levels - 1,600 square feet
finished floor area
86-497
u. 2 stories - 1,800 square feet finished floor
area
2. All foundations to be brick
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
86S008
In Bermuda Magisterial District, B. FORACE RILL requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) on a 237.0
acre parcel fronting approximately 750 fe~t on the east line of
Woods Edge Road, approximately 2,200 feet north of 1-95. Tar Map
134-10 (2) Radtke Valley Farms, Part of Lot 15; Tax Map 134-13
(2) Radtke Valley Farms, Lo% 6; Tax Hap 1~4-14 (2) Radtke Valley
Farms, Lets 9, 10 and Part of 11 (Sheets 41 and 42).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request, subject to a single condition and acceptance of thc
proffered condition.
Mr. Jeff Collins stated the recommended condition was acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
this request subject to the following condition:
A fifty (50) foot buffer, exclusive of utility easements,
shall be maintained along Woods Edge Road. This buffer
shall be left in its natural state with no elearinq permit-
ted except for underbrush and dead trees. This buffer shall
b~ 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 within this buffer. There
shall be no individual lot access to Woods Edge Road through
this buffer. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted
to, and approved by, the Planning Department prior to any
recordation of lots containing this buffer. The Planning
Commission may modify this condition during the tentative
subdivision review process. (P)
And further the Board accepted the followinq proffered condition:
A minimum of 18,000 square feet per lot.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
~sent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
86S01@
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Jk~S A. N~940 requested a
Conditional Use to permit motor vehicle repair in an Agricultural
(A) District om a 0.I1 acre parcel lying approximately 185 feet
off the north line of Hickory Road, approximately 370 feet west
of Halloway Avenue. Tax Map 173-16 (1) Parcel 5 (Sheet 48).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request subject to certain Conditions.
Mr. James A Nimmo stated the recommended conditicn~ were
acceptable. He stated he has complied with the desires of the
Planning Commi$$1en with respect to correcting cited violations
and bringing the property into compliance wi=h the original
conditions of zoning imposed in 1983.
Mr. Peele indicated this was correct,
86-498
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Hayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for James A.
Nimmo and shall not be transferable nor run with the land.
2. This Conditional Use shall be granted for a period not to
exceed two (2) years from date of approval and may be
renewed upon satisfactory reapplication and demonstration
that the operation has not proven a detriment to adjacent or
area property.
S. This Conditional Use shall be limited to the operation of an
automobile repair business, exclusively.
4. No employees, other than the applicant, shall be engaged in
this operation.
5. Hours of operation shall be restricted to between 7:30 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Nc Sunday operation
shall be permitted.
6. Off-street parking shall be provided for at least two (2}
customer vehicles plus vehicles belonging to the applicant.
All driveways and parking areas shall either be paved or
graveled.
7. Not more than two (2) customer vehicles shall be permitted
on the property at any one time.
8. There shall be no additions er alterations to the exterior
of the garage related to this operation.
9. There shall he no signs relative to this use.
10. No junk automobiles, automobile parts, equipment, supplies
or other miscellaneous items associated with this operation
shall be stored outside the existing garage.
11. All work on automobiles or work on any parts thereof shall
be conducted entirely within the existinq qarage.
12. Only customer vehicles awaiting repair and/or pick-up and
employee vehicles shall be parked on this property. There
shall be no vehicles stored on this property which have been
in accidents and are awaiting insurance estimates.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate.
-~Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting.
86S042
In Matoaca Magisterial District, LOWELL H. GILBERT requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) on a 169.58
acre parcel lying approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the
southern terminus of Oak River Drive. Tax Map 178-16 (1) Parcel
4 (Sheets 51 and 52).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the reguest subject to acceptance of the proffered conditions.
Mr. Jeff Collins stated the applicant agrees with the Plannin9
Commission's recommendation.
There was no opposition present.
86-499
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request and accepted the following proffered
conditfons:
1. The road and drainage plans shall show the location of home
sites and septic tank drainfield sites for all lots adjacent
to the lake and the tributaries of the lake. An erosion
control design must be submitted on the road and drainage
plans for those lots and must encompass the primary
drainfield.
2. A 100 foot wide buffer strip shall be provided adjacent to
the limit~ of the A.R.W.A. property (Lake Chesdin). NO
trees six (6) inches or greater in diameter shall be removed
unless the tree is diseased or dead. This shall not be
intended to prevent the clearing of underbrush nor the
sowing of seed within the buffer area. Thi~ buffer
condition shall not be binding upon the easternmost point of
the subject parcel.
3. The easternmost point of the subject parcel shall be limited
to a single building ~ite,
4. A fifty (50) foot wide buffer shall be centered on the
channels of tributaries draining into the lake. Drainage
improvement shall be allowed in this buffer, as approved by
Environmental Engineering.
5. NO home site shall be established on slope~ steeper than 15%
without prior written approval of Environmental Engineering.
6. No septic lines can be installed within the 100 foot buffer
along the lake.
7. Any development that uses fertilization on a continuous
basis, ~uch as a recreation area, shall submit a fertiliza-
tion plan that includes application rates and mixtures to
Environmental Engineering for review by County Extension
Personnel.
8. The typical road O~oss-section shall be such that the hard
surface will be at the minimum allowable width with the
shoulders being grass with a minimum width of six (6) feet.
9. The gross density shall not exceed one (1) unit/acre.
10. No lot shall contain less than 30,000 square feet of area.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Giron~ and Mr. ~ayes.
Absent; Mr. Applegate.
86S055
In Bermuda Magisterial District, YMCA OF GREATER RICHMOND
requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit an
indoor/outdoor recreational facility plus bulk exceptions in
Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-7} Districts on a 20 acre
parcel fronting approximately 550 feet on the south line of West
Hundred Road, also fronting a total of 1,400 feet in two (2)
places on the east line of Parker Lane, and located in the south-i
east quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 116-5
(9) Gay Farms, Section 1, Block ~, Lot 5; 116-5 (1) Parcel 8; and
116-9 (1) ~art of Parcel 5 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request subject to certain conditions. Per Mr. Dodd's
request, Mr. Peele pointed out the lake on the map that has
caused some concern with respect to this request.
86-500
Mr. Alex Sadler, representing the applicant, expressed
appreciation to staff for their assistance with this request.
stated the recommended conditions are acceptable with the
exception o~ Condition 9 which requires the installation of curb
and gutter and paving. He ztated the applicant is seeking
temporary relief from these requirements as they would serve as a
detriment to the preservation of the existing lake on the
property. Ha stated there is a substantial accumulation of grit,
oil, debris, etc. in driveways and parking areas which would,
through the use cf a ste~m sewer system, curb and gutter, etc.,
generate rapid runoff into the lake. He stated omission of the
curb and gutter would establish a natural sheet fl0w of water
from the parking areas/driveways into the grass and the overland
flow of this runoff, through the grass into the lake, will
provide natural purification and lessen the potential for
environmental degradation.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Bob Schrum stated that on previous occasions the Board has
deemed it appropriate, for non-profit organizations, to
potentially waive or refund rezoning fees or waive sewer and
water connection fees and asked that the Board consider such
action for this particular project to assist the YMCA in
obtaining its goal.
Mr. Dodd stated it would not be legally permiesable for the Board
to waive the fees; however, it could make a donation of funds to
a non-profit organization. He stated the matter would have to be
brought before the Board on its regularly scheduled agenda and a
decision could be rendered at that time.
There was diecuszicn regarding the amendment to the condition
recommended by the Planning Commission.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved
this request subject to the £ollowing conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan dated
December 4, 1985 and the Textual Statement submitted with
the application, shall be considered the Master Plan.
2. A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
southern property lane and along the western property lane
adjacent to Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 on Tax Map 116-5 (9) Block
and Parcel 7 on Tax Map 116-5 (1). With the exception of
utilities which may run generally perpendicular through
these buffers, there shall be no facilities permitted in t~
buffers. Prior to any clearing or grading, these buffers
shall be flagged and the Planning Department shall be con-
tacted to inspect the buffers. If existing vegetation is
not euffisisnt to screen the use, additional landscaping
shall be required. (P)
3. Lighting shall be low level and positioned so as not to
project into adjacent residential properties or public
roads. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval in conjunction with
final site plan review. There shall be no outdoor
lighting south of the pond. (B)
4. Architectural elevations and/or renderings for the proposed
structure shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval in conjunction with schematic plan review for that
phase of development. (P)
5. Parking for the two (2) multi-purpose fields in the northerI
portion of the site shall be provided at a ratio of thirty
(30) spaces per field. All driveways end parking areas
86-501
must be graveled with a minimum of six (6) inches of 21 or
2lA stone. (BS)
(Note: Parking requirements for all other facilities will
be calculated based on Zoning Ordinance requirements.)
6. SIGNS
a. A thirty-six (36) square foot temporary freestanding
~ign shall be permitted for construction/fund raising
purposes, provided it i~ removed upon occupancy of the
first phase of the building.
b. Ail other signs shall be aS regulated by the Office
Business {O) District for the Route 10 Special Siqn
District. (P)
7. Public water and sewer shall be used. The developer shall
obtain all necessary off-site easements and extend the
necessary lines at his expense. (U)
8. To avoid potential algae and siltation problems, the pond
shall not be less than three and one-half (3{} feet deep
within ten (10} feet of the shere line. This condition may
he modified by the Environmental Engineering Department upon
review of documentation that the existing depth of the pond
has not and will not create algae growth or experience
siltation problems.
9. Nc concrete curb and gutter shall be required on site.
Drainage shall be designed so as not to interSere with
pedestrian traffic. (EE&BS)
10. The maximum allowable outflow permitted fez the pond shall
be based upon the worst hydraulic condition (i.e., minimum
criteria culvert performance, flooding of structures, and
minimum criteria for channel containment). The pond shall
be designed in accordance with the soil Conservation
service's minimum criteria for small ponds.
11. Prior to any use of the property Or release of any building
permits, forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured fro~
the centerline of Route 10 and thirty (30) feet of right of
way, measured from the centerline of Parker Lane, shall be
dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and
unrestricted. (T)
12. The following road improvements shall be accomplished in
conjunction with the stated development phase:
A. Use of the multi-purpose fields shall be confined to
sole access to Route 10. Prior to use of the
multi-purpose fields, a left-turn lane shall be
provided for westbound traffic along Route 10. (T)
Prior to occupancy of the first phase of the building,
the follewing shall be accomplished:
(1) access shall be provided to both Parker Lane and
Route
(2) an additional lane of pavement shall be con-
structed along Route 10 for the entire property
frontage, no curb and gutter shall be recfuired
along Route 10; and
86-502
(3) a right-turn lane shall be constructed on Parker
Lane at Route 10. (T&BS)
13. The entrance/exit On Route 10 shall align with the
trance/exit to the north on Tax Map 126-5 (1) Parcel 6. (T)
14. The outdoor facilities (i.e., multi-purpose fields, day use
area and jogging/fitness trail) may be used initially and
prior to construction of the proposed building; however, use
of outdoor facilities shall cease within three (3) years of
the dais of approval of this request, unless either:
A. Building permits for the first phase of the building
have been released and the building is under
construction by December 30, 1989; Or
B. A phasing plan for construction and completion of the
first phase of the building is approved by the Planning
Co~mtission extending this time period, provided assur-
ances, acceptable to the Planning Commission, are given
by the developer that th~ first phase of the building
will bC constructed and completed in an acceptable time
frame. {P)
(Note: Prior to any use of the property, or prior to issu-
ance of any building permits, schematic and site plans must
be approved.)
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone and Mr.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
86S062
In Matoaca Magisterial District, RAYMOND SPAIN requested
amendments to a Conditional Use (Case 85S078) relative to
concrete curb and gutter, concrete walks and tenant age re-
striction in a Community Business (B-2) District on a 0.19 acre
parcel fronting approximately 50 feet on the north llne of Light
Street, approximately 90 feet west of Chesterfield Avenue. Tax
Map 182-14 (1) Parcel 72 (Sheet 53).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval Of
this request subject to a certain condition. He stated the
applicant was not present, however, he was aware of ths scheduled
meeting and was aware that the Planning Commission had
recommended approval of his request.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request subject to the following condition:
Condition 10 of Case 85S078 shall be deleted and replaced
with the following:
Occupancy shall be limited to one (1) family (individuals
related by blood, marriage, adoption or guardianship) per
unit, or no more than four (4) unrelated adults in the total
structure. (P)
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girene and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
86S063
In Midlothian Magisterial District, TN0~AS S. WINSTON, III
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-25)
86-503
to Residential (R-15) On an 8.27 acre parcel located at the
eastern terminus of Bondurant Drive. Tax Map 27-5 (1) Parcel 11
and Tax Map 27-5 (4) Finchley, Section B, Block B, Part of Lot 14
(Sheet 8).
Mr. Peele crated the Planning Co--lesion recommended approval of
this recgaest and acceptance of the proffered condition.
Mr. Winston stated the recommendation is acceptable.
There wac ne opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the request and accepted the following proffered
condition:
A maximum of seventeen (17) lots shall be developed on the
property being considered under Case 86S063 and the property
involved in the proposed resubdivision of lots in Finchley
Subdivision, Section B, Block B.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayem.
Absent: Mr. Appl~gate.
865064
In Midlothian Magisterial District, SALISBURY CORPORATION
requested rezoning from Residential (R-15) and Cc~m~nity Business
(B-2) to Residential Townhouze (R-TH) with Conditional Uee
Planned Development to permit bulk exceptions on the proposed
R-TH tract and on another tract currently zoned B-2 and R-TH.
The parcel contains 9.7 acres and fronts approximately 50 feet on
West Salisbury Road at Pagehurst Drive. Tax Map 7-8 (11 Part Of
Parcel 1 (sheet 2).
Mr. Peele stated the ~lanning Commission recommended approval of
this request subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Jeff Timmons stated the recommended conditione are
acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, eeconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the un-dated plan~
(Exhibits A, B, courtyard study, and typical elevations),
prepared by J.R. Timmons and Associates, P.C, and the
Textual ~tatement, shall he considered the Master Plan. Th~
applicant's requested exceptions shall be granted, except as
noted herein. (P)
With the exception of Pagehurst Drive, all streets and
alleys shall be private. Neither the County nor the State
shall have maintenance responsibility for such. (R)
3. Pagehurst Drive shall be a fifty (50) foot right of way fro~
Salisbury Read north to this development. In the vicinity
of this development it shall be a sixty (60) foot right of
way. (P)
4. The develope~ shall provide an accurate account of the
drainage situation, showing existing drainage and the impact
this project will have on the site and the surrounding area.
The developer shall submit a construction plan to
Environmental Engineering and VDH&T providing for on- and
off-site drainage facilities. This plan shall be approved
86-504
by the Environmental Engineering Department and VDH&T, and
all necessary easements shall be obtained prio~ to any
vegetative disturbance. The approved off-site plan may have
to be implemented prior to clearing. (ER)
5. Except in alleys, concrete curb and gutter shall b~ in~
stalled around the perimeter of all driveways and parking
areas. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in
alleys where neoessary for drainage purposes. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian
traffic. (EE&CPC)
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
86S065
In Midlothia~ Magisterial District, CROSSROADS CONDOMINIUM ASSO-
CIATION requestsd amendment to Conditional Use Planned
Development (Case 83S026) to permit bulk (setbacks for freestand-
ing signs) exceptions in a General Businees (B-3) Distriot on a
9.8 acre parcel fronting approximately 830 feet on the north and
south lines of Busy Street, also fronting approximately 350 feet
on the west line of North Courthouse Road, approximately 750 feet
south of Midlothian T~rnpike. Tax Map 16-12 (1) Parcel 46 and
Tax Map 16-12 (5) Crossroads Business Park (Sheet 7).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission rece~ended approval of
this request subject to certain conditions.
Mr. John Bender stated the recommended conditions are acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request subject %o the following conditions:
1. Signs A, B, C and D shall be located as described in
the Textual Statement and as depicted on the Plan,
prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, Inc., revised
1/14/86. (P)
2. Signs A, B, C and D shall be for the purpose of identifying
the tenants within eaoh office/warehouse structure. (P)
3. Signs A, B, C and D shall not exceed a height of five (5)
feet and an aggregate area of thirty (30) square fset each.
4. The County of Chesterfield shall not be responsible for
replacing or repairing any signs located within utility
easements should it be necessary for the County to
perform work within the utility easement. (P & U)
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
86S066: In Clover ~ill Magisterial District, P.L. TRAVIS, JR.
r~quested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use
(professional offices) and bulk (paving of parking area) exoep-
tions in an Agricultural (A) District on a 3.1 acre parcel front-
ing approximately 200 feet on the east line of Turner Road~
approximately 950 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map
29-1 (1) Parcel 23 (Sheet 9).
Mr. 9oole stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request subject to certain conditions.
86-505
Mr. Oodd disclosed to the Board that he is involved in a business
venture with the applicant, declared a conflict of interest
pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act
and excused himself from the meeting.
Mr. P. L, Travis, Jr. stated the recommended conditions are
acceptable.
There was ne opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved this rsquest subject to the following conditions:
1. The following condition~ notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by P.L. Travis, Jr., dated February 25, 1986, shall be
considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be granted
for a period not to exceed three (3) years from date of
approval. (P)
3. The driveway and parking area shall be gravelled with a
minimum of six (6) inohe~ of ~21 or ~21A stone. The
driveway and parking area shall be delineated by either
timber curbs or railroad ties, securely anchored to the
ground. (P)
4. Prior to release of an Occupancy permit, forty-five (45)
feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Turner
Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of
Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T)
5. A single freestanding sign or a single building-mounted sign
to identify the use shall he permitted. The sign shall not
exceed an aggregate area of twenty (20) square feet. If the
sign is freestanding, it shall not exceed a height of four
(4) feet. The sign shall not be lighted. The sign shall be
constructed of wood and the facades shall employ subdued
colors. Prior to ersction of the ~ign, a colored rendering
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval.
(~)
6. There shall be no additions or exterior alterations to the
existing structure to accommodate the proposed use. (P)
(Note: Interior alterations and normal exterior maintenance
are permitted.)
7, ACCess shall be limited to one {1} entrance/exit along
Turner Road. (P)
8. Uses shall be limited to those permitted in the Office
Business (0) District. Mxcept where s=ated herein, all bulk
requirements of the Office Business (O) District shall
apply. (P)
9. Previous conditions notwithstanding, all bulk requirements
of the Office Business (O) District shall apply.
10. Public water and mewer shall be used. (U)
11. In conjunction with the granting of this request, the
Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of
the Master Plan. (P)
(Mote: Prior to obtaining a building permit or prior to
occupying the building, site plans must be approved by the
Planning Department.)
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd and Mr. Applegate.
86-506
Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting.
86S067
In Matoaca Magisterial District, WILLIAM B. DuVAL requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) on a 190.8
acre parcel fronting approx~-mately 300 feet on the east llne of
Spring Run Road, approximately 4,400 feet south of M~Ennally
Road. Tax Map 75 (1) Parcel 10 (Sheet 20).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Con~ission recommended approval of
this rec/uest subject to a ~ingle condition and acceptance of the
proffered conditions.
Mr. Delmonte Lewis stated the recommended conditions are
acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request subject to the following condition:
A fifty (50) loot buffer, exclusive of utility easements,
shall be maintained along North Spring Run Road. This
buffer shall be 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 within this buffer. There shall be nc
individual lot access to North Spring Run Road through this
buffer. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to,
and approved by~ the Planning Department prior to any recor-
dation of lots containing this buffer. The Planning Commis-
sion may modify this condition during the tentative subdivi-
sion review process.
And further the Board accepted the following proffered
conditions:
1. The following minimum squaEe footage shall govern all house
sises. Attached covered porches, covered stoops, bree~eway~
and garages shall not be included in computing the minimum
square footage.
A. One Story - (Ranch) 1,400 Gross Square Peet
S. One and One-half Story ~ (Cape Style) 1,500 Gross
Square Feet
C. Two Story - 1,600 Gross Square Peet
2. The following ~eed restrictions shall be recorded with
TRIPLE CROWN Subdivision:
A. There shall be no clearing or other disturbances of the
area within the 100 year floodplain, except utility and
drainage easements. The floodplain and creek area
shall otherwise remain in its present natural state,
except where necessary to preclude the pending of
water.
B. Where possible and conditions permit, there will be no
strip clearing of all trees from any lot. All builder!
erecting improvements on all lots must strive to leave
a natural tree buffer on both the rear and sides of all
lots. Bowever, brush and Scrub trees under six inches
in diameter may be removed if so desired.
C. All homes shall conform to a colonial Or traditional
architectural style.
86-507
D. No iences shall be permitted between the residence and
the street line. Split-rail fences or other wooden
fences may be built between the rear of the house and
the rear lot line. The split-rail fences may be backed
with wire to provide animal retention. There shall be
no metal or chain link fence permitted.
E. All visible foundations shall be constructed of brick
only on all exterior walls.
F. All exterior chimneys shall be constructed of brick or
stone only.
G. Nc prefabricated houses will be erected on any lots.
M. NO aluminum or vinyl siding will be used with the
exception of aluminum trim.
I. Ail residences must have some exterier appurtenance on
either the front or side elevation, such as covered
stoops, COvered porches or decks.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Micas indicated this request is not related to the
condemnation proceedings involving Dr, and Mrs. Charles Henry,
86S068
In Midlothian Magisterial District, ~E SMOXE~/~E ASSOCIATION re-
quested an amendment to a Conditional Use (Case 79S216) relative
to parking area paving and Conditional Use Planned Development tc
permit exception to the paving requirement in a Residential
(R-15) District on a 10.9 acre parcel fronting approximately 800
feet on the north line of Smoketree Drive, approximately 1,200
feet west of Conrthouse Road. Tax Map 27-9 (1) Parcel 20 (Sheet
8).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recon~ended approval of
this request subject to certain conditions.
Ms. Betty Gully, representing the applicant, stated the
recommended conditions are acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by J.K. Tigons and Associates, P,C,, dated 2/28/86, shall
be considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. Initially, the new driveways and parking areas shall be
gravelled with a minimum of six (6) inches of ~21 or $21A
stone. The existing driveway and parking area shall be
repaired to eliminate potholes. This may include patching,
scarification of old paving and/or installation of
additional gravel. Within five (5) years of the date of
approval of this request, all driveways and parking areas
shall be paved. (P)
3. Adequate dust control measures (i.e., spraying with water~
application of calcium chloride, etc.) shall be employed to
prevent dust problems. (P)
4. All parking areas shall be delineated with timber curbing
that is securely anchored.
86-508
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Gircne and ~r. Mayas.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Micas indicated this case may be adjacent to the previous
case. Mr. Daniel stated the request for condemnation would have
been from ihs prsvious case.
86S069
In Matoaca Magisterial District, CHARLES H. VETTE requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25) on a 211.5
acre parcel fronting approximately 850 feet on the west line of
Riverway Rosd, approximately 1,800 feet south of Plantation Trace
Drive. Tax Map 126-2 (1) Parcels 1 and 3 (Sheets 29 and 38).
Mr. Podia stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request subject to a single condition and acceptance of the
proffered conditions.
Mr. Charles Vette etated the recommended conditions are
acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request subject to the following condition:
A fifty (50) foot buffer, 0xcluaivo of utility easements,
shall be maintained along Riverway Road. This buffer shall
be left in its natural state with no clearing permitted
except for underbrush and dead trees. This buffer shall be
supplemented with additional landscaping, fencing, or harms,
where necessary, to effect a proper screen. Other than
public road~ and subdivision entrance signs, there shall be
no facilities located within thi~ buffer. There shall be no
individual lot access to Riverway Road through this buffer.
A detailed landscaping plan shall he eubmitted to, and
approved by, the Planning Department prior to any recorda-
tion of lots containing this buffer. The Planning Colmmis-
sion may modify this condition durinq the tentative subdivi-
sion review process. {P)
And further the Board accepted the following proffered condition:
Ne lot shall be less than one (1) acre in area.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mre. Girone and Mr. Mayas.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
86S070
In Bermuda Magisterial District, PAUL ~. AND DIANN p. BARR
requested rezoning from Aqricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) o~
a 5.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the south
llne of Centralia Road, approximately 100 feet east of Glen Oaks
Drive. Tax Map 97-7 (1) Parcel 5 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request and acceptance of the proffered conditions. He
stated, however, staff has recommended deferral until the
proffered conditione, agreed upon at the Planning Commission
public hearing, are submitted in writing. He stated these
proffers are identical to proffers that have been accepted on
other adjacent area developments. Re stated that since the
Planning Commission meeting, staff has not received written
copies of these additional proffers and for this reason the Board
would be unable to accept the proffers at this time. He stated
that if the Board wished to approve the request with the proffers
recommended by the Planning Commission, the cass would have to be
deferred,
86-509
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Bar~ stated the two additional proffered conditions would
relate to minimum finished square footage of the proposed homes
and the use of County water and sewer. He stated he desires to
have the same restrictions and proffers as the Glen Oaks
Subdivision.
Mr. Micas stated that if the additional proffered conditions had
not been submitted in writing prior to the meeting the Board
would be unable to accept them and would have to defer the
request. Mr. Dodd stated he would make a motion for approval of
the request subject to the recommended conditions.
~r. Bart stated this action was acceptable with one exception
which is that the minimum square footage for his project be the
same as the minimu~ square footage for Glen Oaks Subdivision.
Mr. Peele stated that the minimum square footages contained in
the Request Analysis are the square footages that Mr. Bart agreed
to at the Planning Commission meeting.
~_r. Bart stated the minimum square footages, to be identical to
those for Glen Oaks Subdivision, should read:
a. Ranchers - 1,400 square feet finished,
b. Cape Cods and Tri-levels - 1,600 square feet with 1,000
square feet finished, and
c. Two stories - 1,800 square feet with 900 square feet
finished.
Mr. Micas stated the request would have to be deferred in order
for the applicant to amend the proffered conditions. Mr. Bart
stated he would be agreeable to deferring the request for thirty
(30) days in order to present the pro£iers in writing.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferred
consideration of this request until July 23, 1985.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
86S071
In Bermuda Magisterial District, THS C~$HIR~ CQMPANY requested
amendment to Proffered Condition 3 of zoning Case 85S125 to
reduce the average let size from 32,000 square feet to 28,000
square feet in a Residential (R-12) District on a 19.5 acre
parcel fronting approximately 725 feet on the east line of
Chester Road, also fronting approximately 594 feet on the west
line of Chester Road, approximately 2,700 feet south of Centralia
Road. Tax Map 97-10 (1) Parcel 6 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request subject to acceptance of an amended proffered
condition.
Mr. ~atcher Crenshaw stated the recommendation i~ acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
this request:
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
86S073
In Dale Magisterial District, HERITAGE BAPTIST CHURCH requested
Conditional Use to permit a child care center in an
86-510
Agricultural (A) District on a 3.0 acre parcel fronting approxi-
mately 159 fee~ on the south line of Cogbill Road, opposite
Rebinwood Drive. Tax Map 65-10 (1) Part of Parcel 7 (Sheet 22).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Conunission reco~ended approval of
this request subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Ray Jackson, Pastor of the ~eritage Baptist Church, stated
the recommended conditions are acceptable.
There was no Opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved this ~equest subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
from a Survey prepared by Bodie, Taylor and Puryear, Inc.
revised January 27, 1986, shall be considered the plan of
development. There shall be no additions to the existinq
facilities to accommodate the use. (P)
(Note: Interior additions and alterations required by the
BOCA Code will be permitted.]
2. Enrollment shall be oonfined to a maximum of sixty (60)
children. (P)
3. Hours of operation shall be be limited to between 6:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. There shall be no
Saturday or Sunday operations. (P)
4, A single sign identifying ths use shall be permitted. This
sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area. The sign
shall be attached to the same p01e supports as the
freestanding sign identifying the church. (P)
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel~ Mrs. Girone and Mr. Nayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
86S094
~n Bermuda Magisterial District, TEE CEESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS considered an amendment to Conditional Use Planned
Development (Case 86S057) relative to buffer requirements along
the northern and western boundaries in a General Business (B-3)
Disbrict on a 3.5 acrs parcel fronting approximately 280 feet On
the west llne of Jefferson Davis ~ighway, also fronting
approximately 365 feet on %he south line of Drewrys Bluff Road,
and located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of
these roads. Tax Map 67-3 (1) Parcel 51 (Shest 23).
Mr. Peele stated thc Planning Commission has rscommended denial
of this request. He stated that on April 23, 1986, the Board,
upon a favorable reoo~endation from the Planning Commission,
approved a rezoning to General Business (B-3) with a Conditional
Use Planned Development to permit bulk exceptions. He stated one
of the conditions required that a fifty (50) foot buffer be
maintained along the western property line and a portion of the
northern property line where adjacent to Residential (R-7)
property and more particularly adjacent to parcels 16 and 62 on
Tax Map 67-3. He stated upon review of the Board of Supervisors'
minutes for the April 23, 1986 meeting, Mr. Dodd indicated that
he intended in his motion for approval to reduce the fifty (501
foot buffer but had failed to do so. He stated on May 14, 1986,
the Board directed Planning staff to prepare an application to
reduce the fifty (50) foot buffer specified in Condition 5 of
Conditional Use Planned Development 86S057.
Mr. Dodd stated he had intended for the amendment to address onl'
the western property line. Me requested that consideration be
86-511
given to rsdueing the buffer along the western portion of the
propsrty line to fifteen {15) feet.
Mr. John Moseley stated opposition to a reduction in the western
property line buffer to fifteen (15) feet. Be stated the
developer has previously and presently continues to perform site
improvements without the necessary approvals and permits by the
County and he feels the developer will continue to commit further
violations of the zoning conditions. He stated the developer has
indicated he does not intend to comply with the conditions of
zoning which are designed to screen and buffer the subject site
from his property. He stated the site plan has been deviated
from, the Master Plan has been bypassed, etc. He stated there is
a dust problem, a permit had not been obtained to demolish a
building, etc.
Mr. Dodd stated if it is determined that the developer is
oommittinq violations of the conditions of zoning, then legal
action can be taken. He stated the Board is trying to protect
Mr. Moseley's parents who live in this business district.
Mr. Micas stated that an occupancy permit will not be issued to
the developer if the conditions of zoning are not complied with.
Mr. Mose!ey stated the subject property ie presently being used
for display and sales of boats. Mr. ~oole stated that the
developer has moved boats onto the site, however, he has no
direct knowledge that boats are being sold from the property at
this time.
Mr. Moseley stated that he wished to go on record as being
opposed to the fifteen (15) foot buffer which he did not feel was
advertised properly.
Mr. Peele indicated the Request Analysis was written regarding a
twenty-five (25) foot buffer, however, the public advertisement
did not address any specific number. Mr. Pools ~xplained the
buffer conditions surrounding the property.
Mr. Dodd stated he would like for Mr. ~oseley, at the conclusion
of the meeting, to give staff a list of the violations that the
developer is suspected o£ committing and the Board would direct
staff to take whatever action is necessary to determine if the
Zoning Ordinance is being violated and, if there are violations,
to have them corrected.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
this request with amended Condition 5 of zoning case 86S057 to
read as follows:
A fifteen (15) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
western boundary where adjacent to Parcel 16 on Tax Map
67-3. A fifty {50) foot buffer shall be maintained along
the northern boundary where adjacent to Parcel 16 on Tax Map
67-3. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along
the western boundary where adjacent to Parcel 62 on Tax
67-3. These buffers shall consizt of landscaping, having a
sufficient initial height and of a species which will pro-
vide year-round screening. Other than utilities, which run
generally perpendicular through the buffers, there shall be
no facilities permitted in these buffer areas. A solid
board fence shall be installed five (5) feet off the south-
ern boundary of the site. This fence may have security
devices en the top. Between the southern property line and
the fence, cedar trees shall be installed. A conceptual
plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with sche-
matic plan review. Prior to any clearing and/or grading,
the buffer area shall be flagged and the Planning Department
contacted to inspect the buffer areas. If existing vege-
tation and/or topography is not sufficient to provide year-
round screening, additional landscaping shall be required.
A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the
86-512
Planning Department for approval within sixty (60} days of
rough clearing and grading, or prior to occupancy, whichever
occurs first.
(Note: This condition supersedes Condition 5 of Conditional Use
Planned Development Case 86S057.)
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Gir0ne and Mr. Maye$.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
13. ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adjourned at 3:32 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. on July 9, 1986.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
Rich~fa'~L', Hedrick'
County Administrator
Chairman
86-513