07-23-1986 MinutesBOAI%D OF SUPERVIBOP~
MINUTES
July 23, 1986
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. R. Garland Dedd, Chairman
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Vice Chairman
Mr. G. H. Apptegate
Mrs. Joan Girone
Fir. Jesse J. Mayes
Mr, Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. stanley R. ~alderson
Dir., Econ. Develop.
Mrs. Doris DeHart,
Legislative
Mr. Richard M. McElfish,
Dir,, Env. Eng.
Mr. Michael ~olden, Act.
Dir., Parks & Rec.
Mr. William Howell,
Dir., General Services
Mr. Robert Masden, Asst.
Co. Adm. for Human
Mr. R. J. McCracken,
Transportation Directo]
Mr. Gteven L. Micas,
County Attorney
Mr. Jeffrey L. Mincks,
Asst. CO. Attorney
Mr. Richard A. Normally,
Dir., Extension Servic~
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir., News/Info.
Services
Col. Joseph Pittman,
Chief of Police
Mr. William D. Peele,
Act. Dir., Planning
Mr. Lane B. Ramsey, Dir,,
Budget & Accounting
Mr. Richard F. Sale,
Asst. CO. Adm. for
D~velopmen:
MS. Jean Smith, Dir.,
Social Services
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Exec. Assr., Co. Adm.
Mr. David Welchons, Dir.
Utilities Department
Mr. Frederiok W. Willis,
Dir., Human Resource
Management
Mr. Dodd called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at th(
Cour~house at 9:05 a.m. (E DST).
1. INVOCATION
Mr. Daniel gave the invocation in the absence of Rabbi Aaro~
Koplin, who was unable to attend the meeting.
2. PIm~GE OF ALLEGIANCE TO T~u~ FLAG OF '£~ UNITED STATES OF
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of
America was recited.
the United States of
86-535
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Boar(
approved the minutes of July 9, 1986, as eubmitted.
Vote: Unanimous
4. COUNTY ADWINISTRATOR'S ~S
Mr. Hedriek introduced and briefly outlined the professions2
experience of Mr. Richard F. Sale who has assumed the duties
Assistant County Administrator for Community Development.
Board welcomed Mr. Sale to the County.
5. BOARD C01~[I'I-r~.~,RKPORTS
Mrs. Girone stated she attended the Roads Commission Suboommitte(
meeting where the creation of a Transportation Board, comprise(
of the members of the Highway Commission, the Ports Authority an(
the Airport Board, was approved. She stated this is mainly ~
~inancing mechanism by which to pool and allocate resources in ~
more sophisticated manner and to obtain a more optimal use of th~
money. She stated she was concerned that the money would b~
pooled and returned to the General Assembly for realloca~icn~
however, she had been assured that the existing structure and
process for each of these divisions will continue, so it it
looked upon as a step toward accomplishing the goals of obtainln(
moremoney for road construction. She stated another concern ha~
been that with the pooling of the money, The maintenance expense~
received first priority and detract from the significance of th(
construction, which is so badly needed.
Mrs. Girone stated she attended the Volunteer Fire Departmen~
graduation at the Central Library; attended Senator Edwar¢
Willey's funeral; attended the Tams performance at the Boulder~
Family Affair Concert Series; attended a party celebrating th~
30th service anniversary with Chesterfield County for Ms. Jea~
Smith, Director of Social Services; and the Water Resources Tas}
Force meeting which is investigating the feasibility of e
phosphate ban. She stated a phosphate ba~ had been discusse¢
several years ago, however, the Richmond Regional Plannin~
District Co~r~ission (Pd~PDC), at that time, decided not to supper{
such a ban and no action was taken. She stated There is new dat~
that indicates a real value in banning det~rgents~ therefore, th~
matter will be investigated further so That a recommendation car
be made to the RRPDC. She stated that should the KRPDC decide to
suppert such a ban, the matter will be presented to the Genera]
Assembly next year for action.
Mr. Mayes stated he had met with Mr. Bill Howell concerning th~
expansion of the ground water sample testing program, which h~
supports. He stated he had met with the Museum Committee which
is interested in obtaining space in the buildings adjacent to the
~useum when these buildings are vacated and the Count~
Administrator has been requested to investigate this possibility.
He stated he had also attended a meeting with Mr. Hedrick, Fir.
Sale and Mr. McCracken concerning the Ettrick Grade separation,
attended the 30th County service anniversary party for Ms. JeaR
Smith, and an ABIDCO meeting where the number of directors was
reduced from 36 to 18, which was done on a temporary basis. R~
stated there may be additional discussion regarding this matte~
at a later time.
Mr. Dodd stated a Prayer Breakfast is scheduled for Thursday,
July 24, 1986, at the Airport Restaurant and encouraged staff and
the Board members To attend.
Mr. Dodd stated he attended the National Association of Counties
Conference held in Las Vegas, Nevada, where the National
Association of County Parks and Recreation Officials (NACPRO)
86-536
If C
Organizational presented an award for overall excellence to
Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department. He state(
he was very proud to have received this award, as well as othe~
awards bestowed upon the County, for itn Automated Buildin~
Inspection System, its Hsd-Flight program, its public involvemenl
in the Comprehensive Plan Revision Process and its Rockwood Par)
Nature Center. He stated one of the most significant topio~
discussed during the course of the conference concerned economi(
development. Me ntated the nation's "growing counties" are awar~
of thc significance of economic development and are aggressive
their approaches in attracting new business. He stated that
Chesterfield County is to be competitive in economic developme~
then it, too, must become aggressive.
Ms. Jean Smith presented a brief overview of the status on t~
construction of the new Human Services Bnilding. She stated muc~
has transpired (i.e., construction underway, etc.) and staff
very pleased with the results thus far. She stated staff is
the process o~ beginning to convert the County's Humaz
Information System and Central Index Master File, both of whict
are arduous tasks. She stated the anticipated completion dat~
for the building is October, 1987.
REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTIONr EMERGENCY ADDITIONS O~ C~ANfiF~
IN TkLK Oi%DF~ OF PRF..K~TATION
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Boar(
added Item ll.H.l.c.~ Advertising Signage on Pams Avenue Water
Tank; reserved the right to call Item ll.B., $30 Million Bono
Issue for Route 288 Project and set Date for Public Hearing fo:
Appropriation of Bond Proceeds and Debt Service, until after th~
bids are received at 11:00 a.m.; added two issues to Item ll.J.,
Executive Session for consultation with legal counsel regardin~
Clapp versus Chesterfield County and litigation involving th~
Chesterfield Cou/lty Nursing Home, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (al
(6) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as a_mended; and adopted th(
agenda, as amended.
Vote:
7. RF~(~LUTIO~ OF SPECIAL P~COGNITION
7.0. R~V~RH/~D FRANK H. LAPIERRE~ KINGSLAND BAPTIST CHURCH
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Reverend Frank H. La~ierre of the Kingsland Baptinf
Church will be retiring on August 10, 1986, after diligently an¢
faithfully pastoring his congregation for twenty-four yearn; and
WHEREAS, Reverend LaRierre has contributed significantly
the moral and spiritual strength of the Chesterfield
and
WHEREAS, Reverend LaPierre serves as a Trustee of th~
Children's Home of Virginia Baptists displaying a genuine concerE
for his fellowman.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the members of the Board
of Supervisors of Chesterfield County do hereby wish Reverend
LaPierre a healthy and happy retirement with his wife, Margaret,
and many years of contentment and joy.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd stated he would present the resolution to Reverend
LaFierre at a retirement party on August 10, 1986, at the
Kingsland Baptist Church.
86-537
Mr. Hedrick stated there were no h~arings of citizens schedule(
at this time.
9. DEFERIIE:D I i'I~'4S
9.A. CONSIDER CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS FOR SEWER EASEMENT FOR
INSTALLATION OF FALLING CPR~ SEWER FORCE MAIN
~i~. Wel¢hons stated this item has been deferred on severa~
occasions to allow staff to negotiate a settlement with the Lohr~
~egardlng this sewer easement, however, such an agreement has
yet been attained. ~e stated that Mr. Lohr recently submitted
letter, dated July 18, 1986, requesting a settlement in
amount of $250,000 to resolve this matter. He stated, althou~
staff will continue to work with the Lohrs to try to reach a!
agreement, sta~ would recommend that the Board authorize t~
County Attorney to proceed with condemnation of this easement i~
order to comply with the directions from the judge.
Mr. and ~rs. ~ohr were not in attendance.
Mr. Daniel stated he has received qui~e a bit of oorrespondenc(
regarding this issue. He stated he appreciated Mr. and Mrs,
Lohr's concerns regarding this issue and he had spent much tim~
with staff over the last few weeks discussing this issue. Ther~
was considerable discussion regarding the valving system, th(
pressure release valve, the installation of a check valve tha~
wo~ld release only when the pressure exceeds the safety pressure~
whether or not a vent line normally has a pressure control on
etc.
Mr. Welchons explained in detail how the system would work, a~
proposed.
Mr. Daniel requested that some type of a control device on th~
air release stack be investigated for installation. He stated h(
would like for staff to investigate the matter and report back t¢
the Lohrs and the Board as to whether or not there is such
device and to do whatever can be done technically to assure tha~
this pipe is not wide open. He presented a letter, with th~
signatures of approximately 17 residents, expressing concern~
about odors possibly being emitted from the pipe.
Mr. Welchons stated the system is designed Sor~ that the odol
controls are at the p~pi~g station, which minimizes th~
possibility of odors at this site. He stated the consultant has
designed otker similar systems and was selected for this projeo~
b~cause of the complexity of this particular system and th~
mechanisms being incorporated into the pumping station equipment.
~r. Daniel requested that a device called an ozonator
investigated for installation on the air release s~ack which wil~
take care of the odors that could come from that pipe to ensur~
that pollutants and odors are not expelled into a residential
neighborhood. He also requested that staff investigate whetheI
or not such a device should also be installed at the wilmotk
site.
'Mr. Daniel stated the Lohrs have requested that a luminaire b(
installed by the County and, since the air release stack is
County property, he would like for the County to assume th~
liability for it. Ke stated that he would also like for staff t¢
check with the Wilmoths to determine if they want a luminaire
installed on the Dige on their property.
On motion of ~Ir. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
~roceedings to condemn a portion of the property located at 6104
Tucker Road, currently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph B. Lohr, as
directed by the Circuit Court Judge to settle the issue of
86-538
damages as a result cf the installation of the air release stac]
on their property, pursuant to the Falling Creek Force Sewag(
Force Main Project, subject to the installation of an ozonator~
or other oder control device, on the end of the pipe: th~
installation and maintenance of both ~he luminaire and
liability associated with it; and to investigate the possibitit
of installing check valves, or whatever typ~s of valves necessar
to be installed on the air release s~aok so as to no
indiscriminately let air escape from the pipe.
Vote: Unanimous
9.B. APPOINTMENTS - iNDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUtHORItY
On motien cf Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Boar¢
appointed Mr. Thomas Steger, representing the Dale District, an(
Mr, Knox Ramsey, representing the Midlothian District, to th~
Chesterfield County Industrial Development Authority, whose term~
will be effective immediately and will expire June 30, 1990.
Vote: Unanimous
10. PUDLIC ~EAP~INGS
10.A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AM~I~DING ARTICLE
SECTION 14.1~1 OF THE CODE OF THE COUntY OF CHeSTeRfieLD
1978~ AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ADOPTION Q? STATE LAW
DEALING WITH MOTOR VEHICLE OFFENSES
Mr. Hedriek stated this date and time had been advertised for ~
public hearing to censider an Ordinance rela~ing to adoption o~
State law dealing with motor vehicle offenses.
Mr. Micas stated that each year the County must incorporate int¢
tho County Code changes in the state law relating to the moto~
vehicle code, the purpose of which is to allow County motorist~
to be charged with County offenses so that fines remain withi~
the Cou_~ty treasury rather than being sent to the State Literar
Fund.
NO one came forward to address the matter.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Da/%iel, the Boar~
adopted the following Ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ARTICLE I, S~CTION 14.1-1 OF THE CODE
OF T~E COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, 1978, AS AMENDED,
R~LATING TO ADOPTION OF STATE LAW DEALING WITH
MOTOR VE~ICL~ OFFENSES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County o~
Chesterfield, Virginia:
(1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as
amended, is amended by a~ending the following section:
Sec. 14.1-1 Adoption of state law.
Pursuant to the authority o~ section 46.1-188 of the Cede of
Virginia, as amended, all of the provisions and requirements o~
the laws of the state contained in Title 46.1 and Article 2 c~
Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, as in force on
July 1, 1986, except those provisions and requirements the
violation of which constitutes a felony, and except those
provisions and requirements which by their very nature can have
ne application to or within the county, are hereby adopted and
incorporated in this chapter by reference and made applicable
within the county. References to "highways of the state"
contained in such pro~isions and requirements hereby adopted
shall be deemed ~c refer to the streets, highways and other
86-539
public ways within the county. Such provisions and
are hereby adopted, mutatis mutandi~, ar~ made a part of thi~
chapter as fully as though set forth at length herein, and
shall be unlawful for any person, within the county, to violate
or fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any provision of Title
48.1 or Article 2 Of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code oJ
Virginia which is adopted by this section; provided, that in nc
event shall the penalty imposed for the violation cf an]
provision Or requirement hereby adopted exceed the penalt~
impo~ed for a similar offense under Title 46.1 or Article 2 el
Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
10.B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE A~ENDING THE CODE
T~LE COUNTY OF CBESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED~ BY AMEND!N(
SECTION 5-14, RELATING TO PENALTIES
M_r. Medrick stated this date and time had been advertised for
public hearing to consider an Ordinance relating to penalties.
Chief Pitt~an stated that on June 25, 1986, the Board o
Supervisors requested that staff zeadvertise propose~ changes ii
the fines for animal control violat±ons to increase the minim~
fin~s. He stated the following information reflects the propose(
increases as recommended by the Board at its July 9, 198(
meeting;
Recommended Recon~ended
Fines Fines
6/25/86 7/23/86
Current Public Public
Fines Hearin~ Hearinq
Violation
Running at large
Failure to
license
Failure to
inoculate for
$0 - $1oo
$15 - $100 $25 -
$15 - $100 $25 - $100
$0 - $100
$0 - $100 $25 - $I00 $50 - $100
No one ea~e forward to address this matter.
Mr. Daniel expressed concern that th~. 'Ccunty'~staff strictl~
enforce this law if it is adopted.
Mrs. Girone stated that Animal Control staff does enforce th.
law, however, some citizens feel a $5 or $10 ~ine for lettin~
their dogs run at large is worth the risk rathe: than adhere t¢
the law. Mr. Daniel suggested that perhaps enforcement of thc
Ordinance would be better served if the Board were to conside!
raising the boarding rates at the A~imal Control Center.
It was generally agreed that staff investigate the feasibility o~
increasing the boarding rates at the Animal Control Center.
On motion of ~rs. ~irone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adopted the following resolution with the understanding that
staff will monitor convictions for a period of one (1) ysar t¢
determine the effectiveness of the increase in the fines:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF TME COUNTY OF
CHESTEP~FIELD, 1978, AS AFiENDED, BY AMENDING
SECTION 5-14 RELATING TO PENALTIES
BE IT ORDAINF~D by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That chapter 5 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, Virginia ds araended and reer~cted as follows:
86-540
Sec. 5-14. Unlawful acts; Densities.
(a) The following shall be unlawful acts and constitut(
misdemeanors punishable by a fine of not more than
o o o
(3) Running at large. For any dog owner to allow
dog ~o run at large in violation of sections 5-6, 5-7, and 5-18
provide however, that the minimum fine for violation of Section
5-6, 5~7 and 5-18 shall not be less than $25.00.
Sec. 5-29. Penalties. Any person violating the provision oJ
this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by ~
fine of not tess than fifty dollars ($50.00) nor more than on(
hundred dollars ($100.00).
(2) This Ordinance shall become effective
passage.
Unanimous
Mr. Daniel stated he has received several telephone calls fro~
citizens concerned with cat control (i.e., rabies, regt~lation,
etc.) and the issue may be forthcoming in the very near future.
Mr. Hedriok stated this issue could be included for consideratio~
in the 1987 Legislative packet.
10.C. PUBLIC HEA/~ING TO CONSIDER THE CONVEYANCE OF 1,2± ACRES
OF LAND AT T~IE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK TO STILES
BARTLEY ~ ASSOCIATES
Mr. Nedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for
public hearing to consider the conveyance of a 1.2± acre parcel
at the Airport Industrial Park fronting the north side
Whitepine Road and adjoining the western property line shown a~
belonging to Kavanaugh to Stiles L. Bartley and Associates.
Mr. ~atderson presented a brief s%t~T~ar7 of the request.
No one came forward to address the matter.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by?M=s~ Girone, the Boar~
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute
necessary documents for the sale of 1.2 ± acres (at $32,500
acre) in the Airport Industrial Park, located on the ncrtherr
side of Whitepine Road and adjoining the western property lin~
shown a~ belonging to Kavanaugh, to Stiles L. Bartley and
Associates.
Vote: Unanimou~
11. NEW BUSINESs
11. A. RESOLUTION DECLARING CHESTBRFIELD A DROUGBT DISASTER
AREA
Mr. Richard Nunnally, V~I/$U Extension Agent, stated that
extremely high temperatures and lack of rain have placed
agricultural crops in disastrous cenditions in Chesterfield and
surrounding counties. Re stated, in view of the circumstances,
the Board is being asked to pass cna resolution to the Governc~
declaring Chesterfield County a disaster area, the declaration
thus enabling Chesterfield producers to take advantage of state
and federal assistance. He stated the estimated damage to crops
is $1,147,225.00, which he outlined i~ detail.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
86-541
Wt{EREAS, Chesterfield County received less than two inehe:
of rain during June and July; and
W~F2EEAS, Chesterfield County has some 8,000 acres i~
agricultural and horticultural production which has been severel
damaged by these drought conditions; and
WHF2EEAS, this damage is projected to exceed 1-2 millic
dollars.
BE IT THER~FOI{2~ R~SOLVED, that the Board o~ Supervisor~
respectfully requests Governor Gerald Baliles to declar~
Chesterfield County a drought disaster area, thereby gualifyin~
Chesterfield County producers for any assistance programs tha~
may be available at the state and federal level.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Applegate noted that Senator Paul Trible has contacted the
Governor regarding this declaration as well.
ll.B. $30 MILLION BOND ISSUE FOR ROUTE 288 PROJECT AIFD SET DAT]
FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROPRIATION OF BOND PROCEEDS
DEBT SERVICE
Mr. Hedrick indicated Item ll.B., $30 Million ~ond Issue fo:
Route 288 Project and Set Date for Public Hearing fo~
Appropriation of Bond Proceeds and Debt Service, would b~
considered later this date.
ii.C. DESTRUCTION OF BONDS AND COLrPONS
Mr. Ramsey stated the County Treasurer has requested a resolutio!
authorizing the destruction of bonds and coupons which mature(
prior to 1970, which were Raid by former treasurers and wer~
examined by the auditors during the annual audit for the
year they were paid.
Mr. Daniel suggested that if any bonds were of a historical~
significant nature tha: they be saved, ~ra~ed and presented
past Board members or to the departments most affected by
bonds. Mr. Dodd suggested that perhaps the Eistorical $oeiet
would want to preserve some of the documents.
On motion o£ Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr~ App~egate, the Boar
authorized the County Treasurer %0 destroy bonds and coupon~
which ma~ured prior to 1970, were paid by former treasurers an¢
were examined by the auditors during the annual audit for
fiscal year for which they were paid (a cody of which is file¢
with the papers of this Board) and further the Board designated
committee of two persons (Mary Leu Lyls and Bradford S. Hammer
to assis= the County Treasurer in the destruction of thee
worthless records.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.D. HISTORICAL SOCIETY DONATIONS TO COUNTY
Mr. Howell stated that, occasionally, the Chesterfield Historical
society wishes to purchase items through the County Purchasinc
Department, however, the state Code doss not permit such service~
by the County. He stated the Society, as an alternative to th~
County'~ purchasing policy, has expressed a desire to donat~
funds to the County for specific purchases or to purchase items
and donate them to the Cou/lty.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to accept items or funds fro~
the Chesterfield Historical society and the approved expenditure
86-542
of these funds for the specific purpose for which they are
donated.
ll.E. INTERJURISDICTIONAL A~REEFLENT FOR STUDY OF LAKE GENITO
PROJECT
Mr. MicaE stated Powhatan, Amelia, Cumberland and Chesterfield
Counties formed the Lake Genito Study Committee to study the
feasibility of developing a water impoundment on the Appomattox
River to serve as a future source of water for the four counties.
Me stated the Study Committee, after several meetings, ham
recommended that the four counties with voting representatives on
the committee enter into an interjurisdicticnal agreement to
procure a study of the feasibility and desirability of various
Lake Cenito project alternatives.
Mr. Daniel indicated one or more of the jurisdictions haw
already approved the agreement.
Mrs. Girone stated the meetings have been very productive and the
committee is pleased with the working relationship that has bee~
established, cooperation by the staff of the Richmond Regiona]
Planning District Commission (RR~DC), etc. She state(
representatives from Farmville had expressed concerns regardin~
the impact of this project on their resourcem, however, she felt
that once the agreement is finalized and the study is concluded.
these concerns would be alleviated. She stated this project it
ever increasingly important, aa the study indicates the Count5
will need another water Rource within the next twenty years an(
it includes current and future water needs of each participatin{
county as well as various methods of developing the lake. SE
stated the proposal would create a major land use change for t~
counties involved and impact the economic development. S~
s~a~ed Newport News, Virginia Beach~ and Henrlco have reviewe¢
the plan and it may be possible for these areas to tap thi~
potential resource as well.
It was indicated that Chesterfield County, bared on the poi
capita cost and greatest expected need, would be paying for 75 -
80% of thc cost of the study, which study is expected to cos~
between $80,000 to $120,000.
On motion of the Mrs. Sirone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, th~
following resolution was adopted:
W~EREAS, this County and the Counties of Powhatan, Amelia,
and Cumberland (the "cooperating Jurisdictions") have eac~
appointed three voting m~mbers to an interjurisdictiona]
committee, the Lake Genito Study Committee; and
W~EREAS, the purpose of the Lake Genito Study Committee is
to explore the desirability and feasibility of the development o~
a water impoundment ("Lake Genito") in Powhatan, Amelia an¢
Cumberland Counties to serve as a future source of water for th~
Cooperating Jurisdictions and to serve other purposes~ and
WHEREAS, the Lake Genito Study Committee has determine~ tha~
a consultant should be employed to perform a study (the "Lak~
Genito Study-PACC") of and prepare a report concerning various
aspects of the proposed Lake Genltc ~roject; and
W~LEREAS, the Lake Genito Study Committee has recommended
that the Cooperating Jurisdictions enter into th~
interjurisdietional agreement dated July 2, 1986, a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A, with respect to the emploY~en~
of a consultant to perform the Lake Genito Sh~dy-PACC; and
W~REA$, the Soard believes that there are certain ~enefits
which may result to the County from development of Lake Genito,
86-543
which benefits may include development of a future water source
economic development, recreational opportunities, and othe~
benefits to the County; and
WHEREAS, in view of the possible benefits to the County fro!
a Lake Genito project, the Board believes it is in the bes~
interests of the County to enter into the interjurisdiotiona~
agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes that although execution of th~
attached agreement authorizes issuance of a Request for Proposal
with respect to the Lake Genitc Study-PACC and authorize:
competitive negotiatien with the offerers by the Lake Genit~
Study Committee, the Board will not be bound to fund any contrac~
for the Lake Genito Study-PACC unless such contract is approve(
by this Board.
NOW, TH~P~FORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Ad~inistratel
is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the County th~
interjurisdictional agreement attached hereto as ~x_hiblt A.
Vote= Unanimous
Mr. Mayes and Mr. Dodd commended previous administrators an(
officials for their farsightedness and stated the action bein(
taken now on this project would, hopefully, in the future b~
viewed as a turning point toward the County's preservation of it~
water resources. Mr. Dodd referred to a letter from Ms. Victori~
Groat who was concerned about the future of the water supply i~
Chesterfield County.
It was generally agreed that once the study i~ completed man~
concerns regarding this project will be quelled and he f~lt that
would be the appropriate rims to request involvement of th~
merabers of the state legislature.
ll.F. COF~IINITYDEVELOi~]~T
ll.F.1. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS
Mr. Daniel expressed concern regarding the high rising cost
street light installations, particularly since the costs ar(
averaging over $1,000 per installation within neighborhoods whic~
meet the criteria. Re stated he felt it would be unfair to
public to act in an arbitrary and ir~uns.i'~t~nt manner witt
respect to the installation of stree~ lights. He requested
reassessment of the street light funding policy, as these cost~
are continuing to escalate. He stated he has received more an(
more requests to install street lights as it is a health, safet5
and welfare concern, particularly in high density areas.
stated the high cost of construction of these lights, as well a~
the increased volume of constituents requesting installation,
will continue to impact the County's expenditures for installin¢
street lights.
Mr. Applegate inquired as to the County's annual eleotr±ea
expenditures for providing this service. Mr. McElfish stated
that the 1985-86 fiscal year expenditure for electrical servic~
for street lights was approximately $120,000, which equates
approximately $100 per year per light, depending upon the size
the light. Mr. Applegate suggested that consideration be give~
to having the developers install street lights, in oonjunctioi
with the development process, and instruct the Plannin¢
Department to require street light installation in appropriat~
zoning requests.
Mr. Daniel stated the farsightedness as to the necessity
street lights was not established ten to fifteen years ago in th~
zoning process and the County is presently suffering th~
consequence of attempting to provide the service. ~e stated he
would support the idea of developer participation for the
86-544
installation of street lights, particularly for the developmen'
of large subdivisions, in an effort to prevent such futur~
problems.
Mr. Dodd sta~ed in past years the idea ef street liqh~
installation in planned subdivisions was opposed by the Plannin!
Commission in that the subdivisions were not expected to be li~
up like cities and now, with urbanization, philosophies haw
changed. Me stated that if the Board desires to follow
philosoph~ ~hen the Planning Commission and the Plannin
Department should be notified so they can act accordingly.
Mr. Daniel stated the majority of residents requesting stree
light installations, a~ the present time, have different
attitudes toward this matter than that which existed years ago.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mares, the Soar(
approved the requests for street light installations at
intersections of Shoremeade Court and Shoremeade Road in th~
amount cf $1,020, to be expended from the Dale District 3¢ Rca(
Funds; Monza Drive and Monza Court in the a~oun~ of $1,252, to
expended from the Dale District 3¢ Road Funds; Stornoway Driw
and Marquette Road in the amoun~ of $1,449, to be expended fr~
the Dale District 3¢ Road Funds; and Falstone Road and Stcrnowa,
Drive in the amount of $1,143, to be expended from the Dal~
District 3¢ Road Funds; and further resolved to approve th~
request for street light installation at the intersection el
Saldale Drive and Deanwood Road in the amount of $237 to b~
expended from the Dale District Street Light Funds and change(
service from a 3300 ~ercury Vapor to 5000 High Pressure Sodiu~
Vapor at 4533 Ma~arket Lane, in the amount of $214, be expende(
from the Dale District Street Light Funds; the Board furtho~
approved the requests for street light installations at Coalfiel(
Road and Prince Willia~ Drive in the amou/%t of $1,~48, to
expended from the Midlothian District Street Light Funds; an(
Coalfield Road and Queensgate Road in the amount of $1,069, to b(
expended from the Midlothian District Street Light Funds.
And further staff is instructed to prepare a study an(
recommendation on the entire street light policy and tha~
Planning staff determine the feasibility of establishin¢
developer participation for installing street lights for larg(
subdivisions in conjunction with the development process, etc.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.F.2. STREET LIGHT R~QUEST
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Boar(
approved the request for street l~ght at the intersection
Tevis Lane and Du~aine Drive, with funds to be ~xp~nded from th{
Clover Mill District Street Light Funds.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel inquired when he could inform the residents
Meadowbrook as to the pending installation date for street lights
in that area. Mr. MeE~lish ~tated the installation cf stree~
lights is a low priority item for Virginia Power; however, he is
meeting, within the next few days, with Virginia Powex
representatives to discuss several issues, including th~
timetable for installing street lights. Mr. Daniel requeste~
that Mr. McElfish respond to ~r. Chuck Nolte's inquiries
r~garding Virginia Power's timetable for installing street
lights.
ll.F.3. REQUEST FOR REDUCED SPEED LIMIT FOR ROUTE 1
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
86-545
W~EREAS, the Board cf Supervisors of Chesterfield County ha~
received requests from citizens to reduce the speed limit o)
Route i from Bermuda Hundred Road to south of Greenleigh.
NOW, THEREFORB BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board requests thl
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to reduce th~
speed limit on this section of Route 1, as well as investigat~
the feasibility of implementing appropriate safe~y measures alon~
this corridor, especially at the two bad turns.
ll.F.4. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR NEW BRIDGE OV~R THE A~PO~ATTOX
RIVE~ AND RAILROAD TRACKS FROM CHESTERFIELD AVENI/E
INTO PETERSBURG
Mr. Mayes stated he felt the development of the Appomattox Basi
is imminent and it is the appropriate time for the Board t~
address this matter.
On motio~ of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopte¢
the following resolution:
W~EREAS, the city Council of the City of Petersburg adopts(
a resolution on February 18, 19~6, expressing interest i!
determining the feasibility of a highway project that woul¢
include the construction of a bridge from ~ttriok to Petersburg
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield Count]
adopted a resolution on March 12, 1986, expressing interest ii
determining the feasibili:y of a new bridge over the Appomatto:
River and railroad tracks from Ettriek to Petersburg which wool(
connect southern Chesterfield to Route 1-95/I-85; and
WHEREAS, such a project is expected to promote economi(
development in northern Petersburg and southern Chesterfiel(
County; and
WHEREAS, a feasibility study for the project is to ~
accomplished in such a manner so as not to delay projeet~
currently considered priorities by both jurisdictions.
HOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield Count5
Board of Supervisors petitions the Tri-C~tiesArea MPC to includ(
the feasibility study for the project in the Tri-Citie~
Transportation Plan.
BE IT FURT~ER RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Boar~
of Supervisors petitions the Tri-Cities Area MPC to request th(
Virginia Deparr-ment of Highways and Transportation to study th~
feasibility of the project.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.F.5. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC BEARING TO CONVEY ~KOPERTY AT THE
AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK TO SEALEZE CORPORATION AND
AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTINGENT SALES CONTRACT
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
set the date of August 27, 1986, at 9:00 a.m., to consider thc
conveyance of a parcel of land in the Airport Industrial Park t¢
Sealeze Corporation and authorized the County Administrator t¢
execute a Contingent Sales Contract.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.F.6. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance wit~
86-546
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon hi~
examination of Band Hills Drive and Pine Meadows Circle
Craddook Point, Sections 1 and 2, Bermuda Bistrict.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate~
seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Band Hills Drive an¢
Pine Meadows Circle in Craddock Point, sections 1 and 2, Bermud~
District, be and they hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested
take into the Secondary System, Sand Hills Drive, beginning
the intersection with Jefferson Davis Highway, State Route 1 ant
301, and running westerly 0.14 mile to the intersection with Pin(
Meadows Circle, then continuing westerly 0.16 mile to tie int¢
proposed Sand Hills Drive, Craddock Point, Section 4; and Pine
Meadows Circle, begin/ling at the intersection with Sand Hill~
Drive and running northwesterly 0.20 mile to tie into propose(
Pine Meadows Circle, Craddock Point, Section 4.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance
and designated Virginia Department of Highways dralnag~
easements.
These roads serve 43 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of SuDervisor~
guarantee~ to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
right-of-way for Pine Meadows Circle and a variable 50' to 60'
right-of-way for sand Hills Drive.
These sections of Craddock Point are recorded a~ follow~:
Section 1. Plat Book 3S, Page 45, March 24, 1981.
Section 2. Plat Book 44, Page 79, December 13, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County EnviroD3~ental Engineer, in accordance wit~
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon hi~
examination o~ Red Chestnut Drive and Red Chestnut Court
Nuttree, Section Two, Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate.
seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Red Chestnut Driw
and Red Chestnut Court in Nuttree, Se~tio~ T~o, Clover Hil]
District, be and they hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested t¢
take into the Secondary System, Red Chestnut Drive, beginning at
the intersection with Tall Hickory Drive, state Route 2995, an~
going 0.05 mile easterly to the intersection with Rod Chestnu~
Court, then continuing 0.16 mile northeasterly to a temporar5
turnaround; and Red Chestnut Court, beginning at the intersectio~
with Red Chestnut Drive, and going 0.05 mile southeasterly to
cul-de-sac.
This request is inclumive of the adjacent slope, site distanc.
and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage easement.
These roads serve 23 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisor~
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highway~ a 50'
right-of-way for all of these roads.
This section of Huttree is recorded as follows:
Section Two. Plat Book 49, Page 42, May 16, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
86-547
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance wit
directions Stem this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Woodlake Village Parkway in Woodlake, Clover Hill
District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Woodlake Village
Parkway in Woodlake, Clover Bill District, be and it hereby is
established as a public road.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Woodlake Village Parkway,
beginning at the intersection with Hull Street Road, State Route
360, and going 1.47 milos northeasterly to tie into proposed
Woodlake Village Parkway.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance
and designated Virginia Department of Bighways drainage
This road serves 807 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department cf Highways a 70' to
397.33' variable width right-of-way ier this read.
Woodlake Village Parkway is recorded as follows:
Deed Book 1627, Page 1947, Sopto~%ber 12, 1983.
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance wit~
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon
examination of Spirea Road, Midlothian District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Spirea Road~
Midlothian District, be and it hereby is established as a
read.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested t(
take into the Secondary System, Spirea Road, beginning wher~
State Maintenance ends, spirea Road, Stat~Ro~t~ 218O, and goi~
0.11 mile westerly to tie into proposed Spirea Road.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distane~
and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainag~
easements.
This road serves 6 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board oS Supervisor~
guarantees to the Virginia Depar~ent Of Highways a 50~
right-of-way for this road.
Spirea Road is recorded as follows:
Deed Book 1427, Pages 459-461, october 3, 1979.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Enviro~J~ental ~ngineer, in accordance wit~
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon hi~
examination of Chalkwell Drive in portions of salisbury, Seotio~
C a~ Salisbury Lakeview, Section Two, Midlothlan District.
U~on oonsideratio~ whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Chalkwell Drive
portions of Salisbu~, Section C and Salisbury Lakeview, Settle!
86-548
Two, Midlothian District, be and it hereby is established as
public road.
And be it further re~olved, that the Virginia Department
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
tak. into the Secondary System, Chalkwell Drive, beginning at the
intersection with Kingsmill Road, State Route 1019, and going
0.24 mile southeasterly to a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance
and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage
easements.
This road serves 10 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Boar~ of Supervlaors
~uarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
right-of-way for this road.
These sections of Salisbury are recorded as follows:
Salisbury, Section C. Plat Book 14, Pages 92 & 93, September 29,
1965.
Salisbury Lakeview, Section Two. Plat Book 39, Pages 20 & 21,
July 27, 1981.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County ~nvirenmental Engineer, in accordance wit~
directions from this Hoard, made report in writing upon hit
examination of Cranborne Road in portions of Salisbury, Seetio~
C, Section D and Salisbury Lakeview, Section One, Midlothiar
District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate.
seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Cranborne Road ir
portions of Salisbury, Section C, Section D and Salisbur5
Lakeview, Section One, Midlothian District, be and it hereby
established as a public road.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested t¢
take into the Secondary System, Cra~borne Road, beginning at the
intersection with Kingsmill Read, State Route 1019, and goin~
0.15 mile southerly to a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distanc~
and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage
easements.
This road serves 6 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guaranteas to the Virginia Department of Highway~ a 50'
right~of-way for this road.
These sections of Salisbury are recorded as follows:
Salisbury, Section C. Plat Hook 14, Pages 92 & 93, September 29,
1965.
Salisbury, Section D. Plat Book 36, Page 62, July 14, 1980.
Salisbury Lakeview, Section One. Plat Book 37, Page 28,
September 23, 1980.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.G. PA~Ks AND RHCH/~ATION IT~/~S
ll.G.1. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING T0 CONSIDER CONVEYANCE OF
LEASES OF REAL PROPERTY AT VARIOUS PARK SITES T~
OPERATE FOOD CONCESSIONS
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Appiegate, the Board sat
86~549
the date of August 27, 1986, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the
conveyance of real property at Huguenot Park, Iron Bridge Park,
Courthouse Athletic Complex, and Soyne Park to operate food
concessions from September 1, 1986 to December 1, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.G.2. CONSIDER BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SOCCER COMPLF2~ AT
ROBIOUS MIDDLE SCHOOL
Mr. Golden explained the bids for the construction of the soccer
complex at Robious exceeded available funds and had to be rebid.
He stated the project was rebid with a reduced scope of work
(i.e., revision of erosion control measures, some o~ which can be
accomplished in-house; reduction in number cf soccer fields to be
compl,ted, etc.) He stated when rebid only one bid was received,
which is consistent with the consultant s revised cost estimates.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents awarding the bid for construction of the
Soccer Complex at Robious Middle School to the low bidder, T and
L Construction, in the amount of $231,~48. Funds are included in
the 1985 Parks bond.
ll.H. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
11.H.1. WATER AND SEWER ITEMS
ll.H.l.a. APPROVAL OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS TO PERFORM WORK ON
THE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM-SEWER UTILITY
EVALUATIO~ PROJECT
Mr. Welchons explained the project and how the system woul¢
oDers=e, the involvement of the Data Processing Department, othe~
such systems, etc.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Boar¢
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute :h~
necessary documents for the firr~ of James M. Montgo~ry,
Consulting Engineers, Inc., to perform work on Phase I of th~
"Management Information system-Sewer utility Evaluatioz
(MIS-SUE)" project at a cost of $58,313; transferred $115,000.0(
from account 5N-5847-C2A ~o account 8P-5217-678E for the entir~
project, which f~/%ds were previously encumbered for this project,
Vote: Unanimous
ll.H.l.b. WATER CONTRACT FOR COGHILL ROAD TO FAiRPINES
SUBDIVISION
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute
necessary documents to award Contract W86-02B, construction of
water line from Cogbill Road to Fairpines Subdivision throug~
Kings Forest Subdivision, to the low bidder, F.C. Showal~er,
Inc., in the a~ount of $162,423.00~ and transferred $16,000.0(
from 5H-5835-4D6E to 5H-5835-602R =o cover contingencies. It is
noted funds for the project, excluding contingencies, wer~
appropriated in the 1985-86 Capital Improvement Budget.
Vote: Unanimous
86-550
ll.H.l.c.
ADVERTISING SI~NAGE ON PANS AVENUE WATER TANK
~ir. Dodd stated, as a part of the county's ongoing economic
development program, particularly as it relates to the
a~vertisiag ei the County, he has requested that both the
northern and southern sides of the water tank on Pams Avenue be
painted with appropriate ~ignage advertising Chesterfield County.
He stated this signage would be visible from both ~he northern
and southern lanes of Interstate 95 and would be an appropriate,
~as~eful and beneficial approach to the County's public relations
and economic development effort. He stated the anticipated
expenditure of approximately $25,000 for this project would be
substantially recovered, over a period of time, from the exposure
the County would receive.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
appropriated $25,000 from the General Fund Surplus to paint the
Pams Avenue Water Tank with the following wording and that the
Co~2~ty A~mlnls~ra~or, Economic Development and the Utilities
Departments monitor the situation:
First Choice
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
Virginia
Vote: Unanimous
11.H.2. CONSENT ITEMS
ll.H.2.a. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR WATER LINE INSTALLATION FOR
MONACAN HILLS, SECTION 3
On motion of Mrs. ~irone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approvsd and autherized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary doc~ments for the following water contract:
Water Centraot No. W86-131CD, Monaoan Hills, Section 3
Developer: The Ashmont Company
Contractor: Bookman Construction Company
Total Contract Cost: $58,958.50
Total Estimated County Cost: $14,213.14
(Refund Through Connection Fees)
Estimated Developer Cost: $44,745.36
No. cf Connections: 69
Code: 5B-2511-997
Vote: Unanimous
ll.H.2.b. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR WATER LINE INSTALLATION
FOR PIN~EY PROPERTY
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute
necessary documents for the following water contract:
Water Contract No. W86-129CD, ~inney Property
Developer: W. Coleman Pinney
Contractor: Lyttle U~ilities, Inc.
Total Contract Cost: $5,895.00
Total Estimated County Cost:
Refu/%d Through Connection Fees $1,050.00
Cash Refund $ 158.65
$1,208.65 $1,208.65
Estimated Developer Cost: $4,686.35
No. of Connections: 2
Code: 5B-2511-997 (Through Connections)
And further, the Board transferred $158.65 ~rom 5H-5724-2009
5H-5724-6C99.
Vote: Unanimous
86-551
ll.H.2.o.
APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR GROVE ROAD SEWER EXTENSION
On motion of Mre. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents ~or the ~ollowing sewer contract:
Sewer Contract Number ~86-7CD/7(8)607M, Grove Road Sewer
Extension.
Developer: Arehie K. McLellan, Jr.
Contractor: Piedmont Construction Co., Inc.
Total Contract Cost: $8,703.00
Total Estimated County Cost: $ 180.00
(Refund through Connection Fees)
Estimated Developer Cost= $8,523.00
Number of Connections: 3
Code: 5N-2511-997
Vote: Unanimous
ll.H.2.d. APPROVAL OF SEWER AGP~W~NT FOR DEVELOPER
PARTICIPATION FOR P~EYMET ROAD AND FRIEND AVENUE
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute th~
necessary documents for Sewer Contract Number S85-127CD/7(8)5B7M,
which provides for developer participation between Reynolds Meta~
Company and Chesterfield County, to extend public sewer in th(
ReYmet Road and Friend Avenue area.
Vote: Unanlmcu~
ll.M.2.e. CONVEY EASE~ENT TO %~EPCO FOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO
NURSING HOME AND HUMAN SERVICES BUILDING
On motion Of MrS. Girone, seconded hy Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board and Count~
Administrator to execute an easement agreement with VEPCO fo~
replacement of electrical service to the Nursing Home and servic~
to the new Human Services Building.
Vote: Unanimous
11.M.3. REPORTS
Mr. Welchone presented the Board with a report on the devetope=
water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
ll.I. REPORTS
Mr. Hedriek presented the Board with statue reports on
General Fund Contingency Account, General Fund Balance, Roa{
Reserve Funde, and District Road and Street Light Funds, Annual
Capital Improvement Projects, and the District Chiefs~
Association Budget Request for 1986-87.
Mr. Applegate stated the Board should be in harmony with th~
recommendation for the Capital Improvement Programs. He state~
tke bunkhouse at the Clever Hill Fire Station is needed and
should be completed before winter arrives.
Mr. Hedrick stated this is a report for the Board and a wor~
session can be scheduled to discuss the matter, however, it
to be scheduled for consideration at the next meeting.
Mr. Daniel stated he thought this item had been approved in
budget. Mr. Hedrick stated the money had been appropriated but
the projects were not approved.
86-552
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
suspended the rules to allow Item 11.I.2., Annual Capita]
Improvement Projects, to be added to the agenda for consideratior
and further the Board approved the allocation of the Capita]
Project Funds to be included in the 1986-87 budget as listed
below:
Industrial Road Access $ 150,000
Drainage Projects 133,000
Northern Landfill Cell Construction 100,000
Clover Bill Bunkroom Construction 100,000
Fire station General Repairs 125,000
Resurface Tennis Courts 94,500
Buildings & Grounds General Maintenance 179,800
Modification of Church for 50,000
Training Academy
Matoaca Station Repairs 65,000
Design Work for Future Vacated Space 130,000
Warehouse Design/Site Preparation 92 200
$1,220,000
vote: Unanir~ous
Mr. Daniel informed the Board that one of the key members
Richmond Regional Planning District Commission did not approw
participation in the SBA-502 project and the County's resolutior
was subject to 100% participation. He stated as of this date the
locality has not agreed to participate and if they shoul(
reconsider in an affirmative manner the $16,000 would still b(
there; it not, then the $16,000 should be deleted from the
General Fund Contingency list.
Mrs. Girone stated the minutes approved this morning do
re~lect the 100% participation clause.
Mr. Daniel instructed the Clerk to review the tapes and brln~
back a correction to the minutes at the next Board meeting,
appropriate.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.B. $30 MILLION BOND ISSUE FOR ROUTE 288 PROJECT A/~D SET DATt
FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROPRIATION OF BOND PROCEEDS ANI
DEBT SERVICE
Mr. Ramsey stated the computations on the bids on this item ha~
not yet been completed. Mr. Daniel suggested that the Board
into Executive Session while waiting for the information on th,
bids to be completed.
Mr. Mayes stated that, prior to going into Executive Session, h~
wished to report on the status of the Meadowville Interchange.
He stated that at the previous A/~IDCO meeting one of the majo~
items discussed was the Meadowville Interchange and the proposed
fresh water port, which was about to be voted down but was save~
by a motion which was passed sending the matter on to the Mighwa5
Department for study. He stated he felt the motion to study th~
Meadowvi!le Interchange should be passed because the possibilit~
of creating a fresh water port is part of the reason for th~
interchange. Me stated there was no discussion of the Purt~
committee Report.
ll.J. EXECUTIVE SESSION
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~ir. Mayee, the Board wen~
into Executive Session for consultation with legal counsel
regarding the County History Book, Clapp versus Chesterfiel¢
County and litigation involving the Chesterfield Cou~lty Nursin¢
Home, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (6) of the Code
Virginia, 1950, as amended.
86-553
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
It was generally agreed the Board would recess to travel to thc
Crosswinds Restaurant at the County Airport for lunch.
Reconvening:
Mr. Dodd called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 2:0(
p.m. (EBDT).
ll.B. $30 MILLION BOND ISSUE FOR ROUTE 288 PROJECT A~D SET DAT~
FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROPRIATION OF BOND PROCEEDS ANI
DEBT SERVICE
Mr. Ram~ey stated there were six bids taken for the sale of
$30,000,000 Route 288 bond proceeds, the low bid being submitte¢
by Bankers Trust of New York with an interest rate of 7.0159%.
He stated the County's financial advisers have recommended that
this rate be accepted.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate~ the Boarc
accepted the tow bid o~ 7.0159% from Bankers Trust of New Yor~
for the sale Of the $30,000,000 Route 288 bond proceeds and set
the date of August 13, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearin
and adopted the following resolution:
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE,
SALE AND DELIVERY OF THIRTY MILLIOM DOLLARS ($30,000,000)
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES OF
1~86, OF T~E COURTY OF CHESTEP~FIELD, VIRGINIA; ACCEPTING A
PROPOSAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF SUCH BONDS; FIXING TH~ RATES 0
INTEREST TO BE BOP~NE BY SUCH BONDS; APPROVING THE FOP~ OF
OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND THE DISTRIBUTION THEREOF; RATIFYING
CERTAIN ACTS AND PROCEEDINGS; AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING FOR
THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH BONDS
BE IT ERSOLVED BY THE BOkRD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA:
SECTION 1. Findings and Determinat±onE:.
(a) Pursuant to the P~blic Finance Act, an election dul~
called and held under the Public Finance Act in the County
Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"), on November 5, 1985, an~
an order of the Circuit Court of hhe County dated December 17,
1985, the County is authorized to contract debt and issue
general obligation bonds in the maximum amount of thirt~ millio~
dollars ($30,000,00~) for the following highway improvement
project in the County: construction of Route 288 and
improvements.
None of such general obligation bonds have heretofore beer
issued by the County, and the Board deems it advisable and in th~
best interests of the County to authorize and provide at thi~
time for the issuance, sale and delivery of thirty millior
dollars ($30,000,000) aggregate principal amount o~ such bond~
for the purpose described in the immediately preceding paragraph.
(b) The Notice of Sale (the "Notice cf Sale") of thirt~
million dollars ($30,000,000) principal amount of Public Improve-
ment Bonds, Series of 1986 (the "Bonds"), was duly published
July 17, ~986, in The Bond Buyer, a financial journal published
in the City of New York, New York.
The No,ice of Sale provided that sealed proposals for
purehass of the Bo~ds would be received by or on behalf of th~
86-554
County, at the office of the Treasurer of the Commonwealth
Virginia, James Monroe Building, 101 N. 14th Street, 3rd Floor~
Richmond, Virginia 23219, until ll:00 A.M., Local Time, cz
Wednesday, Jklly 23, 1986, at which time and place all proposal~
would be publicly opened. P~rsuant to the Notice of Sale, ai~
(6) proposals for the purchase of the Bonds were received, eac~
accompanied by a certified or bank treasurer's or cashier's goo(
faith check payable to the order cf the County of Chesterfield,
Virginia, in the amount of $600,000. The names of the bidder~
submitting each such proposal, the purchase price for ~he Sond~
specified in each such preposal and the "True" or "Canadian'
interest cost to the County resulting from each such proposal ar~
as follows:
Name of Bidder
Bankers Trust Company
Northern Trust Company
Morgan Guaranty Trust Company
of New York
Shearson Lehman Brothers
Incorporated
Smith Barney, Harris Upham and
Company, Incorporated
Citibank Investment Bank
Purchase Prize Interest
Specified Coat
$ 30,004,080.40 7.0159%
30,000,000.00 7.07001%
30,001,201.00 7.1511%
30,000,000.00 7.029918%
30,042,375.40 7.103625%
30,000,000.00 7.1774%
After due consideration of all such proposals, this Boar(
~inds that (a) Bankers Trust Company (the "Purchaser") is
responsible bidder, (b) of the propcaals received, the proposa2
of the Purchaser (the "Propesal") is the propesal to purchase th(
Bonds at the lowest "True" or "Canadian" interest cost to th~
County, computed by doubling the semiannual interest rat(
(compounded semiarn%ually) necessary to discount the debt servic(
pa!~mentz from their respective payment dates tc the date of th(
Bonds aral to the price bid, not including interest accrued,
any, to the date of delivery, and (c) the Proposal is the best
proposal received, is in accordance with the provisions of th(
Notice of Sale, and should be accepted.
SECTION 2. Authorization of Bonds. For the purpose
financing the coats of the public improvement project of th(
Ceunty described in Section 1 hereof, there are hereby authorize(
to be issued, sold and delivered an issue of thirty millio~
dollars ($30,000,000) principal amount of general obligatio!
bonds of the Co~-~ty to be designated and known as
Improvement Bends, Series of 1956" (hereinafter referred to
the "Bonds"). The Bonds shall be dated as of July 15, 19861
shall be n%L~bered frem No. K-1 upwards in order of issuancel
shall be issued in fully registered form in the denemination
$5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof; and shall mater(
serially on July 15 in each of the years and in the amounts sci
forth below, with the Bonds maturing in each of the year~
specified below bearing interest payable on January 15, 1987 an(
semiannually on each January 15
rate per annam set forth oDpesite
and July 15 thereafter at t~
such year, as follows:
Principal Interest Principal Interest
Year Amount Rate Year Amount Rate
1988 $1,580,000 6.75% 1998 $1,580,000 7.00%
1989 1,580,000 6.75% 1999 ~,550,000 7.00%
1990 1,580,000 6.75% 2000 1,580,000 7.10%
1991 1,580,000 6.80% 2001 1,580,000 7.10%
1992 1,580,000 6.80% 2002 1,580,000 7.10%
1993 1,580,000 6.80% 2003 1,580,000 7.20%
1994 1,580,000 6.80% 2004 1,580,000 7.20%
1995 1,580,000 6.80% 2005 1,580,000 7.25%
1996 1,580,00Q 6.80% 2006 1,560,000 7.25%
1997 1,580,000 6,90
SECTION 3. Acceptance of Proposal. Thc Proposal, being
proposal to purchase the Bonds at the price of Thirty Millior
86-555
Four Thousand Eighty and 40/100 Dollars ($30,004,080.40), pl%
accrued interest from the date of the bonds to the date o~
delivery thereof to and payment therefor by the Purchaser, witl
the Bonds to bear interest at the rates per annum specified
Section 2 hereof, is hereby accepted and the Bonds are hereb
awarded to the Purchaser.
SECTION 4. Good Faith Checks. The good faith checks of th
unsuccessful bidders shall be returned forthwith. The good fain
check of the Purchaser will be deposited by the County and th(
proceeds thereof credited against the purchase price due for th(
Bonds upon their delivery or retained as and for liquidate(
damages in the event the Purchaser fails to take up and pay fo~
the Bonds in acccrdanne with the Proposal.
SECTION 5. Appointment of Re~istrar~ Payment of Bonds
Books of Reqistryj....~x~hang~s a/id Transfers of Bonds.
(a) Appointment of Registrar. Bank of virginia Trust
Company at its principal corporate trust office in the City
Richmond, Virginia, is hereby appointed Registrar for the Bond~
(hereinafter referred to as the "Registrar").
(b) Pa~vment of Bonds. (i) The interest on the Bonds shal2
be payable by check mailed by the Registrar to the registere(
holders of the Bonds at their addresses as the same appear on th(
books of registry as of the first day (whether or not a
day) 09 each month in which such interest is payable.
(ii) Tho principal of and premium, if any, on the Bond~
shall be payable at the principal corporate trust office of th(
Registrar.
(iii} The principal of and premium, if any, and interest
the Bonds shall be payable in such coin or currency of the Unite(
States of America as at the respective dates of pa!a~ent is legal
tender for public and private debts.
(c) Books of Registz-f~ Exchanges and Transfers of Bonds.
(i) At all times during which any Bond remains outstanding an(
unpaid, the Registrar shall keep or cause to be kept at it~
principal corporate trust office hooks cf registry for th~
registration, exchange and transfer of the Bonds. Upon presenta-
tion at the principal corporate trust office of the Registrar fo~
such purpose, the Registrar, under such reasonable regulations
it may prescribe, shall regis=er, exchange, transfmr, or
to be registered, exchanged or transfc~rred; on th~ books
registry the ~onds as herein set forth.
(ii) Any Bend may be exchanged at the principal oorpora~
trust office of =he Registrar for a like aggregate prinoipa2
amount of much Bonds in other authorized principal amounts of t~
same interest rate and maturity.
(iii) Any Bond may, in accordance with its terms, be trans-
ferred upon the books of registry by the person in whose name
is registered, in person or by his duly authorized agent, upez
surrender of such Bond to the Registrar for cancellation, accom-
panied by a written instrument of transfer duly executed by
registered holder in person or his duly authorized agent, in
satisfactory to the Registrar.
(iv) Ail transfers or exchanges pursuant to this Sectio~
5(c) shall ~e made without expense to the holder of such Bunds,
except as otherwise herein provided, and except that the Reg-
istrar shall require the payment by the holder of the Bone
requesting such transfer or exchange of any tax or other govern-
mental charges required to be paid with respect to such transfe~
or exchange. All Bonds s~rrendered pursuant to this Section 5(c
shall be cancelled.
$~CTION 6. Redemption of Bonds.
(a) Provisions for Redemption. The Bonds maturing on o
86-556
before July 15, 1996 shall not be subject to redemption prier
their stated maturities. The Bonds maturing on or after July
1~97 shall be subject to redemption at the option of the Count5
prior to their stated maturities, in whole at any time, or ir
part from time to time on any interest payment date, (a) on
after July 15, 1996, and prior to July 15, 2001, upon payment of
the principal amount of the Bonds (or portions of the principal
amount thereof to be redeemed), plue a premi%~ of one-quarter
one percent (1/4 of 1%) of the principal amount of each bond
portion thereof to be redeemed for each twelve (12) month perio~
or fraction thereof between the date fixed for redemption and tbs
stated maturity date of such Bond, but not to exceed one hundred
and two percent (102%) of such principal amount or portioz
thereof, and (b) on or after July 15, 2001, upon payment of th~
principal amount of the Bonds (or portions of the principal
amount to be redeemed), together in each case with interest
accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption. In the event
less than all of the Bonds of a particular maturity are called
for redemption, the particular Bonds of such maturity or portions
thereof in installments of $5,000 to be redeemed shall be select-
ed by the Registrar by lot.
(b) Notice of Redemption. Notice of any such redamDtio:
shall be mailed not less than thirty (30) days prior to the dat,
fixed for redemption by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to th,
registered holder of the Bends to be redeemed at such holder':
address as shown on the books of registry kept by the
for the Bonds as of the close of business on the fort?-fiftl
(45th) day preceding the date fixed ~er redemption. Such notic,
shall specify the date, numbers and maturities cf the Bonds to b~
redeemed, the date and place fixed for their redemption and th,
premium, if any, payable upon such redemption, and if less thai
the entire principal amount of any Bond is to be redeemed, the
such Bond must be surrendered in exchange for the principa
amount thereof to be redeemed and the issuance of a new Bon~
equalling in principal amount that portion of the principal
amount thereof not to be redeemed, and shall also state that
the date fixed for redemption there shall become due and payabl,
upon each Bond called for redemption the principal amount thereo:
and redemption premium, if any, thereon, together with th~
interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption, an(
that from and after such date interest thereon ehall cease
accrue.
(c) Effect of ~e~emption. When notice of redemption of an
Bonds shall have been given as hereinabove set forth, such Bond.
shall become due and payable on the date so specified for thell
redemption at a price equal to the principal amount thereof 'an(
redemption premiu/~, if any, thereon together with the interea~
accrued thereon to such date. Whenever payment of such redemp-
tion price shall have been duly made or provided for, interest
the Bonds so called for redemption shall cease to accrue from an(
after the date so specified for their redemption. All redeame(
Bonds shall be cancelled and not reissued.
. SECTION 7. Execution and Authentication of Bonds; CU$I~
Identification Numbers.
(a) Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be executed
the name of the County by the manual or facsimile signatures
the Chairman and the Clerk of this Board, and the corporate seaJ
of this Board shall be impressed, or a facsimile thereof printed,
on the Bonds.
(b) Authentication of Bonds. The County Administrate!
shall direct the Registrar to authenticate the Bonds and no Bone
shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose unless and until th~
certificate of authentication endorsed on such bond shall haw
been manually executed by an authorized signator of the Registras
upon the authentication of any Bond the Registrar shall insert
the certificate of authentication the date as of which such Bond
is authenticated as follows: (i) if the bond i~ authenticated
86-557
prior to the first interest payment date, the certificate shall
be dated as of the date of the initial issuance and delivery of
the Bonds; (ii) if the Bond is authenticated upon an interest
payment date, the certificate shall be dated as of such interest
payment date; (iii) if the bond is authenticated on or after th6
first day of a calendar month in which there is an interest
payment date and prior to such interest payment date, the
certificate shall be dated as of such interest payment date; an6
(iv) in all other instances the certificate shall be dated as
the actual date upon which the Bond is authenticated.
execution and authentication of the Bonds in the manner above set
forth is adopted as a due and sufficient authentication of the
Bonds.
(e) CUSIP Identification Numbers. CUSIP identificatioE
numbers may be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure tc
print any such number on any Bonds, nor any error or omissioE
with respect thereto, shall constitute cause ~or failure or
refusal by the successful bidder for the Bonds to accept delivery
of and pay for the Sends in accordance with the terms of it~
proposal to purchaee the Bonds. No such number shall constitute
or be deemed to he a part cf any Bond or a part of the contract
evidenced thereby and no liability shall attach to the County cz
any o~ its officers or agents because of or on account of an~
such number or any use made thereof.
SECTION 8. Arbitraqe Bond Provision. The County shall make
no use of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds which would cause
the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" under Section 103(c) of the
Internal Revenue code of 1954, as amended, and the County shall
comply with the applicable regulations of the Internal Revenue
Service adopted under such Section 103(c) so long as any Bond is
OUtStanding.
SECTION 9. Sources of Payment of Bonds. The full faith and
credit of the County shall be and is hereby irrevocably pledged
to the punctual payment of the principal of and interest on the
Bonds as the same be=omc due. There shall be levied and
ed annually, at the same time and in the same manner as other
taxes are assessed, levied and collected, ad valorem taxes upon
all property subject to taxation hy the County, without limita-
tion as to rate or amount, sufficient to provide for the payment
of the principal of and interest on the bonds as the same respec-
tively become due and payable.
SECTION 1O. For~ of Bonds. The Bonds~ shall be in substant.
ially thc form set forth below with such necessary or appropriat(
variations, omissions and insertions as ar~ incidental to thei]
numbers, interest rates and maturities or as are otherwis(
permitted or required by law or this resolution:
[ FACE ]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CO~ONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNT~ OF CHE~'kM~FI~.~
PUBLIC I~ROVEME~T ~
$~KS OF 1986
REGISTERED
No. R-
REGISTEREI
$.
INTEREST KATE: ~ATURITY DATE:
REGISTERED HOLDER:
ORIGINAL ISSUE DAT~:
July 15, 1986
CUSIP NO:
PRINCIPAL SUM:
86-558
The Co~/lty of Chesterfield (hereinafter referred to as th~
"County"), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth o:
Virginia, for value received, hereby promises to pay to th,
Registered Holde~ (named above), or registered assigns, on
Maturity Date (specified above), unless this Bond shall have beel
duly called for previous redemption and payment of the redemptie]
price shall have been duty made or provided for, the Principal
Sum (specified above), and to pay interest on such Principal $~
on January 15, 1987 and semiannually on each January 15 and Jul!
15 thereafter (each such date is hereinafter referred ~o as
"interest payment date"), from the date hereof Or from
interest payment date next preceding the date of authenticatiol
hereof to which interest shall have been paid, unless such dat~
of authentication is an interest payment date, in which ease
such interest payment data if interest has been paid to
date, or unless such date of authentication is within the perio~
from the fourteenth (14th) day next preceding an interest payment
date to such interest payment date, in which case from suc~
interest payment date if interest has been paid to such interes~
payment date, such interest to be paid to the maturity Or redemp'
tion hereof at the Interest Rate (specified above) per annum, bi
check mailed by the Registrar hereinafter mentioned to th(
Registered Holder in whose name this Bond is registered on th~
books of registry kept and maintained by the Registrar as of
close of business on the first day (whether or not a busines:
day) Of each calendar month in which interest is payable at hi~
address as it appears on such books of registry.
The principal of and premium, if any, on this Bond ar(
payable upon presentation and surrender hereof at the principa]
corporate trust office of Bank of Virginia Trust Company in th(
City of Richmond, Virginia (the "Registrar"). The principal el
and premium, if any, and interest On this Bond are payable
such coin or currency of the United States of America as at th~
respective dates of payment is legal tender for p~blie an(
private debts.
REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE FURTHER PROVI~IONS OF T~IS BOND S~
FORTH ON T~rE R~V~RSE HEREOF, WHICH FURTHER ~ROVI$IQN$ SHALL FO~
ALL PURPOSES HAVE THE EFFECT AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN.
The full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevo-
cably pledged to the payment of the principal of and interest oI
this Bond as the same become due.
This Bond shall not be valid or obligatory unless th(
certificate of authentication hereon shall have been manuall
signed by an authorized signator of the Registrar.
It is hereby certified, recited and declared that all acts
conditions and =hings required to have happened, to exist and t
have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bon~
and the series cf which it i~ One, do exist, have happened an=
have been performed in regular and due time, form and manner
required by law, and that this Bond and the bonds of the serie~
of which this Bond is one do not exceed any constitutional
statutory limitation of indebtedness.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County, by its Board cf Supervisors,
has caused this Bond to be executed by the facsimile signature o~
the Chairman of such Board; a facsimile of the corporate seal o~
such Board to be imprinted hereon, attested by the facsimil~
signature of fha Clerk of such Board; and this Bond to be date6
as Of the fifteenth day of July, 1986.
[SEAL]
Attest:
Clerk cf the Board of
Supervisors
Chairman of the Boa~d of
Supervisors
86-559
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHEBTICATION
This Bond is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to
within-mentioned proceedings.
Bank of Virginia Trust Company, Registrar
By:
Authorized Signator
Date of Authentication:
[BACK]
COtRT~Y OF CHESTERFI~n~, VIRGINIA
~BLIC I~PROV~R~T BOND, S~I{IES OF 1986
Thio Bond is one of a duly authorized issue of Bonds (hereil
referred to as the "Bonds") of the aggregate principal amount
Thirty Million Dollars ($30,000,000) and is issued under
pursuant to and in full compliance with the Constitution ant
state=es of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including Chapter 5
Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (the samt
being the Public Finance Act), an election duly held in
County under such Chapter 5 on November 5, 1985 and a rasolutic~
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County under suc]
Chapter 5 on July 23, 1986, for the purpose of financing the
costs of a public improvement project of and for the County.
The Bonds of the series of Bonds of which this Bond is on~
(or portions thereof in installments of $5,000 or any integra2
multiple thereof) maturing on and after July 15, 1997 shall
subject to redemption at the option of the County prior to thei~
stated maturities in whole at any time, or in part from time
time on any interest payment date, (a) on or after July 15, 1996
and prior to July 15, 2001, upon payment of the principal amoun!
of the Bonds (or the portions of the principal amount thereof
be redeemed), plus a premi~r~ of one-quarter of one percent (1/~
of 1%) cf the principal amount of each Bond or portion thereof
be redeemed for each twelve (12) month period or fraction thereoJ
between the date fixed for redemption and the stated maturit5
date of such Bond, but not to exceed one hundred and two percent
(102%) of such principal amount or portion thereof, and (b) on
after July 15, 2001, upon payment cf the,,,pxinoipal, amcunt of th(
Bonds (or the portions of the principal'~amount to he redeemed),
together in each case with interest accrued thereon to the dat~
fixed for redemption. In the event less than all of the Bonds
a particular maturity are called for redemption, the particular
Bonds of such maturity or portions thereof in installments c~
$5,000 to be redeemed shall be selected by the Registrar by
If this Bond is redeemable and this Bond (or any portion
the principal amount hereo~ in installments of $5,000) shall
called for redemption, notice of the redemption hereof, specify-
ing the date, number and maturity of this Bond, the date and
place fixed for its redemption and the premium, if any, payabl~
~pcn such redemption, and if less than the entire principal
a~ount of this Bond is to be redeet0ed, that this Bond must b~
surrendered in exchange for the principal amount hereof to
redeemed and the issuance of a now Bond equalling sn principal
amount that portion of the principal ~Lmount hereof not to b~
redeemed, shall be mailed not less than thirty (30) days prior tc
the date fixed for redemption by first class mail, postag~
prepaid, to the Registered Bolder of this Bond at his address as
it appears on the books of registry maintained by the Registrax
as of the close of business on the forty-fifth (45th) day preced-
ing the date fixed for redemption. If notice of ~edemption of
this Bond shall have been given as aforesaid, and payment of the
principal amount of this Bond (or the portion of the principal
amount hereof to be redeemed) and of the accrued interest and
86-560
premium, if any, payable upon such redemption shall have bee:
duly made or provided for, interest hereon shall cease from and
after the date so ~pecified for the redemption hereof.
Subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges,
if any, provided in the proceedings authorizing the Bonds of th~
series of which this Bond is one, this Bend may be exchanged at
the principal corporate trust office of the Registrar for a like
aggregate principal amount of Bonds cf other authorized principal
amounts and cf the series of which this ~ond is one. This Bond
is transferable by the Registered Holder hereof, in person or by
his attorney duly authorized in writing, at the principal cor-
porate trust office of the Rsgistrar but only in the manner,
subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges, i~
any, provided in the proceedings authorizing the Bonds of the
series of which this Bond is one, and upon the surrender hereof
for cancellation. Upon such transfer a new Bond or Bonds o~
authorized denominations and of the s~me aggregate principal
amount of the series of which this Bond is one will be issued :¢
the transferee in exchange herefor.
FORM OF ASSI~
For value received,
assigns and transfers unto
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY
OR OTHER TAX IDENTIFYING NUMBER
OF ASSIGNEE:
hereby sells
the within-mentioned Bond and hereby irrevocably constitutes an(
appoints , attorney, to transfer the sa~e o2
the books of registry of the County kept at the principal cor-
porate trust office of the Registrar with full power of substitu-
tion in the premises.
Dated:
Registered Holder
NOTE: The signature to ~his assignment must correspond
with the name as written on the face of the withi~
bond in every particular, without alteration
enlargement or any change whatsoever.
Signature Guaranteed:
NOTE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a member firm
of The New York Stock Exchange, Inc. or a commer
cial bank or trust company.
SECTION 1t. Execution and Delivery of the Bonds. Th~
Chairman and Clerk of this Board, the County Administrator, th~
County Treasurer and other appropriate officers, employees and
agents of the County are authorized and directed to take all suck
action and to execute such instruments as shall be deemed by the~
to be necessary or appropriate to effect the printing, execu~io~
and issuance of the Bonds and the delivery of the Bonds to th(
Purchaser in accordance with the terms of the Proposal, the
Notice of Sale, and this resolution, upon receipt of the purchase
price therefor as set forth in Section 3 hereof, and for ~he
proper application and use of the proceeds of SUch sale.
S~CTION 12. Preliminary Official Statement~ Officia
Statement~ Certification Concerning Official Statement. The
86-561
Chairman of this Board and the County Administrator are hereb~
authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the Purchase~
copies of an Official Statement of the County relating to th~
Scads, in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official
Statement of the County relating to the Bonds, dated July 17,
1986 (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), after the sa~e has
been completed by the insertion of the interest rates to be born6
by the Bonds and by making such other insertions, changes
corrections as the County Administrator, based on the advice of
the County's financial advisors and legal counsel, deems neces-
sary or appropriate; and this Board hereby authorises suck
Official Statement and the information contained therein to b~
used by the Purchaser in connection with the sale of the Bonds.
The County Administrator and the Director of Budget and
Accounting are hereby authorized and directed to exeouts
behalf of the County and deliver to the Purchaser the certifica~
referred to in the official Statement under the caption
"Certificate conoerninq Official Statemaent".
SECTION 13. Covenant As to Compliance with H.R. 3838. Th~
County hereby covenants and agrees to comply with the provisicn~
of H.R. 3838, as passed by the U.S. House of Representatives
December 17, 1985 and as modified by the Joint Statement issue(
on March 14, 1986 by the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the U.S
House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means and the U.S
Senate Co~ittee on Finance, and the Secretary of the Trsasur]
(the "Joint Statement"), that relate to the Bonds if and to th(
extent required to maintain the exemption of interest on th~
Bonds from federal income taxation. It is to be understood
however, that the County shall not be required to comply with
provisions of H.R. 3838, as modified by the Joint Statement, to
the extent that the County receives an Opinion from any nation-
ally recognized bond counsel that noncompliance will not caus~
the interest on the Bonds to be subject to federal income taxa.
tics.
SECTION 14. Ratification. The action of the Count~
Administrator in causing the NO{ice of Sale to be published a~
described in Section 1 hereof, and in causing the Notice of Sale~
a Proposal for Burchase of Thirty Million Dollars ($30,000,000]
General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series of 1986, an(
the Preliminar~ official $~atement to be distributed, and th~
for~ and contents of the Notice of Sale, such Proposal and
Preli~inars; Official Statement, and all.actio~S~lan~proceeding~
heretofore taken by this Board, the County Administrator andth(
other officers, employees, agents and attorneys of the County i~
connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds, are hereb
ratified and confirmed.
SECTION 15. Filing of This Resolution. The County A~=orne
is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of his resole
tics, certified by the Clerk of this Board to be a true and
correct copy hereof, with the Circuit Court of the County o~
Chesterfield.
SECTION 16. Invalidity of Sections~ Par~raphs~ Clauses o~
Provisions, If any section, paragraph, clause or provision o~
this resoiution shall be held invalid or unenforceable for
reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section,
paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of th~
remaining portions of this resolution.
SECTION 17. Headings of Sections. The headings of the
sections of this resolution shall be solely for convenience of
reference a~d shall not affect the meaning, construction, inter-
pretation or effect of such sections or of this resolution.
SECTION 18. E~fective Date. This resolution shall take
effect upon its adoption.
86-562
The Board being Dolled:
Mr. Dodd; Aye
Mr. Daniel; Aye
Mr. Applegate: Aye
Mrs. Girone: Aye
Mr. Mayes: Aye
Mr. Dodd stated per %he established rules and procedures of thc
Board, Mr. Daniel will chair the zoning session.
ll.K. .REQUESTS FOR RRZONING
Mr. Poole reported there were no requests for deferrals ox
withdrawals for consideration.
86S070
In Bermuda Magisterial District, SAUL E. A~D DIANN P. BAR5
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) on
a 5.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the sout~
line of Centralia Road, approximately 100 feet east of Glen Oaks
Drive. Tax Map 97-7 (1) Parcel 5 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Poole stated the Board deferred this case at its June 25,
1986 meeting to allow the developer to submit written proffers
agreed upon at the Plarn~ing Commission meeting. He stated the
applicant submitted the amended written proffers dealing wit~
house sizes and these ~roffers are acceptable to staff. H~
stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of th~
request and acceptance of the proffered conditions.
The applicants were not in attendance to address this matter.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board approve(
this request subject to the following pro,fared conditions:
A. Minimum square footagee for homes:
Ranchers - 1,400 square feet finished
CapeCods - Tri-levols - 1,600 sq,/are ~eet
with 1,000 square feet finished
Two-stories - 1,800 square feet with
900 square feet finished
B. The following shall be incorporated into the Declaration o~
Restrictions and recorded with the subdivision plat:
i. No lot shall be used other than for residential
purposes. Only one residence may be constructed or
each platted lot as recorded, nor shall said platte~
lots be subdivided or resubdivided.
2. Exclusive of the main dwelling, nc building, structure
outbuilding, playhouse, fence or wall shall be erected
placed or altered on any lot until ~he construoti~
plans and specifications and a pls/~ showing the loca-
tion of the same have been filed with and approved b~
the Architectural Control Committee as to squar~
footage, quality of workmanship and materials, harmon~
of exterior design and/or color with existing struc-
tures, and as to location with respect to topograph~
and finished qrade elevation.
3. The Architectural Control committee is composed of the
following persons: Don Farren, Jr., Gler~ Perkins,
Paul Barr, Ernie Taylor, and one other selected b~
developers and homeowners. The Architectural Control
Co~mlttee will act only in the event any item in the
Declaration of Restrictions is not complied with. In
86-563
the event of a death or resignation o~ any member
this Committee, a replacement will be appointed by th~
side that lost the member.
4. The Committee's approval or disapproval as required
these proposed restrictions shall be in writing. Ir
the event the Con~ittee or its designate¢
representative fails to approve or disapprove within 3[
days after plans and specifications have been submitted
to it, or in any event, if no suit to enjoin th~
construction or alteration, after notice in writing
said construction has been received by said Committee,
approval will not be required and the related covenants
shall be deemed to have been fully complied with.
5. No ~ign of any kind shall be displayed to the pL~bli¢
View on any lot except that One sign of not more thaz
seven square feet advertising the property for sale
rent may be displayed; two signs used by a builder t¢
advertise the property during construction and sales
period may also be displayed; also, one sign may
displayed at the entrance of subdivision of not mor~
than twenty-four square feet.
6. NO trailer, tent, shack, garage, barn or othez
outbuildings erected on any lot shall at any time b~
used as a residence, temporarily or permanently,
shall any structure of a temporary character be used as
a residence; provided, however, this clause shall not
be construed to prevent domestic held quarters being
installed over a detached garage or other outbuilding.
7. NO homeowner's trailer shall be parked over 12 hours
any one week on any lot or driveway so as to be visible
from the street.
8. No livestock, cattle, hogs, or goats, ncr any
kennel as defined by the Chesterfield County Code
existence as of the date of the recordation of the~
restrictions shall be allowed on any lot, nor shall an~
noxious or offensive trade or activity be carried oi
thereon, nor shall anything be done thereon which shal2
be or become an annoyance or nuisance to a good res-
idential neighborhood.
9. No lots shall be used or maintainedas, a..dUml~i~g..groun~
for rubbish. Trash, garbage, or other waste shall be
kept in sanitary containers. All incinerators or othe~
equipment for the storage or disposal of such material~
shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition in rea:
yards only. Trash to be picked up by public or privat~
service shall be kept outside the bounds of any road
the subdivision and kept wholly On the individual lots.
10. No horse or pony shall be stabled or pastured o~ an~
lot or parcel of land.
11. No unlicensed motor vehicle shall be parked on any lo~
herein for more than 60 days unless it is parked in ar
enclosed garage.
12. No trees measuring six inches or more in diameter at
point two feet above ground level may be remove~
without the written approval of the Architectura.
Control Committee. Approval for the removal of tree~
located within fifteen feet of the main dwelling cz
accessory buildings will be granted unless such removal
will substantially increase the beauty of the property.
This shall not apply to clearing ce right of ways,
86-564
17.
Vote:
86S075
and/or easements, for eonstr=etion of roadways
drainage and utilities, or for garden or trailer space
13. The following are prohibited until it has been approve~
by the Architectural Control Committee;
a. No fence shall be erected, placed, or altered o~
any lot.
b. No antenna other than a television antenna shall
be installed.
c. No swim~ing pool shall be censtructed abow
ground.
d.NO single-story main structure shall be of
slab construction.
e. No masonry other than brick or stone shall be lef'
exposed on any structure.
14. Restrictive covenant requiring exterior finis]
materials to be one of the following:
a. Beaded hardboard siding
b. Woodsman siding
c. Wood siding
d. Brick veneer
15. All utilities are to be underground.
16. These covenants are to run with the land and shall be
binding on all parties and all persons claiming unde~
them for a period of twenty (20) years for the dat~
these covenants are recorded, after which time sai¢
covenants shall be automatically extended for al
additional period of ten (10) years unless aI
instrument signed by a majority of the then o~ers o~
the lets has been recorded, agreeing to change ssi(
covenants in whole or in part.
Once developer sells land, he ia no longer responsibl~
for these covenants.
Unanimous
In Bermuda Magisterial District, FIORUCCI FOODS, INC. requested
amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 85S121) tc
permit five (5) residential dwellings and modifications to buffe~
reql~irements along Ruffin Mill Road in a Light Industrial (M-I)
District on part of parcels fronting the north and west lines
Ruffin Mill Road. Tax ~ap 150 (1) Parts of Parcels 4 and 32
Tax Map 150-5 (1) ~art of Parcel 1 (Sheet 42).
~r. Peele stated the Planning Commission considered =bls request
and recommended approval subject to certain conditions, however,
since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has reviewed th~
recommended conditions and is suggesting a~uendments of two
conditions ~c more clearly state that the residential land
will be an accessory use to the industrial land uses.
Mr. John Cogbill, representing the applicant, stated the
amendment to Condition 7 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 conditions:
86-565
1. The following conditions notwithstanding the plan prepar~
by J.K. Timmons and Associates, P.C., revised June 11, 1986
shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. The first dwelling unit constructed shall be placed
that the facade is generally parallel to Ruffin Mill Road
(2)
The twenty (20) foot wide roadway shall be constructed t(
serve the residential units, and shall be located as show]
on the Master Plan. The road shall be constructed t~
all-weather road standards with a minimum aggregate base
six (6) inches. The all-weather road shall have slopin~
shoulders with a well-defined ditch for adequate drainage
Number 21 Or 2lA stone shall be laid over a compacte(
subbase. Ths construction of the road may be phased i!
conjunction with the phasing of the development. (P)
4. Ail houses shall be similar to the renderings submitte(
titled "2848 Ranch," Ryland Modular Homes.
Landscaping shall be installed along the northern an(
eastern boundaries of this use. Where existing vegetatio~
is not sufficient to minimize the view of industrial
development surrounding the dwellings, ornamental an(
evergreen trees and shrubs shall be planted. A conoeptua2
landscaping plan for the entire area shall be submitted t(
the Planning Department for approval prior to release of
first building permit. Required landscaping may
installed in conjunction with the phasing of the construc-
tion. A detailed landscaping plan for each phase shall b~
submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior t¢
release of each individual building permit. (CPC)
6. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U)
7. The dwellings shall be occupied only by employees and famil5
of Fiorucci Foods, Inc., and shall remain under the
ownership of Fiorucci Foods, Inc. The property shall not
subdivided into individual lots and shall be used
connection with the business or industrial operations
Fiorucei Foods, Inc.
8. In conjunction with the approval of this teeniest, the
Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval
the Master Plan, revised June 11, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
86S049 (AMF~NDED)
In Midlcthian Magisterial District, MUSE BUICK, INC. A/~D MATRO~
LIMITED PARTNERSFLIp requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) tc
Community Business (B-2) of 1.9 acres plus Conditional Us~
Planned Development to p~rmlt use and bulk exceptions On thc
proposed and existing zoned Community Business (B-2) parcels
containing a total of 19.5 acres fronting approximately 1,30¢
feet on the west line of Alverser Drive, also frontin¢
approximately 480 feet on Midlcthian Turnpike, and located in th~
northwest quadrant cf the intersection of these roads. Tax Ma~
16-8 (2) Alverser West, Block A, Lots 2 and 3; Tax Map 16-11 (1)
Parcels 12 and 13; and Tax Map 16-12 (6) Alverser West, Block A,
Lot 1 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval o~
the rezoning request on 1.9 acres from Agricultural (A) tc
Community Business (B-2) and denial of Conditional Use Planned
Development on 19.5 acres, the recommendation based on concerns
from area residents. He stated a~ addendum, relating to the
automobile dealership, has been distributed. He stated
subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting there had been
86-566
several discussions among the involved parties which hay,
resulted in modifications to several of the conditions,
particular Condition 5 being amended to increase the buffer width
from fifty (50) feet to seventy-five (75) feet in Tracts 2 and
with existing vegetation plus a solid board fence and extendin~
the solid board fence along the northern boundary of Tract 3
the twenty-five (25) foot buffer.
Mr. Edward Willey, Jr., representing the applicants, stated the
addendum is intended to alleviate the last concern of the
community which is the elimination o~ the automobile dealershi~
repair and related services from the uses permitted in Tract 3.
He stated the applicants have worked diligently to address the
residents' concerns, in particular by addressing buffers
materials to be used in building facades visible to the publi~
roads, exclusion of uses permitted bM the current zoning an~
elimination of some requested uses, automobile dealership
permitted in Tracts 1, 2 and 3 whereas previously limited t(
Tract 3 only, and oth~rs. He stated the Request Analysis
including the addend~, is acceptable to the applicants.
Mr. Tom Essig stated his primary concern, relative to thi~
development, is the protection of property values and th(
protection of one's self from this development. He stated ther~
has been m~eh discussion regarding the proposed development in
attempt to address area citizens' concerns and so many change:
have occurred that, in order to eliminate confusion, he feels th(
original recommendation of the Planning Commission for denis[
should be upheld to allow the applicants the opportunity
resubmit the request in an nnderstandable form rather thai
considering the much amended version. He stated meetings haw
been held but with different people involved who live both nea~
and far away from the site and their concerns are different.
submitted a petition signed by residents of Warminster Drive wh¢
will be most adversely affected by the proposed development an(
who support maintaining the existing B-2 zoning. Me stated th(
proposed development is contrary to the recommended land use fo~
the future development of this area as designated in the propose(
Northern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, which h~
explained in detail. He cited previous zoning cases denied,
setting of a precedent in the area, general land uses in th(
area, the existing residential area with no transition betwee~
business and residential, etc.
Mr. Joe Eoisinean, representing the Olde Coach Village Civic
Association, stated there is no further~hjectio~to the propose[
development since the addendum has eliminated the use permittin(
a motor vehicle service and repair as a~ accessory use te th~
automobile dealership on Tract 3 and other citizens' request~
have been ad~ressed satisfactorily by the developer. He state(
he was not aware of the petition submitted by Mr. Essig, as h~
understood from residents in the area that them were not opposed.
Approximately eight (8) people stood in support of the proposal
including the addendum. One citizen expressed concern tha~
eliminating this use on Tract 3 would leave open the possibilit
of permitting the use on Tracts 1 and 2.
Mr. Peele reviewed, in detail, what was proposed if ~hc Soar.
approved the request, as well as what types o~ plans had bee~
required of other similar zoning requests.
After a lengthy discussion, it was determined that the mechanis~
exists to permit a detailed review of the subject proposal as it
was for other similar uses in this area which preceded this
project.
~r. Boisineau stated there is confusion as to what is meant b~
the term "along Midlothian Turnpike" with respect to the locatio~
of the dealership and whether or not tho residents understand
what is meant by protection with respect to the development oi
the property.
86-567
Mr. Applegate inquired as to what type zoning exists on
a~jacenU property between the propoeed project and Olde Coac~
Village.
Mr. Poole stated the property located between the proposed
d~velopment and Olde Coach Village subdivision is zoned
Agricultural. He outlined the applicants' proposed layout
the project, permitted uses and restrictions and explained
briefly the uses in the general area of the request.
Mr. Dan Culbreth stated he objects to the proposed dealershi~
being oonstr~eted on Tracts 1 and 3 in that i~ a change is mad~
to the zoning in Tract 1 to allow the B-3 exception to permit
automobile dealership then a precedent would be established fha'
could permit other dealerships en the vacant adjacent
property adjacent to Olde Coach Village properties, west of Trac'
1.
Mrs. Girone commented that the adjacent property is presentl'
zoned B-2 and 8J1 automobile dealership would require approval
from the Board and at that time, if the request were approved,
buffer would be established adjacent to the Olde Coach Villag~
properties to screen and protect the residents.
Mr. Culbreth stated he has no problem with the dealership bein!
built on Tract 2 as long as it is built along Route 60; however
he does have a personal concern relative to the development of a~
automobile dealership on Tract 1. He stated his primary concer]
is that permitting the development on Tracts 1 and 3 will set
precedent for future zoning cases.
Mrs. Girone discussed buffers in the general area with referenc
to the adjacent B-2 property to the west.
Mr. Tom Essig reiterated his comments relative to the anticipate(
development of the adjacent B-2 property to the we~t and it~
impact on the residential areas, no transition between uses whic]
makes it unique, etc. He stated he would rather have
original zoning which proposed the dealership on Tract
approved.
Mrs. Girone stated the community has been very involved with
project and expressed her appreciation for the efforts an(
cooperation of staff, the applicants and the residents.
stated that at the sa~e time Olde Coach Village was Zone(
residential the adjacent property wa~. zoned :B,*2 which wa~
probably appropriate for Route 60 but is difficult to deal witl
when it abuts a residential neighborhood. She stated th(
overriding theme, in dealing with this case, has been to get th~
most protection possible for the residential neighborhood.
stated that the proposal the developer and the community haw
derived is to the advantage of the community and the County a~
large in that the developer has agreed to a seventy-five foo~
buffer adjoining the Agricultural property which abuts the Old~
Coach Village property, has permitted the community to review and
delete proposed uses which they feel are undesirable for thc
tract but are normally allowed in such zoning with no buffers,
and that the tract will be developed under Conditional Ua~
Planned Development. She state~ this will allow the property t¢
be developed in a manner that .represents the quality
development desired along this portion of Route 60 and that the
design criteria protects existing and future residential
development to the west.
On motion Of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by J.K. Timmons and Associates, P.C., titled "Buf~e~
Entrance Plan - Alverser Drive," revised 7/18/86, shall be
considered =he Master Plan.
86-568
2. Public water and sewer shall he used. (U)
3. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around ~h~
perimeter of all driveways and parkin~ areas. Dra~nag~
shall be designed sc as not to inter,ere with pedestriaz
traffic. (EE)
4. The Master Plan shall be considered the access plan for the
property, except that the southernmost entrance on Alverse~
Drive shall be eliminated. This condition may be mcdifie¢
by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plat
review if the schematic plan documents that the spirit
intent of minimizing access points to public roadways an~
turning movements near intersections is met.
5. A seventy-five (75) foot buffer shall be maintained alone
the western boundary of Tracts 2 and 3, where adjacent
Agricultural (A) zoning. The seventy-five (75) foot buffex
stall consist of existing vegetation, supplemented with
additional vegetation where necessary to effect prope~
screening, and also a fence shall be installed within
buffer. Specifically, an eight (8) foot high solid board
fence shall be installed and placed a minimum of sixty-five
(65) feet from the property line. Utilities shall
permitted in buffers, provided they run generall
perpendicular through the buffer.
A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained adjacen
to Agricultural (A) zoning along the northern boundary
Tract 3 and the western boundar~ of Tract 4.
twenty-five (25) foot buffer requirements may be modified
through schematic plan review if the Commission determines
that the buffer is not necessary because of the use proposed
on thc tract and/or adjacent development. The buffers shall
be landscaped such tha~ uses are screened from view of
adjacent Agricultural (Al properties. Further, an eight (8)
foot high solid board fence, placed fifteen (15) feet off
the property line, shall be installed within the northern
twenty-five (25) foot buffer in Tract 3.
Also, for any automobile dealership, the storage area fo~
wrecked vehicles and vehicles awaiting repair and for any
use having outside storage, the outside storage areas shall
be screened from view of all adjacent properties and public
roads. A conceptual plan depicting these requirements shal~
be submitted to the Planning Co~iss:ion~'for3approval in con.
junction with schematic plan review~ Prior to any clearin(
or grading, the buffers shall be flagged a~d the Plannin~
Department shall be contacted to inspect the buffersl
within ninety (90) days of rough clearing or grading.
detailed plans depicting these requirements shall
submi=tcd to the Planning Department for approval. (P)
6. Ail buildings and parking areas shall be set back a minim~
of fifty (50) feet from Route 60, unless modified by
Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review.
The Commission may reduce this setback if, upon review o~
detailed plans, they determine that the spirit and intent o~
the fifty (50) fcc: setback can he met in a lesser width.
fifteen (15) foot parking and a thirty (30) foot buildin¢
setback shall be maintained along Alverser Drive. Withi~
the setbacke along Alverser Drive and Route 60, ornamental
trees and shrubs shall be planted. Also, landscaping shal]
be installed within parking areas so as to break up th~
expanse of parking. A conceptual landscaping plan depictin~
this requirement shall be submitted to the Plannin¢
Commission for approval in oo~junc~ion with schematic pla~
review. A detailed landscaping plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for approval within ninety (90) days of rough clearing cz
grading. (p)
86-569
(k)
(1)
(m)
(o)
(P)
(r)
Further,
tracts:
7. Signs shall be as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance for the
Route 60 Special Sign District. A complete sign package fo~
each tract depicting typical styles, colors and materials
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval
at the time c~ schematic plan review for each tract.
Commission, at the time of schematic sign package review,
may modify (either increase or decrease) the Special Sign
District regulations to the extent that tho spirit
intent of the requirements is not violated.
8. There shall be no outdoor speaker or paging systems, excep'
as follows: the Commission may permit outdoor speake~
systems for drive-in restaurants and banks during schemati~
plan review i~ documentation is submitted which proves fha
the speaker system will net be audible from the adjacen'
Agricultural (A) property to the west and north, or are~
residential development.
9. Outdoor lighting shall be low level and positione~ so as ne'
to project light into adjacent Agricultural (A) properties
(p)
10. In conjunction with schematic plan review, render.
ings/elevations shall be submitte~ to the Plannin~
Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plai
review. Ail buildings shall be compatible in materials
color, and style. Building facades visible to public road:
shall employ decorative masonry and/or glass.
11. The following uses shall be prohibited:
(a) dry cleaning plant;
(b) hospitals, rest, nursing, convalescen= homes;
(c) laundromats and coin-operated dry cleaning;
(d) twenty-four (24) medical facilities;
(e) museums;
boarding of animals or o=t~ide runs;
(g) broadcasting towers or dishes;
(h) self-service laundry establishments;
(i) taxidermy;
(j) one mobile home ~cr an owner or operator of a busines~
being conducted on the premises, subject to a mobil~
home permit from the board of supervisors;
outside storage in association with rental operations;
milk distributing station;
pawn and second-hand stores;
lawnmower, garden equipment or chain saw repai~
service;
theaters in Tracts 3 and 4;
other ~otor vehicle transportation;
occult sciences such as palm readers, astrologers,
fortune tellers, tea leaf readers, prophets, etc.;
bowling alleys or roller skating rinks.
the following use exceptions shall be permitted in ali
(al health clubs, spas, indoor racqu/et club - sports
center;
(b) hardware, home and garden center, with outside storag(
of lawn, garden and landscaping materials and supplies,
subject to screening specified herein.
In Tracts 1 and 2, as shown on the Master Plan, automobile
dealerships, drive-in establishments and motor vehicle
~ervice and repair shall also be permitted, provided the
uses are incorporated into the overall development o~ the
tract(s), and the motor vehicle service and repair is
accessory to either an automotive dealership, service
station or an automotive accessory store.
86-570
12. Prior to release of a building permit, thirty-five (35) fe~
of right of way, measured from the centerline of Alverse~
Drive, shall be dedicated to and for the County o~
Chesterfield, ~ree and unrestricted. (T)
13. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installs,
along Route 60 for the entire property ~rontage, aB deeme~
necessary by the Transportation Department and VDH&T. (T)
14. Prior to any clearing or grading and prior to any schemati~
plan approval, the developers shall contact the Olde Coac]
Village Civic Association. Planning Staff shall be provide(
with documentation that this has been accomplished. (P]
(NOTE: Prior to obtaining site plan or building permi~
approval, schematic ~lans must be submitted to the Plannin!
commission for approval.)
Vote: Unanimous
86S079
In Matoaca Magisterial District, DAVID ATKIN$ON requeste(
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) on a 21.~
acre parcel lying at the eastern terminus of Beaverwood Drive an(
extending to the western terminus of Clearwcod Court. Tax Ma]
93-9 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheet
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval
this request and acceptance of the proffered condition.
Mr. Atkinson stated the recommendation is acceptable.
Ms. Mable Wyatt stated she has no objection to the rezoning,
however, she would like to ensure that the houses to be built an¢
lot sizes are compatible with the existing homes on Beaverwoo¢
Drive.
Mr. Atkinson Stated there would only be twelve (12) homes on th(
Beaverwood side and there wo~ld he one stub road to serve this
area. HO stated the proposed homes would be compatible with th~
existing homes in those areas.
Mr. Peele stated the requested zoning and la~%d =se are compatible
with and comparable te area develoDment and adjacent subdivisicn~
and conform to the ~eneral Plan 2000 and the proposed Wester~
Area Land Use and Transportation Plan,
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by F~r. Dedd, the Board approve~
this request subject to the following proffered condition:
No lot will be less than 25,000 square feet in size and,
except for lots on the cul-de-sac bulbs, all lots will be
120 feet wide, minimum, at the front property line.
Vote: Unanimous
In Matoaca Magisterial District, MIDLOTH!AN ERTEPd~RISES, INC.
quested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit uss
exceptions in a Residential (R-15) District on two parcels
consisting of approximately 30.0 acres. The first parcel ~ronts
approximately 920 feet on the south line of Waterfowl Fl!r~ay,
immediately east cf the terminus of Woodland Pond Parkway. The
second parcel fronts approximately 2~000 feet on the northwest
line of ~ash Road at its junction with Licking Creek,
approximately 1.3 miles northeast of Woodpecker Road. Tax Map 94
(1) Part of Parcel 8 and Tax Map 112 (1) Part of Parcels 5 an~
(Sheet 30).
86-571
Mr, Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval
this request subject to certain eondition~,
Mrs. Girone excused herself from the meeting.
Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that his company
property listed for sale in this area, declared a potentia2
conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensiw
Conflict cf Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting.
Mr. Jim Hayes, representing the applicant, stated the recommen~e¢
ccndltions are acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by ~r. DodO, the Board apprcve¢
:his request subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepare¢
by Clower Associates, Inc., dated August 19, 1985, shall b~
considered thc plan of development. (P)
2. Hours cf operation shall be limited to between 8:00 a-M. a~
9:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday; between 8:00 a.m. ant
11:00 p.m., Friday through saturday. Vehicular driveway~
shall be barricaded with a locked gate when the facility
not open for use. (P)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed as necessary
drainage purposes of all parking areas. Drainage shall b~
designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic.
Curb, gutter and drainage design shall be subject to sit~
plan approval. Where curb and gutter are not provided
driveways and parking areas shall be defined by a permaner
meanm (i.e., timber, curb, etc.). (EE&CPC)
4. Parkiag shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) space f¢
each ninety (90) square feet of combined swimming and wadin¢
pool areas and four (4] spaces for each tennis court.
5. There shall be no outside public address system or speakers
6. All outdoor l±qhtings shall be no higher than fifteen (151
feet and shall be designed so as not to project light
adjacent property. With the exception:of:security lighting,
all outdoor lightin~ shall be timed so as not to illuminat~
after 11:00 p.m. (P)
7. One (1) sign to be located at the en=rance on Waterfowl
Flyway shall be permitted. This sign shall not exceed thre~
(3] square feet in area and a height of ten (10) feet. This
sign shall not be lighted. A rendering shall be submitted
to the Planning Department for approval prior to erection
the sign. (P)
8. A fifty (50) foot buffer shsll be provided along th~
~orthern, eastern, and western property lines. Except ~o~
the entrance to the recreation area from Waterfowl Fl~wa~
and the pedestrian access required (Condition 9), nc
clearing and/or facilities shall be permit:ed in this
buffer. (P)
9. An all-weather pedestrian access trail shall be provided
from Woodland Pond Parkway into the site. (P)
10. Public wa:er shall be used. (U)
11. A USe exception for the existing mobile home, located in the
area of the passive recreation area along Nash Road, shall
be permitted for a period not to exceed five (5) years.
This condition may b~ extended by the Planning Commission
during tentative subdivision review. (P)
86-572
12.
Uses permitted in the passive recreation area shall b~
limited to walking/jogging paths, picnic tables, earetaker'~
residence, and the existing boat ramp. These permitte¢
Planning Comissio=
facilities may be modified by the
through schematic plan review.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes.
Absent; Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone.
Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting.
86S081
In Dale Magisterial District, LAMAR PLACE BUILDINS CORPORATI~
requested amendments to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case
82S007) to permit use and bulk exceptions in a Residential (R-7)'
Dietrict On two parcels consisting of 0,6 acres. The first
parcel fronts approximately 100 feet on the east line of Belmont
Road and approximately 145 feet on the north line of Stella Road,
and is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
these roads. The second parcel fronts approximately 48 feet on
the east line of Belmon% Road an~ approximately 138 feet on the
south line of Stella Road, and is located in the southeast
quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 40-12 (9)
Lamar Place, Lots 1 and 2 (Sheet 15).
~-~. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of
this request. He stated staff has received a letter from the
applicant's representative eliminating some of the Convenience
Business (B-i) uses previously requested and the applicant has
also agreed that the con~ercial uses will be located on the first
floor of the building. He stated staff continues, however, te
have concerns relative to the impact that retail uses will have
on adjacent and area residential land uses. He stated that
should the Board see fit to approve this request staff would
recommend the conditions in the addeAdum be imposed.
Mr. N. Leslie Saunders, Jr., representing the applicant,
expressed concern that Condition 3 in the addendum was in~orrect
relative to the rear yard setback requirement.
Mr. Peele stated the Ordinance reguires a twenty-five (25) foot
rear yar~ setback requirement. He stated the original request
granted a fourteen (14) foot exception, therefore, the present
rear yard setback requirement on the building would be eleven
(11) feet. He stated this request is askinq~hat the eleven (11)
foot rear yard setback requirement be reduced to ten (10) feet
therefore, the wording of the condition is correct.
Ms. Connie Jamieson stated she opposes this proposal in fha
there are sufficient numbers cf people and traffic in this area
and that this project will represent overdevelopment of the area.
Mr. Daniel stated there is a concept of continuity in zoning and
when there is a tract, such as B-l, where there is a 7-11 store
adjacent to it then it is difficult to deny a reques~
particularly when conditions have been established that will
protect the landowners in the surrounding area. He inquired
to whether or not there is sufficient vegetation for the parki~
lot to buffer Ms. Jamieson's property from the subject site.
Mr. Saunders s~a~ed there is presently no existing vegetation
sufficiently buffer the project from Ms. J~mieson's property,
however, the applicant would he willing to install some type
buffer.
Mrs. Girone returned to the meeting.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approve(
this request subject to the following conditions:
1. Uses permitted ~hall be limited to those uses permitted
86-573
(r)
(v)
(w)
(y)
(z)
(bb)
(cc)
(dd)
(ce)
(ff)
(gg)
(ii)
(kk)
(11)
(mm)
(oo)
(PP)
(rr)
(ss)
Vote:
the Office Business (0) District plus the following:
(a) Antique shop
(b) Appliance store
(c) Bakery goods
(d) Bank
(e) Barbershop
(f) Beauty shop
(g) Book or stationorl; store
(h) Brokerage
(i) ca,cra s~ore
(j) Candy store
(k} Catering establislument
(1) Cleaning, pressing and laundry
Clothes store
curio or gift shop
Drug store
Dry goods store
Dress shop
Florist shop
Furniture store
Governmental offices
Hobby store
Jewelry store
Locksmith
Meat market
Medical facility or clinic
Messenger or telegraph service
Musical instrument sales
Offices, business and professional
Office supply store
Optometrists sales and services
Paint and wallpaper sales
Photography studio
Radio, television and other home
entertainment sales and service
Restaurants, not including drive-in
establishments
Savings and loan associations
Self-service laundry establishments
Sewing machine sales, instruction,
and service
$~ecialty shops
Sporting goods sales
ghee repair shop
Tailoring and dressmaking shops
Telephone exchanges
Toy store
Variety store
Travel arranging and transportation
ticket services
All uses, other than Office Business (o; u~es, shall be
located within the first floor of the proposed building.
Hours of operation for all uses, o~her than Office Business
(o) uses, shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00
p.m., Monday through S~-~day.
In conjunction with the approval of this request, an
additional one (1) foo~ exception to the previously granted
eleven (11) foot rear yard setback requirement for the
proposed building shall be granted.
(Note: All previously imposed conditions of Conditional US(
Planned Development 82S007 remain applicable. Prior t(
obtaining ~ite plan approval or building permits, schematic
plans must Be submitted to, and approved by, the Planninc
Commission.)
Unanimous
86-574
$6S082
In Clover mill Magisterial District, MAEWA¥ ASSOCIATES requested
amendments tc Conditional Use Planned Develoument (Cases 80S093
and 83S157) to permit use and hulk exceptions in a Convenience
Busine~ (B-i} District on a 6.0 acre parcel frontin~
approximately 55 feet on the east line cf Old Mundred Road, also
fronting approximately 415 feet on the north line o~ Marke~
Square Lane, and located in the northeast quadrant of the inter-
section of these roads. Tax Map 62-6 (1) Part of Parcel 13
(Sheet 20).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval
this request subject to certain conditions.
Mr. J. B. Campbell, representing the applicants, stated the
recommended conditions are acceptable.
Mrs. Eloise A~thur, developer of an adjacent subdivision, stated
she i~ not specifically opposed to this rezoning, however, she is
interested in protecting the homeowners interest and theiz
invest~ent by assuring that the proposed project is developed
a manner that will not be detrimental to the adjacent
subdivision. She expressed concern that the r~ested exceptions
are B-2 and B-3 uses when other area development u~e~ are zoned
B-1. She stated it was their understanding that the buffer would
be seventy (70) feet along the northern property line adjacent tc
the residentially zoned Nuttzee subdivision as opposed to the
amended fifty (50) feet and that they be informed of the date and
time of Planning CoK~ission consideration of any schematic plan.
Mr. Applegate e×plained that Condition ~ addresses Mrs. A~thu~'s
concern regarding the setback reguirement~ for the buildings and
buffers (i.e., all buildings for this development shall be set
back a minimum of seventy (70) feet from the northern property
line where adjacent to the residential zoning and the buffer
shall he s~t back a minimum of fifty (50) feet along the northern
property llne adjacent to the residential zoning.) He stated
that Condition 8 addresses M_rs. Arthur's concern that they be
notified of the date and time of Planning Commission
oo~sideration of any schematic plan and specific concerns could
be addressed at that ti~e.
Mr. Campbell stated Mz. Pond, an adjacent property owner, i8 in
agreement concerning this matter.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
~y The Planning and Design Collaborative dated March 24,
1986, and the Textual Statement submitted with the
application shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. The following conditions notwithstanding, Exhibit B, Sectio:
2 (B-1 Districts) cf 74S021 shall be applicable to thi~
development, and all other stated conditions within th~
original zoning application for Brandermill, relative to B-~
Districts, shall be applicable. (P)
3. Schematic plans shall include the whole tract and shall
be for an individual property within the tract. (P)
4. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along th~
northern property line adjacent to Residential (R-7) zoninc
(i.e., Nuttree Subdivision) and along the northern an~
western property lines adjacent to Tax Map 62-5 (1) Parcel
12. Further, all buildings shall be set back a minimum
seventy (70) fee~ from the ~orthern property line where
adjacent to Residential (R-7) zoning. The ~uffer shall
consist of natural vegetation. Other than ~tilities, whict
run generally perpendicular through the ~uffer, there
86-575
be no facilities permitted in the buffer area. Prior
clearing and/or grading, the buffer area shall be flagge(
and the Planning Department contacted to inspect the buffe~
area. If existing vegetation and/or topography is not
sufficient to provide year-round screening, additiona2
landscaping shall be installed. Parking areas shall
landscaped to break-up the expanse of large paved areas.
conceptual overall landscaping plan shall be submitted
the Planning Department for approval within sixty (601 day!
o~ rough clearing and g~ading, or prior to occupancy of th~
firs~ building, whichever occurs first. (P&CPC)
5. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around th~
perimeter of all driveways, parking areas and public roads
Drainage shall be designed sc as not to interfere witl
pedestrian traffic. (EE)
6. Outdoor lighting shall be iow level and positioned so as no~
to glare or project into adjacent residential
agricultural properties.
7. At the time of schematic plan review, the Planning Commis-
sion may impose additional restrictions which are deems(
necessary to protect adjacent residential uses and ensur(
compatibility with existing commercial development in tht
area. (P)
8, The applicant shall notify Mr. and Mrs. William Arthur ct
the date and time of Planning Commission consideration
any schematic plan. (cPc)
Vote: Unanimous
86S083
In Midlothian Magisterial District, JOHNSTON WILLIS, LTD.
requested amendments to Conditional Uae Planned Development (Cas~
84s109) to permit use (outdoor recreational faoilitiesl
exceptions in an Office Business (O) District On a 1.6 asr(
parcel fronting approximately 350 feet on the north line o~
Center View Drive, approximately 400 ~eet west of Johnston Willi~
Drive. Tax Map 17-6 (1) Part of Parcel 23 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning commission recommended approval o~
this request subject to certain conditions.
The applicant's representative stated the recommended condition~
are acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs, Girone, seconded by Mir. Dodd, the
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
1.
The following conditions notwithstanding, th~ plan titled:
"Robious Sports & Fitness Club," dated Jnne 6, 1986, shall
be considered the ~aster Plan. (P)
The proposed pool shall be screened from view of publi(
roads and adjacent properties. In conjunction with final
site plan review, a screening plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval. (P)
(NOTE: ~xcept as stated heroin, all conditions o~
Conditional Use Planned Development 84s109 remai~
applicable.)
Vote: Unanimous
86-576
In Dale and Bermuda Magisterial Dimtriotm, MCI TELECOMS~3NICATIONS
requested a Conditional Use to permit an above ground utility
structure in an Agricultural (A) District on a 0.3 acre parce3
fronting approximately 370 feet on the north line of Old Lane,
approximately 800 feet west of Chester Road. Tax Map 97-2
Seaboard Systems Railroad Right of Way (Sheet 32).
Mr. Peele mtated the Planning Cor~Rission recommended approval Of
this request subject to certain conditions.
The applicant's representative stated the recommended conditions
are acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded hy Mr. Daniel, the ~card approved
this request subjmct to the following conditions:
1. The following condition notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Baker and Associates, dated February 19, 1986, shall be
considered the plan of development. (P)
2. Evergreen shrubs, having a sufficient density and height to
minimize the view of the use from Old Lane, shall be
installed along the southern perimeter of the facility. In
conjunction with the submimsien of final site plans,
detailed la/%dscaping plan depicting this requirement shall
be submitted for approval. (P)
Vote: Una~£mous
865089
In Matoaoa Magisterial District, DOUGLAS R. SOWERS requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) on a 95.0
acre parcel lying approximately 2,000 feet off the north line of
Spring Run Road, and approximately 600 feet off the northern
terminus of Millhouse Drive. Tax Map 76 (1) Parcel $7 (Sheets 20
and 21).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Co~%~ission recommended approval of
this request subject to acceptance of the proffered condition.
Mr. Douglas Sowers stated the recommendation is acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
this request subject to acceptance of the following proffered
condition:
Minimum lot size shall be 25,000 square feet.
Vote: Unanir~ous
86S090
In Clover Rill Magisterial District, H.W. ELANKENSRIp AND SONSj
I~C. requested amendment to a Conditional Use (Case 84S128) plu.
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bul)
exceptions in an Agricultural (A) District on a 5.1 acre parcel
fronting approximately 540 feet on the east llne of Warbro Road,
approximately 525 feet south of Genito Road. Tax Map 48-3
Part of Parcels 4, 5, and 6 (Sheet 13).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission reeoR~ended approval
this request subject to certain eondition~.
86-577
Mr. Vernon LaPrade ~tated the recommended conditions ar~
acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepare~
by Potts and Minter, dated March 26, 1986, shall be
considered the Master Dian. This development shall
confined to a single entrance/exit along Warbro Road. (P&T)
2. A thirty (30) foot buffer shall he maintained along Warbr¢
Road. With the exception of a single access to Warbro Road,
there shall be no other facilities permitted in this bu~er.
The buffer shall be landscaped with ornamental trees an¢
shrubs to supplement existing vegetation. Outside storag~
areas shall be screened from view of adjacent properties
either landscaping or fencing. A landscaping plan depic~in~
this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Depart-
ment for approval in conjunction with site plan review. (P)
3. Uses permitted ~hall be limited to a contractor's office,
service bays, storage yard, office-warehouses and ware-
houses. There shall be no other commercial or industria~
activity permitted on the site.
4. One (1) sign, not to exceed eight (8) square feet in
and a height of ten (10) feet, shall be permitted identi-
fying this use. (P)
5. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, additional
pavement shall be constructed along Warbro Road, as deemed
necessary by the Transportation Department and VDH&T. (T)
6. The access drive and adjoining customer parking area shall
be paved. If office-warehouses, warehouses, or othez
contractor's offices are constructed, all parking areas anc
driveways shall be paved. Any outside storage areas shall
either be graveled with a minimum of six (6) inches of #21
or 2lA stone, or shall be paved. (P)
7. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around th~
perimeter of all paved driveways and parking areas. Ail
gravel parking areas shall be delineated, by a permanent
means (i.e., tirabers, railroad ties, etc.) (ER&P)
8. Prior to release of any building permits, thirty-five (35)
feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Warbrs
Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of
Chesterfield, free and unrestricted.
9. A ten (10) foot exception to the fifteen (15) foe% side yard
setback requirement in Agricultural (A) District shall be
granted for the proposed office and service bays only. All
other structures shall comply with setback requirements.
10. The previous conditions notwithstanding, all bulk require-
ments of the General Business (B-3) District shall apply.
This Conditional Use Planned Development supersedes Condi-
tional Use 84S128.
Ye:e:
Unanimous
86S091
In Matoaca Maqisterial District, ROY B. REEVES requested a Condi-
tional USe to permit a second dwelling in an Agricultural (A)
86-578
District on a 4.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 400 feet
the north line of Happy Hill Road, approximately 1,100 feet west
of Tarris Lane. Tax Map 132-12 (3) Forest Heights, Lot 5 (Sheet
41).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval
this request s~bjeet to certain conditions.
Mr. Reeves stated his primary concern is regarding th~
right-of-way. He stated he feels the request for forty-five (45)
feet of right-of-way along Happy Hill Road is in excess of th~
CoUnty's needs and that the manner in which the County is askinc
for it is not the way by which long term residents of the Count'
should be requirzd to dedicate land.
Mr. MoCracken explained that staff's original recommendatior
relative to this request, had been for forty-five (45) feet
right-of-way, which would be consistent with the Southerr
Planning Area Land Use and Transportation Plan. He stated,
however, the Planning Commission amended this requirement b
reducing the right-of-way to thirty-five (35) feet because the
Southern Planning Area Land Use and Transportion Plan was adopted
subsequent to the Planning Commission's action on this request.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Dodd expressed concern that the forty-five (45) right-of-was
requirement along ~appy Hill Road is being required in order
the applicant to develop residential property.
Mr. Micas stated that before the Board can require dedication
rights-of-way that they must be satisfied that the need for th~
dedication is substantially generated by the proposed
development.
Mr. Daniel stated the head for thi~ right-of-way was identifie,
through the public hearing process when the Southern Planni~
Area Land Use and Transportation Plan was presented fei
consideration and adoption. He stated the adopted land use plat
recommends that Happy Mill Road be a ninety (90) foot right-
of-way ultimately, and the Board should be consistent in the
application of these Plans.
Mr. Atkinson stated that no one likes to give away land but if
the County has a need to straighten or widen the road then future
dedication of rights-of-way could be gi~e~'consideration.
Mr. Mayas stated that in his discussion with the applicant h~
understood that Happy Mill Road is designated as a seventy (70)
foot right-of-way. Mr. McCracken indicated that the General Plan
2000 designates the read as a seventy (70} foot right-of-way;
however, the adopted Southern Planning Area Land Use and
Transportation Plan designates the road as a ninety (90) foot
right-of-way. Mr. Reeves explained the house will be occupied by
his mother but stated becauee of subdivision restrictions he can
not create two (2] lots.
Mr. Dodd stated that if the applicant were attempting to
construct a subdivision or commercial uses he would not hesitate
to require the forty-five (45) feet of right-of-way; however,
under the circumstances, he did not feel this case fits the
routine, normal set of circumstances for requiring the forty-five
(45) feet of dedicated right-of-way.
Mr. Applegate stated he felt the Board should he consistent in
its application of adopted land use and transportation plans.
Mr. Mayas stated he needs additional information relative to this
request to resolve questions raised. He stated he wished to be
consimtent in the application of the recently adopted Souther~
86-579
Planning Area Land Use and TransDortation Plan or the pendin~
Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan and weuld like
additional time to consider the facts involved in this case.
On motion o~ Mr. Hayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferre(
this request until August 27, 1986.
The applicant stated a deferral would be agreeable as he ha(
already obtained his building permit.
In response to a question by Mr. Applegate, Mr. Poole explaine¢
that thc applicant was issued a building permit with th~
understanding that if this request were approved the applicant
could construct two dwellings but if the request were denied the!
the applicant would remove the old structure prior to
occupancy of the new struot~re.
Vote: Unanimous
12. ADJOURNMENT
It wa~ generally agreed that there should be a work session hel(
on the County Charter tentatively OR A~g~$t 13, 1986, at 10:0(
adjourned at 3:20 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. on July 30, 1986,
Monacan High School.
Ri~h~d L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Chairman
86-580