08-27-1986 Minutes MIN%FfE$
AUgUSt 27, 1986
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Chairman
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Vic~ Chairman
Mr- G- H- Applegate
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Jesse J. Mayes
Mr. Richard L. Medrick
County Administrator
Staf~ in Attendance:
Mr- Stanley R. Balderscn,
Dir., Econ. Develop.
MS. Sherry Barnes, Public
Information Specialist
Mrs. Doris De,art, Dir.,
Legislative Services
Mr. Gary Fenton, Chief of
Recreation
Mr- Mike Golden, Act. Dir.
Parks and Recreation
Mr. Bradford S. Hammer,
Asst. CO- Administrator
Mr. R. J. McCracken,
Transp. Director
Mr- Richard M. McElfish,
Dir., Env. Eng.
MrS. Mary A. MoGuire,
County Treasurer
Mr. Robert Masden, Ass=.
Co. Adm. for H~man
Services
Mr. Steven L. Micas,
County Attorney
Mr. Richard Normally,
VPI Extension Agent
Mr. William D. Peele, Act.
Dir., Planning
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir.,
Budget & Accounting
Mr. Richard F. Sale, Asst.
Co. Adm. ~or Development
Mr. Russell Sink, Airport
Manager
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Exee. Ass~., Co. A~m.
Mr.~avid Welshons, Dir.,
of Utilities
Mr. Frederick W. Willis,
Dir. of Human Resource
Management
Mr. Dodd called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:10
a.m. (EDST).
1 · INVOCATION
Mr. Medrick introduced Reverend John E. Leonaid,
Church of the Epiphany, who gave the invocation.
2. PLEDGE OF ~LRGIANCE TO THE PLA~ O~ TH~ ~TED STATES OF
The Pledge of Allegiance
America was recited.
3. APPROVAL OF MiNUTES
3.A. AbIEND JULY 9t 1.986
on motion of Mr. Applegate,
to the Flag of tho United States of
seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
86-632a
approved the following amendment to the minutes of July 9,
"On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved full participation in the Richmond Regional Cer%ifie~
Development Company, directed staff to work with the RRPDC to
develop a formal agreement for establishment of the Richmond
Certified Development Company and appropriated $16,860 from the
General Fund Contingency as the County's share of the first year
budget, contingent upon 100% participation by other RRPDC member
jurisdictions".
11.I.4. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROPOSAL FOR RICHI40ND SBA 503
CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Mr. Applegate Stated the July 9, 1986 minutes reflected that
which took place at the meeting and the amendment to the minutes
is correct; however, he wished to amend his motion as him intent
had been to include each member of the Planning District
Commission, with the exception of Richmond, since Richmond has
its own SBA-503 program.
Mr. Micas explained that, in order to change the action, it would
be necessary to suspend the rules, add the item to the agenda foe
consideration, rescind the previous resolution and adopt a
resolution that would conform to Mr. Applegate's intent.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
suspended the rules to permit consideration of Item 11.I.4.,
Chamber of Commerce Proposal for Richmond SBA 503 Certified
Development Company; rescinded the previously adopted motion free
the July 9, 1986 meeting, and approved full participation in the
Richmond Regional Certified Development Company, directed staff
to work with the RRPDC to develop a formal agreement
establishment of the Richmond Certified Development Company and
appropriated $16,860 from the General Fund Contingency as the
County's share of the first year budget, contingent upon 100%
participation by other RRPDC member jurisdictions, with the
exception of Richmond who currently has their own SBA 503
program.
Vote: Unanimous
3.B. AUGUST 11, 1986
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel,
approved the minutes of August 11, 1986, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
the Board
3.C. AUGUST 13, ~986
On motion of Mr. ~ayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate,
approved the minutes of August 13, 1986, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
the Board
4. COUNTY ADMiNISTI~A~'S C(3{~ENTS
Mr. Hedriok recognized Ms. Sherry Barnes, Public Information
Specialist for the Parks and Recreation Department, who has been
temporarily in charge of the News and Information Departmen=
while Mrs. Mitchell has been on vacation.
Chief Pittman introduced Ms. Barbara Condrey, Ms. Rose Jones,
Anne ~avey, Ms. Pearl Golf and MS. Donna ~oulsen, all of whom
were involved in the development of the 911 Coloring Book
Project, which illustrates the use of the 911 emergency exchange
86-633
and was distributed throughout the school system. The Bear~
expressed appreciation to the group for their diligent efforts in!
accomplishing their task.
5.
Mr. Daniel stated he attended the Airport Commiseion meeting at
which the formal appointment of the Bxeoutive Director was
announced; attended the Richmond Regional Planning District
Commission MPO meeting at which the primary discussion was the
Governor's Transportation Program; presented closing remarks at
the Economic Development Conference, at which the necessity for
having in place the Chippenham/Laburnum Bridge was discussed as
being an integral part of the transportation network for direct
access to the Richmond International Airport from Chesterfield
County and at which the Chesterfield Business Council was
requested to bring this item to the forefront of its agenda;
attended the Summer Concert Series at the Boulders, at which the
significance of the contributions made by the summer concert
series was poln~ed out; and noted that the Parks program is being
utilized by the Boulders as a selling point for their development
programs and it is well received by major corporations.
Mr. Applegate stated the Airport traffic was up 14% for the month
of July, with the increase year-to-date running at 17% as
compared to the national average of 4.6%; that the new baggage
carousels are expected to be open in approximately two (2) weeks
and the ticket counter space for some of the airlines is
partially complete. Re announced the selection of Mr. Gary T.
Rice, who will be replacing Mr. Anthony Dowd, as the Executive
Director effective January 1, 1987. He further sta=ed it is
anticipated there will be a new entrance for the Airport which
will eliminate problems exiting the parking areas.
Mr. Mayes stated he attended one session of the Chesterfield
county Economic Development Conference; attended the reception
for Mr. Robert Bobb, the new Richmond City Manager; and was
invited to become a member of the Civilian Military Council at
Fort Lee, which it is anticipated that Chesterfield County will
be asked to join.
Mrs. Sirone stated she attended the opening of the Richmond
Convention Center at which she met Mr. Robert Bobb, Richmond's
new City Manager; attended the Water Resources Task Force at the
P. RPDC, at which a recorm~endation for a detergent ban was
considered which is in concert with the State proposed
legislation for cleaning out the chesapeake Bay; attended a local
Ben Air meeting at which there was discussion and concern
regarding the potential establishment of a home in the area for
four (4) adult mentally retarded patients; attended the LGOC
meeting in Charlottesville at which me,doers of the Governor'e
staff addressed the Transportation Committee and Executive
Committee in an effort to gain eupport for the Governor's
Commission Report on Transportation; attended the Employee of the
Year Awards at the Community Services Board; attended a one day
session of the Economic Development Conference; and attended a
meeting in Midlothian reviewing the coal mines, plans for oappin,
nine (9) mines and the restoration of one of the mine shafts.
Mr. Dodd stated he, Mrs. McGuire, Mr. Ramsey, Mr. Minck~, and Mr
Eedrick attended the $30,000,000 bo~d closing sale in New York.
REQUESTS TO POSTPONEACTION~ ~ERGENC~.ADDITIONS OR C~AN~R~
IN THEOP. DER OFI~TTATION
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr..Mayes, the Board added
Item 11.o., Executive Session, coneultation with counsel
regarding the legal consequences oM obtaining a city charter,
pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (6) of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended; and adopted the amended agenda.
86-634
Vote: Unanimous
7. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL P~ECOGNITION
7.A. MR. HAROLD B. JONES UPON R~ZTIREFT/NTf UTILITIE~ DEPARTMENT
Mr. Welchons introduced Mr. Jones and briefly outlined his
experience and dedication to the County.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Barold B. Jones will retire from the Utilities~
Department, Chesterfield County, on September 9, 1986: and
W~%~, Mr. Jones has provided 22 years of guality service
to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Mr. Jones' diligent service.
NOW, T~F/~KFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board of
Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Jones and extends on behalf
cf its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County thei~
appreciation of his service to the County.
AND, BE IT FU~£~ RESOLVED, that a copy of this Rescl~tio~
be presented to Mr. Jones and that thi~ Re~clution be permanentl~
recorded among the papers e~ this Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd presented the executed resolution to Mr. Jones and
introduced Mrs. Jones, who was also present.
THE 9TH ANNUAL RAINBOW OF THE ARTS FESTIVAL CObVfRIBUTORS
Mr. Fenton introduced Mr. John Tremellen of the Holida~
Inn-Chester, Mr. ~ary Foster of the Holiday Inn-Bells Road and
Ms. Diane Griffin of Dick Strauss Ford-Isuzu, whose organizations
were contributors to the 9th Annual Rainbow o~ the Arts Festival.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
~, the 1986 Rainbow of Arts represents a co~unit~
oriented celebration of the arts, and creative activities play an
important role in this special event~ and
WnM~AS, the support of Dick Straua~ Ford-Isuzu will make
possible the supplies necessary for these creative activities.
NOW, TB]~)KE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors
does hereby recognize Dick Strauss for his support o~ the Rainbo~
of Arts event.
AND, BE IT FUR'r~/ RESOLVED, that the Board o~ Supervisors
does hereby express its sincere appreciation and gratitude to
Dick Strauss for his generosity and goodwill.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
W~U~EAS, the Chesterfield County ~arks and Recreation
Department functions =o positively effect the quality o~ llfe in
Chesterfield County: and
WHEREAS, the provision o~ high quality special events
86-635
represents an important component of the Department's services
and
WIIEREAS, the 1986 Rainbow of Arts will represent
enjoyable, family oriented celebration of the arts, as well as
tribute to the positive impact the arts have on our lives and
co~Lmunity; and
WHEREAS, Boliday Inn-Belle Road has chosen to provide
significant support for this annual community wide event.
NOW, THEP~FOi~E BE IT P, ESOLVED, that the Chesterfield Connt~
Board e~ Supervisors does hereby recognize Moliday Inn-Bells Road
for their generous conUribu=ion to the even~ and ~o the citizens
c~ Chesterfield County.
AND, BE IT FUR'x~u~K ~J~$OLV~D, that the ~eard of Supervisors
does hereby express its sincere appreciation and gratitude
Holiday Inn-Bells Road for their goodwill and corm~unity concern.
Vote: Unanimous
On metion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
W~uo~FJkS, the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreatio~
Department ~unction~ to positively effect the quality of life ir
Chesterfield Count¥~ and
WHEPJ~A~, the provision of high quality special events
represents an important component of the Department's services
and
WI{EREAS, the 1986 Rainbow of Arts represents an enjoyable
family oriented celebration of the arts, as well as a tribute tc
the positive impact the arts have on our lives and community; and
Wku~/~J%S, Holiday Inn-Chester has chosen to provide
significant support for this annual eo~Lmunity wide event.
NOW, T~E~(~E BE IT I~ESOLIFED, that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors does hereby recognize Holiday Inn-Cheete~
for their generous contribution to the event and to the citizen~
of Chesterfield County.
~ND, BE IT FL~£~ ~]~SOLVED, that the Hoard of ~uperviaors
does hereby express its sincere appreciation and gratitude tc
Holiday Inn-Chester for their goodwill and community concern.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd presented each contributor with the executed resolution
and expressed appreciation for their participation in the event.
7. C, NAMING CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AIRPORT THE "MELVIN W. BURNETT
AIRPORT"
It was generally agreed consideration of this item would
deferred until 2:00 p.m.
B. HF~ARINGS OF CITIZENS ON U~SCHKDULED MA'~-£~ OR CLAI~
he
Mr. Hedrick stated there were no hearings of citizens scheduled
at this time.
9. DBFERR~D ITEMS
Mr. Hedriok stated there were no deferred items for consideration
at this time.
86-636
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
10.A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDKR CONVEYANCE OF LEASES OF REAL
PROPERTY AT VARIOUS COUNTY PARK SITES
Mr. Medrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider the conveyance of lease~ of real
property at various park sites.
Mr. Mike Golden presented a brief summary of the request.
No one came forward to address the matter.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the
necessary documents for seasonal contracts to the Chesterfield
Quarterback League for Huguenot Park, Iron Bridge Park,
Courthouse Athletic Complex and Goyne Park for the period of
September 1, 1986, to December 1, 1986, to operate food
concessions~ and long term leases for the period of September 1,
1986, to September 1, 1989, to the Ettrick Youth Sports
Association for Ettrick Park and to the Matoaca Athletic
Association for Matoaca Park to operate food concessions.
Vote: Unanimous
10.B. PUBLIC REARING TO CONSIDER CONVEYANCE OF A TRACT OF LAND
CONTAINING 1± ACRES AT THE CHESTERFIELD AIRPORT
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider conveyance of a tract of land
containing 1± acres at the Chesterfield Airport which parcel is
shown on a plat of survey entitled "Survey and Map showing 1.00!
acres of land on Whitebark Terrace in Chesterfield County,
Virginia".
Mr. Balderson presented a brief summary of the request.
No one ca~e forward to address the matter.
On motion of Mr. ApDlegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, :he Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the
necessary documents for the sale of a 1.00~ acre tract (at
$25,000 per acre), located on the southeastern aide of Whitebark
Terrace, in the Airport Industrial Park to Sealeze Corporation.
Vote: Unanimous
ll. N-EWBUSINESS
RESOLUTiO~ TO SCHOOL SYSTF24 R~QUESTI~G PRIORITY TO
SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAMS PRIOR TO ENSUING
SCHOOL YEAR
Mr. Applegate stated the proposed resolution was prompted b5
reeent telephone calls an~ conversations with his csnstituant~~
seeking clarification of the school system's drug policy and how
they will implement the policy. He stated the proposed
resolution requests the School Board and Administration giv{
priority to dru~ abuse prevention programs and strategies, ask~
these agencies to make the public aware of the extent of an5
current problem in the schools and advise the public about plan~
to deal with that dilemma. ~e stated he felt ~he action of th~
resolution is even more appropriate now, than previously, in tha~
the Governor as well as the Attorney General have baceme involved
in the statewide problem, the Richmond Public School System is
considering drug testing of its school bus drivers, and data i~
the Gallop Poll indicates the public has idantified drug abuse as
86-637
the biggest problem confronting ~chool systems today. He stated
he felt the course of action the School Board, School
Administration and Board of Supervisors should take would be to
make the issue of freeing the schools of drug abuse and
protecting the youth and families that will be affected a top
priority. He stated while, he does not believe the schools have
a widespread drug problem, even a small number of users is too
many and he would like the school's policy spelled out clearl
for the community.
Mr. Dodd voiced his support for the resolution as he ~elt it i
time for the Boar~ to make its position on this issue known. He
stated the proposed resolution issues a declaration of concern
that this problem is a serious problem and should be addressed.
Mr. Daniel voiced his support of the resolution and stated he
agrees that the Board should take a position on the issue in
support of positive action to counter drug abuse of all forms.
He stated he felt it appropriate for a governing body, such as
the Board, to stand accountable on an issue such as this. He
stated it m~y be tha~ procedures will have to be put into place
in the future to make this resolution have meaning and the Board
needs to establish what those policies and procedures are.
Mr. Mayas voiced his support of the resolution but expressed
concern that the resolution should address the problem on a
community-wide scale. He stated he felt the problem should be
addressed head on in that expelling individuals from schools into
the co,unity does not resolve the problem. Mr. Applegate stated
he had discussed this issue with others and the Police Department
and Social Services groups have voiced their support of the
resolution.
Mrs. Girone voiced her support of the resolution and inquired i~
the Youth Services Commission, might be included in the
resolution as they are active in addressing the needs of the
youth in the community, one of their previous projects being the
abolition of substance abuse.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WBEREAS, substance abuse has become a major national problem
of devastating proportions; and
WHERFO%~, the availability and potential impacts of potent
new derivatives such as "crack" threatens the lives cf our
citizens, particularly our youth; and
WHEi{EAS, Chesterfield County governmental agencies such as
the Community Services Board and Bolioe are waging a formidable
campaign to prevent substance abuse through a variety of
programs; and
WHEREAS, voluntary agencies such as Greater Richmond
Informed Parents are providing a wide range of Communit
Education Programs; and
WHEREAS, the youth of our County spend a significant pottle:
of their time in the public schools where attitudes are formed
value systems developed for dealing with peer pressure.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVF~D, that the Chesterfield Count
Board of Supervisors requests the Chesterfield County Schoo
Board, School Administration and Youth Services Commission to
give priority to Substance Abuse Prevention Programs and
Strategies; to carefully assess and make the public aware of th~
ex=ant of current problems; and to advise the public of its
programs and plans for dealing with substance abuse and relatec
problems prior to the ensuing school year; and
86-638
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County urges each and every citizen to join with the
County agencies, our schools and voluntary agencies in the battl~
to prevent substance abuse and its debilitating effects on
individuals and families.
ll.b. ADDITION OF PRINC~ G~OKG~ COUNqSY TO RECIPROCAL
FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS DEALING WITH CONTROLLED DRUGS
Chief Pittman stated Prince George County desires to enter
the reciprocal agreement, with the police departments
Petersburg, Colonial Heights, Chesterfield and Dinwiddie, which
provides for the cooperative furnishing of police services t¢
enforce laws controlling the use or sale of drugs in any of
member jurisdictions. He further stated all of the present
member jurisdictions support this request.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of chesterfield
County that the Chairman be, and hereby is, authorized and
directed to execute a reciprocal agreement, dated August 27, 1986
among the City of Petersburg, the City of Colonial Heights, the
County of chesterfield, the County of Dinwiddie and the County of
Prince George, Virginia, regarding the control or prohibitio~
sale of controlled drugs, in accordance with the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended.
BE IT RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the Clerk of tho Board be, and
she is hereby, directed to affix to the reciprocal agreement the
seal of the County of Chesterfield, and to attest the same.
Vote: Unanimous
11.C. HOUSEHOLD HAZAI~DOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAY
Mr. Nunnatly stated the Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Day is
scheduled for October 4, 1986, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., at
Manchester ~igh School. He stated citizen response has bee~
encouraging, with surveys indicating the primary objects of
concern for disposal being pesticides and leaded paints.
stated the estimated cost of the contract is approximately
$24,000; however, the Keep Chesterfield County Clean Cerporatio~
has solicited financial support of approximately $6,000 fro~
local industry to defray the costs over the original
authorized by the Board, with pledgee having been confirmed.
~r. Daniel inquired if the contractor has all the necessar~
permits to receive, manifest and ship all unknown hazardous
materials collected at this site, as it is very difficult tc
transport ma~erials of this type and he further instructed the
County Attorney to verify all the legal documents relating tc
this project to certify that the County can not be held tiabls
should anything go wrong in the field of hazardous waste.
Mr. NuJ~nally stated the contractor, GSX Corporation, has not only
provided copies of the permit but also stated, in writing, that
they take the position az generator of the material.
Mr. Mayes questioned if there is a policy on the handling of
hazardous waste disposal. He expressed concern ~hat the County
has a responsibility for establishing a policy On how to dispose
of hazardous waste material.
Mr. Hedriek stated this progra~ is an experimental program,
however, staff felt it would bo advisable to evaluate the event
to determine if future expanded programs would be feasible. He
stated the policy for disposing of household hazardous waste
86-639
material, to-date, is regulated through the actual disposal
process, which is regulated by the State Health Department, the
State Corporation Commission and the State Water Control Board.
Mr. Dodd stated he felt the subsidizing of this project by
various local industries is commendable.
Mr. Medrick commended Mr. Nunnally and his staff ~or their
efforts in obtaining the funding for this program thereby making
it a public/private partnership.
Mrs. Girone stated the concepf for fhis project originated from a
citizen volunteer on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Committee and
that the staff and the volunteers on the committee have exerted
much time and effort on this project. She commended them for a
job well done.
Mr. Daniel stated he did not participate in the solicitation of
the funds obtained from the Philip Morris Corporation.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to enter into a
contractual agreement with GSX Corporation for ~he disposal of
housahold hazardous waste materials on October 4, 1986, from 9:00
a.m. to 1:00 p.m., at Manchester High School, with the
understanding that a supplemental appropriation will be requested
if costs exceed available funds.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.D. APPROVAL OF MASTER LEASE FINANCING
~r. Ramsey sta~ed ~hat in the FY 86-87 budge~ adop~e~
lease/purchase funding was included for the 800 Megs-Hertz radios
in the Police Department and for the Computer Automated
Assessment System (CAMA) in the Assessor's Office. Me stated
that in discussions with financial institutions it became clear
That CA.~A would be difficult to finance because the project is
predominantly salaries, therefore, the Automatic call Distribute]
(ACD) in the Police Department was identified as a replacemenl
for the Assessor's CAMA system to be lease/purchase financed.
After some discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconde¢
by Mr. Mayes, the Board resolved that the Board approve
authorize the County Administrator to enter into a contract wit~
the low bidder, Union Tidewater, with an interest rate of 6.27%,
for the Master Lease Financing for the purchase o£ variou~
equipment items (800 Mega-Mertz radio~ and Automatic Call
Distributor (ACD) in the Police Department) planned in th~
1986-87 budget.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.E. REpUEBT FOR ENTERTAINMENT/MUSICAL FESTIVAL pEP~W_IT FOR
WWBT-CHA~I~EL 12 BALLOON RACE
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Boar(
approved a musical/entertainment permit for WWBT-Channel 12 fo!
the Balloon Race to be held at the County Airport on August 30,
31 and September 1, 1986, ~onditioned upon receipt of a $5,00(
deposit a~d certificate of insurance in a form acceptable to th~
Risk Manager.
Vote: UnanimoUS
ll.F. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH VIRGINIA POWER FOR ELECTRIC
SERVICE RATES FROM JULY~ 1985 TO JULY~ 1988
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applega=e, the Board
approved and authorized the county Administrator to execute th6
86-64O
proposed Virginia Puwer Rate Agreement, which rate was negotiate~
by VACO and V~L aS in previous years, and will be in effect
retroactively from July, 1985 to July, 1988.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.G. CONSENT ITF/~S
ll.G.1. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
This day the County ~nvironmental Engineer, in accordance wit~
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon hie
examination of Harley Drive in Rorner's Plan, Clover Hill
District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate~
seoonded by Mrs. Girone, it is resolved that Harloy Drive
Horner's Plan, Clover Hill 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 ~ requested t~
take into the Secondary system, ~arley Drive, beginning at th{
intersection with Courthouse Road, State Route 604, and goin~
0.07 mile southeasterly to a cul-de-sac.
This request ~s inclusive of the a~jacent slope, site distance
and designated Virginia Department of Highways dralnag~
easements.
This road serves 6 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisor~
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
right-of-way for this road.
Hornet's Plan is reoorded as follows:
Plat Book 45, Page 88, May 11, 1984.
Homer's Plan Resubdivisien of a portion of Lot 7 and all of Lo~
8.
Vote: U~anir~ous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance wit~
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon hi~
examination of Hunters Ridge Drive, Hunters Ridge Lane,
Hobblebush Terrace and Hobblebush Circle in ~unters Ridge,
Sections One and Two, Midlothian District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mrs. Girone, it is resolved that Hunters Ridge Drive,
Hunters Ridge Lane, Hobblebush Terrace and Hobblebush Circle iE
Hunters Ridge, Sections One and Two, Midlothian District, be an(
they hereby sro established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department o~
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is rogues=cd t~
take into the Secondary System, Hunters Ridge Drive, beginnin~ a~
the intersoction with Genito Road, State Route 604, and goin¢
0.11 mile southerly to the intersection with Hunters Ridge Lane
then continuing 0.21 mile southerly to a cul-de-sac; Hun~er~
Ridge Lane, beginning at the intersection with Hunters Ridg(
Drive and going 0.07 mile westerly to the intersection wit~
Hobblebush Terrace, then continuing 0.19 mile westerly to ~
cul-de-sac; Hobblebush Terrace, beginning at the intersee~io~
with ~unters Ridge Lane and ~oing 0.11 mile southwesterly to th~
intersection with Hobblebush Circle, then continuing 0.06 mil~
southwesterly to a cul-de-sac; and ~obblebush Circle, beginnin~
at the intersection with Hobblebush Terrace and going 0.13 mil~
westerl~ to a cul-de-sac.
86-641
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site d±stanee
and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage
easements.
These roads serve 44 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department o~ Highways a 50'
right-of-way for all of these roads.
These suctions of Hunters Ridge are recorded as ~ollow~:
Section One. Plat Book 44, Pages 37 & 38, October 27, 1983.
Section Two. Plat Book 48, Pages 52 & 53, January 29, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Quisem_berry Street, Iverson Road, Brookforest
Road, Quite Road and Colgrave Road in Clarendon, Sections F and
G, Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereo~, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Firs. Sirens, it is resolved that Quisenberry Street,
Iverson Road, Brookforest Road, Quite Road and Colgrave Road in
Clarendon, Sections F ~ s, Clover Hill District, be and the
hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Seconday System, Quisenberr~ Street, beginning
where state maintenance ends, Quisenberry Street, State Route
2114, and going 0.05 milo northerly to the intersection with
Quite Road, then continuing 0.02 mile northerly to tie into
proposed Quisenberry Street; Iverson Road, beginning at the
intersection with McManaway Drive, State Route 2113, and going
0.20 milo northerly to the intersection with Quite Road, then
continuing 0.02 ~ile northerly to tie into proposed Iverson Road;
Brookforost Road, beginning at the intersection with McManaway
Drive, State Route 2113, and going 0.09 mile northerly to the
intersection with Quite Road, then continuing 0.02 mile northerly
to tie into proposed Brookforest Road; Quite Road, beginning at
the intersection with Brookforest Road and going 0.16 mile
easterly to the intersection with Iverson Read, then continuing
0,06 mile easterly to the intersection with Colgrave Road, then
continuing 0.08 mile easterly to intersection with Q=isenberry
Street; and Colgrave Road, beginning at the intersection with
Quite Road and going 0.02 mile northerly to tie into proDosed
Colgrave Road.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distanc~
and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainag~
easements.
These roads serve 83 lots.
And be it ~urther resolved, that the Board of superviscr~
guarantees ~o the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
right-of-way for all of these roads.
These sections of Clarendon are recorded as follows:
Section F. Plat Book 35, Page 67, March 17, 1980.
Section G. Plat Book 41, Page 96, October 27, 1982.
vote: Unanimous
86-642
11.~.2. REQUEST FOR FIREWORKS PERi~IT
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Boar(
approved a fireworks display permit for Mr. John Creamer, Jr.,
General Manager of the Sheraton Motel, to stage a fi~ework~
display at the Sheraton Hotel on Septe~lber 1, 1986,
conjunction with the hotel's grand op~ning, contingent upoi
approval from the Fire Marshal and Risk Manager, in accordance
with the ~ollowing conditions:
1. Mr- Creamer must contact and obtain the approval of the Fir~
Marshal on August 29, 1986, that conditions are not too dry
to conduct the fireworks display.
2. Sheraton Hotel must submit a certificate of insurance for
least $1,000,000 of fireworks liability insurance naming
County as oo-i~sure~, in a form acceptable to the Risk
Manager, no later than August 29, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.M. APPOINTMENTS
ll.H.1. APPOINTMENTS TO THE YOUTH SERVICES CO~ISSION
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Boar~
appointed the following members ~c the Youth Services Commission
whose terms are effective immediately and expire as indicated:
Matoaca District:
Mrs. Ar~% ~icks June 30, 1989
Ms. Kahlisia Pettus, Matoaca High June 30, 1987
Mr. Howard Warren June 30~ 1990
Bermuda Distri¢=:
Mrs. Meli$$a Hall
Mr- F. Gibbons Sloan, III, Thomas Dale
High
Mrs. Sarah Gregory
June 30, 1990
June 30, 1987
June 30, 1990
Dale District:
Mrs. Nancy Hudson
Mr. Samuel Tarry, L.C. Bird High
Ms. Amy Goodman, Meadowbrook Righ
June 30, 1990
June 30, 1987
June 30, 1987
Clover Hill District:
Mrs. Betty Parker
Ms. Jennifer Dvorak, Clover Hill High
Ms. Holly Ford, Manchester High
June 30, 1990
June 30, 1987
June 30, 1987
Midlothian District:
Mrs. Carol Boisineau
Mrs. Dorothy Birigge~
Mr. Rob Wade, Midlothian Righ
Vote: U~animous
June 30, 1990
June 30, 1989
June 30, 1987
ll.E.2. NOMINATIONS FOR TH~ YOUTH SERVICES COMMISSION
It was generally agreed to deier consideration of nominations t¢
the Youth Services Commission to the September 10, 1986 meeting.
86~643
ll.H.3. CA~P BAKER MANAGEMENT BOARD
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Boar¢
reappointed Mr. Elwood Elliott, representinq the Chester civita~
Club, to the Camp Baker Management Beard, whose term is effectiv~
immediately and will expire April 30, 1988.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion Of Mr. Appleqate, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Boar~
nominated MS. Peggy Baugh, representing the Clover Hill District,
to the Camp Baker Management Board, whose formal appointment will
be made September 10, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
APPOINTMENT OF ALTEP~NATE TO THE RICP~4OND P~EGIONAL
PLANNING DISTRICT C0~I$$ION Ai~D THE CRATER BLAI~IqING
DISTRICT COMMISSION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Boar~
appointed Mr. Richard F. Sale as an alternate to the Richmon(
Regional Planning District Commission and the Crater Plannin~
District Co~mission, which terms are effective immediately.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.B.5. COM~IUNITY SERVICES BOAi%D
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Boar
nominated Mr. J. Norbert Federspiel, representing Clover Hil]
District, to the Co~u/lity Services Board, whose forma]
appointment will be made September 10, 1986.
Vote: U~anlmous
ll.I. COMliUNITYDEVELOPMENT ITEMS
ll.I.1. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Boar~
approved thc request for a street light at the intersection of
Heatherhill Drive and Sherman Read, with funds to be expended
from the Dale District Street Light Fund.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Mayes inquired if there have been any requests for street
light installations on Temple Avenue. ~r. ~oEflish stated there
are no pending requests at this time.
11.I.2. 1986-87 REVENUE SHARING FUNDS
Mr. Daniel inquired ii the amount of money listed in the propose~
1986-87 Revenue Sharing Funds for the Hopkins Road/Inca Drive
intersection improvement was sufficient for action to transpire
thi~ year. Mr. McCracken stated the project is presently bein~
designed.
Mr. Applegate inquired as to the requirements ~ur the Routs
360/ForcLham Road intezsection improvement. Mr. MeCracken stated
this improvement was only for the straightening of the
intersection. Mr. Applegate inquired if funds for the widening
of Route 60 were sufficient to accomplish the necessary
improvements. Mr. McCracken stated that if VDH&T also
contributed to the project the ~unding should be sufficient. He
requested that improvements for the curve north Of Conifer Road
be included in the Dale District improvements, since development
is now occurring i~ the area and plans for the improvements need
to be developed.
86-644
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Boar<
adopted the following resolution:
WMEREAS, section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia permits
the State ~ighway and Transpcrtation Commission to make an
equivalent matching allocation te any County for designations by
the governing body cf up to 25% or $500,000 whichever is greater
cf funds received by it during the current fiscal year pursuant
tc the "State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972" for use by
the State Highway and Transportation Commission to construct,
maintain or improve primary and secondary highway systems within
such County, and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation has notified the County that $500,000 is the
maximum ~mount of Chesterfield County funds that will be matched
by the State during FY 1986-87.
NOW, THEREFORE, HR IT RESOLVED, that the chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors designates from its revenue sharing funds
the following amounts to be ~a~ehed by the State:
$ 70,000 Oaklawn Street rural addition project.
$112,500 Route 10/Route 1 turn lane and traffic signal
improvement.
$ 80,000 Route 360/Fordham Road (Route 763) intersection
improvement.
$ 20,000 Route 60 pavement widening (eastbound lane at
Pocono Drive).
$ 80,000 Supplemental allocation to the ~opkins Road
(Route 637)/Inca Drive (Route 2440) intersection
improvement.
$ 20,000 Establish shoulders on Hopkins Road, and improve
the curve north of Conifer Road and south of
Kimberly Farms Subdivision, and intersection
improvements at Hopkins Road (Route 637)/Kingsland
Road (Route 611).
$ 17,500 - Intersection improvement at Branders Bridge (Rout~
625)/Happy Hill (Route 619) and establish
shoulders on Branders Bridge.
$ 50,000 - Le Gordon Drive (Route 707)shoulder construction.
$ 50,000 - Cranbeck Road (Route 674) shoulder construction.
And ~urther, the Board transferred $60,000 from the Oaklawn rural
addition project account to an account for the Parker Avenu~
improvement project.
vote: Unanimous
11.I.3.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGEWAY~
~ TRANSPORTATION TO PROCEED WITH RESTRICTION OF
T~IROUG~ TRUCK T~AFFIC ON MELODY ROAD AND SHOP. EMEADE
DRIVE
Mr. Daniel dimolosed to the Board that he resides on ~elody Road,
declared a conflict cf interest pursuant to the Virginia
Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and requested to addre~
this issue as a citizen.
Mr. Mioa~ stated it would be appropriate for Mr. Daniel t¢
address =hls matter as a citizen.
86-645
Mr. Daniel stated that as a resident of Melody Road he i~
concerned that the study completed b~ the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation will not recommend a restriction of
through truck traffic on Melody Road and Shoremeade Drive. Ee
stated area citizens have expressed their concerns and desire for
him, as a member of the community, to see the through truck
traffic in this area stopped. Me stated he felt the data
compiled by VDH&T is insufficient and urged the Board to consider
having the Highway Commission reexamine the situation and
prohibit through truck traffic on these roads. Mr. McCracken
stated the new cri=erla set forth by VDB&T with which the Count
must comply i~ very difficult.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Boar
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, on October 12, 1983, the Board of Supervisors o~
Chesterfield County requested the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation to restrict through truck traffic on Melod
Road and Shoremeade Drive, and
WHEREAS, VDH&T has completed a traffic study for thi
request.
NOW, TH~t~FORE, BE IT t~ESOLVED, that the Board requests
VDH&T to proceed with the restriction of through truck traffic on
Melody Road and Shoremeade Drive.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Applegatc, Mrs. Girone an~ Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting.
ll.J. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS
ll.J.1. CONSENT ITEMS
ll.J.l.a. CONTRACT FOR WATER ~INE INSTALLATION FOR WALTON BLUF~
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Boar~
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an5
necessary documents for the following water contract:
Water Contract No. W86-121CD
Developer: George B. Sower~, Jr, & Associates, Inc.
Contractor: J. Steven Cha~in, Inc.
Total Contract Cost: $51,351.00
Total Estimated County Cost: $ 9,794.40
(Refund Through Connection Fees)
Estimated Developer Cost: $41,555.60
No. of Connections: 2
Code: 5B-2511-997
Vote: Unanimous
ll.J.l.b. CO57i~RACT FOR WATER LINE INSTALLATION FOR REY~(ET
INDUSTRIAL PARK
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconde~ by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following water contract:
Water Contract No. W86-166CD
Developer; Willia~ M. Dural
Contractor: Rhyne Contractors, Inc.
Total Contract Comt: $25,156.30
Total Estimated County Cost: $ 4~079.60
(Refund Through Connection Fees)
Estimated Developer Cost: $21,076.70
No. of Connections: 0
Code: 5B-~511-997
86-646
Vote: Unanimous
ll.J.l.c. CONTRACTS FOR WATER LINE INSTALLATION FOR TREEL¥ ROAI
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for Contract Number W86-21C fo~ construe%ion
of a wa~er line along Treely Road and Contract Number W86-042CB
for construction of a water line along Woods Edge Road to the low
bidder, Lyttle Utilities, Inc., in the amount of $288,265-00. It
was noted that funds for these projects were appropriated under
prior Capital Improvement Project budgets.
vote: Unanimous
LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH LONE STAR CEMENTr INC. FOR
HENRI CUS BARK
On motion of Mm. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator and the Acting
Director of Parks and Recreation to execute any necessary
documents for a license agreement, on behalf of the County, with
Lone Star Cement, Inc. for the construction and maintenance of
walkways across the Lone Star Cement, Inc. property to Henricus
Park. (A copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this
Board).
Vote: Unanimous
ll.J.l.e. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG HUGUENOT ROAD AND NORTH OF
MALL DRIVE FROM SOUTHEASTERN ASSOCIATES, INC.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute ~
deed of dedication accepting, On behalf of the County, the
conveyance of two variable width strips of l~d along Huguenot
Road and north of Mall Drive from Southeastern Associates,
Incorporated. (A copy of the plat is filed with the papers of
this Board).
vote: Unanimous
ll.J.l.f. DEED OF DEDiCATIO~ ALONG WESTFIELD' ROAD FROM UNITED
STATES POSTAL SERVICE
On motion Of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute z
deed Of dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, the
conveyance cf a 15 foot strip of land along westfield Road fro~
the United States Postal Service. (A copy of the plat is filed
with the papers of this Board).
Vote: Unanimous
ll.J.l,q. CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENT TO VIRGINIA POWER FOR SERVICE
TO DATA PROCESSING BUII~DING
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County
Administrator to execute an easement agreement with Virginia
Power for a new service to the Data Processing Building. (A co~
of the plat i~ filed with the papers of this Board).
Vo~e: Unanimous
86-647
ll.J.2. REPORTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a report on the develope~
water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
ll.K. R~PORTS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a status report on the
General Fund Contingency Aooount, General Fund Balance, Road
Reserve Funds and District Road and Street Light Funds.
Mr. Hedrick stated the Virginia Department o~ Highways and
Transportation has formally notified the County of the acceptance
of the following streets into the State Secondary System:
Additions Length
CREEKWOOD - SECTIONS F-l~-2 AND E
Route 2238 (Towchester Drive) - From Route 3170 to 0.01
mile west of Route 3486 0.16 mi.
Route 3485 (Morehouse Terracel - From 0.08 mile north of
Route 2238 to 0.09 mile south of Route 2238 0.17 mi.
Route 3486 (Little Ridge Lane) - From Route 2238 to a
southwest CUl-de-sac 0.19 mi.
Route 3487 (Little Ridge Court) - From Route 3486 to a
west cul-de-sac 0.08 mi.
KEITHWOOD
Route 1792 (Keithwood Parkway) - From 0.08 mile northeast
of Route 2890 to 0.17 mile northeast of Route 2897 0.18 mi.
Route 2897 (Keithwood Court) - From Route 1792 to a
northwest cul-de-sac 0.14 mi.
MOOREFIELD PARK
ROUte 3550 (Moorefield Park Drive) - From Route 6D-West
to Route 60-East 0.93 mi.
Route 3551 (Farrar Court) - From Route 3550 to a
southeast cul-de-sac 0.08 mi.
Route 3552 (Metropolitan Court) - From Route 3550 to a
southeast oul-de-sac 0.08 mi.
ROBINWOOD - SECTION 5
Route 2895 (Oakhill Lane) - From Route 2888 to 0.08 mile
north of Route 2888 0,08 mi.
PROVIDENCE MEADOWS - SECTION 4
Route 853 (Middle LOOp) - From Route 2696 to Route 854 0.21 mi.
ROLLING HILL
Route 830 (waters Mill Drive) - From Route 718 to 0.04
mile northwest of Route 718 0.04 mi,
~INEOLA - SECTIONS A & B
Route 3530 (Mineola Drive) - From Route 609 to 0.22 mile
east of Route 3531 0.38 mi,
Route 3531 (Timonium Drive) - From Route 3530 to a north
cul-de-sac 0.54 mi.
86-648
Additions Lenqth
KIMBRRLY ACR~ - SECTION 3
Route 2427 (Cotfield Road) - From 0.03 mile south of
Route 242~ to 0.03 mile southeast of Route 2429 0.13 mi.
Route 2429 (Pano Drive] - From 0.05 milo SOUth Of
Route 2428 to Route 2427 0.05 mi.
GREAT OAKS - SECTION 1
Route 3087 (Tokay Road) - From Route 2790 to 0.04 mile
northwest of Route 3088 0.13 mi.
Route 3088 (Tokay Court) - From Route 3087 to a
southwest cul-de-sac 0.10 mi.
Mrs. Girone stated the REA has a proposal to widen a portion of
the downtown Expressway and tho Powhite Parkway and also to widen
the bridge, all o~ which will result in an increase in the amount
of the tolls. She stated she and Mr. Applegate have spoken with
the Chesterfield representative on the REA about doing all tho
aspects of the projoot with the exception of widening the bridge.
She requested that staff become involved in following the
progress of the project, timetables, the intent of tho R~A, otc.,
and possibly the Board would get involved in having an opinion as
to what they should or should not do. Mr. Dodd suggested :hat a
resolutioB could possibly be drafted by the next Board meeting to
address this issue.
With respect to the District Road and ~treet Light Funds report,
Mr. Applegate inquired why the appropriation for the Dale
District is larger than the appropriations for other Districts.
Mr. Redriok stated staff would check into the matter in detail
and report its findings to the Board.
Mr. Masden presented tho Board with a status report on the
Community Attitude Survey. Mr. Hedriok stated a final report
would be available at the September 10 meeting.
11.0. ~ECUTIVE SESSION
On motion o~ Er. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board went
into Executive Session in Room 501, Administration Building, for
consultation with counsel regarding the legal consequences of
obtaining a city charter, pursuant to Section 2.1~344 (a) (6) of
the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvoning;
LUNCH
The Board recessed
lunch.
Reoonvening:
tO the Airport Crosswinds Restaurant fo~
7. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION
7.C. RESOLUTION NAMING CHESTERFIELD COUbVfY AIRPORT BUILDIN~
COMPLEX IN HONOR OF MR. MELVIN W. BLr~LNETT
Mr. Dodd called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 2:00
p.m. He stated the first item o~ the agenda would be
consideration of a resolution to rename the airport in honor of
Mr. M. W. Burnett, which was deferred from the morning session.
Mr. Daniel commented that the building complex, not tho entire
Airport, is being renamed in honor o~ Er. M. W. Burnett. He
stated it is very important in air transportation to maintain
86-649
transportation centers by the names of the community in which il
serves and the Chesterfield County Airport name should be
retained.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
W.R~EAS, Mr. Bur~ett served chesterfield County for more
than 28 years with ~iscal conservatism but progressive ideals as
its Chief Administrative Officer; and
WHEP~A~, Mr. Burnett had the foresight to believe in the
future of the County and its need for a full service government
to serve its citizens and businesses in an effort to effectively
manage rapid growth, provide quality education and promote
economic development; and
Ww~WEAS, under Mr. Burnett's administration the Utilities
System was expanded, a Parks and Recreation program established,
a County Library System initiated, a Nursing Home and Juvenile
Detention facility constructed, the Fire Department upgraded from
a volunteer department to full time professional sta~ and the
County Police Department modernized; and
W~R~EAS, Mr. Burnett continued to serve his County after,
retirement as Chairman of the Chesterfield County Toll Roa~
Authority which was the foundation for the conception an~
construction of Route 288 and Powhibe Parkway; and
W-~-EAS, the Chesterfield County Airport was constructed an~
officially opened in October of 1973 under the administration o~
Mr. Burnett which was a feat not easily accomplished by local
government and whereas the Board would like to give due credit
and recognition for his prudent and long range goals fo~
Chesterfield County.
NOW, T~U~EFO~ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield Count5
Board of Supervisors hereby designates the Chesterfield Ceunt5
Airport Building Co~Lolex as the Melvin W. Burnett Air Center i~
honor of Mr. Melvin W. Burnett who devoted his efforts to th~
high quality of life and abundant resources for Chesterfield
County citizens.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd stated there is an informal briefing scheduled fez
Wednesday, September 3, 1986, at Monacan High School, for Count~
citizens on the Governor's Commission on Transportation in the
21st Century. He stated the Beard, at its August 13 meeting,
deferred consideration of a resolution pertaining to this mattez
to the September 10, 1986 meeting; however, the deferral would
take the issue past the briefing date. Ee stated he felt it
might be helpful for the Board to go on record with th(
resolution before the September 3, 1986 briefing.
Mrs. girone stated that all that ia being dealt with at thi~
point is the Commission's report which will most likely be
changed many times before a decision is formulated on this issue.
She stated she would prefer that the Board not address this issue
until the Board knows what the proposals will be.
Mr. McCracken stated he had been notified that the meeting is for
informational purposes.
Mr. Mayes stated he planned to attend the meeting and it would be
most helpful if the Board had established a position that he
could convey if ~ecessary. He stated he felt it would not be
detrimental to pass a resolution supporting the Governor and his
efforts.
Mr. Daniel stated he would like to have a Copy of the critical
roads list, ~s it relates to Chesterfield, for the Board members
so there would be no misunderstanding as to what the list
86-650
contains, particularly the Laburnum Bridge project as he feels it
may not be listed.
In response to a question by Mr. Hayes, Hrs. Girone stated there
is a question whether this Board supports the Governor's Program
as it relates to the one cent (1~) increase in the sales tax,
four cent (4¢) increase in the gas tax, and a doubling of the
titling tax, Mr. Daniel stated he would like to see the proposal
before deciding a position on the matter. It was generall5
agreed this issue would be discussed at the September 10 meetin(
to which it had been deferred previously.
Mr. Dodd stated per the established rules and procedures of th
Board, Mrs. Girone would preside over the zoning session.
P~QUESTS FOR MOBIL~ RD~E PERMITS
86SR134
In ~ermuda Magisterial District, CHARLES A. WONGUS requeste~
renewal of Mobile Home Permit 81S095 to park a mobile home or
property fronting the northwest line cf Shop Street,
approximately 450 feet southwest of Windsor Road, and betts~
known as 4840 Shop Street. Tax Map 115-10 (5) Marquis Property,
Lot lA (Sheet 32). The first permit was issued in August 1984.
Hr. Pools stated staff has recorm~ended approval of this request.
Mr. Wong~s was present and stated he had resided at this locatior
for five (5) years.
No one car~e forward in opposition to the request.
On motion cf Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Hayes, the Board approved
this request for a period of five (5) years, subject to th~
following standard condition~:
1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
2. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
3. The minimu~ lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, the
shall be used.
6. Upon being granted a Mobile Ko~e Permit, the applicant shal
then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Unanimous
Vote:
86-651
g6S135
In Bermuda Magisterial District, M&S F~NC~ CO., INC. requested ~
Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property fronting th(
south line of Willis Road, approximately 900 feet east o2
Southwood Road, and better known as 1415 Willis Road. Tax Ma~
82-3 (2) Gravel Pit Farms, Lot 12 (Sheet 23).
Mr. Peele stated this is a new request by the M&S Fence Compan5
tc install a mobile home on the property in whioh a caretake~
would live. He stated staff has recon~ended approval of th~
request.
The applicant's representative was present.
Mo one ca~e forward in opposition to the request.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approve~
this request for a period of five (5) years, subject to th~
following standard conditions:
1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
2. NO lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobil~
home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to b~
parked on an individual lot or parcel.
3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skit=cd bu~ shall
no__t bc placed on a permanent foundation.
5. Where public (County) water and/or newer arc available, thc
shall be used.
6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant sha]
then obtain the necessary permits from the office of the
Building Offioial. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Vote;
Unanimous
ll.M. REQUESTS FORP~ZONTNG
85S105
In Matoaoa Magisterial District, CHARLES E. BAILEY, INC.
req~cs~e~ rezening from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) on
a 25.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 680 feeu on the south
lane of Centralia Road, approximately 150 feet west of Hollyberr~
Drive. Tax Map 96-10 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 31),
Mr. Peele s~ated the applicant has requested an additional sixt~
(60) day deferral of this request to allow the Board of
Supervisors an opportunity to approve the Central Planning Area
Land Use and Transportation Plan at its public hearing on
September 10, 1986.
There was no opposition present to the deferral.
On motion o~ Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred
consideration of this request until October 22, 1986.
86-652
Vote: Unanimous
86S072 (Amended)
In Midlothian Magisterial District, SOUTHEASTERN ASSOCIATP~S, INC~
AND NORLOD~E, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to
Convenience Business (B-i) witk a Conditional Use Planned
Development to permit use and bulk exceptions plus an amendmentl
te zoning (Case 79S088) relative to buffer requirements on 15.~
acres fronting approximately 1,090 feet on the east line o~
Huguenot Road, opposite Aiverser Drive. Tax Map 1~-8 (1) Parcel~
16, 17 and Part cf Parcel 10 and Tax MaD 17-5 (1) Part of Parcel
5 (Sheets 7 and 8).
Mr. Peele stated the applicants have requested a thirty (30) da5
deferral of this request to allow for amendment o~ the
application regarding the location of the proposed hotel.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded thy Mr. Dodd, the Boar{
deferred consideration of this request until september 24, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
85S157
In clover Hill Magisterial District, TURNER AND ASSOCIATE~
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-7) t{
community Business [B-2) with Conditional Use Planned Development
to permit use and bulk exceptions on a 23.93 acre parcel frontin¢
in two (2) places On the southeast line of Hull Street Road for
total of approximately 1,395 feet, also fronting approximatel'
1,420 feet on the north line of Walmsley Boulevard, and loeatel
in the southeast quadrant of the intersectlcn cf these roads.
Tax M~p 39-12 (1) Parcels 1, 19, and 23 (Sheet
Mr. Applegate stated he had discussed this request briefly witk
Mr. Ed Willey, the applicants' representative. He stated since
the Board had just adopted the amended Northern Planning Ares
Land Use and Transportation Plan on August 13, 1986, even thougk
the applicants have made an effort to comply with the amende~
Plan, neither staff nor he have had an opportunity to full~
review the amended zoning request. He, therefore, requested that
the case be deferred for thirty (30) days to give him a~
opportunity to meet with staff, Mr. Willey and the applicants tc
come up with a plan that does comply with the Northern Plannin.
Area Land Use a/id Trallsportation Plan.
There was no opposition present to the deferral.
On motion of ~r. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
deferred consideration of this request until September 24, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
86s091
In Matoaca Magisterial District, ROY B. REEVES requested a Condi-
tional Use to per,it a second dwelling in an Agricultural (A)
DistrAct on a 4.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 400 feet on
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 this request had been deferred for thirty days
to allow staff and the applicant an opportunity to discuss a
condition relative to the right-of-way dedication. ~e stated, in
view of the recently adopted Southern Planning Area Land Use and
Transportation Plan, staff has recommended that the condition
86-653
requiring the right-of-way dedication be deleted, as staff doe~
net feel the condition is consistent with the goals and policie~
of that Plan. He stated the Planning Commission has recommende¢
approval of the request.
Mr. Reeves was present.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approve~
this request, s~bjeet to the following conditions:
1. Occupancy of the second dwelling unit shall be limited
exclusively, to family members of the property owner.
At no time shall the unit be rented. (P)
2. All future deeds, transferring ownership of this property
shall contain a deed restriction indicating the requirement~
of Condition 1. (P)
This use shall run with the land. (P)
Public water shall be used for the new structure. (U&CPC)
Vote:
Unanimous
86s052 (A~ended)
In Matoaea Magisterial District, E. LINW00D GETTINGS requested
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk excep-
tions in an Agricultural (A) District on a 0.5 acre parcel
fronting approximately 100 feet on the south line of HarrowgatE
Road, approximately 800 feet northwest ef Beechwood Avenue. Tam
Map 163-2 (1) Parcel 14 (Sheet 49).
~ir. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the request sub~ect to certain conditions and acceptance o~
proffered condition.
Mr. Gettings was present and stated the recommendation is
acceptable. ~e stated he plans to utilize the site for
insurance office, or a similar use, after his retirement.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr..Daniel, the Board
approved the request, subject to the following conditions and
acceptance of the proffered condition:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Dean A. Hawkins, dated May 19, 1986, shall be considere(
the Master Plan. (CPC)
2. Uses shall be limited to those permitted in the Offic~
Business (O) District. (CPC)
3. Prior to the release of an occupancy permit, sixty (60) feet
of right of way, measured fro~ the eenterline of ~arrowgate
Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of
Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. {CPC)
4. A single freestanding sign or a single building-mounted sign
identifying this use shall be ~ermitted. The freestanding
sign may be located within the newly dedicated right of way
for Harrowgate Road, but shall be set back a minimum of
fifteen (15) feet from the existing right Of way. If the
sign is located within the newly dedicated right of way, it
shall be relocated to conform to the required fifteen (15)
foot setback from the ultir~ate right of way, at such time as
Harrowgate Road is widened. This sign shall not exceed an
aggregate area of twenty (~0) square feet. If the sign is
86-654
freestanding, it shall not exceed a height of four (4) £oot,
The sign shall not be lighted. The sign shall b~
constructed of wood and ~he facades shall employ subdued
colors. Prior to erection of the sign, a colored renderin~
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval.
NO other signs shall be permitted. (CPC)
In conjunction with approval of this request, the fcllowin¢
bulk exceptions shall be granted:
a. An exception to the requirement that driveways an
parking areas bo paved. Within five (5) years of th~
date of approval, all driveways and parking areas shall
be paved. Curb and gutter shall be installed around
the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas at
such time that the adjoining proper~y is developed fo~
non-residential uses. Initially, driveways and parkin¢
areas mhall be graveled with a minimum of six (61
inches of $21 or $21A stone and shall be delineated b5
a permanent means (i.e., timber curbs, railroad ties,
etc.). The driveway and parking areas shall be
designed to allow traffic to flow north and south iht(
adjacent properties a~ such time as they are develope~
for office/commercial use.
b. An exception to the raquired front yard setback t¢
accommodats snclo~ure of the existing porch, only.
6. Previous conditions notwithstanding, all bulk requirements
of the O~ioe Business (0) District shall apply. (CPC)
7. In conjunction with the granting of this request, th~
Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of
the Master Plan. (CPC)
Proffered Condition
A six (6) foot high solid board fence shall be constructed
along the eastern property line for a sufficient distance t¢
screen driveways and parking areas from the adjacent
property to the southeast. (CPC)
[Note: Prior to making any improvements to accommodate the
proposed use, site plans must be submitted to, and approve~
by, the Planning Department.)
Vote: Unanimous
86S053
In Dale Magisterial District, MINI-PAK ASSOCIATES requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) ~o Light Industrial (M-l) with a
conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk
exceptions On a 19.68 acre parcel fronting in two (2) locations,
for a total of approximately 385 feet on the west line of Iron
Bridge Road, opposite Beulah Road. Tax Map 65-16 (1) Parcels 1
and 2 (~heet 22).
Mr. Pools stated the Planning Commission reco~ended approval of
this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Delmonte Lewis, the applicant's representative, stated the
conditions were acceptable, with the exception of Condition 11
which he felt contained an error. He requested that the
condition be a~cnded to reword the first sentence so that it
would state, "A seventy-five (75) foot exception to the one
hundred (100) foot setback from the residentially zoned proper~y
and a twenty-five (25) ~oot exception to the fifty (50) foot
setback along Kingsland Road shall be granted", as opposed to the
present wording.
86-65~
Mr. Pools stated the Zoning Ordinance requires a one hun~re¢
I100) foot setback from the residential zoning to any development
in an M-1 District. He stated the applicant has requested that
this setback be reduced to twenty-five (25) feet if possible.
stated Condition 11 provides for the possibility of reducing that
setback to 25 feet once detailed schematic plans are submitte(
~or approval.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the subject tracts a~ected by thi~
condition are the tracts which have not yet been designed. Mr.
Lewis stated this was correct. Mr. Daniel asked if the applicant
needed to have a decision rendered cn reducing these setbac}
requirements at the present time, as he would prefer to wait
until such time as the applicant determined whether or not
reduced setback requirements would be needed. Mr. Lewis state~
he had no objection to deferring this portion of the request.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the request were in conformance with th~
Route 10 Sign Ordinance. Mr. Poole stated the request is
conformance.
On motion cf Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Boar(
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
~ne following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepare(
by E.D. Lewis and Associates, P.C., revised 8/4/86, and the
Textual Statement received 5/16/86, and the letter date~
June 11, 1986, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. The proposed mini-warehouses shall be as depicted in th~
renderings prepared by Edward H. Winks, Architecture, date¢
February 14, 1986. Ail other buildings wi~hln the
developmen~ shall have similar styles and employ simila!
material composition as the proposed minl-warehouses. Ir
conjunction with schematic plan review, elevations depictin~
this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Com-
mission for approval. (P)
3. At such time that p%kblic sewer is located within 500 feet
~his development, the owner/developer shall be responsibl~
for extending public sewer to any uses existing at that
time, and for future uses. (u)
4. The developer shall provide an accurate account of th(
drainage situation, showing existing drainage and the impact
this project will have on the site and the surrounding area.
The developer shall submit a co,struck'ion' pla~'~ te
Environmental Engineering and VDH&T providing for on- and
off-site drainage facilities. This plan shall be approved
by the Environmental Engineering Department and VDH&T, and
all necessary easements shall be obtained prior to an~
vegetative disturbance. Th~ approved off-site plan may have
to be implemented prior to clearing. (ES)
5. The drainage design shall provide each lot with a minim~/~ Of
a 1% gradient between thc lowest point on the lot and the
invert of drainage outfall adjacent to the lot.
6. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian
traffic. (EE)
7. Prior to issuance of building Permits for any use other than
the mini-warehouses, or upon request by the County, fifty
(50) ~eet of right of way ahall be dedicated to and for the
County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, along the
north side of the property from Route 10 to the western
property line to accommodate the Kingsland Road extension.
The developer shall be responsible for constructing a
minim~r~ of two (2) lanes within the fifty (50) foot right of
way, from Route 10 to its intersection with the westernmost
access point, prior to release of occupancy permits for any
86-656
use which has traffic accessing the Kingsland Roa¢
extension. The two (2) lane section shall be designed an(
constructed to accommodate an ultimate four (4) lane typical
section, (T)
8. Prior to schematic plan approval for any use which has
driveway accessing the King, land Road extension, an acces~
plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Transpor-
tation Department. (T)
9. Left- and right-turn lanes shall be constructed along Rout(
10 at tho intersection with Kingsland Road exteneion. Tur~
lanes shall also be constructed along Route 10 at
intersection with the proposed thirty (30) foot privat(
drive, as deemed necessary by the Transportation Department.
These improvements may be phased in conjunction with
phasing of the development upon approval of a phasing plat
by the Transportation Department. (T)
10. Other than the Kingsland Road extension and the propose¢
thirty (30) foot private driveway, there shall be no ethel
access to Route 10. (T)
11. The fifty (50) foot setback along Kingsland Road extenslur
may be reduced to twenty-five (25) feet at the time
schematic plan review if documentation is submitted verify-
ing that the spirit and intent of the fifty (50) foot
setback can be met in a lesser width. Documentation shall
include landscaping; berms; building and parking design;
a combination of these design elements. Detailed plan~
depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Plaru%ing Commission for approval in conjunction wit~
schematic plan review. (P)
12. Within the f~fty (50) foot setback along Route 10, orna-
mental trees and shrubs shall be planted where existin¢
vegetation is not sufficient to lessen the visual impact o2
the development. A conceptual landscaping plan depictinc
this requirement shall be submitted to the Plannin~
Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic pla~
review. Detailed plans depicting this requirement shall be
submitted ~e the Planning Department for approval
conjunction with final site plan rovlow. (P)
13. Parking areas shall be landscaped to minimize the visual
impact of large expanses of pavement. A conceptual land-
scaping plan d~picting this requirement.shat~ be submittec
to the Planning Co~ission for approval in conjunction witk
schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping pla~
depicting this requirement shall be submitted to
Planning Depart~ent for approval in conjunction with final
site plan review. (P)
14. All driveways arw1 parking areas shall be paved. (P)
15. Outdoor storage shall be prohibited. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
86S056
In Bermuda ~agisterial District, G.E. MILES AND COURTNEY WBLLS
requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use
(office and retail) and bulk exceptions in a Residential (R-7)
District on a 2.6 acre parcel fronting approximately 280 feet on
the south line of West Hundred Road, approximately 3~ feet west
of Buckingham Street. Tax Map 115-10 (1) Parcel 24 and Part of
Parcel 9 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Peele stated this request was to permit office and r~tail
uses on the entire parcel~ however, the 91arming Co~ission's
recommendation was to approve the Conditional Use Planned
86-657
Development for the northern portion of the property for a depth
consistent with the existing Convenience Business (B-l) zoning to
the east and that the southern portio~ of the property fronting
Shop Street remain zoned Residential (R-7) with the only uses
permitted being those permitted in the Residential (R-7)
District, all of which is subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Dodd stated he has been advised by the Commonwealth's
Attorney to disclose to the Board that the property to the east
of the subject site belongs to his mother and that, since he has
no direct financial interest in his mother's property and has
~isclosed said information, there is nc conflict of interest
under the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and
can vote on this request.
Mr. Courtney Wells presen~e~ a brief summary of the request and
stated they have met with area citizens in an effort to reach an
acceptable compromise on this project. ~e stated a revised
Master Plan and an amended Textual Statement have been submitted
whereby the southernmost buildings have been reoriented such that
the facade is parallel to Shop Street, as opposed to
perpendicular to Shop Street but the overall square footage of
the buildings has not changed; the parking area has been
redesigned to accommodate a two-way traffic flow throughout the
site, as opposed to the one-way flow shown on the original Mas~er
Plan; the setback from Shop Street has been increased from
thirty-five (35) to fifty (50) feet; the four (4) buildings
located closest to Shop Street will be limited solely to offic(
use; the restaurant or food establishment uses have beei
eliminated from the list of use exceptions for the northernmos~
portion of the property; there will be no entrance/exit from
property to shop Street; the two buildings closest to Shop Street
will have two fronts and will be shrubbed; and that the develops]
agrees to erect "no parking" signs along Shop Street.
Mr. Miles also presented a brief summary of the request,
outlining the various modifications to the Master Plan.
stated that if the project cannot be built as they originall5
proposed, he would ask that the Board consider approval
staff's recommendation or their request to develop the project
with only a 120 foot setback off Shop Street. He stated he felt
this project would be an asset to the Chester community; however,
the Planning commission's recommendation would severely limit
development of the project.
Discussion ensued regarding the architectural style of th(
proposed project, the setback requirements from Shop Street
parking spaces, uses, parking signs, etc.
Mr. Applegate expressed concern regarding the parking spaces
that it would be insufficient if the entire project were to b~
developed for medical or retail uses.
Mr. Miles stated he had not been previously aware that th~
parking spaces for the project could be insufficient.
Mr. A1 Elliott stated objections to either one of the alternative
plans suggested by the applicants for this project and supported
the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Mr. Jim Falconer objected to changing the existing zoning on
either side of Shop Street and would request that it be left as
it
Mr. Dodd stated this project encroaches into a residential area
and he feels it is important to maintain the existing zoning in
this area to protect the sanctity of the community and because to
do otherwise would be breaking faith with oo~i~msnts made to
these residents years ago.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved
the Planning Commission's recommendation for this request,
subject to the following conditions:
86-658
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, ~he plan prepare¢
by Carrouth and Associates, Inc., dated 2/14/86, shall b(
considered the Master Plan to accommodate office/retail us(
a depth of 245 feet south of Route 10. The remainder of t~
property shall remain zoned Residential (R-7) with thos~
uses allowed in the R-7 zoning district permitted. (P)
2. With the exception of Condition 1, the conditions state(
herein shall apply only to the northernmost 245 feet of th~
property adjacent to ROUte 10. (~)
3. Uses permitted shall be limited to those allowed in th~
Office Business (o) District. (CPC)
4. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around th~
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainag~
shall be designed so as not to inter~ere with pedestria£
traffic.
5. Prior to issuance of a building p~rmit, forty-five (45) feet
of right of way, measured from :he cen:erline of Route 10
shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield
free and unrestricted. (T)
6. A single entrance/exit shall be permitted to Route 10- Th
entrance/exit shall be located toward the western prcpert5
line. A left-turn lane shall be constructed along Route 1(
to facilitate turning movements at the entrance/exit. (T)
7. A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along
southern boundary of the o~fice/retail tract. This buffe!
shall be landscaped to screen the usc from the R-7 tract.
Wi:h the exception o~ berms; fences; and/or utilities whic~
run generally perpendicular through the buffer, there shall
be no facilities within :he buffer. A conceptual
landscaping plan ~hall be submitted to the Plannin~
commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plat
review. A detailed landscaping plan depicting this re-
quirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department fei
approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P)
8. Pa~king areas shall have at least ten (10) square feet of
interior landscaping, to include within the parking area
adjacent to the parking area, per parking space. Eack
required landscaped area shall contain a minimum of 10£
square feet and shall have a minimum dimension of at least
ten (10) feet. The primary landscaping material used in
parking areas shall be trees which provide shade or ar~
capable of providing shade at maturity. Each landscapec
area shall include at least one (1) tree, having a
trunk of at least five (5) feet. The total number of trees
shall not be less than one for each 200 square feet,
fraction thereof, of required interior landscaped area. Th(
remaining area ~hall be landscaped with shrubs and other
vegetative material to complement the tree landscaping.
Landscaped areas shall be reasonably dispersed throuqhout
the parking area or adjacent to the parking area and shall
be located so as to divide and break up the expanse of
paving. The area designated as required setbacks shall not
be calculated as required landscaped area. A conceptual
landscaping plan depicting the~e requirements shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in con-
junction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscapin~
plan shall be submitted to the Planning Departmen: in
conjunction with final site plan review. (P)
9. Outdoor lighting shall be low level, not to exceed a height
of fifteen (15) feet and shall be positioned so as not to
project light into adjacent residential properties. (P)
10, Signs shall be regulated by the Route l0 Special Sign
District requirements for office parks in Office Business
(O) Districts. (p)
86-659
Il.
The architectural style and materials cf the proposed
structures shall be compatible with the existing office
structures to the east a~d northwest (i.e., Buckingham Court
and Austin Brockenbrough and Associates). No str~ct~re
shall exceed a height of two (2) stori.s. Elevations and/or
renderings shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. (P)
12. The existing twenty (20) foot ingress/egress easement shall
be relocated such that access to the adjacent property to
the west is provided through the driveway and parking area
of the proposed project. The exact location of the easement
shall be approved by the Planning Commission at the time of
schematic plan review. (P)
13. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U)
14. The previous conditions notwithstanding, exception to
Residential (R-7) bulk requirements shall be granted and all
bulk requirements of the Office Business IO) District shall
apply. (P)
(Note: Prior to obtaining building permits or final site
plan approval, schematic plans must be approved by tho
Planning Commission.)
Vote: Unanimous
86S084
In Dale Magisterial District, DONALD B. HESLEP requested rezonin~
from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (M-I) on a 0.7 acr~
parcel fronting approximately 50 feet on the north line o~
Walmsloy Boulevard, approximately 380 feet west of Turner Road.
Tax Map 40-6 (1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet t5).
Mrl Pools Stated the Planning Commission recommended approval o~
this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Heslep stated the recommendation was acceptable.
Mr. Applegate statsd~ in his opinion, this request represent~
encroachment into a residential neighborhood and the Board shoe]
be cognizant of such requests.
Mr. Pocle stated the property across the:'s~reet from this proje¢
is zoned residential, however, there is a commercial use
permitted On One parcel.
Mr. Daniel stated, with respect to encroachment, it is ver~
difficult to determine where artificial boundary lines are to b~
drawn.
There was no opposition present.
On mctic~ of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
this request, subject to ~he following condition and acceptance
of the proffered conditions:
A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained between
any mini-warehouse and the southern property line. Within
this buffer, evergreen landscaping, having sufficient den-
sity and height, shall be installed sc as to minimize the
view of the warehouses from the adjacent property to the
south. Detailed landscaping plans depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department,
in conjunction with final site plan review. (P)
Proffered Conditions
1. All driveways and parking areas shall be paved.
86-660
The only uses permitted shall be mini-warehouses and
security office/resident manager dwelling.
Mini-warehouses shall be sited such that the southernmos
building will have the longest aide running generally
parallel to Walmsley Boulevard. The southern side of the
~cuthernmost building shall be constructed ef brick. The
security office shall be eonstrncted of a combination of
brick and aiding with a cedar roof. Rlevations depicting
thio requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Depart-
ment for approval in conjunction with final site plan
review.
Vote: Unanimoua
86S086
In Midlothian Magisterial District, SUDBRINK BROADCASTING OF VIR-
GINIA requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a
tower, equipment building, and exception to the 100 foot height
limitation for towers in an Agricultural (A) District on a 36.5
acre parcel lying approximately 1,200 feet off the east line of
Dry Bridge Road, measured from a point approximately 1,800 feet
south of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 14 (1) Parcel 25 and Part
of Parcels 9 and 26 (Sheets 5 and 6).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval o~
thio request, s~bject to certain conditiona. He stated thor,
were citizen concerns regarding the emergency lights as requi~e~
by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on the tower and th(
Planning commission directed staff to work with the applicant an{
FAA to determine what was required and to add a condition to
address the requirement. He stated ~ereeninq of ouch lights it
accomplished by placing a solid so~een underneath the light whic~
prevents its reflections toward the ground but per,its it t{
project upward.
Mr. Vernon LaPrade stated the recommended conditiona arc
acceptable, with the exception of Conditions 4 and 6. He etate~
he would like to eliminate Condition 6 aince the applicants hav~
submitted documentation that the emergency lighta will not b~
excessively brilliant or project into residential areas. Me ala¢
requested that Condition 4 be modified to allow a building permi~
to he issued for the construction of the guy anchors and th~
tower baae only. ~e atated the applicants realize the concrat~
work will be done at their riak. He stated the applicants
realize that if FAA approval is not granted they will not b~
permitted to construct a building or anything else.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Peele stated modification of Condition 4 would be acceptable,
as requested by the applicant, provided the applicant understands
the condition and that to proceed in thio manner will be at his
own risk.
Mrs. Girone stated she would prefer to retain Condition 6.
On motion of Mra. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved thio request, subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the site plan
submitted with the application shall be considered the
Master Plan. (P)
2. The tower shall not exceed a height of 1,549 feet above mean
sea level. (P)
3. The tower and equipment building shall be enclosed by a
fence which shall be of a sufficient height to preclude
trespassing. (R)
4. Prior to obtaining a building permit for any construction
86-661
Vote:
other than concrete guy anchors and the concrete tower base~
documentation of FAA approval shall be submitted to th~
Planning Department.
Note: This concrete work will be done at the owner's risk.
If FAA approval is not granted, no other construction shall
be permitted.
In conjunction with approval of thio request, the Plannin¢
Cormnission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Masts{
Plan. (P)
Tower lighting shall be designed such that it is projects(
away from the ground. A lighting plan shall be submitted t(
and approved by the Planning Department prior to releaoe
any building permit, except as noted in Condition 4.
Unanimouo
86S088
In Bermuda Magisterial District, HUGH A. CLINE
a~endment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 81S082) t¢
permit use exceptions in a Core, unity Buoiness (B-2) District on
1.3 acre parcel fronting approximately 135 feeu On the north linc
of Weot Hundred Road, approximately 160 feet west of Chests!
Road. Tax Map 115-7 (1) Parcel 49 (sheet 32).
Mr. Pools stated the Planning Commission recommended denial
this requeot.
Mr. Cline stated =he existing Goodyear Tire Store has cutgrcwr
its old location and must be renovated and indicated he intend~
tO renovate the adjacent property to the east at such time that
the tire store relocates to the oubject property. He added that
he did not plan to include the adjacent property in this
application.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Dodd stated the consensus of the ~lanning Commission was that
this request could have been supported if the adjacent propert~
to the east had been included as a part of this request, however,
Mr. Cline owns a minority interest in the subject property and
cannot control whether or not it is included in this application.
He stated he felt ~r. Clins's intention is to upgrade the
adjacent property within the next two to three year =ime frame.
He stated he felt the request does conform to the Central
Planning Area Land Use and Tran~./~g. rtation Plan and would be a~
asset to the community.
Mr. Applegate expressed concern that the requested uses are
inconsistent wi=h the Central Plannin~ Area Land Use and
Transportation Plan and that the existing turn lanes along Route
10, especially at the Chester Road i~tersection, do not have
sufficient storage capacity to accommodate current traffic
volumes, which will result in congestion or backups beyond the
request parcel, particularly during peak periods. He aisc
expressed concern that future widening of Route 10 may result in
right-of-way dedication in excess of the typical 45 ~eet from the
centerline of Route 10 for this site and would necessitate
condemnation of the property to construct the widenin~
improvements.
Mr. McCracken stated the engineering plans for this portion
Route 10 have not been completed and in his opinion, even though
the building has been moved back on the site, there will be a
substantial problem if this rag=est is approved. Mr. Applegate
stated he wished to clarify that at some ~uture time, if these
improvements are made, the possibility exists that this property
will have to be acquired £or road improvements and he wants to
~n~ure that the applicant understands this possibility.
86-662
On motion Of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved
this request, s~bjeet to the following conditions:
1. The plan prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc., revised
July 14, 1986, shall be considered the Master Plan.
2. The building shall have an architectural style as depicted
in the elevations and renderings submitted with the
application.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, ~rs. ~irone and Mr. Mayes.
Nays: Mr. Applegate.
86S095
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, FIRST VIRGINIA BANK-COLONIAL
requested a Cenditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk
(setback) exceptions in a General Business (B-3) District on a
0.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 215 feet on the south line
of Midlothian Turnpike, also fronting approximately 155 feet On
the east line of Ruthers Road, and located in the southeast
quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 18-16 (1)
Parcel 19 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval Of.
this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Charlie Farmer was present to represent the request an(
stated the recommendation was acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion by Mr. Applegate, eeeonded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan title¢
"Staff Proposal" shall he considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. Public sewer shall be used. (U)
3. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around th~
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainag(
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestria~
traffic.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, thirty-five (35)
feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of
Ruthers Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of
Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T)
5. All driveways and parking areas shall be set back a minimum
of fifteen (15) feet from the right of way of Midlothia~
Turnpike and Ruthers Road. Within these setbacks,
ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted to minimize
view of driveways and parking areas from the public reads.
In conjunction with site plan review, a landscaping plan
depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Department ~or review and approval. (P)
6. In conjunction with the granting of this request, the
Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval
the Master Plan, (P)
Vote: Unanimous
86S096
In Dale Magisterial District, HOWARD J. ROWE, III requested a
Conditional Use for two (2) two-family dwellings in a Residential
(R-T) District on a 0.45 acre parcel fronting approximately 200
86-663
feet on the east line of Kim Drive, approximately 50 feet nort
of Pewter Avenue. Tax Map 40-7 (1) Parcel 70 (Sheet 15).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval o
this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Rowe was present and stated the recommended conditions ar~
acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approve(
this request, s~bjeot to the following conditions:
1. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around th~
perimeter of all driveway and parking areas. (EE)
(Note: The Zoning Ordinance requires that all driveways an~
parking areas for six (6) or more vehicles be paved. Also.
the BOCA Code requires two-way driveways to be a minimum
twenty-four (24) feet in width unless local agencies grant
exceptions. On a routine basis, driveways serving parkin~
lots containing up to fifteen (15) parking spaces to
twenty (20) fee~ in width are permitted; and driveways
serving parking lots of sixteen (16) to thirty (30) parkin~
spaces to be twenty-two (22) feet in width.)
2. A three (3) foot sidewalk shall be installed oon/%eeting th~
parking spaces to the entrance of each unit. This
shall be constructed of concrete, exposed aggregate, brick,
Or some other similar material approved by Staff, IP)
3. No outside storage shall he per~itte~. (P)
4. The foundation of ~he proposed structure shall be brio~
veneered or a similar material approved by Staff. (P)
5. Entranceways into the proposed s~ructure shall be redesigne¢
to provide an "A" pitched roof over each stoop. (P)
6. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted in conjunc-
tion with site plan submittal. (P)
7.. The entrance to Kim Drive shall be thirty (30) feet wide.
(VDH&T)
8. A detailed grading plan shall be submitted to' the Environ-
mental Engineering Department in conjunction with site plat
approval. (EE)
Notes:
a) Separate water and sewer connections will be required
by the Utilities Department for each unit. (U)
b) A minimu~ of ~wo (2) on-site parking spa~es shall
provided for each unit. Each space shall be a minimu~
of 200 square feet.
Vote: Unanimous
86S098
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, WOODLAKE CHILD DEVELOPMENT,
INC. requested amendment to a Conditional Use Planned Development
(Case 81S086) to permit exceptions to the required number o~
parking spaces for child oars centers in Residential (R-9) and
Office Business (0) Districts on a 1.6 acre parcel frontin~
approximately 240 feet on the east line of Woodleke Village
Parkway, approximately 1,700 feet north of Hull Street Road. Tax
Map 61 (1) Part of Parcel 12 (sheets 1~ and 20).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval oJ
this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Hanson stated the recommended conditions are acceptable.
There was nc opposition present.
Mr. Applegate inquired if the access off the Parkway it
acceptable. Mr, MeCracken stated the access is acceptable.
On motion Of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Boar¢
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions no~wi~hs~anding, ~he plan prepare¢
hy Balzer and Associatee, dated April 22, 1986, shall b~
considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. Parking shall be provided based u~on the following ratio:
one (1) space for each 20 children enrolled up to a maximu~
o~ six (6) spaces plus one (1) for each employee.
Furthermore, an area for drop-off and pick-up, which i~
separated from the main parking area and connected to th~
main building by a sidewalk, shall Be provided to pre¢lud~
the need for children to cros~ the driveway, (P)
3. In conjunction with the approval of this request, th~
Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval o~
the Master Plan. CB)
(Note; All previously imposed conditions of schematic
approval for woodlake Shopping Center remain in force ~o~
the schematic plan.)
Vote: Unanimous
86S099
In Matoaca Magisterial District, C~ST~RFIELD M~ADOWS SMOPPIN~
CENTER ASSOCIATES, L.P. requested amendments to a Conditional Us~
Planned Development (Case 84S082) relative to sign requirements
in a Convenience Business (B-i) District on a parcel frontin~
approximately 1,150 feet on the east line of Iron Bridge Road,
also fronting approximately 200 feet on the south line o~
Cen~ralia Road, and located in the southeast quadrant of th~
inter~ecticn of these roads. Tax Map 96~9 (1) Parcel 20 (Shee~
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request, ~ubjeet to certain conditions.
Mr. Blaokwood stated the recommended conditions are acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion o~ Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
this request, s~bject to the following conditions:
1. For the purpose of computing area, if the permitted free-
standing ~igns consist of two or more sides and the interior
angle between any of the sides exceeds sixty degrees, each
side shall be counted when computing sign areas. (P)
(Note: This condition is in addition to Condition lb(a) of
Conditional Use Planned Development Case 84S082).
2. Restaurants with drive-in window service shall be permitted
a single freestanding menu-beard, not to exceed an aggregate
area of twenty-five (25) square feet and a height of six (6)
feet. Thesa signs shall be located in such a manner so as
not to be legible from public roads. (P)
(Note: This condition is in addition to Condition 13Cd) of
86-665
Conditional Use Planned Development Case 84S082.)
Vote: Unanimous
865100
In Dale Magisterial District, B. FORACH MILL requested rezonin
from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (o) of 3.4 acres with
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and
exceptions on the proposed Office Business (0) tract plus a
acre Convenience Business (S-l) tract. This request front~
approximately 135 feet On the west line of Lori Road, approxi-
mately 300 ieet north of Iron Bridge Road. Tax Map 95-8 (1]
Parcel 6 (Sheet 31).
Mr. Pools stated the Planning Cor~mission recommended approval
this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Jim Hayes stated the recommended conditions are acceptable.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the B-1 tract is restricted to only
office or restaurant use. Mr. Hayes stated this is correct. Mr.
Pools stated the office or restaurant use is the only us~
permitted on the B-1 tract, which is located On the northerr
portion of the property, however, retail use is requested on th~
southern portion of the tract.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Daniel expressed concern that the schematic plans for thi~
project indicate dense development (i.e., excessive parking, nc
buffers, ~tc.). Mr. Hayes explained that the overall site will
be limited somewhat in its total square footage, as the site plat
represents more square footage than what the Planning Commissior
will allow and the retail use, within the office tract, will
restricted to one building only.
Mr. Daniel stated this request represents the best case of total
site saturation that he has seen recently, that the Board
a~tempting to limit these types of situations County-wide and
asked if the applicant would be agreeable to a thirty da5
deferral in order to discuss the plan with him.
Mr. Hayes stated a thirty day deferral would be agreeable.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred
consideration of this request t2ltil September 24, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
86S105
In Dale Magisterial District, ~HULA-H UNITED METHODIST CHURCH re-
quested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk
exceptions plus an amendment to zoning (Case 77S023) to delete
buffer requirements in Residential (R-7), Convenience Business
(B-l) and Community Business (H-2) Districts on an 8.5 acre
parcel fronting approximately 430 feet on the east line of
Hopkins Road, also fronting approximately 400 feet on the west
line of Hopkins Road immediately north of ~eulah Road. Tax
66-8 (1) Parcels 1, 2, 3, 13, 18, and 19 (Sheet 22).
Mr. Pools sta~ed the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Charlie Quaiff stated the recommended conditions are
acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
86-666
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the
approvsd this request, subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Huff, Morris, Cox & Associates, Inc., dated 5/16/86,
shall be considered the Master Plan, and the bulk exceptions
reflected on the plan shall be granted, subject to the
conditions stated herein. (P)
2. In conjunction with the approval of this request, an
exception to the on-site parkinq requirements for the new
sanctuary ~hall be approved, as depicted on the Master Plan.
The existing parking areas on the east side of Hopkins Road
shall be improved, as depicted on the Master Plan. The
existing parking areas on the east side of Hopkins Road
shall be qraveled with a minimum o~ three (3) inches o~ #21
or $21A stone prior to occupancy of the new sanctuary. All
spaces shall be located out~ide the ultimate right of way of
Hopkins Road. (P)
(Note: At least four (4) parking spaces on the east side of
Hopkins Road musk be eliminated in order to comply with thisl
condition.)
3. In conjunction with the approval of this request, ar
exception to the screening requirement for the propose~
driveway and turnaround area north o~ the new sanctuar5
shall be granted. Otherwise all other requirements relativ~
to screening of parking areas from adjacent Residential
(R-7) property shall apply on the property located On th~
west side of Hopkins Road. Specific plans depictinq thi~
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for approval in conjunction with final site plan review.
4. In conjunction with the approval of this request,
exception to the setback requirement for the proposed canop5
on the north side of the new sanctuary and educationa~
building shall be granted. (P)
5. The property located on the east side e~ Hopkins Read shall
remain under the ownership of Beulah United Methodist Churc~
until Such time that the required number of parking spaces
are provided on the site o£ the new sanctuary. (P)
(No~e: Any conversion of the site. on the east side
Hopkins Road for another church, 'or another use, will
require zoning and/or ~ite plan approval.)
6. The exceptions stated herein shall be granted to and fo~
Heulah United Methodist Church and shall not be
nor run with the land. (P)
7. Prior to release of a building permit, forty-five (45) feet
of right of way, measured from the centerline o~ Hopkins
Road, shall be d~dicated to and for the County
Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T)
8. The access to Hopkins Road from the parking area, located
south of the existing sanctuary, shall be eliminated and
access to this parking area provided via Beulah Road. All
other access shall be located as generally shown on the
Master Plan. IT)
(Note: At the time of site plan review, the Transportation
Department may require that the northerr~dost access points
On the east and west sides of Hopkins Road align and/or that
one of the access points which serves the northernmost
parking area on the east side of Hopkins Road be
eliminated.)
9. All newly paved driveways and parking areas shall he
delineated by concrete curb and gutter, where necessary, for
86-667
proper drainage. Where concrete curb and gutter are not
provided, the driveways shall be delineated by a per~ane~
means (i.e., timber curbs, bumper blocks, ~tc.) which shall
be securely anchored. Drainage shall be designed so as not
to inter~ere with pedestrian traffic. (P&EE)
10. In conjunction with the approval of this request, a!
exception to the paving requirement for the new parking are~
on t~e west side of Hopkins Road for Phases I and II shalJ
be granted. All driveways and parking areas shall
graveled with six (6) inches of 921 or 921A atone. Ali
driveways and parking areas on the west side of Hopkins
~hall be paved prior to OCCUpancy Of Phase II1, or withi:
five (5) years of occupancy of Phase II, whichever occur~
first. (P)
11. All necessary drainage easements shall be obtained prior t¢
any vegetative disturbance. (EE)
12. In conjunction with the approval o~ this request, th~
Planning Co~%~%ission shall 9rant schematic plan approval
the Master Plan. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
$65117
In Midlothian Magisterial District, GULFSTP~EAM DEVELOPMEN9
CORPORATION requested rezonin~ from Agricultural (A) to Light
Industrial (M-l) of 54.0 acres; and from Light Industrial (M-ii
to Residential-multifa~ily (R-MF) of 31.0 acres with Conditional
Use Planned Development encompassing these
additional Light Industrial (M-l) and Convenience Busine$8 (B-l)
tracts ~or a total of 243 acres fronting approximately 1,550 fee~
on the west line cf Coalfield Road, approximately 1~530 feet or
the north line of Genito Road, approximately 4,500 feet on the
east line of Old Hundred Road, and located in the northeas~
quadrant of the intersection o~ Genito and Old Hundred Roads.
Tax Map 37-13 (1) Parcels l, 3, and 4; ~ax Map 47-4 (1) Part
Parcel 3; and Tax Map 48-1 (1) Parcel 30 (Sheet 13).
Mr. Pools stated the Planning commission recommended approval
this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board that he owned partial interest
adjacent property, declared a pctentiaI conflict of intorest,
pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act
and excused himself from the meeting.
Mr. Campbell stated the recommended conditions are acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Applegate inquired if access were being provided to Genitc
Road and if improvements would be made to accommodate that
access. Mr. HcCracken stated this ±~ correct.
on motion of Mrs. Girone~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions and
acceptance of the pro~fered conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the application,
Textual Statement, dated June 20, 1986, with Exhibits, shall
be considered the Master Pl$/%. (P)
2. The develoPer shall provide an accurate account of the
drainage situation showing existing drainage, and the impact
this project will have on the site and the surrounding area.
The developer shall submit a construction plan to
Enviror~ntal Engineering providing for on- and off-site
drainage facilities. This plan shall be approved by the
Environmental Engineering Department, and all necessar
86-668
easements shall be obtained prior to any vegetative distur-
bance. The approved off-site plan may have to b~
implemented prior to clearing.
3. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around t~
perimeter of all driveways and parking araas. Draina~
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestria~
traffic. This condition may be modified by the Plannin(
Commission at the time o~ schematic plan review, upo~
documentation that alternative measures are as durable aec
as easily maintained as concrete curb and gutter. (RE)
4. Prior to State acceptance of any roads or occupancy of an]
site that drains to the proposed lake, the ownership an(
maintenance of the lake shall be established as the re-
sponsibility of private parties. An indemnificatior
agreement shall be submitted to Environmental Engineering
save the County harmless from vector control, maintenance,
replacement responsibilities, etc. Upon approval of the
agreement by the County, it shall be recorded. Upor
completion of the construction of the detention facility,
shall be certified by a professional engineer. (EE)
5. To avoid potentiai siltation and algae problems, the minimu~
depth of the lake shall be 3½ feet within ten (10) feet
the shoreline. (EE)
6. Maximum permissible release rates on the proposed retentior
basin shall be based on the minimum capacity of the existin~
~acilities downstream, and the recorded 100 year backwate~
and/or floodplain shall not be increased.
7. Dams shall be built at an elevation such that cn-sit~
buildings or existing homes downstream would not be jeop-
ardized should the dam fail. A dam failure analysis shall
be performed and submitted to Environmental Engineering.
8. The MDO/CR tract shall be designed to drain to the propose~
lake. IEE) This condition may be modified by Environmental
Engineering Department upon review and approval of ar
acceptable alternative. (rE&CPC)
9. Prior to, or in conjunction with, the first sehematic/pla~
of development approval, a conceptual pedestrian walkwa~
plan for the entire development shall, be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval. This plan shall facili-
tate pedestrian movements throughout the development. Tbs
plan shall be implemented in conjunction with development
any tract which adjoins the pedestrian system. Detailed
plans for construction of each phase of the system shall be
submitted to the Plan~ing Department for approval
conjunction with submission of final subdivision check plats
or final site plans. (P)
10. Upon submission of a comprehensive sign package, the
Planning Commiseio~ may modify the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance relative to signs (i,e., may be either more
or less restrictive) to the extent that the spirit and
intent of the Ordinance and concept of the development are
met and that sign proliferation is not encouraged. (P)
(Note: This condition is in addition to Textual Statement,
VI. Proposed Rezoninq. B. General Conditions. 5.
Signage, Page 7.)
11. Prior to, or in conjunction with, the first schematic plan
approval within each individual tract, an overall conceptual
development plan for the entire tract shall be submitted for
approval. This plan may be the schematic plan for the
entire tract. This conceptual plan shall reflect the
required open space, buffers, access locations, and other
tract criteria as outlined in the Textual Statement and
herein. (P)
86-669
12. The developer shall be responsible for constructing any ne%
facilities, or improving any existing facilities, which ar~
necessary to provide sewer capacity to the development.
13. 01d Hundred Road/Coalfield Road Relocated shall have minim~
ninety (90) foot rights of way and shall be dedicated vi~
subdivision plat. Dedication shall occur in accordance win
the approved phasing plan. Existing Old Hundred Road
be constructed as a minimum of a two-lane paved road fro~
Coalfield Road Relocated to the terminus, or existing O1¢
Hundred Road shall be abandoned.
14. The Master Plan submitted with the application shall b~
considered the Master Road Plan, excepting the Coalfiel(
Road Relocated/Powhite Parkway diamond interchange whicl
shall be constructed as a partial cloverleaf. The design
~he interchange may be modified by the Transportatio~
Department upon submission and approval of documentatioz
that traffic volumes can be accommodated at acceptabl(
levels of service. Approval of the plan by the County doe~
not imply that the County gives final approval of an5
particular road alignment or section. Access points
Genito Road, Old Hundred Road/Coalfield Road Relocated,
Powhite Parkway and site roads shall be approved by th,
Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review.
15. In addition to submission of road construction plans
VDH&T and Environmental Engineering, the plans shall also b~
submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department.
(T)
16. Any additional right of way (or easements) required fo~
Powhite Parkway, in excess of that (thosel specified
currently approved VDH&T Powhite Extension Plans, to obtair
a minimum of 200 feet of total right of way shall b~
dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and
unrestricted. Dedication shall occur in accordance with th~
approved phasing plan. (T)
17. Traffic signals shall be provided by the developer,
when warranted as a result of traffic generated from th~
development, at the intersections of Old Hundred Road an6
Genito Road; site road(s) and Old Hundred Road/Coalfiel~
Road Relocated; and Coalfield Road Relocated/Powhit~
Parkway. (T&CPC)
18. stub road(s) or access easements shall be provided to th~
adjacent property to the north and east. This condition ma~
be modified by the Planning Commission at the time of the
schematic plan review. (T&CPC)
19. Other than the Coalfield Road Relocated interchange, there
shall be no access to Powhite Parkway. (T)
20. The Convenience Business (B-l) tracts (i.e., MDO/CR) shall
be designed such that architecture, visual, and site desigE
do not project typical strip development. Architectural
renderings/elevations shall be submitted to the Planning
Com~.ission for approval in conjunction with sehez~atio plan
revzew.
21. Uses permitted in the LDO tracts shall be limited to the
following:
(1) All use~ permitted in the office Business (0) District
(2) Coating, engraving, and allied services (not to include
engraving, pickling, anodizing or other metal surface
treatment)
(3) co~unioation studios and stations (not towers)
(4) Optometrist sales and service
(5) Post office
(6) Industrial and vocational training schools
86-670
22.
23.
(7) Laboratories and other research and development
facilities
(8) Motion picture production
(9) Printing, publishing, and allied industries
(10) Recreational establishments (indoor and outdoor)
(11) Con,teeters' offices and display rooms
(12) Savings and loan institutions and banks
(13) Philanthropic and charitable institutions
(14) Schools, collages, libraries, and museums
(15) Churches
(16) ~emporary maintenance buildings associated with the
operation and maintenance of the project, including
storage and servicing of trucks and earth moving
equipment, workshops, greenhouses, and material
storage, provided that all exterior areas shall be
visually screened and there shall be no offensive
operation of maid facility, as covered in Section
21-185(d) of the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance
(17) Clinics, medical and dental laboratories
(15) Florist shop
(19) Messenger or telegraph service
(20) Office supply store
(21) Travel arranging and ticket services
(22) Drug store
(23) Cleaning, pressing, and laundry when located
within an office building
(24) Brokerage office
(25) Book or stationery store
(26) Restaurants
(27) Telephone booths
{28) Telephone exchanges
(29) Service stations, not adjacent to remidential zoning
(30) Child care centers and kindergarten
(31) Artist's material and Supply store
(32) Barber shops, beauty shops when located within an
office building
(Note: This condition Supersedes Textual Statement, VI.
Proposed Rezoning. C. office/Light ~ndustrial
District. Article 21, Section 21-1 Uses Permitted pages
8 through 11; and E. Conditional Use Planned Development
1. For LOW Density Office Uses. (a) Permitted uses.
Page 12.)
Uses permitted in the MDC Tracts shall include all use~
permitted in the LDO Tracts plus the~following:
(1) Gift shop
(2) Camera store
(3) Motel/motel
(4) Cocktail lounge
(5) Clothes store
(6) Exposition building or center
(7) Liquor mtore
(8) Shoe repair
(9} specialty shop
(10) Photography studio
(11) Jewelry stere
(12) Museum
(13) Sporting goods sales
(Note: This Condition supersedem Textual statement, VI.
Proposed Rezoning. C. Office/Light Industrial. (M-i~
District. Article 21, Section 21-1 Uses Permitted, pages
through 11; and E. Conditional Use Planned Development
District. 3. For Medium Density Office Uses. {a) Permitta¢
uses. pages 13 and 14.)
Uses permitted in the R&D Tracts shall include all use~
permitted in the MDc Tracts plus the following:
(1) All uses permitted in the Light Industrial
District
86-671
24.
25.
26.
(2) Boat sales, including outdoor storage and display,
provided that not more than five (5) boats shall be
visible from a public stree~
(3) Carpenter and cabinet shops
(4) Electrlcsl, plumbing and heating shops, sales and
service
(5) Radio and television broadcasting studios and offices,
exclusive of towers
(6) Radio, television and other home entertainment, sales
and service
(7) Appliance store
(8) Furniture store
(9) Veterinary hospitals, boardin~ kennels, or clinics
(10) Motor vehicle sales, service and repair, accessory
stores
(11) Hospitals, clinics, sanitariums, medical and dental
laboratories
(12) Bakery products, manufacturing
(13) Bottling and canning soft drinks and carbonated waters
(14) Building materials, storage and sale
(15) Contractors' shops and storage yards (if such storage
yards are not visible from any public street)
(16) Electrical, machinery equipment and supplies
manufacturing
(17) Furniture and fixtures manuf,cturing
(18) Ice manufacturing
(19) Other fabricated metal products manufacturing not
otherwise specifically listed in the Chesterfield
County Zoning Ordinance
(20) Pharmaceutical products manufacturing
(21) Mass transportation
(22) Transportation equipment manufacturing
(23) Textile mill products - manufacturing
(24) Tobacco manufacturing
(25) Wholesale greenhouses
(26) Paint and wallpaper ~ales
(27) Wholesale trade
(28) commercial storage yards and/or building for boats
buses, large trucks, campers, travel and utilit
trailers
(Note= This condition supersedes Textual Statement,
VI. Proposed Rezoninq. C. Office/Light Industrial
~-1) Dis~rict. Article 21, Section 21-1 Uses
Permitt~, pages 8 through 11; and E. Conditional Use
Planned Development District.. 2...For. Research and
Development Office Uses, page 13.)
Uses permitted in the MXD District shall include th,
foilowing:
(1) Ail uses permitted in the Community Business (B-2) Dis-
trict
(2) All uses permitted in the LDO tracts
(3) All USes permitted in the MDC tracts
(Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement,
VI. Proposed Rescning. C. Office/Light.. I~dustrial
(M-i) District. Article 21, Section 21-1 Uses
Permitted, pages 8 through 11; and E. Conditional Uss
Planned Development District. 5. Mixed Use District,
(a) Permitted uses, pages 16 and 17.)
Prior to obtaining schematic plan approval for any structure
in excess of six (6) stories, approval from the County
Airport Manager and the County Fire Administration shall be
obtained for the purpose of determining . possible
interference with the emergency communication system of
Chesterfield County and the Chesterfield County Airpore.
[P&CPC]
Special treatment shall be provided for any rooftops visible
from Powhite Parkway. Such special treatment shall ensure
86-672
that any heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment
located on rooftops are screened and/or incorporated into
the b~ilding design. (P)
A twenty-five (25) foot landscaped buffer shall be provided
adjacent to all Project Roads in the LDO tracts. (P)
(Note: This condition is in addition to Textual Statement,
VI. Proposed Rezoning. E. Conditional Use Planned
Development District. 1. (d) Buffer Areas and setback
requirements. Page 12.)
28. A buffer shall be provided either adjacent to or within the
multifa~ily tract (APT. Tract) for the entire perimeter of
the tract. The exact width and treatment of the buffer
shall be approved by the Planning Commission at the time of
schematic plan review. The buffer shall be for the purpose
of ensuring compatibility between the multifamily tract
(AB~. Tract) and adjacent non-residential uses. (P)
29. The conditions stated herein supersede all previously
imposed conditions of Ca~e 74S021 for the property encom-
passed by this zoning. (P)
Proffered Conditions
Option One
A. To provide for an adequate area roadway system at the time
of the complete development of this project, the developer
shall be responsible for the following improvements, a~
shown on Option One:
1. Construct one-bali of the bridge for Coalfield Roa~
(Relocated) over the Powhite Parkway.
2. Construct in th~ n~rtheast quadrant and seutheas~
quadrant of the intersection of the Powhite Parkway an¢
Coalfield Road (Relocated) an intereh~/lge t~
accommodate the following movements:
a, Westbound Powhite to southbound Coalfield
Road (Relocated)
b. Northbound Coalfield Road (Relocated) tc
eastbound Powhite Parkway
3. Construct a third eastbound lane on the Powhite Parkwa
from Coalfield Road (Relocated) to Route 288.
4. Construct the ra~p to accommodate eastbound Powhi%
Parkway traffic to southbound Route 288.
5. Construct the loop in the northeast quadrant of Route
288 and the Powhite Parkway to accommodate westbound
traffic from Route 288 onto the Powhite Parkway.
6. Construct two (2) additional lanes on Coalfield Road
(Relocated)/Old Hundred Road from Genito Road to south
approach of the bridge over the Powhite Parkway.
a. This improvement will also include the addi-
tional two (2) lanes needed from the
southbound ~ eastbound rarap, or loop at
Powhite Parkway to Old Hundred Road.
This improvement will also include required
improvements to the intersection of Old
Hundred Road and Genito Road, as shown i~ the
transportation analysis submitted with the
phasing plan.
86-673
7. When warranted, install a signal at Old Eundred Rca(
and Genito Road.
8. When warranted, install a signal at Powhite Parkwa
westbound ramp with Coalfield Road (Relccatad).
B. In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission,
phasing plan for required road improvements, with supportin
traffic analysis, shall be submitted to the Transportation
Department and VDH&T for approval.
C. Specific roadway improvements, set forth in these trans-
portation proffers, are required by the time of full site
development and are to be constructed in accordance with the
phasing plan approved by the Transportation Department.
developer shall provide the Transportation Department with
additional traffic studies upon completion of each phase, if
requested. Roadway improvements shall be increased or
decreased by the developer, as required by the
Transportation Department, if these studies demonstrate that
traffic generation rates and distributions solely by this
development are materially different, as determined by the
Transportation Department, from projections set ~orth in the
traffic study prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates, dated
January 31, 1986, and supplemented by Kimley-Horn
Associates, IBc, if satisfactory improvements cannot be
provided, the Plar~ning Co~alission may reduce the permissible
densities to the extent that acceptable levels of service
are provi~e~, as determined by the Transportation
Department.
~pticn Two
A. The developer shall be responsible ~or the ~ollowin<
improvements in the attached EF~ibit TWO, if, and only if]
existing proffers and commitmente by others are not provide~
and ~tudies of the traffic generated by the Gulfstre~
Development show that such improvements are necessary.
1. Construct a bridge for Coalfield Road (Relocated) ovez
the Powhite Parkway.
2. Construct two (2) lanes of Powhite Parkway betweer
Route 288 and Coalfield Road (Relocated).
3. Construct in the northeast quadrant and southeast
quadrant o! the intersection of the Powhite Parkway an~
Coalfield Road (Relocated) an interchange tc
accommodate the following movements:
a. Westbound Powhite ~o southbound Coalfield
Road (Relocated)
b. Northbound Coalfield Road (Relocated) te
eastbound Powhite Parkway
4. Construct the northbound Route 288 bridge structure and
~onstruct the loop in the northeamt quadrant of Route
288 and the Powhite Parkway to accommodate westbound
traffic from Route 288 onto the Powhite Parkway.
5. Construct the ra~p to accommodate eastbound Powhite
Parkway traffic to southbound Route 288.
6. Construct (2) additional lanes on Coalfield Road (Relc-
cated)/old Hundred Road from Genito Road to south
approach of the bridge over the Powhite Parkway.
a. This.improvement wit1 also include the addi-
tional two (2) la,es needed from the
~outhbound to eastbound ramp, o~ loop a~
Powhite Parkway to Old Hundred Road.
86-674
b. This improvement will also include required
improvement to the intersection of Old
Hundred Road and Genito Road, as shown in the
transportation analysis submitted with the
phasing plan.
7. When warranted, install a signal at Old Hundred Road
and Genito Read.
8. When warranted, install a signal at Powhite Parkwa~
weetbound ramp with Coalfield Road (Relocated).
B. In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission,
phasing plan far required road improvements, with supportin
traffic analysis, shall be submitted to the Transportation
Department and VDH&T for approval.
C. Specific roadway improvements, set forth in these trans-
portation proffers, are required by the time of full site
development and are to be constructed in accordance with the
phasing plan approved by the Transportation Department. The
developer shall provide the Transportation Department with
additional traffic studies upon completion of each phase, if
requested. Roadway improvements shall be increased or
decreased by the developer, as required by the
Transportation Department, if these studies demonstrate that
traffic generation rates and distributions solely by this
development are materially different, as determined by the
Transportation Department, from projections set forth in the
traffic study prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates, dated
January 31, 1986, and supplemented by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. If satisfactory improvements cannot be
provided, the Planning Commission may reduce the permissible
densities to the extent that acceptable levels of service
are provided, as determined by the Transportation
Department.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Sirone and Mr. Mayas.
Absent: Ur. Dodd.
Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting.
~. DINNER~n~rING
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr.. Daniel, the Boar~
recessed at 3:44 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. at the sheraton PArk Sout~
for a meeting with the Chesterfield County Legislative Delegatior
regarding the proposed County charter.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd introduced Senator Robert E. Russell, Delegate Joh~
Watkins, Delegate N. Leslie Saunders, Jr., Mr. J. Royal]
Rcbertson, Mr. Steve Perkins, Mr. William Mohr a~d Mrs. Llrnn~
Cooper who were also preeent.
Mr. Dodd stated that there have been discussions on the County's
form of government for ~ny years. He stated last year the Board
~elt a Charter would be beneficial to the County but because th~
issue was of such importance that the citizens should be involved
prior to the Board taking any official action. He stated, as
result of trying to obtain participation and involvement,
fifteen (15) member committee was selected to draft a propose
charter. He stated the Charter Corm~ittee met many times in thei~
endeavor to devise a proposed charter that would serve tc
organize the governmental structure of Chesterfield County and,
hopefully, benefit all its citizens. He commended them for their
diligent efforts and dedication in accomplishing the task
assigned. He stated the Board also felt it necessary to receive
$6~75
the legislators* input and thoughts on this issue, as their
opinions and concerns are most important.
Mr. Micas stated this charter follows the basic ~ormat of a short
charter and he highlighted the chapters i~dividua~y, explaining
the changes/similarities that exist between the proposal and the
government structure as it exists today.
There was some concern as to whether or not the County can
receive immunity from annexation by stating it in a charter. It
was indicated that it could be done, however, it is a matter of
political ~ea~ibility. Mr. Daniel stated although it was the
wish of the Charter committee and the Board, the Board cannot
attest to its practical reality. Mr. Watkins indicated that all
counties would like to be immune ~rom annexation but this is not
practical. Mr. Saunders stated he did not feel it wise to have
the citizens vote on an issue in the charter that does not have
any possibility of passing the General Assembly and he felt it
best to eliminate it at this time. He sta~ed even if it were
passed through the General Asse~bly there may be no assurances
even then of immunity from annexation.
Mr. Applegate stated he was concerned that no matter what the
Board and citizens adopt, the legislative delegation has to
support it as it could be amended or altered in the General
Assembly and it is important to get their input now rather tha~
have something the County wishes it did not have. Mr. Saunder~
stated if the charter were amended to a point where the Board wa~
not happy, it could be withdrawn. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the
Board and legislators should review the issues involved and amen¢
them as long as it did not take away from the intent, delet~
those portions which do not have a chance and discuss othe:
concerns.
Mrs. Cooper Stated this charter was a moderate approach thc
Committee felt would help the County and might pass. Mr.
Saunders stated experience dictates what will or will not happen.
He stated he will not support a meals tax in the County and h~
felt that item would not pass even though it is included in th~
charter. He sta~ed the annexation issue will not pass and i~
those kinds of issues are included, the charter could be ir
jeopardy and if we are not going to be seriou~ this should net b~
undertaken. Mr. Applegate stated he felt more comfortabl~
knowing the charter can be withdrawn if it appears to b~
something the Board does not want after reaching the Genera]
Assembly.
Mr. Mayes stated he felt the charter would be what the peopl~
want aa indicated by the Charter committee and he did not fee]
deviation would be proper. Mr. Watkins stated there are som~
issues that will ~ot pass and there is no need for inclusion.
~r. ~ayss stated he felt he could agree with amending it at this
time then have full support of all but that it not be ~mended a~
the General Asse~bly. ~r. Russell stated he felt the Genera/
Assembly would only chanqe wording to fit ~he Code of Virginia
and also where the county may be asking for powers that go beyond
those that counties normally have. He stated the taxing powers
of a city, the meals tax, the highway changes, etc. would have tc
be taken out to fit in with powers other counties. He stated he
would not agree to changing the basic intent of the charter as
passed by the referendum and he did not think the Senate would
either. He stated syntax, legal terms, phrases, what counties
are not usually allowed to do will be cut hack and the Senate
rubber stamps charters after you get pass those issues. Re
stated he felt taking the issue to the public for a vote wa~
best.
~r. Watkins inquired, since the charter does address annexation,
road matters, etc., was consideration given to seeking cit~
status. Mr. Perkins stated they were looking at ultimate power
in the people and they felt what currently exists was closer to
the democracy the people wanted and discounted city status. Mrs.
Cooper stated the charge to the Com~it:ee was not to look into
86-676
city statu~. Mr. Dodd stated staff has looked into the oit]
status but there is a long time element involved in that process,
~e stated the charter may be the ~irst step and the city statue
the second step. Mrs. Girone stated that last year when thi~
matter came up, she spoke with Dr. Dalport at the Institute
Government at the University of Virginia and he told kef to
to the future-envision for 20 years what might De needed, eto,
She stated the city status ha~ caught o5 alld we could achiew
immunity from annexation and could obtain some authority over t~
roads. She stated she felt staff's report was not detailed bu~
she felt city status might be the way to proceed. Mr. Danie2
stated he, too, felt this was the first step, then, if desired~
the Board could undertake the detailed analysis for city status.
He stated it will be a long process, the General Assembly wil2
have co~t~ents as to our motives, etc. He stated there has been
year whereby the Board, the citizens, etc. have been involved.
He stated he felt the proposed charter provides flexibility an¢
accountability for Chesterfield to move into the 215t Century.
Mr. Russell stated that he felt it would be misleading to tel2
the public that city status will give Chesterfield a large~
portion of the road funding. He sta~ed o~her localities woul¢
not sit by and watch that without trying the same. Mr. Watkin~
stated it would give the County more authority as to where
money was spent, not that there would be more money.
Mr. Saunders stated he felt this was a good proposal by the Bcar~
and Committee. ~e stated he felt for some time the County
consider city status and this is a perfect step toward that
He stated city status would give the County control of its roa¢
destiny and problems experienced today would not exist.
stated he felt that this charter will be compared to the Roanok~
Charter and if there are powers proposed that were not grante[
there, it may not go through as proposed. He stated he woul~
rather this De a~opted smoothly. He stated he felt the iszue~
that would cause problems should be eliminated now; hOwever, th~
wording will be changed to fit the Code, etc.
The Board and the legislative delegation reviewed various issue~
in the proposed charter and agreed upon amendments.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr- Mayes, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY O~
CHESTERFIELD, V~RGINIA:
1. That the Circuit Court of the County of Chesterfield,
or any judge thereof, ±~ hereby requested to order an election o~
November 4, 1986, upon the question of whether the County Of
Chesterfield should request the General Assembly to grant th~
County a County charter, a copy of which is attached to thf&
resolution and incorporated herein by reference, which questior
shall be placed on the ballot in the following form:
Shall Chesterfield County request the General Assembly to
grant it a County charter?
Yes
No
2. That a copy of this resolution, certified by the Clerk
o~ the Board of Supervisors, shall be filed with the Circuit
Court of the County of Chesterfield, or any judge thereof.
3. That the prior resolution adopted on August 13, 1986
concerning the County charter is hereby vacated and superseded bM
this resolution.
4. That this resolution shall take effect immediately.
86-677
The Board being polled:
Mr. Dodd: Aye
Mr. Daniel: Aye
Mr. Applegate: Aye
Mrs. Girone: Abstention
Mr. Mayes: Aye
Mrs. Girone indicated her abstention was because she would lik(
to further investigate the advantages of a city charter.
Mr. Dodd expressed appreciation for those in attendance.
12. ~kI~O~rg/~
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Boar~
adjourned at 10:40 D.m. until 7:00 p.m. on September 10, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
Rioh~a~rdL. Hedrick
County Administrator
Chairman
86~678