Loading...
09-10-1986 MinutesSeptember 10, 1986 Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Chairman Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Vice Chairman Mr. G. H. Applegate Mr. Jesse J. Mayes Mr. Richard L. Hedrfok County Administrator Staff in Attendanoe: Mrs. Doris DeHart, Dir., Legislative Services Mr. Bradford S. Hammer, Asst. Ce. Administrator Mr. Robert Hodder, Huilding Official Mr. William Howell, Dir. of Gen. Services Dr. Hurt Lowe, Hxec. Dir., Mental Health & Mental Retardation Mr. R. J. McCracken, Transp. Director Mr. Richard M. McElfish, Dir., ~nv. Mr. Robert Masden, Asst. Co. Adm. for Human Services Mr. 8teven L. Micas, County Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir.of News/Info. Services Mr. Timothy Perry, Landfill Manager Mr. William D. Peele, Act. Dir., Planning Mr. Lane Ramsey~ Dir., Budqet & Accounting Mr. Richard F. Sale, Asst. Co. Adm. for Development Mr. David Welchons, Dir., of Utilities Mr. Dodd called the meeting to order in Room 502 oi the Administration Building at 2:00 p.m. 1. WOI~KSESSION Mr. Dodd stated the joint work session between the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Cormmission had been scheduled to discuss qeneral and speci£ic issues relevant to the general direction regarding the quality of life and economic development of Chesterfield County. Mr. Daniel presented a brief summary of the issues and explained the circumstances which precipitated the subsequent formation of a subcommittee, of Planninq Con~issioners and Board members, which was charged with addressing growth and development issues within the County and instructed to bring forth an agenda for consideration to the full joint bodie~ o~ the Board and Commission. Discussion ensued regarding general and specific issues (i.e., the general direction of development and the quality of life and economic development in the County, with specific emphasis on the impact of density and the road networks as they affect citizens of the County; the pace and quality of development; the roles of the Planning Commission and staff; community 86-679 involvement in the planning process; underground utilities; street lights; mobile hemes; updated General Plan 2000; rezoning to achieve land use ~onsistency; road front development; private septic and well systems; signs; protecting future r~ad rights of way; and establishment of a policy planning group). It was noted that many of these issues, which arose through the preparation and public interaction in the process oi the General ~lan revision, are among the issues considered the most significant and of the highest priority. It was noted that public concern about Chesterfield's growth and development is escalating; that residents expect a more rational and organized approach to assessing and approving development; that residents and the development community have become increasingly concerned and active about the quality, pace and costs of development (i.e., the need for road network expansion and improvement, managing growth, controlled density, sign control, commercial/industrial encroachment into residential neighborhoods, sidewalks, streetlights, utilities, etc.); that citizens feel Chesterfield's rapid growth experience has and will continue to negatively affect Chesterfield as a good place to live; that a "balance of growth" should be considered and a community definition £or the quality of development established; that more emphasis needs to be placed on quality planned development; that a "no growth" philosophy may come without improvement~ in development standards which could have negative effects on local referendums and elections as well as the quality of public servioss and ecencmical development pursuits; that the governing body of Chesterfield should establish provisions for hew it wishes the County to develop and market it that way; that whether Or net the County needs or wants to provide services to its citizens that are closely associated with urbanized environments needs to be determined; etc. It was the consensus that a task force should be established to addre~ thsse concerns and issues and bring recommendations back to the Board by January 1, 1987. Those persons selected to serve on the task force were Mr. Geoffrey Applegate, Mr. Harry Daniel, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. Lawrence Belcher, Mr. Richard Sale and Mr. Steve ~icas. Mr. Mayes indicated that he felt the task force should include community representation. The group agreed there would be ~ample opportunity for community representation at the time the matter is presented for a public hearing. There was discussion of a member of the Board of Supervisors serving on the ~lanning Commission, effective January 1, 1987, and the benefits which could be derived from such representation. DINNER Tbs Board recessed dinner. to the Airport Crosswinds Restaurant for Mr. Dodd called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at the Courthouse at 7:10 p.m. (EDST). Mr. Dodd introduced Mr. John Sherrer, who gave the invocation. 3. ~,nRnG~ OF ALLEGIA~NCE TO ~HE FLAG 0~ 'r~ UNITED STAT~S 0F The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. 86-680 4. i%~PRO~ALOF 4.A. AMENDMENT TO JUNE 26, 1985 MINUTE8 Mr. Applegate stated he had abstained on the original vote for Zoning Case 85s035 due to a possible conflict of interest and again disclosed to the Board that he has ownership interests in property located in the general area, declared a possible conflict cf interest, pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act, and excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Pools stated that on June 26, 1985, the Board of Supervisors considered zoning request 855035 by William B. DuVal, regarding a large parcel of land generally at the intersection of Route 360 and Nort~ Spring Run Road. He stated the Board, after a lengthy discussion, approved Mr. DuVal's request, with a modification relative to house sizes. He stated that as Mr. DuVal began to develop the project, he advised he did not feel Condition 17, on page 85-431 of the Board minutes, accurately reflected the Board's action, with respect to the size of the homes. He stated staff has carefully reviewed the minutes, tapes of the meeting and handouts the applicant presented to the Board members at the meeting and agrees that a correction is in order to co~rect!y reflect the Board's decision. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board amended page 85-431 of the June 26, 1985 Minutes so that Condition 17 of Case 85S035 reads as follows: "17. The following minimum square footage shall govern house size. Required amenities shall include attached covered porches, covered stoops, breezeways and garages, which shall not be included in computing minimum square footage; One story (Ranch style) TWO story One and one-half story · . . 1,200 finished square feet · . . 830 gross square feet on the first floor · . . 830 grOSS square feet on the first floor" Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Absent= Mr. Applegate. Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting. 4.B. AUGUST 27, 1986 On motion Of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, approved the minutes of August 27, 1986, as amended. Vote~ Unanimous the Board 5. CO~TYADMINIST~ATOR'S CO~{ENTS Mr. Masden introduced Dr. John N. Pastore, Chairman of the Henricus Foundation, who commented briefly about the efforts and achievements involved in the restoration of Henrfcns Park. He stated there has been tremendous interest from the citizens of both Chesterfield and Henrico Counties. He expressed appreciation for the participation and cooperation of the governing bodies and administrations of Chesterfield and ~enrico Counties, as well as the contributions of private enterprises and tremendous efforts of those volunteers involved in the project, ae stated his ultimate goal is the formation of a City of Benricus, of which he anticipates completion within the next two (2) years. He extended an invitation to the Beard members to attend the Dedication Ceremony for 375th Anniversary of Henricus ~cheduled at 11:00 a.m. on September 19, 1986, at the Henricus Historical Bite. 86~681 Mr. Dodd commended Dr. Pastore for his accomplishments and expressed th~ Board's appre¢iatien for the enthusiasm which has been displayed toward the restoration of this historical site. 6. BO~D (D~ITTEE I~EPORTS It was generally agreed, due to the length of fhe foreqo the Board Committee Reports. agenda, to ~Q~ESTS TO POSTPO~ ACTION~ ~ERGENC~ ADDITIONS OR CHaRGES TN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION On motion of Mr, Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board added Item 12.F.6., Set Public Bearing Date to Consider Johnston Willis Financing; there was discussion of issuinq up $5,500,000 in Supplemental Lease/~urchasing Financing to fund the construction of the County Coures Building and it was generally agreed to defer consideration of this matter until September 24, 1986; and adopted the agenda, as emended. Vote: Unanimous 8. P~SO~IONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION 8.A. MR. CLIFTON STARGARDT~ ON ATTAINING RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Clifton Stargardt, son of Lt. Col. and Mre. Kenneth B. Stargardt of Kendelwick Drive, has attained the rank of Eagle Scout, which is the highest rank awarded to a young man in the BOy Scouts of America; and WBEREAS, Clif has been a member of Troop 874 sponsored by St. Lukes United Methodist Church of Chesterfield, Virginia since Sept~ber of 1981, and has held several offices in the Troop and has been very active in the advancement of the younger Scouts; and WMEREAS, Clif was the first boy in the Troop elected by his fellow troop members to be a candidate for the Order of The Arrow, which is a group of honor campers in Scouting; and WHEREAS, Clif is a member of the Manchester High School Show Choir, the National Honor Society and the school sponsored bands, was selected for Boys' State and has been a me~%ber of the Virginia Association of Competitive Swimmers team for several years; and W~EREAS, Growing through his experiences in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship and priding himself on the great accomplishments of his County, Clif is indeed a member of a new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be very proud. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, th~ Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby extends it congratulations to Clifton Stargardt and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an outstandinq young man as one of its citizens. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented the executed resolution to Mr. Clifton Stargardt and introduced his parents, Lt. Col. and Mrs. Kenneth H. Stargardt, Scout Master Best and members of Troop 874, who were also present. 86-682 8.B. Mr. J. RUPFiN APP~RSON POR OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY SERVICE On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: ~ERF2%S, Mr. J. Ruffin Apperson has for the pamt two years served as the first ~resident of the Matoaca Magisterial District Advisory Council and while serving in this capacity has been responsible for outstanding achievements; and W~RRAS, Mr. Apperson served as an elected representative from the Dale District on the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County from January 1, 1964 through December 31, 1979; and WHEREAS, Mr. Apperson volunteered many additional hours of service to the citizens of Chesterfield County as a representative on various service and planning organizations such as the Ruritan Club and as Historian for the American Legion; and WHEREAS, as a resident of the Matoaca Magisterial District, Mr. Apperson has continued his ~crvic¢ to the citizens of Chesterfield a~ President of the Matoaca Magisterial District Advisory Council; and WHEREAS, during his leadership in the Matoaca District the first concrete plan for a grade separation in ~ttriok was developed and approval of the Southern Planning Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, as well as numerous other projects benefitting not only the Matoaca Magisterial District but the entire County, were accomplished. NOW, THEREFORE B~ IT R~SOLV~D, that the Chesterfield County Eoard of Supervisors recognizes Mr. Apperson's tremendous community work and applauds his successful term as President of the Matoaca Magisterial District Advisory Council and wishes him Success in his continued service to the citizens of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Mayas stated Mr. Apperson was not present; however, the resolution would be presented to him on September 15, 1986. Mr. ~edrick stated there were nc hearings of citizens at this time. 10. DEFERRED ITF24S 10.A. CONSIDERATION OF CENTRAL AI{EA LAND USE AND scheduled TRANSPORTATION PI~N Mr. Poole stated the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing to consider the Central Planning Area Land Use and Transportation ~lan on July 9, 1986, at which time the Board deferred its decision for (60) days and directed staff to evaluate a number of issues. He stated staff has continued to review the recommended Plan and has prepared additional revisions to address Board concerns. He stated staff also met with citizens of the Salem Church Road area to discuss alternatives to the proposed collector road between Salem Church and Lewis Road~. ~s stated, although a number of alternatives were discussed, agreement was not reached on a recommended proposal and neither staff nor the community feel that a consensus will be reached. ~e stated staff is recommending, at this time, that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Central Plannln~ Area Land Use and Transpprtation Plan as recommended by th~ Planning Commission and revised by staff and direct staff to 86-683 proceed expeditiously to revise Ordinances to improve development standards along the Route 10 Corridor. Mr. Daniel stated he felt it would be appropriate to reopen the public hearing to allow additional citizen input. Mr. Dodd reopened the public hearing on the Plan. Ms. Janet Farmer expressed appreciation to the Board for its support and understanding of citizens' concerns with regard to the proposed extension of Salem Church Read. She requested the Board consider approval of a citizens' proposal for the Central Planning Area Land Use and Transportation Plan which would delete the proposed extension of Salem Church Road, downgrade the right-of-way of existing Salem Church Road from ~he proposed ninety (90) feet to seventy (70) feet, and requested that study be authorized for the establishment of a service road to run between the projects known as Iront~ridge and Chesterfield Meadows, such road to be placed a minimum of 600 feet from Route 10. She stated further that the proposed overlay District for Route 10 should be adopted before future development is undertaken. Mr. T. L. Soschen, President of the Salem Woods Homeowners Association, voiced opposition to the portion of the Central Planning Area Land Use and Transportation Plan seeking the extension of Salem Church Road from Central~a Road to Route 10 at Lewis Road. He stressed area residents unyielding resolve to oppose the concept of this road because they are convinced the proposed road will greatly increase the volume of traffic which already traverses Salem Church Road, raise the specter of automobile and pedestrian accidents, decrease the aesthetic appearance of the community, depreciate property values, increase traffic volumes in front of Salem Church Educational Plaza which will place area children even more at risk when attempting to cross Salem Church Road, funnelling traffic off Route 10 via the proposed roadway is not a viable option, increasing traffic volumes through a large residential area to satisfy the present and anticipated traffic increases on a major arterial such as Route 10 is Unethical, impact of constructing a four (41 lane thoroughfare through this project will reduce developer's financial assets and result in less compatible, cheape~ construction of the development which will have an adverse impact on adjoining residential properties. He stated that at some point the Board will have to face the issue of calling a halt to unbridled growth in Chesterfield County's commercial and residential areas. He stated the citizens understand that the proposed extension of Salem Church Road is an attempt to get a handle on increasing traffic volumes in this area of the County, however, they are convinced the proposal for Salem Church Road Extended is an inadequate attempt at growth control that disregards the well being of those already living along the Salem Church, Beulah, and Hopkins Roads corridors. He submitted petitions to the Board containing the slgnaturcs of 182 citizens from the Salem Woods vicinity opposing the proposed extension of Salem Church Road as proposed in thc Plan. He also expressed the citizens' appreciation for Mr. Daniel's attendance at several citizen meetings regarding this matter. Mr. ~arl Schlenker expressed concern regarding the rapid and dramatic growth of Chesterfield County and questioned what action is planned to accommodate the increased growth in the population and address the overall road problems facing the County. Re stated that perhap~ the time has arrived for the Board to Kay that it is time to slow dow]l, evaluate thc present situation, and determine what the County should look like in the future and how to arrive at that goal. He stated he believed that the County as a whole, possibly the entire Richmond vicinity, needs to step back and reconsider wher~ it is going and how to get there. He stated the environment in which he chose to live is pleasing to him, as it is to other residents in 86-684 the area, and he urged the Board to take action before the Richmond area becomes a land of asphalt and concrete. Mr. Daniel stated that a joint work session of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission was held earlier in the a£tornoon at which theze types Qf issues were addressed. Ee stated the Board and Commission appointed a task force to study these issues and bring forth a report, targeted for January I, 1987, which would be presented at a future public healing. Mrs. Girone inquired if the proposed salem Church Road ~xtended, with respect to the Central Plannin~ Area Land Use and Trans ortation Plan, is directly related to the main road of the proposed development in the upcoming zoning case (Case 86S097). Mr. Peele stated the southern portion of the proposed Salem Church Road Extended is shown on the Ironbridge Development Master Plan. He stated, should the Board eliminate the proposed extension of Salem Church Road from the Plan, the applicants are seeking approval of amendments to their original conditions of zoning to be able to respond to and comply with the Board's action on the Central Planning Area Land Use and Transportation Plan. Mrs. Girone inquired what would prevent the stub road from being extended through the next property in the future. Mr. Peele stated the property to the north is not yet zoned, it is Agricultural, and would most likely be developed as residential in the very near future. Re stated the developers would have to qo through a zoning process to rezone the land and the subdivision process would address the issue of extending/connecting the ~tub road to adjoing properties. Be stated any action the Board would take on the Central Planning Area Land Use and Transportation Plan would be available to the Planning Commission and ~taff relative to determining a recommendation for whethe~ or not the road should be extended. Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation to staff and area citizens for their efforts on this issue. He stated, even though there were several areas cf disagreement, he wished to compliment the many people who participated in the process which produced the Central Planning Area Land U~e and Transportation Plan. He stated the overlay plan is in process, the standards have been drafted and the actual maps will be prepared such that the overlay plan will be presented to the Planning Co~ission in the October/November timeframe. Re recommended that the Plan be adopted, with the elimination of the extension of Salem Church Road, that the right-of-way of existing Salem Church Road be downgraded from the proposed ninety (90) feet to ~eventy (70) f~et and that County staff be instructed to immediately initiate a study that will identify alternatives ~or the establishment of a parallel ~ervlce road from the Irenbridge Development to the Chesterfield Meadows Development, such road to be a minimum of 600 feet fr~m Route 10 and the overlay district of Route 10. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: wHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors adopted the General Plan 2000 on June 22, 1977; and WHEREAS, Title 19.1, Chapter 11, Article 4 of the Code of Virginia provides for the preparation and review of a comprehensive plan for all Virignia localities, and allow preparation of this Plan in parts; and WBEREAS~ the Chesterfield County Boa~d of Supervisors requested that the Chesterfield County Planning Commission review the existing Plan for the Central Plannin~ Area and to determine if revisions to the General Plan 2000 were needed; and WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Planning Commission has considered proposed Plan alternatives and has held public hearings on the proposed Plan revisions; and 86-685 WSERHAS, the Chesterfield County Planning Commission has recommended that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors adopt staff's Recommended Plan, subject to certain changes. NOW, THHREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors adopt the recommended Central Plannin~ Area Land Use and Transportation Plan as an amendment to the Chesterfield General Plan 2000 to guide future development and provision of streets and public facilities in the area except: 1. eliminate proposed Salem Church Road Extended, from its intersection with Centralia Road to Route 10 at Lewis Road; and authorize a study for the establishment of a parallel service road between the projects known as Ironbridge and Chesterfield Meadows, such road to be placed a minimum of 600 feet from Route 10; 2. downgrade the right-of-way of existing Salem Church Road from the proposed ninety (90) feet to seventy (70) feet; 3. change the proposed land uses on the east side of Route 10, and in the vicinity of the Airport, from Sigh Density Residential Use to Medium High Density Residential Use, and 4. add a note to the Medium Density Residential land use along Route 10 through Chester to indicate that conversion to Office Use would be appropriate if carefully conditioned to protect adjacent residential land useS. Mr. Daniel stated the general ninety (90) foot right-of-ways defined in the Plan will certainly be used as a guideline for reserving necessary rights-of-way for future widenings, but there may arise situations where it may not be feasible to require the ninety (90) foot dedication, He stated there are other major thoroughfares which have been defined a~ ninety (90) foot corridors, such as Centralia Road, that do provide for the future widening and improvements but they are corridors which currently experience much higher traffic volumes. Mr. Dodd inquired if the Plan addresses the issue that the Route 10 Corridor, west of Chester, would be designated as light commercial and office use. Mr. Peele stated there are Plan notes which indicate that the underlying zoning designation of light commerical and office use could be appropriate on large scale projects in this area. Mr. Dodd inquired where the boundaries of this Plan are located with respect to the Village of Chester and if the area is designated as Office Use. Mr. Peele stated the Plan terminates in the area of Interstate 95. Mr. Dodd stated he intended for the development of this corridor to transition from residential to office use over the next twenty (20) year period and for such development to be handled in a quality manner. In response to a question by Mrs. Girone, Mr. Peele explained and pointed out the land use designations on the Plan map. Mr, Dedd expreeeed his appreciation to staff for the many diligent hours spent on this Plan and the citizens for their involvement and support. Vote: Unanimous 10.~. STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE GOVERNOR'S TRANSPORTATION PROPOSALS Mr. Daniel stated he wished to race--end that the Board consider the resolution and_ statement included in the Board package recognizing the Governor's concerns, 86-686 Mr. Applegate stated he felt paragraph 6 of the resolution should reflect $1.5 billion, not $1 billion, in needs for ports, airports and mass transit within the coming decade. expressed concern that the Board would be remiss if it did not object to the fact that the $400 million being proposed for the ports over the next ten {10) years is to go entirely to Hampton Roads. He stated there is an on-going study to expand the deep water terminal or to consider moving the port to a southern location which could pesslbly be in Chesterfield County. stated if 15% of the tax dollars is permitted to be allocated to Tidewater to enhance its economic development, then the best interest of the Richmond region, and certainly Chesterfield, is not being considered. He stated he could not support a resolution allocating $400 million dollars for ports to Hampton Roads, $250 million for airports, of which the Richmond Region will only be allocated $25,000, and for the funding of the mass transit situation in northern Virginia. He stated County citizens will be paying the increased taxe~ generated by this proposal as well and he did not think the Board should support the proposed 15% to go to other localities. Mr. Daniel stated, in response to Mr. Applegate's comments, it is a question of whether or not the Board intends to forego the approximate $300 million that has been identified as Chesterfield's portion of the allocations. He stated in years past Boards and members of this County have consistently lobbied against targeted funding in other parts of the State and the results have been negative. He stated the Board is aware of the County road situations and this proposal is designed to address those issues of which Chesterfield County has been identified as a recipient of more than, in terms of needs, what has been seen on paper at any one point in time. He stated the County's attitude must change. He stated approval of this resolution will place the Board in support of the process that will identify the availability of a mechanism which will allow roads to be constructed in Chesterfield County. Ms stated the resolution does not address the particulars of who gets what share. He stated the resolution specifically states Chesterfield County has contributed $52 million in local funds for the improvement of the highway system in the County and he feels very comiortable in supporting this particular resolution. Mr. Applegate stated there was also discussion to provide additional funding for the railroads. Be stated he felt this paper needs additional work and is a matter for the Commonwealth's General Assembly to address. Mr. Daniel read the resolution and clarified its contents. ~r. Applegate stated he did not object to the discussion of highway tranportation needs but he did not wish to discuss a paper that proposes to allocate money to other regions. Mr. Daniel stated he does not support giving up 15% or many of the specifics but he did support g~tting something done. MrS. Girene stated she felt it is the responsibility of this Board of Supervisors to speak for Chesterfield County and the motion on the floor speaks to the needs of the Commonwealth, not the County. She stated she has prepared a substitute resolution which identifies specifically each one of the County's projects, including the improvements to the Appomattox Bridge into Petersburg, the port of Richmond and the Richmond International Airport, aa well as all of the road needs. She stated there is a scheduled meeting where the Senate and the Eouse of Delegates will listen to comments from anyone desiring to speak regarding this issue and she felt the Board should direct its Chairman to speak on behalf of Chesterfield County's needs, not only identified by projects but identified through timing, as the Governor's proposal is a ten year program. She stated that the 86-687 way the resolution is written does not guarantee if or when Chesterfield will receive the necessary funding to address its needs. She stated the improvements are needed within the next £our (4) years, not ten (10) years. She stated her resolution identifies all the road needs that have been identified through the Plan process, identifies the needs for the ports, the Richmond International Airport and it also places a timing on the proposal, as all these improvements are needed by 1990. Mrs. Girone made a motion to adopt the following substitute resolution: WHEREAS, a e~prehensive transportation network is essential to the economic growth and prosperity of Chesterfield County and the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, congested highways, inadequate ports and airports threaten this economic growth and the quality of life now enjoyed by our citizens; and WHEREAS, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia has established a Commission to analyze and confirm Virginia's critical transportation needs and to develop alternatives for planning and financing a comprehensive transportation system that will address Virginia's needs through the next decade; and WI{EREAS, the Commission has identified present day critical needs within Chesterfield County including a grade separation for Chesterfield Avenue, improvements for the Appomattox Bridge into Petersburg, widening of Midlothian Turnpike from Providence Road to Huguenot Road, widening of Ironbridge Road from Chippenham Parkway to the Chesterfield Courthouse, widening of West Hundred Road through Chester, widening of Hull Street Road from Turner Road to Courthouse Road, construction of Route 288 and Route 895, as well as the Chippenham Parkway/Jahnke Road interchange; and WHEREAS, the construction of these projects must be completed by 1990; and WHEREAS, new initiatives must continue to be developed for acceleration of VDHaT's construction of the projects; and WHEREAS, new policies must be developed by VDB&T to promote and encourage economic development within the Commonwealth; and local contributions to highway construction must by the Commonwealth and a matching fund provided; WHEREAS, be recognized and WHEREAS, better access and expansion of Richmond International Airport and the port of Richmond are essential to the economic growth of the Richmond Region; and WHEREAS, the need for construction of sight and sound barriers on projects within urbanized areas has bsen expressed by citizens within the County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County supports Governor Daliles in his efforts to provide an adequate, stable source of revenue for the commonwealth's transportation needS. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board encourages fhe Governor to continue his efforts to accelerate the construction of these critically needed projects. Mr. Daniel stated that, as a matter of record, everyone of the County's transportation needs have been documented and approved by the Board through previous resolutions which have been presented to the Legislature for consideration. Mr, Mayes stated he felt the Board should support the original resolution and encourage the Governor fo take the necessary 86-688 action to obtain the $1 billion per year necessary for Virginia's transportation needs. He stated a lack of commitment and action by the County will reenlt in the County getting much less than needed to accomplish its goals. Mr. Dodd asked for a second to Mrs. Girone's motion. There being no second, he declared the motion dead. In response to a question by Mr. Dodd, Mr. McCracken stated, if the recommendation were to be approved as presented by the Subcommittee for fiscal year 1987-88, Chesterfield County would receive almost $6 million compared to $1.8 million en secondary roads today or about a 350% increase in the funds, which does not include the allocation to the Richmond District ~rlmary System, of which Chesterfield has historically received 30% to 40%. Mrs. Girone stated the primary money is allocated to the Richmond District and that is all that is identified in the Governor's Plan. She stated there are fourteen (14) local governments in the Richmond District to which the plan affords $21 million per year, however, the Plan does not state how much each locality will receive. She stated her resolution states exactly what Chesterfield want~ from that allocation and identifies its specific needs. She added that it is the Board's responsibility to speak for the County's needs and net just merely endorse a $21 million increase ior the Richmond Region. Mr. Daniel stated the original resolution endorses the process that has lead to something happening. Be stated the Board has articulated the County'~ specific need~ many times and have spoken to those issues at the appropriate times, however~ now it is time for final decisions to be made. He stated the Board should lobby for the specifics again, if necessary. He stated he felt the Board should support the Governor's proposal. Mr. Applegate stated the portion of Mr. Dodd~s speech to be pnesented to the Senate and House Finance Committee which states that the Board of Supervisors ~ully supports the Governor's and the Commission on Transportation'$ recommendation for addressing Virginia'e transportation neede deals with financing and requested that ~r. Dodd not present that statement on behalf of the Board. He inquired what would happen if Chesterfield County does not present a resolution at the public hearing. Mr. Dodd stated Chesterfield County would probably be left out of the allocations for improvements. He ~tated many previous requests have addressed the County's transportation needs and have been turned down due to a lack of adequate funding to addre~e those needs. He stated roads need to be built and cannot be built without adequate funding, however, no one wants to raise taxes which would generate the revenues to meet the transportation needs. He stated he supports the Governor's courage to take the action necessary to generate the funds needed for the transportation networks and feels the resolution should be supported. Re stated Chesterfield County has invested $52 million of its own money for road improvements and needs approximately $300 to $400 million now to maximize and coordinate the investment. Mr. Mayes stated that the Board expended a g~eat deal of time at its work session discussing t~he need for roads, identifying what is necessary to balance the growth and maintain the quality of life in the County, all c~ which pointed to the lack o£ roads as being the most ~ignifioant contributing faet0r of this problem. He stated he felt supporting the Governor's proposal would be the means by which it would be possible to remedy the problem. Mrs. Girone stated she felt that the County's resolution should identify to the General A~sembly and the Governor specific road issues as she outlined in her resolution and provide a timeframe within which to work. 86-689 Mr. Mayes stated the original resolutien is comprehensive and adequately addresses the County's needs. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the £ollowinq resolution: WHEREAS, a comprehensive transportation network is essential to the economic growth and prosperity of Chesterfield County and the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, congested highways, inadequate ports and airports threaten this economic growth and the quality of life nOW enjoyed by our citizens; and h~EE~AS, the Govenor of the Commonwealth of Virginia has established a Commission to analyze and confirm Virginia's critical transportation needs and to develop alternatives f0~ planning and financing a comprehensive transportation system that will address Virginia's needs through the next decade; and WHEREAS, this Commission has dstermined that the Commonwealth has more than $10 billion in present day critical highway construction needs; and WHEREAS, within a twenty year planning perspective the Commonwealth will face an additional $10 billion in highway construction needs; and WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that the Commonwealth will have more than $1 billion in needs for ports, airports, and mass transit within the coming decade; and WHEREAS, the Commission has identified present day critical needs within Chesterfield County and which must be addressed in order to provide an adequate transportation system; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Chesterfield County support improvements to the transportation network and have overwhelmingly approved $52 million in local funds for the improvement o£ the highway system in Chesterfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Beard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County applauds and supports Governor Baliles and the Commission for their leadership in addressing Virginia's transportation needs. Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Nays: Sro Applegate and Mrs. Girone. Mr. Applegate stated he objected to the method of taking 15% to fund projects for other localities to enhance their economic development. Mrs. Girone stated she objected to the fact that the Board of Supervisors in Chesterfield County did not identify the need~ of the County in its resolution. Mr. Daniel stated this Board has passed many resolutions and presented many speeches to numerou~ Highway Commissions addressing every transportation need in the County. He stated if the County had been more supportive Of previous issues it may have not taken such a long time to get projects, such as Powhite, approved. 10.C. APPOINTMENTS 10.C.1. COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board appointed Mr. J. Norbert Federspiel, representing Clover Hill District, to the Community Services Board~ whose term is effective immediately and will expire December, 1988. Vote: Unanimous 86-690 10.C.2. NOMINAT~ONS FOR THE YOUTE SERVICES COMMISSION It was generally agreed to defer consideration e£ nominations to the Youth Services Commission to the Septembe~ 24, 1986 meeting. 10.C.3. CAMP BAKER MANAGEMENT BOARD ~Lr. Applegate stated Mrs. Peggy Baugh declined the nomination to the Camp Baker Management Board, as she had been under the impression the nomination was for the Community Services Board. He withdrew Mrs. Baugh's nomination and indicated hs would present another name at a later date. ll. PINBLICHEA~/NGS ll.A. 86S097 - VIRGINIA LANDMARK CORPORATION 868097 (AM~NDHDI In Matoaca Magisterial District, VIRGINIA LANDMARK CORPORATION requested rezoning from A to R-15 with Conditional Use Planned Development, B-1 to R-7; R-7 and R-15 to B-l; and R-15 to O; plus amendments to a Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 78S105) on a 354 acre parcel fronting a total of approximately 4,400 feet on Iron Bridge Road, opposite Lewis Road. Tax Map 114-2 (1) Parcel 2 and 114-6 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 31). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Conumission recommended approval of the request, subject to certain conditions and acceptance of proffered cohditions. He stated the applicant iE ~eeking amendments to the original cass in order to maintain the quality and integrity of the proposed development, not increase density. Mr. Jay Weinberg, representinq the applicant, p~esented a brief summary of the request and explained the eight (8) main differences between the original application and the current request. Ee stated the amended application is in conformance with the proposed Central Planning Area Land Use and Trans ortation Plan and meets the splzit and intent of the original zoning. He stated the proffered conditions, as well as the recommended conditions, will help to ensure that the project develops in a manner compatible with existing and proposed area development. In response to a question by Mr. Mayas, Mr. Weinberg stated the proposed request is in conformance with the requirements of the Southern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan. Mr. Peele explained the southern portion of the proposed four (4) lane parkway road is shown in a similar location where it was shown and approved by the Board in 1978, however, the significant change relative to the roadway is the applicant's request to be relieved of the requirement to construct the four (4) lane road through the project, if the Board did not require Salem Church Road to be extended on the Central Planning 6r~3 Land Use and Transportation Plan. He stated the Planning Commission would review the status of the proposed roadway network £urther during subdivision review. Mrs. Girone stated the Board's action removed Salem Church Road Extended from the Central Plannin~ Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, however, if thi~ zonin~ request is approved, as amended, the Board will still be encouraging the extension of Salem Church Road. Mr. Daniel stated the modifications to the Central A~ea Plan stated that County staff will study a collector-distributor road that would parallel Route 10 which would be no closer than 600 feet to Route 10, that the road can take one of many directions but the exact location is yet to be determined, that the County staff will consider and study the proposed location in its overlay and recercc~end the best possible location for that four lane road to be e×tended parallel to Route 10 in such a way that it would tied in with the Chesterfield Meadows Complex. Mrs. Girone inquired if the balance of that road was going to stay on this plan. Mr. Welnberq stated without the amendments the applioant has no ohoioe but to construct a four lane road from the northern to the southern most boundary lines of the project; he stated he is requesting an amendment to the conditions of zoning which would reduce that road to two lanes, which road will end wherever Chesterfield County designates. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the Board ought to vote on that specific issue as well. Mr. Daniel stated the Board has not addressed the question as to whether or not the County Transportation staff feel~ that the balance of the site needs to be serviced by a four lane road within the project. He stated that it could be built and still be in accord with the Land Use and Transportation Plan passed earlier. Mrs. Girone inquired if the site needs the four lane road to the terminus of the property or if it needs a two lane road. Mr. McCracken stated staff will determine the four lane versus the two lane road when detailed subdivision plans are received and if the traffic generated by the residential neighborhoods warrants a four lane road to serve that neighborhood. Mr. Daniel questioned if the specific zoning requested by the applicant $tates those facts. Mr. McCracken stated it does, the flexibility is there that will require a four lane road or a two lane road, whichever is needed. Mr. Daniel stated the developer will construct a four lane road from Lewis Road to the northwest property line which should ultimately tie in to Chesterfield Meadows; secondly, once detailed plans are submitted, staff will review them and recommend whether or not the northeastern portion of that road network should be four lane or two lane based on the amount of traffic~ and in any ease, that road will not be in any way, shape or form connected into Centralia Road at Salem Church Road. There was considerable discussion regarding the service road, the condition that a road may or may not be necessary, etc. Mr. Weinberg stated there will be no roads in this project connected to Salem Church Road. There was no opposition present. Mr. Appleqate inquired as to what the Board is going to ask the developer to do that is going to connect this property with some other property to the west. Mr. Daniel stated that as commercial development continues down Route 10 between these two developments they will be makinq their "contributions" to the road network. Mr. Peele stated it is his understanding that the Board is not asking thi~ developer, or the developer of Chesterfield Meadows, to build this connection. Mr. Weinberg stated the road would be built wherever the County designates it to be and the the road will not b~ taken offsite or connected to Salem Church Road. Mr. Applegate inquired who makes the decision where that road will go. Mr. Weinberg stated the decision is made by the Planning Commission at the time of 86-692 schematic plan review. Mrs. Girone stated that if an OVerlay of the road within this project were to be placed ov~r the Central Planning Area Land Use and Transportation ~lan, it would show a road connection out of this project to ~alem Church Road. Mr. Daniel stated he disagreed as there are other future zoning cases that will be in that path which will preempt that from happening. Re etated the County schematic review process will identify how much traffic will be generated and the road can be scaled down from ~our lanes to two lanes anywhere along that corridor to service the people that live within those boundaries. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Siggins Associates, Inc., dated A~ril 11, 1986, and the Textual Statement, dated August 6, 1986, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. For Tract A, curb and gutter requiremente ehell be based on the Chesterfield County Subdivision Ordinance. For all other tracts, where curb and gutter are required at the time of schematic plan review, concrete curb and gutter shall be installed. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic. 3. Schematic or subdivision approval shall not be given by the County until the size and location of the lake(s), th~ retention storage volume, and permissible release rates have been approved by the ~ngineering D~partment. The plans for the retention basin shall be presented on a minimum 1":50' grading plan. The design inflow hydrograph for the lake shall be the SCS 24 hour duration 100 year storm. (EE) 4. Dams shall be built at elevations such that on-site build- ings or existing buildings downstream will net be jeop- ardized should the dams ~ail. A dam failure analysis shall be performed and submitted to the Engineering Department for approval prior to, or concurrent with, final road and drainage plan approval. (~) Prior to release of any building permits, or recordation of right of way and/or subdivision plats, ownership and maintenance of any lake or pond shall be established as the responsibility of private entities. An indemnification agreement shall be submitted to Chesterfield County, care of the Environmental Engineering Department, to save the County harmless of vectors, maintenance~ and replacement responsibilities. Upon completion of construction of the facility, the structural integrity of the dam, the required storage volume, the i00 year floodplain, and general conformance of the constructed facility to the design plan shell be certified by a professional engineer. 6. Storm water will be collected from all developed areas of Ironbridge through storm drainage systems and transported to permanent water impoundments located within Ironbridge, or otherwise be detained or retained, as determined to be necessary at the time of schema%lc plan review. (EE) 7. Specific roadway improvements set forth in the transporta- tion proffers are required by the time of full site devel- opment, and are to be constructed in accordance with the phasing plan approved by the Transportation Department. The developer shall provide the Transportation Department 86-693 with additional traffic studies upon completion of each phase, if requested. Roadway improvements shall be in- creased or decreased by the developer, as required by the Transportation Department, if these studies demonstrate that traffic generation and distributions (solely by this development) are materially different, as detezmined by the Transportation Department, from projections set forth in the traffic study prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates, Inc. for this project. 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 Transporta- tion Department. (TI 8. The southernmost access road shall be constructed to a three (3) lane typical section at its intersection with Route 10. (T) 9. All public roads shall be bonded te meet State standards for acceptance into the State ~ystem at the time cf right of way dedication to the County. (P) (Note: This condition supersedes Section III. Multi- family (Tracts F-1 and F-2), paragraph S. Development Conditions, sub-paragraph 18. 10. The proposed parkway shall stub into the northern property line in the vicinity of Tracts El, K2, J5 or D. This line shall be located at least 600 feet from Route 10. The exact location of this stub shall be approved by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review. (RS) Proffered Conditions A. Traffic Proffered Conditions 1. In COnnection with Schematic Plan Review for portions of the Property abutting Route 10, additional right of way shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County so that the distance between the property line abutting the right of way of Route 10 and the existing centerline o£ the right cf way for Route 10 is approximately one hundred (100) feet. 2. At the time of the first Schematic Plan Review for development on the Property, an access plan for Route 10, the Parkway, and the northernmost access road servia9 the Property shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning commission. Thereafter, modifications to the aforesaid access plan shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission. 3. To the extent such improvements are inadequate or not in place at the time of development, the roadway improvements will be constructed in connection with the development of portions of the Property directly served by such roadway improvements, as specified: (a} The location of the intersection of th~ northernmost access road to the Property and Route 10 shall center approximately on the point of extension of the existing northern boundary of Parcel 114-5 (1)- 1 and the western boundary of the Property, as shown on the Chesterfield County Tax Maps. At the intersection of the northernmost access road to the Property and Route 10, a median break will be provided with two exclusive left-turn lanes for southbound traffic entering the Property and aa exclusive left-turn lane for northbound Route 10 traffic. A left-turn lane, a through lane, and a right-turn lane will be provided for westbound traffic on the northernmost access road 88-694 approaching Route lO. Further, a deceleration lane will be provided for traffic traveling north on Route 10 to expedite turns onto the northernmost access road to the Property. (h) At the intersection of the proposed Parkway, Lewis Road and Route 10, a median break will be provided with an exclusive left-turn lane for traffic northbound turning left from Route onto Lewis Road, and for a southbound traffic turning left from Route 10 to the proposed Park- way. Further, a deceleration lane will be provided for traffic traveling north on Route 10 to expedite right turns onto the Parkway. At its intersection with Route 10, the Parkway will have an exclusive left-turn lane, through lane, and right-turn lane (a five-lane typical section}. The Parkway will then taper to a four lane, divided road at its intersection with the northernmost access road. It shall then taper to a two-lane typical section and stub into the northern boundary of Tract A. The developer shall be required to build only that portion of the Parkway necessary to serve development on the Property. (c) At the intersection with Edenshire Road, the southernmost access road to the Property and Route 10, a median break will be provided with exclusive left-turn lanes to serve traffic turning left from Route 10 to the Property or Edenshire Road. At its intersection with Route 10, the southernmost access road will consist of one entering lane and one exiting lane. Further, a deceleration lane will be provided for traffic traveling north On Route 10 to expedite right turns into the Property. (d) The developer will provide traffic signalization (as warranted) at the following intersections; (i) the intersection o£ th~ proposed Parkway, Lewis Road and Route 10; and (ii) the intersection of the northernmost access road to the Property and Route 10. (e) The access road to Tract H-l, north of the Parkway, will provide a right turn in and right turn out for traffic generated by development on Tract H-i. (f) In connection with development of the Property, an additional through lane for northbound Route 10 and curb and gutter, adjacent thereto, will be installed by the developer, phased as approved by the Planning commission, to correspond with development of portions of the Property adjoining the additional through lane. (g) In connection with the development of Tract J-2, the developer will provide for the dedication of a stub road, to provide eventual vehicular aooess for Property lying south of Tract J-2, to the southernmost access road serving the Property. (h) Any deviation from the design criteria set forth in this Condition 3 shall be permitted only with the approval of the Planning Commission, at the time of Schematic Plan or Plan of Development Review, 86-695 Proffered Conditions Relating to Development Standards The following proffered oondition~ shall be applicable with respect to development of Tracts E, E-l, 9-2, J-l, J-2, J-3, J-4, J-5, K-1 and K-2, except to the extent the development standards contained h~r~in are modified by the Planning Commissio~ at Plan of Development or Schematic Plan Review: 1. Yard and Height Requirements. (a) ~ards. The following yard requirement shall apply to any lot or parcel, except as may be modified by Condition 4, below: Setbacks along major arterials. All buildings and drives shall have a minimum seventy-five (75) foot setback from the proposed rights of way of major arterials as indicated on the Chesterfield General Plan, as amended. [Parking areas shall have a minimum one hundred (100) foot setback from proposed rights of way of major arterials.] The parking area setback may be reduced to seventy-five (75) feet when parking areas are located to the ~ide or rear of buildings. Within these setbacks, landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Condition 3, below. (ii) Front yard. The front yard ~etback shall be a minimum of forty {40) feet from public rights of way other than major arterials. (iii) Side yards. The side yard setbacks shall De a minimum of thirty (30) feet. The minimn~ corner side yard shall be forty (40) feet. One (1) foot shall be added to each side yard for each three (3) feet that the building height adjacent thereto exceeds forty-five (45) feet or three ~torie~, whichsver is less, subject, however, %o the provisions of Section 21-27 of the Zoning Ordinance. (iv) Rear yard. The minimum rear yard setback shall be forty (40) feet. One (1} foot shall be added to each rear yard for each three (3) feet that the building height adjacent thereto exceeds forty~five (45) fast or three stories, whichever is less, suDjeot, however, to the provisions of Section 21-27 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Development Standards. (a) utility lanes underground. Ail utility lines such as electric, telephone, CATV~ or other similar lines shall be installed underground. This requirement shall apply to lines serving individual sites as well as to utility lines nscessary within the project. Ail junction and access boxes shall be screened with appropriate landscaping. Ail utility pad fixtures and meters should be shown on the site plan. The necessity for utility connections, meter boxes, ets. should De recognized and integrated with the archi- tectural elements of the site plan. (b) Loadin~ areas. Sites shall be designed and buildings should De oriented so that loading areas are not visible from any of the project 86-696 perimeters adjoining any "A," "R," "R-TH," or "R-MF" District or any public right of way. (c) Architectural treatment. The exterior wall surfaces (fronh, rear, and sides) of each individual building visible from a public street shall be similar in architectural treatment and materials to the other wall surfaces of such building. Ne block Or metal buildings shall be visible f~em any "A," "R," "R-TH" or District or public right of way. Ail rooftop equipment shall be shielded and screened from public view. (d) Exterior !ight%ng. All exterior lights shall be arranged and installed so that no direct light projects into any adjacent "A," "R," "R-TN" or "R-MF" District or public riqht of way. Lighting standards shall be of a directional type capable of shielding the light source from direct view. (e) Driveways and parking, areas. Driveways and parking areas shall be paved with concrete, bituminous concrete, or ether similar material. Surface treated parking areas and drives shall be prohibited. 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. (f) Outside storage areas. Outdoor storage as permitted by the underlying zoning districts, provided that all outdoor storage areas shall be visually screened from public streets, internal roadways, and adjacent property. Screening shall consist of either a solid board fence, masonry wall, dense evergreen plant materials or such other materials as may be approved. All such screening shall be of sufficient height to screen storage areas from view. Landscapin9 Requirements. (a) Plant Materials S~ecifications. ~i) Quality. Ail plant materials shall be living and in a healthy condition. Plant materials used in conformance with the provision of these specifications shall conform to the standards of the most recent edition of the "American Standard for Nursery Stock," published by the American Association of Nurserymen. ~ii) Size and (A) Small Deciduous Trees. Small deciduous trees shall be of a Species having an average minimum mature crown sprsad of greater than twelve (12) £eet. A minimum caliper of at least two and one-half (2-1/2) inches at the time planting shall be required. (B) La~e Deciduous Trees. Large deciduous trees shall be of a species having an average minimum mature crown spread of greater than thirty (30) feet. A minimum caliper of at least three and one-half (3-1/2) inches at the time of planting shall be required. 86-697 (C) Everqreen Trees. Evergreen trees shall have a minimum height of five {5) feet at the time of planting. (D) Medium Shrubs. Shrubs and hedge forms shall have a minimum height of two (2) feet at the time of planting. (iii) Landscaping Design. (A) Generally, planting required by this section should be in an irregular line and spaced at random. (~) Clustering of plant and tree species shall he required to provide a pleasing composition and mix of Vegetation. (C) Decorative walls and fences may be integrated into any landscaping program. The use of such walls or fences, when having a minimum height of three (3~ feet, may reduce the amount of required plant material~ at the discretion of the Director of Planning. (iv) Tree Preservation. (A) Preservation of existing trees is en- couraged to provide continuity, improved buffering ability, pleasing scale and image within the Tracts covered hereby. (B) Any healthy existing tree may be included for credit towards the requirements of these conditions. (b) Maintenance. (i) The owner, or his agent, shall be responsible for the malntenance~ repair, and replacement of all landscaping materials as may be required by the provi~ions of these conditions. (ii) Ail plant material shall be tended and main- tained in a healthy growing condition and free from refu~e and debri~ at all times. All unhealthy, dying er dead plant materials shall be replaced d~ring the next planting season. (iii) Ail landscaped areas shall be provided with a readily available water supply. The utilization of underground storage cha~ers to collect runoff to be later used to irrigate plant materials is encouraged. (c) Installation and Bendln~ Requirements. (i) All landscaping shall be installed in a ~ound, workmanship-like mannerand according to accepted, good planting practices and procedures. Landscaped areas shall require protection from vehicular encroachment by such means as, but not limited to, wheel stops or concrete or bituminous curbs. (ii) Where landscaping is required, no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the required landscaping is completed 86-698 (e) in accordance with the approved landscap~ plan. When the occupancy of a structure is desired prior to the completion of the required landscaping, a certificate of occupancy may be issued only if the owner Or developer provides to the County a form of surety satisfactory to the Planning Depart- ment in an amount equal to the costs of the remaining plant materials, related materials and installation costs. (iii) Ail required landscaping shall be installed and app~0ved by the first planting season following issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Arterial Frontage Landscapin9. Landscapinq shall be required along Route 10 within the required setback of any lot or parcel and shall be provided except where driveways or other openings may b~ necessary. The minimum required landscaping for this setback shall be provided as per "Perimeter Landscaping B" below. Perimeter Landscaping. Landscaping shall be required at the outer boundaries or in the required yards of & lot or parcel and shall be provided except where driveways or other openings may be required. The minimum required landscaping for all outer boundaries of any lot or parcel shall be provided as per "Perimeter Landscaping A" below. There shall be different landscaping requirements as identified herein, which shall be provided as follows: (i) (ii) Perimeter Landscaping A. (A) At least one small deciduous tree for each fifty (50) lineal feet and at least one evergreen tree for each fifty (50) lineal feet shall be planted within the setback area. (B) At least one medium shrub for each twenty (20) lineal feet shall be planted within the setback area. (C) LOw shrubs and ground cover shall be dispersed throughout. Perimeter Landscaping B. (A) At least one large deciduous tree for each fifty (50) lineal feet and at least one evergreen tree for each thirty (30) lineal feet shall be planted within the setback area. (B) At least one small deciduous tree for each ~ifty {50) lineal ieet shall be planted within the $etback a~ea. (C) A~ lease one medium shrub for each fifteen (15) lineal feet shall be planted within the setback area. (D) Low shrubs and ground cover shall be dispersed throughout. OR: 86-699 (f) (iii) (A) A minimum four (4) foot high undulating berm, and (B) Perimeter Landscaping A. PerLueter Landscaping C. (A) At least one large deciduous tree for each fifty (50) lineal feet and at least one evergreen tree for each thirty (30) lineal feet Shall be planted within the setback area. (B) At least one small deciduous tree ~or each thirty (30) lineal feet shall be planted within the setback area. (C) At least one medium shrub for each ten (10) lineal feet shall be planted within the setback area. (D) Low shrubs and ground cover shall be dispersed throughout. OR: (A) A minimum 5-6 foot high undulating berm, and (B) Perimeter Landscaping B. Landscaping Standards for Parking Areas. (i} Interior parking area landscapin9. (A) Any parking area shall have at least twenty (20) square feet of interior landscaping for each space. Each (ii) required landscaped area shall contain a minimum of one hundred (100) square feet and have a minimum dimension of at least ten (10) feet. With this landscaping, parking space size may be reduced te 9.5x20 or 190 square feet. (S) The primary landscaping material, used in parking areas shall be trees which provide shade or are capable of providing shads at maturity. Each landscaped area shall include at least one small deciduous tree. The total number of trees shall not be less than one for each two hundred (200) square feet, or fraction thereof, of required interior landscaped area. The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs and othe~ vegetative material to complement the tree landscaping. (C) Landscaping areas shall be reasonably dispersed throughout and located so as to divide and break up the expanse of paving. The area designated as required setbacks shall not be calculated ae required land~caped area. Peripheral parking area landscaping. Peripheral landscaping shall be required along any side o~ a parking area that abuts land not in the right of way of a street such that: 86-700 A landscaped strip at least ten (10) feet in width shall be located between the parking area and the abutting p~operty lines, except where driveways or other openings may be required. At least one small deciduous tree shall be planked in the landscaped strip for each fifty lineal feet. 4. Permitted variations in Yard Requirements. The required minimu~ yards £0~ any lot or parcel may be reduced with the provision of additional landscaping: (a) Setbacks elcn~ major arterials. The required setback for buildings and drives along major arterials may be reduced to fifty (50) feet with the provision of landscaping in accordance with Condition 3, "Perimeter Landscaping C." The required setback for parking areas nay be reduced to ~i~ty (50) feet with the provlsicn of landscaping in accordance with Condition 3, "Perimeter Landscaping C," and when such parking areas are located to the side and rear of buildings. (b) Front a~d. The required front yard setback along public rights of way other than major arterials may be reduced to twenty-five (25) feet with the provision of landscaping in accordance with Condition 3, "Perimeter Landscaping C." (c} Side yard. The required side yard may be reduced to ten (1O) feet with the provision of landscaping in accordance with Condition 3, "Perimeter Landscaping B" (except when adjacent to residential or agricultural districts). (d) Rear yard. The required rear yard may be reduced to twenty (20) feet with the provision of landscaping in accordance with Condition 3, "Perimeter Landscaping B" (except when adjacent to residential or agricultural districtsl. There was further discussion regarding the west boundary line, the collector road, proposed improvements to Route 10~ etc. Mrs. Girone inquired if the cresent shaped road ~rom Route 10 would remain on the plan. Mr. Peele stated there are several hundred residential dwelling unite planned in the eastern portion of the property and the road is one of the ways in which ko access Route 10 back through the commercial development along the frontage. Mr. Weir~berg stated constructing this road is a way of acquiring access and it complies with the approved Central Planning Area Land Use and Transportation Plan and it is in conformity with what the people who live in this area want. Mrs. Girone stated she cannot support the motion becaqse she does not believe this plan conforms to the recently adopted Cental Planning Area L~knd Uae and Transportation Plan in that it retains the connector road which some day will create Salem Church Road Extended. Mr. Daniel stated this will not happen. Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate and Mr. ~ayes. Nays: Mrs. Girone. It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes. 86-701 ll.B. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO RUR~IN~ OP L~AUE$ Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance relating to the burning of leaves. Mr. Howell stated leaf burning is currently permitted in the County between November 1 and December 1 and between March 16 and April 15, except that no burning is allowed from 12:00 Noon on Friday until 8:00 a.m. on Monday. He stated during leaf burning season there is considerable public concern over the adverse health and other impacts of smoke and many citizens have expressed an interest in banning this practice. He stated staff has proposed an area of the County which would be designated as a "no burning" zone, which would encompass the most populous areas of the County and where burning would be prohibited at all times. He stated the "no burning" zone would be divided into five collection zones and collections would be made in each zone five times during the period November 3 to April 24, with a four week interval between collections in each zone. He stated staff also proposed to place extra trucks and crews in service during the peak leaf season in an effort to prevent possible backlogs on pickup service. He then presente~ a map outlining ~he boundaries of the no burning zones. He stated the remainder of the County, except for the portions outlined in the no burning zones, would have the option as to whether on not they burn leaves during the current, permitted times and the County would continue its pickup service ae presently of£ered in the portion of the County permitted to burn leaves. Me stated the County proposes to publish in the newspapers the designated zone map with the dates for scheduled pickups in the various zones and instructions for citizens to call to schedule pickups of their leaves. There was discussion regarding the use of a vacuum system. Mr. Howell stated ~taff has investigated the various alternatives for pickup service and found that experiences with vacuum services have not been beneficial in that the machines used are trouble proned, there is considerable down-time in the operation of the equipment and such equipment is more functional in areas where there is defined curb and gutter rather than roadside ditches. Mr. Hedrick stated that in many areas where vacuum ~ervices have been implemented wind and rain generate problems as well as present health and safety hazards. Mr. Howell stated the areas considered for designation as non-burning areas were because of the density of the population. Mr. Mayes questioned what type service will be provided to Zone 6. Mr. Howell stated, historically, the demand for leaf pickup in the County has been heavier in the more urban areas than in the more rural areas, as most people in the rural areas dispose of leaves by methods other than pickup service. Ne stated staff believes that the rural areas can be covered with the existing truck s~rvice available. Mr. Julian Christian {Zone 1) stated he is in favor of approval of the ordinance to ban leaf burning but ~uggested pickup service for each zone on a daily basis rather than on a weekly basis. Mr. Jim Farrar {Zone 4) expressed concerns regarding why consideration is being given to prohibiting leaf burning, why developers are permitted to burn off property for two to three weeks consecutively in preparation for construction and should not something be done about this process since it is also a health hazard, who will furnish the leaf bags for gathering the 86-702 leaves for disposition, etc. Mrs. Girone stated the reason for consideration of the ban is because the smoke from the burning is a health problem, however, the State issues burning permits to developers for such purposes. Mr. Dodd inquired if burning o£f of a garden comes under the jurisdiction of the loaf burning ordinance. Mr. Micas stated this process is governed by agricultural burning which is handled by the Extension Agent. Ms. Alice Waskey (Zone 3) stated she would like consideration given to the expense o£ £requent hospitalizations that people experience during the loaf burning season and the inconvenience of restricting a child's outside activities because neighbors are burning leaves. She stated the inconvenience of stuffing leaves in a bag i~ small compared to the expens~ and inconvenience of the health problems that result from loaf burning. Mr. John Ray (Zone 4) stated he did not enjoy smelling smoke or burning leaves any more than the next person, however, he did feel that the County should provide some type of vacuum service for leaf pickup along side the roads as citizens should not be required to bag leaves. Mr. John Sherrer (Zone 5) stated last year he collected and disposed of 511 bushels of shredded leaves and pine tags~ as his property is heavily wooded. He questioned if the County landfills could maintain such capacities. He stated he is not insensitive to those persons whose health problems are affected by leaf burning, however, he knows that dry leaves can be burned with very little smoke and inconvenience to others. He requested that the Board reconsider' this issue in his area and continue to allow the burning of dry leaves. He stated that if the ban were to be approved ~e felt that citizens would be entitled to vacuum pickup service. Mr. A1 Putze (Zone'l) stated he feels that leaf burning should be banned in that it produces very dense smoke and the area in which he lives is particularly a££ected by this smoke when leaf burning season is in effect. Ho stated he supports the leaf burning ban. Mr. Daniel Patron stated the process of burning leaves in the County originated forty-five (45) years ago and has been a common practice since then. He stated he enjoys burning hi~ leaves and does not support the leaf burning ban in his area. Dr. Kevin Cooper (Zone 1) stated that in his experience leaf burning is detrimental to people, as 10% of County residents suffer from respiratory ailments which are further aggravated by leaf and wood smoke. He stated air pollution is a difficult matter to deal with in general because people have a right to pursue their own activities and goals and it is difficult %o pams laws that prevent people from exercising these rights. He stated, however, consideration must be given to the effect of leaf burning on the quality of air as we all breathe the same air. He stated leaf burning is a matter of convenience and pleasure £o~ those who enjoy it, whereas it is a matter of not being able to breathe for those who are suffering and the taws, on a national scale that pertain to air pollution, are designed to protect susceptible individuals who do not want the air to get bad enough so that the average healthy person is bothered by the quality of the air. He stated the zoning idea is very qood one because the air pollution problem is not that the entire County has polluted air, it is a very local problem, and the densely populated areas should have a complete ban on burning. Mr. Moo Donaldson (Zone 1) stated he supports a ban on leaf burning, even though he owns a heavily wooded lot, because he feels that his health and the health of others is more 86-703 important. 5e stated consideration should be given to the safety hazards which could evolve from burning, as people burn leaves within fifty (50) feet of woods and cars and leave the fires unattended. Mr. Marvin Boots (Zone 1) stated he supports the program of anti-leaf burning and feels that the funding of $165,000 allocated for bagged leaf pickup service is insufficient and should be reviewed to ensure that the service san be accomplished in the most e£fioient, effective manner. He then presented a letter of support for the leaf burning ban to the Board from Dr. and Mrs. William Banks who suffer from allergies and whose conditions are hfghty irritated by leaf burning. Mr. Warren Dieterich stated he suffers from emphysema and voiced support for the ban on leaf burning in his area. ~e stated he felt the ban should be extended to encompass the entire County. Ms. Martha Smith (Zone 1) stated she supports the ban on leaf burning but expressed concerns regarding the excessive amounts o~ time that would be involved in bagging leaves, that it would be a physical impossibility for persons with large lots to collect and dispose of leaves, that leaves may be left piled on lawns for long periods of time while waiting for County trucks to pick them up and that the County should provide a vacuum servloe to accommodate citizens in the non-burn areas. Mr. Bill Meadows (Zone 1) stated he exerts much energy toward keeping his property cleared of leaves and expressed concern of the time required to hal all the leaves from his property. He stated if the County adopts the Ordinance, as proposed, to ban loaf burning in the designated areas, then it should provide relief to the affected citizens through a vaeuum or pickup service. Mr. Gordon Hayes (Zone I) stated that in the maintenance of his property he has encountered the problem of disposing of non-leaf items such as dead,ails, shrubbery trimmings, ets. and has found that he cannot accomplish his cleanup task without burning these items. He inquired ii the leaf burning ban also includez a ban on the burning of non-leaf trash of the type from properties that can be burned in a fireplace (i.e., split logs, etc.), if he has to hire a truck to have such items transported to the landfills, or if he has to apply for a developer's burning permit to be able to dispose of them. He stated he did not think the proposed vacuum service would be beneficial or practical in disposing of the deadfalls in his efforts to keep his property clean. Be stated the limitations to the permitted burning periods designated throughout the County only compound the problem as the majority of people are all burninq leaves at the s~me time. Ms. Eileen Rice (Zone l) stated enduring smoke from adjacent properties is an invasion of privacy of her home and detrimentally affects individuals who suffer from respiratory ailments. She stated she considers leaf burning a health, safety, pollution and disability issue and voiced her support for the ban. Ms. Eula Lucy (Zone ~) voiced opposition to the ban and expressed concern that the County should not arbitrarily prohibit the burning without providing a service that will effectively, efficiently dispose of the leaves and other similar materials. She stated she felt the highly populated areas (Zones 1-5) should have the more frequently scheduled pickup service rather than Zone 6. Ms. JoAnn Eisen stated she has a five (5) year old asthmatic child and urged the Board to ban leaf burning as it is a health hazard and places a tremendous strain on the welfare of those who suffer with respiratory ailments, particularly the elderly and children, 86-704 Ms. Marty ~ines (Zone 1) cited statistics as to the present consensus toward the leaf burning issue, listed the pros and cons of leaf burning and urged the Board to approve the ban on leaf burning. Mr. John smith stated he felt that leaves should be disposed of in a manner that does not cause harm to other people. He stated there should be some form of protection frcu~ the effects of leaf burning afforded to the public schools Idenial of burning within a 1000 foot radius of each facility) in an effort to prevent children from being exposed tO such concentrations of smoke. He suggested that the densities of population be used to determine the appropriateness of burning. Mr. Eloff (Zone 2) stated he supported the proposed ban on leaf burning and requested the proposal be expanded to include garbage burning. He also requested stricter enforcement of the Ms. Barbara Andress (Zone 1), on behalf of the American Lung Association, voiced support for the ban on leaf burning. Mr. Howard Watson (Zone 4) stated he supported the ban on leaf burning and suggested that something should be done about the effects of wood burning stoves also. Mr. George Rainwater (Zone 4) stated he supports the ban on leaf burning primarily because it is a health hazard which is devastating to those who suffer from respiratory ailments. Ms. Ma~sha Germaine (Zone 1) voiced her opposition to leaf burning and volunteered to assist the Board, or any organizations, with the problem in any way possible. Ms. Jan Murray (Zone 3) mtated she supported the ban on leaf burning and expressed concern with the plans for collection and disposal of leaves and suggested a possible solution to this problem would be the purchase of a new landfill utilized strictly for the disposal of leaves. Ms. Grady Culberth (Zone 1) stated the leaf burning season presents many health problems for persons who wear contact lens. Mr. Chris Elmore (Zone 1) stated he bags leaves from his yard because he does not like burning leaves in densely populated areas as he £eels it is a health and safety hazard. He voiced support for both the leaf b~rning ban and the pickup services. Mr. Otis Patton (Zone 3) stated he felt much of the smoke problem that comes from leaf burning originates from attempts to burn wet leaves. ~e stated he sees nothing wrong with burning leaves if it i~ done properly. 5e suggested that perhaps it would be beneficial to repeal the leaf burning ordinance for a year and conduct studies to determine how many trucks, staff members, landfills, etc. would be needed to efficiently and effectively dispose of leaves and other similar materials and then permit the citizens of the County to vote on the issue. Be stated the cost factor will be a tremendous issue and the $165,000 presently allocated for this project will not be sufficient to handle the problem. Mr. Don Unmu~ig stated he did not support leaf burning, but ielt the issue must be viewed realistically. He stated the pre~ent proposal is inadequate to meet the needs Of the progra~ and suggested that e study be conducted fo come up with alternatives. He also expressed concern about the elderly and handicapped who are not capable of raking and bagging leaves. Mr. Tom Van A~ken (Zone 1) voiced support ior the leaf burning ban as he felt that leaf burning is a health and safety hazard. Approximately seventy-five (75) persons stood in support of the 86-705 leaf burning ban; approximately twenty (20) persons stood in opposition to the ban. Mr. Dodd closed the public input On the matter. Mr, Daniel stated he has a son who suficrs from a respiratory ailment and lives in an environment where this issue has a tremendous day to day impact on their personal lives. He stated if the Board is to move in this direction regarding leaf burning then the Board should have the tools to fight the battle such as defining more frequent pickups in the ~oncs, as there is ne way all the leave~ can be collected with the infrequency of the presently planned schedule and that a more suitable cleanup ~ystem, whether it be vacuum or something else, that is an alternative to the tremendous amount of bagging that will be required. He stated private collection is not the answer as it is very expensive, q~estioned how much more enforcement will be necessary to issue the sun, ohs for violations of the ordinance, what is the status on wood stove burning and should it be included in the ordinance and questioned the feasibility of attempting to attract economic development into the County when leaf burning season is in effect. He stated he supported banning leaf burning in the County but also want~ it to be accomplished in an objective manner which provides the tools by which the County is able to collect and dispose of leaves in an efficient, clean manner. Be stated it is back tO the fundamental question of legislation - do you legielate to the wishes of the majority, as the most recent public opinion survey compiled by an independent organization at VCU, indicatd that across all the diztriot~ more than 50% of the population (in some areas 70%) support the statement of keeping the policy as it is, while on the otherhand those that are supporting banning it ranges from a low of 25% to a high of 40% in other magisterial districts. He sta~ed if the wishes of the majority rule, the the issue would not be dealt with. He stated on the otherhand the health, safety and welfare of the citizens that impacted by this issue need to be considered. He stated perhaps more time getting facts together on how it will be financed and implemented is needed between now and November 1 i~ order to eztablizh zuch a plan. Mrs. Girone stated she felt there ls time between now and November 1 to develop a satisfactory plan. She stated the primary issue is that leaf burning is a health problem and that ~itizens and physicians have voiced their concerns regarding the issue. She stated ~/nat it is unfair to permit burning and impose polluted air on other people and it is not in the best interest of the health of the citizens of the County. She stated the Board is charged, by law, with the responsibility of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and leaf burning is a health, safety and welfare issue. Mr. Mayes stated he would like to s~ th~ proposal amended so some areas could remove themselves from the prohibition and oth~r sections, outside the prohibition, could have themselves included. He stated he felt this issue was only a small part of an overall larger problem. He stated he felt it would be unfair to ban burning and then provide no relief for those who have to deal with the leaves and it would be unfair as well not to provide some type of relief for those people who suffer the impacts of burning. Mr. Applegate stated he supported the ban on leaf burning, however, expressed concern for those individuals on fixed incomes and those who do not have the physiual capacity for coping with this problem. Be ~tated he felt the Board needs to come up with some type oi plan as to how to deal with the situation regarding the elderly and those persons physically handicapped. Mr. Daniel stated that the Board will have to resolve these types of issues as well as the limited amount of funds which are available for these services. 86-706 Mr. Midas stated that if the Board were to adopt the ordinance the specific limitations for the no-burning areas would be incorporated into the ordinance, but others could not be added at this time. Mr. Dodd stated his district is rapidly changing from rural to urban and he represents a larqe constituency which does not have the capabilities for dealing with the disposition of leaves. 5e expressed concern that there are problems with the present proposal in that the pickup schedule is not practical or financially adequate for funding the project, that the landfills are not sufficiently voluminous to handle substantial increases in their capacities, and that there needs to be an innovatfve method for handling this problem. He stated he cannot support the present proposal but would be willing to support a £uture paper that is fair. Be stated he believes there is a commitment from the majority of the members of the Board to try to accomplish a legitimate action which will not burden the taxpayer and the elderly who have no alternatives. Be stated he would like to see a real hard look at an innovative process. Mrs. Girone stated the citizens have indicated they wan= the ban as proposed in the designated sones. On motion of Mrs. Girone, be it resolved that the following ordinance be adopted, effective November 1, 1986, with the proviso that staff develop an expanded pickup process with minimum pickup being as that described in the proposal and that staff make a recommendation as to what can be done regarding the handicapped and elderly: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TEE CODE DE THE COUNTY Or CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 10-24t ARTICLE IV, R~LATTNG TO BURNING OF LEAVES BM IT 0RDAIN~D by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: Sec. 10-24. Article IV. That Section 10-24 Of the Code of the County of Chesterffeld, 1978, as 8mended, is amended and reenacted as follows: Article Iv. .Burnin~ of Leaves Sec. 10-22. When prohibited. (No Change) It shall be unlawful for any person to burn leaves in the open during the period beginning April 16 and ending October 31 o5 any year, and during the period beginning December 2 and ending March 15 of any year. (4-25-84). Sec. 10-23. When permitted. (No Change) (a) It shall be lawful for persons to burn leaves on property where they reside during the period beginning March 16 and ending April 15 of any year, provided, that during this period, it shall be unlawful to burn leaves from 12:00 noon on Friday until 8:00 a.m. on Monday. Tt is further provided that during this period, it shall be unlawful if burning occurs within three hundred feet of any woodland or brushland, unless it takes place between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 12:00 midniqht (1-27-82; 3-9-83; 4-25-84). Sec. 10-24. Prohibited when pick-u~ service available. (a) Within the bounds of any area designated by the board of supervisors and duly proclaimed by the board as an area in which a county leaf pickup service shall be provided by the board during the periods when leaf burning under section 10-23 above would be otherwise permitted, it shall be unlawful to burn leaves at any timE. (b) In the event the beard of supervisors shall choose to make the pickup service mentioned in paragraph (a) above available in a designated area, it shall do so by describing 86-707 such area by reference to commonly recognized roads, subdivisions and landmarks in a notice published once a week for two (2) successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in said area and by posting such notice in at least five (5) public places within the area so designated. Sec. 10-25. Penalties. (No Change) Any person violating any provision of this article shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be liable to a iine of not more than five hundred dollars for each violation. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the Board should deal with the problem of how to dispose of the refuse of the County and that the time to do so is now. He stated he felt this problem is just as serious and warrants as much consideration as making sure that constituents get clean water. He stated he would like to see a comprehensive program to deal with refuse including the leaves. Mrs. Girone stated the issue before the Board is leaf burning and the other aspects of the refuse issue would have to be addressed at another time. ~r. Daniel stated he pledged his commitment to this issue in the form of a resolution that he will vote for some form of a leaf banning burning ordinance prior to November 1, 1986, and suggested that the issue be deferred until the next meeting so that more Consideration can be given to the specific issues brought up in the previous discussion. Mrs. Girone stated her motion provides for an adjustment to allow consideration of these specific issues. She stated additional funding could be provided from the General Contigency Fund if necessary. Mr. Daniel reiterated his position es to opposition to leaf burning in high density areas and the insurance that other reasonable viewpoints are given consideration before a final decision is made. Mr. Dodd expressed concern that implementation of a total overall leaf collection service will cost approximately $500-600,000. He stated he is concerned that nothing innovative is being accomplished and research on the issue is not complete and therefore, he cannot support the motion. Mrs. Girone stated the motion is open-ended and as such will allow coverage for the entire spectrum of needs. Mr. Applegate inquired how long it would take staff to address the questions that have arisen through this discussion. Mr. Hedrick stated staff has numerous reports addressing this issue and staff could respond within two weeks. In response to a question by Mr. Mayes, Mr. Hedrick stated the total problem has been discussed by the Board on several occasions, th~ last of which was during the last budget sessions, and the decision, at that time, was to provide $165,000 funding to expand the leaf collection program beyond what was currently funded. Mr. Applegate seconded Mrs. Girone's motion. Mr. Mayes submitted a substitute motion for consideration. On motion of Mr. Mayes, be it resolved that the ordinance be adopted, with the understanding that the sones be extended in any other area where people are offended: AN ORDINANC~ TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTEI~FIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, 86-708 BY ~24ENDING SECTION 10-24, ARTICLE IV, RELATING TO BURNING OF LEAVES B~ IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: Sac. 10-24. Article IV. That Section 10-24 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as follows: Article IV. Burning oi Leaves Sec. 10-22. When prohibited. (No Change) It shall be unlawful for any person to burn leaves in the open during the period beginning April 16 and ending October 31 of any year, and during the period beginning December 2 and ending March 15 of any year. (4-25-84). Sec. 10-23. When permitted. (No Change) (a) It shall be lawful for persons to burn leaves on property where they reside during the period beginning March 16 and ending April 15 of any year, provided, that during this period, it shall bs unlawful to burn leaves from 12:00 nOOn on Friday until 8:00 a.m. on Monday. It ie further provided that during this period, it shall be unlawful if burning occurs within three hundred feet of any woodland or brushland, unles~ it takes place between the hour~ of 4:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight (1-27-82; 3-9-83; 4-25-84). Sec. 10-24. Prohibited when pick-up service available. (a) Within the hounds of any area designated by the board of supervisors and duly proclaimed by the board as an area in which a county leaf pickup service shall be provided by the board during the periods when leaf burning under section 10-23 above would be otherwise permitted, it shall be unlawful to burn leaves at any time. (b) In the event the board of supervisors shall choose to make the pickup service mentioned in paragraph (a) above available in a designated area, it shall do so by describing such area by reference to commonly recognized reads, subdivisions and landmarks in a notice published once a week for two (2) successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in said area and by posting such notice in at least five (5) public places within the area sc designated. Sec. 10-25. Penalties. (No Change) Any person violating any provision of this article shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and ~hall be liable to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars for each violation. Mr. Hedrick stated he believed to accomplieh this action would require that staff, as those areas are identified, would have to come back to the Board and hold subsequent public hearings and go through the Ordinance amendment process each time. Mr. Micas stated the action of the substitute motion could not be addressed at this time because the Ordinance presently requires that to expand or contract the area it has to be advertised for a public hearing. Mr. Mayee withdrew his substitute motion. Mr. Daniel inquired if the existing motion could be amended to include areas of concentrated density which are presently being omitted from the ban, if it is determined they should be included in the next two tO three years. Mrs. Girone stated she would agree to that amend/~ent. 86-709 Mr. Mayes stated there may be some areas in the Zones 1-5 where there are no problems and the people should he given relief from the restrictions; and in Zone 6, where there is an option to burn leaves, there may appear an area where the ban sheuld be imposed. He crated the ordinance should include a means whereby such issues can be addressed and relief provided for ~ueh situations. Mrs. Girone inquired if perhaps expanding the designated ne-burn sones every six (6) months would be acceptable if it were determined that expansion of the boundaries were necessary. Mr. Mayes stated he would like the expansion to be able to occur, if an offense occurs prior to the next meetin~ within the next two week timeframe so the Eoard could adjust the boundary lines at its next meeting. Mr. Dodd inquired if it i~ possible %o remove Bermuda District from the burnin~ district. Mr. Micas stated such action is pe~missable. Mr. Dodd stated he would like to remove Bermuda District from Zone 5. Mr. Mayes suggested removing Matoaca District as well from the area net allowed to burn. Mr. Daniel moved that action be deferred for two w~eks. Mre. Gircne inquired if there could be a statement that the Board intends to ban leaf burning. Mr. Daniel stated there was a statement from each board member of their intent. Mrs. Girone suggested that staff be instructed to develop an additional pickup process and also some means of aiding the handicapped and the elderly. Mr. Daniel stated the public knows that the majority of the Board feels the banning of some form of leaf burning in the very high density areas is appropriate. Mrs. Girone stated she would rather defer the issue, with a statement ef intent to ban burning in designated areas and to develop an expanded pickup process with a recommendation as to how the elderly and handicapped will be served. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board deferred coneideration of the leaf burning ban until September 24, 1986, to allow staff time to address iesues raised. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Mica~ clarified that the Board has deferred final action on the ordinance for two weeks but has closed the public hearing. It was generally agreed the Board would reCesS for ~ive minu~es. ll.C. PUBLIC ~EARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERF~LD~ 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 20-1.31, RELATING TO WATER CONNECTIONS FEES Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an amendment to Chapter 28 of the County Code relating to water connection £ees. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. ~irone, seconded by Mr. Appl~gate, the Board adopted the following Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF TME COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD~ 1978~ AS A1KENDED~ BY AMENDING SECTION 20-1.31, RELATIN~ TO WATER CONNECTION FEES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: 20-1.31 ExtenSions to serve developed areas, (a) All extensions of water lines to serve developed areas shall be paid for by those persons desiring such extension, unless (1) such extension project has been formally added as a part of the utility capital improvement program by the Board of Supervisors or (2) the Board cf Supervisors approves an extension after 70% of the homeowners in an existing subdivision sign contracts to connect to the extended water lines serving their subdivision. Prior to approval Of any such project, the health department must certify that a significant portion of the homes have failing well systems and that it is economically impractical to repair existing well systems. (b) When the Board of Supervisors approves an extension funded through the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program, administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia, connection fees may be reduced by up to 90%. (c) If the total project cost of an extension to a developed area is fully paid for by the consumers served by such extension, each conneetlon fee for such participating consumers who hook Up to the county water system within 30 days of availability shall be reduced by up to 90%, provided that the cumulative reduction in connection fees shall not exceed the construction costs of the extension. If the cumulative reduction in connection fees exceeds the construction cost of the extension, the amount of each connection fee reduction available to each participating consumer shall be reduced by an equal amount until the cumulative reduction in connection fees is equal to or less than the construction costs of the extension. (d) In those limited circumstances where the extension of a water line using county funds will promote the economic development of the county and where it is not practical for the properties to be served to fund all or a portion of such extension costs, the county may agree to fund ~uch extensions upon terms and conditions. ll.D. CONSIDER PROHIBITION OF THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC SMOKETP~EE DRIVE Mr. Bedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider prohibition of through truck traffic, on Smok~tr~ Drive from Courthouse Road to Durrington Drive and Lucks Lane from Courthouse Road to Coalfield Road. Mr. Kussell Gulley, President of the Smoketree Association, briefly explained the issue and spoke in favor of the prohibition of through truck traffic on Smoketree Drive £rom Courthouse Road to Durrington Drive and Lucks Lane from Courthouse Road to Coalfield Road and submitted copies of a petition with approximately 250 signatures. He stated he did not feel the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's denial of the request to prohibit this through truck traffic was justified. Mr. John Smith voiced opposition to the prohibition Of throuqh truck traffic as it will have an adverse impact on the businesses in the area. 86-711 Mr. ~cCracken req~asted that transcripts from previous hearings on this issue be included as part of the public record. Mr. Dod~ excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Jimmy Crockett stated he supported the ban on through truck traffic, however, he agreed that truck transportation is the lifeblood of our nation. Re stated overloaded, oversized trucks should not travel through densely populated areas such as the Smoketree ~ubdivision. Ms. Cathy Venable expressed concern for the safety of the children in the Smoketree Subdivision and voiced support for the prohibition of through truck traffic. She stated there are alternate routes available to truck drivers that would not cause inconvenience to them and make these roads safer. Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting. Mr. Otis Patton stated he is a professional tractor-trailer driver and feels that truck drivers should not be denied the right to travel the public roads as they~ too, pay taxes which help pay for the roads. He stated such actions as this place unnecessary burdens on the drivers. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following resolution: W~REAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has received requests from citizens to restrict through truck traffic on Smoketree Drive (Route 2770) between Courthouse Road (Route 653) and Durrington Drive (Route 2566) and on Lucks Lane (Route 720) between Courthouse Road (Route 653) and Coalfield Road (Route 754] by any truck oX truck and trailer or semi-trailer combination except pickup or panel trucks; and WI{B~EAS, the Board has conducted a public hearing on the question. MOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the ~oa~d of Supervisors requests that the Virginia Department of Righways and Transportation to restrict through truck traffic on Smoketree Drive between Courthous~ Road and Durrington Drive and on Lucks Lane between Courthouse Road and Coalfield Road. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate noted that Smoketree South, Sachems Head, Mansfield Crossing, We~gewood, and Evergreen are included in this action. He stated a truck attempting to travel from Spirea Road to Courthouse Road, considering the condition of Lucks Lane, would have a great deal of difficulty in getting to its destination. ll.E. CONSIDER CON%~yANCE OF OLD UTILITIES DEPARTMENT STORAGE YARD AT 5025 WALMSLEY BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF RIC~LMOND Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised £ez a publle hearing to consider conveyance of the old Utilities Department etorage yard at 5025 Walmsley Boulevard in the City of Richmond. Mr. Welchcns was present. There wae no one present to address the matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved the sale of 5.55 acres with improvements located at 5025 walmsley Boulevard to David B. Allen, Inc. for $50,000.00, the sale being contingent upon the purchaser being able to obtain approval by the City of Richmond for 16 building lots on the property; and authorized the County Administrator to sign 86-712 the contract and authorized the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to execute the deed on behalf of the County upon approval of the final document by the County Attorney. ll.F. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A 12-FOOT ALLEY WITHIN THE VILLAG~ 0F BENSLEM Mr. Welchons stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordlnance te vacate a 12-foot alley within the village of Bensley. No one came forward to address the issue. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a 12 foot alley within The Village of Bensley, Bermuda Magisterial District Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 3, at page 192 through 195. WHEREAS, Florence G. Gagne has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a 12' alley within The Village cf Bensley, Bermuda Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 3, paqe~ 192 through 195, made by Paul King, C.E., dated May 1920. The right of way petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A 12 foot alley within The Village of Bensley, the location of which is more fully ~hown, shaded in red on a plat made by Paul King, C.E., dated May 1920, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and WBEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the Drainage Easement sought to be vacated except as hereinafter outlined. NOW THeReFORe, ~ IT ORDAINED BY TB~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.i-452(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid right of way be and is hereby vacated. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this 0rdinanae, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee simple title to the centerline of the alley hereby vacated in the property owners free and clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and Florence G. Gagne, widow; Christine C. Weymouth; Kathleen B. Newland, widow; Mark and Nancy K. Middleton, husband and wife; William C. and Mary Ellen Bowman, husband and wife; Kathleen O. Jackson, widow; Hermank and Carrol Ann Cooke, husband and wife; Lawerence J. and 86-713 Frances F. Klebert, husband and wife; Linwood Gordon Jr. and Linda S. Bennett, husband and wife; Dorothy Fanley Bennett, widow; Wilbur J. Ford et al; Jimmy R. and Hazel J. Medlin, husband and wife$ Hugh V. and Anna S. winston, husband and wife; Leon D. Johnson III or their successors in title, as grantee. Vote: Unanimous 12. 12.A. FINAL APPROVAL OF SITE FOR GROUP HOME SERVING FIVE MENTALLY RETARDED INDIVIDUALS Dr. Lowe stated that an acceptable site has been located for the housing of five mentally retarded individuals which meets legal and VHDA requirements. He stated this property will be purchased with a loan from VEDA and loan payments as well as utility costs are covered through VHDA Section 8 rent subsidie~ and other operating costs will be covered with existing MH/MR funds. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, in accordance with virginia Code Section 36-55.39(B), the Board hereby certifies approval to the Virginia Housing Development Authority of the project for a group home site at 4105 and 4107 Stella Court (Dale District) for five mentally retarded pereons and hereby authorizes the Chairman to execute any necessary certifications to this effect. 12.B. INCREASED COMPENSATION TO VOLUNTEER FIP~MEN RESPONDING TO CALLS On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved increased compensation to volunteer fireman from $1.00 per call to $3.00 per call, total funding in the amount of $29,000 to be expended from the General Fund, to be effective December 1, 1986, whlsh begins the next payment cycle for the volunteer payment. 12.C. SHORT-TE~d4 OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT FOR NORTHERN AREA LANDFILL Mr. Micas stated that, although the Board authorized the award of the new contract for the Northern Area Landfill to the lowest responsible bidder, Walter C. Link, Inc., on February 12, 1986, the County delayed the actual execution of the new five-year contract because of pending litigation from S.G.S. Construction Company, Inc. and its owner Mr. Robert L. Snow. He added Mr. Snow has until September 25, 1986, to appeal the Court's decision, and staff reeormmends delaying the execution of the Link contract until September 26, 1986. He added, however, the present contract expires September 14, 1986, and staff recemmend~ that an operations contract for the period of September 15 to September 25 be awarded on an emergency basis as an extension of the old landfill contract, with payment to be made on a per diem basis based on the new contract amount until the new five-year contract could be executed with Mr. Link on September 26, 19S6. He stated Mr. Link's attorney indicated that this arrangement is acceptable. Mr. Link indicated he was not in agreement with Mr. Micas' statement that this arrangement is acceptable to him. Mr. Mayes stated he felt it was the duty of staff to award this contract to Mr. Link, ae the award of the contract had nothing 86-714 to do with whether or not the case was going to be appealed. Mr. Micas stated the Board, in its action on February 12, 1986, approved the award of %he bid~ not the form of the contract. He stated what the Beard presently has before it is an attempt to bridge a two week period between the expiration of the current contract and the end of the appeal date on the existing lawsuit. He stated the contraot has not been awarded as there is concern that there remains during the appeal period the risk that the case would be appealed and ultimately there might be an award in favor of Mr. Snow which would leave the County in a position of having to pay two operation contracts. He stated this action is an effort to protect both the interest of the bidder and the interest of the taxpayer. He stated the award of the operations contract, On an emergency basis, covering the period of September 15 to September 25, contains a proviso which ensures Mr. Link's protection, in that he will be paid $4,000 to cover the cost of a performance bond in the event the new five-year Mr. Hedrick stated that when the Board authorised the award of the new landfill contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Walter C. Link, Inc., the County entered into negotiations and there was a point of contention involving a clause that the County was attempting to negotiate to protect the County's interest in the event the County was net suCCeSsful in defending the lawsuit. He stated adding this clause was not unfair to Mr. Link because the County's recommendation, should it not have been successful in satifactorily negotiating that clause, would have been rebidding. Mrs. Girone stated it was her understanding that the Board would approve the contract, waive the need for a bond until Mr. Link could achieve a bond and that th~ County Attorney would provide him documentation that the Board had so voted on the issue. Mrs. Girone moved that the Board approve and authorize the County Administrator to execute an agreement with Walter C. Link, Inc. for the extension of the existing landfill contract until September 25, 1986, with an added provision that subject to certain conditions the County will pay Mr. Link $4,000 to cover the cost o£ his performance bond in the event the new five-year contract is never executed. Mr. Hedrick stated in the event Mr. Link does net sign the agreement he would reoe~m~end that the County enter into an emergency contract for emergency services to operate the landfill with a vendor that will provide the service and that the contract would be rebid. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the County has not handled this situation well and that if the County authorized the bid to be awarded to Mr. Link it should have been awarded to him. He stated ii the County had a problem after that it should have faced the problem and not placed a burden on Mr. Link. Mr. Hedriek stated he felt that there were no improprieties in the manner in which this case had been handled and that staff had followed proper procedures. Mr. Dodd stated the Board would pass over this item for the present time and instructed the Clerk to the Board to bring the minutes from the previous meeting, at which this issue was discussed, in order to clarify the situation. The Board proceeded to the next item on the agenda. I2.D. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR CHANGES IN SHERIFF'S OFFICE Sheriff Wingo explained this request is to approve the concept for relocating the Magistrates Office from the courtroom area to the jail, hiring additional deputies and building a 2,200 square foot addition to the Jail, the purposes of which are to minimize 86-715 )otential contact between the public and prisoners, provide additional space at the Jail to house the Magistrates as well as )rovide additional lobby and administrative space for the )ublic, and permit the Sheriff's Office to assume the responsibilities of booking and administering breathalyzer tests. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the concept of moving the Magistrate, hiring additional deputies, and adding 2,200 square feet extension to the Jail and inetructed staff to conduct a coat-benefit analysis of the proposed changes and bring a report to the Board, which item shall be included in the Capital Improvements Program which is currently being developed. Vote: Unanimous 12.P. APPOINTMENTS - METROPOLITAN PLANNING 0RGANIMATION AND APPOMATTOX RIIrER WATER AUTEORITY On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board nominated Mr. John McCracken and Mr. Richard Sale to serve as alternates to the Metropolitan Planning Organization, whose formal appointment will be made on September 24, 1986; the Board also nominated Mr. Richard Sale to serve as an alternate to the Appomattox River Water Authority, whose formal appointment will be made on September 24, 1986. Vote: Unanimous 12.F. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITPMS 12.F.1. STREET LIGHT INSTALL~TION COST APPROVALS On motion of Mr. Appleqate, meoonded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferred c0n~ideration of street light installation coat approvals for the intersection of Cadillac Trail and Claybar Trail in the Clover Hill District and the intersection of Edgemere Boulevard and Falstone Road and Vauxhall Road and Vauxhall Court in the Dale District until September 24, 1986. Vote: Unanimous 12.F.2. STP~ET LIGHT REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the installation of street lights at the following locations with funds to be expended from the District Street Light Funds as indicated, except for Dale District which estimates on each item to be brought back to the Board for consideration: 1. Intersection District; 2. Intersection 3. Intersection District; 4. Intersection 5. Intersection District; 6. Intersection 7. Intersection District; Intersection District; 9. Intersection District; 10. Intersection 11. Intersection of Malibu Steer and Wood Dale Road, Bermuda of Seti Court and Cogbill Road, Dale District; of Canasta Drive and Old Zion Hill Road, Dale of Omo Road and Cyrus Street, Dale District; of Dorlus Drive and Cyrus Street, Dale of Omo Road and Canute Drive, Dale District; of Cyrus Street and Phobus Drive, Dale Of Cyrus Street and Amasis Court, Dale of Cyrus Street and McBeth Court, Dale of Omo Road and Lothaire Court, Dale District; cf Necho Court and Omo Road, Dale District; 86-716 12. Intersection of Canute Drive and Leopold Circle, Dele District; 13. Intersection of Phobus Drive and Phobus Court, Dale District; 14. Intersection of Totila Court and Omo Road, Dale District; 15. Branders Bridge Road and Temple Avenue, Matoaca District; 16. Temple Avenue and Veranda Lane, Matoaca District; and 17. Colonnade Drive and Temple Avenue, Matoaca District. Vote: 12.C. SHORT-TERM OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT POR NORTHERN AREA LANDFILL Mr. Link stated he cannot obtain a periormance bond without a contract, however, if the Board were to waive the performance bond, provide him with documentation that would certify he had a commitment for a bond to extend his two weeks of operation and agree to pay $30 or $40 for the costs of the performance bond, the agreement would be acceptable to him. Mr. Mayes c~ented that Mrs. Girone's motion covered these conditions. Mr. Micas stated the only condition, to which Mr. Link referred, is that if ultimately Mr. Link is awarded the long term five year contract the County would not he required to pay the performance bond costs. Mr. Micas stated that, assumin9 no appeal is filed, the County is committed to entering into the contract with Mr. Link effective September 26, 1986; if an appeal is filed, the issue must be brought back before the Board for a decision. Mr. Link stated this would be agreeable to him. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an agreement with Walter C. Link, Inc. for the extension of the existing landfill contract until September 25, 1986, with an added provision that subject to certain conditions the County will pay Mr. Link $4,000 to cover the cost of his performance bond in the event the new five-year contract is never executed. Vote: Unanimous 12.F.3. CONSIDER RESTRICTION OF THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC ON OLD STAGE ROAD Mr. Dodd stated no one is living on Old Stage Road and inquired as to why there is a request to reetrict through truck traffic. Mr. McCracken stated the residents living along Old Stage Road, Lanter Laner Bermuda Place Drive and 01d Bermuda Hundred Road have petitioned for a restriction of through truck traffic on Old Stage Road from Wa~e Bottom Sp~ing Road to 01d Bermuda Hundred Road. Mr. Dedd stated he could not eupport thi~ regue~t and would reco~end denial as there are no appropriate alternate routes. After a b~ef diSCussion, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that the Board table consideration of prohibiting through truck traffic on Old Stage Road. 12.F.4. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COUNTY CODE BY ADDING PERMIT FEES FOR ELEVATORS, ESCALATORS~ DUMBWAITERS AND MANLIFTS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Maye$, the Hoard set October 8, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance to amend the County Code by adding permit fees for elevators, escalators, dumbwaiters and manlifts. Vote: Unanimous 86-717 12.F.5. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE P~MA EXPRESSWAY SYSTEM Mr. Daniel stated he could not support the proposed resolution regarding the RMA Expressway a~ written and suggested modifications. It was generally agreed the modifications would be acceptable. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, citizens of Chesterfield County use the Richmond Expressway System to commute from Chesterfield County to the City of Richmond; and WHEREAS, the Richmond Expressway System is currently experiencing some capacity problems at toll plazas, access ramps, and mainline sections during peak hours; and WHEREAS, the RMA has initiated a study to consider improvements to the Expressway System to relieve this congestion. NOW, THEREFOP~, B~ IT RESOLVED, that the Hoard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County supports RMA's efforts to provide relief for the congestion on the Expressway System; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Hoard urges the RMA Hoard of Directors to consider all means of financing the necessary improvements ~o that a toll increase will be avoided. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER JOHNSTON-W%LLIS FINANCING Mr. Hedrick atated Johnston-Willis Hospital is seeking financing for a wellness facility to be constructed in the Roger Centerl South, which project will result in better health facilities for! citizens of Chesterfield County and will lower the cost of health care, and be in the public interest. ~e ~tated Johnston-Willis wishes to use approximately $2,000,000 of the proceeds of bonds issued in 1985 by the Industrial Development Authority of Henrico County, principally for the benefit of non-profit hospitals throughout virginia. Ee stated State law, as well as the financing documents, require the approval of the Board of Supervisors in any County where proceeds are to be spent. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board set October 8, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., for e public hearing to consider Johnston Willis Financing, subject to legal requirements that a public hearing is necessary. Vote: Unanimous 12.G. CONSENT ITEMS 12.G.1. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF POLICE OFFICER On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board hereby respectfully requests that the Circuit Court Judger appoint Mr. Richard A. Normando as a Police officer for Chesterfield County, effective September 15, 1'986. Vote: Unanimous 12.G.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance wit~ 86-718 directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Candlelamp Lane in Candlelamp ~ast, Matuaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that Candlelamp Lane in Candlelamp East, Matoaca District, he and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that %he Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Candlelamp Lane, beginning at the intersection with Spring Run Road, State Route 654, and going 0.10 mile southerly to a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance and designated Virginia Department o~ Highways drainage This road serves 9 lots. And be it further resolved, guarantees to the Virginia right-of-way for this road. Candlelamp East is recorded as follows: Plat Book 45, Page 100, May 29, 1984. Vote: Unanimous that the Board of Supervisors Department 0£ Kighway$ a 50' RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF SUP~RVIS0RS AUTHORIZING T~ REPLACEMENT O~ A COUPON FOR CHESTEF~FIELD COUNTY BONDS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved and authorized Central Fidelity Bank to pay Frank Cherry for lost coupon ~7 of the 1982 Chesterfield County Public Improvement Issue, valued at $237.50 and due December 15, I985, based on his affidavit of loss and insurance policy indemnifying the County sgainst double payment. Vote: Unanimous 12.G.4. REQUEST FOR BINGO/~PLE PERMIT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Apptegate~ the Board approved the request for a raffle permit for the Ettriek Youth Sports Association for calendar year 1986. V~te: Unanimous 12.H. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS 12.N.1. RIGKT OF WAY ISSUES 12.H.l.a. CONDEMNAT~0N OF WATER EASEMENTS FOR WOODS EDGE ROAD 12.K.l.a.1. ~EIRS 0P JO~N JEFFR%ES On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owners i£ the amount as set opposite their name~ is not accepted. And b~ it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owners by registered mail on September 11, 1986, of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. This action is on an emergency basis and the County intends to exercise i~tmediate fish= of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia. 86-719 The Heirs of John Jsf£rie~ John Anthony Jefferson Michael Jefferson Mitchell Jefferson Shela Christine Jefferson Yvonne Michelle Jefferson Vote= Unanimous Woods Edge Road $85.00 12.H.l.a.2. HEIRS OF HEZEKIAK AND EARRY JONES On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded hy Mr. Applegate, the Board authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owners if the amount as set opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owners by registered mail on September 11, 1986, of the County's intention to enter upon and tak~ the property which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. This action is on an emergency basis and the County intendm to exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia. The Heirs of Hezekiak and ~arry Jones Woods Edge Road $640.00 ~ezekiak Jr. and Barbara Jones Stanley and Queen Jones Ruth Jones Ruby Jones Theda Stepp Judith ~velyn Jones Robert Jones William Jones Vote: Unanimous 12.H.l.b. REQUEST FROM VIRGINIA LANDMARK CORPORATION FOR AID IN ACQUIRING SEWER EASEMENTS FOR IRON BRIDGE TRUNK SEWER On motion of Mr. Mayes, secended by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorize the Right of Way Manager to aid Virginia Landmark Corporation in acquiring two sewer easements across the property of Ernest P. Webb and property owned by James L. Reynold~ and David T. Evans along Great Branch for the Iron Bridge Trunk Sewer, provided the developer executes a contract with the County agreeing tO pay for the costs involved. Vote: Unanimous 12.H.l.c. QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR PORTION OF WATER AND SEWER EASEMENT ALONG ROUTE 1/301 Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board that he owns property which will be served by this sewer extension and he has entered into a private agreement with East Coast regarding this project, declared a conflict of interest, pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. On motion of Mr. Mayee, seconded by ~rs. Girone, the Board authorized the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to execute a quit claim deed for the western 10 fact of a 20 foot wide water and sewer easement and a 10 foot construction easement to East Coast Oil Corporation along Route 1 and 301 at Route 10; and further the Board authorized the Right of Way Manager to exchange the quit claim deed with East Coast 0il Corporation for the new easements. Ayes= Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 86-720 Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting. 12.H.2. CONSENT ITEMS i2.H.2.a. CONTRACT FOR REPLACEMENT OF STEEL GATES AT FALSIN~ CREEK DA3{ On motion of Mrs. ~irene, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard approved and authorized the County Administrator tO execute the necessary documentm to award Contract Ne. W86-104B for the replacement of ~teel gates at Fallin~ Creek Dam to the low bidder, RECO, in the amount of $97,110.00, which funds were previously appropriated in the 1986-87 Capital Improvement Budget. Vote: Unanimous 12.N.2.b. DEED OF DEDICATION OFF 0TTERDALE ROAD EXTENDED FROM $O~DtERVILLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORTATION On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized th~ County Administrator, on behalf of the County, to execute a deed of dedication accepting the conveyance of a 60' and variable width strip of land off Otterdale Read Extended from $ommerville Development Corporation. (A copy of the plat Ks filed with the papers of this ~eard.) Vote: Unanlmeus 12.H.2.c. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG HUGUENOT ROAD FROM HUGUENOT FOREST ASSOCIATES On motion cf Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator, on behalf of the County, to execute a deed of dedication accepting the conveyance of a 20' strip of land along Huguenot Read from Huguenot Forest Associates. (A copy of the plat if filed with the papers of this Beard.) Vote: Unanimou~ 12.H.2.d. DEEDS 0F DEDICATION CONVEYING SUttPLU$ PROPERTY FROM CHESTERFIELD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD Un motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator, en behalf of the County, to execute two deeds from the Chesterfield County School Beard accepting the conveyance of five surplus parcels. (Copies of the tax ~aps are filed with the papers of this Boards). Vote; Unanimous 12.H.2.e. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG JEFFERSON DAVIS EIGRSqAY AND WILLIS ROAD FROM SOUTHLAND CORPORATION On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator, on behalf of the County, to execute a deed of dedication accepting the conveyance of a 5' strip of land along Jefferson Davis Highway and a 15' strip of land along Willis Road from Southland Corporation. (A copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Eeard.) Vote: Unanimous 86-721 12.H.2.i. VACATION OF PORTION OF 16' WATER EASemENT WITHIN BEAUPONT MALL SHOPPING CENTER On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Hz. Daniel, the Beard approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute a quit claim deed to vacate a portion of a 16' water easement within Beaufont Mall Shopping Center. (A copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board-) Vote: Unanimous 12.H.2.9. AGRMMMMWT WITH VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION FOR ADJUSTMENT OF UTILIT±~$ ON ROUTE 288 On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an agreement, on behalf of the County, subject to approval oi the County Attorney, with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, Project 0288-020-102, C501, for adjustment of utilitiee on proposed construction of Route 288 from Route 10 to Route 1 and 301, the project being responsible for bearing 100% of the cost for both water and sewer adjustments. Vote: Unanimous 12.H.2.h. AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR UTILITY RELOCATION ON CENTRALIA ROAD AT HOPKINS ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an agreement, on behalf of the County, subject to approval o~ the County Attorney, between the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, Baldwin and Gregg, Ltd. and the County of Chesterfield to employ Baldwin and Gregg, Ltd. to design the relocation o~ the County water facilities on project 0145-020-101, RW201, the engineering services covered under this agreement being 58% State cost and 42% County cost. Funds for the County share of engineering were appropriated in the 1986-87 Capital Improvement Budget. 12,H.3. REPORTS Mr. Welchone presented the Board with a report on the developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. 12.I. REPORTS Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a status report on the General Fund Contingency Account, General ~und Balance, Road Reserve Funds and District Road and Street Light Fund~. Mr. Hedrick stated the Virginia Department o£ Highways and Transportation has formally notified the County of the acceptance of the following street~ into the State Secondary System: Additions Length Salisbury Heathland - Section B Route 902 (Salisbury Read West) - ~rom 0.30 mile southwest of Route 714 to Route 1338 0.23 mi. Route 1338 (Chepstow Road) - From 0.03 mile west ci Route 3382 to Route 902 0.27 ~i. 86-722 Additions Length Route 3384 (Chepstow Terrace) a northwest cul-de-sac Route 3385 (Tunsher9 Terrace) southeast cul-de-sac - From Route 1338 to - From Route 902 to a 0.16 mi. 0.1~ mi. Heatheridge - Sections 1, 2, & 3 Route 3275 (Clivedor Court) - From Route 1421 to a southeast c~l-de-sac 0.09 mi. Route 3276 (North Vickilee Road) - From Route 1421 to 0.04 mile southeast of Route 1421 0.04 mi. Route 3277 (Battenburg Place) - From Route 1421 to a northeast cul-de-sac 0.08 mi. Route 3278 (Battenburg Court) - From Route 3277 to a southeast cul-de-sac 0,09 mi. Tinsberry Trace - Section 5 Route 1264 (Silvertree Lane) - From 0.03 mile north of Route 1273 to 0.10 mil~ north of Route 3234 0.19 mi. Route 3234 ($ilvertree Court) - Prom Route 1264 to a north cul-de-sac 0.15 mi. P~nnwood - Section 4 Route 3162 (Pennbrook Drive) - From Route 2181 to 0.05 mile south of Route 3163 0.21 mi. Route 3163 (Pennbrook Court) - From Route 3162 to a southeast cul-de-sac 0.10 mi. 86-723 Mansfield LandinG Route 3340 (Smoketree South Parkway) - Fzom 0.01 mile southeast of Route 3349 to Route 3341 0.15 mi. Route 3332 (Mansfield Lending) - From Route 3340 to a southwest cul-de-sac 0.11 mi. Route 3333 (Mansfield Terrace) - From Route 3332 to a southeast eul-de-sac 0.12 mi. Route 3334 (Mansfield Circle) - From Route 3333 to a southeast cul-de-sac 0.03 mi. Cabin Creek - Sections C-I & C-2 Route 2245 (Boones Trail Road) - F:om 0.02 mile west of Route 3253 to 0.03 mite southwest of Route 3257 0.22 mi. Route 3254 (Conestoga Place) - From Route 2245 to a south cul-de-sac 0.15 mi. Route 3255 (Long Tom Lane) - F~om Route 2245 to 0.07 mile south of Route 3256 0.15 mi. Route 3255 (Long TOm Lane) - From Route 3255 to a southwest cul-de-sac 0.06 mi. Route 3257 (Boone~ Trail Court) - From Route 2245 to a south cul-de-sac 0.04 mi. Additions Route 832 Route 832 (Robious Crossing Drive) to 0.60 mile north of Route 711 - From Route 711 Inge Wood Acres Route 2842 (Inge Wood Circle) - From Route 632 to a WeSt cul-de-sa~ Iron,ate - Sections 2 & 3 Route 3024 (Turngate Road) - From Route 3025 to Route 3029 Route 3029 (Gateline Drive) - From Route 3025 to Route 3029 Route 3029 (Graymoss Road) - From Route 3028 to a Route 3026 (Sandrock DriVe) - From Route 3025 to a north cul-de-sac Route 3028 (Gateline Drive) - From Route 3025 to 0.08 mile north of Route 3031 Route 3030 (Turnway Lane) - From Route 3025 to 0.05 mile north of Route 3031 Route 3031 (Bryanbell Drive) - From Route 3030 to 0.04 mile east of Route 3028 Route 3032 (Ironside Drive) - From Route 3031 to 0.03 mile north of Route 3031 Rid~efield Route 3321 (Moorwood Ridge Drive) - From Route 647 to a north cul-de-sac Route 3322 (Moorwood Ridge Terrace) - F~om Route 3321 to a we~t cul-de-sac Route 3323 (MOOrwood Ridge Court} - From Route 3321 to a west cul-de-sac Route 3324 (Meorwood Ridge Circle) - From Route 3321 to a northeast cul-de-sac Great Oaks - Section 4 Route 3090 (~rookridge Road) - From Route 3092 to 0.08 mile southwest of Route 3160 Route 3159 (~rookridge Way) - From Route 3090 to a southeast cul-de-sac Route 3060 {Brookridge Place) - From Route 3090 to a south cul-de-sac Hilmar - Section B Route 1972 (Autur~nleaf Drive) - From 0.03 mile west of Route 3191 to Route 1973 - West 86-724 Length 0.60 mi. 0.17 mi. 0.10 mi. 0.10 mi. 0.14 mi. 0.07 mi. 0.25 mi. 0.14 mi. 0.16 mi. 0.03 mi. 0.19 mi. 0.04 mi. 0.04 mi. 0.03 mi. 0.36 mi. 0.04 mi. 0.03 mi. 0.27 mi. Route 1973 (Winte~leaf Drive) - From 0.03 mile west of Route 3192 to 0.02 mile west of Route 3191 to 0.02 mile west of Route 1972 0.11 mi. Route 3297 (~lmleaf Court) - From Route 1972 to a southwest cul-de-sac 0.06 mi. Route 3298 (Grapeleaf Drive) - From Route 1972 - North to Route 1972 South 0.19 mi. 1~. ~DJO~ On motion of Mrs. ~irone, seoonded by Mr. Applegate, %he Board adjourned at 12:15 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. on September 24, 1986. Vote: Unanimous ~ich~ County Administrator R. Ga~an~ Dodd ~ Chairman ~ 86-725