The URL can be used to link to this page

1988-05-25 Minutes~Y 25, 1~08 Mr. G. H. Applegate, Chairman Mr. ~arry ¢. Daniel Mr. Jesse J. Mayes County Admini$~ra=or Staf~ in Attendance: Legislative CoorS. Clerkto the Board Mr. Bradford S. Hammer Deputy Co. Mr. Willia~ ~. Bewell~ Dir., Gen. Services Mr. ~h0mas E. Jacobsen Dir. e~ Planning ~r. Rober~ Masden, D~puty Co. Admin., ~uman Services Mr. R. J. McCrncken, Transg. Director Mr. Richard McEl~ish, Dir. of Env. Eng. Mr. Steve Micas, CO. A=torney Mrs. Pauliue Mitchell~ Dir. of N~ws/Info. Service~ Mr. Richard Sale, D~puty Co. Ad[min., Development ~r. $~y ~tegmai~r, Mr. M. D. ~tith, Jr., Dir. of Park~ & Rec. Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities ~r. Frederick Willis, Kesource ~r. Appl~ga%e =~lled %he m~ting to order at 9:10 a.m. (ESDT). I. INtegrATION Mr. Applegate introduced Reverend Marvin E. Jaeoba, ~aator of ~alem ~aptiut Churuh, who gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO T~ FLAG OF '£~ ~NI'r~a~ STATES OF The Pledge of Allegiance =o =ha ~leg cf the United ~tatcs of On motion of Mr, Sullivan, saconde~ bX ~r. ~ayes, ~he ~oaf~ approved the minutes of May 11, 1988, as submitted. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Currin and Mr. Mayas. Abstention: ~r. Daniel, as h~ was not ~ressnt at that meeting. 4. CO~NTYAD~INTSTRATOR'S Mr. Ra~y announced ~h~t ~. Du~y ~cDow~ C~an~e~ 6, W~R news r~portar, will be relocating to Hartford, Connecticut and introduc~ Mr, Randy ~mi~h, who will be cov~rlng Chesterfield County for the Richmond T~es-Dispatch. ~r. Sti~h introduced Colander Ross Brooks of th~ R~erve Naval Mobile Construction ~a~calion 23, headquartered at the A~y e~pressed appreciation for the opportunity to work with County on projects at Henricus Park, ~$ m~ny of those indi- viduals involved in the projects are not only me,bars of the Lieutenant willi~ Vaugkan presented a brief history of the unit and explained the potential projects anticipated for construction in the County park syst~ ~nd presented ~he Board with construction hardhats. The Board expressed appreciation for the ~oop~ra=ion and efforts of t~ose individual~ working on this project. trip to Germany, Auntria, Switzerland, Sweden and England, lecturer of mineral Oils, printing inks and chemicals, wilI ba its n~le and added an announcement would be made by the company companies are in the final review process for deciding their County ~O discuss the pQssibility Of locating here; the preei- Ches~erfiel~ and members cf the economic develcpmen~ staff have cc.~aunic~tion lines e~ablished through Chambers of Commerce of such sontact with two addltioaal Chambers of Commerce, one in ship of approximately 200,000 business representatives. ~e objective of thc Coon=y, the County recognizes that foreign investn~ents in our region are constantly increasing. Mr. Daniel stated, in relation to another matter, Chesterfield County representatives, along with elected officials within the the use of landfills to 01spose cf household and nen-~oxic tc convert soli~ waste to ele~tricity, he feels that facilitiss built in this region and be ~ucc~ggful an~ effective al~eIna~ counterparts within the region a~ well as private investors, to d~t~rmin~ %he feasibillty cf such facilities in the Richmond ~lanning Dimtrict Co,omission in Hartford, Connecticut, at a bid for the association's conference to be held in Richmond in 8B-357 stated, however, the Commission will continue bo explore such interests for the Richmond area. Hr. Currin reported he attended the Capital Area Training Consortium ~ which it was emphasized the operating monies of the orqanization had been reduced drastically by the Federal Mr. Sullivan expressed disappointment and concern that the Richmond Metropolitan Planning Organization endorsed the recommendation for the eastern route of Routs 288, which Benrico and Ranever Counties, 6. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE A~TIONr F~4~RG~NC¥ ;~DDITIONS OR ~n motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin~ the Board moved Item ll.I., Executive Session, until after ll.L., Requests for Vote: U~a~i~o~s 7, R~EOLUTIONS AND SFECL%L ~ECOGNI~IONS 7.A. RE$0LUTI~ OP A~PRECIATIO~ TO SIGMA bEVELO~MENT, ~NC., ~ID~LITY BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, J~R~ CAMPBELL R~AL ESTATE BROEER=..~$T~OR FINANCIAL, F.N. GLAVE NEWMAN ANDERSON ARC~ITECTS~ MR. ED NILLEY, 5[ANPOWER 1988 BOULDERS FAMILY CONCERT SERIES O~ ~otion of the Board, th~ following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Music can be a wholesome aspect of recreation; and WHEREAS, The chester~iel8 County Parks and Recreation Depart~nent's stammer concert series is now in its third season of operation at the Boulders office Complex in Chester~iel~ County; and WHEREAS, Tb~ hosting of family-oriented musical performances provides an important opportunity for the worthy u~e of leisure time; and W~ER~AS~ Such opportunities ~erve to further Chusterfi~ld County's "Pirst Choice" image~ and WREREAS~ The financial contributions ~nd support of Sigma Development, Inc. has been instrumental in the development and continuation of this ~pofta~t endeavor. NOWt THE~FO~ BE IT ~SOLVED, that thc Chuuterfield County BOard of SupervisOrs do~s h~reby recognize Siva Dev~lo~ent, Inc. for its generous donation toward the concert AND, ~ IT FURTS~R R~SOL~D, that the Board o~ Supervisors does hereby express its appreciation and gratitude to Siva Development, Inc. ~or its interest in and contribution toward th~ quality of life in Chesterfi~l~ County. Vote: Unanimous On motion of the Soard, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Music is a recreational pursuit which should be available to all people; and WHEREAS, The Boulders Family Conc~rt Series hosted by the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Departr~ent is now in its ~hird season at the Boulders 0trice Complex in Chesterfield County; and WHERF~S, Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance Company contributed financially to the process of this iree concert series. NOW, THEREFORE B~ IT RESOLUED~ that the Chesterfield County Boa~d of Supervisors does hereby recognize Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance company for its generous donation toward the Doul~ers Family Concert Series. AND, BE IT FURTHER ~SOLVED, that th~ Board of Supervisors does hereby express its appreciation and gratitude to Fidelity Rankers Life Insurance Company for its interest and contribu~ tion toward the cnality of life in Chesterfield County. Vote. Unanimous On motion of the Board, the following resolution wa~ adopted: W~R~A~, An imDortan% aspect of cultural enrichment is music; and NBER~AS, The Chesterfield County Park~ and R~e~eation Department is fortunate to host a third season of the Bould~r~ Concert Series at the Bo~lders Office C©mpls× in Chester!ia!4 Ccunty; and WHeReAS, Jerry Campbell Real Estate Broker, Metmor Financial, !nc., F. N. Thompson, Inc., Glave Newman Anderson Architects, Mr. ~dward ~. Willey~ Jr., Manpower Te~nperary Services, and Richmond ~onda Company contributed finaDei$11y to the Drodnction of thi~ concert series. NOW, THEREFBP~E BE IT RESOLVED, tha~ the Chesterfield County Board of Supervi~or~ does hereby r~eognize Jerry Campbell Real Estate Broker, Metmor Financial, Ine.~ AND, ~E IT FURTHER R~SOLVED, that the Board of Sup=rvi~sr~ does hereby expreps its appreciation and gratitude to Jerr Campbell Real =state Droker, Metmor Financial, ~nc., Will,y, Jr., ~anpcwer Temporary Services, and Hieh~ond Honda quality of life in Ch=stur£ield County. Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance Company; Mr. Jerr~ Campbell~ ~r. ~war~ Willey, Jr.; and Ms. Eunice Lipsco~, Manpower Temporary Services. The ~ponsor~ of the 1988 Boulders Family Concert Ser~es presented the Board with pestene reflecting the scheduled performers. 7.B. ~ESOLUTION 0F APPR~CIATION TO HOLIDA¥-IN~ CHESTER FOR CONTRIBUTION TO THE 1988 MAY FEST On mo~ion of %he 9card, the £ollowinq resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department functions to positively effect the quality of life in Chesterfield County; end WHEREAS, The provision Of high-quality special events represents an important means of achieving this function; and WHEREAS, The 1988 May Fsst was a well attended, family- oriented event featuring a variety of wholesome recreational activities; and WHEREAS, The event provided an opportunity for involvement and fund raising by the EBon Civic A~ociation; and W~RRAS, Any money raised i~ returned ~o the con~munity through Civic Association support of the Bensley-Bermud& Rescue Squad, the Bnon Neighborhood Watch and the EBon Fire Department~ WHEREAS, Holiday Inn-Chester provided ~ignlficant sn~per~ for this community-wide event. NOW, THEREFOP~ BE IT P~SOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does hersby recognize Holiday I~n-Chester for i~s ~on~ribatien Chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors dOe~ hez~by express its sincere apprsciation and gratitude 50 Holiday Inn-Chester for its generosity, goodwill and community Vote: Unanimous ~r. Appleg~te presented ~he executed resolution to Mr. JoB Trsmellen, II, General Manager of the Holiday Inn-Chester, and MS. Diane Guza, Marketing Department. ~r. Tremellen presented financial sponsorship of the 1988 May $~..~N~$OF CITIZENS ON~NSU~m~L~DHATT~S OR,LAIrS There were no hearings of ei~izea~ on unscheduled ma%ter~ or claims. 9.A. APPOINTMENTS - NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE FOR SUBSEQUENT APPOINTMENT TO TEK SCEOOL BOARD FROM THE MATOACA DISTRICT Mr. ~ioas briefly explained the requirements of ~he County Charter relative to the nomination of a candidate for sub- sequent appointment by the Board of supervi~ore to the Bchool Board from the Matoaca Magisterial Dietrict. Mr. Mayas stated he felt two applicants were well-~ualified in the field of education for the appointment nominated Er. George Ray Partin and Dr. W. Clinton Pettus as County School Board for the Matoaca Magisterial District and presented the Board with copies of letters and petitions he had received in support of hi~ nominations. Mr. Sullivan stated hs ~elt the Board fortunate to have had three (3) exceptionally well-qualifie~ a~d fine individuals seeking the School Board nomination. He crated he felt the shoul~ be ~omeone who ha~ not only ~ducational experience but also business experience and acumen. Ne nominated Mrs. Jean Copsland to be considered for appo£n~men% to the Chesterfield County School ~oard for tko Matoaca Magisterial District. Mr. A~plegats stated the nominees would be voted on at the June 8, 1988 m~eting in th~ order in which they were nominated. ~r. Micas indicated ~he first ~andida%e to receive e majority vote would b~ %h~ appointee. Mr. Maya~ ztat~d ke hoped that, when voting On the nominees, the vo~e would be fe~ the ~est qualified person in the group and that thsr~ would be a unanimou~ vote for the appointee, 9.B. PUBLIC KF, ARI~G ~0 CO,SIDeR ORDINANCE REGARDING SUBDIVISION public hearing, at which the ~oaxd deferred approval of revi~ed Subdivision Ordinanc~ to allow further eo~unlcation from members of the develo~ymeet co--unity relative 4o concern~ and/or ~Iar~fications regRrdi~ tko proposed ordi- nance. Ee presented a b~iaf history of th~ proposed from the Chesterfield Developers' Council, the Richmond Home Builders Association, ths Southside Some ~uiiders Ase0oiatio~ and the National Home Build,rs A~OCiafion, and suntmari~ed major changes within tko ordinance. Ms. Bambi ~arn~tte, Legisla:ive/~ol~ti~al Coordinator of the Home Buildar~ Association Of Richmond, voiced Overall support for the proposed ordinance but stste~ the association ~tilt has a few cone~n$ which would be addressed later by ~r. Delmonte Lewis. She read, for the record, a letter from Mr. Michael Shibley~ Di~ector, Land Use and DevelOpment ~ervices, for National Association of Home Builders, which letter expressed appreciation for th~ opportunity to participate with the Steering Committee in the development of the proposed ordinance and urged the Board to adopt the Subdivision regulations. Mr, Edward Wilier, Jr., representing the Chesterfield Developers' Council; Mr. Delmonte Lewis, representing the Home Builders Association of Richmond; Mr. Doug Bradberry and Mr. Jay Rowe, expressed support for approval of the portion of the ordinance dealing with ~oad stripping but expreSSed conuerns relative ~c guidelines ~or administrative approval Of sub- division outparcels located within commercial developments, that the appeal process could generate mere work rather than less work for staff, the a~quisi%ion oi !and for public use, appeal fee costs considered e~ceesive, ~he exclusion of schematic and site plan approval ~y the Planning Commission, public notice not being necessary for subdivision proc~r the expensiue ¢o$t~ of curb and gutter, reduction of sguare footage o~dinanCer nQise a~atement, the lose of building lot line lighting languape, etc. specific paragraphs within the ordinance for further ~tudy and defer the issue for an additional thirty (30) days tO gxp~Qre all ramifieati0ns. level of authority to th~ Planning Director a~ o~tlined within th~ proposed ordinance and stated h~ felt the He~rd cf S~per- 88-361 Mr. Carrie concurred with ~r. Mayas and ex,reseed serieuc concern that the Planning Co--lesion would not he participating in ~he decision-making process. He ~tated he was prepared to takm action on the road stripping issue but would prefer to defer the remainder of the ordinance if possible. Mr. Sullivan stated he also felt one of the areas where there is a serious problem is in the area of road ~tripplng and action should he taken ss soon am possible. He stated he would pre£er not to defer the proposed ordinance any longer, however, given the ¢izc~mstances, he would agree to the deferral but requeste~ that those individuals with specific =oncerns meet with staff as soon as possible to resolve those concerns. Mr. Applegat~ expressed concerns relative to no guidelines for ~dmiuistrutive approval cf subdivision outparocls lccat~ within CO~ercial de~lo~ment~, ~ffective date of ordinanc~ a second public notice being necessary for subdivision process, the purpose of the delegation of authority to the Planning Director reducing the time element in approval of subdivision requests, etc. H~ stated he felt there were sufficient =onoern$ that needed tc be addreescd, however, a concentrated effort to r=~OlVe said concerns was needed in order to proceed with consideration for approval of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Denial stated he felt a sufficient period of time had been allowed for the preparation of the proposed ordinance and he planned to vote on this issue when presented to the Board again for consideration. Mr. Currin concurred with Mr. Daniel's comments and questioned if thirty days would be sufficient to adopted the following eec=ions of the Subdivision Ordinance and deferred consideration of Sections 18.1-1. through 18.~-42. and County: (1) That Chapt=r 18 of the Code of tho County of Chester- field, I978, a~ amended, ie r~peal~d and 18.1 is added as follows: Sec. 18.1-2. Definitions. In the cone~ruot£on of thi~ chapter, the definitions contained in this section ~hell be observed end applied, except when th~ context ~leArly indicates otherwise: ~ubdivisi0n. The division of any parcel of land for any use, into two or more lots any one of which is less than 5 ac~es, or which he~ ~o~d frontage Of i~S than ~00 feet, for the purpo~e~ either immediate or future, of transfer of owner- ship or development including condominiu~ deve%opm~nt. Divi- sion of land for the purpose of gra~tin9 Or extinqui~hment of easements, ~ower or courtesy rights, subordinating or otherwise affecting the priority of liens, plats of confirmation and relate~ transfers of interest i~ land not directed at the creation of lots or parcels for sale, ~hall not be considered as an act of subdivision. The term subdivision shall not include a single division of land into parcels where such division is for the purpose of a ~ale cr gift to a member of the immediate family of the property owner. 0nly omc such division shall be allowed per family member and shell not be fo~ the purpose of circumventing this chapter. For the purpose of %his subsection, a member of the imm=diet% family shall be defined as any person who is a natural or legally defined offspring spouse or parent of the owner. With respect to family subdivision all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be mek and tho proposed lot shall conform to the design staudards set forth in this ordinance. Wher~ a subdivision borders on Or Contains aR existing or proposed arterial or collector s~reet, the Director of Planning may require the subdivider to provide that ~h~ residential access to such streets be limited by one or more of the follow- ing means: (a} The subdivlsi~n of lots sc as to hack onto the major street an~ fron~ on tn a parallel local air%et. No access sAall be provided from the major street and screea planting shall ba pro~ide~ on a strip of land along the ~ear property line of s~ch lots. (b) A ~eries of cul-de-sacs, U-shape4 streets, or short loops entered from and designed generally at right angles to such a parallel street, with =he rear lines of their terminal lots backing unto tho arterial street. (c) A marginal acc%as or service ~oad (separated from the major street by a planting Or grass strip and having access thereto at auitable points). (d} Keeping the number of local Stf=utu entering a major street to a minim~a~. (e) Access to existing arterial or collector street~ or roads ~hall be minimised. (i.e. to one access per 5QQ fee% on an arterial and co one access per 300 S~et cn a collector (f] No single family lot shall front on an arterial. 9.C. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE P~GARDING AGRI- CULTUt{AL DISTRICTS Mr. Appl~gute gun,tinned if it wO~l~ be appropriate to defer the public hearln~ to ccn~ider an ordinance regarding Agricul- tural Districts sinc~ the Board hsd de,erred the remainder of th~ ordinance regarding the a~bdivision Of land. Mr. Jacobscn Collector Road~ and ~h~ deflnitlun of th~ ter~ subdivision~ staff is of the opinion that the Board can procu=d with con- old.ration of the proposed amendments in Agricultural (A) Districts. Mr. Jacobson stated this is a continuation cf th% April 13, 1~$ public hearing, at which ~he ~oard deferred approval o~ an ordinance regarding Agricultural Districts. Ee stated th~ proposed ordinance establishe~ d~velopmen~ standards for as those of th~ urban Resi~entlal (R-i~} Distri$t. Mr. Jacobson further indicated that due to the action previously taken on the Subdivision Ordinance, it was staff's opinion that the acreage requirement and lot width requirement could be reduced to one (1) acre and 150 f~t, should the Board desire. This ~ould make the ~tandard~ for new develop%ut in the 88-363 Agricultural Dis~riot similar in natur~ to hh~ R-88 District. Mr. Daniel questioned whether that was what was indicated in the aqenda paper presented to the Board. Mr. Jacobsen stated ~ha% it was not but %hat because the Boar~ had dealt with those portions of the Subdivision Ordinance earlier~ it was felt that flexible. Ee further noted that A~ricultural lan~ sould not be subdivided without re~oD&Dg. This would in effect accomplish the purpose of the paper before the Beard. After further discussiop,, i~ was on ~etion cf Er. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, to adopt the following ordinance! AN ORDINANCE TO A~ND 'r~ CODE OF T~E COUI~TY OF u~STEKFiELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY i%M~NDING SECTIONS 21-142 THROUGH 21-146 P~LATING TO AGRIC~LTHRAL SI STP~CTS BE IT 0RDAINED by the Board cf Supervisors Of Chesterfield County: (t) That Section 21-142 o~ the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978~ as amended, is amended and reenacted as fcllow~: 8ccc 21-142. Permitted n~es -- By right. The followin~ uses shell be permitted by riqht in the g District: (a) Same as specified for g-8g District. o o o (2) That Section 21-143 of the Code of th~ CouDty of Chesterfield, 1978, au ~m~nded, i~ amended aud reenacted as follows: Sec. 21-143. Same--Accessory uses. The follewinq accessory uses shall be permitted in District. e o o (3) That 8eotion 21-144 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, a~ a~nd~, iS am~nd~ an~ r~enacted a~ follows~ Sec. 21-144. $~me--Conditional useo. The following use~ may be allowed by conditional use, subject to the ~revisicn~ of section 21-144 unless authorized in Section 21-142: (a} Sam~ a~ ~pecified for R-~8 District. o o o (4) That Section 21-145 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended ~nd reenacted as follows: ~c, 21-t45. Same--Special exceptions+ The following uses may be allowed by special excep- tion, subject to the provisions of Section 21-15: 15) That Chester field, Sa~e as specified for R-~8 District. o o o Section 21-146 of the Code of the County 197~, as ame~deO, i~ amended and rsenaeted Required conditions. 21-146. of The following conditions shell ~e met in the A specified (a) Percentage of lot coverage. Same as for R-~8 Di~trict. District. (o) Side yard. Same a~ ~peeified for R-88 District where the lot fronts on a major arterial road as shown on the County's General Plan. Where the lot fronts on a road other than a major arterial road, tho side yard width ~hall net he less than ewenty-fi~¢ (25) feat. (dl Corner side yard. Same as specified for District. Rear ~ard. Same as specified for R-B8 Di~triot~ (f) Ke~uired lot area. Each primary ~truct~re together with accessory structures, hereafter erected shall be located on a lot having an area of not less than 8S,000 square feet and a widt~ of not I~s than 300 fe~t, where the lot £ronts on e major arterial road, as shown on the County's General Plan. Wh~re th~ lot 'fronts on a road other than a major a~terial road, the lot shall have an ares of not than 43~560 ~quar~ feet and a width of not le~ than t~0 squat6 ~et. However, these standards shall not apply to a division of land where such division is for th~ purpose of a sale or Only one such division shall be allowed per family me~tber and shall not 5e for the purpose of circumventing this cha~ter. ~ily ~hall bs defined a~ any person who i~ a natural or legally defined offspring, spouse or parent oi the owner. Lot9 created by thi9 ~xception shall have a min~ area of 70,~0 equate feat and a minim~ width of 300 feet, where the lot f~ones ~n a major arterial road, aB shown on the County'~ G~neral Plan, Wh~r~ ~he lot fron~s on a x0ad other than maid= arterial road, the tot ~hall have an ar~a of not les~ than 43,560 square feet and a width 0f not le~s ~han 1~0 feet. shall not apply to any lo~ of record created prior to (date of exempte~ from Section 21~146 shall comply wi~h %h~ requirements of Section ~I-92. paper proposed. Due to ~he action :akin on the subdivision in lot size t0 1 acre (43,560 ~quare feet) and 150 foot tot for meet ~he R-88 standard~: B~ IT ORDAINED by th~ BOard of SUpervisorS of Chesterfield County: (1) That ~otJon 21-I4~ of th~ Cod~ of ~ County Chesterfield, 1978, as a~e~ded, i~ a~e~ded a~d reenacted Sec. 21-142. ~rmitt~d uses -- By Th~ following uses shall be pe~itted by right in tko A District: (a~ S~ a~ ~p~eifi~d for R-88 District. (2) That Section 21-143 of the Code of the County Chesterfield, 197~, as ~snded, is amended and reenacted Sec. 21-14~. Same--Acee~gory u$~$. The following accessory uses shall be the A Di~triot~ (a} Those permitted in accessory uses permitted in the R-88 (B) That Section 21-144 of the Code of the County of follows: Sec. 21-I44. S~e--Conditional uses. The following uses may be allowed by conditional use, ~ubj~ct to th~ provi~ion~ of S~ction 21-t44 unless authorized in $uctio~ ~1-142: {a} S~e as ~pecified for ~-88 District. {4) That Section 21-~45 of the Code of =he County. 9~ Chesterfield, 1978, a~ amended, is ~ended and reenacted as follows: See. 21-165. same--speoial exceptions. The following u~es may be allowed by special excep- tion, subject ~o the provisions of Section 51-t5: (a) Same as specified for R-85 District. o 0 0 (5) That Section 21-I46 of the Code of ~he County of Chesterfi~ld~ 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as follows: S~o. 21-146. Required conditions. The following conditions shall b~ met in the A District: (a) Percentage of lot coverage. Same as specified for R-88 District. District. Diutrict. (b) Front yard. Same as specified for R-88 (c) Side a~rd. Same a~ specified for R-88 District (d) Corner side yard. same as Specified for R-88 (e) Rear yard. Same as specified for R-88 District. (f} Required lot area. ~ach primary structure together with accessory structurea, hereafter erected shall be located on a lot having an ar~a of net %acm than 43,560 square ~et and a width Of not lees than 150. (g} Exemptione~ The r~quirements of Section 21-146 shall not apply to aDy lot of record created prier te May 1988 when the owner thereof own~ no adjoining land. m×empted from ~ection 21-146 shall uomply with thc requirements of Section 21-92. votet Unanimous Mr. Appl~ate exause~ himself from the meeting, 9.D. ST~ET LIGHT REQUEST On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayer, ~h~ ~oard approved a request Sot installation of a street liqht at 5613 Upp Street in the Dale Magisterial District. Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Currin, ~r. Daniel anO Mr. ~ayes. Absent= Mr. kpplegate. M~. Applegate returna~ to the meeting. 10. ~N]BLIC HFQ~RINGS 10.A. TO CONSIDER ~N ORDINANCE A~E~DIN~ CHAPTE~ 12, $~CTIONS 1Z-39, 12-4Q, 12-47~ 12-S8 AND 12-91 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNT¥..O~C~ST~RFiELD~ 1978, AS AS=ED~Dr RELATING TO Mr. Stegmaier stated thie date and time had b¢~n advertised for ~ervice and contractor's business licenses taxes. Mr. Wilti~ Tennent, Vice ~hairman of the Chesterfield Business Ccuncil~ ~$. Donna Link, co-owner cf Walter C. Link, Inc.: ~r. Rca Woland~ rapt=sent/ag the Virginia Automobile Dealer$~ ~nd ~r. Jay Wood, repres~ntln~ Atlantic Mortgage and Investment Company; voicad opposition to the proposed ine~pa$o in =has@ rates as such action will a~vereely impact ex,sting bu~inesse~ and discourage future bnsinesse~ from ~oca~ing in the County. They stated they felt bnslnesses she~td not be required to bear the burden of ~xpense for providing facilities/services which are craated by cont~n~ed residential g~owth; .an incr=ase in %he business licen$~ tax is not a stimulus to the business communi- ty, does not enhanc~ eoonomic development and could result in the closing o~ many businesses or their moving to Rsighboring jurisdiotien~! do%role the amount paid for contractor~' business licenses taxes. 88-367 Mr. Daniel ~ta%ed khat, as par% of future public processes for budget and tax increases, all these issues s~ould he considered ~imulLaneou~ly~ ~e staL~ he did not receive any communication as to opposition tn the proposed increases until after comple- Board had no choice but to proceed with approval as the pro- posed increase had already been adepte~ in the budget. Currin concurred with Mr. Daniel and ~r. ~ayes. Mr. Sullivan rained Suppor~ for the proposed ordinance but s~ated he felt the Board needs to address the responsibility for placing the burden of expense at the real estate level and not penalize merchants and businesses. Mr. ApptegaEe agreed the burden of field should ba cooperating with n!ighboring jurisdictions and stated the proposed ordinanc~ ia an attempt to do that. On motion of ar. Daniel, seconded by ~r. sayes, the following ordinance wa~ adopted: OF C~S~IE~ ~78~ AS ~ BY ~ING S~CTIONS lZ-39, 12-40, 12-47, 12-88 ~d 12-91 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS tha~: 1) Chapter 12 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield~ 197~, ae amended, ia hereby amended by am~ndlnq S~ction 12-39 tO read as follows~ Sec. 12-39, Enumerabed; amonnh e£ license tax. Every parson engaged in one or more of %he following businesses shall pay a license tax equal to ~en dollars for all 9re~ receipts below five thousand dollars and thirty-six hundredths of one per sentum of %he gross receipts above five thousand dollars for the businesses conducted by him as follows: 2) Chapter 12 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is hereby amended by amending S~ction 12-40 %o read as follows: Sec. 12-40. Dry cleanin~ and laundry establishments. (a) Every person engaged in the business of cleaning, washing, dy~ing, pras~ing~ repairing, sponging or spotting clothes, hats, carpe~s, rugs or other fabric articles, in- cluding laundries, shall pay a license tax equal to twenty dollars {$2Q.00~ and thi~ty-si~ hundred%ha of one per centu/n of gross receipts for the b~siness or businesses. 3) Chapter 12 of the Code of eke County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is h~reby amended by amending Section 12-47 to read a~ ~ollows: Sec. 12-47. Persons doin~ bue£nesa in eonnty with license elsewhere--Amount of license tax. (a) ~xcep% as otherwi$~ prov~de~ by law, every par~on en~aged in one or more of the businesses or professions enumerated in section 1~-39 in th~ county an~ having no office er place of b~sineee within the county but having a definite place of businuss or maintaining an office in a city within the county adjacent thereto shall pay a license tax equal to tan dollars and thirty-six hundred=ha of one per cen~um of the gross receipts resulting from the conduct of ~he business or profession in the county, o o o 4) Chapter 12 of the Cods of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, aa ~mended, ia hereby amended by amending Section 12-88 ho read a~ follew~: SeC. 12-88. Same--;~nOunt of license tax. Every contractor, fez the privilege of transacting busi- ness in the county, insiuding ~he performance in the county of a contract accepted outside the sounty, shall pay a license tax equal to twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for all gross receipt~ below seventeen thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars ($I?~850) and fourteen cents {$0.14) per hundre~ dollars ($100.00) of the gros~ receipt~ above seven~een thousand eiwht hundred and fifty dollars {$17~850)~ ~) ChaDter 1~ o~ the Code of the County Of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is hereby amended by amending Section 12-91 to read as follows: Bec. 12-91. S~eculative builder; amennt of license tax; basis ~or ¢om~utation, {a) EYer~ person engaged in the business of ereotin$ a building er buildings for the Durpo~e of selling or renting th~ acme and making nc contract with a duly licensed contractor for the erection o~ such building, whether or not ~uch person oontraet~ with one or more duly licensed contractors for one or more pofti0ns, but does not contract with any one person for all of the work of erecting any one o~ such ~uildinqs~ shall be deemed to b~ a ~peculative bnilder and, for the privilege of transacting b~iness in the ~ounty, shell pay a license tax equal to twenty-five dollars for all costs o~ erectln~ ~he building below seventeen thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars ($17,850) and fourteen cents ($0.14) per hundred on the entire cu~t of erecting t_he bu~l~ing a~ove seventeen thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars exclusive of the value of the lan~, but including the cost of off-site improvements, namely, water systems, sanitary sewerage ~y~tam~, ~torm ~r~in~ge systems and roads and curb and gutter improvements~ when such speculative builder does not contract with a duly licensed contractor ther~f0r. 197~, Ag A~D~, R~LATi~g TO UTILIT~ TAF~$ ~r. Stegn&ier stated this da~e and t/~e had b~n advertised for a public hea~i~g to COnsider un ordinance r~lating to consumer utility taxes increases on t~lsphone and electric power services and establishing a consumer utilities tax on natural gas service. Mr. Carl Miller, r~presenting Commonwealth Gas Service, voiced opposition to the proposed ordinance as he felt it would adversely impact consumers by 91acing an unfair burden on those eonmu~er~ who ~ly on more than ~ne type of utility for servic- ing ~heir homes and requested the ~stablishment of a consumer utilitie~ t~x on natur~/ gas service b~ deleted from the proposed ordinance. 88-369 Mro Sullivan stated ,limination of the propo~d natural gas service tax would adversely impact projected revenues antici- pated for the upcoming fiscal year by approximately $200,000-$300,000. Mr. Applegate ~tated the e~tabli~hment of a consu~r utilities tax on natural gas service was overlooked d~ring last year's budget deliberation~ and ~n~h action st this time is not intehded to impose an unfair burden cn consumers. On motion of Mr. Currin, ~econd~d by Mr. Sullivan, the Board adopted the following ordinance: Ail ORDII~%NCE T'O AMEg~ AI~I~LR 12 OF CHaPTeR S X~ CODE OF 11~ COUNTS OF CHESTERFIELD, 1970, For similar state 'law, see Sections 58.1~3812 and 58.1-3814 of the ~ode of Virginia, I950, as amen~o4. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board ~f Supervisors of chesterfiel~ {1) That Chapter 8 of the Code of the County. of Chester- field, Virginia, is amended and reenacted by amending Sections 8-~1, B-52, and 8-~$ Of ~rticle ~ and by adding ~ection 8-53.1 Sec. 8-51. Deflnition~. The following words and phrases when use~ in thi~ in relation to consumer utility taxes, shall, for the purpose of this article, have the ~ollowing respective meanings except where the cOntex~ ~l~ly in~i~to~ a different meaning~ Utility ssrvice~, Local exchange telephon~ ~rviee, electric power service and ga~ ~ervice furnished within the limits of %he County. Sec. 8-52. Amount of %ax un telephone utility service. There i~ hereby impo~sd and isvied by the County upon each service charge made b7 the seller against the consumer with follows: Residential consumers: Twenty (20) percent of tho Commercial er industrial consume=s: Ten (10) of the first $200 plus one (1) percent of the balance of the ooneamer'~ monthly billing from the mellmr. the use of the County, at tho time the billing submitted by tho ~he consumer and seller. Sec. 8-5~. Amount of tax on electric power service. 'There i~ hereby imposed an~ levie~ by the Caunty upon each and every consumer of electric utility s~rvio~ s tax o~ the service charge made by ~he seller against ~he acne,ar with r,spect to the utility service. The tax shall be calculated as follows: Residential consumers: Twenty t20) pereen~ of the cons~er's monthly billing from the ~eller, not to ,xceed Commercial or industrial cousumers: Ten ilO) percen: a~ the iirst $200 plus one (~) percent of %he balanc~ cf the consumer's monthly billing from the seller. The tax shall be paid by the consumer tQ the seller, for the uae of the County, at the time the billing Submitted by the ~eller ~hall become due and payable u~er the aqreemsn~ be=ween the consumer and seller. Sec. 8-53.1 Amount of ta~ on ~as serviue. There ia hereby imposed and levied by the County upon each and every consumer of gan utility SerVic~ a tax on the service charge made by the seller against the consumer with respect to the ut±lily service. The tax shall be calculated aa fellows~ Residential consumers: Twenty (2~) persen~ of the connum~r'$ moD%hly billing f~om the aeller, not to e~ceed Commercial or industrial consu~ers: Ten (10) of %he firs~ $200 plus one {1~ percent of the balance of The tax shall be paid by th~ con~umer to ~he seller, for the use of the County, a= the tim~ ~he billing submitted by the the =onsunsr and ~ellsr. (2) The tax levied and impo~ed under this ordinanc~ shall b~com~ effective oD August 1, 1958, ~pon sixty written notioe by certified mail to the registered agent 10.C. TO CO, SIDER Aig 0RDI~A~CE TO AMEND C~APTER 8~ SECTION A~ A~4~NDEDt R~LATIN~. ~0 THE LEVYING OF A SERVICE C~ARGE tN T~E AMOUNT OF $~0 FOR T~NDEEI~G A BAD C~CK TO T~E TREASURER Mr. Micas Stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to eun~ider an ordinance =e amend the gounty Code relative to increasin~ from $10 to $~0 the charge for t~ndering ba~ checks ~o the T~aalurer's No one ~me ~oxward to speak in favor of or against the pre- po~ed ordinance. On motion of Mr. sullivan, SecOnded by Mr, N~yes, the Board adopted the following ordinanoe: AN ORDINANCE TO AM~D TW~ CODE OF T~ OF C~Sx~, 1978, A~ ~, B~ ~ING ~D C~S Fur ~i~ilar state lmw, ~e ~ec~ion 15.1-29.4. of ~he Cod~ of Virginia, 1950, as amended. BE IT ORDAINED BY T~E BOA~ 0F ~U~VISORS that: 1) Section 8-12.4 of the Cede of the County ~ 1978, as ~ended, is hereby ~ended by ~ending an~ reenacfing Chapter 8 by ~ending S~ctlon 8-12.4 %o read as fo/lows: 88-371 A fee of twenty dollars ($20.001 shall be impo~ed and shall be collected by the treasurer for the utte~ing~ publish- ing or passing of any cheek or draf% for payment of taxes or any other enme due to the county~ which check or draft is s~bSequently returned for insufficient funds or because there is no account or the account has been closed; provided, how- ever, the= such fee shall not be imposed if the person who utte~edt published or passed such check or draft ~hall deliver to the treasurer a money order, cashier's check or ~aah in the full amount of th~ returned cheek or draft within five (5) day~ of the date such check or draft i~ returned. 2) This ordinance ~hall become effective immediately upon 10.D. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8 OF THE CODE OF T~U~ COUNTY OF CME$TERFIELD~ 1978, AS Ab~NDED, KFLATIMG TO A SERVICE CHARGE ~OR POLICE AND FIRE RESPONSES TO FALS= ALARMS AND TO IMPOS~ AN ANNUAL CONNECTION CHARG= FOR CONNECTI~G TO THE GOUNTY'S FALSE ALARM SYSTEM Mr. Micas stated this da~e and time had been advertised for a public hearing ~o consider an ordinance to amend ~he CounTy Code r=latiVe to a uervic= charge for Police and Fire responses to false alarms and to impo~e an annual connection charge for con~ectin~ to the County's false alarm system. He stated, charge-p~r-re~pon~e ordinance and the fact that an access charge will not effectively reduce false alarm~, ~taff recom- mends the Board take no action at this time and direct staff to explore ramificationm of the i~Ue fnr~her, NO one came forward to speak in favor of or against the pro- posed ordinance. After further discussion, it was on motion oi ~r. Mayas, ~conded by Mr. S~llivan~ resolved to indefinitely table consideration cf the er4inance relative to a service charg~ ~or Police and Fire re~ponse~ to false alarm~ and to impose an annual connection charge for connecting to the County's false alarm system. 10.R. TO ¢O~S~UB~ AN 0~DINANCS ~0 A~ND T~B CODE O~ T~B COUNTY OF CRESTBRFIELD~ 1978~ AS AMENDED~ BY AMENDING SECTION SYCA/5ORB PP~CINCT BOUNDARIES AND POLLING PLACES FOR TH~ PP~CINCTS ~r. ~icas state~ this ~ate and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the County Code relative to the division of swift Creek and sycamore Precinct Ro~ndari~s and Polling Places for the precfnct~. NO o~e came forward to 9peak in favor of or against the pro- posed ordinance. On ~ction of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin~ the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDI~iANCE TO AM~ED THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHEMTEIIFIIILI~ 1978~ AS AMENDED~ PIIECINCT BOUNDAIIIES AND POLLING PLACES County: 1. That Section 7.1-2 of the Code of th~ County of Chesterfield is a~ended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 7.1-2. Precinct beundariem and pollinq places. The following ~hall he the precinct Boundaries and places for magisterial districts in the county: polling o o o c o o SWIFT CREEK VOTING PP~ECINCT seginning at the center line of Old Hundred Road (state Route 652) where it intersects with Genito Head (State Route 604); thence southwardly along 01d Hundred scad to a point 1,420 feet south of its intersection with Nuttree Creek; thenc~ proceeding directly west to the center line of Millridge Parkway {State Route 1920); thence proceeding directly ~onthwe~t to th~ center llne e~ S~i~t Creek Reservoir; thence northwardly along such wardly alon~ the center line of Genitc Road tc the point and The voting place for ~wlft Creek Voting ~r~cinct shall he HARBOUR POZN~E VC~ING PRECINCT Beginning at the center line of old Hundred Road {State Route 65~1 at a point t,42~ feet south of it intersection with Nuttree creek; thence Droceeding directly west ~o the center lin~ of Miltridge Parkway (State Rout~ 1920); thence proceeding dirsctly ~outhwe~t to the center line of Swift Creek Reservoir; thence sQuthwestwar~ly along ~uch reservoir un~il it intersecte with the ~nter line of Mull Street Road {U.S. Route 360); thence eastwardly along the center line of Hull Street Road to its intersection with Old ~nndred Road; thence northwardly along the center line of Old Hundred Road to the point and place oi baglnning. The voting place for Harbeur Pcinte Voting Precinct shall be at Clove~ Hill Hiuh ~uhool, ~3900 Roll Street Road. o o o MIDLOTEIAN DISTRICT Eeginniag at the center line of Coalfield Road where it intersects the western branch of Falling Creek~ thenc~ north- wardly along the csnter lins cf Coalfield Roa~ to its inter- section w~th the center llne of U.S. Rout~ No. 60 (Mi4!othlan Turnpike); thence westwardly along the center line of U.S. Route No. ~0 to it~ inter,action with the center line of Branchway Road (State Route 645); thence southwardl~ along th~ center line of Branehway Road to its tera~inas; thence proceed- ing directly west to the center line of Edenbe~ry Drive {State Route 2560); thence westwardly along the center line of ~den- berry D~ive to it9 intersection with the center line cf Farnum Drive; thence northwardly along the center line of Parnu~ Drive to its intersection with an Unnamed tributary of Falling C~eek; thence along this tributary as it meanders southwestwardly and of Fallln~ Creek until it meets the western branch of Falling Creek; thence nerthwestwardly along the western branch cf Palling Creek 'to the point and placz of beginning. The votinq place fo~ Sycamore Voting Precinct shall he at ~idlothian Middle School, 1~501 sidlothian Turnpike. 720~ where it intersects with Fallinq Creek; th~n~ ~a~twardly aIoDg L~eks Lane to its intersection with Courthouse Road (State Route 653} ~ thence northwardly along the center lin~ of Courthouse Road to its intersection with the center line of Edenberry Drive (State Route 2550); thence westwardly along the center line of Edenberry Drive to its intersection with the center line of Farnum Drive; thence northwardly along ~]le center line of Farnum Drive to its intersection with an unnamed tributary Of Failing Creek; thenc~ along this tributary ~s Xt meanders southwestwardly and meets Falling Creek; thence southwardly along %he center llne of Falling Creek to the point and place of beginning. The voting place for Smcketree Voting Precinct shall be at Gordon ~lementary Schecl, 11701 Gordon School Road. 2. This ordinanc~ shall be offective i~sdiatgly upon passage. 1O.F. TO CO~$IDER THE CO~VEYA~C~ OF A L=AS= OF R~AL PROPRRT~ AT ROBIOUS ATHLTTIC CO~L~X FOR T~E O~ERATION OF FOOD CONC~$SIO~S Mr. Masden stated this date end time had ~een advertised for a p~blic h~ari~g to consider the conveyance of a i~ase of r~al proDerty at Robious Athletic Complex ~or the operation o~ a food COnCession and to =on,tnt to an assignment of the l~as~ to Richmond Concessionaire. NO one came ~orward to speak in favor of er aqainst the pro- posed conveyance. 0~ motion o~ ~r. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin~ th~ Board approved and authorized th~ County Administrator to execute the necessary document~ to conv~y a lea~e of real property to the ~uguenot Little League Assooiation for a three year period 1, 19~ to kprll 31, 1991) at the Robious A=hletic Complox for the operation of food concessions and consentea to an assign- ment of said lease to Richmond Concessionaire. vote: Unanimous i1.A. RESOLUTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF STOCK TRANSFER 0P STORER CORPORATION AND TELECOMMU~ICATIONg On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Chesterfield Cablevision, Inc. has been ~rented authorization to construct, operate, maintain and provide cable television services {the "Franchise"}; and WHEREAS! the Grantee is indirectly COntrolled by SCI ~oldings! Inc. ("aoldings"); and WHEREAS, an agreement has been signed whereby th~ stock of Holdings will be transferred to an affiliate{s) of Comcast Ccrperatic~ and ~0 ~n affiliate(s) of Tele-Cemmuninatiens, Inc.; and WHEREAS~ Storer Communications, Inc. ("steref"), a Delaware eorp0ratien wholly owned by ao!dings, indirectly oontrol~ th~ Grantee through Stereo's subsidiary, SCi 55, Inc., which subsidiary owns al! the stock of the Grantee; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has requested consent to thc structure of ownership of Grantee described above; and W~EREAS, th~ Franchise will eontinu~ to be held by ~h~ Grantee; an~ WHZREA~, the interests of the citizens of the County are b~st served by the adoption of the Re~olutio~ set forth b~rein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT R~SOLVED that th~ Board of suDervisore of Chesterfield County, Virginia hereby consents to, ratifies and approves the transfer of the ~tock of ~oldiug$ in the manner described above and the ownership and c~ntrol Of the G~antee a~ describ~ above. ll.B. LANDFILL ISSUES ll.B.1. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION/DF~MOLITI©N DEBRIS LANDFILL CONSULTANT There wes discussion relative to funding for the project, previous experience of the selected consultant, short-term and long-ter~ issues, risk assee~ment, ~tc. on metio~ of zr. Curxln, s~conded by Rx. Sullivan, tbs Board approved the selection of Resource International Ltd. to tranuf~rr~d $21,650 from the Leaf Collection and Sanitation Accounts to cover the $~6,650 contract costs an~ to Drovi~e a $5,000 contingency; and authorized the County Administrator to Resourc~ International Ltd. of Ashland, Virginia to conduct a ~ebrls landfill study and :ecommen~ standards ~or siting, design, construction and closure which will minimize ri~k~ to the environment. Vote: Unanimous ll.B.2. ~W POSITION FOR ZONING ENFORCEMENT TO SUPPORT LANDFILL INSPECTIONS On motion of Mr. Mayes~ s~conded by Mr. Coffin, the Board deferred consideration of the new po~ition for ~oDiug enforcement to support land~ill inspections until ~nth time as th~ Debris Landfill Study i~ eomplet~, which is anticipated to be approximately the end of June, 1988~ Vote; Unanimou~ ll.C. SET DATE PeR PUBLIC EEARING$ ll.C.1. TO CON~IbER 0RbINA~C~ A~ENDZN~ TN~ CODE O~ THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD~ 1978,_.~.A~. ENDED, BY AMENDING SECTIO~ 5-7 ~L~T~G TO V~CIQ~S DOGS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board ~et 88-375 ~he date of Jun~ 2Z, 1988, at 9:80 a.m., for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Gount~ Code relating viciou~ dogs. VOte: Unanimous I1.C.2. ~O CONSIDER LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY ON LORI ROAD TO TRE UNITED STATES POST OFFICE 0n motiom of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board ths date ef June 22, 1988, at 9:00 a.m., for a public heuring to consider the l~asc of real property on Lori Road to Vote~ Unanimous TO CONSIDER CONVEYANCE OF PA~CZL I~ AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK TO CROW-~LEIN-MAC~ARLANE #2 On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the ~oard set the date of June 22, 1988, at 9~00 a.m.~ for a public hearing to consider the convoyan¢~ of a 12 acre parcel off Reycan Road adjacen~ to Route 288 to Cro~-Klein-~acFarlane ~2. Il,D, APPOINTMENTS 11.D.1. CAPITAL R~TON AIRPORT CO~IsSION There was discussion relative to consideration CZ rotation of members on the Capital Region Airport Commission, continuity of representation on ~pecifi¢ cca~ittees, etc. On motion o~ Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the ~oard suspended the rules to nominate/appoint simultaneously candidates to serve on the Capital Region Airport Commission. Vote: Unanimous On motion of ~r. ~ayes, s~eonded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board nominated/appointed simultaneously Mr. ~. E. Applegate an~ Mr. Harry G. Daniel, as Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors representatives, and Mr, John Mazes an~ Mr. Melvin C. Sheller, as citizen representatives~ to serve on tbs Capital Region Airport Commission, whose terms are effective in~cdiately and expire April 30~ 1992. Vote: Unanimous On motion cf ~r. ~ullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board nominated the followin~ peruons tc serve on the Youth Services Commission, whose formal apDointmsntu Will be made ce Ju~e ~, 19SS: Clovcr Hill District: M~. K&fa Gallagher Mr. Mark Predrichs Ms. Kim Pearson Manchester High School Adult Member Clover Hill High School Dale Distriot; ~s. Patrieia Rhuten Ers. Lillian Duffle Mr. Chris Johnson Meadewbroek ~i~h School Adul~ Member Lloyd C. Bird High School Mato~ca District: Ms. Vangie Renshaw Midlothian Districts Mr. ~ddi~ Che Ms. Any Windcm Bermuda Distrfct~ Mr. Nathan Diebel Vote: Unanimous ll.D.3. JOHR TY~ COMMUNITY COLLEGE LOCAL BOARD Matoaca High School ~idlothian High School Men,can High School Thomas Dale Hiqh School On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~econd~d by ~r. sullivan, the Board d~ferred consideration of an appointment to the John Tyler Community college Local Board until June 8, 1988. Vote~ Unanimous ll.E. COMSENT ITEMS ll.E.1. RECONFIRM RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS FROM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETINGS OF APRIL 27, 1988 AND M3%Y 11~ 1988 On motion Of Mr~ C~r~in, ~eeonded ~y ~r. Sullivan, the ~oar~ reaffirmed the following resolutions since Mr. Daniel was absent and for ceremonial purposes hi6 name was signed to the 7.A. DECLARING MAy 4, 1~8 AS MODEL COUNTY GOVERNMENT DAY "On motion of Mr. C~rri~, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the following resolution wa~ adoptmd! W~E~$, OUr democratic form of government is predi=a=ed on an informed and active citizenry; and WNEPJEAS, Knowledge of functions and process of local govsrnmen~ and an under~tan~ing o~ the problem~ and issues addressed by local officials are important elements of citizenship: and W~EK~AS, Eleventh and twelfth grade student~ in Chesterfield County High Schools have been St~ying Iota1 WHEREAS, Through a competitive proces~ a ~pecial group e~ recognizes tho importance of young people having ~ppe~tunitie~ supports activities that cultivate youth leadership and buil~ the foundation for citizen participation. Board of Supervisors that the iourth day of May, I988 is hereby proclaimed "Model County Government Day" in Chesterfield County 88-3?? and that this observance is called to the attention of all citizens," 7.B. DECLARING ~AY 8-14~ 19~8 AS ~%$TOR%CAL PRES~RVATION following resolution was adopted= WEER~ASr Chesterfield County wa~ e~tabli~hed in 1749; and N~t%~, Chesterfield County ha~ b~n continuously involved with preservation of it~ r%ch and distinguished history hi~hlighte~ wi~h ~he e~tablishment of tho Che~terfield Count~ Preservation Committee in 1987: and WHEREAS, This is National Preservation Week in which the Nation celebrates its effort to preserve its heritage; and WHEREAS, ~he history and ancestral heritage of the founders of the Connty ~honld b~ preserved end celebrated. NOW, T~EREFORE BE tT RESOLVED, tha~ the Chesterfield 198S as "~re~ervation W~ek" in Chesterfield County, calling attention to the need ~e preserve and protec~ buildings and properties in the County which hold historical significance." 7.C. DECLARING ~tAY, 1988 AS FOSTER PARENT RECOGNITIO~ '~On motLon of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, WHeReAS, ~he f~mily ha~ alway~ stood at the center of our society in providing the foundation fo~ future ~enerat~ons; and WHEREAS, Som~ children in o~r community are ~eglected and abused in their own homes and need temporary foster care as safe refuge while their famili~ re~01ve their problems; and WHEREA~, ~any families in Chesterfield County have opened their homes to these children to provide them temporary foster care through the various public and private agencies that provide sezvlees to troubled ~amilles in our community; and W~R~AE~ These ~oster ~amilles provide nurtorancs, love, guidance and meanln~ful f~ily Iif~ exp~rlancae %0 the children placed temporarily in their care; and WHEREAS, The ears provided to these children by foster families influences th~ quality of lif~ for the children, their fa~ilieo; e~r entire community end future ~eneratione~ and W~EREAE, The citizens of Chesterfield County wish to acknowledge and suppor~ the compassionate eff¢~t~ of fo~ter families to childbed in our community. NOW, THEREFOPd~ BE IT HESOLVHD, that the Chesterfield CoBn~y ~oard cf Supervisors hereby proclaims the month of May, 1988 a~ "FOSter Parent Recognition Month" and c~lls thi~ 7.D. DECLARING MAY 5-7, 1988 AS EXTENSION HOMEMAi{ER WEEK "0n motion of M~. Sullivan, mmoonded by Mr. Hayes, the fcllowin~ rm~olution wa~ adopted: WHE~d~AM~ The Chesterfield Extension HOm~mskerm foster highest ideals e~ home, church, school and public life; and their purpose to ex=end educational information provided through the Che~t~rflelO County Extension Service; and N~R~AS, The Chueterfisld Extension Homemakers striv~ to improve the ~concmic~ physical, and ~ocial quality c~ life for individuals, £a~ilies and oemmunities. NOW, ~H~R~FOR~, BE IT Ik~S0~V~D, That the Board ~ SuDervisor~ of Chesterfield County r~cognizes May 1-7, 19~, as "National ~xtension E~akers Week." AND, B~ ~T PURTaSa ~SO~VED, That the Board co--ends and exDre~e~ appreciation to ~he Extension ~om~makers for their QUtStanding contributio~z to =he citiz~n~ of Chesterfield County." following r~olution was adopted: WHEREAS, Thc goal. of public health i~ to p~Omo~e preserve good health for all our citizens; and WHEREAS, ~uhlic Health is also concerned with depar~ure~ from good health practic~ which i~p~ir the well-being of the community; and WHEREAS, Good health~ both physical and mental, can bu achieved through goo~ personal health, habits; and WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County ~0a~d of Supervisors believes that the future of the County i~ to a large degree~ dependent upon the good health of all its citizens; and W~REA~, The Chesterfield County ~oard of the health of its NOW, T~REFQRE ~E IT RESOLVED, :ha~ the Board Supervisor~ of Chesterfield County hereby proclaims the we~k of May ~ - $, 1985 ab "~uhlic Health Week" in Chesterfield Ceunty and urges all eitisens and conununity organiz,tions to join the observance." 7.F. DECLARING ~4AY, 1988 AS HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE MONT~ "On motion of Mr. Currin~ SeCOnded by Mr. Mayas, the following resolution wa~ adopted: WHH~AS~ Almost fifty-eight million A~eri=ans have high blood pressure and surveys show that only 11% ~a%ie~acroril~ control the condition; and W~A$, ~eople with uncontrolled high blood pressure risk WHEREAS, The efforte of the National High Blood ~ressure Education Progra~ and such groups as th~ Chest~rfleld Health by 3~% over the past fourteen years. NOW, TEE~FORE ~E IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby proclaims th~ month of May, 19S8 as "High ~lood Pressure Mo~th" and stronqly urges all health, social service, sducation~ voluntary and civic organize%ions to join in this ef£or~ to reach those people who are not aware of their high blood pressure or are not properly c0n%rolling it." 7.G. D~CLARING MAY 1-JUN~ 4, 1988 AS CLEANUP WEEKS AND MAY 7, 1988 AS CORPORATE CLEANUp DAY "On ~otio~ of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. ~ulllvan, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS. The Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation is endorsed by the Board of Supervi~or~; and 97~R~AS, The Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation is organized as a volunteer group under the leadership of the Chesterfield R~tensicn Servic~ to improve ~he quality of chesterfield County through development of a program to reduce litter and littering; and WHEREAS, The ~p Chesteriield Clean Corporation is planning a spring cleanup for Chesterfield County ncighborhood~ to be held on the following dates in ths following Magisterial Districts: Bermuda, ~ay 29 -Juns 4, 1988; Clever Hill, May 15 - ~1, 1988; Dale, May 22 - 28, 1988; ~atoaca, May ~ - 7, and Midlothian, May 8 - t4~ 19SS7 and ~BRY~%S, The ~eep Chesterfield Clean Corporation is planning a kick-off on May 7th ~0 be 4~slgma~e~ as E~ployee Cleanup Day" during which %ime ~ployees from Chesterfield ~usiness and gover~en:al offices will volun~eer to clean up along County roads. NOW, T~E~O~ ~ ~T ~O~V~D, ~h~t the Chesterfield County Boa~ Of Supervisors supports this worthy cause and d~signat~s May 7, 19~8 as "Corporate Cleanup Day" and May ~ June 4, 19~8 as "K~ep chesterfield Clean Weeks." AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOL~D~ that the ~oard of Supervisors ~neourage$ ~11 residents, businesses and County employees to participate in this progr~ to make Chesterfield County a better place =o live and work." ?.H. DECLARING MAY 1, 198~ AS LOYALTY DAY "On motion of Mr. Ma~es, ~econdad by Mr. Sutlivan~ the followinq resolution was adoptsd: WHB~AS, The citizens of this County are extremely proud of this Nation's more than two hundred year Heritaqe of Freedom and are loyal to the ideals, traditions and institutions which have made our Nation so qreat; and WH~P~AS~ Their obvious dedication to our way of life is indicative of a stronq, continued desire to pressrva the priceless ~erican heritage; and W~EREAS, They wii~ he proud to ~tand up and publicly declare their ~aterminatlcn toward actively and positively safeguarding our freedoms against any foreign or domestic enemies. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT P~ESOLVED~ that the Chesterfield County Doard of Supervisors does hereby call upon all its citizens to take ~ull advantage o~ the ~peciel occasion known as "Loyalty Day," celebrated annually throughout the Nation on the fi~$% day of May~ aS ~u incentive for every true American to reaffirm his and her love el Flag and Country. AMDr BE IT P~RT~ER R~$O~V~D, that a~l indlvidual~, schools, churches, organize%ions, business establishments and hom@~ display proudly the Elag of the United States of America and participate in public patriotic "Loyalty Day" activities which ars to be ¢O-$pou~ored by the Veteran~ of Foreign War~ of the Un±tsd State~, and otbersw On "Loyalty Day," May 1, I988." 7.I. RECOGNIZING APRIL 25-29~ 1988 A~ NATIONAL SECRETARIES~ WEEK "On notion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. ~ayes, the following resolutlon was adopted: W~EP~A$, The importance o~ prefsssfenal secretaries to American public and private o~ganlzatlons has been rsoognlzed by the ~es£gnatlen of April 25 - 29, 1988 as '~Natio~&l Secretaries~ Week"; and WHE~AS, Persons wko serve Chesterfield County in thL$ job classification must m~et high ~tandards of per~ormanos through a combination of effective, interpersonal abilities and technical clerical skills, responsive and courteous mervlce to citizens and fellow employees, an~ knowledge and applizatlon o~ numerous County and departmental policies and proc~dur~; and W~EREAS, Th~ Administration ~i~he~ to express its appreciation to all County secretaries for their dedication %o excellence in public service and for their contributions to the County te~m. ~OW, T~]tEFORE BE IT ~SOLVED, that th~ Chesterfield County Beard of Superviaor~ hereby recognizes all it~ secretaries for their invalBabl~ assistance to the County and its citizens." 9.A. k~COGNIZI~G ~4AY 15-21~ 1988 ,~. ~ATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT "On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. ~ay~m, th~ ~oard adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, The de,feared, loyal and brave members of Police Departments throughout the Country provide an ~ervioe to al! citizens; and W~=P~AS, The week of May 15-21, 1988 i~ recoqnized as "National Law Enforcement Week;" and ~T~EREAS, The County is pzou~ aad honored to have ~uch standing and professional individuals as our polic~ officers in Chesterfield County who serve to pro~ct ~he health, safety and welfare of its the Chesterfield County Police Department, recognize~ May 15-21, 1988 as "National Law ~nforc~m=nt week" in Connt~ and calls this recognition %o the attention of its 9.B. RECOGNIZING EAGLE SCOUTS 9.B~i, MB, CHRIS DENNEY "On motion of ~r. Sullivan, s~conded by Nr. Maye~r adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts o£ America was incorporated by Mr. ~illfam D. Boyee on February S~ 1910: and WHEREAS~ The BOy Scouts cf America wes founded to prOmOte citizenship training, pe~s0naI development and fitness of individuals; and WHEREAS, After earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of fields, serving in a leadership position in a troop, cerryin§ out a service project beneficial to his community, being active in The ~:cop, demonstrating scout spirit and living up to the Sco~t Oath and Law; and WHEREJYS, Chris Penney, Craytor District, Troop 135, has accomplished those high standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout which is received by less than two percent of those individuals entering the Scouting ~HEREAS, Growing through his experiences in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship and priding himself on the great accomplishments o~ his County, Chris Denney is indeed s member of a new generation of prepared young citizens cf whom we can alt be very proud. ~OW, THEREFORE BE IT RES0LV~, that ~he Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its congratulations to Chris Penney end ~oknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its citisens." 9.B.2. MR. ~R0~ S. "On motion cf ~r. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts of A/~erica was incorporated by ~r. Willia~ D. Beyce on February 8, 1910; and citisenship trainlnp, personal development and fitness of individuals; and ~EREAS, A~ter earning at least twenty-one merit badges a wide variety oi fields, serving in a leadermhip pomition in a troop~ carrying Out a servLce project beneficial to his c~unity, being activ~ in the =zoep, demonstrating Scout spirit and living up to th~ Scout Oath and Law~ and ~E~AS, Aaron S. Parson, Redeemer L~theran Church, Troop 845, has accomplished those high standards of nutriment and the Scouting movement; and WHE~AS, Growing through his experiences in Scouting, learning th~ le~n~ ~f ~e~p~n~ible ¢i~izenshlp and priding himself on the great accomplishments o~ his Coon%y, Aaron S. citizens of wh~ we can all b~ NOW, TNE~FORE BE IT ~$0LV~D, ~hat th~ Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby extend~ it~ con~ratulations to Aaron S. Dot$on and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an o~tutunding young man as one of its citizens." 9.B.3. MR. DAVID D. SMITE "On motion o~ Mr. Sullivan, seconded 'adopted the following resolution: by Mr. Mayes~ the Board ~U~EREAS, The Boy Scout~ of ~merlea was incorporated by ~r. william D. Boy0e On February 8, 19lQ; and WI~EI{EAS, The Boy Scouts Of America was founded to promote citizenship training, personal d~valopment and fitness of individuals; and WSB~S, Aft%r earning a~ least twenty-one m~rit badges in a wide variety of fields, serving in a Ieadmrship position ~n a troop, carrying out a ~svice project b~n~ficial to his c0~nni=y, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout ~piTit and living up to the Scout Oath and L~w~ and WHE~S, David D. Smith, Troop 801, ha~ accomplished those high standards of colleen% an6 ha~ r~ached the lonq-~ouqht goal of Eagle Scout which i~ received by less than two p~roen% of those individuals entering th~ S00uting movement; and learning the lessons cf remponsibl~ citizenship and priding h~self on the great acc0~plis~ents of his County, David D. Smith is indeed a member of a n~w generation of pr~pare~ youn~ cieizens of whom we can all be very proud. County Board of Supervisors h~reby extend~ its =onqratulat~ons to David D. S~ith and a~knowledge~ th~ ~ood fortune o~ the citizens.'~ 9.B.4. MR. JEFFREY P. SMITH "On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHiP'AS, The BOy Scouts of America was incorporated by Mr. william D. ~oyoe on February 8, l~lO; and WBE~t~AS, The Boy Scouts of A~erica was founded to promote citizenship training, personal development and fitness of individuals; and WE~P~AS, After ~arnlng at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide varieSy of fields, serving in a leadership peri%ion in a troop, carrying out a service project beneficial to his community, being active in the t~oop, demonstrating 'Scout spirit and living up to the Scout Oath and Law; and WHE~AS, Jeffrey P. Smith~ TrOOp 80I, ha~ those high standards of ~o~i~ent and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagls Scout which is received by l%s~ than two percent of tho~e in~ividuals entering ~he ScoRting l~arnlng the lessons of r~nponsibl~ citizenship and h~self on the great accomplishment~ of his County, Jeffrey citisens of whom we can all be very proud. NOW, THE~FO~ BE IT ~SOLVED, that the Chesterfield to Jeffrey P. Smith and acknowledges th~ good fortun~ of the County tc have such an 0utstan~ing young man as one of it~ Vote: Unanimous 8~-383 ll.E.2. COSIFIPd4 JUNE 2r 1908~ AS A PUBLIC HEARING DATS TO CON~IDER THE ~Y89 APPROPRIATI©N ORDINANCE On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. sullivan, the Board confirmed June 8, 1988, at 7:~ p,m., as the da=e iora public hearing to COnSider the FY89 Appropriation Ordinance. II.F. CO.UNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS II.F.1. STPdZET LIGBT INSTALLATION COST APPROVAL On motion of Hz. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Ceftin, the Board approved the street liqht installation cost of $1,143 at the intgr~ection of Drakeehire Road and Grasamere Road, with funds to be expended from the Dale District Street Light Fund ~ffec- tire July 1, 198~. Vote= Unanimou~ tl.F.2. STREET LIGHT I~EQUESTS O~ ~otio~ Of ~r. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Hayes, the Board approved a reques~ for street light at the intore~¢tion of 01d Worsen Drive and Red. ora Drive in the Dale Hagi~terial District and denied th~ r~quests for street lights at the following locations in the M~toeoa Magisterial Di~tric~ 1. 20107 Oakland Avenu~ 2. 20019 Oakland Aven~ 3. 20001 Oakland Avenue 4, 19905 Oakland Aven~e 5. 19801 Oakland Aven~ 6. 19906 Roosevelt A~enue 7. 10000 Roosevelt Avenue 8. 20008 Roosevelt A~enue Veto: Unanimous 11.F.3. APPROPRIATION POR R~A~RS TO ~NAT~ ST~T On motion of Mr. Currin, secondsd by Mr, sullivan, the Board deferred co~side~ation of an appropriation from the B~rmuda Dis~rio~ Three Cent Road Fund ACCOUnt for proposed improvements 11.P.4. RESOSUTION CONFIRMING PROCEEDINGZ O~ tW~USTRIA~ DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL FOR WAKe C~H~ICA~ u~A, I~C. 0u motion of the Soard, the following resolution was adopted~ WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of ~he County of Chesterfield {the Authority), has considered the application of Wake Chemicals USA, Inc. (the Company) for the issuance ef the Authof~ty'S i~du~trial development ~evenue bonds in an amount not to excee~ $8,600,000 (the ~onds) to assist in the financing of the Company*s acquisition, conz~ruction and equipping of a ahem~cal man. factoring facility (the ~xoject) to be located in Chestsrfield County, Virginia, and has held a publis hearing thereon on May 3, t988; and W~R~A$, tho Authority has r~ques~e~ the ~uard o~ ~upervi~or~ (the Board} of Che~terfi~l~ County (the County], to approve the issuance of tko Bo~s to comply with Section 147{f) of tho Internal ~evenua Code of 1985, as amended {the Code); and to apply to the Allocation Administrator to request an allocation of $8,500,000 of the Stat~ Reserve to the pursuant to Sections 15.1-1399.10 through 15.1-1399.17 of the Code o~ Virginia of 1950, ae amended, and any r~gulations promulgated pursuant ~her~to (the Act), to comply with Section 146 Of ~he Cad~; and WNEREA$~ a ~opy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subjest to term~ to hs agreed a record of ~]e publi~ h~aring and a "riegel impact statement" with respect ~o th~ Project have ~een filed with the Beard. ~QW, ~B~R~FQ~, B~ I~ I{~SOL%rED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF C~ST~I~LD COUNTY: i. The Bo~rd hereby approves th~ i~uance of the Bonds by the Industrial Develo~ent Authority cf the Ccnnty of Chesterfield, for ~e b~neflt of Wake Chemicals USA, InG., the extent required by Section ]47{f) 0f the Code, to permit the Authority %o assist in the financing of thence:. 2. The Boa~d hereby agrees to apply %o the Allocation Administrator to requeBt an allocation of $8,600,000 of the County A~ini~tra~or to prepare and file an application therefor as promptly as ~racticable. 3. A~rovat of ~ ~ssuance of the Bonds, as required by of ~ Bond~ or ~he creditworthiness cf the C~pany, b~t, required by Section 15.1-1380 of [h~ Code of Virginia of 19~0, as ~ended, the Bonds $~at%.provi~e ~hat neither the County nor the Authority shall b~ obligated tc pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or 0~er costs incident thereto except ~rom the r~venues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither ~h~ faith or credit nor the taxing power o~ the C~onw~alth, the Count~ nor th~ Authority shall b~ pl~dged thereto. 4. This resolution shall ~ake effect ~e~i~tely upon i=s a~opticn. Vote: Unanimous ll.F.5. STATT ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions fram thi~ Board, made report in writing upon his examination o~ Ashbrook Parkway, Offshore Drive, Helmsman Court, Inlet Court, ~idship Woods Court and Broadreach Drive in Ashbrook, Section 1, Matoaca bi~trict. Upon consideration whereOf~ and on motion of seconded by Mr. Sullivan~ it i~ resolved that Ashbrook Parkw~y~ Offshore Drive, ~elmsman Court, Inlet Court, ~idship Woods Court and Broadreach Drive in Ashbrook, Section 1, Matoaca District, be and ~hey hereby are estabiishe4 as public roads. And be i= further resolved, that the virginia Department of Transportation, be and it h~reby is resolved that A~hbrook Parkway, beginning at the western en~ ef e~istlng Ashbroek Parkway, Stat~ Route number unassigned, in ~i~tlng Ashlake ~arkwny and going westerly 8.07 mile to the with Offshore DSive, then continuing westerly Q.01 mile to end in a dea~ and~ offshore Drive, beginning at the inter- section with Ashbrook Parkway and going southerly O.01 mile to the intersection with Melmsman Court, then continuing southerly 0.84 mile to the intersection with Inlet Court, then continuing southerly 0.0~ mile to the intersection with Midmhip Woods Court, then continuing southerly 0.ll mile to end in a temporary turnaround; Helmsman Ceurt~ beginning at ehe inter- section with Offshore Drive and going northeasterly 0.06 mils to end in a cul-de-ses; Inlet Court, beginning at the inter- section with Offshore Drive and going northwesterly 0.~$ mils to end in a eel-de-sac; Midship Woods Court, beginning at the intersection with Offshore Drive and going southerly ~.07 mils to end in a cul-de-sac; and Broadreach Drive, beginning at existing Broadreach Drive, State Route number unassigned, and going southerly O.ll mile to end in a temporary turnaround. This request i~ inclusive of the a4jacent ~lQpe, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easementfl. These roads serve ~4 l©t~. And be it further resolved, that the Bea~d of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of th~se reade except Inlet Court and Midship Woo~e Court which have a 40' right-of-way, and Ashbrook Parkway which has a 90' right-cf-way. This section of kehbrock is recorded as follows: Section 1. ~lat ~eok 50, ~age 16, July 23, 1985. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from chis Board, made ~eport in writing upon hi9 examination of South Swift Dluff Court, Swift Dluff Drive and C~rclestene Court in ~i~l~ide, Section 2, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion seconded by Mr. Sullivan, it is resolved that South Swift Bluff Court, Swift Bluff Drive and Circlestone Court in Millside, Section ~, ~atoa¢~ bi$%~ict~ be an~ thgy hereby ~r~ established a~ publi~ And he it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of T~ansportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, South Swift Bluff Court, beginning at the intersestion with existing gwif~ Bluff Drive, State Route 3391, and going southerly 8.~? mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Swift Bluff Drive, beginning at the eastern en~ of existinq Swift Bluff Drive, State Route 3391, and going easterly 0.04 mils to the intersection wiuh Circlestone Court, then continuing southeasterly 8.08 mile to end in a temporar~ turnaround; and Cirelestone Court, beginning at the inter,teflon with Swift Bluff Drive and going northwesterly 0.14 mile to tie into e~i~ting Circlestone Court~ S=a~e Route 3394. Thi~ requ~gt i~ in~lugive of the adjacent slope, sight distance end designated Virginia Department oX Transportation d~ainag~ The~e read~ serve 44 An~ be it £ur~her re~olved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virqinia Department of Transportation a ~0' right-of-way for all of these roads. This section of Millside is recorded as follows~ Sec=ion 2. EIa~ ~ogk 50, Pages 7~ & 73, September 5, 198~. Vote: Unanimous ll.G.1. PUBLIC ~EARINQ TO CO~$IDE~ VACATION OF A PORTION OF public hearing to consider the vacation of a portion of Dulle~ Drive within Revcre Estates Subdivision, Section 1. On motion oi ~r..Applegate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board adopted the following ordinance: wi%hln Revere Estates Subdivision, Scctic~ l, Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County~ virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacat~ a Section 1, Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield Coon%y, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of reeor~ in the Cterk'~ Office cf the Circuit Court of said County in Plat October 14, 1959, The right of way petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as folIowE~ Subdivision, $cction 1, the locatioz of which is more Bros., Civil Engineers, date~ October 14, t955, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance. . W~ER~AS, notice ha~ b~n gibed pursuant ~e Section 15.1-431 of the Code cf Virginia, 1950~ as amended, by advertising; and the~ portion of Dulle~ Drive ~ought to be vacated. OF CHEST~P~IEL~ COUntY, That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) cf the Code of Virqinia; 1950, as ~mended, the aforesaid portion of Dnll~s Drive he and is hereby vacated. This Oxdinance shall bo in full force and effect in accordance with section 15.1-~82(b) of the Code of Virginia, together with the plat attached hereto ch~!l ~e /ecerded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 Of the Co~e o~ Virqinia~ 1950, as amended. is to destroy the force and eff~t Of the rc¢ording of ~ortion of the plat vacated. Thi~ Ordinance shall vest fee simple title to the e~nt~rline of the right of way vacated in the property owner of the adjacent lots within Revere Estatec, Section t, free and olea~ of any rights of public use. Accordingly, thi~ ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County of ChemterficId,. as grantor, and Michael Chancellor and Rebecca Chancellor, (husband and wife) ~ W. Mitberer and Pat~icia C. ~ittersr, (husband and wife), James M. Eeasle¥ and Vernie S. Bsasle¥, (husband and wife), and Arthur M. Arrington, Jr. and Sharon Arrinqton, Ikusband and wile), or their successors in title, as grantee. Vetel U~animeuu lI.G.2. CONSENT ITEMS ll.G.2.a. AWARD 0E CONTPJ~CT FOR APPOMATTOX INDUSTRIAL ~r. Currin disclosed to the Board that he is involved in a new commercial real estate venture in the area that could be affected by Beard action, declared a potential conflict of interest pursuant to the Vi~giuia Comprehensive Conflic~ of Interest Act relative to Item~ II,~,2.a.~ Award of Contract for Appomattox Industrial Center Wa~er Line Extension and ll.G.2.g~ Deed Of D~dication for Fuji Latex Alon~ Ruffin Mill Road and excused himself from the meeting. 0~ motion cf Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Meyes, the ~oard awarded COntract Number W87-234C, for the constrnction of water li~e within tho Appomattox Industrial Center, to the lowest bidder, Mayton Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $56,~36.00, waived the Performance Sond and au=horized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents. Ayes: Mr. Applegate~ ~r% Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and ~r~ Absent: ~r. Currln. I1.G.2.~. DEED OF D~DICATION FOR FUJI LATEX ALONG 'RUFFiN MILL ROAD On motion cf ~r. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the noce~sary deed cf dedication acceD~ing~ on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a variable width parcel of land containing 2.99 acres from R~ffln Mill Road to Fuji Latex from Oliuer D. R~dy~ Trustee. Ay~ M~. Appl~g~te, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. ~ayes. Absent: Mr. Ceftin. Mr. Currin returned tn the meeting. ll.G.2.b. AWAF~ C0~PRACT EO~ ~ANHOLE/$A~ITARY SEWER R~HABtLITA- TION THROUGHOUT COUNTY On mOtiOn of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Coffin, the Board awarded Contract Number S86-70C for ~he rehabilitaticn Construction Company, in the amount of $597,821.00 and authorized the County Admlni~trator to execute any necessary documents. {It is noted funding for this project is in the 1987-19fl~ Capital Improvement ll.G.2.c. AWARD CONTRACT FOR GENITD ROAD PUMP STATION STANDB~ GENERATOR I~STALLATI©N On motion of ~r. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board swarded Contract Number W87-~fE for the installation of a standby emergency generator at the exis=ing Geni~o Road Water Pump S~atien to the towe~t bidder, Able Electrical Contractors, !nc., ia ~he amount of $~,447.00 and authorized the County Administrator to ¢x~cute any n~cessary documents. (It is noted funding for this project is in the 1987-1988 Capital Improve- merit Budget.) ll.G,Z.d. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR SEWER LINE EXTENSION FOR On motion of Mr. ~ullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, =he seard approved the following contract for oversizinq on~ite s~w~r lines: S88-88CD, Timlaph Trucking Company Developer: A.L. Hanbury Contractor: Southern Construction Company Total Contract Cost: To,al ~stimated County Cost: (Cash Refund) Estimated Developer Cost: Code: Vote: Wnanimoue $ 3,619.87 $47~408.13 Future 5P-5724-8009 ll.G.2.e. CONVEY TWO EASEM~NTS TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ALONG ROUTE 10 On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr, Cnrrin, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Admlni~trator to execute two easement agreem~nt~ with Virginia ~ectri~ and ~ower Company to install a pole and a underground cable on County property along Route 10. (A c~py of the plat is £iled with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous ll.G.2.f. APPROVAL OF C&P EASEMENT AND SET A PUBLIC SEARING TO CONVEY RI~RT OF WAy OM KOUTM 36 On motion Of Mr. Sullivan, s~conded by Mr. Currln. the ~oard approved and authorized the Chairm~n of the Board and County A~ministrator to execute an easement agreamen~ with C&P for the installation of buried cable and sob th~ date of June 22, 1988, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to consider both the easement agreement with C&P a~d the conveyance of the right of way at Ettrick Elementary School necessary for the Route 36 overpass project to the Virqinia Department of Tranmportation (VDOT). (A copy of tko plat is filsd with the papers o[ this Board.] ll.G.3. P. EPORT$ Mr. Sale premented th~ Board with a report on th~ developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. 11.~. RMPORTS Mr. Rnmssy presented the Board with a ~tatuS report on General ~nnd Contingency ACCOUnt, G~neral Fund Balance, Road Reserve Fund, District Road and Street Light Fund, Lease ~urchases, School Literary Loans, $¢heot ~oard Agenda and Mi~ute~ Board of Supe~viuors Meeting Schedule and a memorandum relative to the Utilities Rate Study Report, ll.J. LUNCH The Board recessed at 12:25 Neuse for lunch. to travel to the ~alf-way I1.K. R/~QUE~TS FOR MOBILE BOME PEP~4ITS 88SR0049 In Dale Ma~isterlal District, JESSE AND DONNA L~WTS requested renewal of Mobile Eome Permit S35R051 to park a mobile home on property located approximately 130 feet off the north line of Road, and better known a~ 6120 Cogbill Road. Tax Map 6~-4 Parcel 2 {Sheets 22 and 15). The first pe~it was issued on April 3, 1962, Mr, Jacob$on stated staff recommended approval of this request, subject to standard conditions, as this is a renewal request for an existing mobile home that has been in the neighborhood ~ince 196B~ He ~tat~d, however~ because of the potential for further devslepment in this area, the applicant should look upon bhi~ approval as temporary and one which may or may necssearily bm renewed in the future. acceptable. There wee no opposition present. Mr. Daniel stated th~ subject request is located in neighborhood which is characteristically single family residential development. He stated b~cause of the potential for future residential development sn~ the fact that ether mobile homes in this area had been approved for five (5) years, he would like to revlsw the request in five years rather than seven years. Mr. Lewis stated the five year approval was acceptable. on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr, Mayer, the Board approved Case 8~SR0048, for a period of five (5} years, subject to the following standard conditions: 1. The applicant shall be the ek~ner and occupant of the mobile home. 2. No lot or parcel may be rsnted or leased for use as a mobile home ~ite~ nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. 0nly one (1) mobile home shall be peri%ted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yaJd, and other zonin~ r~quirements o~ the applieabls zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 fss~ ~o any existing residence. 4. ~o additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted hut shall not b~ placed on a per, anent foundation. 5, Wh~r~ public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall Ds used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the ~uilding Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of tbs mobile home. 7. Any violation of the above oonditions shall be grounds for reVOcation of the MObile HOme ?armit. requested renewal of Mobile ~ome Permit ~R041 to park a mobile home on property .fronting the south line of Ravendale Avenue, approximately 100 feet east of Mal/wood Street, and better known as 10610 Ravendate Avenue. Ta~ Map 98-6 (3) Belmeade, Block 6, Lots 15 through 23 (Sheet 32). The first permit wac i~ued on March 10, 1976. Mr. Jacobsen stated staff recommended aDpreval of this request, subject to standard conditions, as this is a renewal request tho po%entlal for further development in this area, the applicant should look upon this approval ax t~mporary and one which may or may net necessarily be renewed in the ~utur~. On motion of ~r. Coffin, seconded by ~r. Sullivan, the Board approved Case 88SRO070, for a period of seven (7) years, subject to the following standard conditions~ 1. The applicant shall be th~ o~;nef and occupant of the mobile home. mobit~ home ~ita, nor sh~ll any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted ~o b~ parked on an individual lot or parcel.. 3. The minimum ~et size, yard setbauks~ required Xram= yard, district shall be complied with, except that ne mobile home shall be located closer =ham 20 feet to any existinq residence. d. No additional p~rmaneut-type living space may be added ~haS1 not ~e place~ on ~ permanent foundation. ~'h~re public (County) w~ter and/or sewer are available, they shall be u~ed. shall ~hen obtain the necessary permits from the office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to %h~ installation Or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall b~ grounds for Vote: In Matoaoa Magisterial . District~ ~LORIA CROU~K requested renewal of Mobile ~ome Permit 83SR071 to paKk a mobile home on p~operty fronting the north line of Madison Street at Franklin Avenue, and better known as 671~ Nadison Street. Tax lB0-15 (2) Radcliffe, Block C~ Part cf Parcel 14 (Sheet The fir~t permit was iSSued on June 3, 1964. Mr. JaoobsoB stated staff recommended approval of this request, subjeot to standard COnditions, as this is a renewal the ~otential for further devslot~ment in this area, the applicant should look upon this approval as temporary and one which may or may not necessarily be renewed in th~ future. 88-391 Ms. Gloria Crocker etatc~ the recommended conditions were acceptable. There wa~ no opposition pre,eat. On motion cf Mr, Mayos, seconded b~ Mr. Currin, the Board approved Case BSSR0O71, foe a period Of seven (7) year~, subject to the following standard conditions: 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. mobile hom~ site, nor shall any mobile home be used fox rental property. Only one (t} mobile home shall bo permitted to he parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. Thm minimum lot size, yard s~tbacks, r~q~ired fEon~ yard, and other zoning requlrement~ of the applicable zoning district ghall be complied with, except ~hat no mobile homo shall be located closer than 20 feet to any ~xistin~ No additional permanent-type livin~ space may he added cute a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. $. Where public (County) waker and/or sewer sro available, they shall be used, 6. Upon being granted a ~obile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relo=aticn of the mobile home. Any violation o£ :be above conditions shall be ~ro~nds for revocation of the Mobile Home ~rmit. Vote: In Matoaoa Magisterial District, CMARLOgW~E ~. S~LL requested renewal of ~obile Home ~srmit 83SR072 to park a mobile hom~ on property ironting the we~t line of Perdue Avenue, approximately 65Q feet norkh Of River ~oed, and bettor knowa es 21448 Perdue Avenue. Tax Map 181-14 (5) Perdue Propertyr Block A, Lot 5 (Sheet $4). The first permit was issued May 1970. subject to standard COnditions, as this is a r~newal r~quest for an e~isting mobile home. He ~tatcd, however, because c~ the potuntial for further dmvelopment in this area, the applicant should look upon this approval as tempermry and one which may or may not necessarily be.renewed in the futur~. Mr. Bob Fajohn~ representing the applicant, stated the On me=ion of Mr. Maye$, seconded by Mr. Currin~ the Board approved Case 8~SR007~, for a period ci seven (7~ years~ subject to the following standard conditions: 1. The applicant shall be the owner and OCCUpant of the mobile homo. 2. No lot er parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home mite~ nor ,hall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted ko be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, ~mq~ired ~ront yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning Vote: di$%ric~ shall b~ complied with, except =hat ~e mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. No additional per, anent-type living space may ba added onto e mobile hone. All nebile homes shall be skirted but shall net be placed on a permanent foundation. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the O~ioe of ~he Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall bo grounds for 88SR0073 renewal of Mobile ~ome Permit 83SR069 ~o Dark a mobile home on property fronting the south line of Cogbill Road~ approximately 740 feet west of Old ~ion ~ill Road, and better known as 6025 Cegbill Road. Tax Map 55-4 (1) Parcel ~ (Sheet 22). The first permit wan i~ued on May 6, 1964. Mr. Jacobsen stated staff recommended approval of this request, applicant should look upon this approval as temporary and one which may or may not necessarily be renewed in the future. Mr. Daniel stated th~ subject request is le~at~ in a neighborhood which is characteristically single family residential development. ~e state~ because of the ~otential mobile homes in this area had been approved for five (5} years, seven years. Ms. Holloway stated the five year approval was acceptable. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved Casa 88SR0048, for a period of five {5) years, subject to the following standard conditions: mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used fo~ rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall he permitted to be parked on an in~iv~duaI lot or parcel. 3. The min~'~um let size, yar~ ~etback~, req~ire~ front yar~, and other zoning recfuirements of ~he applicable zoninq district shall be oompli~d with, except that no mobile residence. 4. No a~itional permanent-type ]ivin~ spao8 may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but ~hall not be p!aoed on a permanent foundation. Wher~ public ICounty) woter and/or sewer are available, they shall be use~. Upon being granted a Mobiln ~c~e Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the nec®~ary p~rmitS from the ©fffo~ of the Building 0~fisial. This shall be done prior to the installation or r~location Of the mobile home. 5ny violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Unanimous In Bermuda Magisterial District, A~E aAS$~NSU~G AND PATF~C~A FI~[INGS reqUeSted a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property fronting the north line of Drewrys Bluff Road. Tax ~ap 67-3 (1) Parcel 42 (Sh~t 23). Mr. Jacobsen ~tat~d ~taff r~co~en~ed approvol of ~hi$ r~qu~$t, subject to standard condition~. H~ ~tat~d this i~ ~ new ~e~t but app~ar~ to b~ in character with th~ neighborhood at the pre,ant time. Me stated, however~ because of the potential for further d~velopment in ~i$ ~rea, ~he spplican~ should look upon this approval as t~porary and one whi0h may or may not necessarily be r~n~we4 in the future. acceptable. There was nO Opposition present. Mr. Jacobsen On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved Case 88~N0074, for a p~riod o~ sev~n (7) y~ar~, ~ubj~c~ to the following standard conditions: 1. The applicant shall b~ %he owner and occupant of the mobile home. 2. No lot or parceI may be rented or Ieased for use as a mobile hom~ ~ite~ no~ shall any mobile home be used for r~ntal property. Only one (1} ~bile hom~ ~halI b~ 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard~ and other zoning requirements 0f the applicabl~ soning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer then 20 feet %o any existing residence. 4. Ho additional permanent-type living space nay be ad, ed onto a mobile home. All mobile homes ~hall be ~kirted but where public (Coon=y) water and/or ~wer are available, they shall be u~ad. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Hom~ Permit, the applicant shall t~en obtain the nucesuary permits from t~= Office of the Building 0ff&cial. This sh~ll be don9 prior to the inst~llation er relocation of the mobile home. 7. Any viola%ion of %he above conditions shall be ~rounds for revocation of th~ Mobile ~omm Permit. 88HP8002 Landmark desiqnation f~r u~u~ST~RFIRnD COUNTY CLERK'S ~FFI(~ OF 1889. Locat~ in Da~e ~agisterial ~rict on property front- ing the north line of Iron Bridge Road at Lori Road and located on the property of Ch~sterfiel~ County. Tax Map 95-8 (1) Part of Parcel 13 (Sheet 31). Mr. Jacobson sta~ed the Planning Co~i~ion and ~reservmtion Cedi=tee reco~ende~ approval of Landmark Designa=ion for Ches~erfiel~ County Clark's Office 0f 1889, based on the following findings: 1. Thi~ is a distinguished building o~ high architectural quality and historic imterest~ and 2. Thi~ designation will cause no significant adverse e~fec~ no opposition present. On mo%ion of M~, Daniel, seconded by Mr. Coffin, the Bo~r~ approved historic lan~ark d~ignation for the Chesterfield County Clerk'~ 0~fice o~ 1889 -- described as follows: chesterfield county Clerk's offic~ of 1889 - Located in the Dale ~agisterial District on property of Che~er~ieI~ County fronting the north line of Ir~nbridge Road at Lori Road on Ta~ ~ap 95-8 (1) Part of Parcel 13 (~h~et 31). Landmark designation for C~STBRFT~.n ~OUNTY CLEI~K'~ OFFI~ OF 18~8. Locate~ in Dale Maqi~te~ial b~trict On prQp~r~y ~the nor~ llne o~ Iron Bridqe Road and Loci Ro~d located on the property Of Che$~rfiel~ County. Tax Map 95-8 (1) Part of Parcel 13 [Sheet Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning C~isulon and Preservation Co~ittee reco~ende~ approval of tanbark Designation for Chesterfield Co~nt~ Clerk's Office o~ 1828, ba~ed on the following findings~ 1. This is a distinguished building of high architectural quality and historic int~r~t~ and 2. Thi~ designation ~ill ~au~e no ~ignificant adverse effect On the future 4uveZopment of ~he County. no opposition present. On motion o~ Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Mayes, ~e Board approved ~iztoric i=ndmark designation ~or ~e Chesterfield County Clerk's Offic~ of 1828 -- described as Chesterfield County Clerk's Office of.~ t~2~ - Located in Dale Magisterial District on propert~ o~ Chesterfield Count~ fronting the north line of Iro~ridg~ Road at Lori Road on Tax Map 95-8 (1) Part Of Parcel 13 (Shee~ 31), Vo~e: Unanimous 88-39~ $85P0004 Landmark designation for ~m~STgRFIwr~ COUNTX COI~I~ItOUS~ 1917. Located in Dale Magisterial District on property ing the north line of Iron Bridge load a~ Lori Eoad and located on the property oE Chesb~rfield County. Tax Map 95-8 (1) Part of Parcel 1~ ($hee~ Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Co~ission and co~ittee reco~ended approval of Lan~ark Designation for chsst~rfield County Cuur~uuse o~ 1917, based on :he ~ullowing findings: 1. Thi~ i$ a distinguished building of high architectural quality and hi~toric interest; and 2. This designation will cause no s~gni~icant adverse effect on the future d~v~lopment of th~ Coon%y. no opposition On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Maye~ the Board approved historic landmark designation for the Chesterfield County Courthouse of 1917 -- described as follows~ chesterfield County Courthouse of 1917 - Located in Dale ~aqiscerial District on 9roDexty o~ chesterfield county fronting the north line of Ironbridge Road at Lori Road on Tax MaD 95-8 (1) Part of Parcel 13 (Shes: Vote: Unanimous 88~P0005 Land~ark designation for C~ST~FIELD COU~Ta JAIL OF 1892. Located in Dale Magisterial Distr~ct on property fronting the north Line of Iron Bridge Road at Lori Road and located on the property o{ Chesterfield County. Tax Map 95-8 Parcel 13 (Sheet Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission sn~ Preservation Co~mittea recommended approval of Landmark Designation for Ch~s~e~fi~id County rail of 1892, based on the following findings~ 1. This is a distinguished building of high arohiceotural quality and ht~cri~ intere~ 2. This ~e$ignation will oause no on thc future development of the County. There was no one present to represent %he request. There was no oDposi~ion 9re~ent. On motion Of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. May~, the Board approved higforic landmark designation for the Chesterfield County Jail o~ I892 -- described as follows~ Chesterfield County Jail of 1892 ~ Looated in Dale Magisterial District on property oi Chester~iel4 County ~ronting th9 north line of ITonbridge Road at Lori Road On Tax ~ap 95-8 (1) Part Of Parcel 13 (Sheet Vote: 'Unanimous 88HP0006 Landmark d~ignation for S~T.R~[ IAAPTI~T CuuRCH. Located in Dale Magisterial District on property fronting the north line of Cantralia Road at Sale~ Churc~ Roa~ and better ~nown as 5930 Cantralia Road. Tax Map 96-6 (1) Part of Parcel 13 (Shoe% Mr. Jacobsen slated the Planning Commission and Committee recommended approval of Landmark Designation for Salem Baptist Church, based on th~ following £inding~: 1. This is a dis~inguishgd building of high architectural quality and historic interest; and 2. This designation will cause no ~i~nificant adverse e~ect on the future development of the ~ounty. ·here was no one present ~o represent the request. Ther~ nO Opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr~ Mayer, the Board approved historic Landmark designation for Salem ~aptist Church -- described as follows: Salem Baptist Church - Lo~ated in Dale Magisterial District on property fronting the north line of Cen~ralia Road at Salem Church Ro~d and better known as 5~30 Centralla Road, Tax Map 96-6 ~1) Part of Parcel 13. The mice includes only the Church Building of 1797 and the portion of the cemetery between th~ easternmos~ leg of the circular drive and the church. Vote: Unanimous In Dale Magist~r£al District, ~CH, RIC~ AND NAN~E requested rezoning from Agricultural (A), Residential (R-?), and Residential (~-15) to office Business (o) with Conditional Plannmd Develo~ent. An offlce/com~rcial ¢Omplgx is planned. This request lies on a 118 acre parcel fronting approximately 760 feet on the west lin~ of Iron Brldg~ Road, also fronting approeimatel~ 3,176 feet on the ~outh line of Chippenha~ Parkway~ and located in the Southwest quadrant of the inter- section o9 these roads. Tax Map 41-t3 (1) Part of Parcel Tax Map 41-1~ (]} Par~ Of ~arcel 6; and Tax Map 52-t (i) Parcel 1 (Sheet 15). Mr. Jacobsen stated the applicant requested an addi%ional sixty (60} ~ay deferral of this cams. There was no one prese~ to rapr~n~ %he request. There was ne opposition to the request for a deferral. deferred Case 87S]33 un~il July 27, 1988. 885029 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ~WOLE/~I~:~:~ O~¥~O~- k4~T, I~C. requested r~zoning from Agricultural {A) to Residential (R-12) wi~ Conditional U~e ~lanned Development Derm{t use and bulk exceptlon~. . A mixed uS~ development to uses is planned. Thi~ request .tie~ o~ a 215 acre parcel fronting approximately 4,050 feet on the we~= line of south Providence Road~ also fronting approximately 2,600 feet R~ams Road, and located in the northwes~ quadrant of the intersection of these roads, also lying off ~e eastern te~ini of Redbridge Road, PeDperidqe Drive, ~aureate Lane, and Arch- grove Coot=. Tax Map 28-S (1) Parcel 1; Tax Map 2~-10 Parcel 2; a~d Tax Map 28-13 (I) ~arcels 6 and 22 (Sheet~ 8 and Mr. Jacobsen stated tke applicant requested a th±try (30) day deferral of this request. There was nO one present to represent the recf~est. There was no opposition present to the request for the deferral. On motion of Mr. Appleqate, seconded by Mr. Ceftin, the Beard deferred Came 88S029 until June 22, 1988. In Clover ~ill and Midlothian Maqi~terial Di~tricts~ INVEBTOR~ P~IP ~equegt rezoninq from Agricultural (A) and Residential JR~t5) ~o Residential J~-9) an~ 0~flc~ Business ~O) with Cenditional Use Planned Development~ ~ mixed u~e develop- meat with residential and co~m~eroia% uses is planned. This request tie~ on a 1~3t2.7 acre parcel frontiDg in two {2) placm$ for a total of approximately 3,600 f~t on th~ north lire of Ge~ito Road adros~ from Woolridge Road; also fronting approxlma=ely 1,$00 feet on the soU~ line of Ganito Road and located goutheaEt of the intars~czion of these reads; also fronting in two (2} places for a total of approximately 2,050 feet north of Genito RQ~; and fronting portions of the north and south ldnes of old Hundred Road east o~ 0tterdale Road. T~ Map 3~ (1) Parcelg 6 and 7~ Tax Map 36 [I) Pareet 3; Tax Map 46 (1) Parcels 23, 24, and 76; and Tax Map 47 (1) Part of Parcel 3 (Sheets 12 and 13). Mr. Jacobsen stata~ the ~lanning Co~ission race,ended approval of Case 88S008, ~ubject %o certain conditions. Mr. Applegate diselosed %o the Board that hie company wes invoIvp~ in the sale of a portion of the subjec~ proper~y, declared a conflict of interest pursuant %o the Virginia Comprehensive Conflicfi of In~e~$t Act and ~xcu$~d himself from the macring. race,ended conditions ware acceptable. request, asked that ~ presentation b~ made and that th~ request b~ heard in i~s regular sequence on the agenda. ~r. Appl~gate returned to the meeting. 8~SN0027 In Clover ~ill and Midlethian Magisterial Districts, MXDLOTHIAN B~'£1~F, PRIqES~ IN~. AND M_ID-ATLANTIC FINANCIAL GRO1]Pt INC. reques~e~ rezoning from office Business {o) to ~esidential (R-7) of 2.0 acres, and from Office Business ~O) to Ruuidcntiel Townheuse (R-T~] of 7.2 acres; plus amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Cases 79S142, 84S020, 85Sa5Q and 86~025) relative to u~s, density, and parking rcquiremcnt~ on these.treats plus a 98.6 ao~e tract cu~Sently zoned Rs~idenSiel (R-7). A mixed use rsaidential development is pianne~. This re~uest lies on three {3) parcels of land for a total of 107.8 acres; fronting appreximately 225 feat on the south line cf Lucks Lane, approximately 1,000 feet w~st of WaltOn Bluff Parkway, also frenting in two (2) places on the north 1ina cf Powhite Parkway right of way far a total of approximately 1~850 feet. Ta~ Map 37 (lJ Pert of Rarcels 12 and 47; Tax zap 37=6 (1] Parcels 1, 5, 6, 7, 35, and 40; Tax Map 37-~ (7) Sugar GreeK, Phase I, LO% 1, Block A, Lets 1 through 5, Block B, Lot~ 1 bhrough 3, Block C, Lobs 1 through 3, Block D, Lets 1 through 5, Block E, Lots 1 through 5, Block F~ Lots 1 through 5, Block ~, Lot~ 1 through 7, Rlook ~, Lots 1 through 5; and Tan Map 37-? (1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet I3]. Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Cen~iasi0n recommended approval cf thin request, subject to a single c0nditlen. Mr. Jim Rayes, representin~ the applicant, stated the r~eommended condition was acceptabI~, There Was no opposition present. On motien of Mr. A~plegate., seconded by Mr. Daniel, ~he Board approved Case SSSN0027, ~ubject to the following condition: The Textual 9tatement with attachments, reviss~ April 1, 1985, an~ ~hs Amended Land Use Plan, submitted therewith, shall Ds considered the Master Plan. Vote: Unanimous In Bermuda Magisterial Disbriot~ L_ a P- X~%ND r~qu~t~d r~onlng fro~ Agricultural (A) te Res£~ential (R-15). A single family residential subdivision i9 planned. This request lle~ on an 8.! acre parcel lying approximately 860 feet off the north line of Eceff Ay%nee, measured from a point appro×imefely ]$0 feet west of %vywcod goad. Tax Map I14-4 Parcel 25 (Sheet 31). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Co~uuission r~eommended approval of Case 8~S~003I. %pplegate sta~ed, since the applicant was nc~ present, Case would be plac~d at the end of %he agenda. 88~N0032 In C~ever Hill ~agistsria~ Distr~ct, ~EORG~ B. ~OWEP~ JR~ AND A~SOCIATEM, ~NC. reguesee~ rezonlnq from Agricultural (A) to R~uldentlel (R-12). A single family residential Subdivision is plann,d. This re,nest lies on a 65 acre paxseI fronting approsima=ely 975 ~eet on the south line ef Lucks Lane across from Westcreek Drives also lying at the western terminus of Pennway Drive. Tax Map 38-1 (1) Parcel 15 (Skee~ 14). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Co, lesion ~eco~ended acceptance of proffered conditions. He n0t~d a technical error in 9ro~ered Condition 42 should be corrected by inclusion of the w0r~ not after shall. Mr. Fra~ Cowan, repr~menting the ~ppticant, stated the present. On motion of Mr. Appl~gate~ seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board A fifty (50) foot building setback and buffer ~triD~ exclnmive of ~a~ements and required yards shall be es- tablished and main=slued along Lucks Lane (Route 720). The area within this buffer mtrip shall be pla~t~d, be~sd, and/or lef~ in its natural stat~ if there sufficient v~geta%ion to provide ade~at~ screening. suffici~n~ vegetation does not 'exist~ a landscap~ plan shell be approved by the Planning Depaz~snt and a bend po~a~ to cover the cost of ~plem~nting ~he plan prior 88-399 recordation of snbdivision plats. The developer shall ilag the buffer s~ip far inspection prior to recordation of any plat. Except for one (1) public re~d, ne access bufldinq setback and buffer strip shall be noted on final check and record plate. The Planning Co--mission may modify this condition at the time of tentative ~ubdivisfon review. (P&T) And further, ~he board accepted the ~ollowing pro~ered conditions: 1. There will be a maximum of 15~ lot~ within the subdivi$ioe or the density will not exceed 1.8 dwetlinq units per The overall average lot' size within the subdivieion e×clusi~e of roadways ehall not be less t~an 21,000 square feet. 3. Reads will be constructed wi~h curb and gu~er and a~phal= surfacing. 4. Hemes to be conetructed shall contain a minimum finished two-story and I,TGG square feet for a Cap~ Cod o~ 88SN0033 In Midlothian ~agisterlal District, T~ ~ONT C0~4~/~Y quested rezcn~ng ~rom Agricultural {A) to Residential (R-15). A single family re,idea%iai subdivizion is planned. This request lies on a 0.9 acre parcel lying approximately 450 fe~t off the w~te~n tedious ef ~errand Read. Tax Map 27~5 Part of Parcel~ 22 and 23 (Sheet 8). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval qf Cas~ ~8SN0033. Mr. De~onte Lewis, repreaenting tho applicant, stated the reco~endation wa~ acceptable. There was no opposition to the 0n motion Qf Mr. Sullivan, s~conded by ~r. Coffin, =he In Midlothian Magisterial District, ~OMMONWFJ~LT~ ~AS PIPELINE CORPORATION requested C~ndltion~l Use to permit ~ u~ility str~cture in a Residential (R-9) District. Thi~ request lies on a 0,11 acre p~r=~l lying approx~ately 620 feet off the southeast lin~ of Gordon School Road, measured from a point ~pproxima~ely 170 feet east of Plmasan~hill Drive. ~ax 26-I6 (1) ~art of Parcel 5 {she~% 7). Mr. J~cob~on ~ated the Planning C~ission approval of Case 88~N0037, subject to certain cendltlens. acceptable. There was no opposition to tb~ When asked, Mr. ~ildrsth stated the proposed facility l~ca~ed approximately 650-700 f~at from ~he Gordon building, will b~ con~tructed ~n accordance w~th ~11 Federal Pipeline Safety Reeulations, will be a ~af~ facility and will not be a safety hazard to the area. On motion cf Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr, Currin, the Board approved Case 99SN0037! ~ubject to the following conditions: 1. The following condition~ notwithstaDding, the plans dated January 3, I98S, and January 19, 1988, and submitted with the application, shall be considered the plan of develop- ment. 2. The structure shall have an appearance ~ir~ilar to that d~picted in the ~levations dated February $, 1988. The build±n~ exterior ~hall employ material~ and colors simila~ to ~hose employed for Gordon Elementary school, The materialm and colors shall be approved by the Planning Department at the time of site plan review. 3. The site shell be secured with a fence so as to trespassing. (~ote: Prior to obtaining a building permit, site plans approval.) 88S~0038 In ~atoa~a ~agisteri~l District, R.H. STA~T-~ D~O~MEN~ AND ~ONSTRUCTION MANAG~T requested amen~ent to Conditional Ume Planned Develo~ent (Case 85503~) to pe~it USe and bulk exceptions. A retail complex with plant nursery and out~id~ storage is plenned. Thi~ r~e~t lies in a Convenlenu~ Business (~-1) District on m ~8.4 acre parcel frontinq approxi- mately 1,500 feet on %he south line of Hull Street ~oad, else ~rontlng approxlmetely 665 feet on the southeast line of North intersection o~ these road~. T~ MaD 75-4 {1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet ~r~ Jacobsen state~ ~e Planning Co~ission aD~roval of Cas~ 88SN0039, subject to cereain COnditions. Mr. John B~nd~r, repre~entin~ the applicant, stated the r~co~ended conditlon~ were acceptable. There wa~ opposition to the ~eq~est. approved Case 88S~0038, subjec= to the following conditions: 1. P~lic water and sewer shall be used. The owner/developer shall a~tend public sewer to the Site and obtain all 2. Outside s~orage areas shell be visually screened from public streets, internal roadways, and adjacent prop- that depicted in the plans submitted with the tion. Specialized ~tormge/display areas ~hall bu pe~itted, provided that ~ areas are limited to depicted on the open fsnc~ ~etails revised Maruh 29, 1988, or by s~ilar features. Signs within these areas that identify plant ma%eri~ls or prices shall not visible from public street~ internal roadways~ or adjacent properties~ 88-401 ~n Clover Hill Magisterial District, SOUT~GAT~ ~equested rezoning from Office ~usiness (O) bo Community Business (B-2) on a 1.26 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the south line of Midlothlan Turnpike appro×imat~ly 200 feet wes% of Powhite Parkway. Tax Map 58-1 (1) Part of Parcel 8 (~heet 8). Mr. Jacobsen stated the ~lanning Commission approval of Case 88SN0057. Mr. Charles Ma~Farlane, representing the applicant, sta~ed the re~o~endatio~ wa~ acceptable. There was no opposihion On ~otion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved Cass Vets: Unanimous 879173 In Ma~oaca Magisterial District, ~%~KCE CONs~R~CTION ~NC. requested rescuing from A~ric~ltural (A] to Residential IR-9) . A single family residential ~ubdiv±sion iS planned. Thi~ ~eque~t lies on a 16.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 620 feet on the south line of Branders Bridge Road, across from Walden Street. Tax Map 175-10 (1} Parcels 1, 2, and 3 (Sheet Mr. Jacobsen stated ~he ~lanning Commission recommended approval of Ca~e @75173, subject to a single condition and acceptance of proffered conditions. ~o noted this request has been deferred several times due to conlmunlty concerns relativ~ to ~ho research and verification of complete exhumation of ail graves at th% subject ~ite. Mr. Nell Pierce, Preaident of Pierce Construction Company, Inc., stated the recommended condition was acceptable. There wa~ ne Oppcsltion present. On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Currin~ the Boar~ ~pproved Case 875173, subject to the Zollowlng condition: A forty (40) foot buildinq setback and buffer exclusive of easements, shall be provided along RranderE ~rldg~ Road. Prior to r~oorda~ion of subdivision plats, the developer shall flag %he b~ffer for inspection by Planning D~partment. The area within this buffer shall be planted and/or left in its natural state, if there sufficient vegetation to provide ~dequate screeuing. If sufflci~mt vegetation does ne~ exist, a Landscape plan shall ~e approved by %he Planning Depar~n]ent and a bond to recordation of subdivision plats. This building setback and buffer strip shall bo noted on final chock and record plats. The Planning Commission may modify this condition at %he time of ~enta:ive subdivision review. And further, the Board accepted the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. proffered Minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Averaqe lot size of 12,700 squar~ feet. Except on cul-de-sacs, all lot~ shall be at least 80 foo~ minimum road froDtage an4 average road frontaqe of at lea~t 85 feet. 4. I hereby proffer 45 lots on case 87S173. Vote: Unanimous In Clover ~ill and Mimic%hieD Magisterial Districts, ~ANAGF~M~T GROUP, L~MIT~, ~ G~ENSPRING ASS~S L~I~D Residential (R-15) to Residential (R-9) and Offic~ Business with Conditional Use Planned D~velopms~t. A mixed use develop- ment with residential and co~ercial ~e$ is planned. This request lies on a 1,312.7 acre parsel fronting in two places for a total of apprOx~ately 3,600 feet on the north lin~ of G~ni=o Roa~ across from Wootri~ge Roa~; also fronting apprOX~ately 1,800 iuet on the south line o~ ~enito Road and approx~ately I,SOO I~t o~ th~ east line of Woolridge Road and located southeast of the intersection cf these roads; also fronting in two {~) places for u total of approximately 2,Q50 feet on the east line of Ot%~rdale Road, approximately 4,70Q feet ~om%h of G~ni~u Road; an~ ~ronting port~ons of ehe north and south line~ of Old ~undred Road east of O~%~rdale Tax Map 35 (l) ~arcels 6 an~ 7; Ta~ Map 36 (1) ~arcel 3; TeK Map 46 (1) Parc%l~ 23, 24, and 76; and Tax Map 47 (1) Part Parcel 3 {Sheets 11 and 13). Mr. Jacob~on stated ~h~ Planning C~ission reco~ended to the CouDty for a future school si~e in addition to an additional thirty-five (35) acres %o be reserved for County purchase for a future high ~chool on the proposed site. Mr. Appl~gate ~isclosed to the Board the= his company was involved in th~ sale of a portion of the subj=ct property, de=lared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from th~ meeting. location o~ the ~ixty-five {65) acres to be dedicated, criteria used to determine the 9pecifi~d ~iz= o~ the acreage, how the cost o~ the additional thirty-fi~e (35} acre~ to b~ acqulr~d would be dm~ermine~, etc. Mr. Jacobson indicats~ the exact Site for the future school ~ould be determined at the time of sche~at~G approval for co~ercial ~o~tions of th~ request or at tentative ~ubdivision approval considered by the Planning Co~ission. ~e stated the school children expected tO be attraGted to this ~ite by ~ropo~ed ~r. weinber~, r~presentinq the applicant, su~arized the proposed rs~est, explained that tk~ cos% for the thirty-fiv~ (3~) acre parcel to be Sold to the County would be datelined by a professional real estate appraiser, addressed relative to th~ aoreage to be dedicated for a future school professionally planned and aesthetically plaasin~ mixed use development f~atur~n9 ~ premiere resided%iai ohampion~hip golf coussez extensive lakes, open space, 100 acre~ for a future ~chcol site. H~ ~tat~d the prepared and representative of quality development which will enhance th= 88-403 On motion of Mr. 9ullivan, seconded by Mr. Curriu, the Board approved Case ~850Q8, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Textual Statement, titled Greenspring: conditional Use and Zoning Application~ revised April 1, 1988, ~nclud~ ing the "Conceptual Master Plan," sxkibi~ II; the dential Site Development Criteria" table, Exhibit IV; and the letter referring to the Ella===Hancock House, dated May 25, 1988, shall be the Master Plan, subject, however, to the following conditions. (P) 2. Conurete curb an~ gutter shall be utillzsd in all areas mitted by the Chesterfield County Subdivision Ordinance, and (1) along collector roads as permitted by VDOT. 3. Collector road construction plans shall be submitted separately from adjacent area development plans to the VDOT and the Engineering Department. Approval from both agencies of the dedication of the right of way shall be a prerequisite to the ~lea~ of any building permits or subdivision plat recordation, except for the applicable. 4. Prior to any approvale beyond the zoning of the property and ~chematio plan approval for the golf taurus, if wetlands {ap defined by the U,S. A~my Corps of Engi- neers} are involved and the developmental plans call for dredging, filling or da/mming of residential wetlands, this o££ice must be provided with documentation (psrmlts) f~om the U.S. Army Corps of Rngineer~ or any oth~r applicable Federal, State, and local age~clss that the proposed activity is permitted. 5. There shall be no commencement of construction of the da~/lake, the roadways creasing Tomahawk Creek, golf course faciliti~ in or i~ediat~ly adjacent to the year floodplain, or any other areas deemed by the developer's wster quality consultant to po~se~ a 9ignifieant probability of being a wetland until an approved wetland determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer~ ha~ been made. 6. Prior to any State acceptance, ownership and maintenance of lake~ and/or detention basins shall be established as the responsibility of private entities. An indemnifica- Department to save the County harmless of vectors, mainte- nance, and replacemen~ responsibilities. Upon completion of these facilities and prier to any State acceptance/ structural and hydraulic integrity 0£ the dam shall be certified by a profmssional engineer. (E~) 7. Unless otherwise required by a State or Federal permitting agency, the minimum depth Of ~h~ lake ~h~ll not be less than thre~ {3) f~et within ten (10) feet of the shoreline. Unless the lake is to be operated by the gol~ course, a maintenance and operation~ manual shall be provided to the future owners prior to~ or in conjunction wi~h, recordation of any arose draining to =he lakes. $. No building shall be !ooate~ within th~ inandatien of a dam failure occurring from the ~00 year etorm event. Calculations skall be submitted to the engineering Department for doett~entation and the l~mits must be shown on any affected and recorded lo~s. 9. An overall project-wide erosion and sediment control plan which includes provisions for the construction u~ the golf course shall be submitted, approved, and implemented prior to any vegetative disturbance within %he impacted drainage area. 10. A plan for protection and mQnltQring of the water quality of the Swift Creek Reservoir agreeable to the developers and to the Chesterfield County Utilities Dspar~uen%, bassd on the advice of independentr competent authorities shall be submitted for approval to the Planning Commission in conjunction with the preliminary site plan of the golf course, and prior to any other approvals, except for site plan approvals and issuance of building permits for Tomahawk. ll. Prier to achematic plan review for other than the golf course, a general soils study ~hall be provided for review by the ~ngineeri~ Department with respect to the general area being subdividmd or developed. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a dstailed soils report shall be sub- mitred for ~ach parcel of !and deemed necessary by the 12. The developer ehalI tak~ ~hose steps which are reasonably Reservoir Professional Advimory Group IPAG}. ~ublic water and sewer shall be used. 14. The on-site water distribution symtem shall be designed to allow a loop ¢O~noctlng northeastward %o the lines into Oueensmill West. (U) 15. The owner/developer shall design appropriately si~%d trunk $ow~r ex~on~ion~ along the edge o~ $wi£% Creek Reservoir boundaries of the developmen[. 16. The owner/developer ~halt dedioato to' the County any con,traction of the ~ppor Swift Creek Transport System, Rxhibits for "Task Eoport 1116: Finer Design Develop- ment~" dated March 1988. (U) devoted substantially to open space. If sufficient vege- may h~ loft in their natural ~tate: however, if sufficient adequate screenlag, or if a buffer strip shall be planted and/or bermed in accordance with a land- The following improvements may bo allowed within b~ffer strips subject to :he approval of such landscape plan: (1) Pedestrian paths, (2) Regulatory and info~matlon sigas, (3) Screeninq ~oncos or walls, (4) Utilitle~ and ~torm drainage facilities, Roads and Drives which are intended for ingress and eqr~ from the applicable site, and (6} Recreational and leisure facilities. Prior to approval of any final sit= plan or recordation cf any plat, the Applicants shall flag the buffer strip for final site plans, and on any final check and recordation plots. The applicants shall post a bond prior to tho 88-405 if such plan is r~quired, but has not yet ~een implement- ed. At the request of the Applieants~ th~ Plannin~ Com- mission may modify these buffer strips and provide for additional uses to be pel~mitted therein at the tim~ preliminary site plan or tentative subdivision plat view. (Note: This condition supersede~ Section 3.A. of the 18. The inclusion of any pedestrian paths, fountains, plazas, terraces or planters withi~ any required open space shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department. 19. On either side of a common boundary between sites of diseLmitar land uses, there shall be a minimum of fifteen {15) feet of' b~ffer strip, seclusive of ragnired yards. For the purpom% of thi~ condition, dissimilar land uses shall he any uses not falling within the same category of one of th~ following three: Cat~gory 1. "Estate," "~ingle Family tached," or "Cluster" residential Category 2. "Vill~s," "~ingle Family At- tached~" "Multi-Family," or ~'Retirement" rasideatial Category 3. All ~ther uses. ~owever, ~uoh buffer strip may be reduced on one side of a common boundary, where e buffer strip has already been ~stablished on the other side~ provided there will be a total depth of at least thirty (30} feet of adjoining, parallel buffer strips. Further, ne such huf~er strip ~hall be required where a ~ite adjoins the golf course, lake, or one other required buffer o~ ut least ~hirty feet~ or as otherwise permitted by the Planning Commission at tentative subdivision plat or preliminary site plan review. (Note: This condition super~ed~ Section 4.A.(6) of the · ~xtual $~atemen~.) 20, One-h~ndred I100) feet of buffer strip shall be provided horizontally above the 175.00 foot contour line immediate- ly adja=ent to Swift Creek Reservoir. Twenty-five (25) feet o~ open space shall be pz0vided along th~ edge of water cf Swift Creek~ Tomahawk Creek, and Little ?omshawk along the edge o~ any proposed lak~ unless otherwise Applicants. In addition to uses permitted within open space by definltien, the following uses may be parmitte~ subject to approval b~ the Planning Depar~nt: r~cr~- a=ional uses, recreational structures, grading, clearing, docks, rip-rap along ~hore, water impoundments, drainage structures, b~!khea~s, jetties and marinas. Further, no habitable strncture shall be placed below the ~80.00 foot contour line in~adiately adjacent to Swift Creek Reservoir or within County easements. (Note: This condition supersedes ~ection 4.k. (7) of the 21. The use exceptions allowed in Tract~ A~ D~ E~ and F Section 4.B.(5} shall be permitted o~ly within sites ~ssignated "Recreation" or "club" by the Conceptual 22. In Tracts B and Ct the uses permit%ed by right shall be those permitted in the Community Business IB-2} District and those set forth in the Textual Statement. In 9facts and C, the accessory Rses~ COnditional uses and special exceptions allowed shall be the same as those in the Community Business (B-2) District. 23. The recreational area required for each individual d~vel- opment site Consisting of attached ~'villas, .... Single Pamily Attachedt" a~d "Multi-Family" residential shall meet all requirements of the Residential-Townhon~e (R-T~) District or the Residential Multi-family (R-NFl District, except that the Planning commission may permit the recreational area required %0 lie out~ide of the development site, provide~ the recreational area is conve- niently accessible to the development site, and that the recreational ar~a may be less than one and ene~half (1.5! acres {hut not tess than ten percent (10%) of hh~ sure.ge o~ the development site). (Note: This condition is ra~aranced by Note 1. on page and supersedes Note 1 o~ page 3 of ~xhiblt IV of the Textual Statement.} 24. ~wo (2) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each "Zingle F~mily Attached," "M~lti-Fa~ily," and tirement" residential unit. However, the Planning Commission may modiiy the size of pa~klng spaces st preliminary site plan or tentative subdivision plat re- view and may also modify the number uf parking spaces at preliminary site plan approval of "Retirement" residential deva!o~ment, base~ on size, type and occu- pancy of units. INote~ This conditio~ s~pers~de~ the required number of parking spaces per unit shown on pages 2 an~ 3 of ~xhibit IV of the Text~&l Statement.) 25. The maximum density for ~'Mnlti-Family'~ re~identia~ devel- Opment shall be ~i£teen (15~ units/acre. Eowevar, th~ Planning Co--lesion may permit th~ d~n~ity Of "Multi- Ramily" residential development within Tracts P and C to exceed flftesn {15) units/acre, provided that: A. The impacts cf ~uch inerease~ density on adjoin- ing land usee are mitigated by site design, architectural design, topography and/or ing, and The density in no case exceeds twenty-five (25) units/acre. {~cte: This condition supersedes %h~ maximum density shown on page 3 of Exhibit IV of the Textual Statement,) 26. The maximum deneity for "~etirement" residential develop- ment shall be fifteen (15~ units/acre. ~owever, the Planning Ce~issien may permit the density Qf "Retire- meet'~ residential development within Tracts B and C to exc~ fifteen (1~) units/acre, provided that: A. The impact~ of ~uch increasa~ density on adjoin- ing land uses are mitigated by ~i~e design, a~chi~ec~ural design, topography end/or screen- ±ng~ end The density in no case exceeds ~wenty-fiva units/acre. (P} (~ote: This condition supersedes the maximum density shown on page 3, and ~npersedes and voids ~ote 4 on 88-407 page 3 of Exhibit IV o£ the Textual Statement.) 27. The maximu~ dwelling units per fleer for "Retirement" residential units shell be sixteen (16); except that if increased densities are approved in accordance with Condi- tion 26, the maximum nu~b~ of dwelling units per floor shall not exceed twenty-four (24). (Note: This condition supeIsedes the maximum dwelling units per floe~ for "Retirement" residential units shown on page 3 of =xhibit IV of the Textual Statement.) The maximum building height for "Retirement" residential development shall be the lesser of four {4) stories or ~ifty-fiva (55) feet; exoep~ that if increased densities are approved in accordance with Condition 26, the maximum buil~ing height shall net exceed seven (7} stories or eighty-five (85) feet. (P) (Note: This condition supersedes the maximum building height for "Retirement" residential units ~hOWn On page 3 of Exhibit IV of the Textual Statement.) 29, "Retirement" residential uses may include the following ancillary services: Dining room, and area for food preparation and storage; b, Physical therapy room; Recreation room; d, Library or ether sitting area; e. Arts, crafts and activities area~; f. Retail and service facilities, including admin- istrative O~fi~es, barber an~ b~auty shop, cleaners, clothing sales, gift and flower shop, bank, and medical office; g. Lobby and day room; and h. 9rivets visitation room~. ~rovlded, however, that any s~ch uses ar~ located within a principal "Retirement" residential building, and provided on the exterior of any building or on the site. (Note: This condition supersedes Note 2. On page 3 ef ~xhibit IV of ~he Textual Statement.) 30. A minimum of sixty-five (~5) acres shall be dedicated within two (2) years to Chesterfield County, free of title defsets, either within or adjacent to the site, and a minimum of thirty-five (35] acres shall be reserved for purchase by Chesterfiel~ County within five (5) year~, acreage a~ Chesterfield County Schools. Ayes; Rt. Sullivan, ar. Currin~ Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Absent: ~r. Applegate. Mr. Appleqata returned t~ the masting. BSSOll In Glover Hill Magisterial District~ LEITH, INC. requ=sted amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case ~3S024) relative to landscaping and setback requirements. This request lies in General Business (B-3) and Light Indus%rial (M-l) Districts on a 3.0 acre parcel frentinq approximately 34~ feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, also frcating approx- imately 420 feet on Johnston Willis ~riv~ and located in the 17-10 (1) Parcel 21 (~hset 8). placement of automobile ~isplay pads w£thi~ the twenty-fica (25) foot setback would defeat the spirit and intent of th~ original conditions of zoning an~ would eot a precedent for similar requests by other automobile dealerships and other business establishments i~ the area for reducing the standerd~ along Route 60. ~e noted staff ~sceived a letter of opposition had already been set by other dealerships along Route 60 with respect to display pads, that this dealership's display pads of existing display pads along Route 60, and stated the applicant is agreeable to proffering extensive landscaping in exchange for being able to install the display pads. Mr. John Cogbill, a resident of Pocono Subdivision, requested help to alleviate concerns relative to traffic safety and aesthetics. ~ign$ On the aesthetic appearance along Route 60, that an exception to the required setbacks we~ already allowed by the being requested to p~i~ the iustallation of display pads o~ the subjeo~ site, that other dealerships had been granted exception~ to the setbatk requirements to install display pads, etc. ~e stated, if th~ applicant could duplicate the ~etback objectionable; however, he could not support the request for five (5) pads. frontage ~ersus the ~u-mber of cars/display pad~ peri, Jibed, otc. He stated he could suppo~: one {1) or two {2) display pads but axoeptlon~ will re~u!t in other dealerships/business establi~hment~ in the area requesting mimilar e~ceptions. the berm, the height of the berm, etc. Mr. Sullivan stated he felt the applicant should eo~ply with the original conditions o£ zoning, objected tO the installation of ~isplay .pad~ within s~oh close proximity of ROute 50 right display pads would be permitte~ and that +3aey must conform tc Mr. Daniel ~hggested a thirty (30) day deferral SO tha~ schematic plan details could be worked cut, On motion of Mr. App!egate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board 88-409 In Bermuda Magisterial District, J~I~EE W. KILOTON, 4](. requested Conditional Use Planned Developmsn% to permit exceptions to paving, iandssaping, a~d setback requirements in a Community Business (B-2) District on a 0.9 acre parcel fronting approxi- mately 606 feet on the south line of East Hundred Road, approxi- mately lO0 fast west of Ing~ Road. Tax Map 117-12 {1} ~areels 14 and 45 and Tax Map 117-I2 (4) Westover Parms~ Lot~ 8~ 9~ and la (Sheet 33). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of Cass $$$007 because ~he ~aeter Plan ~epresents o~erdeYelop- ment of %he request parcel and approval of th~ oth~r r~quasted Sxsspticns :s the corridor Overlay District requirements could establish a precedent for ~imilar requests along thi~ portion cf ~ast Hundred Road. Mr. Dean Hawkins, representing provided the Beard with a slightly revised plan as opposed to the one in the Request Analy~is~ staff's concerns regarding setbacks ultimate right of way. B= stated, au opportunity to review the revised There was no opposition present. which plan would address and driveways outside the he, ever, staff had not had plan. Mr. Currin stated he concurred that the proposed request was overdevelopment of the e~jeo~ site~ expressed concerns relative to increaued =ra~fie in the area and stated he could not support it. O~ ~otie~ of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board denied Case 88s007. Vote: Unanimous 885N0028 ~n Bermuda Magisterial DiSt~iet, ~ ~. ~4%'~-r~ requested rezonlnq from Residential (R-7) ho Gensral Business (B-3). A heating and air conditioning/fuel oil business and office/shop is planned. This request lies on a 1.7 acr~ parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on %h~ wes~ line of Pans Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of Willis Road. Tax Map 82-5 (3) Kingsland Height~, Lot 9A (Sheet 23). Mr. Jacobsen sta=ed the Planning Commissinn recommended denial of Ca~e 88SN8028 because of the proximity of residential development; however, staff rscomme~ded approval as the proposed zoning and land use co~£orm to the Central Area Land Uss and Transportation ~lan and the condition r~o~ended will minimize the impact of the commercial zoning and land use on the ~xisting residential property in the area. Mr. Gurrin disclosed to the Board that one of the agents in his company is involved with a contract for sale of the subject property, declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Co~pr~hensiv~ Confliot of IntexeSt Act and ~xeu~ed himself from the mashing. Mr. J~m Parkinson~ Mrs. Allen, M~. Gene 8hivley~ Mrs. Shirley and Me. CharleeD Gregory, all residents of the adjacent residential neighborhood, voiced opposition to the proposed request as i~ reprssen%ed an in%fusion into a stable residential co--unity, expressed concerns that th~ proposed use would depreciate property values, ate. Ms. Gregory indicated she is the only one of several heir~ of the subject property who liven in the neighborhood and staeed she is more concerned with the impact of %he proposed use on h~r neighbors and the community than she is with the benefits she would receive from the sale oi the site. Mr. Oliver Rudy, representing tko heirs of the subject property, stated the proposed request is in conformance with the land use plan and there are conditions that would protest the neighborhood. There was discussion relative to the proposed use intruding into an established residential neighborhood, the appropriate- ¢ondi:ions, Mr. Daniel made a mo%ion =o defer case 85590028 until June and bring back to the Board a landscaping plan and buffering which would include proper fencing, v~getatiOn tO eesure the neighbors their properties would ba protected and that ~r. Jssobson inOieated a sixty (0Q} day deferral would be On this re~ue~t by a landscape architect. request represented an intrusion into a residential neighborhood and consideration should bs given to the quality of life Of the ~esiden%$ who live in this neighborhood over and Mr. Daniel withdrew his mo=ion. denied Case In clover ~ill ~agis~erisl District, EDWARD W. NUN~A~L¥, JR. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (~-1) wi%h Conditional Use ~lanned DevelOpment to permit use exceptions. An offic~ warehouse/retail complex iS planne~. This request lles on an 8.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 890 feet on the north line of Eul~ Street Road~ 1,I50 feet east Of Otterdale Road, at~o fronting approximately 676 feet on the south lin~ of Coeby ROad, approximately' 1,550 fast east of Otterdale Road. Tax Map 7~ (1) Parcel 37 (Sheet approual of Case 88S~D035, sub~ect to certain conditions. w~re acceptable. There was no opposition present,s On motion of Mr. Appl~gats, SeCOnde~ by ~r. Sullivan, tbs Board approved Case 88SN0035, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre- pared by ~ngineering Design Associates, dated February 1987, ~nd the Textual Statement submitted with the application, shall be considered the Master Plan. 2. At such tim~ tha~ public wa:er is extended to within 500 fast of thc request site, the owner/developer shall public wa=st to serve the site and connect all structures to public water. (U) 3. At such time that public ~wer i~ e×tend~d to within 750 ~est of the request site, the own~r/dmveloper shall extend 88-411 public sewer to Serve the site and connect ell structures to p~blic sewer. (U) The required building and perking setback along Cosby Road shall be maintained as a buffer. 0tAct than signs, one (1) driveway, and utilities that run generally perpendicu- lar through this buffer, there shall be no facilities located in the buffer. Fence~ may also be p~rmitted witkin the buffer upon approval of the Planning Depart- ment. This buffer m~y consist of existing vegetation, landscaping, fen$inq, berming, topographical eendition~ and/or a sQmbination cf these elements which will provide year-round screenin~ of the development from adjacent property to the north. At the time of g~h~matic plan review for each phase of development which abuts the buf- fmr, a conceptual landEcaping plan Shall b~ ~ubmi~t~d for epproval. The conceptual landmcapfn~ plan shall include the general location of existing vegetation to be retained and the ~ocaticn o~ proposed vegetation and/o~ other screening forms. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Departmen{ for ~eview and a~- 9roval within thirty (30) days cf rough clearing and grading of each ~ite. In cases wh~re substantiul completion of r~ugh grading is not complete at the end of thirty (30} days, an appropriate extension may bs granted by the ~lanning Department. {P) Schematic plans that conform to the Master ~lan, con- ditions cf zoning, and the Zoning Ordinance shall b~ submitted (NOTES= (a) Vote: Unanimous and approved b~, the Planning Department. The ~ntire property lie~ within the Route 360 Corridor Overlay District and must comply with Overlay District standards. Prior to chtaininf final site plan approval or uny building permits, schematic plans must be submitted and apprcv~d~) In Midlethian Magisterial District, GILBEP~T/RONINSON, INC. requested rezoning from Community Susiness (B~2} to General Businemm lB-3). This request lles on a ~.t acre parcel fronting approximately 159 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, apprexir~atsly 373 feet west of North Providence Road. T~X Map 18-15 (1) Parcel 24 (Sheet 8). Mr. Jacobsen $~ated ~he Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 88SN0036 and accept~Dc~ o~ tbs proffered condition. Mr. Nick Whlteside stated the reco~endation wa~ acceptable. There was no opposition present. There was discussion relative to modification o~ the pro~ered conditions relative to permitting live entertainment and the elimination o~ the drive-in restaurant use, Mr. Jacobsen indicated the lanquag~ of tb~ proff~re~ con41~iou wac necessary to permit the appl~csnt'e request fo~ p~eviding live entertainment. Mr. Sulliva~ made a motion to approve Case ~8SN0036 and accept the prgffered condition~ with the deletion of item 2.b. There was no second to the motion. Mr. Micas stated that at this stage of the zoning prouess the Board has to either accept or reject the proffered condition as there is not, under Virginia law, the opportunity to substan- tially modify or change the proff~r~ ceadltion. ~e stated the Board has the option to defe~ the request, if it so de~ires, ~o allow tbs applicant to modify hi~ proffer. On motion of Mr. Sullivan~ s~cond~ by Mr. Appleqa%~, the ~oard approved Case 88SN0~36 and accepted the following p~effe~ed condition: Uses on %-he property shall be limited to: 1. Any us~ permitted in ~-2. 2. The following B=3 uses: a. Cocktail lounges, dining halls and nightclubs~ and b. Drive-in establishments, Vote: Unanimous 8@SN0031 In B~rmuda Magisterial District, L, m ~. LP-N~ ~ORPO~ATION requested resoning frn~ Agricultural (A) to Residential A single family residential Subdivision is ~la~n~d. This request lies on an 8.I sore parcel lyln~ approximately 860 feet off the north line of ~co£f Avenue, measured from a point approximately 258 feet we~t of Iv~wood Road. Tax Map 114-4 (1) Parcot 25 (Sheet ~r. Jacobsen state~ the Blannimg commission reoonT~ecded approval of CRse 88SN0031. H~ ~tat~d, since the applican~ was not pr~$en= at the time the ca~e was originally presented who indicated h~ ~as unable to ~ttend the meeting but accepted the reco~endat~n. There was no opposition present. On motion o~ Mr. Currin~ ~econdsd by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved Ca$~ Vot~: Unanimous ll.I. EXECUTIVE SESSIO~ On motion of Mr. Currin~ seconded by Mr. Sultlv~n~ the ~eard went into ~xecu~ivo ~ession to discuss Personnel Matters pursuant to Section 2.1-344{a) (1) of the CQ~u of Virginia, 1950, au am=nded. Vote: Unanimous ~r. Mayss excussd himself from the E~ec~tive Session to attend th~ Crater Metropolitan ~lanning Organization mss~ng. On motion of Mr. DaDiel, seoonded by Mr. Coffin, the Board adjourned until 2~00 p.m+ (BSDT) on June 8, 1988. Ayes: Mr. Applegate~ Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Currin and Mr. Daniel. Lahe B, Ramsay ~ County Administrdtor