Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
07-27-1988 Minutes
BOARD ~ SOPF,~K~ISORS 1988 Supervisors ~n Attendance= Mr. ~. ~. Appl~ga%e~ Chairman ~r. M. B. Sullivan, Vice ChairMan ~r~ C~ F+ Currin~ ~r+ Mr. Harry G. Daniel ~r. Lane B. Ramzey County Administra=or S~aff ~n Atten4ance: Co. Admin., Legis. Svs. Chief Robert Banes, Fire Department ~eDu=y Co. A~min., Mr, William ~. ~owell, MI. Th~uas E. Jacobson, Dir. of Planning ~. Mary Lou Mr. ~eve Micas, Co. Exs. Pauline Mitchell, Pit. of Sheriff J.W. ~utisp~ugh, Sheriff's Department Mr. Richard sale, Deputy Co. Admin., Mr. Jay ~r. M. D. S=ith, Jr., Pit. ci Libraries Dir. cf Utilities 1. Mr. Applegate introduced Reverend E. B. Kyle Boeger, ~astor ~f Chris~ the King Amerioan. ~pisco~al Church, who gave the 2. pT.~ OF 7,T-T-~-GIAN~--.~ TO 2'n.~ ~LAG OF x~ UNITED ~ATE~ OF The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the Unitmd States of America wa~ recited. 3. A~P~OVALOF~NOT~S On motion of ~r. ~ulllvan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board Ayes: Mr. Appleg=te, Mr. Sullivan, Mr, Currin and Mr. Hayes. Abstention: Mr. Dani=l~ as he had not read the minutes. ~r. Hammer stated that Ms. Lauri Crowder, t~leviaien c~mlera person for the Board of supervisors meetings with ~torer Cable, has accepted a position at Migh Point College, Sigh Point, ~C and introduced Ms. Rebecca Deokert~ who would b= replacing her. Mr, Ra~sey int~0d~ccd ~r. Gary McLuren, newly ~ployed ~conomlc Development Director. Thc Board welcomed Mr. MoL=Ten te the County. Ms. Susan Craik and M~. Cathy Winchester presented the Board with the ~wo firs~ place awards in tSe Ta~e Pride In America National Awards Program (Bermuda Run 4-M Ecology Club Project and Household Hazardous Waste Day Project) which were presented to Chesterfield County and State repres~ntativan by President Ronald Regan and Secretary of the Interior Donald Paul Bodel during a ceremony at the White ~ouse on July 26, 198~. ~r. Daniel reported he attended the ~egional Planning District Commission's state conference i~ Virginia ~each wher~ h~ toured the state waste treatment facility, ~r. Sullivan reported'he and Mr. Daniel attended a series of meetln~s with Mr. ~ethtel, Mr. ~odge, representatives of ~enriec and Powhatan Co~nt~s, ~he City of Richmond and members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board regarding the northern routing of Route 288; stated they have been very clear in conveying the County's position r~garding the northern routing of Route 288 to be that the only acceptable route is the western route eno that it is felt very Dtrongly the selection of an eastern routing~ which would cross the river and p~netrate the Midlethi~D area, was absolutely unacceptable the leadership Rnd the overwhelming majority of citizens; that the selection of an eastern route was in effect a no-build d~ci$i0n for Chesterfield county and it was felt that e no-build decision would not be in %he beet interest of any of the jurisdictions; suggested that, perhaps, as comprcmi=e, it may be =o ~e advantage %o ~os~ ~orth o~ river~ if they so cho~e~ to acc=pt the so-culled crossover left to their discretion; assured ~hose involved that Ch6steKfi~t~ will do all possible within the par~eters of Board %o facilitate the bnilding of a western route but if easte=n route is to be =he choice the~ there will be cooperation or assistance from Chesterfield County. ~r. Apple~ate stated the new four-lane entrance/exit road Richmond International Air9o== ha~ been completed and will open officially on July 30, 19SE; he advised patron~ of %h6 Airport the mo~t convenient way to reach the Airport is ~o travel 1-64 to ~e Airport ~xit and enter straigh~ into the Airport. Chairman of the Capital Region Airport C~i~sion fo~ npcomlng y~ar. 6. ~QU~STSTOPOST~ACTIONr ~ENCXi%DDITIONS O~ On ~otion of Mr. D~niel, seconded by Mr. Maye~ the Board mOVed Item 11.A., Request TO Amend ~he ~ranchiee Agreement with Chesterfield Cablevieion, Inc. (ste~er} to Replace WGN with to be heard following Item 8., aaarings of citizens on Unscheduled Matters or ClaL~s - Mr. David M. Valentine, Regard- ing %he Discontinuation of WG~ by sto/er cable; deferred Item 24, 1985~ added Item ll.E.?., Set a Public Bearing Date to Consider the Conveyance of a Parcel in %he Airport Industrial Park to Crow-Klein-MacParlane 92; deleted the portion of Item ll.J., Executive Session regarding Consultation with legal counsel regarding Brown-Buveri versus Chesterfield County~ replaced page 264 of the Board's Agenda Package, which reflected a more accurate depiction cf the conveyance of drainage easement for Balzer and Associates, Inc.; and adopted the aqsnda, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 7. ~$O~UTIONS AND SP~CIALK~DOG~r/TIGN$ On motion of the Board, ~he following resolution w~s adopted: W~R~A~, The National TOwn W~tch kssociation is sponsoring a special coast-to-coast community crime prevention project on ~he evening of August 9, 1988, called "National Night Out;" and WMSE~AS, chesterfield County Neighborhood watch yrogr~s play an essential role assisting the Chesterfield County Police Chesterfield County and is supporting the fifth annual "National Night 0u=" locally; County b~ aware c~ the importance cf crime prevention programs reducing crime in cur neighborhoods; and WHE~AS, "National Night Out" provid~ an opportunity for chesterfield County to j~in together with thousands of other preveatlon efforts; an~ WEE~AS, Eeighborhcod upirit and uoopura%ion iu th~ theme of the "National Night Out" project and is also the key ingre~en= in helping =he Chesterfield County · o fight c~ime. NOW, TEE~FO~ BE IT ~SOLV~D~ that %he Chesterfield Coun=y ~oar~ of Supervisors ~oes hereby call upon all o~ =he citizens of Chesterfield County ~o join Ch~sterfield N~ighbor- hood Wa=ch Progrmm~ and th~ National Town Watch A~ociatiun supporting and participating in "~ational Niqht Out" on August 9th. ~D, BE IT FURTHER ~SOLVED, the= ~he BOard does hereby recognize Tuesday, A~gu~t 9, 198~ a~ "National Night Out" in Chesterfield Coanty. Vote: ~a~rish and 0fficex J. ~. Kling wi~ the Police Depar~ent and recognized Mr. Frank Erya~t of %he Chesterfiel~ County ~ghborhood Watch 8. HEAKTNGS OF CI'I~Z~ ON UNSC3I~DUI'.~MA'~-~-~IIS OR CL~TMS o MR. DAVIB M. VALENTINE, REGARDING TB~ DISCONTINUATION O~ W~ DY STO~R CABLE Mr. David ~. Valentine, representing the Chesterfield citizens for the cubs, 9ciced objection~ r~gardiDg Storer Cable's discontinuation of WGN-TV, Channel 9, Chicago, from their program offerings. ~e ~tatsd the widespread een~ent of residents is that this action was unwarranted~ the decision to discontinued W~N-TV was ma4~ without regard ~o citizen opinion; that, to the bast o~ citizens knowledge, ne £o~mal viewer preference SUrvey w~s conducted; submitted in£ormatlon relative to fee increases, eeDyright royalties, etc.; and requested the ~csrd's assistance in requiring Storer Cable to ir~mediately reinstate WGN-TV =o their program effu~ings and provide the service for which they are being paid. ll.A. REQUEST TO AMEND T~E FRANCHISE AGPd~MENT WITH CH~$TEkFI~LD CAlL,VISION, INC. {STOR~R) TO P~PLACE WGN WITH Hr5 its franchise agreement to replace WGN-TV with ~TS-TV. He effective July 1, 1988, because the calculation for determining resulted in WGN being prohibitively expensive to continue in its proqramminq. He further stated WGN was dna of ~he stations insluded in Storer Cable's franchise bid and its inclusion in the programming is a part of the franchise contract with the County and, in order ~o eliminate any metrics,, the cable franchise agreement. Ee stated since 1984 Storer Cable has taken the legal position that the ~e~eraI Cable Act has preempted progra~atlc control by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Denial stated he viewed this ~atter a~ p~btic involvement in debate/discussion with a public cablevision station, voiced support for reinstatement of WG~-~V as requested by the citizens, and indicated he was prepared to pur~uo ~he matter through ~he appropriate legal channels, if necessary. Mr. ~ayes stated ha felt the Board of supervi~er~ is the only avenue of recourse for citizens and disguised tko possibility cf drier companies providing similar service in the County. Mr. Currln expressed concerns relative to the franchise agreement, deregu~tlon, etc., and stated ha felt the issue wan whether or net the provider is abiding by the franchise Mr. Sullivan stated, although he could understand itorer result in customers being ~ubjected to arbitrary increases in Cabt~s r~quest to amend the Franchise Agreement wi~h Chesterfield Cablevision, Ins. (Starer) ~o replace WGN-~ with irm~sdiately enter into negotiations with Storer Cable for determining the restoration of WGN, Channel 9 to the programming selection and, if after the period of fifteen (15} days, said action has not transpired, ~c pursue the legal action as to who determines the channel ~elect±on. 88-3~1 negotfetion period~ thm po~enhi~l ~mp~ of reinstatement of WG~ resuitimg in arbitrary rate inerea~e~ for customers, the avenues of public recourse~ etc. Ayes: Mr. Daniel and Mr, Mayas. Ney, s: Mr. Applegate, Mr. sullivan and Mr. Coffin. Mr. App!ega=e made amotioa, ueconded by Mr. Danisl, directing staf~ and legal counsel to enter into negotiations to restore WGN-TV to the network and, if not reinstated by August 20, t98S, th~ issue will be brought befo!e the Board on August 24, 195~, as to whether or not to seek legal action as to who determines t~he channel selection. Vote: Unanimous It was generally agreed tO recess ~or ~ive (5) minutes. 9.A. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVAL On motion o£ ~r. Danlel, seconded by Mr. Mayer, ths Board approved the in~tall&tion of a ~tre~t light at the intersection of Monza Drive and Southmost Road, in the amount of with funding to be expended from th~ Dale District Street Liqht ~und. Vote: Unanimeu~ 9.~. A~POINTMENTS 9.B,1. COS~MITTR~ ON FUTU~ CF COUNTY On motion of ~=. D~iel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board ~u~pended its rules to allow simultaneous nomination and appointment of ~hose persons not previously nominate~ be the Committee on the ~uture of the county, After a brief diucu~sion relative to terms of service~ the criteria for the ~on~ibilitie~ and functions of the cor~ittee, etc., it was on motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Coffin, resolved that the ~ollowing p~ople be s~multaneou$1y nominated and appointed to the Conumitte~ on the Future of the County, all of whose terms are at the pleasure of the Board, during the t~rm of offic~ of the Board~ and with instrnotion %0 staff to prepare a listing of the criteria for the responsibilitie~ and functions o~ the sc~ittee to be determined by the Board on August 24, 1988~ Matoaca District: Bermnda District: Midlothian District~ Clover Hill District: Dr. Freddie W. Nicholas Mr. David Saner and Mr. Reade Shook; Mr. David J_ Fairchild and Mr. Paul Cox; Mr. Ballard Paxker; And further, the Beard appointed the following p=rsens to Committee O~ T~he Future of the Cou~ty~ all of whose terms are at the pleasure of the Board, during the term of uffice cf the soar~: Dale District: Matoaca District: Mr. Joseph L. Biggs and Mrs. Nancy Hudson; Mx. J. Ruffin Apperson 9,C. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE SCHDOL M3%NAGEM~NT ANALYSIS STUDY (PBA$~ I} TO STRATEGIC FUTUEE~w INTERNATIONAL There was discussion relative to wh~ther or not to proceed with awarding the contract for the School Management Analysis Study (Phase %) to Strategic Futures, International at this time or to defer such action until after the result~ of the ~ovember referendum, the scope of ~he ~tndy and its anticipated Completion date, the inclusion of a management analy~is ~tndy for general County qovernment, etc. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconde~ by Mr. Daniel, the Board awarded the contract for the School Management Analysis Study (Pha~e ~) to Strategic Futures, Internatlonal~ authorized the County Administrator to execute the n~c~ssary documents to ente~ into a contract with Strategic Futnre~ International to complete the project; and appropriated $76,~0Q froI~ the General Fund Balance f~r said study. Vote: Unanimous 10. POBLIC W~RING$ 10.A. AN AMENDMENT TO TR~ 1988-89 BUDGET A~RO~RIATING $1,000,000 IN FUArDS FROM NMK FOR THE ALTERNATE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE POWSITE 9ARk'WAy EXTE~$iON Mr. Sale stated this dat~ and time ~ad b~en advertised for a D~blic hearing to consider an amendment to the 1988-89 budget by appropriating $1,000,000 in funds from Hb~K for the alternate desiqn and construction of the Powhite Parkway Extension. NO one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin~ th~ BOard amended the 1988-89 budget by appropriating anticipated revenue in the amount of $1,000,000 to be received from ~MK Corpor~tiQn for the al%erna~e design and con~ructlon of the Powhite Parkway Extenaion to the 3A Capital Improvement ~rQjeots ruud. iQ.B. AN OPJ)INANCE T0 AMEND ~HE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CNESTE~TELD, ~978, A~ A/~ENDED, BY ADDING ARTICLE V TO CHAPTER 1Q~ RELATING TO ~pSTINC SIGNS AT ALL COUNTY ~DFILLS Mr. Hammer ~tated this date and tim~ had been advertised for a public hearing te consider an ordinance to amend the ~ Code to require all sanitary and dSbrlu landfills to pos~ s~gns ~nd~cat~ng that such facilities ar~ State and County approved facilities. There was no opposition present. Mr. Pat Bowe, co-owner of the Qnalla Road Landfill, voiced support for the p~oposed Ordinance and read a state, eot pertaining to issuance of permits, tyl~e and expense of required signs, responsibilities of licensed !acility owners, e~c. Nr. Fred Carreras, o~er of Taylor Road Landfill, voiced support of the proposed ordinance and requested the Board take aggressive action to close down illeqal landfill operations within the County. Nr. ¢oorge A. Beadles, Jr. voiced aupport for uae propane4 ordinance but stated he felt it ~eeded to be revised. He addreased concerns relative to the closnre of illegal landfill operations, the burden of responsibility being placed on the owner and/or operator to ensure compliance with required regulations, State approval of permit for existin~ facilities, ~r. Daniel advised :he ~aar4 that his employer utilizss landfill facilities in the County as a repository for certain commercial wastes, deelared a conflict of interest Dursuant to the Virginia Compr~henmivm Conflict of Interact Act and excumed himself frOm the meeting. Mr. Beadles presented additional questions addressing various oth~r i~ue~ regarding Specific landfill Operation~ within the County. Mr. Micas indicated that if Mr. Beadles had specific conc~rn~ regarding particular landfills those concerns to bs re~olved through ~taff a~ this ~oaTd doe~ not review specific complaints about specific sites. After further diet.scion, Mr. Beadles indicated he felt the proposed ordinanc~ ~honld be revi~d prior to its adoption but felt eometAing should be passed in e~der to begin enforcement of proper and safe waste disposal in the County. ~r. Daniel returned to the meeting. Zr. Sullivan stated hs ~elt the proposed ordlnanoa ia a beginning for th~ County toward resolving the problem of waste dlspoaal; there needs to be a differentiation between legal illegal operations, etc. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, it was resolved to adopt t}le proposed ordinance. ~r. Mayes stated he supported the proposal~ felt it is appropriat~ and essential but that the content is weak and inadequate for the purpose for which it was designed: that it ~hould be ~trengthened to assure that the ordinance is ~ubstantially enforceable to obtain ~he appropriate resul~a~ that since the majority of the problem is in the Matoaca District much more input should have been derived from the Plan for the safe disposal of solid waste to provide guidance for of th~ ~oard, th~ staff and those handling the solid waste. ~r. Currin voiced support for the Droposed ordinance; stated he al~o agreed that the proposed ordinance is a beginning for the County toward resolving the prcble~ 6f waste disposal; problem, not only in the Matoaca District, but also in the Bermuda District; i~lt the proposed ordinance would identify the legal operatfon~ in the County while providing the mechanism for enforcement r~gnlation$ to eliminate the illegal operations. Mr. Daniel voiced support for the proposed ordinance and concurred that it is a beginning for the County toward resolving the problem of waste disposal. ~r. Applegate stated it is inc%lmbent upon the ~oard to make a decision ~n this matter to take action that is in the bast interegt of the County; agreed ~hat the proposed ordinance ia a beginning for th~ County toward re~olving the problem of waste dfsposai~ suggested that M~. Beadles make r~commendations relative to his previously stated concerns and o~er amend- ment~; and vdiced su~pert for the p:opes~d or~in~ce. Mr. 9ullivan stated, although ~h~ Board ~ay not arrive at the same conclusions or agre~ on how this matter should be handled~ he wished The record to reflect that he is extremely concern~ with the matter 0£ proper waste disposal. on motion of ~r. sullivan, 9econded by Mr. Coffin, the Board adopted the following ordinance~ OF C~S~IH~., ]978, AS ~HD, BY BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ~OA~ OF SUPERVISORS I) Chapter 16 of the Code oi the County of Chesterfield, A~ticle: ~rticle V. an~"-~A~'l~ unless such landfill ha~ be~n approved under the County zoning ordinance and any other applicable la~ and unless any pe~i~s required by law have bsen ilrst obtained. ~nt~ance to such landfill, a szgn provided by t~e County indioatin~ valid coun~ and ~tate operational depiction o~ the boundaries of %hQ lamdiill, !i~ing of ~he t~es of d~ping permitted by law, and ~uch other information aS %he director of Planning deems necessary. The sign shall be placed a~ a location approved by the County. Th~ ~ign and area between the sign and entrance roadway ~hall De maintained readability by persons ~raveling the entrance roadway. The cost of manu~acturlng, placing and maintaining the sign shall be borne by the owner of ~e land. Vote: Unanimous 10.C. THE PROHIBITION OF BArf TRUCK OR TRUCK AND TRAILER OR $~T-TRAIL~ CO~EZNATION EXCEPT A PICKUP OR PANEL T~UCK USING OLD BUCKINGhAm4 ROAD FROM HUGUENOT ROAD TO ~r. ~al~ ~t~ted this ~a~e an~ time had been a~ver~ls~ for a public hearinq to ~en$ider the prohibition of through truck traffic on 01d Buckingham Road from ~uguenot goad to Midlothian Turnpike. Mr. Paul Germaine~ ~ep~eSenting r~sident~ of Old BuGkingh~m goad and the surrounding commRniti~; and M~. Judy Wolfe~ e resident of Old B~ckingham Road, voiced support for the stated the residenta nnde~%and the historic nature of Old altered 5ut expressed concerns relative ~o the increased d~p truck, s~i-trac~ur/trailer and/or cut-~rough traffic utilizing the road; the potential ~afety ha=ard~ to chil0r~n the curves and hill9 in the road limiting visibility and the potential for a hea~ vehicle coming arOun~ a co=ye having a difficult t~e coming to a quick stop if it suddenly was because of this, hav~ rearranged ~heir children~' school bus 88-515 other heavy vehicles hitting a school bus; ehc. When askmd, approximately eight (8} persons stood in support of the proposed restriction. There was no opposition present. Mr. Sullivan stated ~r. John ~ocraeken, Mr. Dennis Morriaon, the resident engineer for the Department of Transportation, and he have, on many occasions, ridden Old Buckingham Road; agree there is no doubt that this narrow, winding road is carrying More traffi~ tkan i~ should; and stated it is anticipated the Department cf Transportation will see fit to approve the request to Dan through truck traffic on this road. Mr. Daniel inquired how many almilar requests for through truck traffic restriction ha~ the C~u~ty submltt~d to VDOT that ars awaiting approval? Mr. McCracken ~ndicat~d there approximately ten (1~) to twenty (20) such requests and indicated he felt this particular request may be considered favorably. On motion of Mr, Sullivan, seooDde4 by Mr. Mayes, th~ Board adopted the ~oltowing remolution: W~EREAS~ the Chesterfield County Board of S~pervi~er~ ha~ received requests from citizens to restzic~ through truck traffic on Old Buckingham Road between Huguenot Road (Route 147) and Midlcthian Turnpike (Route ~0) by any truck or truck and trailer or semi-trailer combination except pickup or panel W~R~A$, the Board has conducted a public hearing on the question. NOW, T~EREFORE, BE IT P~SOLVED, tha~ the Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department e~ Transportation to restrict through truck traffic on Old Buckingham Road from ~uguenut Rca~ ~o ~idloth~an Turnpike. Vote: Unanimous 10.D. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND, ADD TO AND REENACT CRAPTER 7.2, SECTION ~,_ O~_.~. CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, CONTROL Mr. ~icas stated thi~ date and ti~e had been advertised for a public hearing t~ consider an ordinance to amend the County Code to increase fees relating to the E~eaion and sediment proposed ordinance. adopted the following ordinancm: AN O~INANCE TO A~ND, ADD ~, ~ ~C~ {1) That the Code of the Connty of Chesterfield, 1978, as =mended, is amended and reenacted by amending Section 7.2-9 as follows: Sec. 7.2-9. Fees. shall be accepted for rewi~w unless accompanie~ by this fee. Vote: Unanimous it,B, AUTHORITY TO ~X~CUTE LEASE-PURCHASE ~INAHCING YOa AN ADDITION TO THE STATE POLICE HANGAR AT THE AIRPORT AND A WAR~HOUSE MODULE There was brief discussion relative to cost recovery, cash flow analysis~ increased lease payments being adequate to cove= debt service for the State Police hangar expansion, financing of the warehouse module, etc. On moEion of Mr. Daniel, secondtd by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved and authorized staff to exss~te all necessary doo~en%s to obtain lease-purchase financing for th~ Airport State Police Aviation Unit refinancing and o~flce apace and the s~cond module of the County warehous~ project; and appropriate4 $300,000 from finan0ing to be secured for construction of warehousx module approved in the 19~9 Capital Tmprovement Program and $400,880 far the existing hangar {$250,000 refunding of revenue bond financing and $I50,000 for expansion of hangar, which f]nancin~ is to be eecnred] for refinancing and expansion of the State Police hangar. Vote: Unanimous i1.C. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR DEIFELOPMENT OF ETTRICK RIVERSIDE There was brie~ discussion relative to the !~asing of and improvements to private property for public ~ee, the length of the lease period, renewal of said leases, public access, liability, referring to the subject site es a park, etc. ~onded by ~r. Ceftin, the ~oard approprlata~ fund~ totalling $45~500 ($24~008 from th~ sale of 2.522 acres of surplu~ property along Nash Road and $21,500 tranmfefred ~rom the tbs Rttrick Riverside Park; and authorized the County kd3ainietrator to accept, on behalf of the County, a lease with two (2) current landowners, Mr. Josh Greenwood for a period of five {5) year~ at period of five years at $200 per year, in order to make the land available fo~ public use, subject to approval of the form of the leases by the County Attorney. (It is noted Virginia State University, through the Attorney the process of preparing documents to donate property to Chesterfield County for its one-sixth (1/6) in=eres~ in the common land and one-third {1/3) interest in the riparian ~ights on the river for thi~ project.) ll.D. APPOi~TaENT$ ll.D.1. SIMULTANEOUS NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT OF MEF~ER OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEV~LQPMEHT AUTHORITY FOR T~E COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD On ~otiOn Of Mr. Ap~legatx, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board suspended its rules t0 allow simultaneous nomination/appoint- ment Of Mr. Gary W. Pench~k to ser~e on the Industrial Develop- ment Authority. 88-517 On motion of Mr. Appleqate, seconded by Hr. Sullivan~ the Board simultaneously nom£nated/appuintsd Mr. Gary W, Fenchuk, representing the Clover Hill Magisterial District, whose term is effective immediately and expires Juno 30, 19~2, tu serve on the Industrial Development Authority. Vote: Unanimous ll.D.2. APPOINTMENT TO JAMES RIVER CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT CUP, ORATION On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board appointed Mr. Gary R. McLaren, Director of Economic t~rm is effeotlve immediately and expires June 36, t989. SET DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ll.E.1, TO CONSIDER ORDINAi~CE A~4ENDINO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF T~E COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1975, AS AMENDED~ BY AMENDING SECTION 14.1-20 RELATIN~ TO ~HICLES NOT DISPLAYING CURP~NT ~LATES On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board set the data of August 24, 1988, at 9:0~ a.m., for a public hearing to consider a~ ordi~an0e ~o amen~ =ho Coun=~ Code relating to increasing the license tax for vehicles not displaying current plates. Vote: U~a~imous ll.E.2. TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING TEE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 197~, AS ~4ENDED~ BY AMENDING AND REENAOTI~G SECTIONS 21-77.7 (E} A~D (G} Pd~LATING TO STRUCTURAL SETBACKS FROM THE FLOOD PLAIN On motion of Mr. Sullivan, sesonded by Mr. Currin, the Doar~ ~et the date of A~gust 24, 1988, at 9:00 a.~., for a p%%blic hearing to c0nsidor an ordinance ~o amend the Coun~ Cede relating to structural s~tback~ from the 100 year flood plain. lt.E.3. TO CONSIDER THE R~STRICTION OF THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC ON W~ST ROAD, OLD CP~EEK RO~/3, ~NNI~G ROAD, EG~ ROAD 3~ND DORTON~A¥ DRI~ On motion of Mr. Snllivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board set th~ date a~ September 14, 1988, at 7:00 p.m.~ ~cr a publiu hearing to consider the prohitition of through truck traffic on West Road, Old Creek Road~ Manning Road~ Egan Road and Dortonway Drive. Vote: Unanimous ll.E.4. TO CONSIDER CONVEYANCE UP A 1.0 ACR~ PARCEL OF LAND IN THE AIRPORT I~DUSTRIAL ~AkK TO CONSUMER TECENOLOGY~ INC. AND AUTHORIZE CONTINGENT EALE~ CONTP~ACT On mo~ion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board 88-5]8 set ~he dat~ of August 24r 1988f at 9:00 a.m., ~or a pablic hearing to consider tke conveyance of a 1.0 acre parcel oi land in the Airport Industrial Park, lecated an Whitepin~ Road adjacent to commonwealth Controls, at $55,006 p~r acre, to Consumer Technology, !nc.; and authorized ~he County Administrator to exeoute the necessary documents to enter into a contingent sales contract. vote: Unanimous ll.E.5. TO CONgIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND, ADD TO~ A~D REENACT CHAPTER 7.2 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD~ 1978~ AS A~ENDED~ RELATING TO EROSION A~D S~DIMRNT CONTROL On motion cf Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Board 8et the date Of August 24, 1988, at 9:00 a.m~, for a public hearing to oonsider an ordinmnce to amend the Cehnty Code Vote: Unanimous ll.E.6. TO C0~SZDER REVISED STREET LIGNT POLICY There was brief discussion relative to the criteria for street light approval in existing subdivisions; the in¢luaien of verbiage that the property owner(s) where the facility i$ to be installed has given permission for the street ligh~ to be in~talle~ un him property and whether er not eai~ property set the date of A~gus~ 24, 1988, at 9:08 a.m., for a public current street liqht policy (Section 612.02, Existing Subdivisions, paragraph 1.C.) ~l.E.7. TO CONSIDER CONVETANCE OF A PARCEL IN TH~ AIRPORT I~DUSTRIAL DARK TO CROW-ELEIN-MACFARLANE $2 On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded ~y Mr. Currin~ the Hoard est the date of Auqu~t 2~, 1988, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to sonsider ~he conveyance of a 12.0 acre parcel in the Airport IndnetFial Park, off Reycan ROa~ adjacent to Route 288, a: $5~,000 per acre~ %0 Orow-Elein-MacFarla~e $2; and authorized the County Administrator to execute tk~ nscessazy ll.F. CONSENT ITEMS ll.F.i~ CHANGES ~N eTAT~ SECONDARY ROAD ll.F.l.a. ENON C~URCH ROAD On motion of Mr. Daniel, s~eonded by Mr. Mayas, the Boar~ adopted th~ ~ollowing resolution: WI~EEEAE, constr~ctien of Route 95, Project 0095-020-101,P~102, RW203, ¢303 as construete~ and a~prove~ by th~ State Kighway CoNt~issiener, has ehange~ in the Secondary ~OW, T~OR~ ~E iT RESOLVED, that portion of the old location of Ro~te 746, i.e. Section 1 shown in blue on the sketch titled, "Chamges in the Secondary System Due to Relocation and Cen~truction on ROute 95, Project 0095-020-10I,PE102, RW203,G303", dated at Richmond, virginia, March 7, 1988 a total distance of 0.14 mile, no longer se~ves a public nsed and is hereby abandoned from the secondary System of state Hiqhway pursuant to Section 33.I-155 cf the Code of Virginia of 1930, amended; AMD PURT~R, that portion of $seendary Route 745, i.e. Section 2 as shown in ~ed on the sketch titled, "Change~ in the Secondary System Due to Relocation and Cen~tru~tion on Route 95, Project 0095-020-101,~E102, RW2~3, G~03", dated at Richmond, V±rqinia~ March 7, 1988, a total distance of Q.14 ~il~, be and hereby is added to the Secondary System of State ~hway Dursnant to section 33.1-299 of the Co~e of Virginia of 1950, amended. ll.F.l.b. OLD BUCKINGR~2~ ROAD On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayem, the Board adapted the following resolution: WHEREAS, 01d ~uekingham Road, Route 677, from Midlothian Turnpike~ Route 60, to 0.10 mile north of Midlothian Turnpike, Route 60, has been altered '~n4 a new road eonstructe~ and approved by the State Highway Commissioner, which new ford will serve the same citizens as the road so altered. NOW, THEREFOPJE, BE IT P~ESOLVED~ that portion of Buckingham Road, relocated Secondary Route 677, o~ the new location, 0.07 mile wsst of the eld location Of the inter~ section of Route 677 and Route 60, to 0.1I mile northeast of ~idlothian Turnpike, Route 60, a to,al ~i~tance of 0.11 mile, be and is hereby added to the Secondary System of State ~ighway p~rsuant to Section 33.1-229 of ~he Code of Virginia of 1950, a~ ~end~d; A~ FURTHER ~SOLVRD, tha~ portico of 01d Ruckingh~ Road, Ro~te 677~ of the O1~ location f~om 0.01 mile northeast Midlothian Turnpike, Rout~ 60, to 0.0~ mile northeas~ Mi~Iothian Turnpike, Ronte 60, a total distance of 0.07 be and the s~s hereby i~, abandoned as a p~lic road pursuant to section 33.1-~55 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, ~b FURTHER ~S0~v~D, =ha~ =he S~a%e ~ighway C~is~ioner be ~equeeted to take the necessary.aCtions to discontinue 01d Buckingh~ aced, acute 677, of the old ioca~ion, from in%er~ec%ion with Midlothinn Turnpike, Route 60, to 0.01 mile northeast of Midlothian Turnpike, Route 60, to 0.10 mile northeast of Midlothian ~urnpi~e, Rou~e 60, a ~o~al ~is=ancm of Nighway a~ provided fn section 33.1-150 of ~e Co~a of Virginia of 1950, as ~nded; AND FURTHER ~SOL~D, rigAt-of-way for ~e ne~ location Old Bucklngh~ ROad i$ rscorded fn Dsed Book 1841, Paq~ 726. 11.~.2. INCREASE COHPENSATIO~ FOR HOARD OF ZOninG APPEALS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Nayes, the Board increased annual compensation for eac~ member of the chesterfield county soard of zoning Appeals from $1,200 to $3,000, which increase is effective immediately. (It is n~ted within thei~ FYi9 budget; however, if this action is not accomplished, then the C0un%y Administrator will make an adju~tnent at year end.} Vote: Unanimous lt.F.3. A~PROPRIATION FOR k~PAIR~ FOB EARNHA~ DRIVE On motion of Mr. Daniel, Se¢onde~ by Mr. Mayas, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEP~EAS, the Stonehenge Civic A$$o¢ietlon has ~ade improvements to Yarnham Drive between Route 60 end the entrance to the Stonehenge Country Club; and assistance in widening the pavement on Farnham Drive. cost not to exceed $3,000. ll.F.4. REOU~ST FOR BINGO/RAFFLE PERMIT FRO~ THE CHESTER JA¥CF~S, INC. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconde~ by ~r. Mayas, the Boa~d approved a request for a raffle permit fei ~]%e Chester Jayc~es, Inc. for the calendar year 1988. 11.F.6. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE REVISION · hie day the County Enviroum=ntal Engineer~ in accordance with directions from ~his 5card made report in writing upon his examination of W~st Providence Scad Extension, Clover ~ill District. Upon considaratlcn whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by ~r. Mayas, it is resolved tha~ W~t ~rovidence Road =xtension, Clover Hill District, be and i~ hereby is establish- ed as e public road. And be it further resolved, that t-h~ Virginia Department of ?ransp~rtatlon, be and it hereby is requested to take into th~ S~condary System, Wegt ~ro~id~uce ~oad Extension, beginning at existing West Providence Road, State Route 678, and q0ing westerly 0.24 mile to end in a deed and. This request is inclusive of the adjacen= slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department ef T~ansportation drainage easements. This road ~erve~ adj~c~n~ p~c~ls. This project w~s constructed with public school funds. There- fore the maintena:cc £aas an~ bond should ~e waived. An~ be it ~nrther resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Depart~u~nt oi Transportation a 70' right-of-way for this road. This section of West Providence Road Extension is recorded as foilow~: 88-521 Plat Book 31, Pages 79 · 80, July 2~, 1978. Deed kook 1301, Page 349, February 13~ 1978. ll.F.7. STATE ROAD ACC=PTA/~CE This day the County Envirora~ental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board made report in writing upon his examination of Walton Park Road and Dawnridge Court in Walton Park~ Section O, Midlothian District. Upon ooneiduratioh whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Walton Park Road and Dawnridgu Court in Wa/ton Park, Section O, Midlothlan District, be and they hereby arc established as public reads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and ±t hereby is requested to take into t~e Secondary System, walton Park Road, beginning et existing Walton Pa~k Road, State Route number to be assigned, and going southerly 0.03 wile to the intersection with Dawn~idge court, th~n continuing southerly 0.04 mile to end at proposed Walton Park Road, Walton Park~ section P; and Dawnridge Court~ beginning at Welted Park Road and going easterly 0.18 mile to end in a Chi-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope~ sight distance and designated Virginia Departz~ent of Transportation drainage easements. Those roads serve 23 lots, And be it further resolved, that th~ Board of Supervisors guarantees to the virginia Department e~ Transportation a 6O~ right-of-way for Walton Park Road and a 50' right-of-way for Dawnridge Court. This section of Walton Park is recorded as follows= Soctlon O. Plat Book 54, Page 55~ September 19, 1986. This day the County Environmental tngineer, in accordance with directicnm from this Board made report in writing upon hie examination of Walton Park R0ad~ Lanoey Drive, Laaeay Court and Old Country Lane in Walton Park, Section' N, Midlethian District. Upou ccD~ideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Walton Park Road, Lancey Drive, Lancey Con/t and old Country Lane in Walton Park, Suction N, Mid!othian District~ be and they hereby ars established as pubiio And be it ~arther r~solved, that th~ Virginia Department uf Transportution, be and it hereby is requested to take into the ~eccn~ary System, Walton Par~ Road, beg~nnlng at ex{sting Walton ~ark Road, State Route 624, and going ~outhea~t~rly mile to the {ntersectlon with Lancey Drive, then continuing southeasterly 0.04 mile to end at proposed Walton Park Road, Walton Park, Section 0~ Laneey Drive~ beginning at the inter- section with Walton ~ark Road an~ going northeasterly 0.07 mile ~o the inter~ectien with Lancey Court~ then turning and going northerly 0.06 mile to the intersection with Old Country Lane, then cpntinuing northerly 0.09 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Lanoey Court, beginning at the intersection with Laneey Drive and going easterly 0.15 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Old Country Lane, beginning at the intersection with Lancey Drive 88-522 and going w~s~srly 0.03 mile to tie into existing Old Country Lane, state Route 1084. Again Old Country Lane, beginning at the intersection with Lancey Driv~ and going easterly 0.08 mile to end in u cul-de-sac. This request is inclusiv~ of the adjacent slop~ sight distance and designated Virginia D~par~ment of Transportation drainage These roads ~erve 50 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Doard of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all o~ these roads exempt Walton Park Road which has a 60' right-of-way. This section of Walton Park is recorded as follows: Section N. Plat Book 51, Page 78, December 9, 1985. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental ~ngineer, in accordance with directions from thi9 Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Mansfield Crussing Koa~, Mansfield Cre~inq Court, Mansfield Crossing Lane, Mansfield Cro~ing Terrace and Briarhurst Road i~ ~ansfield Crossing, Phases I and II, Nidlothian District. Road, Mansfield Crossin~ Cou~t, Mensfiel~ Crossing Lane, Crossing, Phas=s I und II, Midlothisn District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. Transportation, b~ and it hereby is requested tO take into the intersection with Lucks Lane, Stat~ Route 720, and going northerly ~.0~ nile to the inter~ection with Manufi=ld Crossing Court, then contlnning northerly 0.O3 mile to thm intersection with Mansfield Crossing Lane~ th~n continuing northerly 0.05 turning and going northeasterly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Briarhur~t Road, then iurnihg and going northerly 0.07 Court, beginning at the intersection with ~ansfie~d Crossing Mansfield Crossing Lane, beginning at the intersection with a cul-de-sac; Mansfield Cros~ing Terrace, beginnlng at the intersection with Mansfield Cro~ing Road and going westerly going 0.07 mile to end at existin~ Brierhurst Reed, State Route 3783. This reque~t'iu inclu$iv= of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia D~par~ment o~ Trenspo~tation drainage right-of-way for all of these roa~s except Mansfield Crossing Lane and Mansfield Crossing Court which have s 40' right-of-way. 88-523 Phases I and II. Plak 5ook 48, Pages 90 ~ 91, March 15, 1935. Vote: Unaaimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in a=cordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his ~xamination o~ Raven Wing Drive, Raven Wing Court and Escada Drive in Sl~py Hollow, Section A~ ~atoaca District. Upon consideration whe~eof~ and on motion of M~. Dani~l~ seconded by Mr. Mayer, it ie received that Raven Winq Drive, Raven Wing Court and Escada Drive in Sleepy Hollow, S~ction Matoaoa D~strict, ~ and they hereby are eetah~i~hed ae public road~. And be it f~rther re~olved, that tho Virginia D~partment of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Raven Wing Drive, beginDing at the int~r- eeetion with Spring R~n Ro~d, State Route 654, ~nd going ~ortherly 0.15 mile tQ the iDterseetiun with Rav~n Wing Conr~, thsn continuinq northerly 0.t5 mile to the intereectlon with ~scada Drive, then continuing northerly 0.06 mile to tie into proposed Raven Wing Drive, Sleepy ~ollo~, Section C; Raven Wing Court, beginning at the intmrsection with Raveu Wing Drive going westerly 0.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Escada Drive, beginning a% the intersection wi~h Raven Wing Driv~ going easterly 0.10 mile to tie into proposed Escade Drive~ Sleepy Bellow, Section B. This request is inclusive o£ the a~jacent slope, sight dis~ance and designated Virginia Depaf%f~ent of Transportation drainage And ho it further r~solved, that the Board of Supervieors guarant~ to th~ Virginia Department cf Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads. This section of Sleepy Hollow is recorded ae follows: Section A. Plat Book 51, Pages 62 & 63, November 18, 1985. This day the County ~nvironmen~al ~ngineer, in accordance wi=h directions ~rom this Board, made report in writing upon examination of Boxwood Drive in Great oaks~ section ~, ~atoaea District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniul, secon~s~ hy ~r. ~ayes, it is resolva~ =hat ~exweod Drive in Great Oaks, ~ection 5, Matcaca District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved~ that the Virginia Department Of Transportation, be sDd it hereby is requested to tak~ into th~ Secondary Sy~tem~ Boxwood Drive~ beginning at the intersection with Brookridge Road, State Route 3090, and g0in~ northeasterly 0.13 mile to tie into existing Boxwood Drive, State Rout~ number to bm assigned, Hunters Landing subdivision. This request is inclusive of ~h~ adjasent slope, sight distance and designated virginia Department of Traneportation drainage This road serves 10 lots, And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department o~ Tr&n[]Dortatdon a 50' right-of-way for this road. This section of ~reat Oak~ is recorded as follows: Section 5. Plat BOOk 45, Page 10t February 2, 19~4. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with direction~ from this ~oard, made report in writing UpOn his examination Of Pl%n~ Court in Sunbnry one, Phaze 2, Dale District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Hr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. ~ayes, it i~ resolved that Plu~ Court in SuPbury One, ~hase 2, Dale District, be and it hereby is established as & public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of ~ransportatien, be and it hereby is requested to taAe into the with Flum Street, State Bouts 892, and ~olng southerly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. and dssigna=ed Virginia Department of Transportation drainage right-of-way for this road. Vote: Unanimous This day the County ~nviror~msntal Engiueer~ in accordance with directions from this Boar~, m~de rupert in writing upon examination of Turtle Bill Road, Turtle Bill Lane, Turtle Hill Court, Turtle ~ill Place and Turtle Hill Circle in Turtle Hill, Clover Bill District. Upon Consideration whereof, and on motion of M~. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Hayes, it im resolved :ha= Turtle Hill Road, Turtle Hill Lane, Turtle Hill C0nrt, Turtle Hill ~lac~ and Turtle ~£11 Circle in Tur=le ~i11, clover ~ill District, be and they hereby afc establishud au public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia D~partment of Transportation, be an~ it hereby ia requested to t~ke into t~e Secondary System, Turtle Rill Road, beginning at the inter- section with Brandermi!l Parkway, State Route n~ber to be assigned, and 9oing easterly 0.03 mile to the intersection with Turtle Hill Lane, then continuing easterly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Turtle Hill Court, then turning and going northerly 0.08 mile to the intersection with Turtle ~ill Place, then turning and 9oing easterly 8.0~ mile to th~ inter~e¢~ion with Turtle Rill circle, then continuing easterly 0.07 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Turtle Bill Lane, b~ginning a= tke inter- section with Turtle Sill Road and going northerly ~.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Turtle ~ill Court, beginning at the intersection with Turtle Hill Road and going southerly 0.05 mile to ~nd in a cul-de-sac; Turtle Hill Place, beginning at the intersection with Turtle ~ill Roa~ and going northerly 0.03 mile to and in a cul-de-sac; and Turtle HiLl CircLe, beginninq at the inter~ection with Turtle Hill Road and going northerly 0.05 mils to end in a cul-de-sac. and designated Virginia Department of Transportation d~ainaqe easements. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of %hose roads except Turtle Hill Road which has a variable width 50' to 70' right-of-way. Turtle Kill is recorded a~ follows: Plat Rook 49~ Pages I1 & ~2, April la, 1985. This day the County Environmental ~nqineer~ in accordance with dir~0tions from this ~a~d, ma~o report in writin~ upon his examination of sandyridge Parkway, Shadow Ridge Road~ Shadow Ridge Court, Shadow ~idge Place and Shadow Ridge Lane in Shadow Ridge~ Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on ~o~ion of Mr. Daniel, Shadow Ridge Road~ Shadow Ridge Court, Shadow Ridge Place and shadow Ridge Lane in shadow Ridge, ctove~ Hill District, be and they hereby arc established as public roads. And be it f~rth~r resolved, that the Virginia Department Secondary System, Sandyridge ~arkway~ beginning at the inter- section with Brandarmill Parkway, State Route number tc be assigned, and going southerly 0.51 mile to tie into existing Sandyridge Parkway, State Route 2920; Shadow R~ge Roa~, beginning at the intersection with Brandermill Parkwayr State Route number to be assigned, and qolng easterly 0.04 mile tc the inter~ection with Shadow Ridg~ Court, ~hen continuing easterly O.07 mile to the intersection with Shadow Ridge Place, then continuing easterly 0.10 mi!e, the~ turning and going northerly 0.04 mile to the intersection wit~ Shadow Ridge Lane~ then continuing northerly 0.05 mile, then turning and going westerly 0.~9 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Shadow Ridge Court, beginning at the in%exs~otion with Shadow Ridge Road and going northerly 9.05 mile to sod in a cul-de-sac; Shadow Ridge Place, nor~herly 0.0& mile to ~nd in a cul-de-sac; and Shadow Ridge going northwesterly 0.06 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department o~ Transportation drainage Th~se roads serve 58 lots. And be it further resolved, that tho Board of guarantees to th~ Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of ~hese reads ~xcept Shadow Ridge Road which has a variabl~ width 50' to 80' right-of-way. Shadow Ridge is recorded as foll~ws~ Plae Book 53~ ~age 65, July 17, 1986. Vote: Unanimous 88-526 This day the County Envirou-mental Engineer, in accordance with directions fro~ this Boar~, made report in writing upon his examination of Riggers Station Drive, Trailtop Terrace and Woodsaefe Lane in Riggers Station, Section 1, Bermuda District. Upon consideration whereof, and eq ~otio~ of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. ~ayes, it is resolved that Riggers Station Drive, Trailtop Terrace an~ Woodsaere Lane in Riggers Station, Section 1, Bermuda District, be and they hereby are e~tablishe~ a~ publie reads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department Of Trsnsportation, be and it hereby is requested to tuk~ into the Secondary System, Riggers Station Drive, beginning at the intersection with Woods Edge Road, State ~oute 520, and going westerly 0.04 mile to the intersection with TrailtoD Terrace, then continuing westefly Q.11 mile to end at the intersection with Weodsas~e Lane; Txailtop Terrace, beginning at the inter- section with Riggers Station Driv~ and going westerly 0.15 mile tO the intersectio~ with Woo~saore Lane, then cont~nuln~ westerly ~.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Woodsacre Lane, beginning at the intersoution with Riggers Station Drive and going eouth%rly 0.12 mile to end at the intersection with Trailtop Terrace. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope~ sight distance and designat=d Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. These roads serve 37 lots. And be it fur=her resolved~ that the Beard of SuDervisors guarantees %o the Virginia D%partment of ~ransportatien a 50~ right-of-way for a11. ef thes~ reads except Riggers Station Drive which has a variable width 50~ to $0~ right-of-way. Thi~ s~cticn of Riggers Station is recorded as fol~ows: Section 1. Plat ~ook 54. ~ages 5 & 6, Auqu~t 13~ 19~6. This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this ~oard, made report in writing upon his examination ~f Sarrington Lane and New FOund L~ne in Cameron Run, Section 3-A and a portion of Cameron R~n, Section Bermuda District. Upon consideration Whereof, and on motion Of Mr. Daniel, seconda~ by ~r. ~ayes, it is resolved that Sarrington Lane and ~ew Found Lane in Camuron Run, Section $-A and a portion of cameron ~un, section 4, Bermu=a District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia D~partm~nt Of Transportation, be ~and it hereby is eequa~%ed to take into ~he Secondary System, Sarrington Lan~! beginning at ~he inter- section with Castlebury Drive, State Route 1552~ and going northwesterly 0.05 mile torte intersection wi~h New Found ~ane; and New Found Lane, beginning at the intersection with Sa~ington Lane and going east~rl~ ~,57 mile to end in a de~d end. Again New FOUnd Lane, beginning at the intersection with Sarrington Lane and goiDg northeasterly 0.04 mile.to en~ in This request is inclusive of the adjacent elope, sight distance and de$igna%e~ Virginia Department of Transportation drainag~ roads $erv~ 26 lots. 88-~27 And' be it further resolved, that the Board of supervisors guarantees t0 the Virginia Department of Transportation right-of-way for all of these roads. These sections of Cameron Run are recorded aa follows: Section 3-A. ~lat ~ook 49, Page 74, June 26, 1985. Section 4. Plat Book 43, Page 70, August 3, 1953. Vot~: Unanimous ll.F.8. TRANSFER OF TITLE OF COUNTX VBEICLE TO TEE A~4ERICAN On motion of Mrb Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the transfer of the title of a twelve (12) passenger County van (vehicle #81658) from the Park~ and Recreation Department to b_he American Red Cruse, Virginia Capital chapter. (It is noted the American Red Cross will continue to operate a transportation system ~or the senior citisen nutrition program ~pen~ored by the Capital Area Agency on Aging (C~Q~%) in accerdanQe with an agreement entere~ into by the County and the CAAA and as the Vehic!u was originally purchased with 80% CAAA funds/20% County funds.) lt.F.9. ALLOCATION OF FUI~DS FOR PURCHASE OF PLAYGROUND ~QUIP~ENT AT PROVIDENCE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL on motion of Mr. Da~iot, seconded by ~r. Mayes, the Board appropriated $I,500 from th~ Clover Hill Three Cent Road Fund for t~he purchase of playqround equipment to the ProvidenCe Elementary 9T5. (It is noted the Board commanded the Providence Elementary PTA for their effor%~ to ruis~ approximatel~ $4,000 for %hie playgruund improvement project.) Vote: Unanimous ll.F.10. STORM WATER MANAGF~4ENT AGREENLENT FOR JOHN BUILDING, JEFFERSON DAVIS ~IG~WAY on motion of Mr. Dan£ol, seconded by Mr. Mayes~ the Hoard approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a malntenanoo agreement ~or a Storm Water Management System ~ith the developer o~ th Jokn Reason Building along Jefferson Davis Highway, a copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board, ll.F.11. REQUEST OF SCANCENTER VIRGINIA~ INC. FOR WAIVER AND ~QDIFI~ATION QF C~TAI~ RESTRICTIVE CQVE~Ai~TB FOR COUNTY AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL On motion of ~r. Daniel, s~conded by Mr. ~ayes, the Board approved a request frum'~uanCenter Virqinia, ~nc. to waive modify the Chesterfield County Airport Industrial Park Restrictive Covenant. B by increasing ~he maximum fron~ yard Setback requirement ~rom il0 feet to 19E feet. Vote: Unanimous 88-52~ UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC BOOSTERS CLUB Virginia State University, declared a conflict pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act end exuused himself from the msetin9. There was considerable discm~sion relative to certain organiza- tion no% complying with County regulations regarding bingofraffle permit requests; the application cf penalties to correct ths problem; careful scrutiny of said requests and denial of permi~s~ if necessary; etc. resolved to approve the ~eq~e~t for a conditional raffle permit from Virginia State University Athletic Boos£era Club for a six (6) ~onth period conditioned upon strict compliance with the requir~ment~ of the Bingo Games and Raffle~ Ordinance and ~pen the following further eondition~ and req~lations: I, The Club shall cooperate with staff to remedy inadeqna~ie~ in the Club's recordkeeping and operation; 2. The Club shall keep detailed receipts and z~cords of a1__1 accessions and expenditures, end shall duly note such receipts and rscord~ in e 3. The Club ~hall make all cheeks payable to vsndor~ for all goods and services received by ~uch vendors and ~hall obtain itemized receipt~ for ~l! goods and s~rvicas received; 4. The Club ~h~ll net pay any moniss to club members for give money to club members for payment to vendors~ 5. The Club shall provid~ staff wi~h a full financial report and accounting at the end of the ~ix (6) month period of the p~rmit. 6. The Club sha~ provide ~taff with written documentation that ~t agrees to comply with all County Bingo the permit. AyeS: Mr. Applegate, Mr~ Sullivan, Mr. Currin and Mr. Daniel Ab~ent~ Mr. Mr. Mayes r~turned to the meeting. ~1.~.12. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PROCEEDINGS OF INDUSTRIA5 pEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL ~VENUE BONDS FOR AGI, LINITED Mr. C~rrin disclosed to the Board that, although hs is act pef~on~lly affected, he owns property in the Ruffin Mill Road area which could directly b~n~fit by this reque~t~ ~=lared a conflict pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and exc~sed himself from the meeting. Mr. Daniel indicated for clarificatlun ~hat, while un the ~uropean econom~c ~evslopment trip in England, neither he ~or Mr. Vasner discussed any i~ueS p~rtinen~ to beud~, business arranqements, etc., durlnq meetings with AGI, Limited to influeDce their decision to locate in the County. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: W~EF~EA$, the Industrial Development Authority ef the CouDty ei Chesterfield (the "Authority") has considered the 88-529 application of AGI (Electronics) Limited (the "Company") for the issuance of the kuthorlty's industrial development revenu~ honda in an amount not to exceed $3,$00,000 (the "sends") to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, Construction and equipping of a manufacturing facility for oonsistin9 o~ an approximately 50,~00 square foot manufacturing facility to be leased to Craftwise of America, incorporated and approximately two-thirds of an approximately 30,000 square foot manufactu~in9 and distribution facility to be leased to KEF Electronics of America, Incorporated. Both facilities will be constructed on a parcel of land containing approximately 15 acres which is located in .the Bermuda Magisterial District of beginning approximately .9 of a mile east of the intersection of auffin zili ~oad (State Route .7~6) ~nd Woed~ Edge Road (State Route 620) and proceedin~ s0nth approximately 1,270 feet and east approximately 2,200 feet, and is also known as the far southeast q~adrant of the Ta~ Map of Chesterfield County (TM 150-10 (1) ~). The Authority has h~ld a publis hearing thereon on June 29, 1988; and WHEREAS, the Auth6rity' has requusted the Board of Supervisors (the "~oard'~) o~ Chesterfield County, Virginia (the "County"}, to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section 147(f) cf the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and to apply to the~ Allocation Administrator to request an allocation of $3,500,000 of the State Reserve =o Dond~, pursuant to Title 15.1, Chapter 3~.2 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, aE amended (the "Chapter"), to comply with ~&/4ER~AS, a copy of the' Authority's resolution the issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms =e 'be agreed upon, a record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" wi'th respect to the Project have been filed with the Board; BE IT RESOLVED BY T~B BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHZSTEEF!ELD COu~TY, 1. The Board hereby spp:ove$ th~ issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial Development AuthOrity of the County of Chesterfield for th~ benefit of AGI {Electronics} Limited, the extent required by Section 147(f} of the Coda, to permit the Authority to assist in the ~inancing of th~ Project. 2. The Board here~y agrees ~o apply to the Allocation Administrator to request an allocation of up tc $3,500,000 of the State Reserve to the Bonds, pursuant to the Chaptmr, and ~i~ects the County Administrator to prepare and file application therefor as promptly as practicable. 3. Approval of tho ice,anco of the sends, as required by Section 147(f) of ~he Code, does nec constitute ~n of the Bond~ or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as req=ize~ by SectiQn I5.1-1350 of th~ Cod~ of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Bonds ~hall provide that neither the County nor the Authozity sha!l be obligated to pay th~ Bonds or the interest thereon or other coStS incident thereto except from the revenue~ and moneys pledged therefor, an~ Deith~r the faith or credit nor the taxing power cf the Commonwealth, the County nor ~_he Authority shall be pledged thereto. 4. This resolution shall take effect i~uuediately upon its adoption, this 27th day of July, 1988. Ay~g~ Mr. Applegate, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Absent: Mr. Coffin. Mr. Currin returned to the meeting. 88-530 RICHMOND On motion Of Mr. Mayes~ seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board authorized the County Administrator %0 exercise the County's right to terminate the landfill~ uae contract for rmfu~e disposal with the City of Richmond, as it i~ nc longer expedient or economical to continue this agreement. Vote: Uriah±mens 11.G. COMMUNITY DBVELOPFZENT ITEMS ii.G.i. APPR0PRIATI0~ OF $400,000 IN FUNDS FROM SIGMA C.J. ASSOCIATES FOR CHTNABERRY BOULeVArD ~XT~N~iQ~ On motion cf Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, ~he Board appropriate~ $4~,000 in funds anticipated f~om Sigma C. J. Associates for the extension ~f Chinaberry Boulevard, in accordance with the standard developer/County construction agreement pursuant to the Virginia Department of Transportation/County procedure. Vets~ Unanimous Mr. Currin requested that Items ll.G.2., AGI - Request ~or Industrial Access Fundinq; ll.G.3., Extension of Water and Sewer Lines - AGI (Electronics) Limited; and ll.G.6~ Request of G. L~ Howard, Ina. for Authorization to Assign ~ts Right to kecelvu Payment on ~uffin Mill Road Contract, b~ heard ont of sequence aa he must declare a conflict of interest on these item~. ~e disclosed that, alehO~gh ha is not personally affected, he owns property in th= Ruffin Mill' Road area which could directly benefi% by these requests, declared a potential conflict cf interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excese~ himself from the meetinq. On motion of M~. sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board suspended its rules to hear Items 11.G.2., AGI - Request for Industrial Acc=ss Funding; ll.G.3., Extension of Water and Sewer Lines - AGI (Rlectronics) Limited; and 11.G.~, Request of G. L. Howard, Inc. ~or Authorization to Assign Its Right to Receive Payment on Ruffln Mill Road Contract, out of order. Ayes: M~. Applegate, Mr. $~llivan, Mr. Daniel and ~r. Mayas. Absent: Mr. Coffin. ll.G.2. REQUEST ~ROM A6I, LI~ITEE F0R INDUSTRIAL ACCESS FUNDING On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Bo~rd adopted the following reseI~tion: WEEREAS, AGI {Electronics) Limited will complet~ and occupy two new loudspeaker systems manufacturing plants totallinq 80,000 square feet on Ruffin Mill Road (Route 74~) by March of 1989; and W~R~A$, the plant will generate approximately 450 vehicles per day; and WEEREA$~ approximately 110 people are expected to b~ employed at the plants; and WHEREAS, th~ capital outlay for the plant~ is approximately $3 million. NOW~ THE~FO~ BE IT ~SOLVED, ~at the ~oard requests ~he Virginia DsDar~ent of Transportation to approv~ industrial proposed AGI (~lectx0nlo~) Limited plant entrance. B~ IT YU~T~ F~SOLVED, that the Beard guarantees that the right-of-way and adjustment of utilities will be provided by donatloD Or from feeds other than indus:rial access fund~, Ayes: Mr. App!egate, Mr. Sullivan, ~r. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. A~sent: Mr. Coffin. ll.G.3. ~XTER$ION OF WATER kND SEWER LINES FOR AGI, LIMITED On motion o~ Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes~ the Board approved County participation in ~he extension of water and sewer lines for AGI~ Limited in the amount of $38,185 each, for a total of $76,370, subject to the posting of a bond to en~ure repayment of the expenditure through increased tax rev~nuez. ~unds are available in the 19~9-99 Water and Wastewater Capital Budget. {It i~ noted a copy O~ the Utility Inducement Fund~ appli~atlon.and plat is filed with ~he papers of this Board.) Ayes~ Mr. AppIegate, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Absent: Mr. Currin. ll,G.6, R~QU~T OF G. L. BOWA~D~ INC. FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ASSIGN ITS RIGHT TO RECEIVE PAYF~ENT ON RUFFIN MILL ROAD CONTRACT On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seoends~ by Mr. ~ayes, the Board approved the request of G. L. Howard, !nc., for authorization to assign i=$. right to receive payment on Ruffin Mill Road contract to Crestar Bank ss security fo~ construction financing for the ku~in Mill goa~ Pomp Station. Ayes: Mr. ApDlegate, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayer. Absent: Mr. Currin. Mr. Currin returned to the meeting. ll.G.4. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS On motion of Mr. MayBe, secended by Mr. Currin, the Board deferred consideration of the request ~or street light in,tails%ions in the E~rmuda Magis~erlal Di~trlct for the intersection of Rivermont Road and Spruce Avenue and Southland Drive midway of the str~t until August 24r I988 so the Distri=t Mupervisor could discuss the requemtm with area residents7 denied the request for street light installation at the interest=ion of Moravia Road and Ove~lea Drive in the Matoaca Magistmrial District as there wa~ opposition from a property owner at one corner Of the intersection; and approved the installation of street lights at the following locations, with ~un~s to be expended fcom the Matoaca Magistarlml District Street Liqht 1. Intersection of Overlea Drive and Sunfield Drive, Magisterial District ($1,570.24); Inter~ection of Stiqall Driv~ and Sunfield Magisterial District 3. Intersection of Sunfield Drive and Sunfield Count, Matoaca Magisterial Di~tr±ct ($920.08} ~ and 4. Intersection of Stigall Court and Stigall Magisterial District ($1,232.26}. Vote: Unanimous ll.G.5. STREET LIGHT R~QU~STS On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by ~r~ Sullivan, the Board approved requests for street lights at the following locations, with funds to be expended from ~h~ Dis~rlet Street Light ~uod as indtcata~: I. Intersect±ch of Bilt~ere Drive aud Wood Dale Road, Bermuda Magisterial District; 2. Intersection of Holly Hill Read and Wood Dal~ Road, Bermuda Magisterial District; 3. Intersection of Malihu Street end Wood Dale Road, ~ermuda ~aglsturia1 District; 4. Intersection of Marsden Road and Wood Dale Road~ Dermuda Magisterial District; 5. Intersection of Rochelle Road and Wood Dale Road, Bermuda ~agisterial District; 6. Quail Ridge Terrace i~ ~ul-de-sac, Clover Hill Magisterial Dis=riot; 7. Intersection of Ellesmmre Drive and Rohions Road, Midlothian Magis=trial District; 8. Intersection of ~llesmere Driv~ and ~l~ower ~oad, ~idloth~an Magisterial District; 9. Intersection of Sali~bury RO~d and win~erfimld Road, Midloth~an Magisterial District: 10. Interneetion Of Robiou~ Road and Salisbury Roa~, Midloth~an Magisterial Di~triet~ 11. Int~rne~tion of R~st Frigstock Road and ~ublous Roa~, Midlethian Magisterial District; Midlothian Magisterial District; and 13. Iuters~cticn of Chepstow Road and Win~erfield Road. ll.G.?. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CITY OF RICHMOND'S ~EQUEST OF RIC~OND M~TRO~©~T~N AUTHORITY TO UNDERTAKE C~RTAiN PARKING FACILITIE~ After discussion relative to financing, regional cooperation, liability, competltlon ~o~ funds, e~c., it was on mo=ion of Mr. S~lllva~, ~econd~d hy Mr. Mayes, resolved to defer eOn$1~ratlon of a r~quest from tke City of Richmond for Chesterfield County's support of th~ Richmond Metropolitan Authority's undertaking certain parking facilit~ee in ~he City until August 24, 198'S. APPROPRIATION AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PP~PARATION OF AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL 9ARK-P~AS~ II DEVELOP~ENT PLAN On motion of Mr. Applegat~, secon~4 by Mr. Sullivan, =he ~oard ap~roprlat~d $4§,O00 from thc Airport Industrial Park Rese~v~ Fund and authorized %~h~ County A~hnini~trator %e ~ecute a SOntract wi~h thc ~irm of Wilbur 'Smith Associates~ in conjunction with ~iggins and Ammocfate$~ Glare New,Alan Anderson and Sayre and Associates, for the preparation Of a development plan for the Airport Indnmtrial Park-~hase II. · ll.G.9. REQUEST TO TRANSMIT STUB ROAD POLICY TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND ~CQ~DATION ON ~BDIVISION ORDINANCE REVISION Mr. Daniel submitted petitions and letters from Dal~ DistrAct residents relative to concerns t_hat in~ernat roads in King, land 88-533 Wood~ and A~htcn Wood~ Subdivisions - Sir Dinnadan; Salem Woods Subdivision - Old Wereon Drive; and Brentweod Subdivision principally resultin~ from th~ development of adjacent subdivisions and the connection of the subdivisions by stub roads. Ee stated he felt action should be considered to alleviate uhe After further discussion, it was on mc=ion o~ ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Hayes, resolved to transmit the stub road pcliuy te the Planning Cuauuission fo/ review and for any amendments to t/~e subdivision ordinance that may be advisable; to conduct a public hearing to consider the possibility of clo~ing off through traffic on internal roads of three particular areas in the Dale District - Kingsland and Ashton Woods - Bit Dinnadan, Salem Woods - Old D~ive, and Brentwood - Bellfiel~ Road; an~ to review the policy on notifications of adjacent property owners of pendinq subdivision public hoarlngs. Mr. Minas indicated the review of tho policy on notification of a~jacont property owners of pending ~ubdivi~ion public hearings is not included in the Board paper and ehonld n~t be included in the motion at this time. After fuather discussion, Mr. D~nlel amended his motion to ~ransmit ~e s~ub road policy to the Planning co=lesion for r~vi~w and r~co~ndation for any amen~snts %o the subdivision ordinance that may be advisable and that %he n~cezsary p~lic hearings be co~duc~e~ i~ or,er that said rsco~endations may brought back to the Board within ~ix~y (60} days; and further the Board rmquested that the Planning Cotillion r~view the ~%atu~ of three {3} particular areas ~n the Dale District to internal Ioads of the followin~ subdivi~icn~ - Kinqsland Woods and A~hton W~ Sir Dinnadan, ~al~ Woods 014 Drive, and Bren%wood - Bellfi~ld Road. Mr. Hayes ~econdad the ~n~d motion. ll.S.l.a. O~DINANCE VACATIWG~ORTION OF 30 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS LOT I7~ BLOCK A, TAYLOR ~ALL BSTATBS Sr. Sale s~ted this ~at~ and time had b~en advertised for public hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate a portion of a 30~ drainage easement across ~ct 17, BLock A, Taylor ~all No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the ~ropcsed ordlnance. On motion of Mr. Mayea, secon~e~ by Mr~ Currin, tho ~oard ~dOpt~d the following ordinance: AN ORD!N~NC~ to va0at~ th~ portion of a 30 foot drainage easement within LOt 17, DlOC~ A~ ~ection Taylor Hall Estates Subdlvi$ic., ~atoaca Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, ns shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in %h~ Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 21 at Pages 96 and 95. WHS~AB, Davi~ and 5cie Cri~well petitioned the Board of Supervisoru Of Chesterfield County~ Virginia to vauate the portion of a 30 foot drainag~ ~a$~ment within Lot 17, Block A, on a pla~ of record in the Clark's ©ffice of the Circuit Court M. Whitman, Jr., eLS., dated July 27, 1975. The portion of easement petitioned to be vacated is more fully d~aribed as follows: 17, Block A, Sectio~ A, Taylor Hall Estates Subdivision, the location of which is more fully shown, cross-hatched on a p~at made by Benchma/k surveys, Inc., dated June 14, 1988, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance. 15.1-431 of t~e ~pde of Virginia, I950, as amended, by the portion of the easement ~ought to be vacated. OF CHESTeRFIeLD COUNTY, VIRGINIA~ That pursuant ~o S~c%icn 15.1-4~2~) o~ the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid portion of easement be and is hereby TSi~ Ordinanc~ shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section I5.1-~82(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, sad a certified copy o~ this Ordinance, together with the plat attached h~reto shall be recorded no Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pursuant bo Section 15.1-485 of the Cede of Virginia, 1950~ as amended. · h¢ effect o£ ~hls Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.I-4S3 simple title of the portion of the easement hereby vacats~ the ~roper%y owner o~ the lot within Taylor Hall E~tates Subdivision free and clear of any rights of public Accordingly, ~hin Ordinance shall bs inde~ed ia the names of tk~ Co~y o~ Chesterfield, a~ granter, and David L. Cri~well and Lois S. Creswell, or their successors in title, 11.H.l.b. 0RDINAi~CE VACATING PORTIONS OF TWO TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS ACROSS LOTS 10 AND 17, BLOCK H, PLU~ C~K AT SOUTH RIDGE~_~T.I.ON II Mr. ~le stated ~his date and tim~ had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate portions of %we 10' =emporary construction easements across Lots 1~ and 17~ Block H, Plum Creek at South Ridge, ~ecfion II. No one c~me forward to epeak in fa~or of or against the propoae~ ordinance. On mo:ion cf Nr. AD,legate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan~ the Boa~d adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate portions of two 10 foo~ temporary Gens:ruction easements across Lots 10 and 17, Block B, Section II, Plum Creek at So~r~h Ridge Subdivision~ Clover Hill Magisterial ~isfrict, Chesterfield County, Virginia, aa shown on a plat 88-535 thereof d~ly r~corded in the Clerk's Offic~ of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County' in Plat ~ook 51 at Page 71. WHEREAS, S & B Development Company of VA, Inc. petitioned the Board of Supervisors 0£ Cheeterfiel~ County, virginia vacate a per%ion of two 10 foot temporary construction Creek at South Ridge Subdivision, Clover Hill ~agisterial mor~ f~lly d~serib~d as follows~ A portion Oi tWO 10 ~OOt tempora:y construction Plum Creek at South Ridge S~f0division, the location of which is more fully e~own, on two plats made by J. R. Timmon~ & Associate~, P.C., one dated April 29, 1988, and one dated July 25, 1988, copies cf which are attached hereto and made a ~art of this Ordinance. 15.1-431 oX the ~ode o~ Vir~inla, 1950, as amended, by WHEREAS, no public necessity e×ists for the continuance of That pursuant ~o ~eOtiOn l~.l-~21b) of th~ Code of Virginia, 1958, a~ a~ended, the afor~sa£d po~tion~ of the Thi~ Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of.Virginia, 1950, as a~enda~, and a cmrtified copy o~ this Ordinance, sooner than thirty days hereafter in ~he Clork'u Office of ~he Section 15.I-485 of the Code of virginia, 1950, as The effect of this Ordinance pursuan~ to Section portion o~ the plat vacste~. This Ordinance shall vest fee simple title of the portions of the easements hereby vacated in Develo~men~ Com~an~ of VA, Inc., or i~ successors in ai~, as ll.H.l.o. 01kD~NANC~ TO V~CATE PORTION OP ROCK SPRT~G~'DRIV= WITHIN ROC~ SPRING FARMS SUBDIVISION3 SECTION B ~r, Sale ~tated this date and time had been advertised ~o~ a public hearin~ to consider an ordinance to vacate a portion of Rock Spring Drive within Rock Spring Farms Subdivision, Section B. No en~ came ~orward ~o speak in favor cf''O~gainst the proposed ordinance. ~ motion of Mr, Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board adopted the followinq ordinance: A~ ORDINANCE to va0ate a portion of Rock Spring Driv~ within Rock Spring Farm~ ~ubdivision, Section B, Dale Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Vir~inia~ as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded i~ Clark's Office of the Circuit Court of CheSterfield County in Pla~ Book 10, at Pages 1 and 2. WHEREAS, Mr. end Mrs. Clarence A. S~itzer, petitioned th~ Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacat~ a portion of Rock SpMing Drive within Rock Sprin~ Far~s Subdivision, Section B, Dale Magisterial District, County, Virginia more partlouIarly shown on a pla~ of r~ecrd in the Clerk'e Office cf the Circuit Court of ~aid County in Plat Bock 10, Pages i and 2, made by J. K. Timmons, Civil Enqineer~ dated Jun~ 29, 1956. The right of way petitioned to be vaoated is more fully ~esorlbed as follows: A portion of Rook Spring Drive, within Rook Spring Farms Subdivision, Section-B, th~ location of which is more fully shown, oro~e hatched on a plat made by J. K. Timmons, Civil ~ngineer, dated June 29, 1956, copy of wkiuh is attached h~reto and made a pa~t of this Ordinance. WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 cf ~he Code of Virg~mla, 1950, a~ amended, by advertising; and WBEREAS, no public necessity e~ists 'for the continuance of NOW T~FQ~ ~ IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR~ OF C~EST~IBLD COUNTY, VIR~INIA~ That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of ~he Code ~, 1950, as ~e~ded, the aforesaid portion of Rock rive be and i~ h~r~y ~hown on the attaQh~ plat. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect, in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b} of ~e Code of Virglni~, 19~0, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance~ sooner ~ha~ thirty d=ya hereafter in the Clerk's Office 0f the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursnan~ tQ 1~.1-485 of the Cod~ Of Virgiaia, 19~0, as emended. portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall ve~t fac simple title of'tho right of way hereby vacated in th~ o~ner of the adjacent lo~$ within Rock Spring Fa~s fr~e and clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this Ordlnanc~ shall be indexed in the names o~ ~h~ County o~ Chesterfield, as qran%o~ asd Clarence A. Sti%z~r and Vivian P..sti~ae~ Radon4 ~. Adams, Sr. and W. Ad~s, Edward E. ~hneider and Dorothy A. Schneider and Karl @8~537 ll.E.2. REQUEST TO T~E VIRGINIA WAT~ CONTROL BOARD There was a brief discussion relative to prepesed =hanges to the James Rivsr Water Quality Management Plan, the percentage of reduction in waste disaharge allocations for Chesterfield as compared to neighboring jurisdictions, the impact of thc proposed changes on County grc~7~h, County representation at the publi0 hearing which is scheduled to be hold by the Virginia Water Control Board at 2~00 p.m. on August 24, 19~8, presenta- tion of a County statement regarding the i~e r~qu~sting an equitable reallocation process to satisfy water quality criteria, etc. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Nr. Coffin, ~]e Board adopted a statemsnt to bs presented by tbs Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, or his designee, to the Virginia Water Control Board at a public hea~ing on August 24, 1988, regarding the COunty's concern for the proposcd redustion in %h~ wast~ ditch&roe allocation ~cr Chesterfield County, which reduction will result due to modifications tO th~ previously approvsd Ja/~ss River Water Quality Management Plan (TC-6). (A copy of th~ James River Wastelo~d Allocations s~atemen~ is filed with the papers of thi~ Board.) Vote: Unanimous 11.~. 3 . RIG~T-0F-W~Y IT~45 P~QU~ST FRO~ CONTIN=~TAL LAND CAL~S~ !NC, TO CONSTRUCT A PUMP STATION AN~ FORCE MAi~ On ~oticn of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved ~ request from Con~in~ntal Land Sales, Inc., to construct a pump station and force main to s~rve a 34~ + acre industrial/commercial tract of land east ~£ Ruffin Mill--Read. (A copy of the plat is fiI~d with the papers cf this Board.) Vote: U~a~i~OUs ll.~.3.b. REQUEST FROM MR. AND MRS. ROY R. ~EBB T~ INSTALL A O~ motion of N~. Appl~gate, seconded by ~r. Sullivan, the ~oard approved a reques9 for Mr. and Mrs. Roy R. Webb, to install a prlvat~ water service within an existing 25' right of way off Otterdalm Road to ~e~ve ~heir residence at 4127 Otterdale Road, subject tc execution of a license agreement, with th~ understanding that they be required to relocate the service at thmir ~xp~n~ if it interferes with County utilities or future road construction. IA copy of the plat is filed with t_hu papers of this soard.) ll.H.3.c. R~QUEST TO AID DEVELO~EP, S I~ ACQUIRIWG SEWER VIRGINIA LANDMARK CO~PORATION ACROSS PROPSBTY OF On me,ion of Mr. CurriD, seconded by ~r. Cullivan, the ~eard authorized the Riqht-of-Way ~ana~er to aid ~irginia Landmark Corporation in acquiring a sewer easemsnt alon~ Great Branch across property owned by Mr. Stewart L. end MS~ Myrtle I. Cole, and designated as Tax Map ~arcel Numbsr 114-4(1]42, to serve the Ironbridqe Development, proVidud Virginia Landmark Corporation executes a con~ract with the County agreeing to pay for t~u costs. (A copy of thc plat is filed with th~ paper~ of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous ll,H.3,e,2. ALLIED FIBEP~ ACROSS PROPERTY OF CSX TPJ~WSPORTATION On motion of Mr. Msyes~ seconded by Mr. Cu~rin, thm Board authorized +-he Right-el-Way Manager to aid Allied Fibers in acquiring an cfr-site sewer easement across property of Transportation for the extension of a sawer linc to serve their property on Woods Edge Read, west of Interstate 95, provided ~llled Fibers exesutes a contract with tko County agreeing to pay for all the costs. (A copy of the plat im filed with the papers of thi~ Board.) vote: Unanimous 1t.H.3.c.3. DEAN E. HAWKINS, ABLA, REPRES~NTATIV~ OF MS. SUE $. LATTA Mr. Currin disclosed to' the Board that, ~although he has no p~ssonul involvement in this matter, he has been a~vi~ed that a potential conflict may exist as a bu~ine~ p~rtncr of his placed a bid on the ~utontial ~nil~ing to be built; therefore, he declared a potential conflict of interest pursuant to Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act end himself from the meeting. Cn motion of Mr. Applega%9, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the ~oard authorized the Right-of-Way ~anager to a~d Mr. Dean ~. Hawkin~, ASLA, feprssent~tlv~ Qf DrS. Kilbourn~, Kilbourne, and Mathews, in acquiring a sewer easement acrees the property of Ms. Sue Latta, located at 4101 Railgate Terrace and known as Lot 39, Block ~, Section A~ Chester Station, for the extension of public sanitary sewer system tO ~e=ve the reconstruction of their dental offices, provided the d~velo~er ex,cutes a con- tract with the County agreeing to pay for the costs. Ayes: Mr. Applegate~ Mr, ~ullivan, ~. Daniel and ~r. A~sent: Mr. Currln. Mr. Currin returned to th~ m~eting. ll.R.4. CO~SENT ITEMS 11.~.4.a. S~T DATE PO~ BUsL!c H=A~ING TO CONSIDER ~ND~ENTS TO SECTION 20 OF TER COUNTY CODE On motion of M~. Sullivan, seconded by ~=. Mayes, the Boar~ the dat~ of September 14, 1988~ at 7:00 p.m.~ for a public hee~ing to consider ar~endments to Section 20 of %he Code of the County of Chesterfield regarding the Utilities Rate Study. Vote: Unanimous ~.%.~.4.b. A~EROVAL OF CeNTre%CT E@~ WATER LINE EXTE~$1OW FOR ABC SUPPLY On motion of Mr. Sullivan~ ~econded by Mr. ~ayes, the Board approved the following wa~er line contract: W88-133CD, A~C Supply Wa~er Line Extension - Oversizing Water Lines Extension~ Developer: A~C Building Supply Company contract0~: Lyttle Utilities, Inc. Total Contract Cost: $17,712.50 Total Estimated County Cost: $ 3,197.00 (Refuud through connection fees) 88-539 E~tim~ted Developer Co~t: Cods: Vote: Unanimous $14,~5.~0 ~B-2511~997 ll.E.4.C. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR TEE MEADOWVILLE TRUNK SEWER EXTErS~ON Mr. Currin ~tated hs is co-owner of property adjacent to ~-29S in this area and questioned whether or not the extension of this trunk sewer would provide ssrvise tc that property. Mr. Welchon~ indicated the extension i~ designed ko provide capacity for those properties in the area but hs dad not know ii the extension would actually provide service to the propmrty fn Question. Mr. Currin stated, since it was not known aC this time if the property he is involved with would be served, be would participate in the discussion.. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board awarded Contract Numbe~ $$7-75C ~or ~he c0n~truction of Ms~dc~ville Trunk Ee~r to Lyttle Utildties~ Inc. in the amount of $3~2,06~.80 and authorized the County A~nistrato~ ho this project has bean previously appropriated. ll.N.4.d. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE STNOUD LANE, COLUMBIA PARE AND ARSENAL RILLS WATEE LINE EXTENSIONS On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mays~, the Board awarded Contract Nuafoers W87-t75C, W87-176C and W87-177C for t~s csns~ruction of Stron~ Lane Water Line Extension in Clover Hill Magisterial District, Colun~bla ~ark Water Line Extension in the Bermuda Magisterial District, and Arsenal Rills Water Line Extension in thm ~idlothian Magisterial Distzist, to Lyttle Utilities, Inc. in the total amount Of transferred $7,000.00 to 5~-5~35-7~5E, $20,000.00 to 5M-5835-7HOE and $50,000.00 to 5H-5835-7R7E from 5H-5855-700E to complete the project~; and authorized tbs County Administrator to ex,cute any n~ce~ary document~. ~l.H.4.e. A~PROVAL OF ~UIT CI, AIM DEED FOR 90RTIONE 0~ 16 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG CENTRALIA ROAD FOE BALZEN AND A~EOCIATE$, INC. On motion of M~. sullivan~ seconded by Mr. ~ayes, ~he Beard authorized the Chairman of the Board and the C~unky Administrator :o esscu~e a Qui:ataim Dead to vacate portions of a 16' width drainage easement along Centralia Road, previously dedica~e~ tO ~he County, for Balzer an~ Associates, Ino. (A copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote~ Unanimous ll.H.4.~. R~SOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF P~OPO$~D WARE CP~EK RESEAVOIE P~0J$CT On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. ~yee~ the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS~ th~ Chegterfinld County Board of Supervisors and the other members of the Eichmcnd Regional ~lanning District Commission ha~ been informed that ~agion III cE the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA} pro~u~ly will "veto" ~he section 404 permit required for construction of James City County's Ware Creek Reservoir; and kegien I~ ~A representatives for thi~ position is their belief that a pipeline from the Sames River above Richmond may prove to be a better water 'supply alternative for James City County than the construction o~ a reservoir; and WHERFA$, the Region III EPA ~%aff has apparently not accepted Jame~ City County's explanations that such a pip,line a~lternstlve is not currently feasible for various technicsl, political, financial, and institutional reasons; WHEI{EAS, the Chesterfield County Boar~ of Supervisors supports J~e$ City County's peel%ion and b~li~ves =hat the War~ Creek Reservoir alternative i~ the preferable and only (1) require resolution of critical min~ instre~ issue~ in th~ J~es River: (2) have any potential detrimental effects 0n the Richmond Re~ion'$ growth and quality of lif~; (3) have to overcome the ~ntense political any host co--unity; and (4) will not ~qu~re resolution of ~ignificant legal i~zn~ related to interbanin tren~f~ and ~e City of Richmond's water rights in th~ J~e~ River: and B~E~AS, James City County has worked in qo0d fai~ in of the U.S. EPA and ham developed whet axp~rt biologists can ~estify is an ~cologic~lly ~ound proposal =ha= will ben,fit the ~E~AS, J~es City County filed in 1984 a 404 permit applica%ion and requested Section 40t certification by the virginia water control Board; and WEE~AS, Section 401. (a} (1) of the Clean Water Act time period, not e~teeding one year, to dete~ine if ~h~ projeu% will ~atisfy certain aDplicabte provi~ions 0f the Clean Water Act rela[~d to pollutant discharges and water quality this request within the one year ti~e period; and WEE~AS, th~ Chesterfield County ~oard of fha Virqinia Water COntrol Board in ~ promp~ and authorita=iv~ manner is necessary to help overcome the Region III EPA office's objections to the proposed reservoir projec:; and WHE~AS, the Ch~t~rflel~ County Board of supervisors by the fac%s; and City Coun=y, which has not other feasible alternative, at this W~E~AS, J~es City County, eve~ un,er the pipeline alternative apparently favored by the U.S. ~A, would ~till b~ required ~o coheir=ct a reservoir, such as proposed ~or Ware during high ~lows; and WH~AS, the Virginia Water Control Board with the active cooperation of the Virqinia Council on the Environment could well contribute to resolving this critical problem of water supply for Ja~eB City County by acting promptly on the certification request. NOW, TH~F~FO~, BH IT ~SOLVED, T_hat the chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 22nd day of Jun= 1988, respectfully requests that the Virginia Water Control move promptly to i~sue the Section 401 Certification for the Ware BE IT FURTHER R~SOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Sup~rvi~or~ authoriz~ th~ County A~ini~trator to send this ~sulutlu~ to =he Virginia Water Control ~oar~s Extortive Director, wi~ a copy to the Virginla Council on the Enviro~ent. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Sale presented the Board with a report on the ~eveloper wa~sr and sewer contracts executed by the County A~mini~trator, Mr. Ramsey presented the Board with a status report on the General Fund Contingency Account, General Fund 5alance, Road Reserve Funds, District Road and Street Light Funds, Lease Purchases, School Li~erai~y Loan~ and the Board of Supervisors ~heduled ~eetings. ~r. Ramsey ~tated =he Virginia Department of Transpo=tatioa has £ormally notified the County of the acceptance of th~ following road~ into the State Secondary Sy~em~ Route $45 (Center View Drive) - F:om Route 777 to Route 8~9 0.I8 Mi. Route 849 {Koger Center Boulevard) - From Routs 848 to Route 60 0.23 ~i. Route 3970 (Evergreen East Parkway) - From 0.49 mile sou~h Of ~oute 720 ~o 0.56 nile south of Route 720 0,07 would recess for lunsh in the Administration Building held after rezoning. ll.K. Pd~QUE~TS FOR MOEIL~ HOME PERMITS 88SR0147 In Dale Magisterial Di~triot~ HEBEC~A L, WA~R requested renewal of Mobile Home Permi~ $4B12~ to park a mobile home on property ~ronting the south lin= of Cascade Street at Upp ('2) Henning Heights, Lot 41 ($~eet 15}. The first permit was issued on Jun~ 27, 1984. Mr. Jacobsen stated staff recor~uended approva~ Of this request, subject :o s~an~ard conditions, as tkis is a renewal request for an existing mobile 5nme. He ~ta~ed~ h0w~ve~, because of the potential for further developmsnt in this area, the applicant should.look upon this approval a~ %emp0rary and one which may or nay not n®ce~sarily be renewed in the future. Mrm. Rebecca walker stated the reeo~u~ended conditions were acceptable. There was ~o opposition present. Mr. Daniel stated the subject request is located in a neighborhood which is characteristically single family residential development. He stated because o~ the potential for future residential development and the fact that other mobile homes in this area had been approved for five (5) years, he would like to revi~ the request in five years rather than Seven years. ~rs. Walker stated ~he five year approval was acceptable. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. approved Casa aSSR0147, for a perio~ o~ ~ive to the following standard conditions: Vote: ~aye~, tha Board years, ~ubj~ct 1. The applicant shall he the c~ner and occupant of tbs mobile home. 2. Nc lot or parcel ~ay be rented er leased for use a~ a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home ~hall be permitted to be parked on an individual Lot or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, · and other zoning requirement~ of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. No additional p~m~n~D~-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mohile homes shall be skirted but shall net be place~ on a permanent foundation. 5, Where public ~County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile 5nme Permit, the applicant shall bhe~ obtain the necessary permits from the office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation o~ the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Some Permit. ll,L. REQUEST~ FOE ~JEZO~Z~G In Dale Magisterial District, RIC~ RI~ AND ~NCE requested that r~z~ning from Agricultural (A), Residential (Rr7), and Residential (R-15) to Office Business (O) with Conditional Use P!~nned Development be remanded =o the ~lanninq Commission for further review and COnsideration. An office/commercial complex is planned. This request lies on a 115 acre parcel fronting approximately 76Q ~eet on the west line of Iron Bridge Road, a~so fronting approximately 3,176 fee~ on the south line nf Chippenham Parkway, and located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of these ruad~. Tax Map 41-13 (1) Part of 88-543 Parcel 1; Tax Map 41-14 (I) Part of Parcel 6; and Tax Map 52-2 Il) Parcel 1 Mr, JmcQbson stated staff has received a new plan from the applicant and a request for the case to be remanded to the ~lanning commission for further review. There was no one present to represent tAe request. There was no opposition present to the request for remanding Case 87S1~3 to =he ~lanning Gcumnission. Mr. Daniel verified the procedure which would occur once the request were to be r~manded to the ~lanning Commission; inquired if staff had received a rezoning application for the Lyttle tract;.r~qu~ted that an ~ffer~ be made to schedule Case ~7S133 and the Lyttle application, when ~ubmitted, for simultaneous action by the P~anning Coimmiesion and Board of Supervisors; to bo inf0~med as to ~hen ~hat docket is being established so that a neighborhood me,ting can he arranged for the ~pplicants to review their r~vi~ed plan~ wit~ a~ea residents; and to be provided wi=h any information, as early as possible, cn th~ filings of applications regarding the Lyttle tract. On motion of Hr. Davis!, seconded by ~r. Mayas, the Board remanded Case 87S133 to th~ Plannln~ Commiasion for amendment and reco~sidera:ion. Vote: U~anlmous 88S005 In Matoaca ~agisterial bistrict, ~V~ G. ~0~ requested Conditional Uae to permit a landfill in an Agricultural (A) Distric~ on a ~5 · acre ~arcel fronting apprcmlmately 40 feet on the south line ~f ~ull Street Road, approximately 3,000 feet west cf '$kinquarter Roa~. Tax ~ap 72 (1) Part of Percale 15 and 16 (Sheets 18 and 27). ~r. Jacobsen stated ~taff recommends that Cas~ 885085 be deferred for a minimum of sixty (~0) days to allow completion a~d review of th~ consultant's Debris Landfill Report and evaluation of this particular request with respect to that report. ~his reguemt has been on-going for a year and the residents of consideration he planue~ to ask for daniel and he stilI feels the Board ~ho~ld deny the request. He sta~ed the Planning Commission recommended denial; staf~ recommended ag~roval baaed on certain conditions~ there were proffers offered, etc. H~ why %here ~hould be anymore new landlills, and until the County gets a handle on the existing ~tafnS of landfills, %he r~$ults until that time, there should be ~ moratorium on any new landfills. He seated he would move for e d~nial and should Mr. Sullivan ~tated the consultant's Debris Landfill Report will be available on August ~ for the Board~s review a~d he felt sixty days from that time would be sufficient time for review of the report by all so~cerne~. He stated the Board always has the option of deferral for ninety (90) days ~urthcr review the request, the applicant has been very patient and he did not want to gee the decision on this matter unduly delayed. Mr. Daniel ~ta=ed he felt the request should be referred to the Planning CO~mission along with the consul~anS's report addressing these conditions. Mr. Currin stated he felt that, after the work ~eseion on August 2, the Board could decide whe~hsr or net to defer the case or send it back tc the Planning Ce~li~sion. He stated he preferred to defer the case for sixty (60) days to allow opportunity to study/review the report and then decide if should be sent back to the PlanniDg Co~ission. Mr. Jacobsen stated the appt~c~n~ ~oncurxed wi~h staff's reco~endation fo: a sixty [6Q} day deferral. MY. ADpl~gate inquired if, after ~he Board conducted the work session on ~e con~nltant'$ report, did Colonel ~ay~z feel his opinion on debris iandfill~ would be Mr. Mayss stated he had been a conSUltant and, unl~ consultants h~v9 a b~o~d point of view, the re~nl~ of ~heir r~port i~ going to be narrowly ba~ed. He stated h~ felt the merits in this casa were no= going to 0hangs very much; he felt there is a great f~ar in a~as where people are on well water about addin~ new landfills due to the po~ibiliey that landfill~ may ha~e an ~pact on eh~ quality of fha water and ~at i~ hi~ greatest concern. He ~tated staff has be~n requested %o show cause why there ~houl~ be any additional landfills in Chesterfield County based on the landfills already approved An~ o~erating, ~e capacity for the next 5 or years, the fact ~at Riuhmond Regional Planning District and the Crater Planning Dis%flor and other agenCieS a=e working waste, etc., and based on those facts, be did no= feel adding addi=ional landfill~ ~ould h~Ip the problem. Mr. ApDlegat~ ~nquired if the report re~ealed different facts, landfill in the Matoaca District wa~ not going to in any way degrads tbs well water he could consider it favorably. days ~ntil after the work session. Mr. Daniel s~ated he did feel another landfill was npcessary Mr. Currin empha$i~ th~ fact that %har~ is ill~gal d~ping going on which conld b~ worse than an official landfill and there is no illegal d~ping whsther there i~ an lan~fi!i or mot. Mr. Currin agreed bu~ s=a=e~ there are leqal guidelines issued by the State and ~e Federal gover~en~ ~hat pxovid~ for certain 0on~i=ions by which ~ landfill facility can be built and there are no guidelines/proc~dUre~ for illegal .land,ill operations. ~r. ~ayes referenced a letter he had writteu to County officials dealing with safe waste disposal of solid waste and the need for this oon0ern to be a priority. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, that th~ Board de~erred consideration of Case $7S133 until Septe~e~ 28, 1988. 88SN0063 In Midlothian Magisterial District, requested Conditional Usa Planned Development to permit a 198 foot tower plus bulk leetbaok) exceptions in a convenience Business lB-l) District. This request lies on a 0.2 acre parcel ~renting approximately 40 feet on the west line of Buford Roa~ approximately 508 feet north of Midlothian Turn- pike, Ta~ Map 18-15 (1) Part of Parcel 16 Mr. Jacobsen stated the Plannlnq Commission deferre~ consideration of Case 88SN0063'until September 20, 1988[ therefore, ~t would he appropriate for the Boar~ of Supervisors to defer considermtion of said case until September 28, 1988, On mo=ion of Mr. sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currint the Board deferred consideratlo~ of Ca~e 88SN0063 until September 28, 1988. Vote: Unanimous Uandmark designation for CHALKLEY P~EIDENCE. ~Loca%ed in Dale Magisterial District on property fronting the north line of and bett~r known as' 4600 Centralia Road. Tax Map 97-1 Parcel 20 (shat= Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning C~mmission and Preservation Committe~ reconunanded approval of Landmark Designation for chalkley R~sidenoe, basod on the following findings and a single recommended oondttiou$ 1. This is e distinguished building o~ high architectural quality and historic interest; and 2. This designation will cause no significant adverse effect on the futur~ development of the County. No one came forward =o repreaen~ =he request. There was no opposition pre~ent. On motion of Mr. Daniel, s=condud by Mr. Noyes, thc Board approved historic landmark designation for the Chalkley R~sidaneu, described as foll~ws and subject to the following condition: Chalkle~ Residence - Located in the Dale Magisterial Distr~ct on property fronting the north line of Centralia Road, approximately 350 feet east of ~opkin$ Road, and better known as 4600 Centralia Road,. Tax Map 97-1 (1], Part of Parcel 20 (Sheet 32). 88-546 CONDITION This designation shall not apply to any propsrty required for the planned relouation of Ropkfns Road or the planned widening of Centralia Road. Vote: Unanimoum Landmark designation ~o~ ~ I~ZSIDZNCE. Located in Ba~mnda Magisterial District cn proper~y fronting the south line of Centralia Road and the we~t line of Centralia Station, and b~t~e~ knowD as 4~I5 Centralia Road. Tax ~ap 97-2 {1) Paroel 24 (Sheet 32). Mr, Jaoobs0n stated the Planning COmmission and Pr~serva~i0n Ccmmitt~ reco~endp~ approval of Landmark Designation for Clark Residence, based on the following findings and a single recor~mended conditions 1. This is a distinguished building of high architectural q~allt~ and historic inte~t; and 2. This designation will cause no significant adverse effect OD the future development of the County. o~position present. approved historic Ian~ark designation for the clark Residence, Clark Re~idenc~ - Located in the Be~uda ~agisterial Distric~ Road, Tax Map 99-5 (1), ~arcel 24 (Sheet 32), This designation ~hall not apply to any property required for the planned relocation of ~opkins Road or the planned wi~ening of Centralia Road. 88HP0011 Landmark ~signe~ion fez C~CL~ OAK~. Located in Dale Magisterial District on property fronting the north lin~. of Centralia Road at Contralia S~a~ion, and better k~own a~ 4510 Centralia Road. Tax Map 97-6 {1) Parcel 8 (Shee~ Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission end ~reservation Committee x~commended approval o~ Landmark Designation for Circle Oak~, based on the following findings and a single recommended condition: 1. This is a distinguished building of high architectural quality and historic interest; and 2. This designation will cause no nignifiuaDt adverse effect on the future development of the County. No one came forward to represent the request. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dani~l~ ss=ended by Mr. Mayes, th~ Board approved historic land, mark designation for Circl~ 88-547 described as follows and subject to the fellowing condition: Circle Oaks Located in the Dale Magisterial District on property fronting th~ north line of Centralia Road at Centralia Station, and better known as 4510 Centralia Road, Tax Map ~1), Parcel 8 (Sheet 32). CONDITION Thi~ desiqnahion shall not apply to any property required far the planned relocation of Hopkins Road or the planned widening of Cantralia Road. VOte: Unanimous Landmark designation ~or RACJ~%ND HOUSB. Located in Dale Magisterial District on property fronting the north line of Centralia Road at Hopkins Road, and better known as 4626 Centralia Koad. Tax Map 97-1 (1) Parcel 5 (Sheet 32). Committee reoo~ended approval of Landmark Deeignation for R~gland ~ouse, based on ~he following findings and a single 1. Thi~ i~ a distinguished building of high architectural quality and historic interest~ and ~. This designation will cause no significant adverse e££ect oppoPieien pre,eat. approved historic landmark designation for Ragland House, ~escribe~ as follows and subject ts the followlnq condition: on property fronting the north line of Centralia Road at g7-1 (1), Parcel 5 (Sheet 32). CONDITION This designation shall not apply to any property raquire~ for the planned relocation of Hopkins Roe~ or the planned wide~ing of Centralia Road. 85HP0013 Landmark designation for C~RY~f~$ ~OUSE. Located in the Dale Ma~isterlal District on Dro~%~--~-~ting the north line of Centratia Road, approximately 5~0 f~et east of ~0pkins Road, an~ better known as 454G Centralia Road. Tax ~ap 97-1 ~arcel 7 (sheet Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Co~missien and Preservation Committee recommended approval of Landmark Designation fo~ Grymes House, based on' the following findings and a singl~ recommended condition= This is a distinguished building of hiqh erchit%ctural quality and historic intmrest; and This designation will cause no significant adverse effect on the future development of the County. No one came forward tO represent the ~equ=st. Ther~ was no opposition present. approved historic landmark designation for Grymes House~ d~scribed as follows and subject ~o the following condition: Gr!rmes H0u~ - Located in the Dale Magisterial District on property ~ronting the north line of Centratia Road, approx~ imately 580 £eet east of Hopkins Road, and better known as 4540 centralia Read, TaX Map 97-1 (1) Parcel ? (Sheet 3Z;, CONDITIQ~ This designation shall not apply to any property r~quir~d for the planned relocation of Hopkins Road or the planned widening of Centralia Road. Vote: Unanimous 88S~0051 In Clover ~ill Magisterial District~ CBNTRAL ~IDELIT¥ BANK requested rezoning from ~grioultural (A) to Rssido~tial (a-l~). A single family residential subdivision is Dtanned. This request lies on a 4.1 acre parcel fronting approximately 781 Road. Tax Map 39-14 I1) Part of ParuoI 6 (Shsst 14). Mr. Jacobsen stated th~ ~lanning Commission r¢c0~mend~d approval of Case 88SN0051 and ao0eptenee of t~e applicant's proffered condition. Mr. Jim Keyes, r~presenting the applicant, stated tbs present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, secon~ by ~r. Daniel, the Board approved Ca~e ~8~N0051 and acceptsd the followlng proffered eendition= The lets will be sub~e~% to the eonditions~ covenants, tion IX as r~corded in the Clerk's Offioe~ Circuit Court of Ch=uterfi=Id County in Deed ROOk l~O0, Page 272 and th~ Construction G~idelin~s as recorded in Deed ~ook 1385, Pagu 597, provided such conditions, covenants, limlta- tions, r~quir~ment~ and reservation do not conflict with any r~quirem~nts of the ~oning Ordinance. Vote: Unanimous 8~SN0052 In ~a=oaea Magf~terial District, ROBERT C. CO,NELL requested rexoning from Agri=ultural (A) %O Residential (~12). A singl~ family r~sidentlsl subdivision is planned. This request lies on a 17.9 acre pars~l fronting approximately 365 f~t on south line of Centralia Road~ approximately 580 fs~t east of Bollyberry Drive, and also lying at the eastern termini Greenfinch Road and Meadoweod Lane road~. TaX ~ap 86-6 ~rcel 2t and Tax Map 96-10 (1) Paruels 6 and 29 (sheet 31). Mr. Jacobsen stated tbs Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 88sN~052~ subject to ~ single condition. 8S-549 Mr~ D~l~en%e Lewis, ~ep~esenting the applicant, accepted tko On motion of Mr. Mayem, seconded by Mr~ Currin, the Beard A fifty (50) feet building setback and buffer s~rip, est~blished and maintained adjacent to Centralia Road (Route 145}. The area Of this buffer strip ~hall ~ither be left in its natural state, if sufficisnt vegetation exists to provid~ adequate sercenin~ or be planted and/or bermed in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Department, if sufficient vegetation does not exist to provide adequate screening. Prior to approval of any final ~ite plan or recordation of any plat, the developer shall flag this buffer for inspec=ion, ~nd shall post a bond to cover the implementation of th~ landscape plan, if such plan is required. Except for approved public road access(e~), no access shall be permitted ~.hrough %his buffer strip. ~his buildin~ setback and buffer ~trip shall be noted on any final site plans, and any £inal shock and reuordatlon plats. The Planning Commission may modify e-biz condition at the time of ~ite plan or tentative subdivision review. (BAT) Vots~ 'Unan~on~ In Bermuda Magisterial District, J~S ~. DAI~IEL$ requested rezening from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (M-l) en 3.0 acres and to Heavy Industrial (M-3) on 1.5 acres for a total of 4.5 acre~ fronting approximately 256 feet on the east line ef Old ~tage Road, approximately ~00 feet north of Bermuda ~lace D~ive. Ta~ Map 116-16 {2) Seaboard Small Farms~ Lot 7 (sheet ~r. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 88SN~053, subject to a single condition. NO one came forward to represent the request. It was generally aqresd to place Case 88SN005~ in its regular sequence on tho ~genda to allow the applicant an opportunity to appear. 88SN0060 amendment to Conditional Use Planned Developmsnts ICas~s 81S018~ 82S054~ and 86S024) relative to signs. This request parcel f~onting epprox/~ately 280 feet on th~ ~at line of Boulevard, =nd located in ~= northwest quadsant of the inter- $~otion of these roads. Tax ~ap 40-6 {~) Wares1 64 {Sheet 15). approval of Case 88SN0060, subject to a single condition. Mr. John G. Dick~, III, representlnq the applicant, stated reco~ended cendltien wa~ acceptable. There was no opposition present. When asked, Mr. Bick~ in~icate~ twenty (20~ feet les~ than th~ h~i~ht of the existing ~iqn. on motion of Mr. Dahlel, ' 6eoonded by Mr. Mayer, tko Board approved Case 88SN006Q~ subject to the following W~%h ~h~ exemption of directional signs, only one (1) freestanding sign~ not to ~xcee~ 91.41 squa=~ feet in area and twenty (!0) feet in heiqh~ shall be p~rmittsd 88-550 identify this development. The sign shall hays translu- cent letters and an opaque signfield. (P} (NOTE= This condition modifies Condition 4 of Case ~2S05~ {Amended).) @SSN0061 Ia M~toaca Magisterial District, IRO~P. ID~ D~r~)~NT requested am~n~e~= =~ Conditional Use Planned DevelOpment (Cases 78S105, 86$097, and 87S035} ~e~ative to signs and permi: use and bulk exceptions. A mixed us~ developmeht, to inctud~ r~siden%ial~ office, and co~roial U$~, is This reques~ lies in Residential ~R-7), Residential (R-tS) and Convenience Business (B-l) Distriet~ on a total of 384.5 acres fronting in two (2) places on the northeast line of Ironbridge Road for a total of approximately 4,460 fe~t, across from Lewis Road. Tax Map 114-2 (1} Pmrcelm 1 and 3: Tax Map 114~5 (1) ~zcel 3; and Tax Map 114-6 (1) Parcels 1, 16, and 17 (Sheet Mr. Ja0obson state~ the Planning Co--lesion reco~ended approval of Case 8~S~0~61, subject =o u~rt~in conditions. Mr. Slenn Moore, representing ~]e applicant, stated the reco~ended conditions are acceptable. He stated on~ Of other owneIs of property i~ ~ronbridge has expressed a concern regarding the proposed development of the condomini~ ~it~, ~n~ stated that th~ appli=ant has mad~ am agreement with that owner that Tract D will be developed for condominium purposes, following development, no more then three (3) units will be sold to anF one individual or =ntity. Mr. Daniel expressed concern relative to enforcement Of proposed agr~m=nt an~ requested the ease be heard in regular sequmnce. 88~0075 In Midlc~hian ~agisterfel District, VILLA~ ASSOCIATSS requested amendment to Conditional USe Planned Development (Case S~S~42) to pe~mit an additional drive-in restaurant. This request lies in a Community Business (~-2) Die,rio% on 1.43 acre parcel fronting approximately 222 feet on the north line of Midlothian T~rnpike, ~pproximately 50 feet west of old Buckingham R~ad. Tax Map 16-9 (t! Parcel 53 lsheet 7). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended original sits plan and architectural style would be amended and reviewed at schematic pl~ ~ubmlttal. Mr. Edward Will,y, 3~., repre~en~ing the applicant, stated th~ recommendation is acQeptable. There was no opposition present. When asked, Mr. Jacobsen indicated eon~¢rns regarding architec~uraI deeign had been addressed and r%solved. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved Case Vo{e: Unanimous 88SN0081 In ClOVer Mill Magisterial District, J~PFERSON NATIONAL ~ requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Convenience Business (B-i) with Conditional ~se Planned Development to 88-551 permit use and bulk ex=options. A bank with drive-through window is planned. This request lies on a 2,6 acre parcel fronting approximately 582 feet on the northwest line of Hull Street Road, also .fronting approximately 391 feet on the south line of Hicks Rued, a~d located in ~he nurthwest quadrant of the intersection of thee~ road~_ Tax Map 39-11 (1) Parcels 39, 48, and 42 (shell 14). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning C~nmissinn recommended approval of the exception to the 10-acre requirement and denial of the setback ox0eption along Hicks Road for Case 888~0081, a~bj~ct to certain conditions. Nr. Edward ~ill%y, Jr., representing the applicant, stated th= race, ended conditions were acceptable. Mr. Applegate stated there was opposition present; ~eked that a presentatLon be made so the concerns of residents alonq Route 3~ could bo addressed and requested that the case be heard in its regular sequence on the agenda. In Bermuda Magis%ariel District, WA~ES V. DA~$ requested re,cuing from Agricultural {A) to Light Industrial (M-Il On 3,0 acres and Lo ~ea~y Industrial (~-3) on 1.53 auras for a total of 4.5 acres frentinq approximately 256 feet on the east line Of 01d Stag= Rued, approximately 300 f~t nost_h of Bermuda Place Drive. Tax Map 116-16 (2) Seaboard Small Farms, Lot 7 (Sheet 32). Mr. Ja0obson stated the Planning C~ission recommended approval of Case S~SN0053, subject to a single condition. Mr. James V. Daniels stated the recormmended condition approved Ca~e ~8SN0053, subject to the following condition: A minlm~ 100 foot buffer~ m~asured from ~e ult~at~ right cf way ~or Old Stage Road, shall be ma~ntaine~ alon~ the w~tern prup~rty boundary adjauent to etd Stage Road. With the exception of signs~ utilities, landscaping, driveways, a~'approved by the TranGportation and Planning Depar~ents and VDOT~ there shall be no facilities within ~hi~ buffer. Landscaping shall be installed within thi~ buffer, %h~ exact ~ount amd ~p~cie~ of plants to dete~insd at the time of sits plan revimw. A dmtailed landscaping plan depicting this requirement ~hall be s~mltted to the Planning Depar~ent for approval in conjunction with' site plan review. At ~uch time that iudu~tri~l u$~, this buffer may ~e modified. Vote: Unanimous In Ma/casa Magisterial District, I~ONBRIDGK D~/KLOi~IT requeste~ amendment ~o Condition~l u$~ Planned Development (Ca~e~ 788105, 868097, and 878035) Telative to signs and to permit use and bulk exceptions. A mixed use development, to include residential, of£ice, and commercial ~ses~ is planned. This request lies in Residential (R-7), Residential (R-15) and Convenience Business (B-i) Districts on a total of 384.5 acres f~on=ing in two (2) places on =he northeast line of ironbridge Road for a total of approximately 4,46D feet, across from Lewis goad. Tax ~ap 114-2 (1) Parcels 1 and 3; Tax Map 114-5 Parcel 3; and Tax Map 114-6 (1) Parcels 1~ 16, and 17 (Sheet 88-552 Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Co~m~isslon race--ended approval of Case 88SN0061, subject he certain conditions. Mr. Glenn Moore, representing Ironbridg~ Development Company, e~plain~d th~ requested amendments to =he Conditional Use photograph of a condominium development that is comparable to and explained that his previous statement relative tc an agreement between two of the developers within the Ironhridge pro,eot regarding Condominiums is a private commitment, which Mr. ApplegaCe excused himself from the meeting. style of the proposed condomlnlum~, gign oompliaDos approved for the project, ~tc. relative to its impact on th~ ar~a school attendance capacities ~. Appleg~te returned ~o the meeting. approved Ca~e 88SN006t, subject to th~ following conditions, including =he addendum: 1. The Textual State. men~, comprised of the letter dated April to the following conditions. nan:e, subject to the following exceptlon~ and additional a. The tract shall be developed generally in accordance with~ and reflecting the general spirit ~d intent of, the plan en~i~!ed "Ironbrid~e MElti-~OUSing Density Site Plan," prepared by ~eckztoffer and Associates, dated b. No more than eigbty-~ight (85) unite shall Ds c. No one {1) huildin~ shall contain more than eight (8) units. d. ~o units shall contain ieee than 1,000 square u. No building shall exceed two and on,-half 1/2) stories in height at its ~ront building f. Separate buildings for ~torage of items owned by residents of the tract may be con~tructed on the tract, provided that the architecture of such storage buildings shall be compatible with the architecture of the principal buildings on the tract. g. A community center, as dspicted on Exhibit P, or use of a comparable alternative to it, shall be provided. h. Two {2) pa~king spacer shall be provided per unit. i. The tract need not meet the minimum paros! size. j. A thirty-five (35) foot building setback and buffer strip, exclnslve of easements, Shall be establishsd and maintainsd along the entire peri~eter of the tract. This building setback and huf~er may be reduced, where it adjoins a com~]on ar~a, one (1) foot for every one (1) fact of adjoining common area, but shall not be reduced to less than twenty-five {25) feet. The area within chis buffer strip shall be planted~ bsrmed, and/or left in its natural state in accordance with the landscaping plans approved at plan of development {P.O.D.~ review. A bond shall be posted to cover the implementation of certificate of occupancy. Ne access shall be permitted through this buffer, sxaapt a~ permit- ted at P.O.D. review. Thi~ building setback and buffer strip shall be noted on the P.O.D., both preliminary and final site planS. The Planning Coramisslen may modify this building setback and buffer strip at P.O.D. review. (NOTE: This condition supersedes Item I~, A April l~, i988, of the Master · Within B-1 districts in this Planned Development~ with the exception of outdoor advsrtisin~ signs, ali signs includ- ing dir~¢tienaI sign~, shall be ~et back at least fifteen (t5} feet from ell property Iines, unlesu a greater set- back is specified. ~ewever, along public rights oi way, thi~ ~etbaok may be ~educed to a minimu~ of twenty {20) 'feet from the edge cf pavement or face of curb, but in no from th~ property Iinu (~ight of way line], provided ~hm owner o~ such sign shall relocate th~ ~ign to confo~ to (NOTE: This condition super$~dss in part Paragraph (c), 1988, Of the ~aster In A Tracts, the followlng side yard shall apply: Each side yard shall be not less than ten (10} feet. yard only, to not l~s~ than eight {8) f~e%, and may i~sue a building permit reflecting ~uch, provided that: a. A oompensatory increase has been made to the min~ side yard on ~e opposite side o! the s~e lo%, so that the two (2) side yards on the lot total no less ~han twenty {10) feet, and minim~ side yard on the ~uttin~ side of the 88-554 i adjoining lot, so that the two (2} abutting side yard~ total no 1~$~ than twenty (201 feet, and such compensatory increase has been recorded; The buildable area does net encroach into any ea~ementm. (NOTR~ Thi~ condition s~p~r~ede~ Paragraph (5} of Attachment 1 to the letter da=ed May 9, of the Master Plan.) 5. Public watsr and sewer ~hall be used. (U) Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and M~. Abstention: Mr. Applagate, us he was absent snd ~i~ not have 885M008I In Clover Hill ~agis=eriaI District, u~rRP~ON NATIONA~ BAN~ requestsd rezoninq irom Agricultural (A) to Convenience Business {B-ii wi~h Con~itlonal Use Planned Development to permit u~e and bulk exe~ption~. A bank with drive-through window is planned. This request lies on a 2.6 acre parc%l fronting approximately 35~ feet on =he northwest line of Hull Street Road, al~o fronting appromimately 391 feet en the line of Hicks Road, and located in tko northwest quadrant of the intersection of the~e road~. TaX Map 39-11 (1) Parcel~ 39, 40, and 42 (Sheet 14). ~z. Jacobsen sta~ed tbs Planning Commission recommended denial of an exception to the setback requirement along Hicks Road and approval of r~zonlng wi~ Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a bank with a drive-in wind~ and an exception to the ~u~ary cf the p~oposed request; submitted copies of peeitlons with ~he signatures of ~wenty-foux (24) area r~sidents in favo~ 0f the proposed u~e ~d a map identifying ~eir respectlvs propertims in relation %o =he subject ~ite; exDlained ~r~ an a~reement on file indicating the site plan, as proposed, will be adh~zed tQ with Lyn~a!e ~aptist Chapel for shared the appli=ant. ~a. es=her Flynn voiced opposition to the requsst for an not designated as co~ercial property and ~hould not included in this r~zoning reque$5; a~ ~tate~ she felt othsr area propsrty ownsrs, interssted in ~ellinq their pr0perty~ are not being treated fairly. he felt staff had adequately addr~$seO ~=es~ concerns on Hicks Road and Route 360, the %eh (10) ac~e requirement, etc. On motion of Mr. Applegahe, ~onded by ~r. Sullivan, the Board approved B-t zoning and a Conditional Us~ Planned Development grant an exception to the requirement ~or a ten {10) acr~ minimum Site for a d~v~l~pa~ent with a drive-in window in the Corridor Overlay District, s~jeGt =o :he following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan revised June 3, 1988, and s~mit%~d %o ~he Planning Depar~n% Ju~e 15, 1988, shall be considered the Muster Plan fo~ th~ proposed bank. {P) 88-5S~ (Note: The driveway for the proposed automatic teller machine must be relocated to' comply with the Rooto 360 Corrldo~ Overlay District setback requirements for drive- way8 ad~aoent to ma3or arterial reads.) 2. Uses shaiT' be limited to those permitted in an Office Business (0) District plus a bank with d~ivo-in windows and an automatic teller machine. 3. Public water ~hall be u~d~ 4. At suck time that public ~wer is mxtended to within feet of th~ reques~ site, the owner/~eveloper shall public sewer to the ~it~ and connect all structures to public sewer. 5. All r~noff shall be directed into storm water management detention and/or retention basins(s) unless, at the tim~ of ~te plan review, the Environmental Eng~neerlng Depart- ment determines that these facilities are not necessary. within the setbacks along Hull street Road and ~icks Roa~, all ~xisting v~getation eight (~) inches in caliper or greater and ornamental ~hF~bs in healthy condition shall be retained. Detailed landscaping plans depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within thirty (30) days of rough clearing and gradinq. (P) 7. Prior to the release of a building permit, forty-five {45~ feet of right of way, measured from the cen~rline of Hicks Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Ches=erfield, free and unrestricted. (T) 8. Prier to the issuance of an occupancy ~ermit, an addi~ion- al lone of pavement, curb, and gutter shall ba construct=d frontage, to include a right-turn lane for the proposed access onto Hicks Roa~. 9. "Handicapped" parkln~ spaces shall he located close to the building entfan¢~ and shall b~ dGnigned with access from both sides of a vehicle directly to a sidewalk. 10. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan. {NOTE: The preperty lies within the Route 360 Corrider 0ver~ay District and must comply with Overlay District standards. The~e ~tandafds will require r~de~ign cf the proposed improvements to comply with minimum setbacks r~quired interior parking lot landscaping.) Vote: Unanimou~ It was qenerally agreed ths ~oard would recess for two (2) ~inutes. 88SN0042 In Ma~oaca Magisterial District, SIL~ER CONVENI]~CE C~NT~RS ~-0~ requested amendmen= to conditions of zoning (Casu 758072) 8~-556 acrs parcel ironting approximately 320 feet on the west linc of south line of $omerlane Road, and located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 163-1 Parcel 13 {SheeL 49). Mr. Jacobsen stated ~he ~lanning C~mmission recommended approval of Ca~e 88SN0042, subject to a single condition and denial of the applicant's proffered condition. Mr.' Judd H0naker, representing the applicant, stated the applicant did not feel the recommended condition was in ~he best interest of the use of the property or permitted the safest flow for traific. He stated the applicant met with eighty (80} area residents who fa~or access to Harrowgate Road and referenced submittal of petitions with signatures of area No one came ~orward to speak in favor Of or in opposition to the proposed request. Mr. Mayas expressed concerns relative to the safety hazards of into the proposed development and stated he agreed that the Harrowgate Road access ~hould be designed as an exit only and should ~e located a~ far away as possible from the $omerlane/Sarrowgate Roads intersection. Mr. McCraoken indicated the applicant has submiee~ site plans tha~ depict =he proposed entrance/exit driveway with direct access to Harrowgaee Road as being approximatsly ~00 feet scu~h of the intersection of somerlan~/Harrow~ate Roads ~ntersec~ion; stated ~taff feels .this access should be located further south away from the Somerland/Eaxrowgate Reade intersection; and noted the two 12) proffered road improvements are n~c~$ary provide adequate and ~afe turning movements regardless of wh=ther accusu is limited to an exit only or an Mr. Mayas state~ he felt unrestricted access would create could net support the applicant's proffer with respect to more than one access to Harrowga~e ROad. On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by ~r. Sullivan, %h~ ~card aDproved Case $8SN004~, subject to the following condition,' and denied accapt~nc~ of the pro,fared conditions: ACCess shall be confined ~o Some=!ane Roa~ and ~arrnwgate ~oad. The E~rrowgate Road acoas~ shall he dealgned as an e~it only and shall be 10eared as far away from the $o~erlane/Harrowgate Roads intursection as possible. ICRC) (~OT~ This condition mudi~iea Condition I of Case 75S072 for ~he subject property only. Condition I of Case remains in effect on the Dropert~ located in the northwest ~oads. All other somditions' of Case 75S872 remain in offset.) Veto: Unanimous 88SN0064 In Midlothian Magisterial District, SPI{INC~FIELD ~A~ reqne~ted re~oning from Agricultural (A) to General Business (~-3} on 3.01 acres and' Qeneral Industrial (~-2} on 18.3. acres. A commercial/indu~trX~l cor~plex wi~h .outside ~torage ~s planned. 88-557 Thi~ request lies on a 20.6 acre parcel fronting approximately 460 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, measured from a point approximately 800 feet west of Old Eundred Road. Tax Map 13 Il) Parcel 15 (Sheets 5 and 6). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recon~snded denial ef the rescuing to R-3 end M-2 and approval of a Conditional Use, subject to certain conditions. Sullivan requested that, in view of the applicant's absence, 885N0062 In Midlo~hian Magisterial District, CONrail Cm~T.~%i~, INC. requested Conditional Us~ Planned Development to pa~mit a 198 ~oot tower plu~ bulk (setback) exceptions in a Community Business |B-2) District. This request lies On a 0.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the east line of North Providence Road, approximately 200 feet perth cf Midlothian Turnpike. Ta~ Map 18-i5 (1) Parcel 15 (sheet Mr. Peele soared the Planning Commission recommended denial of Case 888N0062 as there was citizeD opposition which expressed concerns relative to whether or not the tower would present a safety prcbl=m 'for ar~a business establishments. He stated~ however, staff recommended approval since the property is currently zoned Community Business (B-2) and could he developed for a variety of commercial uses; there are ~ilar towers in the area which do not appear to have had any apparent adverse impact upon adjacen~ oo~ercial properties; and the recon~=nded conditions will mi~imi=e the posaibili=y of any a~verse ~pon 'area development. Mr. Jay Wei~berg~ representing the applicant, presented a s~arization of the proposed ~qu~st an~ stated the reGo~ended co~dition~ are acceptable. Mr. Dan Wilkins~ a cellular telephone user~ ~oiced support cellular oo~unication .%ewers a~d ~elephone services as ~ey a~e beneficial not only for professional and bu~in~s~ u~$ but aisc personal u~ea to thoS~ like himself who are handicapped and r~ly on this type of co~unication service. Mr. Edward Will,y, Jr, representing several area property owners, voiced opposition to the proposed' request a~ it considered %o adversely impac~ area pr0p~r~y values, is an aesthetic detriment, likely to increase ~e incidents of ground lightning occurrences, et~. ~e enc0u~a~ed the applicant ~eek alternatives to the proposed request by eider utilizing ~th~r l~cation~ for its Rr~. carolyn Wright, operator of the QQod Shepherd Christiun Day Care C~nter; ~r. W. S. Pinchbeck, r~alt~r; Dr. A. Sowers, representing Patient First, who submitted info~ation o~ ~owers and their negative impact and possible ground lightning occurrences; and Mrs. Netti~ MeC~n~y~ voiced thc proposed use would detrimentally ~pac~ thei= previously submit%ed petitions f~om parents of children attending the ~ay car~ c~nter, indicating their children would b~ withdrawn from the center if the tower were Mr~ Weinberg presented petitions to the Board containing signatures of approximately 200 person~ who SuppOrt the desired in opposition. ~ stated the applicant ex~ned thirty-six (36) alternative sites within ~he vicinity in an effort 88-558 another site with Mr. Wille~ for this tower, if he ware willing Mr. Sullivan stated tbs comments of both ~he propcnent~ and opponents to this request had been persuasive and he realized that the system is needed but felt the subject location might not be the mo~t suitabl~ ~ite for the tower. He stated he would like Mr. Weinberg, Mr. Wiltey and staff to e~a~ne alternative ~it~s for thc possible location of this tower. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Hr. Daniel, the Board deferred consideration of Case 88sN0862 until August 24, 19S8 to per, it Mr. Weinberg, Mr. Willey and staff to examine an There was further discussion ralativ~ to grid patterns; if there i~ a plan available to meet the demand of ~he private power, height, wattage of the system; the distance sepanatinq existlnq towers; vari~u~ types of frequencies; the appropriate locations for communication towers; etc. Vote: Unanimous 88SN0066 In Matoaca Magisterial District ~IL~IAM H. D~3V~ requested amendment to Conditinnal Use P~anned Development (Case This request lies in a Light Industrial [M-l) District on a 9.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 856 feet on the south line of ~ull street Road, aisc ~rontin9 approximately 450 feet intersection of these road~. Tax Map 75-4 (1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet 20). Mr. Jacobsen stated ~e ~lannin9 Co~ission r~co~nd~d the exception tha~ a drive-in or carry-out r~tauxapt not be Mr. John G. Dicks, III, representing the applicanh~ stated race--ended conditions, with th~ exeepttoD of the uxclusion acceptable. Mu stated the applicant ha8 received indications from area residents that they have no problem with a drive-in re~tauran% on the site; the applicant im agreeabI= to loeatlng the drive-in restaurant on ~e nor~w~tern of the site; the use can be acco~odated ~hrough appropriate internal read network, parkinq, etc. Mr. William Funai, representing area citizens, voiced support them that %key will discuss their schematic plans with them prior =o submit:al ~o ~he Mlanninq Mr. Mayas made a me,ion to approv~ Case ~SN0066, ~ubject to the conditions as reco~mnded by the Planning C~immion. Co~ission's reco~endation; ~e wording of Condition which o~tt~d the word not; citizen ~ppoft for the drive-in restaurant; eliminating laundromat$ as a permitted u~e, Mr. Jacobsen indicated ~here wa~ an error in condition 1.r., th~ Request Analysis a~d ~tated ~e condition should have included th~ word "not", 88-55~ After further ~is~u~ionr it wa~ on motion of Mr. Mayas, ~ecended by Mr. Daniel, resolved ta defer Case 88SN0066 until Auguzt 24, 195~, so that the reoo~endatiQn could be clarified. There was further discussion relative to ~]e intent of the Planning Commission recommendation; the appropriateness of the proposed usg~ otc. Mr, $a0obs0n indicated, in view of citizen support for the drive-in restaurant~ staf~'could support the ~e provided ~here is only one re~%au~an~ permitte~ and that it is located on the northwestern portion of the pa~eel near Route A VOte on ~le motion'was as follows: Ayes: Mr. ~aysa. Nays: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Curtis. Abstention= ~r. Daniel. Mr, Dicks stated staff's proposal regarding =he drive-in r~staurant wa~ aco~pt&ble and agreed to eliminate th~ laundromat use. Mr. Applagate asked if the applican~ would ~150 be agreeable t0 eliminating the coin-operated dry cleaning use. Mr. Dicks stated this was acceptable. On motion Of Mr. Currin~ seconded by ~r. Sullivan, th~ Board approved Case SSS~Q066, subject to the following conditions: ~s~m shall b~ limited to ~he following: a. Bakery goo'ds. Banks and Savings and loan associations, with or without drive-in windows, c. Barber or beauty shop. d. Book or stationery Brokerage. f. Camsra store. g. Candy store. h. Cleaning, prezsing, laundry drop-off and pick-ap £aciliti~s, not to include a plant. Drug ~t~re/pharmacy. j. Dry goods ~tore. k. Dairy products store. 1. Florist shop. m. Grocery store, with or without gasoline sales. c. Newspaper or magazine sales. p, Nursery schools, child Qr adult day care centers and kindergartens. q. Offices~ busineE~, governmental, medical and professional. r. Rose,uranus, including a maximu~ of cna (1) fast food or carry-out restaurant on the no~thwe~t portion of the site. s. Shoe repair shop. Tailoring and dressmaking shops. u. Telephone booth+ Variety st~re. w. Video store. Medical clinics provided that neither the business nor the building ie designed to accommodate ambulance traffic. y. Optometrist sal~$ and servic~ provided that: done by an Optometrist as an accessory uae in conjunction with a m~dieal prac~ice~ and the gross floor area may he devoted to Temporary construction ~railers/b~ildings provided that~ The temporary structure shall be devoted exclusively to construction activities on %he premises; and The temporary structure shall be removed upon completion er abandonment of construction activities. aa. Veterinary offices provided that~ (1) No ~oar~ing is permitted; (21 No outside runs are permitted; and ~o overnight care is permitted. bb.- ~otar vehicle accessory store provided that: (1) No motor vehicle repair shall be permitted; (2) Ne partm shall he installed on the premises. cc. Print dd, SChOOlS - commercial, trade, music, driving and training, vocational, and buminess. (NOTE~ This condition supersedes Condition 11 of CaMe 85S03~ and the approved Textual Statement f~r Deer Run, Conditicng for Parcel E, 1 through The entire property ~hall be developed in accordance with the Reu~e 360 corridor overlay District requirements. Individual s=ores and shops shall nec exoeed ~0~0 square feet of gross iloor urea if located within 200 f~t Of residential district or area currently zoned agricultural end shown on ~h~ General Plan for residential ~se~ and iR Individual project~ shall not exceed 5,000 equate feet gross floor area per acre. All Structures, to include gasoline canopies, shall have an archltectur~l s~y!e compatible with surrounding .residential neiqhborhood~. Normal hours of operation ~hall be restricted to 6=00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight. Public water and ~ewer ~hall be used. The own~/devel~per shall e×ten~ public sewer to the sit~ and obtain all necessary easements at his own expense. (U) Within the setbacks along Hull Stree~ R~ad and Deer Run Road, all existing vegetation elgh~ (~) inches in caliper or greater shall be retained. Detailed landscaping plans d~picting this requirement shall be submitted for approval within thirty (39~ days of rough clearing and grading. the time of schematic plan review, the Planning Commission may modify this Condition. Additional lane ~f p~ement shall he constructed al0~g eastbound ~eu%e ~0 to Drov~e a third through-lan~ for the entire property frontage and a $~p~rate right ~urn ~rior ~o the i~uanoe of a building permit, 100 feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Route 36Q, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, fr~e and unrestricted. 88-561 {NOTES: a. Except as noted, all condition~ of zoning approved for Case $5S035 remain in effect. b. Prior to obtaining site plan approval or building permits, schematic plans must be submitted for approval. o. Th~ following scn~ition was imposed with the approval of Case $~$0~5: "Parcels A, S, ¢, D, and F shall be designed with an internal focus similar to development which has occurred at Brnndermill. Parking and buildings shell be d~igned to impart a character not representative of typical strip cor~,ercial development. At the time of schematic plan review for thes~ tracts, pa~eicular condi- tions may be imposed which further insure that th~ spirit and intent of thi~ condi- tion is met. Schematic plan for these parcel~ mhall includ~ the ~ntirm parcel and not part of a parcel. Buffers shall be provi~ within e~ch parcel where adjacent to residentially zoned property. The e~ast wi4th and treatment cf these buffers aha1! he addressed at the time of schematic plan Given the approved conditions of zoning~ the propose~ development must have an internal fOCus requiriDg a site ~esign that will minimize the impact of on-site activity upon adjacent properties, minimize the view of pa~king aream from public rondo an4 residential devetoumen~, and ensure that the development does not impart the impression o£ a typlsal strip commercial co~plex. It should be noted that, to comply with this requirement, parking area~ must be located on the interior o£ sites with the longest sides cf buildings fronting public roads. At the time of schematic plan review, specific recommenda- tions ~hall be made to en~ure c~mpliance with these requirements.) Ayes: ~r. Applapate, ~r. Sullivan an~ Mr. Cnrrin. Abstention: Mr. Daniel, as he felt the request should have bnnn deferred aS a courtesy to the district supervisor; and Mr, ~ayes, as ha felt the motion was contrary to the Planning commission's recommendation and he could not support it. (It is noted a verbatim transcript of Case 88s~0066 is filed with the papers of this Board at the request of Mr. Mayas.) 88SN0064 In Midlothian Magisterial District, SPR~H(~'~IO FAP.'q requested rescuing from Agricultural (A) to General Business (~-3) on 3.01 acres and General Industrial (~-2) on 1~.3 auras. A commercial/industrial c~pl~x with 0u~siae ~%orage is planned. This request lles on a 20.6 acre parcel fronting approximately 460 f~et on the north line Of Midlethia~ Turnpike, measured from a point approximately 800 feet west of Old Hundred Aced. Mr. Poole stated the Planning Con%mis~ion recc~nded d~nial of the rezon~ng to B-3 end M-2 and approval of a Conditional Use, ~ubject to c~rtain conditions. Mr. Aubrey Carr stated the recorm~ended conditions ware acceptable with the exception of oonditionm 4 and 5 and requemt~d that h~ b~ permitted ~o construct a ?,$00 square foot building and not be required to install curb and gutter since Thara was no opposition prasent. Mr. McCrackan stated that, evgn with limited use, at a minimum an additional lane of pavement and curb and gutter should he provided along the entire property frontage and would be conmistent with development along Route 60 but a phasing plan might be worked out to accommodate the requirement. Mr. Poole stated staff's intent, with zsspact to the size of the the t~mporary ~tatus of the permit and the intensity of t_he approved for only %an (10). years, with fh~ request ~o be brongh% back for review at the end of that period; and that he could agree with ~he phasing plan for th~ curb an~ gutter and leave condition B, relative to the buit~in~'"'mquar~ footage, as stated. After further discussion relative to ~creeging the proposed site, it was on motion cf Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Daniel, re~olv~ to d~ny rezo~ing to ~-3 u~ M-2 and to approve a Conditional Umm for Came 885N0064, subjeea to th~ fOllOwing con41~ions: 1. Uses permitted shall be limited to the preparation, storage~ and male of ~ulch~ topsoil and sawdust; landscape timbers; shone, slate, decorative gravel or similar material; bulk fertilizer and manure; and related land- scaping and ~rsery products, plus an associated 2,000 square foot building to accon~odate these uses~ only. The permitted u~e~ shall be set back a distance sufficient so as to be SCreened from view of Route 60 and adjacent properties, and in no ease shall any ~ermitted ~se located within 1OD fe~t of Route 60. (CPC) 3. Thi~ Conditional Use shall be granted for a pSrlo~ no~ to exo~s4 ten (10) years f~om date of approval and may be renewed by the Director of Planning upon ~ti~factory demonstration that the use has net adversely affected 4. Other than the 9,000 square foot building, thara shall bs no buildings or pole sheds permitted. (CPC} 5. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be can- an adequate right-turn lane. A phasing plan for providing these improvements shall be Submlttod to tbs Transporta- tion Department for approval. (NOTE= The property ties within the Route ~0 Co~ridor Overlay Dimtriet and must comply with fha Corridor Overlay Dimtri~t standa~d~, which ~mong other design criteria, will requir~ that outside sboraga and loading areas visuall~ mcr=enid frc~ Route 60 and adjacent properties, paving and landscaping of parking area and other design crit=ria. I 88-$6~ to resched~le the portion of the Executive Session relative .to ll.M. DINNER The Board recessed to travel to Howlett's Tavern for dinner. Reconvening: %1.N. ~UBLIC HEARINGS ll.N.1, TO CONSIDER A RRSOSUTIOM TO REQUEST T~H CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY TO 01{DER AN ELBCTION TO BE ~ELD IN THE COUNTY SHALL HA~ AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A MEALS {FOOD AND BEVERAGe)TAX ~%ND A POLICY 0F PLEDGING ~LL ~EUENUES FROM SUCH A TAX TO THE REPAYMENT OP DEBT ISSUED FOR $C~00L K~NOVATION Mr. Applega%e stated this date and time had bssn advertised for a public hearings to consider a resolution to petition ~he Circuit Court to order an elec~ion-~o be hold in ~h~ Connty on ~ovember 8~ 1988, upon the question of whether the County ~hatl have authority to impose a Meals (Food and Beverage) Tax and a policy pledging all revenues from such tax to the repayment of deb~ issued for school renovation. ~r. sullivan stated there hays been inquiries relative ~o his employment with a food service company being a conflict of interest with respmct to discussions of the meals (food and beverage) tax and questioned the County Attorney as to a legal epinlun on the matter. ~r. ~ica~ indicated the Virginia Conflict of Interest Act does pea%it Board me~b~s to participate in Board decisions i~ tho~e decisions have general application and hi~ offic~ i~ ~atisfied that the tax question is a question of general application across the County and thereles~ does not constitute a conflict of interest for Mr, S~llivan, Mr. ~tegmaier preeented information outlinin~ potential proje=te~ revenue, bond question issue~ and net funded amounts per issue, project description~, projected cash flow, cash flow necessary %o place each item~ a~ described~ on the referendum; alternative revenue ~ource~; how ehe County would provide funding for referenda issues that are approved by ballot vot~ scarf derived the ass~ption that 7~% of total restaurant sales will ~e ~ubject to meal~ tax; otc, Mr. Ray Ca~h, Mr. Ray Hendricks, ~. Linde Enverard, M~. V~rena McCall, Mr. S~ott Southard, M~, ~enny Gilliland, Mr. John Card.a, Mr. Larry Dodds, Mr. Daniel Smith, and Mr. Charli~ ~tlis voiced support for ~ propose4 r~solution ~s they felt th~ citizen~ of ~e County should d~cided wh~ther or no~ ~ assisting with the defra~mnt of school and oth~r agesci~s renovation cost~; that re~taurant~ have b~nefited financially from ~e County's growth, which has stretched school resources beyond capacity, and should be willing to reciprocate by assisting with the burden; it would not adversely impao~ businesses or tourism attractions; it would resolve th= air provide for the comfort and w~ll-b~ing cf ~he children$ etc. ~r, Chris ¢o0~win; az. Bill Walton? Mr. Roger Ellmore, representing the Richmond Metro Hotel/Motel Association; Mr. John ~uber, r~pre~en~ing ~pprcxi~ately 200 restaurant owners; Ms. Beverly Lesl Mr. Howard Kahn/ ~r. Wick Lyne, representing the Ch~sterfleld ~uslness Council, voiced opposition to the proposed resolution as they felt the tax is not the only alternative for raising money; =hat ~he %ax is discriminatory, unfair, and the legislation i8 flawed; that the imposition of such tax would a~versely impact business volu~es and generate unnecessary expenditures for equipment tO prQ~ide appropriate reoordkeeRing; the proposal as written {s vaque, ill-conceived and cannot be appropriately regulated; is an imposition businesses~ that the Board ~hould focus on long-term plans fox generating revenues for project needs, not succumb short-term political pressures and should fecu~ attention on ~r. Applegate closed the public hearing. Mr. Cnrrin ~ubmitted letters of oppoEitien f~em ~ constituent in his ~istrist; Mr. Applegate read a statement from Ms. Katherine G. Hargrave iD ~upporC of petitioning Circuit Court to place the question on The.belief; and Daniel gubmi%t~d letters of opposition from ~r. Wesley Bal and Western Sizzlin. Mr. Sullivan agreed that financing for the ~chool unfair, discr~inatory against merchants and i$ an i~ustice free en:exprise. He stated he had asked for and agreed with increasing the tax base to th~ maxi~ to ~e used fox education this ~hortfall. ~e minted h~ ~isagxeed with the way i~ which the law is written and ~uqge~{ed %hat the Board ask its board tax on all pf~Fared foods to the General Ass~ly for consideration and that au~urity b~ given to all wi~in the C~monwealth to establish systems that will be equitable to all concerned; that th~ real eztate ta~ rate be increased by 2% beyond ~e previously agreed upon rate; ~hat cikizens be qiven ~he 0pp0r~nity to ~eci~e i~ they quality education but not n% the expense of tho~e p~ople who dins 0ut~ =nd %hat tho Soard work with h~ and the County A~ini~tra%o~ to d~t~ine alternative funding sources aD~ glv~ =ha merchants an opDortunity to compete equitably. Mr. Currin stated he is a small business, person and has lilt, in the past, that ~om~tlmes taxes imposed upon small business prospered. ~e stated he could ~pa~i~e with th~ res%natant industry to a ~rtafn point; however, he did not fs~l :hey being singled out as any one particnlar portion of the adversely impact certain group~ in his di~tric~ drastically (the ~lderly, lower incom~ g~oups, e~c.) and he fe~t t~e meals (food and beveraqe) tax would impact a wider spectr~ of meal~ (food and beverage) tax, stated he has ex~ined the issue carefully and does not feel it i$ asking :oo much of the Board Mr. Mayes s~at~d he kuows of no.~axes that are equitable across the ~oard but he can ~e~ no other way to m~et %he 4~mands fox %he servicuu excep~ to impose the taxes that have been 88-565 recommended; stated neighboring jurisdictions impose meals {food and beverage) taxes and it appeer~ the tax ha~ nat advmrm~ly impacted their businesses; and voiced support for the tax and the resolution to petition the Circuit Court to place the question on the referendum to let the citizens decided the issue. Mr. Daniel stated he was pleased to see se many people present mplitting the County, pi~tiag growth versus no growth, where arrive at alternative means of generating revenue sources bat meals (food and beys:age) taxes are imposed in other not been available to chesterfield County until recent stated he does not feel it is an injustice for Chesterfield viability of increaming real estate tames to the implementation solving long-term capital problems; feels M~, Sullivan's reco~u~endatlon should move in parallel with the question being pre~ented to the vot~r~ for their decision as a method for addressing this problem. ~r. Applegate stated the needs outlined by the school pxoposal are real and need addressing; if action is not taken at this =ime to deal wi=h the problem, . it will only worsen; the County, including the businesn community, than the prodoss1 equitable within the community, ets., with regard to licensing; and felt the Board has reached a ~easonable solution to the problem. question and he in4icated the wording of the question may read, addition to the sales tax currently imposeS, da food and excse~ 4% of the amount charged for 8ueh food and b~verages?', which wording he stated is subject to being amended. '"Shall Chesterfield County have authority to impose a !desk the Code of Virqinia?" By adopting this resolution, the Board of Supervisors further cost of school improvement projects in the County. The County Attorney indicated that the actual ballet question may differ slightly from the proposed queatlnn as shown on the Board paper. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, ~r. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. It was generally agreed to recess for fiv~ (5} minutss. ll.N.2. A RBS0LUTION T0 REQUEST THE CIRCUIT COURT OF T~E COUNTY TO ORDER A~ BL~CTION TO ~E HELD IN T~ COUNTY O~ NOVF/4BER 8, 1988 UPON TB~ QUESTIONS OF AUTBORIZING THE COUNT~ TO CQ~TB~CT D=~T A~D ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF TBE COUWT¥ Mr. Applegate stated this date and time had been a~vertiscd for public hearing to consider a re~olution authorizing a referendu~ for November 8, 19~S~ permitting tho issuance of $135,900,000 in general obligation debt for school improvement projeetn and $29,9~0~000 for publi= improvement relating to libraries, parks and recreation, p~blic safety including fir~ ~tationS, police/fire training facilities and administrative facilities, and mental h~alth/mental retardation f$cillty. Mrs. Maria Keritsis, representing the Chesterfield County school Board; Mr, Ray cash; Mr. Jim Eendricks; Mr. Daniel Smith;. Mr. James ~all~ ~residen% O~ %he ~urrcywood Civic Association; Ms. Jo Trout, President of the P~ovide~ce Middle Ball PTA, voiced Support for the ~esolution authorizing the i~u~nce cf general obligation debt for school improvement proj~ct~ a~ they felt the educational system is a source of pri~e for ~he County and its citizens; the= i= is necessary preserve and maintain the quality of ~ucation available; the school improvement needs are compelling~ g~nuine and urgent if th= system is tc maintain parity among its older schools provide new 0ne~ whirs ~eces~ary; ~her: would be more support for the referendum if the conversion of ~anchester ~igh School to a middle school and the construction of a ne~ high school could be guaranteed, with or without the passage o~ ~he meals (food and beverage) tax; and requested the Board approve the resolution, MS. Sandra Claytcr stated she £elt the proposed bond referendum is a aery zhort-~ightsd sol~tion to the problems in the itsel~ such as impact fees and other growth-related revenue options; feels that each time her taxeE are rai~d to pay for new roads or schools related to growth .she~ is subsidizing developer's profits; and that tbs prepese~ bon~ referendum is neither a fair nor lasting solution. Mr. Ivan Perkinson; Ms. Carol Bollinger; Mi~ Rebecca Mr. Jonathan K~enan; ~. Ma~ ADh ~armon, Fxesident of the Friends of %h~ Chesterfield County Libraries; voiced support for the approval cf the resolution authorizing.the issuance of general obligation debt for library improvements as they feel th~se iacilities are stretched beyond their capacities with respect to space~ materiats~ etc., and should be ~aintained to the best standards possible as the services ~erived through libraries arc beneficial to one's individual education~ personal reading pleasure, etc. 8~-567 Ms. Elsie Elmor~ and Mr. Peter Ward, members of the Coalition of Human Services Boarda~ voiced support for the approval cf the resolution authorizing the issuance of general obligation de~t for mental healthlmen=al retardation improvement projects as the veriety of services provided Dy these agencies also axe impacted by the youth, elderly, lower income groups, etc., of th~ County; indicated ~hese services have suffered severe funding reductions from beth Federal and State levels and that further rodeo=ions, a= the County l~vel, will eritluatly impaa= Mr. Paul Baisey, President of the Salem Church Athletic Association; ~x. Don Unm~ssig, President of the County's baseball association~ and Ms. Kitty Belcher voiced ~upport for the resolution authorizing the issuance of general obligatiun debt for ~ark and recreation improvement projects as they felt these services are mos= beneficial, enrich the quality of life, continue to maintain and improve the level of services provided by the department by approving the bond reierendum. Mr. Daniel ~tae~d he realized the dollar ai~ounts of the proposed bond referendum are staggering~ however, ~he n~ed~ are genuine and require immediate att~nticn~ the referendum provides the opportunity for ~he public to advise the Board as to whether er not they are willing to pay for the debt issued by casting their vot~ on the ballot; the policies and procedures are in plac~ tO addrees access=abilities, the questions of needs have been answered and well defined~ the projects have been identified and brought forth by the public for action and non~ were deleted from the list; and he is prepared to vote to send =he issue~ ~orward. Mr. Mayes stated the ~eard me= ~he challenges of ~he budget; that they hav~ done the beat they could under the clrcu~- s~aness; the issues should ha placed on'the referendum and be ma~e for future ~udgst considnrations to eliminate snmn of the deficits being experienced and duplication of services. M~. Su!li~an expressed concerns relativ~ to th~ propo~d referendum jeopardising the County's bond rating; the possibility of a regional public eatery training center~ alternative mechanis~ for the financing of the mental health/me~tal retardation facility through lease-purchase; sources of reven~ee to fund the proposed improvement projects i£ the meals (food and beverage) tax fails, Mr. Ramsey stated that e%aff has been very concerned wi~h protecting the County's bond rating to which end a bond consul- tant was hired ~o ascertain the anount of debt that could be issued without placing that rating in j~opardy~ that since previous di~cussion~, staff h~ discussed =he proposed i~c~eaSed bond issuance with the consultant who remains of the professional opinion =.ha= ~he Coun=y issuing and properly managing the debt would protect its AA rating; that neighboring jurisdictions have indicated they were neither intereste~ Or prepared' to pursue a regional type public saiety training ~acility; that general obligation debt issuance is a expensive tsrPe Of financing th~n lea~e-purchase ~inancing to accomplish construction of a mental health/mental retardation facility. ~r. Currin stated there have been tremendous challenges for the Board to conquer but he felt, through th~' channels of communication with all departments and t-he school board~ a concerted effort has been ~ade by all involved to accomplish its goal. He state~ he is pleased wi~h the results thus and anticipateb that the public will bupport these =££ortu when ~hey vote in ~ovember. of ~he Manchester ~igh School to a middle school and the construction of a northern area high school not being accomplished should the meals (~ood and beverage~ tax fail on high school; impact fee committee report; pupil population overrun projections; eke. M~ stated ~e feetm ~a~ if quality o~ life currently eMimtinq in Chesterfield Ceunty today i~ not maintained, ~ere will be a det~rioratiom in quality of life, and much a deteriora=ion will do nothinq but action is in ~e best interest of the County as a whole and the County will profit by it to a greater d~ree. ~ ~OUS~ ~ ($165,800,000.00) FOR x~ P~SE OF F~CING ~ ~STS 0F ~L~C I~T P~CTS ~ ($135,900,000.00) FOR ~IT~ ~L ~~ P~$, N~ ~D ~ ~v~.a~ ($5,900,000.00) ~R ~ ~ CIRCUIT CO~T OF SUCH ~ ~ O~ER ~ ~-~CTI~ ~0N Supervisors"} of tbs Couney Of Chesterfield, Virginia 15.1-1~6 of the Code of Virqinia, 1950, requestinq :he ~oard an election upon the ~$tioa of authorizing the County to County in a principal amount of not to exceed One Hundred ($135,900,0Q0.00) for 'the 'purpose of financing the comt of capital ~chOO1 ~prOV~ment projects in the County, including ~, 1930, the Board of Supervisors is required to bold a earing (th~ *'Public Hearing"; , prior to adopting an initial r~molution authorizing the issuance of honds~ notice CZ ~ Public Hearing mhall have been published once a havinq g~neral circulation ~n the County or, and if there be in a newspaper published in an adjoinin~ counb~ or n~arby city and having a general circulation in tbs County, ~e second such first publication, which P~lic Hearing may be held at ~h~ which such r~olution is adopted, provided fha= ~he Public Hearing takes place p~ior %o such adoption; 89-569 W~EPd~AS, notice of the Public Hearing wa~ publtnhed in the RichmOn~ news Leader and Petersburg Pro~rcse Index newapaper~ of general circulation in the County On July 13, 1988 and J~ly 20, 1988' (th~ first such publication being at least two such publication being not le~ than One oalendar week thereafter); and WH~AS, the Public ~arinq was h~ld on July 27, 1988 pries =o ~e adoption o~ NOW, THE~FO~, BE I~ RESOLVED BY T~E BOA~ OF SUPERVISORS 1. It i~ h~reby d~t~rmin~ that it is advisable for County to contract debt and t0 issue general obligatiou Qf the County in the maxim~ amoun~ of One ~undred Sixty-Five Million Eight H~ndred T~ousand Dollars ($165,800,000.00) under 2h~ provisions of Cha~ter 5 of 'Ti%l~'~ 15.'1 o~ th~ 'Code virginia, I950 (~he same being ~he Publi~ Finan~ Act) , fo~ purpose of finahcing ~e o~s%~ of p~blid ~pxovemen~ projects in ~e County, such bond~ to evidence such debt to be iasued in %h~ max~ amounts and for ~e purposes sst ~orth beloW: [a} general obligation bon~s in the maximum projects, including 'the acquisition of ~ite~ for future school (b} general obligation bond~ in the maximum amount of Eleven ~illion Six 5undred Thou~an~ Dollar~ for p~lic safety improvement proj~ct~ in ~e County, including fire ~tation ~prov~mem%$ and a polic~ and fize training academy and related .a~inistrative faciliti~ (e} general obligation bo~ds in the maximum ~ount of Five Million Three 'Nundred Thuusana Dollars ($5,300,000.00] ~or park and recreation improvement projects in the County; (d) q~n~Eal obligation bonds in the maxim~ amount of Seven Million One ~undred Thousand DoIlar~ ($7,100,000.00) for library ~provsment projects in 'the County; and (e) general obligation bonds in the maxim~ ~ount o~ ~iv~ ~illion sine Eundxed Thousand Dollarz for mental health and mental retardation improvement projects in the County. 2. Th~ full ~alth and credit of the County ~hall be pledged to the payment of the principal of and interest on all of ~uch ~0nd8, a~d for ~0 long a~ any o~ such bonds are outstanding and unpaid there shall b9 annually assessed, levied iaxatlon by th~ County, an ad valorem tax without limitation rate or amount muffiei~n~ to pa~ the ~rincipal of and the 3. The Circui~ Court of the County, or any judge thereof, im hereby re~ested to order an election to be held the County on Nov~er 8, 1988 upon %he quos%ions of whether the County shall b~ authorized to contzact the d~b%~ and i~ue g~n~zaI obligation bonds of the County in the maximum and for th~ purposes set forth in paragraph 1. The Circuit Court of the County, or any jud~ thereof, is hereby further requested to enter such order on or b~fore September 7~ accordance with the provi$ion~ of Section 24.1-165 of ~h~ Code o~ virg.inla, 1950. 4. The Clerk of the ~ear~ of Supervisors shall file a certified copy of this resolution with the CirOuit Court of Coun=y, or any judge thereof. 5. Ail resolutions and proceedings in conflict h~rewith are, ~o th~ ex%ant of ~ueh ~Onflict, he=aby Iapsaled. The Board being polled, the vote was as Mr. Daniel: Aye, Mr. Mayas: Aye. MI. Sullivan~ Aye. Mr. Currin: Aye. ~r. Applega~e; Aye. 12. O~ motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, th~ ~Oar~ adjourned at 11:30 P.m. un=il $~3Q a.m. on August 2, Vote~ Unanimous chairman 88~571