Loading...
08-24-1988 MinutesBOA]~ OF -~UPERVISORS AUGUST 24, 19~ Superviscr~ in Attendance: ~r. G. H. Applegate, Chairman Mr. M. B. sullivan, Vice chairman Mr. C. F. Currin~ Jr. Mr. Harry G. Daniel Zr. Jesse J. Mayas Mr. Lane B. Ramsay County Administrator Mn, ~my Davis, Exec. Asst. to Cc. Admin. Mrs+ Dolls De, art, A~. CO. Admin., Lagis..$vcs. and Intergovern. Affair~ Clerk %o the BOard Chief Robe~ ~an~s, Dir. of Planning Dir. of Accounting Dmputy Cc. A~in., Mr. ~ichard ~cElff~h, Mrs. ~aulfne Mitchell, Pit. of News/Info. Sheriff J.W. Muti~paugh, Dir. of Budget Dir. Qf U=ilitiss Mr. Frederick Willis, Dir. of Human Mr. Applegate called the i~eeting to o~der at 9:18 1. INVOCATION ~r. App!egat~ introduced Dr. M. 0ti Davis, ~astoT of Chester United Methodist Church~ who gave ~he invocation. 2. P~EDGE OF ~LLEGIANCE TO T~,.. ~ OF 'A'n~ ~1='~ 8TATE~ OF The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of th~ United States of America was recited. 3. ~PRO~ALOF MIBu'rES 3.A. JULY 26, 1988 On me,ion of Mr. Sullivan, se~en~ed by Mr. ~ayes, approved %he minu~e~ of July 26~ 198S~ aS $ub~ni%tod. the Board On motion of Mr. Sullivan, s~conded by Mr. ~ayes, apDrovad the minute~ of July 27, 1988, as submitted. 3.C. AUGUST ~t 1988 On mo%ion of Mr. ~ayes, seconded by ar. Coffin, the soard approved the minute~ of August 2, 1988, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous Accounting, who announced th~ Gov~rmnent Finance Officers Financla~ Reporting to Chesterfield County for Comprehensive Annual Financial Report prepared by the Mr. May~ introduced Dr. Wesley C. McClure, the new President reaffirmed the long-~tanding, pozitiv~ r~lationzhip batween Virginia State University and Chesterfield County; indicated there is a great de~ire that th~ ti~ between the UnLV~ity President and Professor of Mathematics and Dr. W. Clinton and stated he anticipated the inltlat~on of imminently servinq a~ Coordinator of Legislative/Volunteer Services fox immediately. of Countie~ annual m~eting in Orang~ County, California at which the County received four (4} Achievement ~wards for excellence, which award~ w~re fo~ the Adoption of a County Charter; Henricus ~isterical Park; ~edia Eirefiqh=ing Training Mr. Daniel reported he and member~ of th~ Richmond Regional Planning District Commission a~ten~ed a ~eeting of the Triangle J Council o~ Government in Chapel ~iil, NC~ at which there wsre discussions of quality growth management concepts7 stated he ~el= ~ha~ if the me~rop~iitan ~ur±edictfnn~ inci~ding local goverrnn~nt, busines~ communities and the public sector, collectively, were to adopt the spirit of esprit de corp~ exhibited throughout th~ Triangle J Council r~gion~ would be mo~t beneficial for Chesterfield in its affort~ a~ a regional leader and attended the Virginia kssocia~ion of Conntles Sxeoutive Board meeting at which tepic~ dise~$sed were local support for the Highway Trust Fund ~nd a resolutien supporting the use of Industrial Reuenue Bonds. He stated he attended a citizens' meeting in the Salem Church Road area regarding regusst for safety improvements at the Kin~sland Read/salem Church Road intersection, which request was prompted by a recent ~atality at that lo~ation and s~bmitted petitio~ to Board containing approximately ~OO signatures in favor of said improvements and he requested the County Administrator and Transportation Depar~nent staff recommend to the Hoard s pro,ram for improving public safety at that intersection. Mr. Mayas reported he attended ~he Joint Legislative (Bouse/Sena~e) Co~%mittee on Soii~ Waste at which he citizenry don~e~n$ r~gardin9 the safe disposal of solid wa~e and requested that consideration ~e given ~e providing counties with mtron~r le~imla~ion for a better basis of solving problem. Mr. Cur:in r~ported he and other Board me~er~ visited landfill facilit~ to Observe %he opmrakional practice~/pro- cedures which he felt provided th~m wi~h in~ormatlon for ~uture r~f~rence with re~pec% tO landfill facility Mr. Sullivan reported he attended the Co~onweal~ ~ion Board meeting ah which the selection of a corridor Routs 288 was announced; expressed appre~ia~ion to ~e Board, A~inistra~ion and shelf, Mr~ 5arty burble, members of No,thegn Coalition a~ citizens o~ ~e Midlo~hian District %~eir participation und support of the County's position for a westerly route for ROUte 288. Mr. Applegate co--ended CO~onweulth Transportation Board for a courageou~ On motion cf Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Ma~es, the Board deleted Item ll.J.2.b., AUthorization to ~roeeed with condemnation of a l0~ Sewer Easement and t0' Temporary Construction Ea~mm~nt for Rehabilitation of ~xi$~ing Sewer ~ine at Courthouse Road; added Item ll.H.6., Federal Highway Construction Progr~n; ~dded Item I1.5.7., ~limlnation of the Silver Star Rail Passenger Service; added Item ll.H.8., Resolution Regarding Re, oval of P~deral Law Limits or Caps on the Amount o~ Industrial Deve!o~ent Bend Financing Allowabl~ for Individual economic Deve!opmunt Projects; added Item 11.I.7., Consideration of a Request for an Entertainment/Musi- children ~eeding Less Secure Setting, out 'of sequence ~o be heard i~ediatuly following Item 6.; and adopted the agenda~ ag ~ended. Vote: Unanimous M~+ Masden introduced the Honorable ~udge John H, Thomas who briefly explained the n~ed for a group ho~e faeilit~ for youth ages 10 to 17, who are in need of appropriate supervision b~t less than se~ur~ d0tsntion, ~o meet the needs of the Juvenils . Court~. ~e ~tated the Stats is encouraging localities to provide such facilities because detention homes, State learning facilities, e%¢., mrs overcrowded at this time. 88-577 A~ter a brief discussion, it was on motion of the ~eard, resolved to authorize the County Administrator to notify the Virginia Department of Corrections of Chesterfield County's intent to proceed with construction cf an appropriate group home facility for youth ages lO to 17, which need appropriate supervision but less than ~ecure detention, to meet the need of the Juvenile Court, with ~h~ understaadin~ t. hat the State will reimburee the locality 50% of the COnStructiOn eost~, 66% of the personnel costs and ~00% of the operating costs for such a facility. (It is noted the CoUnty's official notice %o the Department of Corrections of its inten~ to proceed with construction of such a facility constitutes a moral obligation %e construct the facility if %he State appropriates i~s share of funds.) Vote: Unanimous 7. ~SOLUTIONS ~ SPECIAL ~COGNITIONS 7.A. MS. ~A~LICIA PETTUS FOR OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENTS On motion of the Board~ the following resolution wee adopted: WHEREA$~ MS. Kahlieia Petter is the daughter of Ns. and Mrs. W. Clinton Pettus of Ettrick, Virginia; and WHERE~, Kahlicla graduated fro~ Matoaca High School in June, 1988 where sh~ had been the r~cipien% of the U. $. ~residential Academic ~itn~ss Award for 1988, the recipient of four Academic Honors Awards given by Matoaca High School and the reeiDient of the Engineers Award from the Society of Engineers in Richmond; and WHEREAS, Kahli¢iu belonged to the NatiOnal He, or Society and seEved as it~ secretary; belonged to the FBLA, the D~CA Club~ the French Club and wa~ among the top t~n o~ her grad~at£ng class; and WHEREAS, Kahlieia serve~ as Class Treasures in her Junior and Senior years~ served as Guidance Computer Assistant for the Guidance Department and participated in field an~ track NH~AS, ~auhlicia served Chesterfield County as ~ member of the Youth se~vices Commission for two years representing WH~REAM~ Kahlicia was awarded a Presidential Scholarship to George Mason University which is a four year tuition award based on academic achievement indicating a commitment to excellence. NOW~ T~EREFOP~ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Soard of Supervisors hereby recognizes ~$. ~ahlicia Pettue as a caliber oi student whoue high standards present a challenge and motivation to her peers and as a member of a new g%neration of prepared young citizens of whom wu can all be very proud. AND, ~ IT ~URT~A R~SO~!r~D, that the Chesterfield County Board of ~upervisors ~ereby extends its congratulations to Ms. Kahlicia Pettus on her numerous accomplishments, acknowledges th~ ~ood fortune of the County to have such au outstanding young woman as one of its citizens and wishes h~r much suecese Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented ~he executed resolution to Ms. Pettu$ and receqnized family members who were present. On ~OtiO~ o£ the Board, the following resolution wa~ adopted: WHEREAS~ Chesterfield County acknowledge~ thi~ holld~y by hostin9 a special event for i~s citi~enship~ and WHEREAS, Fireworks are a traditional a~pect of this celebratien~ and WHEP~A$, The financial support of these organizations Was instrumental in =hs provision of this ~irework~ display. NOW, TBEP~FOt~E BE IT ~SOLVED, ~at the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County dO~$ hereby zmcognize Sto~er Ca~le, Rountree Pontiac-GMC Truck, Gro~'~ Corner a~d Q-94 for A~, ~E I~ FURTHER ~SOLVED, ~hat %h~ Boar~ of Supervisors does hereby express its apprsciatio~ and gratitude to ~hese ~er~ of the corporate co--unity f~r their inter~st in and contribution toward th~ quality of life in Chesterfield County. ~r, Apple~te a=cepte4 the contribution of ~7,000 on behalf of the sponsors of the 1988 Four~ of July Extravaganza and presented executed rusolutlons to M~. Miuhael MacNeilly~ representing Storer Cable~ M~. TOm ~epcryn~ki, r~pr~sentlng the Groom's Corner; and Ms. Do=tie Brooks, representing Q-94~ who I.C.. THALHIMERS A~D FIDELITY FEDERAL SAVINGS BANE FOR CONTRI~uT~ONS FOE THE llTB PuXINBOW OF ART~ ~E$~IVAL On motion of the Board, t~e Zoltowing resolution was adopted~ WHEREAS, The Cheaterfiel~ county Parka and Recreation Department functions to positively effect the qoallty of life in Chesterfield County; and W~E~AS, The provie~on Of high quality special events represents au important component of the Department's servioe~; and WHEREAS, The ~1985 Rainbow of Arts Festival'~ reDreSents an enjoyable, f~mily-0riented celebration of the ar~$, as well as a tribute to the positive /mpact tho art~ have on OUr lives and COmmunity; and WHEREAS, Fidellty Federal Savings Bank and Thalhimers have chosen to previda significant support for this annual Federal Savings ~ank and Thalhimers .for their generous County. AND, BE IT FURTHER Pd~SOLVED, that ~he ~eard cf Supervisors Fidelity Federal Savings ~ank and Thalhimers for their goodwill Mr. Applegate accepted contributions of $1,000 from Thalhimers Stores Division and $7~Q from Chesterfield Fidelity Federal Savings Bank for their participation in the Rainbow of Art~ Festival and presented executed resolutions to ~r. William B. Baxtert senior Vice P~esidunt, Thalhimers Stores Diviuion; and Mr. Richard Eollander, Chairman of the Advisory Board for Chesterfield Fidelity Federal Savings Bank, who ware present. 8. ~NG~ OF ~ITIZ~NS ON ~SC~DULED ~ATTE~ O~ CLP~I~ $.A. ~SIDENTS OF BARRISTER ROAD REGARDING DAi~AGES SUSTAINED FROM SEWERAGE BACKUP Mr. Mica~ presented a ~u~ary of a recent incident whereby the resldsnts of four hemss located on Barrister Drive were affectsd by a sewer main blockage which resulted in sewerage backup into their homes. Mr. James Wilkinson, ~r. Morris Thlgpsn end Mr. and ~rs. Michael ~arney presented detaile~ iD~cr~atien relative to their claims for da~aga~ resultinq fro~ the blockage in the ~ewer llne; Su~mltte~ sti~l photographs of the ~am~g~: ~tated the re~ident~ felt the County ~hould hav~ e×pre~ed concern for its constituents by aen~ing e County representative to review the by the home owners should be recovered from the County because the losses resulted from questionable practices employed by the ~OUD~y add tha~ nc culpability has been shown on ~h~ part of damages caused to their homes. The Board generally agrsed the residents' claims ~e reviewed by 8.B. M~. B~VEP~LY JO LEE AND MR. J~FEREY ALAi~ LEE REGARDING STOLEN VEEICLE INCIDENT M~. Stylian Parthemos, Assistant County Attorney, p~esented a ~ummary of olain~ against th~ County in the colI~ctive Amount of $100~000 by M~+ Beverly Jo Lee and Mr. Jeffrey Alan Lee episode that Occurred on May 28, 1988, involving a ~tolen vehicle. ~e stated although, upon review of the incident staff has determined that no County employee co~mitted any act that could be construed as =he inten=ionnl inflicgiun cf emotional stress upon either individual and reconunends that the claims be denied, :he plaintiffs' counsel has requested e deferral as hQ has specific information pertinent to the claims to he presente~ ~o the soard for it~ consideration. It was generally agreed. %o defer until september ~4, 19~$ consideration of the claims of Ms. Bev~rl~ Jo L~e and Mr. Jeffrey Alan Lee against the County in the collective amount of $106~000 for intentional infliction of emotional stress relating tn an episode t_hat occurred on May 28, 1988, involving a stolen vehicle. DENISE M. EUST, RBGAEDING YMCA AFTER SCHOOL C,AR? ~ROCRAM Ms. Denise ~. Fast, owner/~ireotor of A Child'~ 91~ce 5oarnlng and Day Care Center, ~oiced the opposition of private day cars oen~er owners/operators regarding the School System's allowing the YMCA Before and After School Bay Care Program. indicated this program adversely impacts the free system as well as ~he quality of life in the County. not endorse the program and requested the Board p~ovide 88-580 assurances to businesses that they may compete fairly in all market segments and that it will ~pport Measures to cease the YMCA program currently being Offered in the public school. Mr. Daniel stated he felt there should be a forum conducted for rendered in an effort to resolve the matter. Mr. Mayer stated the Board was clear in its position regarding qovernment not competing with free enterprise; however, he felt a reasonable period should be permitted ~o phase out the program rather than ~nding it abruptly. MS. Sullivan stated he believed in free enterprise and felt that the program should be phased out. Mr. Currin concurred that the program should be phase~ out as he did not feel government should be interferlng/co~petinq with fr~e enterprise. Mr. Applegate ~tated he did net suppez~ the program and ielt the ramlficatlens/intention~ of the situation ~hould be examined in an effort to resolve ~]e problem. It was generally agreed that representatives of the A¢lminis=ration an~ both sosrds should meet to discuss the matter further and respond to citizens' concerns. Landfill Committee, the ~oop= and nature of activities desired whereby there woul~ b~ citizen inDut, would be appropriate and control of existing landfill problems. committee shuuld have the ability for decision-making or serve industry co serve on the committee; the expansion of the Co~ittee'~ charge beyond the scope of one landfill to Mr, Daniel stated that, at this point, hs felt establishment of individual from the industry sitting in a decision-making mode citizen invelvemen= on the con~ittee, as their input relative individuals from Drivers enterprise should be included on the to the County and are an asset to the Ccnnty~ cemDsred legal landfill operations with free enterprise business, etc. Mr. hearing relative tQ this issue but felt that establish~eat of debris landfills was completed which i~ on the $¢heOuled agenda later in the evening. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the input deferred consideration cf the Yequest to activate the Landfill Committee until October 26, 1988. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Sullivan excused hims~tf from the met=inc. It was generally agreed to recess for five (5) m~nutes. 88-581 Mr. Sullivan returned to the m~eting. 9.A.2. CO~ITTEE ON TR~ FUTURE On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded b~ Mr. Mayes~ the Board ~peD~ed it~ rules to allow simultaneous nomination and appointment of MS. Marcia Crandall to the Committee on the E~ture of eke County. Vote: Unanimou~ On motion of Hr. Apptsgate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board slmnltaneouely nominaRed and appointed M~ Marcia Crandall, Comities On the Future of the County, whose term i~ at the pleasure of the Board, during the term of office of the Board. 9.B. CO~ITTEE ON CEESTERFIELD'S FUTURE Discussion, questions and conmm~nts ensued relative to the development Of a workplan by ~he C~ittes On Chssterfi~ld's future o~ttining the nature and scope of their study which should be approved by the ~oard ne later than B~cember, financial amsi~tance and staff support for the assessment of the Uounty's long-range needs focusing primarily on the period from the year ~O0O to the year 2020 or further beyond that time frame; annual reports to the Board; etc. Mr. Daniel expressed eonc~rn~ that the committee not be encumbered with land use matters and tha~, within a reasonable length time, %h~ Co~it~ fully ~xplore ~b~ f~ibility of whether or not 6he citizen~ of the County would be better ~erved by a =h~rter or oily form of gov~rnmea~. workDlan outlining ~e nature and scope of their study pursuant to certain guidelines which shall be presented to the Board in Decease, 198B~ and with the unaerstanding ~a% staff support and admini~trativ~ b~dg~t funding also ~hnll b~ considered by ~he Board at that time. vote: Unanimous ~.C. CONSID~RkTION OF PRO~O~L FROM STORER CABL~ COMPANY TO SURVEY CABLE SUBSCRIBERS TO DETERMINE WI{ETH=R SUBSCRIBERS PREFER WON OR WOR Mr. Micas stated that, at the July ~7, 1988 Board meeting, Starer Cable requeste~ amandnent to its franchise a~re~ment to replace WON-TV with ETS-TV; however~ the Board denied Secret's request for a franchise a~endment and directed staff and legal counsel to enter i~e n~getiationa to restore WGM-T~ tO th~ network. He stated, as a result of tho~ meetingS~ Storer Cable proposed a compromise in which Starer agrees to survey cable sub~criber~ to determine wh~ther they would prefer WGN or WOR as the sesond dis~ant i~depsndent channel. ~e stated the survey would be validated by the County and, effective January l, 1989, storer agrees =o abide by %he results of th~ survey and either return WGN to basic service or continue providing 88-582 il Board's responsibility regarding programmlng; the Board's responsibility for determining the channel services to be prcvid~d~ th~ basis for elimination of certain channel offerings; viewership ratings; whether or net to eliminate the County's p~ogr~mmatic ~0ntr01 over Storer's cable offerings~ Starer Cable's proposed compromise alternative~ the economic feasibility o~ providiag three (3) distant independent channels~ etc. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the 5card mhould establish whether or not local government should be involved in the regulation of channel offerings prior to rendering a decision en ~he request. and he would favor staff's recommendation. Mr. Currin stated he felt a mechanism whereby citizen input would be permitted in dete~nininq channel offerings (surveys) should be implemented and would favor staff's recommendation. Mr. Michael MacNeilly, General Manager of Storer Cable, stated the company utilizes various methods for determining prognani~ing in its efforts to satisfy as many subscribers az possiDle; stated Stoner will be conducting scientific surveys/random sampling of pro~ramming in the future but not to the sa~e extant as currently is being done; stated he was willing to publicly apologize for the abrupt removal of WGN-TV but there were certain managerial reviews which transpined that shortened the timetable within which the decision had to be made causing the decision to be a ~ritieal financial decision; and assured the ~oard that before such actions were to reoccur there would be ample opportunity for notification of the pending action. Mr, Ram~y ~tated adoption of the proposed recon~nendatiou would result in the amendment to the franchise agreement being brought back to the Board for action in ooniormance with Federal Law and would regains a public hearing. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Coffin, s~conded by Mr. Sullivan, re~olved to approve the proposal from Storer Cable to survey cable subscribers to determine whether sub~¢rib~rn prefer WON-TV or WOR-TV add authorized staff to initiate an amendment to the franchise agreement to eliminate th~ County's progza~u~atic control ov~x Sterer Cable's channel offerings. Mr. Daniel ~uggested the motion include only the amendment %o ~he franchise agreement, omitting the survey. ~r. Currin stated he would prefer the motion net bs amend~. 9.D. RESOLUTION $UPP0~TIMG CITY OF RICHMOND'S ~QU~MT OF TME RIC~MOND METROPOLITAN AUTMORITY TO UNDERTA/(E PAF~KING ~ACILITIES On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Apptegate, ~-he ~uard adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Richmond Metropolitan Authority (RMA) is ~nali~ied to undertake feasibility studies concerning parking requirements in the downtown area of Richmond and to acquire, construct, operate and maintain such additional public parking facilities in¢ludfng public parking structures as are an~ will be needed to satisfy the demand for additional pa~king in the downtown area; and WHEP~AS, RNA is authorized, with the' approval of the Council of the City of Richmond and the Boards of supervisors of th9 Counties of Henrico and Chesterfield, to ti) construct, acquire, operate and maintain any properties and facilities, including such offices and commercial facilities in cQnnoction therewith as are deemed necessary or convenient by the Rbb%, ior ~he relief of traffic congestion~ or to provide vehicular parking, ex to promote transpurtatic~ of persons and property, or to promote the flow of commerce that the Council ct the City of Richmond and the Boards cf Supervisors of the Counties of Chesterfield and Henrico may request the RNA to provide; and (ii) to do all other acts and things necessary or convenient to carry out She foregoing. NOW, T~EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the ChesteYfield County Board of Supervisors that R~4A is hereby requested to undertake the acquisitionI construction; operation and maintenunO~ of such public parking facilities within the downtown area of the City of Richmond as may from time to time be approved by the Council of the City of Richmond and %he Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Chesterfield and Henrico, provided that the COSt Q£ $~Oh acquisition, con~truotion~ operation and maintenance is derived from parking fee~. 9.E. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST A~PROVALS On motion of Mr. Currin~ seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved ~he installation of a etree~ light at the inter~ ~eetion~ of Southland Drive~ midway of the ~treet (seven Eleven and Skatelandl, in the amount of $1,079.73, an4 the inter- section of Rivermont Road and Spruce Avenue, in the amount of $521.16, with funding to be exp~nded from t. he Be~uda District Street Light Fund. Vote~ UnanLmous 18.A. TO CORSID~R AR ORDiNA~C~ TO AYL~.D. CHAPteR 14 OF ?HE CODE OF T~E COUNTY 0F C~E~TERFIELD, 19783 A~ A~E~D~D, BY AMENDING SECTION 14.1-28 RELATING TO VE~ICLES NOT DISPLAYING CURRENT PLATES Mr. Micam stated this date and time had been advertised for a publi~ hearing to consider an ordinance ~o amend the County Cod~ relating tO vehicles not displaying current plates. proposed ordinance. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin~ the Soard adopted the following ordinance: AN O~DINANC~ TO AW~ND C~T~R 14 O~ ~ ~ 195O, as ~e~ded. ~ ~9 0RDAIN~D by tho Board of Sup~rvi~ox~ of Che~terfieid ~nded, ~ ~ended by amending Section 14.1-20 a~ follows: Sec. 14.1-20. same - Certain vehicles no~.~3~3ayinq There is hereby imposed a license tax of one huudred dollsrs ($t~8.00) upon the Owner of every ~otor vehicle located in ~he County, which vmhicle do~s not display current license 88-584 plates and which is not exmmpted from the recgairemsnts of displaying such license plates under the provisions of ~ectlon~ 46.1-42 to 46.1-49, 46.1-119 and 46.1-120 of the Code of Virginia, aB amended, and which are not in a public dump, in an automobile graveyard as defined in Section 33.1~348 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, or in th~ possession of a licensed junk dealer or lioensod automobile dealer. Nothing in this ee~ion ~hall be applicable to any v~hicle being held or stored by or at t_he direction of any governmental authority, tc any vehicle owned b~ a member of the armed forces on active duty or to any vehicle regularly stored within a structure. (2) That this ordinance ~hali become effective immediately upon passage. Vote: Unanimous 10.B. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ~J~RNDI~G THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF C~ESTERPI~LD~ 1--~ AS A~E~DBD, BY A/4END/NG kND REENACTING SECTIONS 21-77.7(e) AND (g) RELATING TO ~TRUCTUR3CL SETBACKS F~0M THE ~LOOD PLAIN Mr. Micas stated this date and time had b~en advertised ~or public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the County code relating to structural setbacks from the floor plain; however~ the affected sections are a part of the Ccnnt7's Zoning Ordinance and therefore the Planning Commission must review and ~ake a recommendation ~o the Board on ~eid ordinance No one was present to address the proposed matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. ~ayes, the Board referred the proposed ordinance tn amend the Code of the Count~ of Chesterfield 1978, as amended, by amending and reenacting ce~ta~ons of Chapter 21, Sections 21-77.7(~) and (g), tO requi~e all ~tr~et~re~ to be set ~ack 20 feet from the year flood plain, to the Planning Co--lesion for its eonsidoration and teen, ends%ion. vote: Unanimous 10.C. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ~0 AMEND, ADD TO, A~D REEMACT CNAPTER 7.2 OF T~E CODE OF TRR COUNTY 0F 05BSTBRFIELD~ 1978, AS A~LENDBD~ RZLATING TO ~R0'~ION AND S~DI~NT CONTR0~ Mr. Micas stated this date an~ time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinanG~ %o emen4 tbs County ~ode relating to erosion and sediment control. ~r. Delmcnte Lewia~ representing the Home Builders Association of Richmond, regu~ted modification to the requlr~m~n~s that %he land disturbing permit be signed by two individuals and deletion of the proposed increase in the amount cf =he bond by 10% of the installation co~t to cover coutu incurred by the Discussion, questions and comments e~sue~ relative to the reason for two individuals being designated to sign the land disturbin~ application; requiring only the developer/landowner to be the individual designs%ed to sign the p~rmit; the requirement that the applicant for ~he permit shall be the d~veloper, On motion of Mr. Currin~ seconded by Mr. Daniel~ the ~oard adopted the following ordinance: 88-58~ AN OBDIF~'C.~ T0 ~'ND, ADD TO, AND ~ B~SIO~ ~ ~ED~ CO~ E~SION~ ~D~T~L For utut= lu~ a~ to uro~iun cu~trol, ~uu Co~u of Vi~q~ia~ Soction 10,1-560 et (1) ~E IT EE~BY O~AINRD by the Board of Supervisors that Chapter 7.2 of the Cod~ of ~he County of Chesterfield, 1975, ~en~ed, i~ amended ~y amending an~ raenac~in~ Sec=ion~ 7.2-1 tc 7.2-5, 7.2-7 to 7.2-10, 7.2-12, 7.~-~ an~ 7.~-t6 and by Section 7.2-3 section 7.2-4 Section 7.2-5 Section 7.2-6 Section 7.2-8 Section 7.2-9 Section 7.2-10 $~¢tion 7,2-11 Section 7.2-12 Section 7,2-13 Section 7,2-I4 Section 7.2-14.1 Revocation of pe~it. Section 7.2-15 Judicial review. Section 7.2m16 Penalty Jar violation of thio chapter. AuDroval for land disturbing activities. Responsibilities of ownors of land. Approval required for certain existing 'conditions. Approval required prior ko issuance of pormit~. ~×emption for oertaln agricultural activities. ~xemptlon for lan~ disturbing activities involving more than one 9urisdiction. Submission of plans and certificates. Issuance of land dis~urhanc~ permit. Modifieation~ to an approved plan, Perfoumanoe bond, cash escrow, or irrevocable letter of credit. Inspeoticne~ notice of deficiencies. Sec. 7.2-1. De~initlons. The following terms, whenever ua=d or referred to in this chapter, shall have the respective meanings set forth below, unless the oonte~t olsarly requires a contrary manning or any such term is expressly defined to the contrary elsewhere in thi~ chapter: chesterfield Coun~ Erosion and $odimont Control ~andboak. A handbook consisting o~ procedures ~cr preparaticn of erosion and sediment control plans and which, for the purpose~ of this chapter is th~ current Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control 88-586 Clearing. Any activity which removes the vegetative ground cover including but not limited to root mat removal or topsoil removal. Conservation standards, criteria or speoifica~ions. The criteria, guidelines, techniques and methods for the control of erosion and sedimentation, contain in chapter 3 of ~he current edition of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. pesignated Agent. The pe~son identified in the applicat%on fox a land disturbance permit by the applicant to act on behal£ of the applicant in all matters, including accepting service cf process for t_he applicant. Environmental engineer. The director of the Chesterfield County Department of Environmental Engineering or hie d~$1g~ee. Erosion and sediment control plan or plan and ~eciflca- It may include appropriate maps, an appropriate sell and water prataticns and a recor~ of decisions contributing to conserve- %ion t~ea%J~eut. The plan shall contain all major conservation be prepared in accordance with chapter 6 of the current edition of the Virginia ~resion and Sediment Control Eandboak. Rxeavatinq. Any digging, scooping ur other methods of Fitlinq. Any depositing Or stockpiling of earth and other materials. Gen~rai criteria: The General Criteria for Controlling Erosion and ~ediment from Land Disturbing Activities found in Chapter IIi of the Virginia Erosion and sediment Control Handbook, Second Edition, 1980. any comhinatio~ ~hereof, including the lan~ in its eRcavated or filled condition. Grubbing. An optional initial phase of an overall land Land disturbing activity. Any land chemge which may jurisdictions, including, but not limited to~ clearing, grubbing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of not include; [b) Individual service connections: [c) Septic tank lines or drainage fields unless included in an overall plan for land disturbing activity relating tn [d) Surface or deep mining; [e) Tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural or forest crops o~ livestock operations; clearing and transporking on privately OWned, occupied or operated agricultural, horticultural or forest land; (f) Repair or rebuilding of the tracks, rights-of-way, bridge~, communication facilitie~ or other releted structures and facilities of a railroad company; [g} Preparation ~or ~inqls-fa~ily residences separately built, unless in conjunction with multiple construction in subdivision development; (h) Disturbed lend areas for uses of less than ten thousand square feet in (i) Installation of fence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles; (~) Emergency work to'protect life, limb or property and emergency repairs; provided, ~hat if %he land disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and sediment control plan if the activity wsrs not an emergency, then land area distu3~bed shall be shaped and established in accordance with the requirements of the Chesterfield County Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook; (k) Exploration Or drilling for oil and gas including the well site, roads and off-site disposal areas which serve the well sit~; {1) ~hore erosion control projects or tidal waters when approved by the James River soil and Water conservation District, the Marine Resouroe~ Commission. Im) kqricultural engineering opeiations including but not limited to the construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds not required to comply with the provisions of the Dam Safety Act~ Chapter 8,1 (Section 62.1-115.1 ~t seq.) of the code of virginia, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing~ contour cultivating~ co~to~r furrowing, land drainage and land irrigation. (n) Imstalla~ion, maintenanc~ Or repai~ of any underground public utility lines when such activity occurs on an existing hard surfaced road, sires= or sidewalk provided ~uch lan~ disturbing activity is coniined to the a~a of the road, street or sidewalk which is hard surfaced. Lend Disturbance Permit. Document issued by the county permit a legal land disturbance, Its issuance signifies that an approved plan/narrative exists, adequate ~cn~ing £~ in effect, a review ~ee has been pai~, and proper implementation occurred, where appllcable. Per.on. Any individual, partnersAip, firm, association, joint v~nturc, public Or private eorporation~ tTu~t, e~tate, eommission~ board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative~ county~ city, town or ocher political subdivision of =his state, any interstate body, or any other l~gal entity. Transporting. Any moving of earth materials from one place to another other than such movement incidental to grading, when e~ch movement results in destroying the vegetative ground eov~r, either by trackin~ or the buildup of earth materlals to the extent ~/%at erosion and sedimentation transporting occurs. Sec. 7.2-2. Approval for land disturbing activities. Except as provided in sections ?.2~6 and 7.2-7, it shall be unlawful for eny person to engage in land disturbinq activity until (1) an application and erosion and sediment control plan for such land disturbing activity, in a form detailed in approved by the County and the program administration fee rsc/uired by ~ection 7.2-9 have been submitted to the environmental engineer (2) that plan has been reviewed and approved by the environmental engineer pursuant to Section 7.2-t0 and (3) the land disturbance permit certifying such approval has been issued in accordance with this chapter and displayed at the ~its. It shall al~o be unlawful to engage in land disturbing activity when there is a revoked er invalid land disturbance pe/'mit on the project, At all times any person engaging in lend disturbing activity shall comply with the general criteria. See. 7.2~3. Responsibilities Of owners of land. Whenever a land disturbing activity is proposed to be conducted by a contractor performing ¢0nstruoti0n work pursuant approval and implementation of the required erosion and sediment control plan shall he th~ ~eSpon~ihilit~ of the ewner of the lan~. The owner of the land shall also be responsible ~or maintenance of all measures required by the plan, as well ~nviron/~ental engineer determines that stabilization of the land is complete. The County may require the owner to repair or eliminate any damage on cr off-site of the owner'm land caused by ineffective erosion or sediment control measures or failure to ingtall such measures. All erosion and sediment control measures requlre~ by this chapter shall be undertaken Sec. 7.2-4. Approval required for certain existing conditions. {a) It shell be unlawful for any person who owns land in the county willfully to suffer or permit any port/on o~ his land to undergo or remain in such a condition that soil erosion and sedimentation causes reasonably avoidable damage or harm to adjacent or downntream property, roads, stream~, lakes or ponds. The environmental engineer, on his own initiative or upon complaint of any citizen, ~hall notify the owner of any such land that such condition exists and shall require Such disturbance permit from the environmental engineer within five days afte~ such notice, or if after ~he land disturbance permit is issued, he fails or refuses to provide or maintain the controls required by the plan approved by the enviror~nental enginee~ within the specified ~im~ perieds after notice of need for such action, he sh~ll be ~ubject to the penalties of this chapter for such violations~ provided~ however, that the environmental engineer may, fur gco~ cause, extend the period of such compliance fo~ a ~eason~Ie time. Sec, ?.2-5. Approval required prior tO issuance of pe~ibs. ~o permit shall be isuu=d by any administrative officer of the county for the construction of any building or other development requiring a land disturbunc= permit, nor shall any subdivision plat be approved, relating to land subject to this chapter unless and until the project is in complianc= with Sec. 7.2-6. Exemption for certain agricultural activities. agricultural~ horticultural, or ~orest lands shall not be deemed to be in violation of this chapter for land disturbing activities which result £rcm the tilling~ planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural or forest 88-589 floodwater retarding structure, channel improvements, floodways, dikes, ponds, ditches; the utilization cf ~trip cropping, lister furrowing, contour oultivat£ng and contour furrowing~ land ~rrlga~ion; seeding and planting of waste, slopin~ abandoned or eroded land~ to water-conservation and reforestation; rotation of crops; soil stabilization with ~zees, grassgs, l~gum~s and other thick growing, soil holding rainfall; and retirement from cultivation oi steep, highly erosive areas and areas badly gullied or otherwise erod¢~. {7-25~79) . Sec. 7.2-7. Exemp=~9~_.~r land disturbing activities involving more than on~ ~uris~CtiOo. Any p~r~on whose land disturbing activitis~ involve lands which extend into the jurisdiction of another local erosion and plan approved by =he Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commissfon shall notify the environmental engineer of s~ch plan approval by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission. The environmental engineer shall accept such approved plan as fulfillment o~ ~he requirements of Sections 7+2-8 and 7.2-9. Such approval notwithstanding, a land disturbance permit must still be obtained from th~ county. See. 7.2-S, Submission of plans.' (a) Any person who applies for a~proval of an erosion and ~diment control plan shall submit to the envino~ental engineer two copies of such plan accompanied by the progr~ a~ministrati0D fe~ and further accompanied by other support information which meet the requirements set ~0r%h in the Chesterfield County ~resion and Sediment Control Handbook. (b) Alt plans, prior to lan~ disturbance permit issuance ~pecifications and criteria of the Chesterfield County Erosion and Sediment Cont~O1 Handbook. (c) The ~uk~i~ion to the envircrumental engineer of an erosion and sediment control plan and program ~dministration fe~ ~hall connote a granting by the owner o~ the property the right of entry suf£1cient to permit the environmental engineer or his designate~ agent to enter upon property a~ all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting th~ property. Sec. 7.2-9. Fe~s. (a! A program administration fee of six hundred dollars ($600.00) shall be paid to the county at the tim, of filing of shall be accepted for review unless accompanied by this fee. (b} Upon reapplieation fQi a land disturbance p~r~it after revocation of S~Ch permit pursuant to this chapter~ an administrative fee of three hundred dollars ($300.00} mu~t accompany such reapplication. $~c. 7.2-10. Issuance of land disturbance permit. (a) Th~ ~nvironmentaI engineer ~halt issue a land disturbance permit upon submission of a properly completed land permit application aDO if he determines that: (1) The plan meees %he conservation ~tandards, criteria and speeifieation~ as defined in Section 7.2-1 of thi~ chapter. (2} The person responsible for carrying out the certifies that he will perform the erosion and sediment control measures included in tko plan; and, {3) The requirements of Sections 7.2-9 and 7.2-12 are met. (4) Where land disturbance has occurred, proper implementation or maintenance of erosion end sediment control ~ea~u~es has occurred; and (5) Wher~ Planning Commission approval (zoning or subdivision) is necessary %hat any such approval has been ruceived. (b) Th~ ~nviror~ntal engineer shall act On all plan~ submi:te~ te him within forty-five days from receipt thereof'by ~ither approving such plan in writing or by disapproval, when s plan sub~±tted ~or a~proval ie determined tO be inadequate, plan into compliance wit/~ the Chesterfield County Erosion Sediment Control Eandbook. within forty-five days after reoeip~ of ~he plan, the plan shall be deemed approved, and the applicant ~halt be authorized to proceed with the fulfillment of ail other requirements of the land disturbance permit. (d) U~on determination of compliance with applicable sections of this chapter b~ the environmental Engineer, a ou~ the plan. A permit shall not be construed as authority to approved plan. Sai~ permit ~hall remaiA in effect unless un%il completion of land dist~rbing activity es described in section 7.2-13. The permit shall at all times be displayed at the site and ~hall at all times be subject to inspection by the Sec. 7.2-1I. Modifications to an appro~.e~. ~lan. An approved plan may ba modified upon application to the environmental engineer when: (a) An Cnspee~ion has revealed that the plan is (b) Wh~re the person responsible for carrying out for other reasons the approved plau cannot be ~ffectively letter of credit. environmental engineer shall requix~ a performance Bond with an attorney, or his assis~ant~ in an mmeunt approved by the controls specified in the plans and ~Deeifications should the person responsible for ~uch plan not complete the sontrols as required. Such bond shall be conditioned to conform any work in the approved erosion and sediment control plan~ to indemnify and save h&rmle~s the county, its 0i%izens, residents and 88-591 property owners against any and all lOSS by reason of failure tn comply with the requirements of this chapter or from neglect or car~t~ne~ in performance of tke work. (b} In lleu of such performance bond, the owner may irrevocable letter of credit which shall comply with Title 8.5 of the Code of virginia and which shall be approved as to form by %he county attorney or his assistant. The amount oi such escrow or letter o~ credit shall ba approved by the environmental ~ngineer and shall be equal tO the approximate cost of providing erosion and sediment control improvements. (c) The amount of any bondr escrow, or irrsvooeble letter of credit shall include an amount ~qual to I0% of the installation cost to cover maintenance costs. The amount shall not be conetrued as the maximum liability of =he owner or developer und~ thi~ chapter if the Department o~ Enqineerinq takes emergency measures ae authorized by ~eetien 7.1-14. (d) If it besomes necessary for the environmental engineer to use any funds set aside to insure performance of the ~lan under this suction, the person submitting such bond shall increase ~uch bond, escrow, or letter of credit to restore such bond to :he original amoun~ d~termined by the environmental engineer .prior to reissuance of the land disturbance permit. Sec. 7.2-13. Refund. Within sixty days after the completion of the land distu~bing activity and when the stahillza%ion of th~ land is complete, in the discretion of the environmental engineer, any environmental engineer pursuant to Section 7.2-12 shall ha refunded. For ~he purpo~e~ of thi~ ~otion, "completion of land disturbin~ activity" shall be construed to mean: (a) Sit~s. Full occupancy certificate. (b) Subdivision. Passage of a re~olntion by the board of supervisors.requesting a=cep~ance of ~he subdivision road~ into Sec. 7.2-14. Inspections; notice of deficiencies. (al Every certification shall e~pressly re~erve a riqht of entry su~iuiant to permit the environmental ~Dgfnoer or his de~Ignatod agent to enter upon property at all reasonable times fur the purpose of making inspections to determine whethe~ %h~ requirements of this chapter or the applicable apprOVed erosion and ~ediment control plan are being complied with. Such resident owner, occupier or operator shall b~ ~iven an opportunity to accomphny the inspeetnne. (b) If ~t i~ detsrmined that there is a ~ailure to comply with the p~ovisions of the issued land disturbance permit, the envi~oumento1 engineer ~hall serve notice to comply upon the land disturbance permit holder by ~ither ~) d~livery of the notice by hand, er 2) delivery by r~qistersd or certified mail, at the address specified by him in the land disturbance permit or b~ delivery at the site of the permitted activities to the activities. Such notice shall 'set ~crth t~e section of this chapter violated and the m~asure~ needed for compliance. Such n0tiee ~hall further specify the time within which ~uch measures shall b~ cumpleted. Upon failure of th~ p~rson to comply within the tim~ ~pecified within the notice, the land disturbance permit shall be revoked and he will b~ mebjac~ to the penaltles of this chapter. completed within the time specified within the notice, %he environmental engineer may take emerqency measures to inmtall ground cover or o~he~ temporary erosion, and sediment control stooled n~d sediment ~0ntrol ~qua% to that which would have The cost o£ any emergency measures taken by the environmental engineer mhall be documented by him and, after notice thor%of to th~ owner, shall be n charge against the guarantee of (d) Upon receipt of a sworn complaint of a substantial vielatioa of ~hiu chapter from th= anvlronmantal engineer, the a notice to comply as specified in sub~ection (b) above, issue an order requiring that ail or par~ of th~ land disturbing activities permitted on the site be ~toppe~ until t_he specified of lands or sediment d~position in water within the watersheds whether the permi%tee has been issued a notice to comply as specified in subsection (b). Otherwise, much an order may he issued only after the ps,mitres has failed to comply with such a notice to comply. The order shall ~e served in the same ~ppiicntien by the environmental engineer for appropriate relief to the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County. Upon completion of the corrective action, the order shall Sec. 7.2-14.1. Revocation ef permit. (a) Upon the failure of the owner or the person plan as specified in the land disturbance permit tn fulfill all failure, may revoke the l~nd disturbance permit if the land disturbing activity a% the project must cease, axcep= for compliance as s~ f0r%h in the notice of violation. Upon revocation, ~he owner ~hatl reapply for reissuance of a land disturbance permi~ and pay the fee prescribed in Section 7.2-9(b) %0 confirms lan~ disturbing activity. See. 7.2-15. Judicial review. {a) Any person who i~ ~ggrieved by any final decision of decision by th~ circuit court of th~ eounty~ provided, tha~ thirty days of receiving notice of such decision. (b) Per the purposes of thi~ ~eetiOn, "aggxleve~ person" shall mean the property owner or applicant, owners of adjacent geverr~ental agencies or officers thereof. Sec. 7.2-1S. Penalty for violation of chapter. (a} Any person violatinq the provi~i0n~ of this chapter imprisonment for a perio~ not to exceed thirty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day's violation shall constitute a. separate offense. 9ielations cr threatened 8~-593 violetions of the provision~ of thi~ chapter may also be restrained, prohibited or enjoined by appropriate proceedings, without the necessity of ~howing that there does net exist an adequate remedy at law. (b) Any person violating or failing~ negleotin~ or refusin~ to obey any injunction, mandamus or other remedy shall be subject, in ~he court's disereti0n to a civil penalty not to exceed $2,000 for each violation. (2} That this ordinance shall b~eo~e effective immediately upon passage. Ayes; Mr. Applega~s, Mr. Sntlivan, Mr. Currin and Mr. Daniel. Abstention: Mr. Mayes. 10.D. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION POLICY ~r. Sal~ ~at~d t~i~ date and time had been advertised for a publis hearing tO consider revision t0 ~he our~en~ street light policy. Mr. D~lmonta Lewi~ representing the Home Builders A~eoeietion of Richmond, voiced support for the reco~ends~ r~vi$ion$ to the current street light policy and suggested additional revisions relative to Sections A.1, A.~, D.1, D.2., D,5 and deletion of Section D.4. (A copy of the Home Builders Asmoclatlen~s suggested revisions are filed with the papers of this Boa~d.) Mr. ~ale stated the Home Builders Association's e~q~e~t~d revisions were acceDtabte to staff. On motion of ~x. sullivan, seconded ~y Mr. Currin, the soard adopted the following Street ~ight Installation ~olicy: STREET LIG~T 612.00 STREET LI~HTIN~ 612,0~ NEW Street Lighting facilities, including related wi~ing ~a~em~nt~ shall b~ ~rovid~d in ~ubdivisien and developments and sha~l meet the fellewinq requirements: A. ~esidential 1. Street lights shall be pro~ided at the entrance to all new subdivisions i~ t_he new roads crea~e a "tee" (T) or "cross" (+) intersection, provided the intersection carries in excess of 400 %mPD. 2. street lights shall be provided at all intersections where the minor ctreet carries in excess of 400 VPD. $. Street lighting easements 10' on 40' sight-of-way and 5' On 5~' right-of-way along the frontage of all lots throughout the ~ubdivision are recp~ired. These easements will be recorded with =he subdivision plats unless the ~treet light service line~ ars placed within =he proposed s=ree= righ:-of-way. Such easements Will be required only on those streets where the minor street is projected to carry in ~o~ercial/Industrial Parks ~ectionE wh~re all excess of 2,000 VPD. and 612.0~ Li~hUinq Requirements 1. The Road and Drainage Plans must show the location of the proposed street lights and easements. (Engineering must receive approval from the utility company Drier to Dlan approval) plat and recozded with the final plat. 3. Ail installations shall cunfo~ to tko Virginia Depa/~snt of Transportation specifications. All ~tr~et lighting ~y~tam$ ~hall be installed, owned and maintained by ~e supplying utility company upon approval of the County. installation. requi~ at tim~ of recordation. 1. L~inaire Style - Ail luminaries shall be a~ approved b~ the Suppl~in~ utility company. 2, Light Source - All Iiqht ~ources ~ha!l be as ~prove~ by the supplying utility company. 3. L~en Rating - There is no one set lighting level requirement which would apply to all roadway shall be generally lit as follow~= a. 8000 l~en - Used for secondary intersections b. 14000 L~en or ~reater - Used for primary intersections c. O~ers - Used on primary road~ and/or 4. Pole placement and bracket length ~hatt b~ aS u:ilized in all new reslden=ial s~bdivisions. EXISTING SUBDIVISION Criteria for Street Ligh~ Approval A. Street lights should be limited to main ': ' ", ~n~ranc~n to $~bdiv'i~DsI a~/o~ in~erna~' ;: connector streets with a VPD Of4~U-or ~o=~. '. On the minor =freer or a eombine~ VPD of 600 at the intersection, This would be b~$ed on th9 ~e~t current VDOT traffic D. Street lights should be limited ~o "tee" installed only on State or C0un%y rights-of-way or easemente and on the C. A petition mus~ be signed by 75% of the residents within 200~ of the proposes light and iu to include a majority of th~ homeowners living at the propose~ locations. II, F~nding (Existing Development) A. The County will pay for the installation of an approved street 1lSAt providing installation money is available. Th~ CoDnty will also ~ay for %ha monthly electr~c charges. B. The County will take over payments of existing lights if th~ ~treet light criteria is met. C. If the light meets the street light criteria~ but there are no ~nnda available for installation in tho currant fiscal year, S8-595 then the light will be placed on a schedule for fund availability. If the applicants desire, they may pay the installation charges associated with the ligh~ and the CO%n~y will tek~ everlthe:~enthl~ electric charge. This money must be paid prior to authorization of the light installation and is non-refundable. IIT. Lamp Characteristics A, Luminaire Style - Enclosed Unit used at all locations. B. Light source - All light sources shall be high pressure sodium vapor. C. Lumen rating: 1. 9000 Lumen -Uzod for secondary intersections 2. 14000 Lumen of greater - Used for primary intersections 3. Others - Used on primary roads and/or special cases when recommended by virginia Power D. Type of Pole: utilixed in existing subdivisions. 10.E. TO CONSIDER CONVEYANCE OF AN APPROXIMATE 1 ACtt~ PARCEL AT THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARE TO MR. STEPNEN A, EISENBERGER AND MR. J~$ E. LAU~K ' ' i : ~ ', Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been scheduled for a public h~aring to ~onsider tho conveyance of an approximate one (1} aore parcel at the Airport Industrial Park to Mr. Stephen A. Eisenb~rger and Mr. J~mes ~. Lauck. No on~ ~ame forwar~ to speak in favor of or against the proposed matter. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r, Cu~rin, the Beard approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any (1) acre paxoel (A OODy of =he pitt is £ilod wi~.h =ks papers o~ thio Board.} at the Airport Industrial ~ark, located adjacent 1. The first fifteen {15) feet fr~ the right-of-way of the required fifty (50) foo~ front yard ~tback and the first ten (lO) feet from Commonwealth Control~ of the required twenty-five (25) side yard setback shall be appropriately landscape, Appropriate landscaping shell be determined by the Director of Planning. Building plans shall be reviewed in acoordan=e with Protective Covenants, conditioDs and Rpstr.ieeiens. fe~ the Chesterfield Airpor~ Industria~ Park, Section D(~). is noted that, in the future, no further s~bdivision of It ezipking lot~, where thc newly created lot has feet of read frontage, will be reco~upndsd. Vote: Unanimous 10.F. TO CO, SIDeR CONVEYANCE OF AN A~PROXI~ATE 12 ACRE PARCEL AT T~F AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK TO CROW-KLEI~-~ACFARLANE Mr. sale stated this date and time had been scheduled for a public bearing to con~iOez the conveyance of an approximate twelve (12) acre parcel at the Airport Industrial Park to Crow-Klein-MaeFarlane 92. No one same forward to speak in favor of o~ against the proposed matter. on motion of Mr. Coffin, seconded by M~. evil,van, t~e Doard approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the conveyance Of an approximate twelve {12) acre parcel at the Airport Industrial Park, located between Route 288 and R~ynolds Metals, at a cost of $50,000 per acre, to Crew-Kleln-~aeFarlane ~2. Vots~ Unanimous 11. NEW BO$IN~SS ll.A. PRESENTATION OF C~ECK FOR COUNTY'S SNA~ OF PROCEEDS FRO~ SALE OF TIMBER AT POCABONTAS STATE FOREST BY VIRGINIA FORESTRY DIVI~IOM On motion of ~r. Daniel, s~conded ~y Mr. Currin, it was resolved to table the presentation Of the check to the County for the County's ~hare ci the proceed~ from the sale of timber at Pocahonta~ State Park by the Virginia Fore~try Division until a ~epresenta~ive of the Virginia ~orestry Division could be present. VOte: Unanimous Mr. Applegate requested the rnlee be suspended so that the ~oar~ =o~ld h~ar Item II.D., CounUy Authorized Puli:ion for the Commonwealth's Attorney Office; and Ttem 11.~., Authority for sheriff gu ~nter into a Contrast with Prison Nealth $~rvice~, Inc. to Provide Medical Services at the County ~ail, out of order. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. ~ayes, the Board suspended its rulcu to consider I~em ll.D., County Authorized Position for ~he Commonwealth's Attorney o~fice; and Item ll.E., Authority for Sheriff to Enter into a ContraSt with Prison Health Services, Inc. to ~rovida Medical Services at the County Jail, o~t of order; and then to recess for Lunch, with the remaining portion of the a~enda being considered after reconvening. Vote: Unanimous ll.D. COUNTY .AUTHORIZED POSITION FOR COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEy On motion of ~r. Mayer, ssoonded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved an additional full-time Assistant Ce~onwealth'e Attorney position, as a County authorized pe~itio~, to work with the Juvenile and Dome~t~e COU~ to prosecute welfare fraud cases referred by the Chesterfield Department of Social Services and represent the Division of Child Support ~nfero~ment; and appropriated $25~000 in new Compensation Board ~unding for the position, as well as additional funding in the amount o~ $8,900 ($7,480 in salary and $1,500 in fringe benefit~) for County's portion of the · salary, which amount covers the difference between the Cempenaatien Beard salary of $25,000 the County salary of $33,700 for the Defied of September 1, 1988 through June 30, 19S9. 88-597 Vote: .Unanimous (It was noted that the possibility exists tka~ 'i'f the coeperatiYs agreement between the Virginia Compensation Board nnd the Co~t~onwealtht~ Attorney Office were not renewed for F¥90, the position would have to be renegetiated during the ll.E. AUTHORITY FOR SEERIFP TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC. TO PROVIDE MEDICAL SERVICES AT THE COUNTY JAIL After a brief dimcusmion, on motion of Mr. Ch;rim, seconded by Mr+ Sullivan~ the Board deleted five (5} nursing positions from the Sheriff~m Offio~ staff a~ the County Jail; authorized the $306,70~, with Prison Health Servic~, InC. (PHS) tO provid~ improved medical services at the County Jail; transferred $212,000 in available lundin9 within the Sheriff Department's current budget for Hsaleh Services to offset thm uost of contract; with the balance of $94,500 being absorbed through a combination of reduced expenditures ($10,000) and a~proprlat~on of $84,700 in additional State COmpensation Board revenues above the amounts for FYi9. The Board recessed at 12:35 p.m. to travel to the Economic Development Department Conference Room for s luncheon meeting with Dr. Freddie Nicholas, President of the John Tyler Co~mnity College System, and several of ~he Chesterfield for the cotleg~. ll.M. MOBILE RONIE EJ~QUEgT$ 88SR0087 In Mutoacu Mugisterial District, A.L. H~DP~CKS requested renewal o~ Special ~ceptlon ~3SR070 to park a mobile hom~ on approximatel~ 200 feet east of Speaks Drive, and better known as 10609 ~ull Street Road. Tax Map 49-11 {t) ~arcel 6 (~heet 14~. The first permit was issued on May 24, 197~. Mr. Jacobsen stated, at its June ~, 1988 me,ting, the Board d~ferred this request to give the applicant 'a~ 'opportunity to remove one (1) of the two (2) mobile homes on the sit~ and ali junk/~rash. He state~ since =ha= time staff h~s visited th~ site and these actions have been accomplished; therefore, staff recommends approval of Case 8~SR0087, subject ~o certain standard conditions. acceptable. There was ne opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Nr. Cur;in, the Board approved Case 88SR0087 for sev~n (7} y~ar~ ~ubject to the following standard eonditions~ 1. The applleant shall be the owner and occupant of rte mobile home. 2. NO lot Or parcel May be rented or leased for use aS a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for r~ntal property. Only one (1} mobile home shall permitted to be pa~ked on an individual lot o~ parcel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard ~etbacks~ required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile hume ~Aall be located closer than 20 feet ko any existing 4. ~o additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. Ail mobile humms shall be ekirted but they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home ~ermit, the applicant ~hall then obtain the necessary permits from tko Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile zevccati~n Of the Mobile Home ~ermit. Vote: 88SR0172 In Bermuda ~agiste~ial ~is~rict, CA~ S. SHUI4A~R rsques~- ed renewal of Special Exception 83S132 tc park a ~o~ile home on property fronting the northeast line of Beaumont Avenue, at Velda ~oad and ~etter known as IQ~41 Beaumont Avenue. Tax Map 97-4 (2) Central Park, Block R, ~ets 1 and 2, Sheet 32. The first permit was issued on August 24, 1983. Mr. Jacobson stated staff recommends approval of Cate 88SR0172, subject to certain standard condit~on~. acceptable. There was no opposition present. approved Ca=~ ~$R0172 ~or seven (7) years, ~ubj=ot to the following standard conditions: mobile home. 2. ~o lot or parcel may be r~nte~ or leased for use as a rental prope~y. Only one {t} mobiIe home shall be 3, The minimum lot size, yard metbacke, required front yard, district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall ~e located close~ than 28 feet to any existing 4. No additional psrmanent~type living space may be added onto e mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted but shall no__~ be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Where public (County} water and/or sewer are available, %hey shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Eome Permit, the applicant shell then obtain the necessary permits from the Office ~f 88-599 the Building Official. This shall b~ done prior to tho installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall bm grounds for reveoation of tho ~obile Hone Permit. In Matoaca ~agisterial Dimtrict, R~NALD (~OX requested renewal of Mobile Home Permit 8~$R103 to park a mobile hems on property fronting the 'south line of Pern~ale Avenue at Rocky Mill Road and bett~r known as ~801 Forndale Avenue. Tax Map 186-3 (2) Augustus Wriqht, Lots 18 and ]9 (Sheet 521. The first permit was issued Juno 12, 1~74. Mr. Ca¢obsou stated staff recommended approval of Case 885R01g~t subject to certain standard eonditi0ns. Ms. Barbara Cox stated the recommended conditions were accep=ablu. =here was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded ~y Mr. Sullivan~ the approved Ca~e 88SR018~ for seven {7) years, ~ubjee~ to tho following standard conditions: 1. The applicant shall bs the owner and Ocoupant of the mobil~ home. 2. No lot or parcel may be rented or l~a~d for u~ a~ mobile home site~ nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. 0nly one (1) mobile hom~ ~hall permitte~ to he parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3, The m~n~mum lot ~ize, yard ~etbaeks, required front and ether zoning requirements of tho applicable zoning district ~hall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer %hen 20 feet to any existing re~idence. 4. No additional permanent-type livinq ~pac~ ~ay be added on~e a mobile home. All mobile homos shall ho skirted bu~ shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Where public (county) water and/or sewer are available, 6., Upon being granted a Mobile Home. ~ormlt, tho applicant. shall then obtain the necessary permits fmom the .Office of =he ~uild~ng ©ffisial. This shall be done p~ior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of ~h~ ~bovo conditions shall bo grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. ~8SR0188 In Bermuda Magisterial bis~r£e%, SA~L A. ~LL~, requeste~ renewal of Mobile Home Per, it 83SR1~2 to perk a mobile home un propsr~y fronting the south line of velda approximately 680 feet west of J~fferson Davis Ei~hway and better known aS 26~t Velds Read. ~ex ~ap 82-13 {1) Parcel 40 (Sheet ~3). The first per, it was issuo~ July 14, 1976. Mr. Jacobsen stated staff reco~h~ends approval of Case subjeut :o cer=ai~ suan~ard conditions. Mr. Samuel A. Miller, SS. stated the reeommandsd conditions were a~¢ep~able. Th~r~ was nO 0ppe$itie~ pre~en~. On motion of Mr. Coffin, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the approved Case 88SR0188 for seven (7) years, subject to the following standard conditions: 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobil~ 2. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for u~e as mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be ussd for rental property. Only one {I} mobil~ home ~hall be permitted to be parked on an individual let or parcel. 3. The minimnm let ~ize, yard ~etbaek~, required front yard, and other ~oning requirements of the applicable zoning distric~ shall be complie~ with, e~oept that no mobile home shall b~ located clo~er than 20 f~t to any existing residence. 4. ~o additional Dermanent-ty~e living s~aee may be added onto ~ mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted b~t shall net be Dla~d on a permanent ~oundatlon. 5. Where pnbllc (County} water and/or sewer are available, they ~hall b~ 6. Upon being g~anted a Mobile H~e Permit, ~he applicant shall then obtain the necessary per, its from the Office of the B~ilding Official. Thio shall be done prior =o the installation or relocation of the ~obile home. 7. Any violation ef the above conditions shall be g~onnds =evocation of the Eobile ~Ome ~ermi%. Vote: ll.N. F~ZONING 88S017 rezoning from Agricultural {A) te Residential (R-9). A single family re~identlal subdivision is planned, Thi~ reqnest lies on a 33.2 acre parcel ~rontlng approximately 2,727 ~st on the nou%hw~t line of Chippenha~ ~arkway, appr0x~%ely ~,100 feet northwsst of ~opklns Read. Tax Map 52-3 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet day deferral ~r. Jay ROW~ sta~d h~ ~a~ roooiv~d ~ Bequest Analysis only two (2) days prior to the ~oar~ meeting and he would like the deferral agenda so that cortaid concerns could be addressed. On motion of Mr. D~niel, seconded by ~r. ~ayes, th~ Board denied the re~e~% for a ~irty (~0) 4ay deferral of case 88s017 and placed it in its regular s~ence on the a~enda to be heard. Unanimous 88-601 88SN0076 In Matoaca Magisterial District, J~M~ ~. ~F~NS, ~T AL request- ed rszonlng ~rom Agricultural {A) to Light Industrial (M-l) on a 4.9 acre parcel ~rontlng approximately 320 feet on the north line cf Carver ~eights Drive, approximately 197 feet west of West Booker Boulevard. Tax Map 114-11 (1) 9arce~ 1 (Sheet 3t). Mr. Jacobsen stated the appllcant has requested a sixty (60) day deferral of this case. Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that his company is repr~entinq the l~dow-er an this ease, declared a conflic~ Qf interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of There was no opposition pres~n~ to the raquest for a ~eferral. On motion of ~r. ~aycs, se¢on~e~ by ~r. sullivan, the Board deferred COnSideration of Case 885N0076 until Octeber 26, 19S8. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Sullivan, ~r. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Ceftin. Mr. Currin returned tu the meeting. In Midlotkian Magisterial District~ FFB ~_~RSBI~ requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25). A ~ingle family r~$i~ential sub~ivisie~ is p%anned. This request lie~ on a 227 acre parcel lying approximately 23D feet off the western terminus of Castlef0rd Drive, also lying approximately 220 feet off the northwemt line of Netherfield Drive, apprmxi- Parcel~ 12, ]~, 15, and 17; Ta~ Map 6-12 (1) Parcel 2; Ta~ Map 7-1 (1) Part of Parcel ~? and T~.~ Map 7-5 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheets 1 and 2). Mr. Jacobsen seated ~he applicant ha~ requested a thirty day de~rral of Case Mr. Frank Cowan, reDreeenting th~ applicant, ~tuted the (30) day deferral i~ re~ted ~o the applicant can meet with ar~a resldent~ to re~olve concerns relative to transportation acc~ along ~etherfield preeen= to the deferral. On motion of ~r. Sullivan, d~ferred consideration of 1988, seconded by ~r. Currln, the ~oard Case 88SN0~69 until September $8S~0077 ~n ~atoaca ~agisterial Die~rict, ~RTHOR~. %~H~TE SCHO~/~ requast~d rezoning fr~m Community proximately 158 feet On the east line of Jeffar~on Davis ~ighway~ approximately ~,2~0 feet north of Happy ~ill Road. Ta~ Map 163-3 (1).gatt of Parcel 30 (Sheet Mr. JacobSen stated the Planning Comission rec~ended approval of Case 88$NU077. opposition present. It was generally agreed to place Case applican~ an opportunity ~o appear. ~n Clover Hill Magisterial D±~trlct, ~v~ P~T~XP regaestsd amendment to Condltional Use Planned Development {Case 83S024) to permit u~e exceptions in a Light Industrial {M-11 District. An automobile service facility With outside storage is planned. This request lies on a 2.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 330 feet on the east line of Johnston Willis Drive, approximately 1,500 feet south oi ~idlothian Turnpike. Tax ~ap 17-10 (1) Part of Parcel 1~ (Sheet 8}. ~r. Jacobsen stated the Planning Cemmi~i0n recommended approval of Case 885N0082, subject to ~ertain conditions. No one cams forward to represent the request. There was no opposition present. It was generally agreed to place Case 88SN0052 at %h~ end of the agenda in order to ~ive the applicant an opportunity to appear. 885017 In Dale ~agis~eria! Distmict, ~DWE ~OC., LTD. rsque~ted rezoning from Agricultural (A) to R~sidsntial (R-9~. A single f~mily residential subdivision is planned. Thi~ request lies on a 33.2 acre pareR1 fronting approximately 2,727 feet on the southwest llne of Chlppsnham ParRway, approximately I,I00 feet no~thw~t of HOpkins Road. Tax ~ap 52-3 (1) Parcel 2 ~). Mr. Pools presented a summary of the request and 9tared ~he Plannin~ Cor~m~$sion reco~nended denial b~e~ on concerns relative to the developmsnt of ~e site. ~r. Jay Aow~ statad he had requested a d~ferral on behalf of the Catholic Diocese of Virginia~ the owner of the subject pzopmr=y who had not had a~ opportunity to review the Request conslder~Ie problems and concerns r~la%iv~ to ~h9 ~evelopment. ~ ~ta~ed h~ ha~ DToffe~ed a condition to limit the n~b=r of lots %o a maxlm~ of seventy-five (73) and, ba~e~ on proffer, th~ averaq~ lot size would be 14,000 ~q~are feet (R-9~ zoning would all~ him to create open spa~ to address drainage concerns. Mr. Ra~ond Mayes, a resident of North Che~te=wood voi~ed concerns regarding drainage problems in the araa, propertyt traffic congesti0n/acces~ ~roblem~ particularly when school i$ in session, slow snow removal in the area, utc. s~a~ ~a%~ given these concerns and his f~eling that co,ce=ns had ~ot been a~e~a:ely addresseo, he could not re~e~ for. R-9 zoning; ~tated the subject prcper~y location un~que ~n ~hat it mxtends almos~ the ent~e length of Chippeuh~ Parkway b=tween Route lO and Hopkins Road and should ~e a properly designe~ Conditional Use Planned Development for the sit~; that, untll ~uch time as. ~$~e$ of compatibility, drainage, traffic, sound barriers and buffering ulong Chippenh~ ~arkway have been adequately ~ressed, could no~ support development of the subject p~operty. Ee ~%ated he felt the Board would not D~ protecting t~e health, safe~y and welfare of citisens in =he area i~ they approved this request as ~ubmitted and suggested th~ developers 88-603 to pursue the feasibility of a properly design0d Conditional Use Planned Duvelopment package. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board moved to deny Case Mr. Applegate suggested that approval of the Iequest for deferral could give the applicant an opportunity %o meet with the Catholic Diocese of Virginia and attempt to accomplish some of the items suggested by Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel stated h~ would c0n~ider a withdrawal; however, unless the request were =o be presented as a Conditional Use Planned ~evelopment, he would not con~ider deferral or approval of the R-9 zoning. Mr. Rows stated he was not aware a straight seeing could be denied if it were within the parameters cf the Master Plan or that a particular zoning had to bE developed a~ a Conditional Uss Planned Development. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the subject tract is so envi~Onmentally unsound that it is not in the bust interest of %he heal{h, safe~y and welfare of %h~ citizens in the area that is the basis for his recommendation for denial. 88SN0062 requested Conditional Use Planned Development to put-mit a 198 foot ~ower plus bulk (setbeokJ e~ceptiens in a community Business [B-2} District. This request lles on a 0.4 acre parcel fronting aDproxinately 100 feet on the east line Of North Providence Road, approximately 200 feet north of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 18-15 (I) Parcel I5 (Sheet 8}. Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commlss~on recommende~ den£al and more particularly a day care center. (2) week deferral as there is a parcel of land being considered for thi~ projau~ ~hat n~ds further investigation. Mr. Willey Wsinberg stated tha~, if =he case ware not ready for either be withdraw or deferred for thirt'y (30) days. 88SN0058 In Matoaca Magisterial District, MILL~IS~-]{~LSK~ & ~IM~ARY, INC. reque~te~ re~oning £rom Agricultural (A) to Residential {R-25}. A single family residential subdivision is planned. This request lies on a 319.l acre parcel fronting ~ppro×imate~y 1,460 feet on the west line of Rive~way Roadr approximately feet north of Walkee Quarter Road, also fronting i~ two {2) places on River Road, for a total of approximately 1,150 feet~ measu~e~ from a point approximately 920 feet west o~ Walkes Quarter Road. Tax Map 126 (1) Paresis 79 through 87, I07 through 109, 121 through 124, 130, and 131 (Sheet 38). Mr. Daniel stated the applicant is related to an ~mpl0yee of Philip Morris Company with whom he is employed, declared a potential conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia 88-604 the meeting, Mr. Jacobsen steted the Planning Commission recommended denial of Case 88SN00~8 as the proposed use is contrary to the Western Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, which desiqnate~ continued agricultural and £orestal uses south of Beach Road and w~st of Riverwey Road; residential development in this rural area of the County would be premature and coEld not he supported by existing or planned public faai!ities or services, and approval of this request would set a precedent for further development in an a~ea of the County designated for agricultural/forestal uae. He noted staff has received pro,fared conditions from the applicant and, should the Board sea fit to approve the request, sta~ would recommend acceptance of only proffers ~1 and %5 as the remaining cannot be legally accepted or can be accomplished as they are already in the County ordinances. Mr. M. Leslie Saunders, representing the applicant~ presented an overview o~ the recf~est; stated staff's reco~endation has not changed since the application was submitted to =he Planning C~m~ission ~or consideration even though the~e hav~ been changes in circumstances; the developer intends to develop a th~ area~ the developer's extension of public wa~er to the subject property would assist other residents in the area who are currently experiencing well failures and would enhance the area for future development and he submitted a letter from the ChairmaD o~ the Winterpoek Civic Association supporting the Mr. Parthemos stated neither Proffered Condition %2, which involv~ a utility refund process which is outside the scope of the County ordinance nor Proffered Condition ~6, which constitutes a financial proffer tha~ would not be permissible, can be applied tO this request. He stated Proffered Conditions ~ and ~4 are too vague and would present ~n~ereement problems. M~. Mayas s~ated he did not ~eel the request should be denied because there are no public ~ervicss/facilities available in the ar~a; that there ara other subdivisione in the area that are currently ~xperiencing well failures which could benefit by the developer's extension of public water to his property and the project would provide the opportunity to enhan~ the area for future developments and he intended to support the request. There was discussion relative to approval of the requeet even though no public facilities/ssrvXse$ are available in the area; the impact o~ approving the request placing an additional burden o~ the Ceunty'~ ability to provide normal public services; re-evaluation of the Western Area Plan to consider the appropriateness of growth in the area: tha~ approval of the subdivision does not necessarily enhance the service level in On motion of M~. Maymm, ssccnde~ ~y ~r. Gurrin, the Moard approved Case 888N0058 and accepted the iollowing proffered conditions: ~, The average lot size per gross acre in this d~velopment shall be 1.30 acres or more (319A divided by 2~9 lots 1.53A). Roads are estimated te be .0PA per lot for a yield of 1.44A/lot. No lot will be less than 1.00 acre. 2. In order to ~ns~e the safety to school children, the developer agrees ~o install turn lanes into the devel- opment at RiVerWay Road. Ayes: Mr. Applegate~ Mr. Sullivan, ~r. Currin and Mr. Absent: Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting. $$SN0052 In Midlethien Magisterial District, C~-r~ CELLOI~L~, INC. requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit & 198 foot tower plus 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 ~rovidence ~oad, approximately 200 feet north of Midlothian Turnpike, Tax Map 18-15 (I1 Parcel 15 (Sheet 8). Mr. Appleqate. noted that the~e had beem no vote taken on Case ~$SN0062 when it was previously discussed~ therefore, it was on ~otiou cf MS. S~lliVan~ SeConded by ~r. Ceftin, resolved tu defer the case until september 14, 19~8, at 7:00 p.m. 9ute: ~nanimuus 88SN0068 In Dale Zag~$t~rial District, N~%DDIL~ ~Ty requested ~nd- ment to conditional Use Planned Development (case 87s037) relative to use and bulk requirements in an Office Business (0) District. An oPfice/reteil complex is planned. This request lies on a 6.8 acre parcel fro~tinq approximately 410 feet on the northwest line o~ Belmont Road, approximately 220 feet north of Stella Road. Tax Map 40-12 (1) Parcel 12 {Sheet Mr. Jacobsen stated the ~!anning Commission reco~ende~ denial of ~e ~equest for gas p~ps and ~= increased depth of co~ercial uses from Belmont Road and approval of the bank with drive-in window, the r~duction in the b~ff~r width ulong requirement for drivs-~n uses, s~jec~ to certain conditions Mr. Curr~n ~sclos~ to the ~oard that he is a co-owner o~ the subject property, declared a conflict of interest pursuant the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act an~ himself from the m~etinq. Mr. George Emerson ~tated this request i~ to amend a previeusly approved rezoning application, as it has been determined it ~s not ~a~ible to ~evelop ~e type o~ proje=t ~e~ired by th~ applicant' without gasoline pump~ and a convenience store. He M~, Albert Ce~veny and ~. ~arold McCall ~tated area residents would like a pre~iously required six {6) foot fence %o increased to eight (8) feet to ensuxe adequate so~ening/buff- ezing oi the site from the neighborhood. r~present an intense c~ercial use within close proximity to a r~s~den~ial neigh~orhoo~ and is incompatible with o~her existing uses in the area. ~e stated he could support the bank quality of the development and appearance of the site. Mr. Sullivan expressed concern that the Board has a responsibility to ~e citi=ens of the county not to deviate irom the minim~ ten {10) acr~ iequiremen% of the Corridor Overlay District standards as applicable to this rezoning. Mr, Applegate expressed concerns relative to ~9 Board approving 88-606 investments by restricting their ability to operate their businesses. ~r. ~aniel stated if data could be provided to him to document that the gasoline voltt~e s01d in relationship to the County is adversely affected because gasoline sales were denied at ~hie site, he could agree that ~hat hie motion might interfere with the free enterprise system. Mr. Applegate stated he felt that if a business nee i~ applicable for the sit~ then the gas pu~ps could be permitted. On motion cf ~r. Daniel, seconded by Nr. Sullivan, the Board denied the request to permit gasoline sale~ and approved the request to permi~ a drive-in window at a bank, reduction in th~ width of the buffer along the northern property line, and expansion of th~ d~pth of co~rclal uses from Belmont Read, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following Conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre- pare4 by Charles TOWhee and Associates, ~.G., and submit- ted to th~ Planning Department on April 25, 1988, ~hall considered the Master Plan. (~O~E= This condition supersedes condition 1 o~ Case 87S037.) 2. A thirty (30) foot buSf%r ~hall be maintained along the northern boundary 0f tho site. existing ~sge~at~n ~hall ox wall. Other than utilities, which run g~neralty per- pendicular through ~ buffer, an e~tr~nce/exi% driveway as dee~sd necessary by and approved by the Transportation Depar~ent, and a Six (6] fOO~ high solid board fence and/or ~ther ~e~orative feature, there ~hall be no ~acil- ities pe~itted in this buffer. Clearing for the fence or ~=her ~ecorative feature shall not exceed a wid~ of five (5) feet. ~xistlng ~egetation within thi~ buffer shall adjacent property to ~he north and to enhance ~e screen- ing qualities of the buffer ~or adjacent ~eSldential uses. A conceptual landscaping plan ~plcting this shall be submitted for approval in conjunction with sche- matic plan review. A detailed !an~scaping plan this requirement ~hall be submitted to ~e Planning clearing and grading. (P) (NOTE= This condition supersedes ~ approved Textual Statement, Conditions, Conditiua 4.) The site lay0u% sh=ll b~ r=designed so that the proposed convenLence c~n~er i~ located ~n the north side of the proD0sed r~tail building, awa~ from adjacent single family residential developmen~ t0 the sou~, and oriented ~o residents. In a~dition, ~e bank sh~ll be designed that drive-in windows and auto,tic teller machines are located on ~= uou~ side of the building and screened :he building from the r~$1~n~ial property to th~ north. (NOTES: (a) Th~ Zoning Ordinanc~ and approve4 conditions o~ zoning for Case 87S037 require that drive- ways and parking arma$ b9 screened from view of adjacent remid~ntial property to the nor~, south, au~ w~st. (b) Except as noted her~in, all condition~ zoning approved for Case 87S037 r~mnin effect. 88-607 (c) Prior to obtaining cite plan approval or building permits, schematic plans must b~ submitted for approval. At the time of sche_~atic plan review, ctaff will recommend additio~a! conditions relative to access, en-si~e traffic circulation, o~ientetion of buildings, and ~osign s~andards for mitigat- 'lng any potential adverse impact that any cpeeific use or mix of uses may have upon And further, the Board accepted the following proffered condition: In lieu of the required six (6) foot high eoli~ board fence required in the couthern buffer, we hereby agree to erect an eight [8) foot high fence. All other reg~ire- m~nts of Condition 4 of Case $7S037 shall remain applicable. Ayec: Mr. sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. ~ayes. Nays: Mr. Applegate. Absent: Mr. Currin. 88SN0077 In Matoaea Magisterial District, ~ ~. WHITE AND ~%RREN SCHORR requested ~ezoninq fro~ Community Buciness (B-2) to General ~ndustrial {M-21 on a 1.43 acre parcel fronting proximately 158 feet on the east line of Jefferson Davic Sighway, approximacely 2,250 feet north of Happy Hill Road. Tax Map 163-3 {i} Pa~t of Parcel 30 (Shoat 49). ~r. Jacobsen stated ~]e '~lanning Commission Ms. Patsy Mann, representing the applicant, stated tho recommendation was acceptable. There was no opposition On motion of Mr. Mayas, seoonded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approve~ Case $85N0077. Vote: Unanimou~ 888N0082 In Clover ~ill Ma~icterial Dictriet, CVH PARTNE~IP requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case to permit u~e exceptions in a Light Industrial (M-l) District. An automobile cervice facility with outside s~orage is planne~. This request lies on a ~.0 acre parcel fronting approximately approximatel~ 1,500 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax 17-10 (1) Part O~ Parcel 15 (S~oet ~r. Jacobsen stated th~ Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 88S~008~, cttbject to certain conditions. Mr. Jim Eubbard, representing the applicant, stated opposition present. On motion o~ Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved Case 88SN0082~ subject to the following conditions: 1. The followinq conditions notwithctanding~ the plan prepared by Robert P. Beetle, Architect, dated May 1988, ~hall be considered th~ Macter Plan. 88-60B The automotive servie~ facility shall be limited to the cleaning and preparation of new, unli~snsod vehiele~ for sale by automobile dealerships exclusively. There sha!l be no vehicle sales and/or repair on-site. In addition, services shall not be offered to the general public, Specifically, no portion of the request site shall ba ~quipped or arranged to offer a~y of the following services: Sale ur disposal of diesel oil and/er fnet; sale and servicing oi spark plugsr batteries and/or distributors and ignition ~ystsm parts: sale, servicing and of tires; replacement of mufflers, tail pipes, water hoses, fan belts, brake fluid, light bulbs, windshield wipers and blades, greas~ retainers, wheel bearings and the like; radiator cleaning, flushing and fluid replacement; sale cf washing and polishing supplies; p~ovisien and ~epaif of iuel pumps, oil pumps and lines; repair of carburetors; repair o~ hr~kss; repair of wiring; mechanical and body work; straightening of body parts, paintimg, welding; storage of automobiles er trucks not in operating condition; hiring, storing, or parking mo%o~ 4riven vehicles; dismantling or ator- &~ ef junked ~ehicles; other operation~ involving noise, glare~ smoke, and fu~es; er almil~r uses and activities. In addition, outside storage shall be limited to new, unlicensed vehicles. unlicensed V~hicles.) (NOTES: A. Except a~ noted, all conditions of zoning approved for Case 83s02~ remain in effect.) B. In conjunction with approval of this request, the Planning Commission granted eQh~atic plan approval subject te eight (8) Conditions.) Vote: Unanimous il.B. PJ~QLV~ST TO ACCELERATE F~.N~ING FOR LAKE CHESDIN PROJECT There was discussion relative to the read/est to accelerate fun~ing for the Lake Ch~sdin ~rojpct? the proposed donation of the lands the development of a plan for the project~ funding resources: the feesibility of moving forward $?00,000 of the Lake Chesdin Recreational Area in the Capital Improvement Program to be included in 1989, which would delay funding of some other project to offset the cost of the Lake Ch~din Project; etc. ~r. Currin e~ated he could not supper% this request at this ti~e as he ~eeded additional information on the proposed project and ho'had serious reservs%i0~s about advancing monies in this manner. Mr~ Daniel . suggested proceeding with the pr0cur~ment of the donation of land and then hay0 staff outline the actions/steps necessary for development of the park. When asked, Mr. Masden i~dloated tat ~oner has suggested ho Would like to see a golf course on the property. Mr. Sullivan state~ he felt the prupozed request was premature and he ~ould not support it at this time. Mr. Applegate suggested th~ matter be tabled until such time as the procurement of ~he donation of land has been completed. On motion cf Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Ceftin, the ~oard tshle~ tho re~ueet to accelerate funding, in the ~umount of $700,000, for the Lake Che~din ~roj~ct to be included in the county's FY89 Capital Improvement Projects. Vote: Unanimous ll.F. WASTE TRANSFER STATION CO~TPJ%CT approved and authorized the County Administrator to enter into a three (3) year contract with ShGo~mith DrG~hers, lnG. for the operation of the Southern Area Landfill Transfer Station at a tot~! CO~t Of $872,016. fit is noted funds are budgeted in PY89 to cover the first year increased cost of this contract.) Vote; Unanimous ll.G. APPOINT~EMTS ll,G.1, BUILDING CODE APPEA~ BQA~/~ 0n motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Daniel, %he Board nominated Mr. David L. Cart and Dr. Uacob Van Bowen, Jr. to serve On the Building Code Appeals ~oard, whuse formal appeint~ent~ will be mads On Septe~e~ 1~, 1988. VOte: Unanimous ll.G.2. LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING BOARD On motiun cf Mr. Sullivan, ~econded by Mr. Currin, the nominated ~he foliawin~ persons ~o serve on the LOGS% ~mergen~y Planning Board, whose formal appointments will bm made on September 14, ~s. Marguerlta E. Atklns: Depart~ent of Emergency S~rvices ~r. Robert Brown~ Continuity member Mr. Roger Collier: E. I. Du~on% de, amours & Co. Mr, Jim Glass: Philip Morris, Park 500 chief James Graham: chesterfield Fire Department Mr. Ed Gros~man: Defense G~neral S~pply Center Mr. Phillip ~agweod: Allied Chemical 1st SE%. ~. ~. Molland: Virginia ~tate Mr. Earl Little: Reynolds Aluminu~ Mm. Ruth Tenille= Red Cross Vota~ Unanimous ll,H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS I1.R.1, PLANMIMG DEPANT~]~NT GUSTO~ER SEAVICS REPP~S~TATIVE After a brief discussion, on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. C~rrln, the Board approved a full-time Customer ~ervlce Representative position for ~he Planning Department to handle the increased ~elephone calls and a~si~t with walk-in ~affic at the counter and increased the Operating Budget by $14~O0O to be offset by anticipa=ed revenue. Vote: Unanimous ll.H.2. M~INT~NANC~ OF COUNTY RIG~T-OP-WAY ADJACENT TO DE LAVIAL STREET AND wOFa%C~ ROAD On motien cf Mr. Ceftin, ~econded by ~r. Sullivan, th~ Board appropriated $200 from the Bermuda Digtriot Three Cent Road Fund for the constr~ction of barricades along the County's right-o£-w~y (former railroad right-of-way) adjacent tO De Lavial Street and Wc~ack Road to discourage littering. After a brief discussion, Nr~ Currin made a motion to appropriate ~und8 in the amount of $6,508 from the General Fund Balance to cover the inmkallation cost of a small storm sewer along the road at 14407 Mayfalr Drive in ~ayfair Subdivision. There was no sscond and the motion failed. On motion o£ Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Soard denied th~ request for the installation of a small ~tok~ SeW~ along the road at 14407 Mayfair Drive in Mayfair Subdivision. 1I.~.4. STREETLIGHT INSTALLATION COST AFPROVASS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded ~y Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved the installation of a street liqh~ at the intersection of Airfield Drive and Whitepine aoad, in the ~mount of $1,048.77, with funding to be expended from the General Fond and the intersection of Stable Gate Road and Tree Line Terrace, in %he amount of $1,139.07, with funding to he e~pended from the Dale District Street ~ight Fund. Vote: Unanimous ll.M.5. STR~ETLIGMT REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Daniml, ~econded by Mr. Mayem, the Beard ~eni~d ~ request for ~ street light at 11600 Coalboro Road in the ~atoaca Magisterial District, as the request did not m~et the required criteria and approved a request fo= a street light a~ =he in=erseetion of Lawnwood Drive and Slumber Lane~ with funds to be expended from the Dale District Street ~ight Fund. Vot~: Unanimous ll.H.6. FEDERAL HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROGRA~4 to the quality of life and ~he economic prosperity of chester- field County~ and ~HEREAS, highways provid~ a major elem~na in Chester- field's transportation network; and ~H~R~AS, critical federal highways in Chestsrfield n~ed to be ~onstr~cted or reconstructed; and W~EREAS, the federal government has withheld federal highwa~ trust funds from %ha Co~onw~al~ of Virginia o~ the federal deficit r~duction program; and highway us~r f~es sp~cixically dedicated for the construction, W~AS, ~e witkhold~nq o~ federal fund~ ha~ delayed c~pl~tion of 1-295 and the construction of I-~]5 and other important 9roj~ct~ in Chesterfield and the Rio~ond region. NOW, TEE~F0~, 5E IT RESOLVED~ that the ~oard of Super- visors requssts the Che~ts=~i~ld Congressional belegation take all possible steps to free Virginia's f~d~l trust fund 88-611 entitlements so that critical Chesterfield highway improvements ELIMINATION OF THE SILVER STAR RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr~ Mayem~ the Boar~ adopted the following resolutisn: WHEREAS, CSX Railrom~ is ~ensi~ering ab~n~onmeDt of a portion of their :racks in sorch carolina; and WBE~A$, if the track is abandoned, AMTBAK Passenqer Service in the Richmond area would he eliminated; and WHEREAS, AMTRAK's Silver Star passenger service provides a vital ~o~e of transportation for Chesterfield and the Richmond region linking it to designations throughout the east coast. ~oard of Supervisors requests the ~ational Railroad Pad,enter Corporation to r~bain AMTPJ%~'$ ~ilver Star passenger service through Chesterfield County and the Richmond area. ll.H.8. R~SOLUTION k~GARDI~G k~MOVAL OP FEDERAL LAW LIMITS OR CAPS ON T~E AMOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOND FIN~NCING ALLOWABLE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS On motion Of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, ~he Board adopted the following r~solntion: NB~, Counties as the closest level of government to the people, have e right and a responsibility to raise necessary revenues, unhindered by federal impositions or restrictions in order to finance critical public services; and WHEREAS, many of the services provided by Counties are WHEREAS, the need to address critical infrastructure needs nationwide is growing everyday; and WHEREAS, the National A~ociation of Counties (NACo) Taxation and Finance Steering Committee, on August 6, 1958~ and Board of Directors, on August 7, 1988, adopted a re~elutien asking Congress and the Administration to ensure the right of Counties to issue governmental debt for essential public services by marks%ins ~onds ~e i~v~stors with interest on such bonds re~aining totally exempt from f~deral taxation. Specifically, Congress should repcal %he Alternative Minimum Ta~, (ARM), on private activity bonds and create safe harbors for issuers to retain and "plow back'~ earnings into local, public-benefit projects to lower overall costs; and W~EREA$, the Chesterfield County Board of supervisors joins th~ National Association of Counties (NACo) in requesting Congress and the Administration to ensure the right of Counties to issuc governmental debt for essential public SeFvieeE by mark,%lng bonds to investors with interest on such boBds remaining totally exe_~pt from f=deral taxation, speoifioally, Conqress should repeal the Alternative Minim~ Tax, (ATM), on privat%~activity bonds and create safe harbors for issuer~ to re=sin and "plow back" earnings into local, public-benefit BE IT FURTHER ~SOLVED~ that the Chesterfield Ccngrssslonal Delegation make state and local tax exempt 88-612 financing far vital in~rastructure needs a tod priority, and ~bat County officials nationwide call on the PresidEntial Candidates to establlsk an advisory committee tO interface with the new admi~is~ratlon r~qardinq tax-exempt financing Vote: Unanimous Ii.I. CONSENT 11.~.I. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE Thi~ day ~he County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions frc~ this ~oard, made repor~ in writing upon examination of ~untin~creek Drive, Playground Court, Playground Driv~ and Playground Circle in The Park, Section l, Date Dietriot~ Upon coneidera%ion whereof, and on motien cf Mr. Sullivan, seconded ~ ~r. Daniel, it is resolved that Huntlngcreek Drive~ Playground Court, Playground Driv~ and Playground Circle in The Par~, $~¢tion I, Dale District, be and they hereby are established as public reads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be an~ i~ hereby is r~quested ~o take into the $~condary System, Huntingcreek Drive, beginning at the end of sxiBting Euntingcresk Drive, Stats ~oute 1913, and going westerly O.O~ mile to th~ intergection with Playground Court and Playground Drive, then continuing ncrthwesterl~ 0.10 mile to tie into exi~tlng Huntingcreek Drive, Stat~ Route 1913 in Ironbridga Park~ Playground Court, heglnnlng at the intersection with ~untiDg¢~eek Driv~ and going northerly 0.88 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Playqrc=ad Drive, beginning at the intersection with Huntingoreek Drive and going southerly 0.03 mile to the intersection with Playqround Circle, ¢ontiD~ing Southerly 0.81 mile to end in a dead end; and Playground Circle,. beginning at the intersection wi~h Ylaygroun~ Drive an~ going south~riy 0.01 mile to end in cul-de-sac~ This request is inclueive of the adjacent elop~, sight distance and designated Vlrglnle Department of Transportation drainage These feeds serve 27 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board Of guarantse~ ~o ~he Virginia Department of Transportation a right-of-way for all of the~e roads except Huntingcreek Drive which has a ~0' right-of-way. This section of The Park ie recorded as follows: s~otion 1. ~lu= ~ook 53, Page 95, August 1, 195~. Vote: Unanimous 11.I.2. ~TATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE On motion of Mr. Sullivan, secon~e~ by Mr. Daniel, the ~oar~ reques~eO that a portion of Tazewell Avenue be established as a public read. Vote: Unanimous Yhis day the County environments! Engineer, ia a=cordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon hie examination of Den hark Drive, Den ~ark ~lace and Den ~ark 88-613 Terrace in Foxberry, Section 4, Clover ~iI1 District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr, Daniel~ it is resolved that Den Bark Drive, Den Dark Place and Den Bark Terrace in ~oxberry, Section 4, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are e~tahlish~d as public And be it further reaolved, that ~he Virginia Department of Transportationt be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Den Bark Drive, beginning at existing Den Ha~k D~ive~ State Route 3727, and going southerly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Den Bark Plats and Den Bark 9errata, =hen s0ntin~ing SOutherly 0.15 mile to ~nd in a cul-de-sac; Den Bark ~Iaee, beginning a= Den Bark Drive'and going westerly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Den Bark Terrace, beginning at the intersection wi~h Den ~ark Drive an~ going easterly 0.03 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. ?his request is inclusive of the adjacent slope~ ~ight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transgortation ~rainage And b= it further rmsolved, that th~ Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 40' right-of-way for ~ll of these roads except Den Dark Drive which has a 50' riqht-ef-way. This section of Foxberry is recorded as 8action 4. Plat Book 50, Page 41, August 9, 1985, T~is day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this .Board, made report in writing upon his uxamination of South Ridge Drive, Beaver Point Drive, ~ollow Court, Beaver Falls Road and Beaver Falls Court in Stayer ~oint at South Rings, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. sullivan, seconded by ~r. Daniel, it is resolved that Sou~_h Ridge Beaver Hoin~ Drive, B~aver Bellow Court, Beaver Falls Road and Beaver FalL~ Court in Beaver ~oint at South Ridge, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as Dublic roads. And be it ~urther resolved; that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to hake into the Secondary System, South Ridge Drive~ beginning at the northeasterly 0.09 mile to th~ i~terseetion with Beaver Point Drive, %hen turning and going northerly 0.06 mile to the intersection with Beaver Hollow Court, then continuing northerly 0.09 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; stayer Hollow Court, beginning at South Ridge Drive and going westerly 0,05 mile to end in a =ul-de-u'au; Beaver Point Drive, beginning at South Ridge Driv~ an~ going westerly 0.12 mile to the intersection with ~eaver Ealls Roa~, then continuing northerly 0.04 mile to end in a dead end; Beaver Falls Road, beginning at the intersection with Beaver Point Drive and going northerly 0.17 mile to the intersection with Beaver Falls Court, the~ continuing northerly 0.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Beaver Falls Court, beginning at th~ intersection with Beaver Falls Read and going ~esterly 0.04 mils to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department o~ Transportation drainage easements. 88-614 These roads serve 93 lot~. And be i% fnrthsr resolved, that the Board of guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these road~. Plat Bock 48, Pages 86 & 87, March 13, 1985. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Enulrorm~ental Enqineer, in accordance with directio~s fro~ this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Gladstone Glen Place in Gladstone Glen, Clover Bill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. sullivan, seconded by ~r. Daniel, it is resolved that Gladstone Glen Place in Gladetone Glen, Clover Hill Oistrict, be and it hereby is established a~ a public road. And h~ it furthe~ T~olv~d, that the Virginia D~part~ment of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into ths seaendary Syste~, Gladstone Glen Place, beginning at existing Lucks Lane, ~tata Route 720, and going northerly 0.06 mile, ~hen turning and going westerly 0.06 mil~, and then turning and going southerly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac, This toques= is inclusive of t_he adjacent elope, sight distance and designated Virginia D~pa~ment of Transportation drainage This road serves 26 tots. knd be it further resolved, that ~he ~oard of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 40' right-of-way for this road. Plat Book 45, Page 26, ~arch 12, 19~4. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, iD accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon hi~ ~xamination of Paulb~©ok Drive in ~60 Commercial ~a~k West, Clever Bill District. Upon consideration wh~reof~ and on motion of Mr. sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved ~ha~ Paulbrook Drive in 360 commercial Park West~ Clover Hill District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further r~olv~d, that Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the S~condary Sye~em, ~au~broek brivs, ~egi~ning a~ existing $~esks Drive, State Route 3036, and going ~esterly 0.15 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This reqaes~ is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distan=e and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage This roa~ serves a~jacent commercial properties. ~nd be i= fur=her resolved, that the Board c~ Superviser~ guarantees ~o the Virginia Department of Tranepor~aticn a 60~ right-of-way for t~is road. 8@-615 360 Co~m~rcial ~erk West is recorded as Plat RO~k 59, Page 10, October-30, 1987. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmuntal Engineer, in ~cc0rd~n¢~ with directions from this Beard, made report in writing upon hi~ examination of Hackney Road and ~ackn~y Circle in Old Coach Hills, Section C, Dale District. Upon consideration wberee~, end on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Hackney Road and Hackney Circle in Old Coach Hills, Section C, Dale ~istrict, be. and they hereby are established as public roads. Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Hackney Road, beginning at e~isting Read, state Route 2326, and going northerly 8.02 ~ile to the intersection with ~aokney Circle, th~n continuing northerly 0.08 m~le to end in s cul-de-see~ and Hackney Circle, beginning at the i~t~rsection wi~h Hackney Road and gelng westerly O.II ~ile to end i~ a cul-de-sac. This r~qucst is inclusive of the adjacent slope~ sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage These roads ~erve 3] lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guax~nteo$ to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads. This suction of Old Coach Hills is recorded as Section C. Plat Book 48, Page 21, December 20, 19~4, VOte: Unanimous This day the County Bnvironmental Enqineer, in accordance with direction~ fro~ %his Boar~, made r~port in writing upon his examination of Old Cannon Road, Vista Ridge Lane, Cole Mill Road and Yerlinda Drive in Hedgelawn, Dale District. Upon consideration whereof, an~ on mo:ion of Nr. Sullivan, seconded by M~, Daniel~ it ie ~eselved that Old Cannon Road, vista Ridge ~ane, cole Mill Read and verlinda Drive in Hedgelawn, Dale District, be and they hereby are established es pUblic roads. And be it Sar%her resolved, ~hat the Virginia Dep&rtmen= of Transportation~ be and it hereby is requested t~ take Into the secondary system, Old Cannon Road, beginning at the ~ntsr- section with ~opkin~ Road, State Route 637, and going westerly o.12 mile to the intersection with Vista ~idge Lane, then continuing southerly 0,tS mile %0 smd in a Cul-de-sac; Vista Ridge Lane, beginning et the intersection with Old Cannon Road and going wpeterly 0.~ mil~ to end at %he intersection with Cole Mill Road; Cole Mill Road, beginning at the inter~ection with Vi~a Ridge L~n~ and going seuthsrly 0.0~ mile to ~nd in a cul-de-sac. Again Cole Mill Road, beginning at the inter~ section with Vista Ridge Lane and going northerly 0.1~ mile ~o the intersection with Verlinda Drive, then continuing northerly 0.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Verlinda Drive, beginning a~ the in~erseotion with cole Mill Road and going westerly 0.04 mile to =is into existing verlinda Drive, 8=a=e Re=ce ~072. 88-616 This request is inclusive of the adjaoen~ and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage Th~se roads serve 49 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors right-of-way for all of these roads. Hedgelawn is recorded as follows: Plat Book 5~, Pages 57 ~ 58, July 15, Thi~ day the County Environmental EngiDeer, in accordance with directions from this Board~ made report in writin~ upon his exa~inatlon of ~arata Lane in Sueoybrook, Section 9, District. Upon oonsldera~ion whereof, and on ~otien Of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved Chat Sarata Lane in Sunnybrook, Se0tion 9~ ~atoaca District, be and it hereby is And be it .~urther resolve~, that the Virginia Depart_meet of Transpo~tation~ be and it hereby is requested to take in%o the Secondary System, Sarata Lane, beginning at existing Sarata Lane, State Route 2795~ and going easterly 0.08 mile tO en~ iD a ~emporary turnaround. This request is inclusive of the adj,=eot slope, ~ight distance end designated Vi~gini& Department of Transportation drainage easements. This road serves 7 lots, And be it further resolved, that the ~oard o~ Supervisors guarantees to th® Virginia Department of Transportation a right-of-way for this read. This section o~ ~unnybreok is recorde~ as follows: section 9. Pla= Rook S~, Page 29, J~ne ~3, 1986. Vote~ Unanimous This day the County Environmental ~ngiReer, in accordance with dlreeticns ~rom this ~eard, made report in writing upon his ~xamination of ~toneorop ~!ace i~ Stone0rop, Midlothian Distric=. Upon nonmideration whmreof~ and on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Daniel, it im r~solv~d tha~ S~omecrop ~lace in shoneerop, Midlo%hien District, be and it hereby iu eutablishcd as a public road. Ar~ be it fur%her resolved, that the Virginia Department Transportation~ b~ and it hereby is r~q~ested to take into Secondary Syceem, Stonecrop Place, beginning at existing Stonecrop Place, Stat~ Routm 3404, an~ going we~terl~ for 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive o~ the &~jacent ~lope, sight distance end design&ted Virginia Department of Transportation drainag~ This road serves 8 lots. 88-617 And be it f~rther re~olvad, that the Board of Supervi~or~ g~aran%ees %o the Virginia Department eX Transportation riqht-of~way for this road. StoneCrOp is recorded as follows: Plat Book 51, Page 81, December 13, 1985. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with direction~ from thi~ ~oazd, made report in writing upon his examination ef Rossmere Drive, Rossmere Court~ Rossmer~ Circle an~ Gt~gate ~ead in ~tonehenge West, Section 4, Midlothian upon consideration ~hereo~, end on motion of Mr. S~llivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, i~ i~ resolved that Re, smote briv~, Ros~mare Cou~t, Roesmar~ Circle and Glengate Road in Stonehenge West, Section 4, ~idlothian Dietriet, be and t~sy hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Ros~re Drive~ beginning at ~xi~ting ~ossmere Drlv~, State Route 3116, and going northerly 0.OS mile to the intersection with Rossmere Court, 'then continuing northerly 0.10 mile to the intersection with Red,mere Circle~ then continuing northerly 0.06 mile to the intersection with Glengete Road, then continuing northerly ~.09 mile to end in a temporary turnaround; Ro~mer~ Court, beginning at the intersection with Rossmere Drive and going westerly 0.86 mile to end in a cul-de-~ac~ Ro~m~re Circle, beginning at the intersection with Rossmere Drive and going westerly 0.03 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and ~lengate Road, beginning at the intersection with Rossmere Drive and going westerly 0.04 mile to end at ~xisting ~lengate Road, State Rou~ 1070. This request is inGIusive o~ the a~jasent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainag~ And b~ it further resolved, that the ~eard of Supervisors g~&ranteee %0 the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads. This section of Stonehsnge West is recordmd as follows: Section 4. ~lat ~cok 4S, Pages 10 & 11, December 6, 1984. 1],I.3. ROBIOU~ ROAD A~D OLD GUN ROAD VIRGINIA BYWAY~ DESIGNATION On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ the Board adopted the following resolution: W~BR~AS, 01~ Gun Roa~ end Robious Road have outstanding natural scenic end historic ~@atures; and W~EREAS, Chesterfield County desires to preserve the beauty cf these routes as Virginia ~y~ays; and WHeReAS, the County has received requests from citizens to seek Virginia Byway designations for Old Gun Road and Robious Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT R~SOSV~ that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Conservation and Historic Resourc~ and the C~onwealth Transportation soard to designate Robieus Road {Route 711) from the Pcwhatan County Line to Old Sun Road (Route 67~) and 01~ Gun Road from Rebioas Road to the Richmond City Limits as Virqinis B~ay~. Vote: Unanimous .11.I.4. D~T~NTIO~ BONE CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT On motion of Mr. Sullivan, eeconded by Mr. Daniel, th~ Boa¥O approved and authorized the Cqonty Aclministrater to execute an addendum to the Detention Home Construction Pa!rm~nt schedule, reque~Led by tho Ci£y of Colonial Eeights, which would permit extension of the agreement to allow three (3) additional years at eight (8) percent interest to make the required payment8 as follows: $3O,000 on or before July 15, 1989; $32,170 on or before July 15, 199I. Vote: Unanimeu~ ~1.I.5. CNANGM TO THE WALTMALL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR FIRE STATIONS On motion of Mr. ~ullivan, $esou~ed by Mr. Daniel, the Eoard approved a change ox~er to the Walthall Construction Contract, in the amount of $35,252, for the extra excavation and backfill required for the new Robioas and Airport Fire Stations. (It is noted funds are available within the origins1 projec~ contingency to cover this increase.} 11.I.6. SET DATES FOR PUBLIC NE~RING$ ll.I.6.a. TO CON~ID~R T~ CONVEYANCE OF LEASES OF REAL PROPERTY AT VARIOUS PA~-K SITES FOE OPEPJ~TION OF FOOD CO~CE~IO~$ On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Board set the date cf Septe~ber 28, 1988, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to ¢on~ider the conveyance O£ leases of real property to operate food concessions at the Chesterfield Courthouse, ~idlethian ~iddle School, Providence Middle School and Ironbridge Park sites for the period of September 10 - ~ovember ll.I.6.b. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TNE COD~ 0~ TEE COUNTY O~ CEESTE~IELD~ 1978.,. ~S AMENDED~ BY A~iENDING SECTION 19-34 AND I9-3~ RELATING T© TAxICAbS AND 0TU=R VMHICL=S FOR HIRE On metioa e£ Mr. Mu!liven, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ the Board ~et the dat~ Of September 28, 1988, at 9:OQ a.m., for a public hearlnq to consider an ordinance to amend the County Cod~ relating to the issuance of l£eemses for tax£¢abs an4 other vehicles for hire. 88-619 ll.I.6.c. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO ~34RND THE CODE OF T~E COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, t978, AS ANhENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 21-3 TO ~STRICT TN~ NUMBER OF CATS KePT IN A R~$ID~NTIAL ZONING DISTRICT A~D TO P~STRICT THE ~=~ING OF PIT BULLS On motion of Mr. Sullivan, Seconded by refer~ed consideration of an ordinance to amend the County Code relating to tho restriction of the number of oats kept in reeidential zoning dietrict and the reetriction Of the keeping of pit bulls to ~he ~lanning Com~%ission for their consideration and recommendation. Vote: Unanimous ll.I.6.d. TQ CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 197~ AS AMENDED~ HY A24ENDING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 12 R~LATtNG TO BUSINES~ LICENSE TAXES On motion of Mr. Sullivan, neecnd~d by Mr. Daniel, the Board set the date o~ O~tober 12, 1988, .at 7:00 p.m., fnr a publi~ hearing to con~ider an ordinance ~0 amend ~he County Cod~ Vote: Unanimou~ ll.I.6~e. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO At. ND THE CODB OF THE COUNTY OP CHESTERFIELD~ 1978~ AS AMENDED~ BY AMENDING ~ECTIQ~ 17-28 A~D 17-29 K~AT~G TO ~A~T AND RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION APPLICATIONS AND FEES On motion of Mr. Sullivan, meConded by Mr. Daniel, ehe Board ~o~ the date of September ~$, ~955, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hea~ing to con~ider an ordinance to ~u~end the County C~de relating to easement and right-of-way vacations and fees. ll.I.6.f. TO CONVEY A 2.5 ACRE PARCEL IN AIRPORT I~DUSTRIAL PARK TO DELTA ASSOCIATES P.E., INC. AND AUTHORIZE A ~AL ~TAT~ CONTRACT On motion oi Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board ~t the date cf September 28, 1988, at 9:~0 a.m., for a public hearing to con~ider the conveyance of a ~.5 + acre parcel in the Airport Industrial Park to Delta Associate~, P.E., Inc. and authorized tho County A~inistrater to enter Jut0 a r~al estat~ 11.I.?. C0~IDERATION OF A P~QUEST FOR AN E~T~RTAIN~E~T/MUSICAL FESTIVAL PERMIT ~D FIP~WORKS PERMIT FROM TEE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION on mntic~ o~ Mr. $~lli~an, ~con~ed ~y Mr, Pentel, the ~car~ approved a request for an entertainment/musical festival and a £ircwork~ p=rmit, for Dominion Eireworks of Petersburg to ~tage fir~work~ dinplay~ ~aeh night at 9=30 p,m. from Monday, September 12, 1988 .to Saturday, September 17, 1988, to Chesterfi~Id County Fair Association for the annual Chester~ie!d County fair, subject to conditions ne=e~ary by th= County Attorney. (It is n0%ed the County Pair Asso0iat~on has $~bmitt~d evidence of a firework~ liability insurance policy in the amount of $1,000,000 naming the County as an additional insured.) UTILITIES DRPART~NT ITEMS ll.J.1. PUBLIC BEARINGS ll.J.l.a. ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTIO~ OF k VARIABL~ WIDTH DRAINAGE AND SEWER BASEMENT IN QUEENSMILL, SECTION Jr LOT 6~ BLOCK BB Hr. Weloh0ns ~tated %his date and time had been advertised for a Dublic hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate a portion of e variable width drainage and sewer easement across Lot Block BB, Queensmill~ Section J. No one ~ame forward to speak in favor of or against the proposed ordinance. On motion of ~r. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currln, th~ Board adopted the following ordinance: A~ ORDINANCE to vacate a portion of a variable ~idth drainage and sewer easement across Lot 6, Block BB, Queensmill Subdivi~fon~ S~ticn J, ~idlcth~an District, Chesterfield, virginia, a~ ~hown on a plat thereof duly ree0~d~O in Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield WHEP~AS, ~arrington Komes, LTD., pstltlon~d the Doar~ of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a porti0D o~ a v~i~ble width drainage an~ sewer easement across Lot 6, Block BB, Quaensmill Subdivision, Section J, Midlothian District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown On a plat of record in the Clezk's Office of the Circuit Court of ~aid County in Plat Book 55, Page~ 91 and 92, ~e by $. Timmons, dated November 5, I986. The portion of a variable width drainag~ and ~ew~r easement patitionod tO b~ vacated are more fully described as follows: A portion of a variable width drainage and sewer moro fully shown, on a plat made by Frederick A. which is attached hereto and made a part of 15.1-431 Of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by That pursuant 5o Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of accordance with Section 15.1-492(b} of the Code Of Virginia, ~950, as amended, and a certified copy of this 0rdinanc~, sooner ~an thirty days hereafter in th~ Clerk's Office of Section 15.1-485 of the Cod~ of Virginia., 1950, as ~ended. 88-621 The effect Of this Ordinance pursuant to is to destroy the force and a~fect of the recording of the portion of th~ plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee simple title of the portion of the the property owners of the 10t across Quccnsmi11 Subdivision free and clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the name of the County!. of Chesterfield, as grantor, and Harrin~ton He,es! LTD.; Or its successors in title, as grantee. Vote: Unanimous ll,J.l.b. ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF A TAXIWA¥ EASieST ACROSS TWO PARCELS AT CHESTERFIELD AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK~ S~CTION A Mr. welshons stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to connid~r an 0rdinanc~ ~o vasate a periled of a taxiway easement across two lctm in Block A, Section A, at th~ Chesterfield Airport I~ustrial Park. NO ODe came forward to speak in ~avor of or against the proposed ordinance. On motion of Mr. C~rrin~ ss¢onded by Mr. 8ullivan~ the Board adopted the following ramolution~ AN ORDINANCB to vacate a portion of a taxlway easement within Chesterfield County Industrial ~ark Subdivision, ~ectien A, Dale District, Chestsrfield, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly rmcorded in the clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 27, Pages 63 and 64. WHEREAS, Stiles L. ~art~ey A.I.A. & Richard S. Kavanaugh, petitioned the Board of Supervisors o~ Chesterfield Virginia, to vacate a portion of a taxiway easement, within Chesterfield County Industrial Park Subdivision, Section A, Dale District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Court of said County, in Plat Book 27, Pages 63 and 64, made by J. R. Timmon~ & A~o¢iata$ dated Ootohe~ 26, 1976, The easement petitioned to be vacated is ~ore fully described as A portion of a taxiway easement within Chesterfield County Indus%rial Park Section A, ~hc location of which is more fully shown c~ess hatched on a plat by Land,ark surveyors, Ins, dated June 10, 1986, a copy of which i~ attached hereto ~nd mad~ a ~art oi this Ordinance. WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as ~nende~ by advertising; tad the portion of the taxiwa¥ easement sought to be vacated. Virginia, t950, as amended, tko aforesaid portion of the taxiway easement be and is hereby vacated. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect accordance with Section 15.l-482{b) cf the code of viryinia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of %his Ordinance, together with the plat attached hero,Q, shall be recorded nc aooner than thirty daya hereafter in the Clerk'~ Offic~ of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield county, Virginia, pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginiar 1950, as The effect of thiz Ordinance, pursuant to Section 15.I-483, is =e destroy the force and effect of the recording of ~he portion of the plat Vacated. This Ordinance shal~ vest fee simple title of ~he portion of the easement vacated in the property owner of the lot within Chesterfield COunty Industrial Park free and clear of any rights ol publis use. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the na~es of the County of Chesterfield, aS grantor, an~ Stiles L. Bartlay A.I.A. & Richard S. Kavanaugh or their su~ceeeors in title, as grantee_ ll.J.2. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS ll.J.2.a. REQUEST PROM SPRING TP~ACN A~SOCIATES POR AID IN ~r. Apple~ate advised the ~oard that Dr. Charles W. Henry, whose property is eh~ ~b~eot of thin paper, paa~ed away j~t recently. Mr. Mayas expressed concerns relative to the County assisting developers in acquiring easements ae~o~z the property of private citizens and stated he felt t_he County ~hould r~main neutral. He atatad, in vi~ Of th~ personal circumstanoe~ of this matter, he felt a =hlrty {30) day deferral would be appropriate. On motion of Mr. Mayest seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board deferred consideration of a reques~ from Spring Trac~ Associates faf aid in aequirin9 a sewer easement across the property of Dr. and Mrs. Charles W. Henry along a tributary of Spring Run Creek until Sspten~ber.~p, 1988. Vote: Unanimous 11.J.2.c. DECLAR~ PARCELS OF L~/qD AS SURPLUS AND OFFER FOR SALE ll,J.2.c.1. 7.7 + ACP~E PARCEL OFF OF ROUTE 10 ADJACENT TO WOOLRID~E SUBDIVISION On mo%ion Of Mr. D~Di~l~ seconde~ hy Mr. Coffin, the ~oard d~clared a 7.7 + acre parcel of land off of Rou~ 1.0, adjacent to Woolridge ~ubdivislen in Bermuda District, as surplus property, and in keeping with County policy, directed the ~urchasing Department to advertise for sealed bids to offer necessary easements. (A copy of ~h~ plat ia filed wit~ ~e papers of this Board.) 22.08 + AC~E PAKCEL NEAR HOPKINS ROAD On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board declared a 22.08 ! acre parcel of land near Uopkin$ Road iD Dale bistriot as surplus property, and in keeping with County policy, directed ~h~ Purchasing Department to advertise for s~aled bids =o offer said property for sale, suh3ect to %he reaervation of the necessary easement~. (A copy of the plat is filed wi~h the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous 11.J.2.c.3, 1 + ACR~ PARCEL OW WINT~POCK ROAD On motion oi Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr, Currin, the Board declars~ a one (1 ~) acrs parcel O~ lend on Winterposk Road in Matoaca District as surplu~ property, in keeping with County polfey~ directed the Purchasing Department' to advertise ~or ~ealed bid'~ to offer sai~ property for sale, sub3e¢~ =o the reservation of the necessary easements and ~ights-of-way. (A copy of ~h~ pla~ is file~ witk the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous ll.J.3. CONSENT ITEMS ll.J.3.a. A~PROVAL OF WATER CONTRACT FOR NARA SITE, ROUTE 1 AND Qn motion of Mr. Daniel, ~eeonded by Mr. sullivan, the Board approved and au~horizmd the County Adminimtrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: NAPA Site - Route 1 and 3~1 - WS$-140D: Developer; Genuine Par~s Company, Inc. Contractor: Fred W. Barnes Construction Company, Inc. Total Contract COct~ To~al Estimated County Cost~ $ 8,750.08 (Cash Refund £rom 1988-1959 Replacement Fund) ~stimated ~eveloper Co~t: Number of Connections: 1 Code: Vote: Unanimous ll.J.3.b. WATER CONTRACT FOR DEVELOPER ~ARTICIPATION FOR EXTENSION DF WATER SYSTEM ALONG GENITO ROAD AT WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT Mr. Applegate questioned the possibility of a conflict of interest as he owns a tract of land behind the Birkdale Development and inc/~ired if this extension would ben, fit his property. Mr. Welchons stated h~ did not think this extension would afl,ce Mr. Appk~gate's property. On motion ~f Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved and authorized the County A~ministrator, on behalf of th~ County, %O ~xeoute tho necezsary dootum~nt~ for Water Pmrticipatio~ Agreement Somber W88-115CD for developer participation between Waterford at srandermill Joint Venture, A General Partnership and th~ County, for e×t~n~ion cf the water system along Genito Road at Waterford Development an~ which agreement provides for the developer to pay the County the cost of extending the water line across their property, estimated in the a~ount of $6,490.00, within 30 days upon completion of kh~ project identified a~ Oak ~ake Susiness Cmn=er - 0ffsite Water Extension {W88-113CD) . Vote: Unanimous APPROVAL OF SEWER CONTRACT FOR WOODLAKE TRUN~ S=~q~K, On motion Q£ Mr. Daniel, seconde~ by Mr. Sulllv$~, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to ex.cute any necemgary docu~nentm for the following sewer contract: i i t WoodlaK~ Trunk sewer - Developer: Investors Woodlake Develot~m~nt Contrastorz R.M.C, Contractors, Inc. Total Contract Co~t= Total Estimated County Cost: $ 5,612.06 Estimated Developer Cost~ $ 99,665.94 Number e£ Connections: Codex 5~-2511~997 ll.J.3.d. SEW~ CONTP~%CT FOR DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION FOR EXTENSION CF SEWER SYSTEM ALONG SPRING RU~ C~EK TO ~iR~DALE DEV=LOP~ENT On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~eeonded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator, o~ behalf of the ~ounty, to execute the necessary documents for Sewer Participation Agreement Number SS§-I~5CD, for developer partieipa=ion between Messrs. William B. and Gone H. Dural and the County, for the extension of m trunk ~w~r llne along spring Run Creek which i~ p~oposed within th~ t~ntative development of Deer Run Subdivision (Putur~ ~ec%ien~) aA~ which aqro~r~ent prev~ee ~or the developer t~ reimburse ~he County the cost of constructing an 8" ~wer line through his property prior to the first connection beinq made~ Vote: Unanimou~ l~..J..3.g.' ~__~p~TEACT FOR HUNTINGCI~EK HILLS, SECTIO~ Y On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconde~ hy ~r. Sullivan, the ~o~rd approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the followinq sewer eon~ract: Huntingcreek Hill~ - Sectien F - Off-Site 9ewer Line. Developer: ~ir~o~s Associates Contractor= Richard L. C~owd~r Construction Co. Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost: (Refund ~hrough connection fe~s) E~timated Developer Cost: Nunbe~ of Conn~0eion$: Cods: $22,230.0~ $ ?,726.60 $14,503.40 5N-2511-997 FOR DEVELOPER PARTICIPATtO~ FOR EXTENSION OF SEWEK SYSTEM D-LONG $~IFT CP~EN RESERVOIR On motion of Mr, Daniel, ssconde~ by ~r. Sullivan, the Board approved and authoriz=d the County Administrator, on behalf of th~ County, to execute the necessary document~ for Sewer ~artieipa=ien Agrcemen= Number S87-14CD, for developer partici- pation between ~eartland Richmond Eighway 360 Limited Partner- ship (Heartland Property) and the County for the e~t=nsion of a trunk sewer lin~ along Swift Creek Reservoir which would cress th~ Heartland Propert~ {Tax map 75-2~ Parc=l 5). In the event th~ devel0pe~ of the Bra61ey Investment Property (Tax Map 75-1, Parcel 1) extends a trunk ~ewer alan9 Swift Creek Reservoir crossing the "Heartland Proper=y", this aqroement provides for the owner, or his respective heirs, uuccussors er assigns, for the "Heartland Property" to reimburse tho County the cost of constructing an 8" sewer line thro~qh his property prior .to th~ first connection being made and the County reserving capacity to serve 206 equivalent unit~ in the Earbour Pointe E~wers9~ Pump Station. 88-625 AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY A~D SOUTHEF~ RAILWAY COMPANY On motion e~ Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, %he Board authorized th~ County Administrator, on behalf of the County, to enter into a License Agre~men= wi~h southern ~ailway Company in a form acceptable to the County Attorney for the installs%ion of a 16 inch water line across railroad right of way nnder Contract Nut,bar W87-97C, Otterdale Road ~a~r 5in~. Vote: Unanimous ll.J.3.h. AGP~EMENT WITH Vnet FOR ADJUSTMENT OF UTILITIES ON ROUTE 36 On motion oi Nr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, tbs Doard approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an Agreement wi~h ~he Virginia Department of T~ansportation for the relocation o~ sanitary sewer lines at the new bridge over tho CSX Aailrea~ on aquae 36. (it is noted the State is ns~pon$ible for ]0~% of the cost.) Vote: Unanimous ll.J.3.i. REQUEST TO IN~TALL ELECTRICAL CA~L~ IN ~IgTING RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SPRUCE AVENUE On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. ~ullivan, the Board approved a raques~ ~rom V~rginia ~lectric an~ Power Com~ny for permission %o install slectricaI cables within the existing 50' right-of-way ~or Spruce Avenue. (It is noted a copy o~ the plat is filed with the papers of thl~ Board.) Vote: Unanimous tl.J.3.Q. REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT UNDERGROUND CABLE IN EXISTING RIG~T-0F-WAY FOR JOE On motion of Mr. Daniel, $~oonde~ by Mr. ~Blllv~n, the approved a request from Virginia Electric and Power Company for permi$$1oD to in,tall an undezgroun~ cable in t_he existing right-of-way for Joe Avenue_ (It is noted a oozy of the plat is filed with the papers of ~his Vote= Unanimous ll.J.3.k. COnVeYANCE OF TWO EASEMENTS TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board authorized th~ Chairman of the Board and the County Administra- tor to execute two (2) easement aqreenent~ with Virginia ~l~ctric and Power Company to install buried cable at Middle SChOOl and Robioue Fire Station for ~ervice to the new ~iled with the papers o~ this Beard.) Vote: UnanimoU~ ll.J.~.l. DEED OF DEDICATION ALOMG U.M. JEFFERSON DAVIS ~tGk~WAY FROM MR. DAVID M. LOVE On motion cf Mr. Daniel, s~oended by Mr. ~ullivan, +_he Board authorised ~he County Administrator to execute the necessary deed accepting, on b~half of the County, the conveyance of a 20' strip of land along U.S, Routs 1 and 30t, Jefferson Davis ~ighway, from Mr. David M. Love, and authorize the County Administratez to execute the necessary deed. (It i~ noted a copy of the plat ia filed with the papers ei this Ecard.) Uote: Unanimous ll.J.3.m. DEED OF DEDICATIO~ ALONG BUFORD ROAD FROM MR. AND MRS. J. MARVIN GREGORY On motion ef Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the ~oard authorized the County Ad~inistrator to execute the necessary deed accepting, on behalf of the County, the conveyanc~ of a 10' ~%rip of land along Buford Road from Mr. and Mrs. J. Marvin Gregory. (It is noted a copy of the plat is ~iled with the paDer~ of this Board.) Vote~ Unanimon~ 11.J.3.n. DEED FOR RUFFIN MILL ROA~' PuMP ~TATION AND AS~pS.I~TED Mn. Cnrrin d±~tloRed to the Board that he own~ property iD the Ruffin Mill ~oad area which relates %o Items I1.J.3.n,, Deed for Ruffin Mill Road Pump Station and ke~o¢iate~ ~asements, and ll.J.3.o., ~et Public ~earing Date to Consider an Ordinance to Establish the Route 10 Sewer A~eSSm~nt Di~riot and to Auehorize IDsuance cf Revenue ~onds, declared a potential conflict of interest pursuant to ~he Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself f~om the meeting. Qn motion o~ Mr. Sullivan, s~conded by Mr. Mayas, th~ Board authorized the County Administrator to execute t~e 'necessary deed accepting, on behal~ of the County, for the conveyance of the Ruf~in Mill Road Sewer Punping Station ~ite and associated sasement~ ~rom J. E. Martin & Sons Contra~tore~ Ine.~ and G. L. Boward, Inc. (It is noted a copy of the.plat is file4 with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Snllivan~ Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Absent: Mr. Currin. SET PUBLIC EEARING DATE TO CONSIDER AN ORDINARCE TO ~TADLIS5 TSE ROUTE I0 TO AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE ~ONDS On motion of Mr. Sullivan~ eeconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board set hearing to consider an Ordinance to establimh %he ~ouLe 10 Sewer Assessment Dis~rict and to coneidar the adoption of a resolution authorizing the issuance of $2.5 million in revenue bonds to fund the proj~ut. Ayes: Mr. Appiegate, ~r. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayer. Absent: Mr. Ceftin. Mr. Currin returned to the meetinq. REPORTS Mr. Meleh0n$ presented the Board with a report on the developer water and sewer contract~ executed by the County Adminietrator. 88-627 ll.K. REPORTS Mr. Ramssy preaented the Board with a status report on the General Fund Contingency Account, General Fun~ ~alanus, Road R~$o~v~ Funds, District Road and Street Light Funds, Lease ~urchases, School Literary Loans, an~ School soard Agenda. Mr. Ramsey state~ the Virginia ~epar=ment of Transportation has formally notified the County of the acceptance cf tbs following A~ITIQ~S LENGTH: SUNNYBROOK - SECTION 6 Route 3099 (Andradell Lanel - From Rout~ 3092 to Route 3543 O,10 Mi, Route 3543 {B10~omwood Road) - From Route 3092 to 0.01 mile west of Route 3545 0.32 Mi. Route 3544 (~los~omwood Court) - ~rom 3543 to a ~outh cul-de-sac 0.07 Mi. Route 3545 (August Road) - From Route 3543 to 0.05 mile north of Route 3546 0.12 Mi, Route 3546 (August Court) - From Route 3545 to an east cul-de-sac 0.07 FINCELEY - SECTIONS A & B Route 256T {Bondurant Drive) - From Route 3413 to 0.05 milo east of Route 3990 Route 3414 (Vollie Road) - From Route 2567 to 0.07 mile $o~th of ROUt~ 2567 Route 3990 (Bunr~tty RO~) - From Route 2567 to a northwest cul-de-sac Route 3991 {Bunratty Court) - From Rou~e 3990 to a southwest cu!~de-sau 0.16 Mi, 0.07 Mi. 0.15 Mi. 0.03 Mi. FAIRPINES - SECTIONS 1 & 2 Route 2130 (Fa£rpines Road) - From 0.04 mil~ eas~ of Rout~ 2102 to 0.04 mil~ ~ast of Rou~e 3810 Route 2~01 (~outh Js~sup Roadl - From 0.03 mil~ ~outh o~ Route 3169 to 0.07 mile south of Routs 2130 Route 3~10 (Fairpines Court) - From Route 2130 to a south cul-de-sac Route 3811 (East Banea Court) - From Routs 2301 to an ~st cul-de-sac Route 3811 {West Banes Court) - From Route 2301 Route 3812 (East D%nny C~urt) ~ F~om Route 2301 Route 38I~ {West Denny Court] ~ From Route 2301 to a southwest cul-de-sac 0.32 ~i. 0.23 Mi. 0.06 Mi. 0.06 Mi, 0.09 Mi. 0.05 Mi. 0.19 Mi, 11.0. DII~IFER 5:00 p.m. to travel to ~ella %talin ll.P. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDRR THE ADOPTION OF SITING A~D 0PE~ATIONAL STAnDArDS FOR DEBRIS LANDFILLS IN CRESTERFIELD COUNT~ ~r. Ha~umer stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the adoption of Siting and ©p~rationa] Standards ~or Debris Landfills in Chesterfield county. He presented an Overview of the funde necessary for the initiation of a County-wide D~bri~ ~andfill Inspection Program; the consultant's report, which included a submission requirements checklist, deeign and operation standards, etc. ~r. Michael Fiore, consultant from Resource International, re~at~ve to stricter controls imposed on landfill operations to certain wording ohan~in~ th~ in~nt cf the report, misunderstandings relative to terminology wi~h respect to the definition of the word landfill; ~he elimination of illegal standards as he felt the recon~e~datlocs of the report ara attempting to supplant the task that th~ Federal Environmental Protection Agency has designated to the State ~epartnent of obtain qualified staff to provide adequa=e landfill inspec- Applegate closed the public hearing. ~ea~on for operating and si~inq of l~ndfill~ and that he of the standards and initiation of a County-wide landfill from J. K. Tigons, P.e. re~ar4ing ~he ~ropose~ County of which is filed with the papers of this Board. Mr. Currin Go,ended the report and sta~ed he felt the reco~endntiona, if ~plemented, w~uld suppI~ent those ~at 4e~ri~ landfills are operated p:operly; and that he considers o~ sell4 waste ~isposal and would support it. Mr. Daniel ~ated he felt unviro~ental protection i~ an land and a responsibility =o shutdown illegal operatione as rapidly a~ po~ibl~; and ~Oiced support for the adoption of the 88-629 that the well water cf the Mateaaa District citizens would not be affected/degraded and that he could not support the request. Mr. Sullivan suqqested that neighboring jurisdictions be resonated tc join Chesterfield in a ¢0ncerted e~ort to eliminate illegal operations and cooperate in tbs efforts to solve the problem of solid waste On motion of Mr. Sullivan, ssco~ded by Mr. Coffin, the board adopted ~he the Sitlnq and Operational Standards for Debris Landfills in Chesterfield County and appropriated $65,340 from the General Fund ~alanoa in startup costs for one (1) landfill inspecto~ in Zoning Enforcement to monitor existing debris landfills and to followup on illegal sites .and provide contractual expenses for debris landfill applicant r~views; directed ~ho County Attorney to ~ubmit a Waste Control Flow Ordinance for Board ~pproval in October, 1988 and ordinances necessary ts ~harge debris haulers fees and recover contractual ~penses relative to debris landfill applicant r~views; diTected ~he Count~ Administrator to develop a D~bri~ Manifes~ System to be initiated as soon as practicable with Beard approval and adopted the fnllowing siting and s~andards for dmbris landfills: Establistumsnt of minimum-technical and financial s~bmissiou standaTds f0~ = dubris landfill ruzoning applicatlon~ 2. ~stabli~b-~ent of minimum design sn~ operational standards for the operation of a d~hris in Chesterfield County; 3. Impl~mentatinn of a data collection study to provide more meaningful information on the quantity and types of waste generated at County constr~ction sites; 4. Initiation of a study to identify illegal landfills within th~ County and the current methods and sites used for disposal; 5. Implementation of a Count~ site inspection and monitoring program to assure compliance with the County and State operational and design standards; 6. Implement a permit progra~ t%quiring contractors "operating within the County to identify and use permitted landfills for wests disposal. The program would require the onrtifieation of waste disposal by the site operator and would be reported to th~ County; and 7. Initiat~ a study to explor~ alternative methods for as loeation~ private vs public ownership, and franchise Ayes: Mr. Applegate, ~r. Sullivan, Mr. Currin and Mr. Daniel. 12, AD J0~MENT On motion of Mr. Danlel, seconded by Mr. Coffin, the Board adjouTned at 8:45 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. On ~ptember 1~, 19~8. Vote: Unanimous