Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
07-25-1984 Minutes
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES July 25, 1984 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman Mr. G. H. Applegate, Vice Chairman Mr. R. Garland Dodd Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. Jesse J. Mayes Mr. Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley R. Balderson Dir. of Planning Mr. William Correll, Construction Coordinat~ Mr. N. E. Carmichael, Comm. of Revenue Mrs. Doris DeHart, Volunteer Coordinator Mrs. Linda Grasewicz, Principal Planner Mr. Phil Hester, Dir. of Parks & Rec. Mr. Robert Hodder, Building Official Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst. County Administrator Mr. William Howell, Dir., Gen. Services Dr. Burt Lowe, Dir., Mental Health/Retard. Mr. Robert Masden, Asst. Co. Admin. Mr. Richard McElfish, Environmental Eng. Mr. R. J. McCracken, Transp. Director Mr. Steve Micas. Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Public Info. Officer Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy, Assr County Admin. Col. Joseph Pittman, Chief of Police Mr. Charles Quaiff~ Sup. of Accts. & Recd: Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of Budget & Acctg. Ms. Jean Smith, Dir. of Social Services Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Exec. Asst. to Co. Mr. Charles Watson, Commonwealth's Atty. Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities Mro George Woodall, Diro, Econ. Develop. Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:0 a.m. (EDST). 1. INVOCATION Mr. Daniel introduced Reverend G. Elton Cook, Pastor of Lyndale Baptist Church, who gave the invocation. 2. APPROVAL OF M~NU~ES On motion of Mrs. Girone~ seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board 84-403 approved the minutes of July 11, 1984, as amended. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the minutes of July 13, 1984, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS Mr. Hedrick introduced Mrs. Doris DeHart, Volunteer Coordinator. Mrs. DeHart presented the Board with a report on the Volunteer Program and stated that there are over 3,345 volunteers in the 1 departments with which she is working but she indicated this was a modest figure because the athletic section of Parks and Recreation did not have figures available. She stated this report dealt with the individual volunteers and not with the groups which donate many hours of time. She stated the program is successful and growing daily. Mr. Daniel stated the report indicates a real tribute to the citizens who are making Chesterfield a quality place to live by donating their time. Mr Dodd stated that he felt the dollar figure reported may be underestimated as volunteers in one fire Station could save the County approximately $300,000-$400,000. Mrs. DeHart stated she was in total agreement with the statement regarding the Fire Department volunteers as they do provide a tremendous resource for the County. Mr. Hedrick introduced Ms. Polly Mason, Mr. John MacLellan and Mr. Tim Lorenz who were present from the Richmond Metro Chamber. The Board thanked the staff of the Chamber for their assistance. Mr. Hodge stated the Virginia Aviation Commission had approved funding in the amount of $48,723.00 for the widening of the runway and overlay of pavement for the existing runway at the County Airport. He stated this represents 5% of the cost of the project and it has now been forwarded to the Federal Aviation Administration for approval of $877,018.00, which represents 90% of the project. He stated the remaining 5% will come from the County's sale of property at the Airport Industrial Park. Mr. Ramsey stated the County had received a Certificate of Conformance in Financial Reporting for the 1983 Annual Financial Report. He stated this program recognizes excellence in reporting and certifies that the County has met all of the accounting requirements of the Government Finance Officers Association. He stated this is particularly important to the bond rating agencies. He stated about 3% of the counties in the nation are awarded the certificate. He stated this certificate has to be earned each year and the requirements are very strict. He stated the staff appreciated the Board's high priority for sound financial management practices. The Board congratulated the staff on the receipt of the Certificate. Mr. Hedrick recognized Mr. Phil Hester, who was recently elected President of the Virginia Recreation and Parks Society. The Board congratulated Mr. Hester on his election. 4. ITEMS TO BE DELETED OR HEARD OUT OF SEQUENCE On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board added to the outlined Executive Session a briefing by legal counsel and staff regarding the investigative procedures for the apprehension of criminals as allowed by Section 2.1-344 (a) (6) and discussion 84-404 of two acquisitions and use of real property for public purposes as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (2) of the Code of Virginia; added item 9.P., regarding the Moral Obligation to Pay Parker Field Architect Fees all of which'are of an emergency nature in accordance with the rules and procedures of the Board of Supervisors; deferred item 9.E., Appropriation for Reward for Information Leading to Arrest and Conviction of Parties Responsible for the Walmsley Murders until after the Executive Session, and further the Board adopted the agenda as amended. Vote: Unanimous 5. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION Mr. Hedrick stated there were no resolutions of special recognition scheduled for this meeting. 6. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS o CLAIM OF JAMES TADLOCK Mr. Daniel inquired if Mr. Tadlock or his representative was present at the meeting. No one was present regarding this matter. Mr. Micas stated Mr. Tadlock's attorney was notified that his claim was on the Board of Supervisor's agenda. Mr. Micas explained that a claim had been filed against the County the amount of $25~000 for injuries arising out of an accident Bird High School to James Tadlock which involved the cleaning some equipment during an athletic endeavor. He stated the Co~ School Personnel are independent of the Board of Supervisors the County is not responsible for injuries that arise from actions of School Board employees and the County is immune from those kinds of claims. He stated that Mr. Tadlock was unwill to wait the Board's decision today because he has filed civil suit against the County for $50,000. He stated staff the claim be denied. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mayes, based on the County Attorney's recommendation, the Board denied the claim of Mr. James N. Tadlock in the amount of $25,0( arising from an injury incurred at Bird High School. Vote: Unanimous 7. DEFERRED ITEMS Mr. Hedrick indicated there were no deferred items scheduled this meeting. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.A. CONNECTION FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR WATER AND SEWER Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing relating to connection fees and service charges for the sewer and water system. Mr. Welchons stated the Board had held a work session on this matter and introduced Mr. Quaif~ Mr. Quaiff stated the following were recommended and explained each: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Increase water service charges. Impose a 5% penalty for late payment of utility bill with minimum charge of $1.50. Impose a $10.00 fee if bill is collected at the door befor. service is disconnected. Impose a $25.00 fee when service is disconnected for nonpayment. Adopt connection fee schedule for sewer connections. Revise water connection fees for existing homes and new homes on nondeveloper lines. 84-405 Mr. Dodd stated in the sewer funds a certain percentage is escrowed for future expansion of the sewage treatment plants and inquired if this were being done with the water funds and if not shouldn't we be doing it to safeguard ourselves from a major expenditure. Mr. Quaiff stated that we are not doing it at the present time. Mr. Hedrick stated that the increase for water is to help off-set the cost of the expansion of the Appomattox Rive! Water plant. He stated this appears to take care of our water needs beyond the year 2000. He stated that as we get further into that program we will want to look to the future and follow the same procedure with regard to water by escrowing the money. Mr. Dodd encouraged staff to stay on top of this issue especiall, since the Lake Genito issue and others are coming into discussion. Mr. Quaiff stated staff is currently looking into these matters. Mr. Applegate inquired about the connection and disconnection fees. Mr. Quaiff stated that once the County has disconnected the service, it will cost $25.00 plus the total bill to reconnect. Mr. Applegate inquired about rental property and nonpayment. Mr. Quaiff stated that as long as the tenant is in the house, he will be responsible for the bill. He stated that when he leaves, then State Statute and County Ordinances provide that the bill becomes a lien against the property if it is not paid. Mr. Applegate stated he felt this should be against the individual and not the property. Mr. Quaiff stated staff would try to collect the bill from the individual who moved but in the event it was not collected, it would become a lien against the property. Mr. Applegate stated he was not certain this was fair Mr. Quaiff stated only .2% of 1% do not pay their bills so it is a very small percentage of the total. Mr. Mayes inquired why it was proposed that the water connection fee be increased for those not installed by the developer. Mr. Quaiff stated that when a water installation is made it exceeds the $500 connection fee which is now being collected. He stated that if the Highway Department imposes some restrictions on the County, there is an additional cost. He stated that would cause the County to lose money on every connection made. He stated in order to cover the cost of installation and generate additional dollars for future extensions, this increase was proposed. Mr. Mayes inquired how this compares to the cost of the developer. Mr. Quaiff stated that the developer installs all the lines, makes water connection/tap to the main and provides everything but the meter and he pays the County a $200 fee in addition to his cost to install all the lines. Mr. Mayes stated he felt a 100% increase at one time indicated something was not right. Mr. Dodd inquired if a guide had been prepared by staff as he requested during the Work Session regarding the operation of the Utilities Department. Mr. Quaiff stated that a survey was done to determine the water loss we are having and it is 6%--we are able to deliver and sell 94% of that which we produce which is below the national average of 20% loss. He stated our cost is reasonable and efficient. He stated figures were not available but they could be provided. Mr. Applegate inquired if the connection fees projected through 1987 would cover the additional costs and insure there would not be any out of pocket expenses by the County. Mr. Quaiff stated these figures are reasonable but it will not produce all of the capital dollars that are necessary but will produce a substantia~ part of those dollars. Mr. Hedrick stated that staff looked at the costs and at passing this cost on to the citizens. He state¢ they are conservative estimates and, hopefully, the estimates ar4 enough to cover the costs. Mrs. Girone expressed concern that the water connection fee to a private homeowner is now $500 and is increasing to $1,000 and th~ developer's fee is $200 and is staying the same. She stated she had a problem with that as well as the sewer connection fee. Mr Hedrick stated that the cost of a connection is $1,500 and part 84-406 of the reason for that is because of the Highway Department requirements which make the connection more expensive than what we are currently charging. He stated the increase will still be $500 less than what it is costing the County to make the connection. He stated the developer is paying to install the lines as well as the connection fee which covers their total cost but the County will still be subsidizing the individual by $500. Mr. Mayes inquired how the $1,500 cost figure was determined. Mr. Quaiff stated a recent survey of recent projects estimated the cost at $1,600 per connection which surveys are available. There was no one present to address this matter and Mr. Daniel declared the public hearing closed. Mrs. Girone reiterated her concern regarding the increase to the individual and not to the developer. She stated that the developer recovers his funds through the sale of the home. She stated that the Board is looking at how much money can be generated to pay the bills, we are not making any money on this and we are not using any excess money to provide another service--but just to pay the bills. She stated she felt the individual and the developer should pay the same connection fee. She stated if one had to be raised so should the other or at least equalize the two figures in some manner. She stated she did not feel this was fair and it either should be the same or somewhere near the same. Mr. Mayes and Mr. Dodd stated they als( had the same concern. Mr. Hedrick stated that when a water line is installed the developer pays the cost of that extension and the existing property owner pays only for the cost of the connection to their home. He stated when there is an existing home, the County puts the lines in and the only way of recoverin¢ the cost is through the connection fee. He stated the new homeowner is paying the entire cost but the existing homeowner i: only paying 2/3 of the cost. Mrs. Girone stated the existing homeowner pays to run the line from the street to the house and the connection fee. Mr. Hedrick stated that the new homeowner would be paying for the lines in the street as well in the cost of his connection. Mr. Applegate stated the alternative to the developer installing lines would be for the County to do it and then the fee could be charged on an equal basis but he felt the system we are using is the best. Mr. Daniel stated that the new homeowner pays the higher price which clearly reflects the increase in installation fees. He stated the developer will not pay for the lines--it eventually will be the new homeowner when he purchases the home just as the existing homeowners should pay~ Mr. Hedrick stated that a lot of the extensions approved are at cost of approximately $3,000 of which the existing homeowners pa only the connection fee. Mr. Dodd stated what is being stated is that "the developer is subsidizing the ~ ~es". He stated the County is paying more to the Appomattox ~ ~r Water Authority than other neighboring jurisdictions b~ ~.lse of growth and inquired who was subsidizing the growth. H~. ~ated growth prompted this increase for the expansion of ~ ~uthority. He stated the proposed increase in fees are not .~ ~.air as they should be. Mr. Daniel stated there were two differ~,~t issues--one dealing with the cost to connect to the system an~ the other is the continuing cost once you are on and that a decision as to link the two or separate them needs to be made. Mr. Hedrick stated the increase in the service charge pays for the increase in the water costs and the connection fee pays for the capital costs. Mr. Mayes stated he felt th~ increase should have ~een phased rather than presenting a 100% ~ncrease at one time. Mr. Daniel stated he understood wha~ Mr. Mayes was saying but that the Board in past years chose not to increase the fees. Mrs. Girone stated she could not support the proposed ordinance unless there was some parity with regard to the cost to developers but she did not know what the figure should be. Mr. Daniel stated that the developer is paying the full cost of the installation of the water lines and an additional $200 and he could not support increasing the 84-407 developer fees. He stated the consumer who buys the home will pay the cost in the end as it will be passed on by the developer. He stated there were homes in the County which did not have sewer and the County extended the sewer to them and they were subsidized by two-thirds of the cost. He stated he felt the existing homeowner is receiving the bargain. He stated the water charge is the same for all. Mr. Mayes stated he did not ~eel both groups were being treated the same. Mr. Hedrick stated in past years, prior Boards had made the decision not to pass the total cost of connections to existing homeowners. He stated the disparity between what it was actually costing and what we were charging has widened because of increased costs that have been passed on to the County by the Highway Department. He stated what the developer installs has nothing to do with the existing homes other than the fact that the new home is subsidizing the existing homes. He stated there is parity. Mr. Dodd stated he felt that this is true to an extent but pointed out there are older residents who have wanted water for 20 years and been paying taxes for 40 years and they feel they have been subsidizing new growth with increased taxes on their homes, and we are not providing water, sewer, etc. Mr. Daniel stated that if this is the case, then the Board should publicly say that new growth, as far as connections, is going to more than cover their costs because they are going to supplement the costs through lower rates for connection fees for existing homeowners who do not have water service in the County. Mr. Dodd stated he felt the ordinance needed reviewing. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that consideration of this ordinance be deferred until August 22, 1984 with Mr. Dodd and Mr. Applegate appointed to work with the County Administration on this matter. Mrs. Girone stated she felt it was important to proceed with the balance of this ordinance change and suggested deferring the connection fees until a later date. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes withdrew their motion. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following ordinance and deferred consideration of the portion regarding water and sewer connection fees until August 22, 1984 with Mr. Dodd and Mr. Applegate designated to discuss these connection fees with the County Administration and come back with a proposal: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 20-9.1, 20-13, 20-21.3, 20-27 AND ADDING SECTIONS 20-12.1 AND 20-21.4 RELATING TO CONNECTION FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR THE SEWER .AND WATER SYSTEM BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield ~ounty: (1) That Sections 20-9.1, 20-13, 20-21.3 and 20-27 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, are amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 20-9.1. Water rates. In all cases not covered by contract made by the Board of ~upervisors prior to July 1, 1977 the monthly rate for :onsumption of water to be paid by the owner shall include a ninimum monthly service charge based on the meter size serving ~he premises and a volume charge in a~cordance with the following ~hedule: (a) Minimum service charge pe~rpremise: 84-408 Water Meter Size (Inches) 5/8 or 3/4 1 1 1/4 1 1/2 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 (b) Volume charge: First 400 cu.ft. Next 39,600 cu.ft. Next 500,000 cu.ft. All in excess of 540,000 cu.ft. Monthly Amount $ 4.80 9.00 13.20 16.80 22.80 44.40 74.40 150.00 270.00 420.00 600.00 no charge 84¢ per 100 cu.ft. 70¢ per 100 cu. ft. 65¢ per 100 cu.ft. (c) Multiple unit residence charge. The minimum monthly charge shall be applicable to all apartments, condominiums, duplexes, mobile homes and other premises wherein more than one living unit is served by one service connection. The service charge shall be the service charge for a five-eighths-inch or three-quarter-inch meter plus four dollars and eighty cents per living unit for each unit in excess of one. The amount of water included in the service charge shall be determined by multiplyin, the total number of living units by four hundred cubic feet. Th~ volume charge shall be the same as for all other classes of customers for all water in excess of the product of the total number of units times four hundred cubic feet. Sec. 20-13. Termination of service folr nonpayment p.f water charges; additional charge. If the bill for water charge shall remain unpaid for fiftee days after becoming delinquent and written notice has been sent by first class mail to the user that water supply at the premise shall be discontinued, the supply of water to the premises shall be discontinued. If the customer pays a delinquent bill to a county representative at the customer's location, but prio~ to disconnection, a late fee of $10.00 will be paid in addition to the total bill. If service has been disconnected due to nonpayment, a reconnection fee of twenty-five dollars plus the total bill must be paid prior to restoration of service. Sec. 20-21.3. Termination of service for nonpayment of sewer charges; additional charge. If the bill for sewer charge shall remain unpaid for fiftee days after becoming delinquent and written notice has been sent by first class mail to the user that sewer service for the premises shall be discontinued, sewer service to the premises shall be discontinued. If the customer pays a delinquent bill to a county representative at the customer's location, but prior to disconnection, a late fee of $10.00 will be paid in addition to the total bill. If service has been disconnected due to nonpayment, a reconnection fee of twenty-five dollars plus the total bill must be paid prior to restoration of service. Sec. 20-27. .Sam~3-char~es--~enerall¥. Connection charges for sewer treatment in county shall be as follows: 84-409 (i) For those residential subdivisions or portions thereof or commercial extensions for which the board of supervisors has officially authorized design or construction as of February 11, 1981, premises connecting to the sewer system within thirty days of availability of sewer will pay the connection charge in effect prior to the rate change of February 11, 1981, and thereafter the prevailing full charge; provided, that if, for whatever reason, sewer has not been made available by July 1, 1985, all premises within such area to be served shall pay the prevailing connection charges. (j) For those residential subdivisions or portions thereof or commercial extensions for which the board of supervisors has officially authorized design or construction between February 11, 1981 and March 24, 1982, premises connectin¢ to the sewer system within thirty days of availability of sewer will pay the connection charge in effect prior to the rate chang of March 25, 1982, and thereafter the prevailing full charge; provided, that if, for whatever reason, sewer has not been made available by July 1, 1985, all premises within such area to be served shall pay the prevailing connection charges. (k) Two-thirds of connection fees collected pursuant to this section shall be escrowed within sewer funds in an interest bearing account, to be used exclusively for additional sewage treatment capacity and refunds for oversize an~ offsite sewers. (2) That Sections 20-21.1 and 20-21.4 are added to the Cod~ of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, as follows: Sec. 20-12.1. Same--late payment. There shall be imposed a penalty on any utility bill (sewer/water service charges) paid 25 days after the billing dat. of $1.50 or 5% of the unpaid amount, whichever is greater. Sec. 20-21.4. Same--late payment. There shall be imposed a penalty on any utility bill (sewer/water service charges) paid 25 days after the billing dat of $1.50 or 5% of the unpaid amount, whichever is greater. (3) This ordinance shall be effective August 1, 1984. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Micas stated that if the Committee recommends increasing the water and sewer connection fees for developers, this ordinance will have to be readvertised prior to approval. 8.B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - BELLWOOD/BENSLEY AREA Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been scheduled for a public hearing to receive public comment regarding the County's Virginia Community Development Block Grant application for residential improvements in the Bel!wood/Bensley area. Mr. Balderson introduced Mrs. Linda Grasewicz, Block Grant Coordinator. Mrs. Grasewicz outlined the current block grant program, the proposed application and the State rating system fc block grant applications. She stated staff was recommending the Bensley/Bellwood area for this grant because it is densely populated, is a low to moderate income area, and is an older and stable housing area. She stated it has a concentration of housing needs and community facility needs to make a long term improvement project successful. She stated there are over 4,000 families in the proposed area, this area has the lowest average family income and some of the lowest housing values in the County. She stated there are 950 homes built prior to 1960 and there are apartments over 20 years of age. She stated this program would involve low interest home improvement loans, 84-410 water line extensions and a park development. She stated this 51-71~% ~1 It'll, qranl mu~[ h~:, ~lx,nl: ~m hnu~tnq ]ml~rUv~ment; activities. She stated that grant awards are highly competitive and most go to small, rural and economically depressed areas. She stated that the likelihood of a water and/or sewer project to be funded in the County is almost negligible as the programs funded previously have been mandated improvements or declared health hazards of which the County has neither. She stated water and sewer can be funded if it is part of a residential improvements program which is what is proposed in the Bellwood area. She stated $368,600 for housing rehabilitation, $174,400 for water lines to the Rayon Park Subdivision, establishment of an area park in the amount of $97,000 and $50,600 for administration is proposed. She added a private developer is renovating a deteriorating structure in the area at a cost of $13,000,000±. There was no one present to speak in favor of the proposal. Ms. Janine Bell, a private consultant on behalf of the Branders Bridge Road/Bradley Bridge Road community was present. She stated concerns regarding this area with regard to water and drainage problems which exist. She stated this area is in Matoaca District, it is predominantly black with low to moderate income citizens. She stated this area relies totally on wells for their water supply and this had not been a problem until the County landfill was installed in the neighborhood. She stated the residents then experienced contamination to their water supply. She stated concerns were raised to the staff and others about two and one-half years ago. She stated that the Health Department conducted a survey and of the 13 wells tested, 8 were contaminated. She stated the landfill is located close to the residents, there are commercial and residential dumpings of solid and liquid wastes, etc. She stated a representative of the Statl Health Commissioner's Office indicated that because of the character of the landfill, substances can leak out and he felt that the substances would be traveling to the wells in the community. She stated the landfill has also closed many of the drainage ditches in the community which has left standing water in many of the yards near the wells. She introduced Mr. Cornelious Lively, a resident of the area. Mr. Lively stated that the problems area residents are experiencing are standing water on the property, water under the houses, discolored water from faucets, rings around pans when water is boiled, wells with surface water, drainage ditches with stagnant water, water with bad odors, etc. Ms. Bell elaborated on the problems in the area. She stated there is illness in the neighborhood which could very well be a result of the polluted water. She distributed pictures of standing water in the neighborhood. She stated it was unthinkable that people have an impure water source, as pure water is a basic need for living. She proposed using Community Development funds and the County General Fund to solve the problems. She stated water lines could be laid in the area (a survey of which is being conducted at this time which indicates 65% of those surveyed are interested) financial assistance and alternatives for the connection fees and payments, and improvements to the drainage problems. She stated this proposal should receive favorable consideration because water lines are a high priority, especially when a locality contributes funds to the project. She stated this is in line with the Community Development Block Grant objective--to improve the economic and physical environment in a specific locality, to benefit low and moderate income areas, to eliminate slums and plight and to meet urgent community development needs, especially to those posing a serious threat to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens She stated the agency also gives bonus criteria in selecting projects to be funded regarding projects that are designed to eliminate an emergency situation or an immediate threat to publi health and safety. She stated that pure water is a human right 84-411 not a pr],vilege and that people's health ils at stake. She stated the Board should give attention to southern end of the County and perhaps a less affluent area of the County. She stated she dld not have figures as to the cost of. the project and she would llk~ to leave that to the determination of the staff. She expressed appreciation to the staff for their assistance on thls project. Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation to Ms. Bell for her presentation. He stated the grant for consideration today deals with another area but he felt the County Administrator should be requested to meet with the community and find a method of addressing these needs. Mr. Mayes thanked Ms. Bell for the presentation and stated the members of the community want a commitment from the Board to solve this serious problem with regard to potable water. He stated the grant does not deal with this problem but a similar one in Bensley and he would not want to stand in the way of solving that one, however, since the staf~ chose Bensley over this project, a commitment is necessary from the Board. Mr. Dodd stated he did not realize there was a drainage problem in the area as well as the water problem which he has worked to solve in the last few years. He stated that he could assure the people in the area that he would support improvements to the area. Mr. Daniel stated he felt recommendations with their costs should be submitted to the Board. Mr. Dodd stated the people feel the Board has not heard their need and it has been so long in coming, they want a commitment. Mrs. Girone inquired if the County could submit more than one application. Mr. Hedrick stated the County has the opportunity to submit one application which involves a specific criteria and it is a matter of looking at the number of people to be served, the dollars involved, etc. Mr. Mayes stated he would not oppose a project where there is a need but he could not ignore a seriou~ health problem that he has heard about for the last several months. Mr. Applegate stated there are two issues before the Board, one being a grant application and one being another area of the County that has a problem which cannot be addressed by the grant. Mr. Mayes stated the people of the area would like a commitment prior to voting on the grant application as it is a vital need. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the Board needed a proposal to review prior to making a commitment. Mr. Dodd stated the Bensley area is in dire need of the improvements mentioned and he assured Mr. Mayes that the people in the Branders Bridge Road area would be taken care of. Mrs. Girone inquired if a report was accomplished on the Branders Bridge Road area as well. Mr. Daniel stated it was indicated that the Branders Bridge Road area does not meet the 60% requirement for housing improvements as it is basically a water situation. He instructed the County Administrator to put together information for the Board to consider to eliminate the problems mentioned this morning for the Branders Bridge Road area. Mr. Mayes inquired when this could be accomplished. Mr. Hedrick stated, hopefully, by the next Board meeting. Mrs. Girone inquired if the two areas were in competition for the same funds. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the important issue was that the Board had requested the County Administrator to come back with a ~lan 'to eliminate the problem as presented. It was indicated a vote was unnecessary for the directive to the County Administrator. No one else was present to address this issue. Mrs. Girone stated she understood that if the Board voted for the Bensley project, the Branders Bridge Road area problem could not be addressed or solved through another grant application this year. Mrs. Grasewicz stated the County is allowed to submit one application per year and if it fails, then staff will reevaluate the proposal as well as other alternatives, and come back with another recommendation next year. Mr. Mayes stated he did not want to hold up the application for Bensley as there is a need. 84-412 Mrs. Girone stated there are advantages in going through grants with regard to connection fees, etc. Mr. Daniel stated Mr. Hedrick was instructed to seek a solution to the Branders Bridge Road area problems and staff had informed the Board that this area would not qualify for CommunitY Development Block Grant Funds. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, financial assistance is available to units of general local government through the Commonwealth of Virginia Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, in order to avail itself of such financial assistance it is necessary to file with the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development an application for a Community Improvement Grant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, that: The County will apply for a $700,000 Virginia Community Development Block Grant to fund the residential improvements project for the Bellwood/Bensley area. 0 The Bellwood/Bensley residential improvement application will include funds for housing rehabilitation, water line extension and neighborhood park development. The application will show at least $700,000 in VCDBG funds, $75,000 in-kind County funds, $100,000 in VHDA funds, $2,000,000 in other federal funds, and $13,000,000 in private funds committed to this project. The County Administrator is authorized to submit said application, including all understandings and assurances contained therein, with the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development and to provide such additional information as may be required by the Department. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate excused himself from the meeting. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9.A. SCHOOL BOARD BUDGET REQUEST On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board accepted a State grant, "Retraining Experienced Teachers in Math and Science" for the School Administration and appropriated the revenues and expenditures for this grant in the amount of $27,000. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Applegate. Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting. 9.B. GRANT FOR WELCOME BABY PR©JECT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized acceptance of a grant in the amount of $5,870 from the Virginia Department of Social Services to expand the Mental Health/Mental Retardation's Welcome Baby Project and increased revenue and expenditure appropriations by $5,870 for Mental Health/Mental Retardation. Vote: Unanimous 84-413 9oC. PARKS AND RECREATION ITEMS 9.C.1. IMPROVEMENTS AT BELLWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board appropriated $3,000 from the Bermuda District 3¢ Road Funds to construct a three (3) foot chain link fence at Bellwood Elementary School. Vote: Unanimous 9.C.2. CONTRACT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR DALE PARK On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board: Approved contracting with Resource Planners to provide necessary consultant services for Dale Park at a total maximum amount of $37,250 and appropriated said funds from the Dale Park account. Authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessar~ documents on behalf of the County Vote: Unanimous 9.C.3. PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR LEASES OF CONCESSIONS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set th date of September 12, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider leases of real property at various park sites to operat~ food concessions. Vote: Unanimous 9.D. REVISIONS IN CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS' BUDGETS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board: Increased revenues from Compensation Board by $220,400; Decreased expenditures in Sheriff's budget by $104,200; Increased appropriation for the General Fund balance by $324,600 (which offsets Numbers 1 and 2); and Approved two new auditor positions for the Commissioner of Revenue. Vote: Unanimous 9.E. APPROPRIATION FOR REWARD FOR WALMSLEY MURDERS Mr. Hedrick indicated this item had been deferred to later in th~ day. 9.F. CONTRACT FOR PREPARATION OF REVENUE SHARING TRANSITION PLA] On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board: e Authorized staff to acquire the services of a consultant to prepare the transition plan document required by the Federal Revenue Sharing Program; Authorized the County Administrator to enter into a contract with the consultant; and Appropriated $9,500 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the Revenue Sharing Funds for this project. Mrs. Girone suggested that the staff contact Mr. Don Edons of the City of Richmond as to what the City did regarding this plan. Mr. Applegate inquired if a consultant always did this work. Mrs. Girone stated this is the first time it has been required. 84-414 Mr. Hedrick stated that consultants had been employed for these kinds of services previously. Mr. Daniel suggested that the $9,500 be returned to the General Fund to pay for the consultants if it is approved. Vote: Unanimous 9.G. POLICE MUTUAL AID - HENRICO, RICHMOND AND CHESTERFIELD Chief Pittman stated this agreement was the result of negotiations between the County, Richmond and Henrico. He stated the agreement provides that in the case of emergencies or other special needs, the police departments can call on each other for assistance. He stated responding personnel will remain under the control of the responding jurisdiction and if another need arises, they can be recalled. He stated no funds are involved. Mr. Hedrick stated Chief Pittman and his staff had involved a lot of time and effort in this agreement and there is good cooperation between the various police departments. On motion of the Board, the Police Mutal Aid Agreement between the Counties of Chesterfield and Henrico and the City of Richmond was approved and further the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute the mutual aid agreement, a copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board. Vote: Unanimous 9.H. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATES 9.H.1. RADIO TOWERS FOR POLICE AND FIRE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board set the date of October 10, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing regarding the location of radio towers for the Police and Fire Communications System. Vote: Unanimous 9.H.2. ORDINANCE REGARDING PERMITS TO SELL FIREARMS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board set the date of September 12, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to amend the Code of the County relating to permits to sell firearms. Vote: Unanimous 9.I. PROCEEDINGS OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 9.I.1. CHESTERFIELD HOTEL ASSOCIATES Mr. George Woodall was present and introduced Mr. Malcolm Briggs and Mr. Robert Briggs, principals in HI Management Corporation. Mr. Applegate inquired about the possible limit on industrial revenue bond financing. Mr. Woodall stated there is a cap on the bonds as of June and the County did exceed that amount but there are funds at the State level which, hopefully, can be tapped to fund these projects and others. Mr. Jack Spain was present and stated that the resolutions reserve to the Board and the Authority, the right to allocate a portion of the bonds if there is not enough allocated to the County to take care of the projects that are before the Board today. He stated the order of the Governor is not supposed to be issued until August 1st but there is supposed to be $800,000,000 in funds for 1984 for the State. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopted the following resolution: 84-4i5 Whereas, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority"), has considered the applicatio~ of Chesterfield Hotel Associates (the "Company"), requesting the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist i the financing of the Company's acquisition, construction and equipping of a hotel, convention and conference center consistin of approximately 134,000 square feet (the "Project") to be located on the southside of Midlothian Pike at the intersection of Midlothian Pike and Robious Road in the Moorefield Office Park, in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on June 21, 1984; and Whereas, Section 103 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds o industrial development bonds is located must approve the issuanc of the bonds; and Whereas, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"); the Project is to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected governmenta unit of the County; and Whereas, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and Whereas, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing, and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board. Be It Resolved By The Board of Supervisors of The County Chesterfield, Virginia: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Company, as required by Sectio 103 (k) and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Virginia Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Company. 3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations Section 5f.103-2(f) (1), this Resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date its adoption. 4. The Board, or the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, on its behalf, reserves the right to approve final issuance of the bonds (i) in the event that an' legislation or order, presently pending or hereafter proposed, the effect of which is to limit the amount of bonds which may issued by the Authority or Chesterfield County, should become prior to the date of issuance of the bonds or (ii) in the event that the Authority adopts guidelines establishing priorities among competing uses of bonds. 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Vote: Unanimous 9.I.2. H & H PROPERTIES On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following resolution: 84-416 Whereas, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Authority") has considered the application of H & H Properties (the "Company") requesting the issuance of the Authority's first additional industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $130,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, construction and equipping of a warehouse and office facility consisting of approximately 12,000 square feet of warehouse and 3,000 square feet of office (the "Project") to be located in Pocoshock Square, in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on June 21, 1984; and Whereas, Section 103 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of industrial development bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds; and Whereas, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"); the Project is to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County; and Whereas, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and Whereas, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing, and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board. Be It Resolved By The Board of Supervisors of The County of Chesterfield, Virginia: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Company, as required by Section 103 (k) and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Virginia Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Company. 3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations Section 5f.103-2(f) (1), this Resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous 9.I.3. MIDLOTHIAN RAMADA INN ASSOCIATES Mr. Woodall introduced Mr. Otis Brown, who was representing the applicant. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board ado' the following resolution: Whereas, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority") has considered the application of Midlothian Ramada Inn Associates (the "Purchaser") for the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $6,500,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in 84-417 the financing of the Purchaser's acquisition, construction and equipping of a 150 room hotel, meeting facilities, and ancillary facilities (the "Project") to be located in the 8700 block, Midlothian Turnpike, in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on June 21, 1984; and Whereas, the Authority has requested the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Chesterfield, Virgini~ (the "County") to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section 103 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; and Whereas, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" wit~ respect to the Project have been filed with the Board. Be It Resolved By The Board of Supervisors of The County of Chesterfield: 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield. approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield for the benefit of the Purchaser, to the extent required by Section 103 (k), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds as required by Section 103 (k), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Purchaser, but, as required by Section 15 1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended the Bonds sha~l provide that neither the County nor the Authorit~ shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. The Board, or the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, on its behalf, reserves the right not to approve final issuance of the bonds (i) in the event that any legislation or order, presently pending or hereafter proposed, the effect of which is to limit the amount of bonds which may be issued by the Authority or Chesterfield County, should become la% prior to the date of issuance of the bonds or (ii) in the event that the Authority adopts guidelines establishing priorities among competing uses of bonds. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous 9.I.4o SEALEZE CORPORATION On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority") has considered the application of Sealeze Corporation (the "Company") for the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount no· to exceed $350,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in the financing of the Company'~ ~isition, construction and equipping of a facility for ~ ~acturing and distributing weatherstripping and industrial ~. (the "Project") to be located on Whitebark Terrace (adj,!, . t to 8013 Whitebark Terrace) in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on May 31, 1984; and Whereas, the Authority has requested the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Chesterfield (the 84-418 "County") to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section 103 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; and Whereas, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with respect to the Project have been filed with the Board. Be It Resolved By The Board of Supervisors of The County of Chesterfield: 1o The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield for the benefit of the Company, to the extent required by Section 103 (k) to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 103 (k) does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous 9.J. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 9.J.1. CONTINUING CIP PROCESS Mr. Hedrick stated the Board is requested to approve three of the projects included in the Capital Improvements Program--the buildings for Human Services, Courts, Sheriff and Data Processing. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the Courts facility was needed because of the manner in which prisoners are handled in the Courts building, the close proximity of the halls for the prisoners to the Judges' chambers and to citizens dealing with minor court offenses, etc. Mr. Dodd stated he felt the same way regarding the other projects mentioned but inquired about the remainder of the CIP. Mr. Daniel stated these were the only things that the entire Board agreed upon and there will have to be additional discussions regarding financing, strategies of the projects remaining, etc. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the Board should look at the conditions regarding the Social Services building which is also bad for the public as well as the staff. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the Data Processing building was also necessary. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board: Authorized the County Administrator to solicit and negotiate scopes of services and fees for architectural service for each of the buildings needed to meet the needs of the Human Services, Courts, Sheriff and Data Processing; and Authorized the County Administrator to solicit financing proposals to fund the public buildings and to initiate actions required to resolve legal constraints, if any. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel stated Judge Daffron had requested that the Courts Committee be reestablished which would be made up of two judges, board members and lawyers. He appointed Mr. Applegate and Mr. 84-419 Dodd to the Courts Committee. Mr. Daniel also appointed Mr. Mayes and Mrs. Girone to work with the Social Services Department regarding their facility. He also appointed Mr. Hedrick, Mr. Mayes and himself to work with Data Processing on its facility. 9.J.2. COURTHOUSE COMMONS On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized advertising of public hearings for both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for September for the Courthouse Commons request regarding sign restrictions. Mr. Daniel inquired if "Pockets" were also being considered. Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission will be handling this matter during schematic plan review. Vote: Unanimous 9.J.3. ETTRICK FIRE STATION PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and awarded the parking lot improvements for the Ettrick Fire Station to B. P. Short and Son Paving Co., Inc. in the amount of $14,041.50 and authorized the County Administrator to execute the contract for the County, subject to receipt of final authorization from the State to reallocate the necessary funds. Vote: Unanimous 9.J.4. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVAL On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the installation of a street light at the intersection of Buford Road and Buford Commons in the amount of $377.00 which funds are to be expended from the Midlothian District Street Light Funds. Vote: Unanimous 9.J.5. STREET LIGHT REQUEST On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the request for a street light at the intersection of River Road and Reedy Branch Road with any necessary funds to be expended from the Matoaca District Street Light Funds. Vote: Unanimous 9.K. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 9.K.1. REPORTS 9.K.l.a. WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL REPORTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with the water and sewer financial reports. 9.K.l.b. DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. 9.K.2. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.K.2.a. RESOLUTION AND ORDER TO ABANDON PORTION OF IVES LANE Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a 84-420 public hearing to consider a resolution and order to abandon a portion of Ives Lane. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, by resolution of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors dated June 23, 1976, the Board requested that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation accept Ives Lane, Route 260, into the State Secondary System of Highways; and WHEREAS, by resolution of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Commission effective December 1, 1976, Ives Lane, Route 2660, was accepted into the system; and WHEREAS, since December 1, 1976, Ives Lane, Route 2660, has remained in the State Secondary System of Highways under the control, supervision, management, and jurisdiction of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and WHEREAS, C. W. Hunnicutt, Jr., has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County to abandon a portion of Ives Lane, Route 2660, pursuant to Section 33.1-151 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of this Board on June 13, 1984, the required notices of the County's intention to abandon a portion of Ives Lane, Route 2660, have been given in that: on June 20, 1984, a notice was posted in at least three places along Ives Lane, Route 2660, and, on July 11, and July 18, 1984, a notice was published in the Richmond News Leader, having general circulation within the County; and on June 15, 1984, a notice wa~ sent to the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and WHEREAS, no landowner affected bY the proposed abandonment has filed a petition for a public hearing; and WHEREAS, this Resolution and Order is entered within four months after the thirty days during which notice was posted as described above; and WHEREAS, the safety and welfare of the public would be best served by the abandonment of a portion of Ives Lane, Route 2660, as a public road, and WHEREAS, the abandonment of a portion of Ives Lane, Route 2660, as a public road will not abridge the rights of any citizen. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED, by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, that pursuant to Section 33.1-151 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the portion of secondary road, more fully described as follows, is hereby abandoned as a public road: A portion of Ives Lane, Route 2660, as shown on a plat prepared by Potts and Minter, dated May 3, 1984, and revised May 31, 1984, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution and Order. The effect of this Resolution and Order, pursuant to Section 33.1-153 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, is that the above described portion of Ives Lane, Route 2660, shall not remain a public road or crossing. Accordingly, the Clerk of this Board shall send a certified copy of this Resolution and Order, together with the plat hereto attached, to the State Highway Commissioner. The Clerk shall request that the Commissioner certify to the County, pursuant to 84-421 Section 331.-154 of the Code of Vi[r_~?ia, 1950, as am0nded, that lol~gt, r' n~cutJ~.;~ry for public use. Vote: Unanimous 9.K.2.b. CONVEYANCE OF SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD TO STATE OF VIRGINIA Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of 0.339 acres to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the extension of Southlake Boulevard between Courthouse Road and Branchway Road. Mr. Welchons stated the title had not yet been received and 'this matter should be deferred until it is received. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred this public hearing until August 8, 1984. Vote: Unanimous 9.K.3. 9.K.3.a. SEWER ITEMS REQUEST FOR PUBLIC SEWER IN JI~Y WINTERS ROAD AREA On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr.. Applegate, the Board approved construction of public sewer and authorized the Utilities Department to send contracts to the existing homes in Jimmy Winters Road area to ascertain the number of residents that will a~ree to connect to pub];i~ sewer which estimated cost is $50,300.00. Vott:: |il/el n j ]llOl. l,q 9 K 3.b RV, QIII':Sq~ FOIl PUBI,IC ~q ' ' .... . I',WI,,R IN ENC;LEWO¢)D SUBDIVISION On mot ion o1' Mr. Girone, s{~c~.~}nded by Mr'. Dodd, the Board approved an¢t authorized the Utilities Department to survey the sub-area of the Englewood Subdivision to ascertain how many citizens would connect to public sewer if it were made available which extension will cost approximately $63,000 to serve ]4 existing homes. Mrs. Girone stated she would also include in the motion that these connections would be at the current rate. Mr. Micas stated the Board has to live by the abiding rules and it is not at their discretion to decide which subdivisions will or will not pay current or existing fees. He stated absent the change, the ordinance would have to be based on a classification and not just a single individual exemption. Mrs. Giro:ne stated this case has been underway for over a year and because the administrative process at the Courthouse has taken so much time, she did not feel it should affect the people who would be connecting. She stated she did not feel it fair that they would have to pay a higher fee. She inquired if this could be handled prior to the increase. Mr. Hedrick stated he felt when rates are changed, it can be determined administratively as to when areas applied for the connection and whether it would be at the new or old rate. Vote: Unanimous 9.K.4. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that he was involved with the sale of land in the area outlined in the next item and excused himself from the meeting because of a possible conflict interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act. ~ 9.K.4.a. DEED OF DEDICATION FOR MICHAUX CREEK PUMPING STATION motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board 84-422 approved and authorized the CountyAdministrator' ' to accept a of Dedication, on behalf of the County, for 2.52 acres which is necessary for the construction of the Michaux Creek Sewage Pumping Station from Michael T. Barr and John Latane Lewis, Trustees. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Applegate. Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting. 9.K.4.b. DEED OF DEDICATION FOR COUNTY AIRPORT EXPANSION On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board a and authorized the County Administrator to execute a contract easement agreement, for 2.21 acres of land between Kenneth E. Lankey, Jr., Ann S. Lankey, and the County for property across Parcels A and C for the County Airport Expansion in the amount $5,304.00. It is noted the purchase amount has been approved by F.A.A. and the County will be reimbursed for 90% of the purchase price by the F.A.A. and 5% by the State. Vote: Unanimous 9.K.5. CONSENT ITEMS 9.K.5.a. DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN AVON PARK SUBDIVISION On motion of Mr. Dodd, sec©nded by Mr. Applegate, the Board authorize the Chairman ol the Boa~'d and the County Administrator to execute new drainaqe ~asement agreements with Mr. Clarence H. Rosenl')alm l'or I,ot 16 and Bernard ]luff, Inc. for Lot 17 in Avon Park S~lbdivisJon, on behalf of t-he Couni:y, and to vacate the old agrc~em¢,r~t s. Vote: Unanimous 9.K.5.b. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG EAST LINE OF HUGUENOT ROAD Mrs. Girone stated that the road and day care have been in for years and inquired why it has taken so long and added further that the developer was never required to pave the roadway. Mr. Welchons stated this dedication is involved with the new development on that property. Mrs. Girone inquired if the original developer were required to do it initially. Mr. Welchons stated it was not a requirement then or now but the County is requesting that they dedicate it with the office park as the parcel is developed. On motioll ol Mr. 1)odd, F~."~(~ond~.,d I)y Mr. Appleqate, the ll~)~r(l from R & V Associates, A Virginia General Partnership, to the County of Chesterfield, accepting on behalf of the County, a twenty (20') foot strip along the east line of Huguenot Road. Map Section: 16-4. Vote: Unanimous 9.K.5.c. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG EAST LINE OF HUGUENOT ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board authorized the County Administrator to sign a Deed of Dedication from Huguenot Commons Association, A Virginia Non-stock Corporation, accepting on behalf of the County, a twenty (20') strip of land along the east ]..~ne of Huguenot Road Map Section: 16-4. ' Vote: Unanimous 84-423 .K.5.d. DEED OF DEDICATION - NORTHERN LINE OF COURTHOUSE ROAD )n motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board ~horized the County Administrator,. to accept on behalf of the a 15' strip of land along the northern line of Courthouse ~d from Gerald D. and Sylvia A. Shepperson. : Unanimous 9.K.5oe. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG BELLWOOD ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board authorized the County Administrator, to accept on behalf of the County, a 10' strip of land along Bellwood Road from Kingsland Property Corporation, A Virginia Corporation. Vote: Unanimous 9.P. MORAL OBLIGATION FOR PARKER FIELD ARCHITECT FEE Mr. Hodge stated in an effort to expedite the Parker Field project, the architect needs to accomplish the detailed design now so as not to interfere with the playing schedules. He stated the fund raising campaign is to be completed August 24, 1984, it appears the schedule will be met, donations look good and the construction bids came in at a reasonable cost. He stated there is no reason the project should fail but in the event that it does, this action requests the three localities to pay any unpaid amount of the unpaid architect's fee. He stated the donations would be used first. Mr. Applegate stated the donations received from the private sector have reached approximately 50%. Mrs. Girone inquired about the donations and the buttons that are being sold and stated she felt there should be available for sale in Chesterfield. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County hereby approves a moral commitment to fund one-third of any unpaid architect fees (which total architect fees will not exceed $185,000) in the event the Parker Field Project is not completed this year. Vote: Unanimous 9.L. REPORTS Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a report on the status of the Contingency Account. 9.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board went into Executive Session for the purpose of a briefing by legal counsel and staff regarding the investigative procedures for the apprehension of criminals as allowed by Section 2.1-344 (a) (6) and discussion of two acquisitions and use of real property for public purposes as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (2) and for personnel matters as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: 9.E. APPROPRIATION FOR REWARD FOR WALMSLEY MURDERS Mr. Charles Watson was present. Mr. Daniel stated he understood 84-424 Mr. Watson was requesting an appropriation in the amount of $25,000 as a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of parties responsible for Walmsley Murders. Mr. Watson stated that was correct. On motion of the Board, the Board appropriated $25,000 from the Contingency account to the Police Department budget at the request of the Commonwealth's Attorney to be used as a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of parties responsible for the Walmsley Murders. Vote: Unanimous 9.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters as permitted by Section 2.1-3444 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order .and stated Mrs. Girone would be presiding over the afternoon session per the rules and guidelines of the Board. Mr. Dodd stated that he is in the mobile home business although not directly related to sales, and requested that anyone purchasing a mobile home from his company to please let him know in order that he might prevent any conflict of interest. 9.N. REQUESTS FOR MOBILE HOME PERMITS 84SR125 In Dale Magisterial District, Charles E. Alspaugh requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which he owns. Tax Map 67-1 (1) Parcel 33 and better known as 6680 S. Beulah Road (Sheet 23). Mr. Alspaugh was present. Mr. Daniel stated this particular mobile home has been on the property for some years and after talking with staff and the applicant, the mobile home was located before a permit was granted in 1979. He stated since that time the owners of the property have sold it to the applicant whose property borders this lot and he would like to rent it as he cannot dispose of it. He added that the neighbors have agreed There was no opposition present. ' On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board waived the policy of not allowing mobile homes to be rented for Mr. Alspaugh and granted Mr. Alspaugh a permit for three years subject to the following conditions: Only one (l) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individ'ua ~ i~.~t or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. 84-425 No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home· All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation· Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the insta]].ati0n or re]o~'~ati0n ol' 'the m0bi]e home· e Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous 84SR126 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Betty M. Lewis requested renewa] of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which belongs to James Dudley, brother of the applicant. Tax Map 115-10 (3) Werths Addition, Lots 69A, 70, 7lA and better known as 4839 Shop Street (Sheet 32). Ms. Lewis was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request for a period of five years subject to the following standard conditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Se Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, the shall be used. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shal then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous 84SR127 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Hula M.. Mills requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which she owns. Tax Map 115-10 (5) Marquis Property, Lot 7 and better known as 4816 Shop Street (Sheet 32). 84-426 Mr. Mills was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request for a period of five years subject to the following standard conditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to b~ parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available the shall be used. ' Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shal then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile }~ome Permit. Vote: Un~nimous 9.(). RI':Z()NIN{; RI.:QIII, In Bermuda Magisterial District, C.J. NUNNALLY requested rezonin¢ from Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3) on a 0.3 acre parcel fronting approximately 75 feet on the west line of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 230 feet south of Swiftrul Road. Tax Map 116-15 (2) Cool Spring, Block A, Lots 7, 8 and 9 (Sheet 32). Mr. Balderson stated the applicant has requested a deferral of this case if the Board would not hear the case in his absence as he is ill. He stated the applicant agrees with the conditions. It was generally agreed the Board would hear the case as schedu]ed on the agenda. Mr. Dodd indicated he owns property adjacent to th~s parcel and he would be excusing himself from th. m{?('tin¢t at l:hat l. ime. 84S029 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, JAY ROWE requested rezoning from Residential Townhouse for Sale (R-TH) to Residential (R-7) on an 11.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 770 feet on the west line of Twilight Lane, approximately 740 feet south of E]khardt Road. Tax Map 28-15 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. He stated further this case was deferred to allow the applicant to meet with the Supervisor of the District regarding the land use compatibility in the area. He presented the Board with a proffered condition by the applicant. One gentleman was present and inquired what the difference was between zoning from Residential (R-7) and 84-427 Residential (R-9). Mr. Balderson stated the difference is that in R-7 the minimum lot square footage is 7,000 and R-9 has a 9,000 square footage lot minimum. Mr. Rowe was present and stated he had proffered a condition requiring R-9 size lots and setbacks on lots which back up to those fronting Providence Road. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request with acceptance of the following proffered condition by the applicant: Ail lots that back up to lots with frontage on Providence Road will meet all the bulk requirements for the R-9 zoning classification. Vote: Unanimous 83S203 In Bermuda Magisterial District, RAYMOND L. LAWLESS requested a Conditional Use to permit a landfill in an Agricultural (A) District on a 7.163 acre parcel which lies approximately 300 off the west line of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 200 feet south of Old Bermuda Hundred Road. Tax Map 133-3 (2) Mid-City Farms, Block A, Parts of Lots 3 and 4 (Sheet 41). Mr. Balderson stated the Planing Commission had denied this request. Mr. Lawless was present. Mr. Dodd inquired about the discussion regarding the dumping of foreign substances such as oil, etc. in the landfill by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lawless presented the Board with some pictures and a letter regarding the dumping of foreign substances in the area. Mr. Charles Jasper, an adjacent property owner, stated o as he felt this was not compatible with the area, as there is a new housing development coming into the area which is residential. He stated he had lived in the area for 24 years. Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had instructed Mr. Lawless to stop dumping on the site, there have been batteries dumped on the site, and the Health Department has indicated the is a potential for a significant health hazard with respect to this material. Mr. Dodd stated he had inspected the site, the landfill operation has been going on for at least 12 years, and the landfill has developed past Mr. Jasper's house and proceeded to the back portion of the property. Mr. Dodd stated he felt approval of this request for a period exceeding five years would be appropriate and that the first 200 feet off Jefferson Davis Highway be left in a natural buffer state, as now, and that it be required to be filled with some type of solid natural buffer subject to staff approval for 200 feet to protect Mr. Jasper. He stated there is land in the County that is not good for anything except for something like this and this is the best use for the property. He stated the area is changing, and at the end of five years the landfill will be full and covered and he felt that would be time to cease of this type of operation. Mr. Hedrick inquired if this approval would be subject to the applicant receiving a State Health Department permit. Mr. Balderson stated limiting the dumping to stumps only would not require a State Health permit. Mr. Lawless stated he had a permit from the County as well as the State. Mr. Balderson stated his permit was subject to zoning which would permit him dump beyond the stumps and dirt. Mr. Hedrick stated he was concerned with the health aspect. Mrs. Girone inquired where al~ the oil and grease is coming from. Mr. Balderson stated he did not know and it appeared all types of things were being dumped there. Mrs. Girone inquired if Mr. Lawless understood this woul~ limit fill material to stumps and dirt only. Mr. Lawless stated he understood. Mr. Daniel inquired about condition #3 which sai¢ that a certified engineering report would be submitted verifying 84-428 that all illegal fill materials have been removed. He inquired if someone would be inspecting the property now and the applicanl would have to remove and clean the area from illegal material. Mr. Dodd stated that is not one of the conditions and the area il filled with dirt at this time and is a neat operation. Mr. Daniel inquired if the applicant was in compliance with all rules of operation of a landfill for the County and State. Mr. Balderson stated he is in compliance with the County requirements but he did not know if it complied with the State. Mr. Dodd stated he is voting for a stump fill and he did not feel hazardous material had been placed there. Mr. Daniel stated if a condition is inserted which says that if he fills with anything other than stumps, he will be closed down, he could support it. Mr. Micas stated that was inherent in the zoning, because if he is restricted to certain uses and is not confining his operation to those uses, the County will issue a warrant. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use shall be granted for a period of five (5) years from the date of approval. 2. Fill material shall be confined to stumps, brush and dirt only. No manufactured items, household wastes, hazardous materials or other items shall be deposited at this site. 3. A 200 foot area shall be maintained along the southern property line as a buffer to screen the adjacent house to the south. No landfilling or other' facilities, except an access drive to Route 1, shall be permitted within this buffer. Vote: Unanimous 84S073 In Bermuda Magisterial District, MARY S. AMOS requested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) t~3 General Business (B-3) on a 0.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the east line of Jefferson Davis Highway, also fronting approximately 325 feet on Gwynn Avenue, and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 67-3 (3) Patterson Park, Block B, Lot 8 (Sheet 23). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to a single condition. Ms. Amos was present and stated the condition was acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: A twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained along the eastern property line. This buffer shall be landscaped in accordance with the "Minimum Guidelines for Landscaped Buf- fers.'' At such time as the adjacent property to the east is developed for commercial purposes, this buffer requirement shall be deleted. Vote: Unanimous 84S074 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, J.j. JEWETT AND THOMAS S. WINSTON, III requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) on a 71.96 acre parcel fronting approximately ],150 feet on the east line of Otterdale Road, approximately 84-429 4,600 feet north of Genito Road. (Sheet 12). Tax Map 35 (1) Parcels 6 and 40 Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Mr. Jim Dossett was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request. On Vote: Unanimous 84S075 In Bermuda Magisterial District, LAWRENCE GRANT MATHEWS, JR. re- quested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions in a Residential (R-7) District on a 0.44 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the south line of West Hundred Road, approximately 100 feet east of Buckingham Street. Tax Map 115-10 (2) Snead-Curtis Addition, Lots 3 and 4 (Sheet 32). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. He stated further the applicant has forwarded a letter to staff expanding the uses of the property and an addendum has been prepared. He stated that the changes are significant enough whereby staff feels it should be sent back to the Planning Commission and readvertised. Mr. Dodd inquired if this were necessary. Mr. Micas stated more intense uses are being requested and proper advertising has not been made for these uses. Mr. Dodd stated he felt the professional offices are not that much different from selling real estate, insurance, etc. Mr. Micas stated the initial application was much more specific and now it would be broadening it to a category of uses as opposed to a particular use. Mr. Mathews stated since he made the application, he has determined his real estate operation will use only half of the structure. He stated a soil scientist and a landscape architect have indicated interest in renting this facility and it would be complimentary. Mr. Daniel inquired if the exterior would change in any way. Mr. Balderson stated the building may not change bui the parking spaces could change which could be critical and that the applicant has also requested exception from the paving requirement. Mr. Dodd stated he felt the Board was getting too technical and tight on zoning. He stated the applicant could be dishonest and move an architect and a surveyor in and no one would know, but he is asking upfront. Mrs. Girone stated there is a formula for parking based on the square footage and the square footage has not changed. Mr. Applegate stated that technically he agreed but there may be additional parking for th expanded use. Mr. Dodd stated he felt the Board could require 8 spaces if this were approved. Mr. Micas stated that when an applicant comes in with a site specific application, the analysi of that land use application is based on what the applicant says he wants to do and the County advertises on that basis. He stated when you expand the potential land use, you have not had the opportunity to properly analyze the effect. He stated different kinds of professional offices may have different kinds of land use impacts. He stated the law states that once you expand the number of uses on any given site you must readvertise and analyze appropriately. Mr. Daniel suggested it be sent back to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Girone stated she could understand that if the applicant were to expand the building, bu he is not and the building is not changed. She stated the formula is there for parking. Mr. Dodd stated this is an old house which is an eye sore which will be fixed and improve the community. He stated the Board had turned down a request for a retail store in this area because it was restricted to professional offices. Mr. Mathews stated that he had proposed t apply for office zoning but when he made application, staff 84-430 informed him that there was a one year restriction on the denial of the other case, so he applied for a conditional use planned development with no zoning change. Mr. Dodd stated he felt the ordinance should be reviewed. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the offices were of related fields. Mrs. Girone agreed the uses were compatible. Mr. Mayes inquired if the applicant would be wil to limit the request to include the architect and soil scientist. Mr. Mathews stated he would. There was some discussion of possibly reapplying and the fees being waived. It was noted the Board could not waive fees. Mrs. Girone stated the uses are compatible and they do not generate excessive traffic and there will not be an appreciative difference. She stated if it were a pediatrician's office with different impacts, she would agree. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that this request be approved subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the site plan submitted with the application shall be considered the Master Plan. e This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be limited the operation of a real estate, landscape architect and/or soil scientist offices only. No other commercial or office use shall be made of the property without further Condi- tional Use Planned Development and/or zoning approval by th, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Further, the exceptions to bulk requirements stated herein shall be applicable to this particular use only. A ten (10) foot buffer shall be maintained along the westerl property line. Ornamental trees and evergreen shrubs shall be planted in this buffer. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan submission. The parking area shall be screened from view of adjacent residential property to the south. This screening shall be accomplished with landscaping. A landscaping plan depictin this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Depart- ment for approval in conjunction with final site plan submission. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the following exception shall be granted to the bulk re- quirements of the Zoning Ordinance: A thirty-five (35) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot setback requirement for parking areas along 10. An exception to the requirement that parking areas six (6) or more vehicles be paved. Driveways and parking areas shall be graveled with number 21 or 2lA stone, having a minimum depth of six (6) inches. Driveway and parking areas shall be delineated by a permanent means (i.e., timbers, curb, etc.) (NOTE: Parking must be provided, based on a ratio of six (6) spaces for the first 1,000 square feet of gross floor area plus one (1) for each additional 300 square feet of gross floor area.) A ten (10) foot exception to the fifteen (15) foot setback requirement for signs along Route 10. Prior to the release of a building permit, forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Rout~ 84-431 10, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. One (1) freestanding sign, not to exceed an aggregate area of twenty (20) square feet and a height of four (4) feet, shall be permitted. This sign may be externally illuminated or internally illuminated if the signfield is opaque with translucent letters or symbols. The conditions herein notwithstanding, all bulk requirements of the Office Business (O) shall be applicable. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic approval of the Master Plan. Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Nays: Mr. Applegate Abstention: Mr. Daniel. Mr. Balderson stated there was another issue involving this case which is unrelated to the applicant's request, regarding the dedicated right of way south of the property. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board requested the Right of Wa~ office to prepare necessary documents for a public hearing to vacate the Herndon Street right of way. Vote: Unanimous 84S076 (Amended) In Matoaca Magisterial District, CARROLL FOSTER, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (O) on part of a 4 acre parcel fronting approximately 263 feet on the south lin of Hull Street Road, approximately 760 feet east of Bridgewood Road. Tax Map 48-16 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheets 13 and 20). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the Office Business (0) zoning for a depth of 300 feet, measured from the northern property line south subject to proffered conditions. He stated since that time the applicant has amended his proffered condition from 1,200 square feet of office space to 2,000 feet of office space. Mr. Foster was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved Office Business (0) zoning for a depth of 300 feet measured from the northern property line south subject to acceptance of the following proffered conditions: There shall be no more than 2,000 square feet of office space constructed on the property.. The remaining Agricultural (A) property which lies to the south of the Office Business (0) zoning shall be maintained in its natural state. Vote: Unanimous 84S077 In Midlothian Magisterial District, CAR POOL, INC. requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a motor vehicle wash and an exception to the fifty (50) foot setback requiremen~ for driveways along major arterials in a Community Business (B-~ District on a 0.96 acre parcel fronting approximately 140 feet the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 470 feet west of Moorefield Park Drive. Tax Map 17-12 (1) Parcels 9 and 27 (Sheet 8). 84-432 Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to certain conditions. He stated since that time the applicant has submitted suggested amended conditions which he distributed to.the Board. Mr. Ed Willey was present and reviewed the changes proposed. There was no opposition present. Mrs. Girone stated that she would like condition 93.c. changed to "Additional internal freestanding...". Mr. Willey stated that was acceptable. Mr. Daniel stated he was concerned about the traffic lanes being blocked. Mr. Willey stated there is stacking for 80 cars on the property. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Beamon & Associates, revised 5/23/84, shall be considered the Master Plan. e The structure shall be as depicted in the elevations prepared by Beamon & Associates, revised 5/23/84. In conjunction with schematic plan submission, colored renderings/elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. SIGNS Except for directional signs (i.e., entrance/exits), one (1) freestanding sign not to exceed an aggregate area of one hundred (100) square feet, shall be permitted along Route 60. This sign shall not exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet. be One (1) building-attached sign in the shape of a swimming pool ladder shall be permitted on the front of the building facade. Ce Additional internal freestanding signs shall be permitted for the purpose of listing the services rendered and their costs; however, these signs shall not be legible from Route 60. Signs shall employ colors compatible with those used ir the building facades. Signs may be externally lighted,I but may be internally lighted only if the.signfield is opaque with translucent letters. Prior to erection of any signs, a sign package shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. The entrance into Midlothian Turnpike, as shown on plans prepared by Beamon & Associates, revised 5/23/84, shall be for ingress only. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along Route 60, as required by VDH&T. Curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. In conjunction with the approval of this request, a twenty-five (25) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot driveway setback requirement along Route 60 shall be granted. An undulating earth berm, a minimum of three (3) feet high, shall be installed within the twenty-five (25) foot setback along Route 60e This berm shall be landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs. This berm shall be for the purpose of minimizing the view of the "dry-off" area from Route 60. A landscaping plan depicting this re- quirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. Vote: Unanimous 84-433 84S078 (Amended) In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ROBERT B. REYNOLDS requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-40) on a 23.8 acre parcel fronting approximately 247 feet on the west line of Woolridge Road, approximately 2,800 feet south of Genito Road. Tax Map 46 (1) Parcel 37 (Sheet 12). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Mr. Reynolds was present. Mr. Applegate stated he felt this was a good plan for the area. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous 84S080 In Matoaca Magisterial District, ROPER LAND CORP. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 94 acre parcel fronting the south line of Genito Road in 4 separate locations between Stigall Drive and Rollingway Road. Also fronting 50 feet on the east line of Stigall Drive. The parcel lies southeast of the intersection of Stigall Drive and Genito Road. Tax Map 49-14 (1) Parcel 12 and Tax Map 63-3 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheets ]4 and 21). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to acceptance of the proffered condition. Mr. Jeff Collins was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to acceptance of the following proffered condition: Ail lots within a 500 foot radius of Clifton Farms Subdivi- sion will have a minimum of 12,000 square feet of area and minimum of 90 feet of frontage. Vote: Unanimous 84S081 In Bermuda Magisterial District, RUSSELL B. AND PEGGY C. WINN quested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3) on a 1.05 acre parcel fronting approximately 165 feet on the east line of Jefferson Davis Highway at its in- tersection with General Boulevard. Tax Map 82-13 (1) Parcel 10 (Sheet 23). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. was present and stated he was concerned with paving the buffer front of the metal storage building. Mr. Balderson stated the zoning leaves no mediation for not paving. Mr. Dodd stated if Mr. Winn buffers the back and the front, there would not be any room left on the property. Mr. Winn stated the setback is currently paved and he did not want to destroy the pavement and this is strictly a storage building and he needs the area for parking of the employees. Mr. Balderson stated parking is not allowed in a required setback. Mrs. Girone stated the ordinance did not allow for parking in the setback. Mr. Dodd stated the pavement would not have to be removed and suggested elimination of the sentence with regard to landscaping with ornamental trees and shrubs along Jefferson Davis Highway. On motion of Mr. Dodd seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: A twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained along the eastern property line. This buffer shall be landscaped in accordance with the "Minimum Guidelines for Landscaped Buf- fers.'' A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained along the western property line adjacent to Jefferson Davis 84-434 Highway. There shall be no facilities or other improvements permitted within these buffer areas. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board that he owns property adjacent to Mr. Nunnally who is the applicant in the next case and excused himself from the meeting due to a possible conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act. 84S083 In Bermuda Magisterial District, C.J. NUNNALLY requested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3) on a 0.39 acre parcel fronting approximately 75 feet on the west line of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 230 feet south of Swiftrun Road. Tax Map 116-15 (2) Cool Spring, Block A, Lots 7, 8 and 9 (Sheet 32). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. He stated the applicant was ill and could not be in attendance but indicated he was in agreement with the conditions. There was no opposition present. Mr. Daniel requested that a letter from the applicant accepting the conditions be received and filed with the application. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: A fifteen (15) foot buffer shall be maintained along Jefferson Davis Highway. This buffer shall be landscaped as a rock garden, incorporating low level shrubs. There shall be no facilities permitted within this buffer area. A land- scaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within thirty (30) days of the approval of this request. Approved landscaping shall be accomplished during the fall of 1984. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Dodd. Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting. 84S084 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, W.B. DuVAL requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 3.18 acre parcel which lies approximately 200 feet off the south line of Spruce Pine Drive, approximately 300 feet east of Mountain Pine Boulevard. Tax Map 39-6 (1) Part of Parcel 23 and Tax Map 39-7 (1) Part of Parcel 7 (Sheet 14). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Mr. Delmonte Lewis was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request. On Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that he represented Southern Bank and the purchasers in the next case and excused himself from the meeting because of a possible conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act. 84S085 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, CREEKWOOD CROSSING 84-435 ASSOCIATES requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Light In. dustrial (M-l) to Residential (R-9) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit multifamily~ townhouses and retail uses on a 28.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,600 feet on the nort! line of Walmsley Boulevard at its intersection with Newbys Bridg~ Road. Tax Map 40-5 (1) Part of Parcel 9 and Tax Map 40-9 (1) Parcels 6 and 7 (Sheet 15). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Joh Henson was present representing the applicant. He stated that conditions 8 and 9 were agreed to at the Planning Commission meeting, however, since then they have worked up some cost figures with the bank and they felt that leaving this up to schematic review was not specific enough. He stated they would like to change Conditions 8 by by striking "deemed ...VDH&T" and adding "as shown on the applicant's master plan plus 200 ft. of pavement to the west to accommodate a left turn lane". He stated they would like to amend condition 9 as well to require a four lane divided road 165 ft. north of Walmsley Boulevard and the remaining section of the road be 40 ft., with the exception of the bridge which would be 48 feet (i.e., four lanes). He stated that this proposal plus an additional 200 ft. of widening on Walmsley Boulevard would be a compromise to staff's recommendation. He stated this would give the County a very hig caliber roadway and solve the problem with this property that ha existed for years because of the expense of the bridge. He stated that condition 9 could be changed by eliminating the fift and sixth sentences and replacing them with "This road, from Walmsley Boulevard northward for a distance of 165 ft., shall b~ designed as a divided road with a minimum typical section pavement width of 24 ft., face of curb to face of curb; the remaining section shall have a minimum width of 40 ft., face of curb to face of curb, with the bridge having a width of 48 ft." Mr. Daniel inquired what the County Transportation Director felt would be necessary. Mr. McCracken stated that the critical issu is to get the connection across the bridge to Pocoshock Boulevard. He stated the traffic that would be generated by thi development would need at least 40 ft., face of curb to face of curb, which will provide three lanes olf pavement. He stated, however, future traffic will need four lanes which could be provided by a 44 ft. face of curb to face of curb road section. He outlined other traffic issues that should be considered in t~ area. Mr. Daniel stated he did not feel staff's condition 8 should be changed because a left turn lane could be required if deemed necessary by VDH&T and the Transportation Department. Hz stated condition 9 could be changed so that there would be 44 ft., face of curb to face of curb, and a four lane section for the bridge. He stated that if this does not work, application for an amendment can be made. After further discussion it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, second~ by Mr. Dodd, resolved that this request be approved subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepare( by J.K. Timmons and Associates, revised 3/26/84, shall be considered the Master Plan. A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained between each land use tract. Along the proposed 90 foot right of way, this buffer shall be split so that a fifteen (15) foot buffer is maintained on each side of the road. Also, a thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained around the entire perimeter of the project. Other than permitted access points, the proposed tennis courts (shown on the Master Plan) and signs, there shall be no facilities permitted within these buffer areas. In conjunction with schematic plan review for each phase, a plan for treatment of these buffer areas plus the landscape areas shown on the Master Plan, shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Buffers shall consist of landscaping, berming, topographical features, fencing or a combination 84-436 e these items. Buffers shall adequately screen the rear of buildings from public roads and the proposed retail service area from the adjacent apartment 'tract. Ail roads, driveways and parking areas shall be paved, curbed and guttered. The 17.4 acre apartment tract shall be developed in ac- cordance with the following criteria: The density shall not exceed 11.7 units per gross acre and the total number of apartment units shall not exceed 204 units. b. No structure shall exceed a length of 200 feet. Ail buildings shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from p'ublic streets, private drives and entrances. Ail structures shall be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from any parking space. Sidewalks shall be provided to facilitate pedestrian access to the recreational facilities, the retail and from the parking areas to building entrances. Sidewalks shall have a width of at least four (4) fm Parking spaces shall be provided at a ratio of two (2) spaces per dwelling unit. A centrally located stora¢ area for boats, trucks, campers, travel and utility trailers shall be provided, the total of which may be subtracted from the total number of required spaces. ge Ail structures shall be separated by a minimum of thirty (30) feet. The developer shall provide an adequate number of containers, as determined by the County Health De ment. Trash collection shall be on a regular basis prevent any health problems. i. Recreational facilities (1) Two (2) tennis courts shall be constructed and operational prior to the release of the 102nd cupancy permit. (2) A swimming pool and accessory building shall be constructed and operational prior to the release of the 153rd occupancy permit. The private access from Walmsley Boulevard shall be redesigned to provide a minimum of fifty (50) feet of on-site vehicular storage, measured from the southern property line. (Note: The proposed median must be extended to the north.) This access shall be desic to accommodate three (3) travel lanes (i.e, two outbound lanes and an inbound lane.) The 9.0 acre townhouse tract shall be developed in ac- cordance with the following criteria: (a) Lot area. Each dwelling, together with its accessory buildings, hereafter erected shall be located on lot having an area of not less than one thousand five hundred twenty square feet and a front width of not less than nineteen feet, except end units which shall have a lo~ area of not less than two thousand three hundred twenty square feet and a width of not less than twenty-nine feet. 84-437 (b) Percentage of lot coverage. Ail buildings, including accessory buildings, on any lot shall not cover more than forty percent of the area of such lot. No accessory building except for'a private garage on any lot shall cover more than one hundred square feet. (c) Front yard. Each lot shall have a front yard having a depth of not less than twenty-five feet. (d) Side yard. A side yard of not less than ten feet in width shall be provided for each end residence in the building; except, that corner side yards shall be not less than twenty-five feet. (e) Rear yard. Each lot shall have a rear yard of no~ less than twenty-five feet in deptlh measured from the rear main building line. (f) Common areas. A minimum common area of ten feet in width shall be provided for each exposed side, front and rear of all lots of a block, excep~t the side, front and real of any lot or lots fronting or abutting a public street. (g) Limitation on number of units. The total number of units in a group of attached townhouses shall not exceed ten. (h) Common areas and ownership of property. In the event common areas are provided which are not contained in lots or streets conveyed to individual owners, such common areas shall be maintained by and be the sole responsibility of the developer-owner of the townhouse development until such time as the developer-owner conveys such common area to a nonprofit corporate owner whose members shall be all of the individual owners of townhouses in the townhouse de- velopment or to a nonprofit council of co-owners as provided under section 55-79.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia. Such land shall be conveyed to and be held by such nonprofit corporate owner or such nonprofit council of co-owners solely for recreational and parking purposes of the owners of the individual townhouse lots in such townhouse development. In the event of such conveyance by the de- veloper-owner to a nonprofit corporate owner, deed re- strictions and covenants, in form and substance satisfactory to the county attorney, shall provide, among other things, that any assessments, charges and costs of the maintenance of such common areas shall constitute a pro rata lien against the individual townhouse lots, inferior in lien and dignity only to taxes and bona fide duly recorded deeds of trust on each townhouse lot. An applicant, seeking to sub- ject property to townhouse development under this article whose ownership or interest in the property is held by a valid lease, shall provide for an initial term of not less than five hundred years in such lease. (i) Density. Density of development shall not exceed 8.3 dwelling units per gross acre. Gross acreage is defined as all land within the exterior boundaries of the tract on which the development is located including private lots, private drives, parking areas, recreational areas, public streets and other public or semi-public uses established as part of the development plan. (j) Frontage on public street. Whenever the plan for townhouse prOject'provides for other than one individual ownership, all lots shall have frontage on a public street or access thereto by common right of way within five hundred feet. (k) Recreational area required. The recreational facilities required in the apartment tract shall be accessible to the residents of the townhouse tract. The two 84-438 (2) tennis courts shall be constructed and operational prior to the release of the 50th townhouse occupancy permit. Accessibility shall be insured through recordation of legal instruments which shall be approved by the County Attorney's Office. The 1.8 acre retail tract shall be developed in accordance with the following criteria: The following conditions notwithstanding, all re- quirements of the Convenience Business (B-l) District, to include gasoline sales as an accessory use, shall apply. b. SIGNS (1) Except directional signs~ only one (1) freestanding sign, not to exceed fifty (50) square feet in area and a height of twenty (20) feet shall be permitted identifying the development and tenants therein. (2) Individual business signs shall be as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance for shopping centers, except the aggregate area shall not exceed 0.5 square feet for each one (1) foot of building frontage. (3) Signs may be indirectly lighted, but may be directly lighted only if the signfield is opaque with translucent letters. External lighting shall be low level, not to exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet and shall be positioned so as not to project light into adjacent residential properties. Prior to the release of any building permits, thirty-five (35) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Walmsley Boulevard shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along Walmsley Boulevard, as deemed necessary by the Planning Commission and VDH&T. In conjunction with the first schematic plan review, a Master Plan for the phasing of these improvements shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and VDH&T. The proposed internal public road shall be designed to with Newbys Bridge Road and Pocoshock Boulevard. This road shall have a minimum of ninety (90) feet of right of way, dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield through recordation of a subdivision plat. Prior to release of any building permits, road and drainage plans shall be approved by Environmental Engineering and VDH&T. This road shall be designed and constructed as a minimum typical section pavement width of forty-four (44) :feet, face of curb to of curb with the exception of 165 :ft., north of Walmsley Boulevard which shall be constructed with two twenty-four (24) foot lanes, face of curb to face of curb and divided b' a median. The Pocoshock Creek bridge shall be designed and constructed to accommodate four (4) travel lanes. This shall be connected to Pocoshock Boulevard (to the north) prior to occupancy of more than 225 dwelling units. No access shall be permitted to this road within 165 feet from the southern property line. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Applegate. Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting. 84-439 9.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss ~wo matters relating to the acquisition of real property for public purposes as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (2) of the Code of the Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: 10. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adjourned at 4:35 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. at the 1776 Holiday Inn in Williamsburg on August 2, 1984, for dinner and for a meeting with the School Board members on August 3 and 4, 1984. Vote: Unanimous Ri c ha~d~~C ~ County Administrator ~arry G. -/)~ni~ 1 ' Chairm: 84-440