Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
06-20-77 Packet
Present : 1127. ]--., :`Merlin 0' Nail1 , CN -,-LMT r Mrs . Joan Chore, Vice-Cl-iairnin 1137. J. R"f£in Appersorn Zr C T_ Boo'---^- 1fr. Garland Dodd C-3. Marn ,F.3-, Trnterim Coaalty ALckni ristrator VSl2C=NSA: At a regular meeting o£ tYie Board o£ Supervisors o£ Ct-iester- £ield County, held at tZ-ie Cour ti -louse on June 20, 1977, at 1:00 D.m_ Also Present: Raycnorid Birdsong, F' igitzeer. tors. Susan H. Heatl'.er1y, Secretary t?r_ Dick M.-•Fl£ish., Enviror.mPr,tal Engj-rle r tSr_ Steve llica.s, County Attorney 1Tr_ Robert Painter, Dir_ o£ Utilities NLr. Wi11is Pope, R./W Engineer 1437 . CYiarles Quai££ , Supt:. o£ Accts S. Records 1's7_ Lane Rar.Lsey, Budget Director NPr- . Mi_cba.el Ritz, Dir. CeRn'ty. Development Mir _ Dave Welchons, Asst. Dir_ o£ Utilities t1r. Dexter Williams, P1a.-...Pr/Entigineer 1437. W_ Lynn [•7ing£ie1d, Asst. to Co_ AckriPT-._ 1137 _ James Zook, Ctii_e£, Cecnpreheisive P1arn�.ir'g 'Mae Vice -Cl'' :L=i--n calls tlzc meeting to ordPs. M1 _ Quai££ presents the Sewer acid Water £lnax�ial reports acid answers questions regardl T� same _ £o1-St is on motion o£ Mr. Apperson, seconded by Z-ir. Dodd, resolved tr'at the -Low-Water Contracts are 1'. 2tby approved: 1 _ 1,777-51113 Berttntda Sndustrial Park $ 18,550_00 Contractor : G . T-- Howard , Snc . Developer: Riclmond Cold Storage Co. Snc_ 2_ W77 -121D =vay Acres 17,500.00 Contractor : -T. H. Martin � Sons Developer : T arfclzisL •tt Builders , 3_ W77-391) 360 Cormercial Park, Section A 28,710.00 Contractor : Lewis H. Easter 6- Cc,. Developer: W_ G_ Speaks 4_ W77-431) fhmtlyi,-_ Creek 14i11, O££ -Site Road 2,000.00 Contractor: Stamie E_ Lyttle Co. Inc. Developer: Sa1gn Clma7c1i Road Lin'ited Partnerslii..n 5. W77 -44D Brandertziill-Fox Chase, Section 2 12,4,3.50 Contractor: R_M_C_ Contractors, Inc. Developer: Brandermill-A Va_ Partnersliin 6. W77 -41D 45,050.70 Contractor: Z2.t1.C_ Contractors, =nc_ Developer : Branderr.-�-�11-A Va. Partner sYiip Ayes : Y Irs . Girone , _1x- _ Apners on and =437. Boolanari . , i Thee is considerable discussion regarding fire protection for the Airport Industrial Park. Mr. Birdsong presents two alternatives: (1) Install 16" on Rt. 10 from Canasta Drive. (2).replace the 8" and 10" line at Telestar & Centralia Road with 16". Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookmmbn and Mrs. Girone state there is a definite need for fire protection. Mr. Painter states both projects will have to be done in the future. Mrs. Girone states she does not feel enough informa- tion is available to make a decision; that the Fire Department should be con- sulted for input into this matter. It is generally agreed to defer this matter until July 18th. Mr. Lane Ramsey suggests the policy of the General Fund reimbursing the Utilities Department the actual cost of installing fire hydrants not paid for by developers remain the same and further states a budget amendment is needed in the Fire Department budget for 1976-77 and if the policy remains the same a budget amendment for 1977-78 will be required. Mr. Bookman suggests a 50-50 proposition. Mr. Micas states he recommends leaving the policy as it is since any splits in costs would have to be reflected in the rates. It is generally agreed to continue the policy as it is. After further discussion it is on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that the Fire Department 1976-77 budget be amended as follows: Decrease Planned Budget Expense: 11-071-106.0 Firemen $35,000 11-071-400.1 Repl. Motor Vehicles 5,000 Total $40,000 Increase Planned Budget Expense: 11-071-292.0 Fire Hydrant Installation $40,000 Ayes: Mrs. Giron , Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. It is generally agreed that the budget amendment to the Fire Department 1977-78 budget be deferred until July 13th. Mr. Painter states he has received a petition for a water line extension to serve Chesterfield Manor Subdivision. Mr. Dodd states he would like to defer this matter. Mr. Micas suggests the possibility of considering a special assessment district in this area. After further discussion, it is on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that this request is deferred until July 18. Mr. Dodd also requests 11r. Painter investigate the possibility of a special assessment district and provide him with the information. Ayes: Mrs. Giron, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd, It is on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Apperson, resolved that Mr. & Mrs. James F. Burke, 3522 West Hundred Road, be granted a reduced sewer connection fee of $600. Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. It is on mmotion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that Mr. & Mrs. Robert H. Hague of 3528 West Hundred Road be granted a reduced sewer connection fee of $600. Ayes: Mrs. Giron, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. Mr. Pope states he has received a counter offer from Mr. Heintzman of $982.50 for an easement and a request for a $300 connection fee. After some discussion, it is on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that this Board refuses the counter offer of $982.50 from Mr. Heintzman. Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. It is agreed to defer any action on Mr. Heintzman's request for a reduced connection fee until July 18th. Mr. Dodd leaves the meeting due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Pope states he has received a petition from Dodd's Inc. to vacate a 10' alley along Stanwix Lane in the Village of Bensley. Mr. Pope further states Dodd's Inc. owns a portion of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and Philip A. and Norine H. Stillman own lots 4, 5 and 6, Block K. Mr. Pope states Dodd's has signed the petition but the Stillman's have not. Mr. Micas states it is not necessary that they sign; that the County has the right to vacate the road as requested by Dodd's, Inc. After further discussion, it is on motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that the following Ordinance is hereby approved: An Ordinance to vacate the 10 foot alley along Stanwix Lane adjacent to lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block K in the Village of Bensley; said lots being more fully shown in Deed Book 288, page 186, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia,being more particularly shown on a plat made by Virginia Surveys dated 5/11/77, and shaded in blue, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. WHEREAS, Dodd's Inc. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chester- field County to vacate the said alley as shown shaded in red on the plat referred to herein and attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference; WHEREAS,, Dodd's Inc., is the owner of a portion of lots 1, 2, and 3 mentioned above; WHEREAS, Philip A. Stillman and Norine H. Stillman are the owners of lots 4, 5 and 6 mentioned above; WHEREAS, notice of the adoption of this ordinance has been given in accordance with Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia 1950 as amended; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia: 1. That pursuant to Section 15.1-482 (b) of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, that the 10 foot alley described above, shaded in blue on the aforesaid plat, be and hereby is vacated. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482 (b) of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, and a certified copy thereof together with the plat attached shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia and shall be indexed in the name of the County of Chesterfield as Grantor and Dodd's, Inc., and Philip A. Stillman and Norine H. Stillman as Grantees. ys: Mrs. Giron . Mr. ADnerson and Mr_ Rnnkman Mr. Dodgy returns tc -he me It is oto motion of Mr. Boo Board accepts the followin County Administrator to si 1. Beatrice M. Adams and Map Section 49-3 a inn, seconded -,by Mr deeds of dedcatiai save on bet*lf of iah S. Adams'; loca 2. John Levi Sharpe & Mable L. Sharpe,.husb M77-02/2 located in Bermuda Ocbret:.Subdi 3. wart's Frozen Foods Company, located in B No. 577-21D/lA. erson, resolved that this authorizes the Interim County: in Clover Hill District and wife, Project No. District. Project Ayes: Mrs. Girme, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. It is on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by &'A Dodd, resolved that the following resolution is hereby approved WHEREAS, by resolution of this Board on Fruary 26, 1975, it was resolved that the County Attorney prepare a de d_of Bargain and Sale for the purchase of a fifty foot wide strip. of lan( along Bailey Bridge Road containing 3.5+ acres for the sum of $9,600.001; WHEREAS, it was resolved that such deed be,'submitted to the Board for approval; and, f, W is the e:ap owier has a ,to si uch land.o $9, b00.00 ll NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESCUED, that the Chesterfield Coun Board of Supervisors does hereby approve the purchase by the County of 3.5+ acres along Bailey Bridge Road from Grace Florence Bailey for $9,600.00 and authorizes its Chairman to execute a deed on behalf of the County. Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mz. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. Mr. Bookman leaves the meeting due to a possible conflict of interest. It is on motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by 11r. Dodd, resolved that the follow- ing Sewer Contracts are hereby approved: 1. S77 -21D Benu da Industrial Park $46,556.98 Contractor: G. L. Howard, Inc. Developer: Richmond Cold Storage Company, Inc. 2. S77 -32D Surreywood North - Section "D" Contractor: Bookman, Construction Company Developer: Surreywood North Corporation 3. S77 -33D Falling Creek Farms - Section "G" Contractor: Lewis H. Easter & Company Developer: James.R. Grubbs, Jr. 4. S77 -31D Afton - Section 2 Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc. Developer: Model Development Corporation 4 16,575.00 36,937.00 14,594.40 5. S77 -3D Dunkin Donuts - Route 60 $ 8,716.50 Contractor: Bookman Construction Company Developer: Edward D. Allen 6. 576-37D Salisbury-Winterfield Section - On -Site 141,087.25 Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle & Fred W. Barnes Construction Company Developer: The Salisbury Corporation 7. S77 -30D Huntsbridge 66,970.75 Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc. Developer: Brandermill 8. S77 -36D Southlake Court -Southport 8,262.50 Contractor: William M. Harman Developer: Southport Corporation 9. S77 -34D Searcy - Section 5 20,578.00 Contractor: Alpine Construction Company Developer: Robert J. Searcy Ayes: Mrs. Giron, Mr. Apperson and Mr. Dodd. After some discussion, it is on motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that the request of Mr. Harold Taylor, Jr. to amend Contract S75 -43M, Brittonwood, to include the engineering cost of the off-site sewer as a refundable item, is hereby denied since it is not County policy to refund engineering costs of off-site facilities unless pumping stations are involved. Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson and Mr. Dodd. After some discussion, it is on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that this Board approves a Developer Participation Agreement with Charles L. Chandler for a sewer extension on Robious Road Route 60 Area, Contract S77-22CD with rlr. Chandler paying $15,000 towards this cost, with the Right -of -Way Department obtaining the necessary easements. Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson and Mr. Dodd. Mr. Bookman returns to the meeting. It is on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that Change Order No. 1 for Contract 7032-27A, Chester, in the amount of $7,483.32 for additional stone on sections of Curtis and Richmond Streets is approved with funds being expended from Account 77-371. Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. It is agreed to defer the request of Fred W. Barnes Construction Co., Inc. for a 45 day extension of time on Contract 7032-27A until after the comple- tion of the contract. Mr. WelchonS presents a request from Sydnor Hydrodynamics, Inc. for a time extension on Contract S73 -33T, Division B, Timsbury Collectors. It is agreed to defer this matter until June 22nd to determine the amount of revenue lost for failure to complete the contract as scheduled. F7 It is on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman., resolved that the following contract be approved: *S76 -93T 14705 Jefferson Davis Highway-V.F.W. Building $11,278.50 Contractor: William M. Harman Code: 73-330-234 *It is noted the County has a Developer Participation contract with V.F.W. in which the V.F.W. will pay all construction costs. Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr, Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. After some discussion, it is on motion of Mrs, Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that liquidated damages in the amount of $452.37 be assessed against `red W. Barnes Construction Co,, Inc. for Contract No. 7032-30, Dwayne Lane which des are for loss of revenue, inspection fees and transportation costs. Code: 73-330, Ayes: Mrs. Giron , Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. Mr. Painter states he has received a letter from Mr. Robert Lux of the School Board office regarding the sewer connection fee for the high school on Krause Road. Mr. Painter states Mr. Lux would like to have this reassessed since approximately 25 acres of the 75.78 acres will be used for park facilities. After further discussion, it is generally agreed to defer this matter until July 18 to allow time to work out a park agreement. It is on motion of 'Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr, Apperson, resolved that this Board approves a Modification Agreement to Sewer Agreement Contract S76-45CD, dated April 19, 1976 for providing sewers to Sunmybrook Acres and authorizes the Chairman and Clerk to sign same. Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Giron , Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. It is on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that Mrs, Janet Routh of 12756 Richmond Street, is hereby granted a reduced sewer connection fee of $600. Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Giron, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. After much discussion, it is on motion of Mr. O'Neill, seconded by Mrs. Girone, resolved that Mrs. Carolyn B. Crowder of 2705 Milhorn Street be granted a reduced sewer connection fee of $300. Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr.'. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. It is on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girane, resolved that the request of Mr. L. Hunter Beazley, Jr. of 12665 Petersburg Street for a reduced sewer connection fee is hereby denied. Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Giron, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. D It is on motion of Mr. O'Neill, seconded by rtr. Apperson, resolved that Mr. Dennis W. Davis of 5620 River Road is hereby exempt from paying the monthly sewer service charge u�qtil such time has he actuallyconnects to the County system. Ayes: 1,Jr. O'Neill, Mrs. Giron, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. There is a discussion on employing a bond attorney to advise on Utility Bonds. Mr. Micas states he would have a recommendation on this which would require an Executive Session. After further discussion, it is on motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that this matter is deferred until the Board has had an opportunity to discuss this with the County Attorney. Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs, Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Boolman aid Mr. Dodd. Mr. Painter advises the Board he has obtained prices for updating the Sewer Report which cost is $70,000 for the report and $15,000 for printing. Mr. Apperson suggests it would be better to wait until the report from the Bond Consultant is received before deciding on this issue. It is generally agreed to defer this matter, Mr, Bookman inquires when the report on the distribution of water throughout the County will be ccopleted. Mr, Painter states it will be finished by August 1, 1977. Mr. Painter advises the Board the Safe Drinking Water Act will go into effect June 24, 1977; that all Utilities will be required to meet certain standards and if these standards are not met, public notification is required by TV, newspaper and inserts in monthly utility bills. 11r. Painter further states that notices of this Act will be sent out in the next monthly billing. Mr. Apperson inquires what areas are reported on. Mr, Addison states bacteria logical, radiological, pesticides, heavy metals and ar ryported on frau Swift Creek, Falling Creek and the Appcmattox Basin. 4;'� ii Hy It is on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. O'Neill, resolved that the request of the Manchester Athletic Association for a bingo and/or raffle permit is hereby approved for a period of one year. Ayes: Mr, O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and rfr. Dodd. It is on motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that the requests for- pyrotechnic displays frau Brandermill ConaYunity Association for July 4, 1977 and the United rtiethodist Churches for July 3, 1977 are hereby approved subject to the requirements of the Fire & Police Departments. Ayes: h1, O'Neill, Mrs. Giron, �1r. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Bookman, it is resolved that the Highway Department be authorized to surface treat Greenbriar, Section 3, in conjunction with its resurfacing schedule and subsequently bill the County, This amount is not -to exceed $4,000.00. Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Nxs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr, Dodd. 7 It is on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Apperson, resolved that the follow- ing resolution is hereby approved: BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is hereby requested to add a section of West Street frau 0.08 miles west of Route 1515 (Winfree St.) to 0.08 miles east of Rout ,l 11 .1chmond,St,) including Seaboard Coast Line Railroad grade crossing,°`'�0 tie e@an'�ary'"'. ystem of Chester- field County pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. AND FURTER BE IT RESOLVED: That this Board does guarantee the Comnonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right of way of 50 feet with necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage;'recor'ded'in'Plat'Book 1, page 226, dated Dec 4, 1888. Ayes: Mr, O'Neill, Mrs, Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr, Bookman and Mr. Dodd. It is generally agreed the Board will meet June 29, 1977 at'2:00 p.m. to discuss finances. Mr. O'Neill reminds the Board members of the Local Government Officials' Conference at the University of Virginia on August 21-24, 1977. It is on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, resolved that the Interim County Administrator is authorized to seek bids for renovating a County' trailer for use by the Police Department for classroan training. Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Giron , Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd, It is on motion of Mrs. Giron , seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that this Board go into Executive Session to discuss legal matters, personnel and land acquisition. Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr, Dodd. Reconvening: Mr. O'Neill states this time and date have been set for a public hearing on the General Plan 2000. There are about 35 people present for the hearing. Mr, Zook presents a slide presentation of the General Plan 2000 giving a history of the plan which is required by law by 1980. He further states this plan is not hard core as sane people believe; it is amendable but must be followed by the planning cannission in their recommendations to the Board but it is only advisory to the Board and not required to be followed by the Board. Mr. Zook then reviews the proposed changes in the plan which have come about fran previous public hearings with the Planning Commission. The Board recesses for five minutes. Reconvening: 9 Mr, Robert Ward of 21616 Beverly Street in Matoaca comes before the Board and questions haw this plan will enhance the camamity. Mr. O'Neill states this has to be looked at gener4lly, when property owners come to the Board with their requests, the Board tries to approve development that will be an asset and not a detriment to the commmunity. Mr, O'Neill further states Matoaca and Ettrick have changed in the last 20 years -and will change some more; that there are sane things down their he does not like but they were done without planning; from about 1948-70 there mere few restrictions and this plan is to try to keep things like this frau happening in the future. Mr, Ward asks if this plan was initiated by the people of Chesterfield. Mr. O'Neill states this plan is anticipated by trends by the Planning staff. Mrs. Girone states she looks at this plan as a black and white picture done by the staff to be colored and developed and the public has colored this map and made it what it is. Mr. Ward reads the following prepared statement: "Society is a community of the living dead and 'yet unborn". Chesterfield County has been in existence for a long time. The historic Woods Church, built in 1707, stands as a reminder to this county's historic past. Change, no doubt, must cane to this area, but the profound and permanent effects which would be brought about by the acceptance of the Chesterfield County Plan, 2000, would alter in a brief 25 years this historic and scenic region beyond recognition by those who have lived in it, and who are now living here. A projected population of some 440,000 and the accompanying development of massive transportation systems, huge sewer canplexes and all the orange and purple plastic palaces which will follow such growth would end for all time the scenic and historic qualities of the Chesterfield County that we now know. We are told that we need "development" and "growth". No one opposes either "growth" or "development", but many do profoundly stand against unchecked residential, caimercial and industrial development. What the plan means by these terms is quite clear. It means industrial, ca-,wxcial and residential growth. Despite some nice sounding tributes to the environment, the Chester- field County Plan 2000 considers that the construction of a few bike paths and neatly manacured parks satisfies the environmental requirements of the plan. In fact, the Plan is of course a self-fulfilling prophecy. Projection in fact means promotion. "Planning" in fact means encouragement. Now who is to pay for this plan? We, the citizens of Chesterfield County, are being asked to pay for a project which none that I know want. We are now faced with rapidly rising water and sewer rates, with a sewage system much in debt. Now we are asked to pay for more. We are told that growth pays for itself. This is sheer nonsense, according to the plan itself, the ability of growth to pay for itself decreases as the population increases. We are told that we need more jobs. e t are we to trade a few months of building a McDonald's hamburger stand for the quality of the environment for ourselves, our children and their children? My major concern is how this plan affects the quality of the environment. There is no doubt at all that if this plan is implemented, the scenic value of our area will be forever destroyed. Noise, air and water pollution are recognized as problems, but with growth (industrial -commercial) as the main stress, such problems are quickly and shallowly dealt with. Two areas are of particular concern to me. The Appomattox River (to becane a scenic area July 1st) and Swift Creek. Swift Creek and its tributaries from Pocohontas Park to Colonial Heights is indeed a scenic creek. The projected I-95 highway, and accompanying developments (as the federal highway study shows) would profoundly alter -even destroy the scenic qualities of the Swift Creek system. Frank's Branch u,nuld be partially rechanneled. Swift Creek would soon become another "low place" 0 for the building of sewage systems to accannodate growing commercial and industrial sites. For those who wish to witness the death of a stream, I urge you to wall,, down portions of Old Town Creek, from Branders Bridge Road in Colonial Heights to Nichols Store, That will be the fate of Swift Creek and others, To rechannel a stream is toTcill it. It is that simple. More pressing still is the issue of the Appomattox, We all know the attitude of this board toward getting it declared a scenic river, this year. This Board (alone, as it turned out) was unanimously against supporting Scenic River Designation for the Appomattox, Why? I have no doubt that such desig- nation seemed as an irksome and interfering stumbling block in the minds of the Supervisors to the future commercial, residential and industrial develop- ment of the Appomattox River Basin (Merlin O'Neill, after all is the president of the Appomattox Basin Industrial Development Corporation). What do you expect? Mr. O'Neill explains the Appomattox River Basin Industrial Development Corp. is not just represented by Chesterfield County but also Dinwiddie, Colonial Heights &Petersburg.and is a non-profit organization supported by the local governments. Mr. Ward continues his statement: "One project suggested in the Chesterfield County Plan 2000 is particularly objectionable. That is the plan for a large sewer line to extend down the river from about Matoaca. to Petersburg. Anyone with an ounce of environmental sense could see that this would destroy the scenic quality of the river, We must not allow any such attempt. Chesterfield County has sane prime farm land. The County and State should be promoting more farming, rather than accepting a plan which will surely lead to the breva-cup of more farms for developments-camercial, residential and industrial. With the existing world-wide food crisis, surely it is in the best long range interest of all Chesterfield County, Virginia and American citizens to encourage, not discourage farming in areas where it can be productive. In conclusion, I have sane basic suggestions. No matter what happens here. tonight, this plan must be accepted or rejected on a broader basis than that of this, or any series of subsequent public hearings. I ask, and urgently that (1) The Board secure documented evidence in the form of signed petitions by a majority of residents of this County that they approve of the Chesterfield County Plan 2000 as it now stands. In lieu of such a petition the plan is obviously not acceptable to the majority of the citizens it so deeply affects. (2) that the plan is too important to be passed on by 5 or 6 people who I feel do not represent the continued best long-range interests of the people of this county. That the plan be submitted for vote in a general referendum at the earliest possible time. That it not be accepted by this Board until the people have accepted or rejected the plan on this basis." Mr. Ward thanks the Board for this opportunity to speak. Mr. Micas states State law does not Dermit referendums of this sort. Mr, Bookman states in reference to this Board opposing Scenic River designation for the Appomattox, this is not true; this Board had sane concerns about sewer for the western part of the County and decided to hold off on any decision for a period of one year on the scenic river designation and also if he remembered correctly, Mr. Ward stated at that meeting the sewer line would not affect the scenic river. Mr. Ward states this is incorrect-he has always opposed the sewer line, Mr. O'Neill states the Board is charged with the responsibility of holding down costs and we.must plan environmentally. Mr, Waverly Traylor comes before the Board and states he is currently living in IInporia, but owns land in Matoaca, where he hopes to retire. The Highway Map shows I�85/I-95 going through this property. Mr. Travlor states he realizes the Highway Department makes the final decisions on the roads but would like the Board to recam-end the I-85/1-95 route be moved 3-4 miles to the west. Mr. 'Naylor also inquires about future industry in Ettrick. Mr. O'Neill states some industrial development could go in near the Railroad in Ettrick and it would be foolish to give up the tax revenue it could bring the County. Mr. Traylor states he realizes a lot of thought and planning have gone into this plan, but he would like the Board to consider his recamcuendation to move the highway farther west and thanks the Board for hearing his cannents. Ms. Acme Tennile of 4721 Centralia Road canes before the Board and questions Mr. O'Neill about a statement made by Mr. Harwood of the Highway Department in September 1976 that Mr. O'Neill drew the plan for the western route of I-85/1-95. Mr. O'Neill states the Board did advocate the western route and reconmended the general area but not the existing corridor. Ms. Tennile asks Mr. Zook if he feels the general plan is complete and adequate, whereby Mr. Zook states the plan will have to be amended when a decision is made on the route for I -85/I-95; that the Land Use Plan has been changed to strike the route off but it is still addressed in the General Plan. Ms. Tennile states she feels a study should be make on both the eastern and western routes. Mr. Zook states the concept of the sector corridor applies County wide and feels the land use plan should reflect the desires of the County. Ms. Tennile states she feels the citizens have been misrepresented. Mrs. Dorothy Armstrong states she is present representing the League of Waren Voters which feels land use is of great importance; it will dictate how we live, shop, work or play. Mrs, Armstrong reads the following prepared statement: "x'.esolution of land use problems and development of land use policies will require all the attention we can motivate if we are to adquately manage our land re- sources for the benefit of present and future generations. We have reached a zenith in land speculation and exploitation for profit which is determining the direction of land use to an alarming degree. land has become a negotiable canmodity, tossed carelessly into the game of speculation for profit. Once in the market, not only its use but its very existence is subordinated to the highest bidder and shortest -term gain." (A Plan for Urban Growth -Newsletter, American Institute of Architects, January, 1972, Special Issue.) We camnend the Chesterfield County Planning Department and the Planning Con- sultant for a major "first effort" in the compilation of data and projection of concepts and philosophies toward more canprehensive land use planning for the benefit of the people who choose to live in Chesterfield County. Any critical comnnent which follows is not intended to demean any portion of this positive approach to land use planning. May we first share three general concerns with you? We are concerned about the implementation of the concepts in Plan 2000 in view of the inability of the governing body to implement the 1972 General Plan for 1995. It has also been observed that the health, safety, and welfare portions of the plan- ning act have not always been considerations in making zoning and planning decisions. Will the adoption of Plan 2000 have more impact upon land use decisions than the adoption of Plan 1995? Secondly, we are concerned about the decision to implement the plan without a land use map. We understand the constraints inherent in the adoption of a map, but we are more concerned about the citizens' ability to "get a handle M" land use as it affects property and the catmunity. In view of the intense road development and massive impact of other (development, we believe the citizen 11 should have access to a visual aid which is readily understood. At this very moment, developers are building homes in areas subject to major impact of massive highway construction. And third, we are concerned about the lack of emphasis on the development and planning for communities, We note that commmnmity planning is one of four areas of composite planning. We will recommend that Community Planning be elevated to "Goal" level later in this statement. The I14V Council members elected to assign four sub -committees to "Goal" issues for study and recommendations. Their reports and recommendations are as follows: 1. Residential and Commercial (Goals 2 and 3) Residential Land use decisions should be supportive to a "sense" of community.. (2) More attention should be given to better design for residential streets, intersections, and access roads, (3) There should be a more positive approach to protection of trees and spatial characteristics of neighborhood. (4) Adequate utilities and public services, including neighborhood parks, etc. should be provided for the older comm mities as well as the newly developed can unities . (5) it Respect" for residential areas should be a part of the planning process. (6) Provision of adequate buffer areas to shield residential areas from undue noise and traffic generating segments of cc mnmuinity. (7) Planning is necessary for convenience commercial and professional clusters to provide for self-sufficiency of residential neighborhood. Commercial Plan for small business clusters to serve camtmn.mities rather than crowded corridors and huge shopping centers. (2) Traffic planning for large commercial areas is woefully inadequate. (3) A concerted planning effort should be made to revitalize declining commercial strips such as Route 1/301. (4) Adequate buffering of commercial areas should be planned if there has not been a planned mix of compatible development of the land. (5) The feasibility of economic impact planning for healthy retention of existing businesses should be explored. (6) There is a need for a land use policy in regard to abandoned structures and derelict buildings. II. Public Services and Facilities (Goal 6) It is noteworthy that the Plan 2000 ma s frequent references to public recreational planning. Developers of large land areas should have a greater role in providing recreational areas. It should further be mandated that adequate open space and recreational areas be provided for larger apartment and townhouse complexes, and for mobile home communities. Suggestions for other recreational services include: public swimming pools (when swimrmning pool is constructed at Pocahontas State Park, it will be the only public swimming pool in the county), additional parks along the James River and other waterfront areas, lighting of public tennis courts, and additional public golf courses which provide open space as well as recreational activity. Although there is no documented shortage of health care facilities at the .12 present time, the Planning Department should be prepared to advise about area in which facilities may be needed to meet future health needs. When planning for public facilities, size, mass, and traffic generation should be definite considerations. It is disturbing to note that the tical school size for planning elementary schools is 900 students (K through 6�, and that an elementary school of this size is considered compatible with residential development, Traffic generation alone becomes an incompatible feature, We also seriously question the merits of a large elementary school population in terms of the ultimate welfare and education of small children. Might it not be better to plan for a 500 -pupil elementary school in a develop- ing area which will also need a center for coax mity activities and a community playground which could be provided by the same facility? In planning for public facilities, we strongly recaimend that criteria be developed for the siting and protection of facility from adverse traffic conditions and incompatible zoning. We suggest the following guidelines for consideration: (1) Placement in canrnmity in accordance with service to be provided, (2) Site should provide easy access and adequate parking. (3) Site planning should include provision for outdoor activities and landscaping plans. (4) Zoning policies should be developed to protect public facilities from conditions and incanpatible zoning. (Applicable zoning measures should also apply to historical landmarks.) III. Environmental (Goal 9) We were very pleased with the comprehensive nature of the policy state- ments included in the environmental goal. We are further pleased to rote policy 9e was deleted which calls for the determination of the advisability of desig- nating the Appomattox as a Scenic River. The 1977 General Asserbly has con- veniently provided a positive answer. Although we enthusiastically support the adoption of all the policy state- ments except for the above item, we would enjoy knowing the answers to the following questions: With an enforceable and updated erosion and siltation ordinance, why is the new LaPrade Library faced with a very serious erosion problem? What envi.romental impact assessments will you recommend for massive industrial, highway and commercial installations? What economic assessment tools are available to determine economic feasibility of certan types of busi- ness and commercial developments? What should be the time frame for develop- ment after zoning is granted for commercial development? IV. Transportation (Goal 5) Statement of goal: A transportation system providing the best possible service at a reasonable cost and with mininunm impacts on the environment. Given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, it is impossible for us to think of a transportation system providing the best possible ser- vice at a reasonable cost and with minimum acts on the environment when ccxnrnmity eve opment- i — preceded roadui.ld'37x anJ-standsTin tFie right of way deemed essential for massive arteries for transporting the ever growing car and people population. And further, those of us who travel on Highway 1/301, Forest Hill Avenue, Belt Boulevard, Highway 60, etc, are well aware of the non -planning for arterial 13 ways in the past which has led to over -zoning, incompatible zoning and im- possible traffic situations. The LWV has reviewed and carmented upon the Plan for the Development of Highway 60, now an addendum paper to the Plan 2000, and we again urge the immediacy of the adoption of the plan for more orderly development of Highway 60 before we are caught up in the same lack of planning for Highway 360 and other State arterial ways, The need for criteria or guidelines for establishing roadway patterns seems to us to be overwhelming, We realize that the sporadic availability of State and Federal funding makes such planning very complex, however, we believe that there are certain principles which could be adopted which would reflect a philosophy of roadway planning in the county. , Let us first consider an important principle of the Federal concept in establishing Interstate highways. Since the Interstates are supported by taxes from all citizens in the United States, it is to be expected that their design would be equally beneficial to all citizens from any State in the United States; therefore, their design would have as its primary objective the routing which accommodates the long distance traveler rather than a local government accmunda.tion to facilitate development. Facilitating internal development is the responsibility of local and state governments in roadway design. Should we not first determine what a roadway is to do for us? Should a major arterial way be cluttered with commercial strip zoning providing an obstacle course for those attempting to commute from home to work or frau city to city. Should narrow streets and roads designed for residential use only be turned into major arterial ways and short cuts because of the clutter on our four lane State highways? Because there has been no criteria and little long range planning, we find ourselves in the critical position of reacting to what has happened and the only alternatives are inadequate and undesireable. Our network of roadways has been determined to a large extent by developers. Many dangerous road and street situations are in existence which endanger life and property of road users because of incongurent intersections and lack of attention to cmprehensive road design, Since camrnnities have not had a participating role in community plan- ning, residents are unaware of what is happening until it has happened. We strongly recommend that the governmental structure of the county allow for citizens to become involved in the planning as well as the "reaction" process. In-depth follow-up to the Plan 2000 should be mandatory in terms of energy considerations. It isknown by reliable sources in and out of govern- ment that an energy shortage is a part of the future of this country. With this knowledge, it would seem that we are expending more time and energy debating when it will happen than what we are going to do about it. The time is now to explore all alternatives in the area of transportation. Mass transit and Park and Ride Facilities are only a part of the solution. Other considerations and recommendations are as follows: 1. Planned Unit Development. More emphasis should be placed an the use of Plarmed Unit Development as a more creative planning technique. Plan 2000 does not deal with the weaknesses inherent in undue dependency upon zoning and subdivision ordinances as regulators in land use planning. Because fragmented and incidental development decisions created problems that became more intense within rapidly urbanizing development, governments responded with standardization processes and guides for orderly development. The resulting 14 zoning ordinances create problem inplanning since they do not deter strip zoning nor do they stop incompatible zoning, Only through the assessment of the total community unit can creative planning take place for the best interests of the inhabitants.,, We, therefore, recommend increased use of the Planned Unit Development technique in ccummity planning and development. 2. Commmnit Plan , The "growth unit" should be the community and growth should be designed not as individual buildings and projects, but as human communities with the full range of physical facilities and hmm><n services that ensure a life of quality. We therefore recommend that Comntamity Planning be raised to the "Goal" level in Plan 2000 (becomes Goal 10). The policy statements should be ccmmmity oriented supporting the community con- cept of planning and including all the desirable elements and components supportive to family life. Development plans should be created for small communities and mechanisms for implementation should be an accompanying neces- sity. We should further explore the possibilities and scope of citizen participation in the design and goverance of neighborhoods and comimmities, Let us attempt to ameliorate urban sprawl and raise the status of the com- munity in suburbia. 3. Growth Policy, The late T. Edward Temple stated in 1974,."I have often remar-ke tat w&ve done planning backwards in this country, Planning just does not happen until we really begin to identify the problem. We have planned traditionally to respond in a short-term manner and often with an incredible bias which says growth is progress, Thus, we have reasoned that growth should be pursued at all costs ... in too many cases these costs have been too high," The LWV also believes the costs are too high and calls for a public commitment to a _concept of controlled and/or directed row�th. Unlimited growth has become a threat to the we oft e people to the point that local government decisions for no -growth or limited growth are increasing in the State of Virginia and in other localities in the United States, People are saying we should stop our expensive helter skelter development for a time so that we might take stock of how we want to live and how we want America to grow. We do not doubt the reality of growth. It -is a question of the kind of growth, when, where, and how much, Although the plan speaks to growth management tools (Appendix II, A-4), because of significant potential for abuse and possible illegality in the State of Virginia, the Plan 2000 makes no commitment to use of any of the tools for growth management. Although we realize that desirable implementation techniques of growth management must be explored in depth and would not be available as a part of the Plan, we recommend that a philosophy of controlled and/or directed growth be a part of the Comprehensive Plan for land use for the Year 2000. 4. Ener Policy. In view of the need for long range planning to pro- vide for self --sufficiency in an energy -short future, the LW recommends the development of an Energy Policy which will result in the exploration of transportation alternatives, planning for better ccu pity organization for self-sufficiency, education of citizens to the need and methods for energy conservation, and conservation of prime agricultural land for food production purposes. The water shortages in California and in the Northwest and the record setting cold temperatures of the winter just past should alert us to the need to start 'banking" our alternatives. 15 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Limitations In theory, a well -conceived comprehensive plan should provide a sound basis upon which a local government can make intelligent decisions on cur- rent land use and future development plans, Many people confuse adoption of a comprehenisve plan with the reality of effective land use control. In reality, the plan has no legal effect on existing land uses since it is no more than a philosophical guide to be used in making future land use decisions. Fauquier. County spent years developing one of the most comprehensive plans in the State of Virginia and when it was finally adopted, everyone breathed a great sigh of relief believing that they had a plan and that their land use problems would end. However, without im- plementation by selective rezoning and carefully drawn ordinances, the adoption of a comprehensive plan has little impact upon undesirable land use trends and land use exploitation. There is also the danger of premature rezonings before the requirement for such new zoning is in existence. It must also be recognized that many zoning ordinances, as presently drawn, permit the unplanned spread of incompatible uses (particularly those of a residential and commercial nature) into the agricultural and open space areas. The zoning ordinance has not proven to be an effective tool in pro- tecting the existing character of such areas, If Plan 2000 is to make a difference, the hard decisions are yet to come. The work has really just begun. Mr. Dodd asks Mrs. Armstrong her feelings on the plan for Bermuda. Mrs. Armstrong states she's not terrbily impressed but that's secondary respon- sibility; she hopes to get commitments from people to help make the communities places -where people can live, work, shop and play. Mr. Dodd addresses the traffic problem in Chester and the fact the Board has very little input to the Highway Department on roads. Mrs. Armstrong thanks the Board for this opportunity to speak. Mrs. Ward of 21616 Beverly Street inquires if the extent of sewer planned for the Matoaca area is in response to needs and does it not create residential development -and shouldn't some attention be given to planning at a community level. Mr. O'Neill states the need for sewer is created by the creations of people, the outhouses have been outlawed, septic tanks are failing, then the need to get rid of sewer through trunk lines to treatment plants where it can be treated and discharged is necessitated; further, sewer is not put in to lure hones; it is put in to existing homes. 111r. Bookman states one of the first sewer lines was installed in Worthington Farms across Southside Plaza and was run to take care of certain needs, by automation land value increased; sewer serves existing problems and opens future development, Ins Ward states it is unfair for people who don't want to develop and some con- sideration should be given then; the Halloway Avenue sewer project brought in homes, what role did the Board have in this. Mr, O'Neill states the owners of the property come to the Board for rezoning, the Board does not promote it; the people had failing septic tanks and asked that sewer be installed including people in your area, Mrs, Ward, Mrs. Ward states development should be done at a slower rate until the 208 Study is completed and that farm land should not be allowed to shrink in continuing development; further that County policies are designed for rapid growth and some State legislation should be adopted to help farmers keep their land, Mr. O'Neill states the 208 Study is an ongoing process from the 3C Study and they are no closer to an answer, Mr. O'Neill states Mr, Apperson is attending a meeting tonight on 208; that it is not the County's intent for all the growth d i=sod in the plan, we just want to be ready for it if it happens. Mr, O'Neill also states there is a land use ordinance to help farmers and Mr. Micas advises of the Agricultural & Forestal District Act -going into effect July 1, 1977 which will help small farmers who do not qualify for land use, Mrs. '.;ard states the plan is not agressive enough in protecting scenic sites and there was not enough advertisement. Mr, Bookman states he has 32,000 citizens in his district and has not received any calls to discuss the plan. Mrs. Ward states it does not affect them. Mr. Bookman states it does, it effects all citizens in the County. firs, Giron states she appreciates Mrs. Ward's views and some people agree with her and some don't; this Board is trying to represent all the people and further citizenship is a responsibility and you are a responsible person Mrs. Ward - you sought out this information, Mrs, Ward states she did not seek this information, she came across it by accident and questions Mr. O'Neill on the I-35/1-95 western route and the designation of the Appomattox River as a scenic river, Mr. O'Neill states when he first came on the Board in 1972 he held meetings on this plan and it got to where no one would show up; and further persons who were in favor of the western route are now attending meetings in Matoaca against it, meetings he's never been invited to to here their views or express his own. Mr. O'Neill also states this Board was not against the designation of the Appomattox as a scenic river, we just wanted a year to study the situation. In closing, Mrs, Ward states the County should be very cautious, we're moving at a much too fast rate and the effects will show up later. Mr. O'Neill states planning is not a simple task, we must study everything we do and make sure it is right. This Board seems to be more responsive to the needs of the citizens than ever before. Mr. John Smith of 1121 Salisbury Drive is present and states to him the word professionalism is the method of doing a job not the qualifications for be- coming employed. He further states the Land Use Map on display at three public hearings before the P1ssion was incorrect where is shows the Proposed 283 between Mt.ant.QADrive and Salisbury Drive. He states he pointed this out and still has not been corrected; that the concept of planning is to find out where you are and this should be elementary to varify but has never been done in Chesterfield County, Mr. Smith thanks the Board for hearing his cannents. Mr, O'Neill asks if there are any further comments from the public. There being none, Mr. O'Neill states the public hearing is concluded. 1x, Dodd states he appreciates the constructive criticism and Mr. O'Neill thanks the people for expressing their views. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board of Supervisors hereby amends Section D-3 of the County of Chesterfield Airport Industrial Park Restrictive Covenants to require a minimum size of the principal building, excluding buildings for airplane storage and/or service of 4,000 square feet for the southerly one acre parcel of the 3.36 acre tract owned by Marshall Cole, et al on the eastern side of Whitepine Road for development as a scientific laboratory. The Board expressed their willingness to consider similar requests in the future. Ayes: Mr, O'Neill, Mrs Girone, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd. 17 Mr. Bookman makes a motion to adjourn and Mr. Dodd seconds the motion. Mr. O'Neill states Mr. Manuel has a persormel matter to discuss in Execu- tive Session and Mr, Bookman and Mr. Dodd withdraw their motions. *1 It is an motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that this Board go into Executive Session to discuss persormel matters. Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Bookman and Mr, Dodd. Reconvening: It is on motion of Mrs. Giron, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that this Board adjourns at 11:30 p.m. until 9:00 a.m., June 22, 1977, Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Giron , Mr, Bookman and Mr, Dodd. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JUNE 20, 1977 J\ I. Financial Reports - Water and Sewer_�lp��'6 X'II. Approval of water contracts: 1. W77 -51D Bermuda Industrial Park $18,550.00 Developer: Richmond Cold Storage Company, Inc. Contractor: G. L. Howard, Incorporated Bermuda Recommend approval 2. W77 -12D Ivey Acres $17,500.00 Developer: Landmark Builders, Inc Contractor: J. H. Martin & Sons Matoaca Recommend approval 3. W77 -39D 360 Commercial Park, Sec. "A" $28,710.00 Developer: W. G. Speeks Contractor: Lewis H. Easter & Company Midlothian Recommend approval 4. W77 -43D Huntingcreek Hills, Off-site Road $2,000.00 Developer: Salem Church Road Limited Partnershi Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc. Recommend approval 5. W77 -44D Brandermill, Fox Chase, Section "2" $12,483.50 Developer: Brandermill Contractor: R. M. C. Contractors, Inc. Clover Hill Recommend approval 6. W77 -41D Huntsbridge $45,050.70 Developer: Brandermill O Contractor: R. M. C. Contractors, Inc. Clover Hill 1 Recommend approval V)'X III. Discussion of fire protection for Airport Industrial Park. Dale �IV. Discuss policy of General Fund reimbursing Utilities Department the actual cost of installing fire hydrants not paid for by developers. Utilities Department Agenda Page 2 June 20, 1977 .<V. Consideration of petition for water line extension to serve Chesterfield Manor Subdivision. Bermuda Approval of sewer contracts: .�. S77 -21D Bermuda Industrial Park $46,555.98 Developer: Richmond Cold Storage Company, Inc. Contractor: G. L. Howard, Inc. Bermuda Recommend approval /2. S77 -32D Surreywood North, Section "D" $16,575.00 Developer: Surreywood North Corporation Contractor: Bookman Construction Company Clover Hill Recommend approval /3. S77 -33D Falling Creek Farms, Section "G" $36,937.00 Developer: James R. Grubbs, Jr. Contractor: Lewis H. Easter & Company Clover Hill Recommend approval 4. S77 -31D Afton, Section "2" $14,594.40 Developer: Model Development Corporation Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc. Dale Recommend approval 5. S77 -3D Dunkin Donuts, Route 60 $8,716.50 Developer: Edward D. Allen Contractor: Bookman Construction Company Clover Hill Recommend approval 6. S76 -37D Salisbury, Winterfield Section On-site $141,087.2. Developer: The Salisbury Corporation Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc. and Fred W. Barnes Construction Co., Inc. Midlothian Recommend approval 7. S77 -30D Huntsbridge $66,970.75 Developer: Brandermill Contractor: R. M. C. Contractors, Inc. Clover Hill Recommend approval Utilities Department Agenda Page 3 June 20, 1977 Approval of sewer contracts continued: `�► 8. S77 -36D Southlake Court - Southport $8,262.50 Developer: Southport Corporation Contractor: William M. Harman Clover Hill Recommend approval /9. S77 -34D Searcy, Section 5 $20,578.00 Developer: Robert J. Searcy. Contractor: Alpine Construction Corporation Matoaca Recommend approval VII. Reconsideration of request from Harold Taylor to be refunded the engineering cost of the off-site sewer to Brittonwood. Recommend denial V VIII. Discuss Sewer Agreement for Developer Participation as outlined in letter dated June 6, 1977 from Charles L. Ch ndler, President, Townhouse Manor Apartments, Inc. and letter daVed June 6, 1977 from Virginia Mu a L&vings and Loan Associa ion. �,4i,ifs Midlothian X. Reconsider request for approval of Change��Order No. 1 for Contract 7032-27A, Chester, in the amount of $7,483.32. �;o('!'` Fund: 77-371 Bermuda. Recommend approval j(X. Request from Fred W. Barnes Construction Company for forty- five (45) days extension of time for Contract 7032-27A, Chester. ap Bermuda Recommend approval - KI. Request from Sydnor Hydrodynamics, Inc. for an extension of time to May 20, 1977 for Contract S73 -33T, Division B, Timsbury b J Collectors. Matoaca Recommend approval XII. Award of Sewer Contract S76 -93T, 14705 Jefferson Davis Highway, to William M. Harman in the amount of $11,278.50. Bermuda Recommend approval Utilities Department Agenda Page 4 June 20, 1977 X III. Consideration of letter of June 8, 1977 from Robert A. Lux of the School Board concerning sewer connection fee for the high school on Krause Road. Dale Approval of Modification Agreement dated May 19, 1977 to Sewer Contract S76-45CD, Sunnybrook Acres, dated April 19, 1976 with Continental Development Corporation. Clover Hill Recommend approval „t,XV. Consideration of request from Mr. & Mrs. James F. Burke, 3522 West Hundred Road, for reduced sewer connection fee of $ 3bT-00 . �. gooBermuda .11 Recommend denial +k�XVI. Consideration of request from Mr. & Mrs. Robert H. Hague, 3528 West Hundred Road, for reduced sewer connection fee of $300.00. "tPo•• Bermuda �A�6Iw'" ` Recommend denial XVII. Consideration of request from Mrs. Janet H. Routh, 12756 Richmond Street, for reduced sewer connection fee of $600.00. Bermuda Recommend denial Recommend denial XX. Request from Dennis W. Davis, 5620 River Road, not to assess monthly sewer service charge until house is connected to public sewer. Matoaca Recommend approval XXI. Consideration of employing a bond attorney to advise on Utility Bonds. P9 0 XVIII. Consideration of request from Carolyn B. Crowder, 2705 Milhorn Street, for reduced sewer connection fee of $300.00. BQZMt4er M► '♦' Recommend denial XIX. Consideration of request from L. Hunter Beazley, Jr., 12665 Petersburg Street, for reduced sewer connection fee of $600.00. Bermuda Recommend denial XX. Request from Dennis W. Davis, 5620 River Road, not to assess monthly sewer service charge until house is connected to public sewer. Matoaca Recommend approval XXI. Consideration of employing a bond attorney to advise on Utility Bonds. P9 0 Utilities Department Agenda Page 5 June 20, 1977 XXII. Consideration of petition for the vacation of a 10 -foot alley in Block K in Bensley Village. Dale Recommend approval ,(XXIII. Resolution authorizing acceptance of the following Deeds elf Dedication: 1. Beatrice M. Adams and Uriah S. Adams, Map Section 49-3 Clover Hill .�2. John Levi Sharpe and Mable L. Sharpe, Project DD77-02/2 Bermuda Ochre Subdivision. Bermuda /3. Ewart's Frozen Foods Company, Project S77-21D/lA. Bermuda XXIV. Miscellaneous Request from Mr. William A. Johns, Mills, Taylor and Puryear, Inc., Consulting Engineer for the developer of Heritage Common Subdivision, for the County to assist in acquiring off-site sewer easements. ,L. Consider up -dating Sewer Report. )(3. Consideration of assessing liquidated damages to Fred W. Barnes Construction Company in the amount of $452.37 for Sewer Contract 7032-30. Code: 73-330 Midlothian Recommend approval Robert A. Painter Director of Utilities June 13, 1977 id UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JUNE 20, 1977 I. Financial Reports - Water and Sewer II. Approval of water contracts: 1. W77 -51D Bermuda Industrial Park $18,550.00 Developer: Richmond Cold Storage Company, Inc. Contractor: G. L. Howard, Incorporated Bermuda Recommend approval 2. W77 -12D Ivey Acres $17,500.00 Developer: Landmark Builders, Inc Contractor: J. H. Martin & Sons Matoaca Recommend approval 3. W77 -39D 360 Commercial Park, Sec. "A" $28,710.00 Developer: W. G. Speeks Contractor: Lewis H. Easter & Company Midlothian Recommend approval 4. W77 -43D Huntingcreek Hills, Off-site Road $2,000.00 Developer: Salem Church Road Limited Partnership Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc. DAL -L Recommend approval 5. W77 -44D Brandermill, Fox Chase, Section "2" $12,483.50 Developer: Brandermill Contractor: R. M. C. Contractors, Inc. Clover Hill Recommend approval 6. W77 -41D Hunrsbridge $45,050.70 Developer: Brandermill Contractor: R. M. C. Contractors, Inc. Clover Hill Recommend approval III. Discussion of fire protection for Airport Industrial Park. Dale IV. Discuss policy of General Fund reimbursing Utilities Department the actual cost of installing fire hydrants not paid for by developers. Utilities Department Agenda Page 2 June 20, 1977 V. Consideration of petition for water line extension to serve Chesterfield Manor Subdivision. Bermuda VI. Approval of sewer contracts: 1. S77 -21D Bermuda Industrial Park $46,55.6.98 Developer: Richmond Cold Storage Company, Inc. Contractor: G. L. Howard, Inc. Bermuda Recommend approval 2. S77 -32D Surreywood North, Section "D" $16,575.00 Developer: Surreywood North Corporation Contractor: Bookman Construction Company Clover Hill Recommend approval 3. S77 -33D Falling Creek Farms, Section "G" $36,937.00 Developer: James R. Grubbs, Jr. Contractor: Lewis H. Easter & Company Clover Hill Recommend approval 4. S77 -31D Afton, Section "2" $14,594.40 Developer: Model Development Corporation Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc. Dale Recommend approval 5. S77 -3D Dunkin Donuts, Route 60 $8,716.50 Developer: Edward D. Allen Contractor: Bookman Construction Company Clover Hill Recommend approval 6. S76 -37D Salisbury, Winterfield Section On-site $141,087.25 Developer: The Salisbury Corporation Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc. and Fred W. Barnes Construction Co., Inc. Midlothian Recommend approval 7. S77 -30D Huntsbridge $66,970.75 Developer: Brandermill Contractor: R. M. C. Contractors, Inc. Clover Hill Recommend approval Utilities Department Agenda Page 3 June 20, 1977 _,-'VI. Approval of sewer contracts continued: 8. S77 -36D Southlake Court - Southport $8,262.50 Developer: Southport Corporation Contractor: William M. Harman Clover Hill Recommend approval 9. S77 -34D Searcy, Section 5 $20,578.00 Developer: Robert J. Searcy Contractor: Alpine Construction Corporation Matoaca Recommend approval VII. Reconsideration of request from Harold Taylor to be refunded the engineering cost of the off-site sewer to Brittonwood. Bermuda Recommend denial VIII. Discuss Sewer Agreement for Developer Participation as outlined in letter dated June 6, 1977 from Charles L. Chandler, President, Townhouse Manor Apartments, Inc. and letter dated June 6, 1977. from Virginia Mutual Savings and Loan Association. Midlothian IX. Reconsider request for approval of Change Order No. 1 for Contract 7032-27A, Chester, in the amount of $7,483..32. Fund: 77-371 Bermuda Recommend approval X. Request from Fred W. Barnes Construction Company for forty- five (45) days extension of time for Contract 7032-27A, Chester. Bermuda Recommend approval XI. Request from Sydnor Hydrodynamics, Inc. for an extension of time to May 20, 1977 for,Contract S73 -33T, Division B, Timsbury Collectors. Matoaca Recommend approval XII. Award of Sewer Contract S76 -93T, 14705 Jefferson Davis Highway, to William M. Harman in the amount of $11,278.50. Bermuda Recommend approval Utilities Department Agenda Page 4 June 20, 1977 XIII. Consideration of letter of June 8, 1977 from Robert A. Lux of the School Board concerning sewer connection fee for the high school on Krause Road. Dale XIV. Approval of Modification Agreement dated May 19, 1977 to Sewer Contract S76-45CD, Sunnybrook Acres, dated April 19, 1976 with Continental Development Corporation. - Clover Hill Recommend approval XV. Consideration of request from Mr. & Mrs. James F. Burke, 3522 West Hundred Road, for reduced sewer connection fee of $300.00. Bermuda Recommend denial XVI. Consideration of request from Mr. & Mrs. Robert H. Hague, 3528 West Hundred Road, for reduced sewer connection fee of $300.00. Bermuda Recommend denial XVII. Consideration of request from Mrs. Janet H. Routh, 12756 Richmond Street, for reduced sewer connection fee of $600.00. Bermuda Recommend denial XVIII. Consideration of request from Carolyn B. Crowder, 2705 Milhorn Street, for reduced sewer connection fee of $300.00. Bermuda Recommend denial XIX. Consideration of request from L. Hunter Beazley, Jr., 12665 Petersburg Street, for reduced sewer connection fee of $600.00. Bermuda Recommend denial XX. Request from Dennis W. Davis, 5620 River Road, not to assess monthly sewer service charge until house is connected to public sewer. Matoaca Recommend approval XXI. Consideration of employing a bond attorney to advise on Utility Bonds. Utilities Department Agenda Page 5 June 20, 1977 XXII. Consideration of petition for the vacation of a 10 -foot alley in Block K in Bensley Village. T-1^ Recommend approval XXIII. Resolution authorizing acceptance of the following Deeds of Dedication: 1. Beatrice M. Adams and Uriah S. Adams, Map Section 49-3 Clover Hill 2. John Levi Sharpe and Mable L. Sharpe, Project DD77-02/2 Bermuda Ochre Subdivision. Bermuda 3. Ewart's Frozen Foods Company, Project S77-21D/lABermuda XXIV. Miscellaneous 1. Request from Mr. William A. Johns, Mills, Taylor and Puryear, Inc., Consulting Engineer for the developer of Heritage Common Subdivision, for the County to assist in acquiring off-site sewer easements. 2. Consider up -dating Sewer Report. 3. Consideration of assessing liquidated damages to Fred W. Barnes Construction Company in the amount of $452.37 for Sewer Contract 7032-30. Code: 73-330dlothian Recommend approval Robert A. Painter Director of'Utilities June 13, 1977 id Oweppr3411 /1. Bingo Permit - Manchester Athletic Association - requested by Mr. Booknan ,/2. 2 Fireworks Displays a. Brandermill Can unity Association b. Methodist Churches in Chesterfield & South Pdchnond at county stadium July 3rd. *"Oe3. Set Date for another Board meeting this month for finances®. y9 that may be needed. J2.; �pf Z4. Greenbriar Subd - Mr. McElfish has information EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED BY MIKE RITZ TO DISCUSS THE FOISAWING: ,e1. Enon Park f V/2. Counter-offer from Mr. Wilkerson for landfill site /. Sale at Ind. Park - need to ive one restriction Y -) r. L. COVING707, JR. Ole l r•.. • •.� .Y• � ` G. O i�//1l Gila+l:J� MNt+ a�w � :r•a�.� w � M+� � {•.i.�Mtq ....+v.wt .. . •• S A M P L E At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of C��- -s FR E ELI l County, Virginia, held this da Y of , 192-7, it was duly moved and seconded that the following resolution be adopted: BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is hereby requested to add a section of WEST ST9EET awwi from 0.08 M► lei6,j 7A to tJ. Oct /Yf /GES 7'4istlIrrct, aF �Potire /S// �iP/c.K�vD sa'l ,--�- InciNdtr� ' SCI..RR �,RAper D� t*1G Alto the Secondary System of County pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED: That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right of way of feet with necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; recorded in Deed Book L// or Plat Book Page 4Ll3 , dated Motion Carried. A Copy Teste: u W 110 n STATEMENT OF SEWER CONSTRUCTION BALANCE MAY 31, 1977 Sewer Imp. Sewer Bond Revenue Fund (73) Fund (77) Sharing Total ASSETS Fund (12) a. Cash $ 1,404,408 $2,115,215 $ 28,526 $ 3,548,149 b. Accounts Receivable -Federal Projects 35,500 35,500 c. HUD Grant 32,768 32,768 d. Federal & State Aid 6,712,730 6,712,730 e. Developers Contributions 261,340 261,340 Total Funds Available $ 8,446,746 $2,115,215 $ 28,526 $10,590,487 CONTRACTS & COMKITMENTS f. Federal & State Aid Under Contract 6,993,459 6,993,459 g. HUD Projects Under Contract or 74,962 74,962 Committed •. h. Revenue Sharing Projects Under 29,232 28,526 - 57,758 i. Contract Other Projects Under Contract 277,458 277,458 J. Escrow Projects under Contract 1,729,919 1,729,919 k. Reserved Dale & Bermuda Districts: Cash Escrowed per Treasurer$2,498,585 Less Escrowed Projects -1,729,919 under Contract 449,967 318,699 768,666 1. Reserved Midlothian, Clover Hill, 234,973 and Matoaca Districts 234,973 64,205 64,205 m. Reserved for Interest Payable -0- n. Projects on-site, off-site -0- 500,000, o. Loan Payable -Insurance Fund 500,000 -0- p. Temporary Loans Payable -0" Total Contracts & Commitments $ 8,560,051 $29112,823• $ 28,526 $10,701,400 SUB TOTAL ($ 1139305) $ 2,392 -0- ($ 110,913) Anticipated Connection Fees(Revised) $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Salaries & other fixed costs ($ 371;669) ($ 371,669) Contracts & Commitments in Excess of Funds Available ($ 384,974) $ 2,392 ($ 382,582) I 1 w r r�LAFw O NN O VI 'Ow rn 0w wwvoo O OD C% -v N W N N O, N %O Oc w F O w OD w FoO O 10 O N N V• 00N 'Ow W r F M w r" im m on mlrD a zo C m m 6. a C. US to 0) W W r r r(71W B 0 '� 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 h•' W q� m r H t�Dn mm N r m O O m w a � A A A d AO a OA CW R F 0% La W fn m a• AA 7 O O H aA A A 7q x x 7 O O t•' O gN rr e mwm H m 6 rm+ P m E a rr maHn w •o b r •d M A C 0. H. m m m Dl m m rt w lb R � O O w fn Hf x M m M r rt m ag www m �P) mrtmowmm >~ m �4 H w H Pi p r m 1x £ m t- m w t+y m R w to p m W r m m m rt I 1 w r r�LAFw O NN O VI 'Ow rn 0w wwvoo O OD C% -v N W N N O, N %O Oc w F O w OD w FoO O 10 O N N V• 00N 'Ow W r F M w r" im m V V V zo V V V V V V C. Ln V V OI vl r r r(71W B 0 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 h•' W C R N r N V O F O O H p1 A A A d AO OA O R W fn m a• AA 7 O O O ro A i pu 0 PC m 0 m C O O aA A A 7q x x 7 O O t•' O mwm m E a rr maHn w •o b r r o m a rt 0 C 0. H. m m m Dl m b rt "0 R E rm m e o rt w O O O w x 09 0 %O �O 0 H O O O www m w0)wo mrtmowmm >~ m �4 H w H r m 1x £ m t- m w cn ,i9 m W r m m m M W m m 03 a a� art E m ro M rlt a 0 rt M03 Fl. O n 5 F rt H r~ rn R m a R c ? 6 :. r A 0 m 4 rA 1011 H a r rN on N N N N N W N N W �O H O fn T N UI O F 00 m 1n w V 111 O O 00 rt O un�c o 0 0 ON0 rn ON kA rn 0 c, F. H- ft1 F O 0 o O O O r am 0 000 0 q m 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r �o o 'c o o r n Y O O O O O O O w O O V O O H O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O F 0 0 [�l y A N N N N N W NN W 10 J rn r o r m ON -_q w V 1-- 00 00 m C H un '0 0 0 0 rn o rn c, to rn 0 v CLO H �f r 0 O O O O O N O+ O O O N m rt Y 0 0 0 0 O O o r �O O IO 0 0 C• LQ H 0 0 0 o O O 0'%D o �l o o cn 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 O O F O o r b w CO, 10 0 m m m m m m w n n 5 1 f i R R rt R R R R V . R 9 rt Vn n R M '.7• m rt m O m O ro a pr •a ar r a r m o 0 0 0 0 o r x x aGo m cn R rt rt rt rt R r m mrt O~ C 0�A 0. mm m HqM m mm mof cr a O R rt rt rt R R R 0 m PI m 14 C Dr• 14 14 R mO rmt F+• W r+• w h'• r'• w d d O A. W O. W a. O. o. M m ,mb "0 O i•r ft r• it O Cl 00 r(D A A A A A A A A A A A A A f6 rJ m O 0C OCC O O O C COC COC COC C0 COC COC COC 'ri ty rt R R rt R R R R rt rt rt rt R O 14 `•C `C `< 14 `< `C 14 14 `< 14 14 `4 m m [%f H d N h•' N �O V N W wro� r r V wO r o. m rn o 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 R O O O O O O O N O O O O O iA N 41 41 N1-' O N N N N w N N H -M O Od w to V rn r w o r o0 m w w w w U ro w m V �O N 10 O O O O+ O N m In m O O r A m %O w O+ F O O O O O O O O, O O U O O O O 0 0 o O N �O O �O 10 o q m rt m V OV O O O O O O O O 10 O V O O H r NN O O O O O O O 00 O O F O O n rt CHESTERFIELD CENTRAL ACCOUNTING STATEMENT - OF WATER CONSTRUCTION FUND BALANCES MAY 31, 1977 Assets: Cash Total Assets $ 958,588 958,588 Liabilities: erects under Contract $ 423,695 Refunds due Developers for Oversize Mains 28,825 Total Liabilities 5. 452,520 Cash Available $ 506,068 Anticipated Income From Revenue Fund $137,980 From Connection Fees 60,O00(Revised est.) $ 197,980 Anticipated Expenses Salaries and -Other Fixed Costs $ 510,609 Total Salaries $ Fixed Costs $ 510,609 Anticipated Surplus (Deficit) 6-30-77 $ 193,439 ** * Same as Engineering Report ** Cash Plus Anticipated Revenue Less Anticipated Expenses Surplus (Deficit) $506,068 197,980 510,609 $193,439 SUMMARY - MAJOR SEWER PROJECTS MAY 31, 1977 Showing Projects by Classification and Financial Status Funds Available 5/31/77 as per Tress. Office $3,519,623 Reimbursement from Developers - Page 16 261,340 Additional Federal and State Aid Due 6,748,230 HUD Funds Due 32,768 Revenue Sharing Funds 28,526 Total Available Funds $10,590,487 $10,590,487 FUNDS COMMITTED 117,000 Projects(other than Fed.Aid) under contract $ 277,458(1) (X)(*) Federal & State Aid Projects under contract 6,993,459 (_) Projects under contract from Escrow Fund 1,729,919 (•) Projects Held in Escrow 419,243 (***) Projects on-site off-site -0- (HUD) HUD Contracts 74,962 (X*) Revenue Sharing Projects 57,758 Page 14 Additional Projects Authorized 234,973 Difference Amount Escrowed and Cost 349,423 Loan Insurance Fund 500,000 Reserve for Interest Payable 64,205 (1) Includes $27,387 for Sunnybrook Acres Pumping Station (County Share of $18,427, and Cash from Robert & Bobbie Edwards of $8,960.) (2) Does not include Falling Creek Treatment Plant Revised Estimated Fed. & State Aid (See attached sheet for details) Grant Approved Amount Received Balance Due $ 13,368,130 $ 6,619,900 $ 6,748,230 $10,701,400 ( $110,913) OBLIGATED PROJECTS - Lngs and Creek Trunk from Bellwood Lagoon to Rt.l $ 236,337 Colonial Heights Pumping Station 117,000 Petersburg Treatment Plant 125,000 S73 -1T Gravel Brook 293,775 $ 772,112 ( $883,025) PROMISED BY BOARD OF SLTERVISORS 7032-2B Crestwood Farms - Jahnke Place 160;939 ($1,043,964) OTHER PROJECTS S73 -44C Lake Crystal Trunk $ 285,073 Old Town Trunk West of Matoaca 450,000 Upgrade Lagoons 250,000 S73 -20T Trunk on Southside of Reservoir 1,017,809 7032-1C Burrough Street, Bon Air 155,731 Bon Air 278,000 Ruthers Road 33,000 Lake Crystal Farms 262,127 Jessup Farms (Old Coach Hills) 203,472 S73 -2T Rock Springs Farms 441,016 Land 0 Pines 649,574 Sherbourne Road 127,200 Indian Springs 77,835 Victoria Hills - Bruce Farms 671,043 Johnson Creek - Remainder 527,136 Walthall 145,191 Fuqua Farms, etc. 248,886 $ 5,823,093(2) TOTAL PROJECTS S17,457,544 ADDITIONAL FUNDS ($6,867,057) (1) Includes $27,387 for Sunnybrook Acres Pumping Station (County Share of $18,427, and Cash from Robert & Bobbie Edwards of $8,960.) (2) Does not include Falling Creek Treatment Plant Revised Estimated Fed. & State Aid (See attached sheet for details) Grant Approved Amount Received Balance Due $ 13,368,130 $ 6,619,900 $ 6,748,230 m m SUMMARY FEDERAL AND STATE AID - MAY 31, 1977 FEDERAL AID Project Approved Grant Received Balance C510-462 Old Town Step II 102,300 30,500 71,800 Step III 449,700 359,700 90,000 C510-487 Kingsland (Bellwood Manor) Step II 85,120 76,400 8,720 C510-466 Proctors Step II 529,050 390,200 138,850 Step III 5,336,620 4,269,200 1,067,420 Sub Total 6,502,790 5,126,000 1,376,790 C510-466-03 Proctors 4MGDSTP Step III 6,217,500 988,300 5,229,200 C510-484-01 I & I Falling Creek Step I 161,770 91,900 69,870 C510-215 Sec. 206(A) 38,900 38,900 0 C510-350 Sec. 206(A) 58,600 58,600 0 C510-277 Sec. 206(A) 1,600 1,600 .0 C510-307 Sec. 206(A) 23,400 23,400 0 C510-255 Sec. 206(A) 24,400 240400 0 TOTAL FEDERAL AID 13,028,960 6,353,100 6,675,860 STATE AID C510-462 Old Town Step II 4,500 2,000 2,500 Step III 29,150 23,300 5,850 C510-487 Kingsland (Bellwood Manor) Step II 9,420 8,400 1,020 C510-466 Proctors Step II 58,500 43,100 15,400 Step III 237,600 190,000 47,600. TOTAL STATE AID 339,170 266,800 72,370 TOTAL FEDERAL & STATE $13,368,130 $6,619,900 $6,748,230 �xkxl-.�x•x• xx- vC �(•v v �(. �(•vvv v v �• v �xa�Mor000rn-air mmrt0CYrnmm " m m m r• IC K faJ faJ m -^1Kto mOKK n GwN0D r•Ew DrtD m~ dAAH ;0 O c :rP• asrN 21:3 a n" oCL °nw K W. O N rt rt n rt o K r• O 9 w rt c n z o rt o a M rt K 9 a 0 M K rt N K n 0 w K o n CH rt 11 DaD W O 7E n H O O yn rt r K G 0 C no r? CO na O M rtK iD m O n m W O rtr m N n 0 O m a to p a vCC, 01 O r M M G o. a N N z z. m m m m Awa roa •K rt -ono mo •'. 7 7 K 7 Y 9 oa m a a ra D rR G R Y o r• w V O H,r• O • w cu Y r rr •a0 H NH 1 o r0 M m vm U b R R ywm Jf D r• ro � a a w a ' H 7 7 0 O O r0 ; E3 K N K r• i r• b N W N bH W M m ioaa r. D m O O 90. im W to O O O w w CL a r 0 0 0 w M M o cn En •A C C o 0 P 9 < < r• r• 0 0 O O H K m N N F N O r O O i D r I> 3 *1 � D O M > En V r i ro L o N v. o• 4 m oo 90 m to < �o m a C. clm N C. �CKKCO n Wr7CC D W Li m co O H4 K P N r w D DO b W Vv r v v.o r �v�0 O N O � O r r N w w A v r H -I co m 00 W V r .0 O po N rn F o v Zl V V1 O In W N O, 00 O co w Ol co r O H O rn U W O V OO C:, Ln O V M M G o. a N N z z. m m m m Awa roa •K rt -ono mo •'. 7 7 K 7 Y 9 oa m a a ra D rR G R Y o r• w V O H,r• O • w cu Y r rr •a0 H NH 1 o r0 M m vm U b R R ywm Jf D r• ro � a a w a ' H 7 7 0 O O r0 ; E3 K N K r• i r• b N W N bH W M m ioaa r. D m O O 90. im W to O O O w w CL a r 0 0 0 w M M o cn En •A C C o 0 P 9 < < r• r• 0 0 O O H K m N N F N O r O O i D r I> 3 *1 � D O M > En i ro L o 4 m n H 90 m to < . m a C. clm J C. �CKKCO n Wr7CC D W Li m P O H4 K P N r w D DO b VYHO- 0 - Vv r v v.o r �v�0 �vv a rl) V, V. C> W :X. :4 X C) Z:j n (D 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p C. w (D r I Z: (D P 0 G (r, rl Q w C. Z C/) txj C., (D co M 11 11 t; m =83 0 (A fu H. r r- 0 0 m (D r- H. (D m 1- H. 0 1 0 t- ': :3 �r = 0 z; M 0 �3 0 =1 C: :z ts :3 :j " 0 GOn C: 'I m C) - , OQ m , "Z' 0 C: l< 0 C: D n .. F) 'j, , "0 CQ w r- n co GI m -Q V, C.) 0 M --Q 0 r- rl -, ::3 0 c - '1 mIll ntD C-1 0 RCC C', C14 rr GQ —.',N r - m O 0 11 rD =I' rD rD •a (D (D ::j rD ::r r X, CD CD (D CD (D J -Q :3 (D H- :1 (D PC (D (D M 0 It (D C:, (D 5. (D 0 (D r, :3 "CQ ps, 0 ?V :r ;.� =S 0 ;;Z, C) cq ?v ?V n"7. n > CO w :3 Cd CO.CL CZ •0* N 0 w 41 C/) C 11 p CL m (D =s m N CQ '. :. — M Z N m 'I 0 1 1 m co 0 r q 0 A) cn C) CD m 1% q 0 (D 0 . �11 a ;a 7v C6 c) D) -1 0 3 3 O r 7 CD 0 m M. I.. :j a •j � CD w C) u LL: �u w L3 u uC, 0 1:1.GQ (D CD 0 7 :3 r� 11 (D 0 0 (D r- C4 ::r =r C) r- 00 cn 0 roz• go :3 rt — 0 0 w (D 0 10 " a 0 0. L, m rt CT R :1 OQ "o 0 (a 0 0 co p :r =5 C, O b R 0 CD :.I " (D m (D M (C. w n 0 0-0 M m 0 0 0. 0 :3 Q 0 =1 NCD N f 0) D 0 M (a C. cy 0 C: C, 10 'p- 1 C, rl C/) 0 ?. C) cr C) C) m C) O C) p 'D 13orin C, t"0 �30rnn 130MCI 11 0 L'i C-) • 0 �l 0 0 0 0 , S 0 0 Z 0 0 0 " ::3 0 0 m =3 0 0 rt a0 SCO F , --7-q SCC p , N F m SCC ? , SCO F , SCOg SCOM n0 (D n w AC. rD n w m n 0 m n 0 (D Ll 01 41 w 00 w C) P., ID C) C. w C) 'D COW t., w co — CO o 1-1 0, w 41 CO �D �D 10 L, cz 10 L. C� co C� 0 0 0r1 -3 0 0 0 0 .10 F -I CD (D (D (D (D CD M R R rt R rr rt ff rr O to A 0 (D (D fD (D m vj y�o fn ti # O L I C D . ........ rl) r r r f r r r r r w L V) m r• v r• v m •.1 v v v v v v vF", :wo C7 N iti ^•G7 W 3;w diW i _ N iC n A Crl N aycY m rtH Wm rtK w G m rrtH 6�1 (pD RH Pl rtH n 6i (�D RH RK r fn A Cl ' H m m0 H (� N G r• O N G r P: n H. r� tyl ft r3 H w K m I{ 7 [Y J' 3 G m !Y T r• :i 00 W' K ii r• W 3 C G 3 m X m w R '• - O 0 R O R `•• m 4 rl xG R O •� N R N O"NO H N O O" rt V. W. 0, N rr 3 R N xr•o" m m m< x x m O R m 3 ro rt n rmwm O C rrt 3 KG £ C CQ" R O C OOH C H O C N3H C: H RH n ' C7 K 0 w K 7 K C: `G 1 C"t w `< � -. `< m 0 \ O` O ro to C H m K m 7 CL rtrt H H m I. H OOm n mH > R mOy ro 1- ra w N O 0- "::3 CFI m C m O^ H0 C 7 m K a• H G H M3 7' w 1-• G • 1 x n x H C 7v n x ti C R N C 9 o O cL m H G �T M W M 't1 O r3 H n 7C .p m RO w O H O G x O C-) z .' 3 r- 7, 'o r• 'I 0> K CIC .-3 `< H N t O C) H O r OOn m O m N. Cx > mfD o Ii W O w O O yH M H o -O w oo x 3 0w m cn pi o 3 x a o 3 3 0 0. 3 7 3 R r•3 — 3 G rY Vl H O OC CYO rn H p• G 3 . "a M� H W x r• H n N 3 M O N N m n ro M C rt r• 0 K1 C Olt O w O ,7 O HCR rt owF7 ar O_3 O w3 a.J M H^I O T' K w H 1O C. rC 1 H V Ll. u Cm•+ N r0 FO-' fmD 3 CQ G rl ' H 7 •p 1 O 1--• r• eq M t-1 N y N N H . � H J 0% J Nt U N N W V F V 1--• W N V. F N t.Il N F F W r-' V N N Vt Q N 1 W n p N CA Cr N w h-' i [� .-1 O J Ca W rn O N o O o O Ct O o O M H O O CA O O N O O J w 0 O O 0 0 0 C. C. 0 v o o ro 0 0 --� y0m0 yOc-1 C-) Homo 30 M0 -J0m0 HOC". C) yO-17C) yO:l0 yOC'7 C)�•--3O;T1n O n C1 O O R 3 0 O n 3 0 OrtC3 0 O n 3 0 0 1 7 0 O n a O O n. 7 O O n:a O 7 0 (1) t J"UJ L1 G m H 0V w m K - t �1 I 0 w m K - 1 '•UO J w m Ii - -tLJ W(D '::71 G mJ W T(R:] m H 01 3 w m 11 - 3-G7 C- rH /-+K rK rH NH r -•rt e•+K rK rK rK t1 :� N :J r N NLM N cyl 0,01 F W N V N In N C7 CA r r 1-•' In W N O W F W W N C1` O N W W v wNr In Cb O NCTr ODO ww�l Fln� w0 F ts� tI1'N'n��I(IV r-' �.• NCn 0 W r.0 v G Fel v 1 Gn o. 1F v+YLI •D Ow GO V O CTFr• ww00V ww V JI-• O aicoJ.- H Cq V' OCoF I N FV. O —W C.3 'L{W N OD r -•N OO �N N t• W �O a, CD r-- W W �O 0.yr co .D Lo O N N H w w 00 WO WO 0 <7 O CJ O J o O o o f� H r7 00 1 1 W �ri v v v •o v w v r r r+ r r (D r I r i• y Gom m O m m m m m R rt wR j O m m m m 0. m 1 ca M N { •'� E �7 H C7 I • O 00 Cy7 00 �N �W Co y OD 1 1 n co C. J CO o z H O o 0 0 0 O 1 p 00 1 1 1 1 1 v CV„t L F -M O O O fJf to 1 I IV P' 0. �' G;4 I 1 t u W v W u o v u w W • ' m w w w w CW r m w W r m tb m (D m to m m f r W m m m m •.o r-3 • m m to m n m n m n I n �• n n I n < v ry W W N N :7 A R R R fT H v r: v: r:.y :1 w . ,i: r, i; -o -c is •'oro ro r- v ;� .;�(n ro •:y ro 0, Ar n O m r�_l w H. I- r t- If r7 Y•n r, rt 7 0 n 0 7 C" : C C H :7 r J m :s W O O W^ w R < ::s 0 n 0.0 wco O n -jo rr o 00 :3 n �o p ri p m to rr n rr n n N ;c N ;\' m N O :T O N rt N R n R n It n 1- ;C m rt Y• R O W rtG r n, �:: O W r• 7 1--+ r--• G O rt n W O n H 'o O n O r•O o n 7 O O n H a O -a N A W 91 O •y w CL rb l7 • C w C A w n B 1 C" G C'`. ACL G A p O y A41 n .O1 R c r✓ O C1. G ro N o •. d n R n ri n ;o x;,C n •t O n r o n •' n • O nO rt G A 1 m m m 0 H•O O O.0 m -:4(D C] R G m ""0.O 3> • HO � m C4, m m n 9. C 0 0 <J rt QO '� m rt m •' fD Y. £, G m O -Q v n rr+ 7 O A 'i Y• N ►j rr9 N t'-' O 1 - N H (D N H R. N H O ID G H rn r^ N w p+ Er n n W m (D —QQ O 2. A n 'mow 0 n�Ar-•n Hnrm ID r O '-7 •U F r• 7 C o O G r n C W H t: X -V r• (A 0 r+ a W m 0 30 n rtG G a R ED 7 A 0. R O OAn I-• w 7C• (D :j ;ro w Of m m N O (ro m r• 'c1 QO N U1' ri • o rt m n n rt(A n rr h fD (D t n 0.1'+, - n o -i n fD +t rl +4 C, IJ R �'r7 • l A r• 'U 1 O O m O U O - 7 0 to (D (D n I. m 7 N a t, PV w 9 R8 to n 3 n L. ci w rt opo 7mCW 7 m 1 0. 7 m (D r• v w m N m to N N G 1--r Ob QO 0 O G O O b b CAw O OH7 'Ou Nr N G Cw -WN mO NH .L kn II� N n n CL ao IN d + rt - rt N 7 N ' r• N f r• r• n ODI V, R - J• C1 H (A UI A 4.1 w In r•Ic N O Io N0 W ED w O m H W41 UC) r•-+ W O G C O a r- 7 a0 N 1-, O C O 4.1O O N O m N O M N �•/ O 1 ' Hr H O M n H O m Cl.HOC Cl H 0 M C 0 0 rt o ortO o o rt rt o ^Oh7A.HOCT1Ho[+1n.-3oC]n ran :I ID N n It+ fD Y ID N rt •00 :1Ao N fD 1 n •]•> :1 N m n �. a•�,I :a It+ ID 1 1 rrio t+I 10 rt •I ,r •ra,l :.I 1+, m '( r; �n r'.(. rn•. Jry. rn rf y f r t•1; r+ H m ON C. �C1I� W 1 w CD w N0.• ,O �c V, a� , I A N m O w' O C I W W L'� V V H W` .^ V7 J t CT W V1 O 0. O 1 O,� 1 N �v; t•,L10 I On � ^ W 0 F corn 1 O L '-' (T 4' e -•N V� 00 V, r'iW 1 of ' ON p A H -4 N 3 v N � CDLn O 7 O, O 1 00 1 1 1 H A V O v A A A 4 ~ • Laco O H O r r I•+ - r r r N O R R rt W (T N m m m rr (D is R R V �3d V 4 O O _ .'.' W W vii • 1 1 1 * 01 p W ID V 1 1 1 W �w wl O 101. vI 41 F -M l f•• F+ 1-+ H [7 • A to '*1 v n7 ••1 " C'7 ro O Oro C, ro C O • N • Ri 1-j Y• r• r• W r• :i, CL w Is w a w v1 v W w CD Fl ro ro r ro 1--• CD r CD y ! Ct rt rt rtl K K ro K N K ro K � H� 3 C' c3 y r o ro rn C, .A En c C: n x n ro n ro v 3 R tin •rn •v . w r 00 CL ro rt n o G r IS R r-� o w Ri w n K w CD F3 O K O O K o o 1 G O o 7 K •' tD CD OO O O H CD 11 R O r• :7 w R n r• .-�� n a N T.' r• A O ro rt n O T R R n (D rt '+1 N 00 w n ?V, 7 0 N O r 8 0 0' ro a 00 ro O O 0 7 -ro o y a' o w a O rt R K K n Oj O a K w R n C O N w m N N -y N O C'I O y 1 0 Da N7z o . a 0 r r K Gwn H AK N ul w.ro 1 r TCD t- H H KN ro C:. O O (D y , 4 r O G N CD X w 11 n7 K K R O :3 1: C-• • H r CD Ln K70a •U 7 :3 G In ID O C G o n ro! O ta' O ;V 7 e° CD �w O :*' K R m H. n D1 cr M IDK C..• ro w T. ca CLX O x O n (Dilji w T> O wy R O w ro rv. n K O CQ w r y ro 11 ,4O 1 M 1 O r• r, rI N G ro T. w x N G N O K a w K O 7 :C Y. O n $ C w F1 V 0 R r. r.n 7 .: w b 09 K .'D C1 T O 9 ;a ro O 0r'7 2 ro r• ni ro r•i '.7 r.t0 1oa !i T �I o o u O C) ro w ;a o. z D. m n u ' 'FK T O N Ib 7 R •- p rt R O w "0 ro rt 9 O 1 7 D K K rt ro ro O G w rt r a CD K �• rt • w r O n oao R Q. to M o r r in w z H o Nil WO cc G 01 r Ln N c IY^-• r n yl [T 1 . W 1O . F I v y � O H w j o Ic R O C11 y • p OO C) C) O O O O � � O yOCl7 Cly OtTI C)HOI*1n I N0M0 •-30M C' 130m -30:15c Ort 7 0 n 00 :7 0 r. O O n 700 ,l 0 O n� 700 :"j7 rt I O rt 0 0 n "30 0 O R O O n a'1J � O n O 0 1 :'0.1 �l 0 R 7 0 1 7'00 :-1C') C. CD KW rK ID K0 rK ro II rK N fD K rH w 'T, K r•K w ro 11 r'K w ro t r+rt N - t•�'0 • - W .-) C7 W N y Fr F OD m VW 111I 1111 VC' 111 VO0 O O� 11I r•• OV N 1,11 1`1_''�!II 11-�+1 V I-•• F-' OOp • UrQOD` •c0 ��V-yJ11 i� O�w 1 En H rVFN WFON 0-OOO o L 01111------���� iV0 N O, W 0� --00 W 1 O I 1 I 1.. O -1 r 1 In r 1 1 CO 4-n 0 C)I e� � l o 9 9 j w rn 0.i ( Zd ro O ro ro';7 N N rt o �y o r � � N WO 10 C, O v v. p p V V 1 1 1 1 K H U r ;o V y W 1{ K • v F O O o � l7 • 1 W N I• w N W H W ( I I lP b] O Od •• ^• �• H N V1 �: rD r, rD D w w w a G (TI H 1• K K K K rt R rt R rt ;v 7� 47 C H nn t7 H • :J (..I C -I .' t-. R A '+1 '-: n L7 O w O O w m o O O O r o w O (D r 7 r n ~.n a as • N ' C a H O v 0 03 H a 7 Rrn tOrDD wK ::3 ID (D :r H OH O a R 0 O O C. cn PC.ti-.r r O a RG O £ —0 C1 - H n o n n n ti w ' r - •roc ='•7 O K w K K K R a N H H O H r-' O • y fD 'd a (D (D ID K < S K K n Ey ID G G• CD (D (D N w ID C C C Y H OHT.• Y• 7':' AO R as CL a a H K r-K"n o G O b G cn O (D (CD n O a 2c O, 1... O Z C ]0 7 K -3 O O r O a iC' PV y (D a r• w Qo rt rC 0 0 y rt rn a N O r B is R n R w f� N nv < O O O M Irr O K a -cn R 11 ID 1 •n O rt n N a w w (Kn n •� w w o o r (D K w w 9 a a ID A n I rt wcn w ? 7 Ho • Nro F w N V n ol LA 41 o 0041 001 r' Nw n Nirl 1 n CYO Cf CT In F N (D N (D G V+ WfA WN O CD O O o R oc w o R o w H O M nH O M . H O M H O M n H O M n H O M n H O M n O n 7 O O rt a 0 0 rr 7 0 O rt C O O rt a 0 0 R a 0 0 rr a 0 r; r ?CV ;7 :J -UG 'r rt SPa a R SDv a t?(N ;� rr 7DG a rt 7.4V a [*7 ;V P, to K r K w (D K r K w O K r-• K w GI K r K w (D K 1--• K w (D r-+ K r+ K H vi O In ol w H n ' VI N W W N rn In N W r-• .. I I N F O m O N co V O+ CTO -`W�)II N V W F r-• W I W O rj ' 4O V• W �I N 1--• O h m f` is I-' W •4� •. N �!J Q O V 1 N Q � w C10 I N V VI V O CD C I.Ir �i<q N 41 Op V V �--• lA 1 O C'. �O _ W LnN V N OOC 1 VNF �00�1 Vr V 1 O n V W 1 1 O 1 1 1 N W W O VI 1 1 1 H CT 41 N j n n 7 O O O ] H b A r r r -I r -i r is O� R O rt fD p .7 R o SOI rot R 11 m tD N C) �_r b • 1 y V C3Lr r r V 0 �� 1 I O �p 1 O O1 1 -O O F N N 1 1 1 v C. ( K i N N N r F F V V V 1 �j V O V 0 W 4 [1 r=• I O 1 1 1 1 m r{ O r� t... f.. �.... f•.. r r W r ;u FL FL ' M r+• M OH w wE w • w w n n wo w wz; 'Q o'r's•• w w o 0 r N• rn H. r• m w O n H. o+ r-'` Co r00 W X rt E r+ h -• O " r-• m C G 0 r•• O M i r( r-+ a• :r m�,' O• .j m K m `t rt m FW mmm fT C !mD W w b rtt rt Ort n 131<d �� O C)I, m rt O p w O m m M OJ rS .gym N K m w m rt oa N ',O K H. w m W _ GO <r• wolP O G m� W w m e i O N x ,,,•, m G1 " rt r 7c• n .0 rt r ri r• F;! CD r• Y• • O r• G G O W p Co r r• ttl o r• r l i o r G OO 7 7 n 1 m m H O_ Oo • w•v 0- m r-3 ; l O r m 7 r+ w rt M S 7C rt T- Y H O rt •'sy G (D r rtm - i- .! b C) w O r+l w H H G O. W O m a1 w O r 7 rf O 7C A W x G O w G nu I I P. ~ C) 0 0. 2 m aro 00 ti a b n tt rn '+1 n 'O r•'S I n m (� n m p7 n O m o W. w r• • r- c o m o r• w W EI O 09 y• r n• 7 0o iJ ' I C N 1-• • 09 m m N O rt :1 m h r m •.� ',V O N Q• • Y. 'L7.'O j 1 w- En O ft £ N r w C) n rt • G rt rt w H• 17C rt rt G I o• r• • w rr j O o co rt o m O ry m c? 1 °a m ° 2v : o ( N Cc I G M O CY V. _- 1•, In N 1--r 1 H O t•• r-• 0, r -r 0 V+0 r O V O rW t�nW H Cn Ln C O o OOv rn o _ C V r r M H F O • U C F HOM HOMn rAomn -30MiHOMC' HOM Cl i 0 MC.H O M[":• -30M Cl. n • 0 rt:3 0 I J•U•i p 0 rt 7 0 'r .�•OV :] 0 rt 7 0 fr :Y21) :1 0 rt 0 0 rr :3 7Q 7 l0 n y 0 TOC :1 O rt 0 0 rr a'OO 0 0 n 7 0 :YJV J 0 T o rr . 0. J n :7 O rr YN1 :1 nr •': Cn �u N m M .-• M G m .1 r tt cu m r1 m m H r n i:l 11 �"{ r--• •q tU m rt r" It411 w 11 H 1-• H w m r-� ry r --'t p.. u r. f •l V (T N N N r r r 00 1 1 r C) a,0" V1 N W .0 !� O --4 N M C) O r+ rF wr r o� 0,o 1 to N pI' Ln .11 41 40,0.` H rnm WW• �WCO aAVV �OOCW` Vr 01V-000. lrn V N i n N 41 V 1 I N N 1 1 1 1 n CJ 0% p of H ;-• cli I OO O O vl v v c 111 r 1 O (D m CD O N O rr rt I (DD f~D CD • O m m O rt rt rt rt o m m m m fo rl BILI N j �> N 1• 1 I 1 ^N Op O O O O v O V i 1 t� I N t`1 l Oj N C-) —T7— ut r� x o�Do H ;t :a to cn m O fD 1'S� m O K fD (D 'x G' Q7 r^9J M 7c N 7' :Y M o n z C r o n e WI vn� ^o co` IG W. cn vl . n •o �::roxlog fyr'o wb N�rO� H H n r r• r m r• O rD :3 z o n CD m O cnn09 ?ON rt r. :• O r• rt onw ID r rt • ft I.•• O 7 n G1 ! o rC 0,4 p P O - O cc H O CL b C.o tT1 O N rt P• 1 O ro N O r• G [D O r U2 rn r O n w J r,67 H U1 H [� [u •-1 co rt r r• n ' A O r d � r-1 '• r •u ;u • 0 O O na 0 0 Ul U • m n : N r �? o:3,0 r:wrDK ti o r H w H H V � r S• n Cly :J p 1 1 w 0 cH A n13a O tn N O ; Co 1 00 ti N G O P I M V •V � O r H � V 1•C r r w W r r i:� •� V OO 00 d O O 1 r r V V OD, � co LU O I �,O co b i I I 11 • N N N N N V V V • 1 ' W W U If If W O co co J� V V O V V V V V V - •O O O W O O O O O O r W N W N N W 1 N W N W W N N W N W N F, �•) 1 r � I N N 1 IC N 1 N 1 t T Ol 1 1 O\ 1.) ',V n n 9 r m ci to 9 •_t a. a cir�1n on• H N G M H ry phi T O O� w r rl D) (A 2tC 2 N E N .7 O 0 a N T R w d N 0. C. C. t 1 rt ' C C tv „ m w " a o r° o to 1S 9N � �r.9(( a > t' yye •0. R W � Y fA 't H H V O li C'0 1 x O z R ? W 00 p• ' n m m I hY r A I t1l o N H v r H k A N N W N N N N N 0 y y • r o O o O v If co O o0 co o O pyy • O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. O O O R O O O R 7 O O-^ O O R O O rt 0 0 O fT 0 0 O rt 70 r • T 00 :J 7 N fD r1 rr 700 O N fD H 1 7C0 O N fD S 700 •a N f0 H rt 70n "J' N ID r'f rt 70.1 O N N S rt ?QO O N fD 1 rt 7W '.1 N N rt t•l �� N �.1 r H• r rY r ri r r1 r IY r ri r rt r ry r-1 1'1 H r V N r N r r r N N r m 0 t rrn V �r LA a' rry rco H H . tr • I AF 1 ` 1 �U 1 - Nr�^ ml 00 0 r�oo "41 rwN worn 10 1 00 I FO Nrn O ;,,, JT p+ cl .-•�t w mr rn v+rn0 to 1 00 1 bO rra` v W -w I W r O C) of ^v�0 tnO QO 1 00 1 FO OW�O wFFln WW wW V rinr CION 4'- 0000V N r N r O 00 O rn A v W r tD N r a W o 0o vl n V co 1 t 0 0 t 0 0 0 O V 1 1 t N r-3 N W :3N lr Rrl > fi R ti CD Ci i .1 o to O o o i 10 v v v9 b CS 1 1 (D CD1 00 W O 10 00 rr tv cm F CD CRrt N ( DDD r j jo H F ! H C7 n �F v In N r r H .o �•. V �•. tJl rn O w .. o .. W v+ .. 0 .. 1 I 1 0.'.' r C., N o r w : v 00 V 0 1 1 1 1 1 v+ N -- _- __ __._ , O N V, V1 V1 C.Ir V1 b tr 6n tr to En L . � L Y to 0NON r••vr• C) t 1 1 t v <r<. .c t l n r .9 L,I HW HC' 11yy� `V n H n C", o n n n n n fnyr�. w w w to x x ae o ci ro to P; t-1' cl H '+7 to C) to rl cr. '.tl n W N lb 0 N G h K K 7t• F - rt Q w w N r• m R S L'aO "J G v Pt n < w O m wryto r yH NS to t (D0 R a H t" c Ca NV) y w W 0 w CT 1.: 1 H 1 w rt hJ m w w K o E O O N Y• n rt 7 O t10 D, n °w w a N 4, to M O N En H O F Hr0 n w O 00 W H to Oo [*J H v O V O v H O m n HOm n Hl O m n 1 O M C-, -30 mn1,-30 m n! H Om n H O m n HO m n H O m n HOMn O R S 0 0 R 7 O O R 7 O O R O O O R a 010 rt n 0 10 rt O O O R O O O rt 0 0 O R O O O R O7 O • R SOv O rt 7•CO 7 n SP) O rt SCO 7 rt SCO 7 rt ScQ O R SCO 7 R ='M O r. SCO O rt S00 7 R SCG O n N m K • r-• K N m K - I� K N m K - ,- K N m K• I� K N m !I - r K N m K r K n, m K r-• K rJ m I� K r• K r• K r K [) : v 6,J H m _ t H V N N W N N CJI rC3, '41 N W D` V, 0� V, (T t 0 4 V, I W N N 1 1•-' 1--' m 0 O ' I N TONGIJ.I •• V 1 F G 1 u•0 V WVO - I VW rJ w W La V W COCO �- v0 1 OC 1 OC O�OL O V C v l CTC 1 000 ClOvtn - Ol�C O V L. D - O j�C. I C V I N V C> �t �OK �I 1 V� L 1 00 N n W rn o cc NL4 W y • F r � to W O N t•'' U O O OO O q7 n .{ m Oow 11 o ao N r V V, V V C3 . It tN WN %0 O F v O b 9 N O O H tl y OO 1 yCD M N X - v F p y N w I_IrN 00 cn. . VIL, bi w CD o to N V+ to t!I W t.tl to to • N C N C V. O Oto t7 N rn �-. O— v r•�Ir•� w w� r.�l ..I rn ,,. N 1 1 1 1 I 11 I 1•' 1 I V VHt7 0 C) NtloHrW9 hl d tll N td N N tV O to (n ' w N N r{ rt O li Q (D rD rS n O ri (D 1•t fD K CD w r w H � N N m N GHC7 RJn• C H • F •L.7 1- r E g N r• o 0 ? O. (D O w v w c- n rtrT rD w rD MW N p C. c N0 R R a N C1. rt r• O O M p rS w • t� w w O' c w O mR rS O O r0 r4 RID GQ O M M r• Jw N - M M w ly H 14 `< Y• 7 w ri O N tD .R1 - C CD N r -r r to C" o :;o C: s: a a v o b H O m n n oo x' n r• M o 7 P -J c w t- m 1 y n rt w> n r r 'O rt H o C o D H ' O 9 r r 7c tD �t rt g r ITo H C•' t' n n n (D R rr N 1 I no r 7C Gi m to 0 ' O O ti rt N W Sa td (Drt ly O A n rt rt R w O rt (D w e m a o cr H m tr � n rNt 6 • w w . td no H41 cJ r n t^ O N En ' W � [H7 H �C O W oc IcO N W r IC 41 O O O O CD O TW.t H 0 rrl C).-]O(TI n —i H O rq CS I-10 tTl CI H O M C. H O M 0 M n H 0 VIn iOMn O ".700 R O O O R O O O rt :3 O O ROO 0rt70 0rtZ3 O 0 r 70 0rT00 n rt l7'CO O rt O'QO 7 R 7'QO 7 rT :.]'Qq r rt O.0••J ;l R '.TQO '.7 rt a'QO O rt 7'QO 7 R X09 O M t"; N N H r•r1 IU ID rt rt r rD r{ �Ty N (D ry wry N to Tt -'li ll. fD K Ivry N fD T'l wry N t7 H .rt N rD T'1 �Ty (n ,V •-7 'rr �p W 2� rr t•i r• 5HlT1 -4 CD OVN to- ; O - ; vNOC> NO VwV •VL Vv I1 1VO CD � 10 KO O rn0 C) Ci O O q� a10 F FN oo- O � H N V NW WO F N ODI A In A N Op W In W O V W OT 00 O V v td v o Ln o a 1r r �o -1 o v o n tj oo v V, v rn p o0 0o F - N 10W to F O H � W `O v O O rn v A �D �-n H m o N V w10 H 1C W l� Co U to O t*7 O rz w W C, 1--' V co O, N to 7 H 1 O N H T] F F W ?C vl II vl Iv H IAF• ( I I �.i �I v vl N N v W� H H W V Q` In F N (.n In In V T • • /�_Cc N to ll V N H V 10 C� v to - lr W IC. 11 - - H W N W O, W 10 r co v to F w IC � N ow F rvWl to v w t~il v • � O V rn ^ O W i W �- Oa V V � 1" • N O41�O 1 1 1 1 hl 13� ' Inla r•m I' q 0 d H H 0 CD w m 1-G ' C• n 00 O a C r{ m C 7. N O rt O N R g pr R S (A O H w m Rf 0 R O w a a 9 rt t4l 0 M w Y O n O w O O�•. •A M rt C O e- O a •A Qoy m N H m m a N n (1 m m r_ m z K7 vD< CD m m CD PV 03 n C14 . C H£ n H mC7 f�D fu ar w w °m a pr 77 rt '3 R O H w m rt rn w o tt a v .,� W m r a H o O N H_ O F C H. O O O O ir' H to P. [m v lT1 co [M [r+1 C')'i 0MCC li0Mn --30[-7C:IHO M C)� H0 M C: • -i O M C) H 0"1 nr-30 M0 HO[T7 O R O 0 HO[r7AH0C-1 0 R O O O rt? O O R O O ORO o o a 0 O O R 0 0 0 rt 0 0 0 R O O O R O O O R O O A n SaD p R SCIo O n SaD O rr S11D O n �'Ca O R a7 O R Sfro O rt Sao O n SPi O rt Sart O n SaD O M r. • w m H rK N fD H rH D, m H rH r (D H 1•'H N m H �••H r fC H 1'••'H ,-'H tD H 1—'H 1. ID H ,-'H D, rD H ,-'H n, tD H �H H;� H I*1 r � H � H FO V O t r [T7 A r V+ O V N r N Vt VI I O V,I N V WI V' F r c.l1 IJ�F•• 1-•'- O,- OD y Cl V N 1--, W r1 10- 1 O U JO W` 1 '-• V+ t•' w•�yl,crn,c •-' N- WOO F 1� N ' O>• rW� 4,(7'0 ,D,O- 1 OC, r.-•�OmI CD CY L�1 �Dv 1 w rFcy ao o,o 1-•F n .-•CD W w T, —CD,c�rnwo —NI' Nth V W C. NV OOD V' a. r•[ F 1 O C., ~ C) 1 F O O c O ` > r W A O H A otv 0 0 0 0 0 0 J(D Il mO m m m m m m m m m m m m cf 0 C) 3 CO.3 CD1 1 ,J r r F ` H O 1 1 r O W CCx Cw 1 C,O CD1 O 1 I O 1 O 1 I I O i. v I 1 r N v. (A VI ul 4 0 , 41 41 1-i i41 , L oll ;, G) 1� n o, C) V 0 r4 C') !.I u tv t- o 0 0 -1 ID (D 0) :3 CD c x OQ tt 93 ry Inm ccl lb CD C) cl-n- It -2 P) to 4 H a "3 al rt 0 H �4 0 0 't X m 0 yH H. (D rt 0 o (D tZ3 4% r ftp to rn 0 w t l HW 0 c 03 w c c :oz con M N CD 00 0. A M n M C .3 0Cm C, .3 0 M o 3 0 M C CC', 3 0 M n 0 M 0 o":300"000"Zoo"000":300m=100"Oo -M -1 -rcn C') -,r fD ri m C, I co Iq n N N) -4 -P. w c L11 0 10 1 41 10:3 co "C' yz -4 w %I I a cl Co %0 �C W�ol OD Ln C> I C_ td �j > 0 4 N"D > c) O, 0. 4- L 41 Cl A- C) LA Ln -1 N V N I I 1 1 r- rrn C) Cl) cl) Cl) 0 0 0 0 Eg 0 0. S o> 00 41 ?• m m O L.) 10 0 C, (D rr (D CT (D rt C7 4-1 00 W Lo N 00 v(D (D CD (D 0, ol rn 11 rn %.n C) C> C) Ln LO H N0 13 L� > a, 1 00 'D o 0 -4 'o Ln 'D 1 41 01_j cJ OC'!Wto V b to R7 NV V V C7 n 7t- 'q0 w --j 93 to O (M to C7C) . a.w <F 4.j M Cl �w W M',! N rr rt r'' N N N r C0 H MGV HF H H `� N t 1 Nc M:U 'n w rr n Crj H 9 0 CW) _ tz v r -ni v~i S OHO• 7 M wto o °1 n o w to w 7 rt y� y to O G o fu o n . n 00 ro a w t x r{ N p m V O O 0 En W N P• c t v rt K � v O . MW • n0 H� Hd y 'x-30 Mn H ' HomC) Ht --j0 HOMO) H MC) 13 mo OMC) HOC7n f Ort7O .00O 0rt00 O 00 070 c rt70 Ort70 � rt= a rr OO Ort 7V0:3 rt 00 7 rt00 O r SOC ::s rt Z' CQ7 n I wtort• rti• wrt. r• wm'4• rrt• w r4• r w 11 - P r• ton• n w V rH .,�� •� M H N r F rel r ti FNW Cl r lO W N r N lJt Ql to ll� N �D DO I--' N co V W F —,D In —4.1 J N N N r W Ir �L N H r OVF F� rnOr Ov OlN �nWO OOF C-) O N • co N OD �o N p > vii .w0 r F co L, f.. .• 3A r 00 r F v . 00 W V rt O N 00 0 'O 2 IA N paH 0 lJl O T cl, D W F A Ln r D1 N cJ R CA O N N rn C G 00� AV 1 r . d l F N CJ I N I H 9 H y m w C. (D W r�ccww o x a a CT rr rt _ 1-0 CL Ip H n no•;a W* 7o En w r .t r m� r 0 r. w It om n ° Ir' • V x O p rt rt W. w It rt H Y• m oo w c m m oo w a °n xg w o 0 0 ro 0 4 A. n m ' 9 `t 7o r n. rt W C MI W O D O m mr0 • (9i N 7r 1-1 H it W cn O G m N Q' `G N M fD H O N N C*1 rt W W Ct W N f„'f fD C rt p m K K rt r G r N O w rt rt Y• M r R Y• Y• O O J C H m n ;4 r lJt Aw o .O o - wrn o o r o v �o • V r O CD w r v V O r o N H _ w �n o o v o M m w _cn O• �O • W . -Y• F Co N V LO 7 o ao v o • N 00 V W O W w 11 •-1 V r N OD F W r tb O O O V U1 V O I 1 1 t"ll ' j1 r., z F o O w o 0 0 Ln r w ON I I 0 o v x 9 ^ X �(• v L • N v v x k• Y,- VI r N O 1 F C t7 v �'•' w F v r t» F F co w w O NN O F P Ol ' V r oD O O p N LA F w O UI V O w O O N R 4%mv. p RE =MB UR S EMENT FROM DEV ELO PERS Ob 1 i ga t e d� MAY 31, 1977 ks S 7 2- 5 4CD- 3 Rox s h i r e L and = nve s toren t $ 30,000 Pr epa i d Cozies_ S73 -25T Ashton Cr eek <l)o Allen & Company 37,500 Prepaid Conn_ <2> W_ Spilman Short 87.500 Prepaid Conn. S74 -35T Portion Brickhouse - < Mr _ Porter 75.000 Pr ep ai d Conn . S 7 5- 4 5C D K en da l e Acre s <Mi l e s 6. Sp inne r)l 4.000 D ev a to p er s Share S7 6 - 4C D Gam Hon g Wo 0 < 2 a qua 1 p a ymen t s 3 3,53-2 Devel o per s Share S72-28CD G_ M_ Development Corp_ 11.624 Developers Share S73 -1 -OCD B a i l e y B r i dg a 1 2, 204 Approx . =n t_ $261.340 n UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JUNE 202 1977 ITEM NO. II(1) Contract Number: W77 -51D District: BERMUDA Location: BERMUDA INDUSTRIAL PARK Developer: RICHMOND COLD STORAGE CO., INC. Contractor: G L HOWARD, INC. Cost: $18,550.00 Code: ------- VICINITY SKETCH mf M M UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE 111EETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JUNE 20, 1977 ITEM NO. II(2) Contract Number: W77 -12D District: MATOACA Location: IVEY ACRES Developer: LANDMARK BUILDERS, INC. Contractor: J. H. MARTIN & SONS Cost: $17,500.00 Code: ----------- VICINITY SKETCH jP �. 1 '� >AV -� :d qr . ✓ ; AFd#O* tai \ V1CIN{TY SKETCH SCALE 2M M UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE :iEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JUNE 20, 1977 ITEM NO. II(3) Contract Number: W77 -39D District: MIDLOTHIAN Location: 360 COMMERCIAL PARK, SECTION "A" Developer: W. G. SPEEKS Contractor: LEWIS H. EASTER & CO. Cost: $28,710.00 Code: -------- 7h • S Prof VICINITY SKETCH ell cc --%.►I ro VZr04;%4SaP,/,011z FN / W.4 44 J' M M UTILITIES DEPARTIMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JUNE 20, 1977 ITEM NO. II(4) Contract Number: W77 -43D District: CLOVER HILL Location: HUNTING CREEK HILL, OFF-SITE ROAD Developer: SALEM CHURCH ROAD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Contractor: STAMIE E. LYTTLE CO., INC., Cost: $2,000.00 Code: ------- VICINITY SKETCH 28 I' mII I HUNTINGCREEK HILLS SALEM , '0 c:' 'COSBY'S L R1DGE ` A ROAD jo INDIAN SPRINGS a BEULAH VILLAGE M0 K1Ns M M UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JUNE 20, 1977 ITEM NO. II(5) Contract Number: W77 -44D District: Location: BRANDERMILL - FOX CHASE, SECTION "2" CLOVER HILL Developer: BRANDERMILL - A VA PARTNERSHIP Contractor: R. M. C. CONTRACTORS, INC. Cost: $12,483.50 Code: ---------- VICINITY SKETCH • P�Y,auvcr� ev+��.. u M UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF`THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JUNE 20, 1977 ITEM NO. II(6) Contract Number: W77 -41D District: CLOVER HILL. Location: BRANDERMILL - HUNTSBRIDGE Developer: BRANDERMILL - A VA PARTNERSHIP Contractor: R. M. C. CONTRACTORS, INC. Cost: $45,050.70 Code: _ VICINITY SKETCH GE��rp A To F�cl,w�on�• UTIL=TIES DEPARTMENT COUNT•= OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETI';G OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS x4yaCIM JUNE 20, 1977 Item No. III Discussion of fire protection for Airport Industrial Park. District: Dale CqM O� CC) LJ NJ 7Y \ - f;_1F .,PORT—\_ ESTIMATED COST ALONG CENTRALIA ROAD 5540' of 16" water line @ $20/ft. = $110,800.00 150' Bore @ $70/ft. = $ 10,500.00 Total Project Cost = $121,300.00 ESTIMATED COST ALONG ROUTE 10 9500' of 16" water line @ $20/ft.=$190,000.0 L—ALS p, R � � q T GENT I V Z.FNTRAlIA TANK (o• 2 s v GH ESTER TANK (1 M G) s MEMROANDUM DATE: April 6, 1977 TO: ' C. G. Manuel Interim County Administrator ,r M. C. Ritz q'"` Jiir/ector, Department of Cc::imunity Development SUBJECT: Airport Industrial Park Water This office has been dealing with Mr. Samuel Johnson, President of Cavalier Printing Ink Company, since last October in an attempt to find a suitable site for the relocation of his company. Of the 14 sites we suggested to him, the County's Industrial Park seemed most satisfactory. On April 5th, Mr. Johnson advised us that he could not relocate to the Industrial Park since there was not enough water pressure to handle a sprinkler system. Raymond Birdsong indicates that $115,000-$120,000+ would be needed to correct the deficiency. Would you please ask the Board to authorize this expenditure and for Utilities to contract for the work? Ir cc: is rector of Utilities Fire Chief MCR/jp �' 1 Cn M M ENGINEERING AND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JUNE 20, 1977 Item No. V Description: Consideration of petition for water line extension to serve Chesterfield Manor Subdivision District: Dale Estimated Cost: $51,600.00 32 connections oti Chesfcrefelal -,., 1-,Aq Aor This Oro JeGf n UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF S,-PERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. VI(1) Contract Number: S77 -21D District: Bermuda Location: Bermuda Industrial Park Developer: _Richmond Cold Storage Company, Inc. Contractor: G. L. Howard Inc. Cost: $46,556.98 Code: U S, y 0 A pp0 6M n UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. VI(2) Contract Number: S77 -32D District: Location: Surreywood North - Section "D" Developer: Surreywood North Corporation Contractor: Bookman Construction Company Cost: $16,575.00 IL Code: l"00r Clover Hill S ✓22E-Ywo0 C> I,jvwl'W SeL . Y 0 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE r1EETTNG OF THE BOARD G SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. VI(3) S77 -33D District: Clover Hill Contract Number: Location: F 1 in Creek Farms - Section "G" Developer: James R. Grubbs, Jr. Contractor: Lewis H. Easter & Company Cost: $36,937.00 Code: - k_ - co�iRrHousE ao w h o �\ Y F .�- i, W /EIDE/ i rF,4ft'"�1'G C rM FAi71fS /—�—t�hF � � w F � a MDJ` z 0 / a 2 � u "ULM [ *v 4 n n UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. VI(4) Contract Number: S77 -31D District: Dale Location: Afton - Section 2 Developer: Model Development Corporation Contractor: Stamie E Lyttle Company, Inc. Cost: $14,594.40 Code: �S 4.4 Uo Q U 5ecr.2 n n UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. VI(5) Contract Number: S77 -3D District: Clover Hill Location: Dunkin Donuts - Route 60 Developer: Edward D. Allen Contractor: Bookman Construction Co Cost: $8,716.50 Code: q(Pl QpuT 15;r us, " 40 � Q � 0 0 0 � ez:) 4 D QpuT 15;r us, " 40 � Q � 0 0 0 � ez:) M M UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF' THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. VI(6) Contract Number: S76 -37D District: Midlothian Location: Salisbury - Winterfield Section - On -Site Developer: The Salisbury Corporation Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Co., Inc. & Fred W. Barnes Const. Co. Cost: $141,087.25 Code: i E l_ MSTF-/�U G L'" N'111, U. 5, eou�� M M UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. V I(7) Contract Number: S77 -36D District: Clover Hill Location: Huntsbridge Developer: Brandermill Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc. Cost: $66,970.75 Code: 4 <Y� UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGE:;DA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. VI(8) Contract Number: S77_ -36D District: Clover Hill Location: Southlake Court - Southport Developer: Southport Corporation Contractor: William M. Harman ' Cos`: $8,262.50 Code: UTILITIES DEPART1,1ENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. VI(9) Contract Number: S77 -34D District: Matoaca Location: Searcy - Section 5 -- Developer: Robert J. Searcy Contractor: Alpine Construction Corporation Cost: $20,578.00 Code: AVE. I 1J rl� n UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS awaxXXVIXM June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. XX VII Contract Number: S75-43CD Location: Brittonwood Developer: Harold M. Taylor, Jr. District: Dale Contractor: Cost: Code: Consideration of a request from Mr. Harold Taylor to amend the above contract to include the engineering cost of the off-site sewer as a refundable item. Mr. Taylor is requesting engineering cost of $352.40 be refundable. It has not been County Policy to refund engineering cost of off-site facilities unless pump station was involved. If the Board chooses to refund the engineering cost the amount should be reduced to $268.80. s .. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO: VIII Sewer extension Robi6us Road Route 60 Area - Contract: S77-22CD' Mr. Charles L. Chandler owns approximately 11 acres (Tax Map 17-12 parcel 4) and desires to pay $15,000 to extend the sewer to his property line with capacity to serve his acreage. He would be eligible for refunds from sewer connection fees collected from his property up to the $15,000.00 advanced, however, with only 1lacres, the total refund probably will be approximately $9,500.00. If Mr. Chandler's request is approved, we will prepare a. Developer Participation Agreement requiring payment of the $15,000.00 as approved by the County Attorney and the Utility Department. District: Midlothian See Attached Sketch *40 ICP 675 p-0 CPU i_ I wE 3., G X� b /. .Y46 o ��. - `�-• 3403. 3240 / 325/ 308.3 1 3320 �F ��332.0 -3303. i I MON 157 <or ,EL'-. ,y i1' f_-TPAIIER. /� PARK 326.0 J : � 1 i M UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS YJWUW June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. Yri- IX Contract Number: 7032-27A District: Bermuda Location: Chester Developer: County of Chesterfield Contractor: Fred W. Barnes Construction Co. Change Order: Cost: $7,483.32 Code: 77-371 Request for approval of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $7,483.32 for additional stone on sections Curtis and Richmond Streets. Our consultants have reviewed the request and recommend approval. The alternate would have been to solid sheet these sections which would have cost the County more than this Change Order. Rough calculations indicate that solid sheeting would have cost $50.00+ per foot whereas -payment for additional stone is $6.00 per foot. M UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO: X Contract No: 7032-27A Contractor: Fred W. Barnes Construction Co., Inc. Request for an extension of time from Fred W. Barnes Construction Company, Inc., for forty-five (45) days on the above contract. The contractor is requesting this extension due to adverse weather conditions. See Attached Letters. Recommend Approval District: Bermuda I _ WATER SYSTEMS . WASTEWATERSTEMS • SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PORTS • DESIGNS • APPRAISALS R. STUART ROYER & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS PARTNERS: 1514 WILLOW LAWN DRIVE 1. N. KOONTZ, P.E. P. O. BOX 8687 J. A. LIMERICK, JR., P.E. RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23226 E. F. MASSIE, JR., P.E. AREA CODE 804 282-7857 W. CARLE TMURSTON ADMINISTRATOR Mr. David Welchons County of Chesterfield Chesterfield Courthouse Chesterfield, Va. 23832 Re: Chesterfield County Sewerage Improvements Contract 7032-27A Dear Mr. Welchons: ASSOCIATES: S. P. TANSILL, P.E. T. F. TURNER, JR., P.E. H. M. TYLER. P.E. G. A. WEISHAAR, P.E. HERBERT WILEY May 16, 1977 i /, ONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION S i 1.1w .rel' tJIA`l 1 � 1971 w i0 cc UTILIT'.-� D�'T. As per your request on May 11, 1977 concerning time extension for the above mentioned project, we submit the following information: Shutdown days because of rain - seven (7) Days of Rainfall with probably three (3) additional ground unfit= 10 days Due to adverse working conditions in Curtis and Richmond Streets, it took the contractor an entire month to go from intersection of Curtis and Richmond to the terminal M.H. on Curtis toward Railroad Street and from the same inter- section to the terminal M.H. on Richmond Street. Based on the foregoing, we concur with the contractor's request for a forty five (45) day extension, and would add that the contractor is doing the best he can do with the material and working conditions in this area. If we may be of any further assistance, please advise. Sincerely, R. STUART ROYER & ASSOCIATES ,. By �t '•k' lfff JJbseph/E. Martin,J/ Jp PO Box 24467 Rickmond/Vd.23224 232-6761 -7-11 7 16 '1 L I . L ri" ^ 7,',.- ji'l 11 N't 11".TY - VA'.. UTILITIES DEPT. /I 1"77 t i r o c t, 0 r of IIti I i- t i Court-, of r ;'ear clions Count-.- Conrr,ct, ',o. 7,'32 27., I' C1) C u ..ri o -ft ion o} Li-ic, for co- n 0 the abc,,rf, Project. m(,, to 0(: av'vcrse -.f-orf,,' i 1! .1cw1ditiolls encou'litored ill 'I'Lis aml ".t(Orrond n extension of forty five (45) "I","'s is r e t If there ave any questions, please- advise. Tl,ank you for your considoriLtion in this r,,Atter. 1) u I I Y /9'6 7Z '3 �Iw n UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. XI Request from Sydnor Hydrodynamics, Inc. for an extension of time to May 20, 1977 for Contract S73 -33T, Division B, Timsbury Collectors. The reasons for the extension time was -for the extremely cold weather and the inexperience of wor4 ing in such adverse ground and weather conditions. We recommend, along with the Engineer's recommendation, the time extension be approved. District: Matoaca UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. XI Request from Sydnor Hydrodynamics, Inc. for an extension of time to May 20, 1977 for Contract S73 -33T, Division B, Timsbury Collectors. The reasons for the extension time was -for the extremely cold weather and the inexperience of wor4 ing in such adverse ground and weather conditions. We recommend, along with the Engineer's recommendation, the time extension be approved. District: Matoaca n UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. XII Contract Number: S76 -93T District: Bermuda Location: 14705 Jefferson Davis Highway - V.F.W. Bldg. Developer: Contractor: William M. Harman County Code: 73-330-234 Cost: $11,278.50 The County has a Developer Participation contract with V.F.W. in which the V.F.W. will pay all construction costs. We recommend awarding this contract in the above amount to William M. Harman. e Pusiness Division TTRM, XTT_I n n CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL CHESTFRFIR.D, VIRGINIA 2?832 -- (,8041 748-1405 Dr. HOvjiiid 0. Sullins, Division Superintendent Mr. C. G. Manuel Interim County Administrator Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Jack: June 8, 1977 We have received bill from central accounting in the amount of $90, 936 for the sewer connection fee for the high school on Krause Road. This was figured on 75. 78 acres at $1200 an acre. Jack, we normally would purchase 50 acres or less for a high school site. The County Department of Recreation is paying for the development of the other 25 (+/-) acres on this site which consists of ball diamonds, tennis courts, and other recreational facilities as per resolution of the Board of Supervisors dated November 15, 1976. The question arises as to whether the school system should be responsible for the sewer cost for this area served over and above that which we would normally use for school purposes. Would you please bring this matter to the attention of the Board of Supervisors and see if a more equitable assessment can be made. Sincerely, Robert A. Lux Business Manager lk . �W `40 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 Item No. XIV Approval of Modification Agreement to Sewer Agreement Contract No. S76-45CD, dated April 19, 1976, for providing sewers to �Surrsyweed Subdivision. M n MODIFICATION AGREEMENT TO SEWER AGREEMENT CONTRACT NO. S76-45CD, DATED APRIL 19, 1976 THIS AGREEMENT, made this J-oday of May, 1977, by and between CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Continental" and the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as "County", W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, Continental and other individuals, collectively referred to as "Developers" and the County entered into a sewer agreement dated April 19, 1976 whereby the Developers agreed to pay for the cost of constructing a sanitary sewer system, including pump station, required to serve properties owned by the Developers; and WHEREAS, the County agreed to contribute a portion of the cost of construction so that the system would serve properties 1 - atr."MIMI rccnnn- 1. The low bidder (Norcarva Construction, Inc.) has submitted a figure of $326,673.00 which, when added to engineer- ing and other attendant costs bring the total to $352,000.00. Of this amount, the developers have agreed to contribute $176,800.00 (April 19, 1976 Agreement) and Chesterfield County has agreed to contribute $18,426.94 (from an authorized upper limit of $25,000.00) Continental Development hereby agrees to pay the excess amount of $156,773.06 in cash, certified funds or an irrevocable letter of credit in form and substance agreeable to the County Attorney. 2. All such funds shall be deposited and held by the County in a separate interest-bearing escrow account and shall be used by the County exclusively for the payment of the cost of the sanitary sewer system. 3. All provisions, terms and conditions of the April 19, 1976 contract not inconsistent with this modification agreement shall remain in full force and effect. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: -� CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIO9N ATTEST: ATTEST: BY: ent COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD BY: E. Mer in 0 Nei , Sr. Chairman of the Board of Supervisors UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO: XV Request for reduced connection fee at the old $300.00 rate from Mr. James F. Burke, 3522 W. Hundred Road, Chester, Va., 23831. The original survey was not made of the property owned by Mr. Burke or of the other lots west along Route 10 at the intersection of Osborne Road at Route 10. This sewer was added later by Mr. Myers. See Attached Letter District: Bermuda Recommend denial m m VTILISIGS DE��. ,, UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. XVI Request for reduced connection fee at the old $300.00 rate from Mr. Robert H. Hague, 3528 West Hundred Road, Chester, Va., 23831. Mr. Hague contends that a contract was never sent to him. He and others along Route 10 just west of Route 10 and Osborne Road were not in our original surveys but added on by Mr. Leo Myers. See attached letter. Recommend denial. District: Bermuda G , � � �(/ �'�/£'��' Vis✓_ 'Y, r� G � cC < �6 t_c M UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. XVII Request for reduced connection fee at the old $600.00 rate from Mrs. Janet H. Routh, 12756 Richmond Street, Chester, Va., 23831. Mrs. Routh contends that she mailed an agreement to our office but our records show that no such agreement was received by mail. See attached letter. Recommend denial. District: Bermuda Mr. R. A. Painter Director of Utilities Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Sir: MA 12756 Richmond Street Chester, Virginia 23831 May 27, 1977 0 r During the first week of November, 1976, I called your office and requested an application for sewage.hook-up at a cost of $600. I received the application; my husband and I both signed it, and I returned it to your office, by mail, before the end of November. When the connection fee was increased to $750, I called your office just to be sure I was on record for a $600 connection fee. I spoke with Mrs. Swearengin, and she informed me that she had no record of receiving my application. The following day, I took my copy of the signed application to her, and she informed me that she could not honor my copy. While I was there, I checked for a neighbor to see if she was on record, and discovered that she too was not on file. After speaking with Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Manuel, I am writing to request that our application for a $600 sewage hook-up be considered at a Supervisor's Meeting. Please advise me accordingly. Sincerely, 9/ (Mrs.) Janet H. Routh cc: Mr. Garland Dodd Supervisor M UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO: XVIII Request for reduced connection fee at the old $300.00 rate from Mrs. Carolyn B. Crowder, 2705 Milhorn Street, Colonial Heights, Virginia, 23834. At the time of the survey, Mrs. Crowder did not live at this location, but later was granted permission to put.a trailer on this lot subject to the following: 1. The Health Department granted permission that she be allowed to hook into her father's septic system which is adjacent to this property. 2. Mrs. Crowder was told that she would have to hook onto public sewer when it becomes available. We recommend that Mrs. Crowder pay the prevailing rate of $750.00. Our records show her father, Mr. E. H. Boyd, signed a sewer agreement for his home only, which did not include any additional dwellings. See attached letter. District: Bermuda r y M 2705 ?ilhorn St. Co'lor_ia.l Heights, VA. 238311- June 4, 1977 Iir. Robert A. Painter Director of Utilities Chesterfield County Courthouse Chesterfield County, VA. 23332 Dear Sir, i:�i il3i L� COMITY, V!L 7 1977rr- I am writing in regard to the fee being requested for a sewage connection to ray mobile home located at 2705 I,ii"lhorn Street (2703 I,:ilhorn Street in your records) also known as .Lot 6, Block D of Iii'lhorn Tract Subdivision owned by Iir. E. H. Boyd.. I am requesting that I be given the reduced rate of X300 because of the fo"lloviing circumstances. I did. not sign the original sewer petition when it was circulated in my neighborhood. because I i,ra.s not living here then and. the lot where my mobile home is -presently was vacant. However, my father, I.r. E. H. Boyd, who was then a.nd still is owner of the said property signed the original petition and was granted the .300 rate for his property. Furthermore, upon issuance of the use permit for my mobile home in I arch 1975, I agreed to connect to county sewage when it became available. At this time, I specifically asked regarding the rate I would. be cha.rc;ed. for connection and. es assured. that I would be given the same '.300 rate as everyone who had. signed, the original canvass petition as executed. by the county. I do not feel that this ti�ras a misunderstanding or lack of col-unu_nication on my part as i asked a specific rointed. question a.nd.tras given a direct reply. This conversation was with a r,cmber of the Chesterfield County ..ea:l.th Depart -lent and. ,-as witnessed by riyself as well as my mother, I'rs. E. I -T. (I:a.r� i e) Boyd.. Therefore, I am requesting: that I be given the recuced. rate of ; 300 for the following enumerated reasons: 1. The prouerty owned. by I'r. E. H. Boyd ?'Tas signed up for sewage connection under the original canvass. M 2. Cver ;':,o years ago winen the use permit ,,a.s issued for i:ny mobile home, I agreed to accept county seioage when It beca-ae available. This time being before work had ever beJun on the said. project, I feel that my intentions Were as evident as if I had. signed. the original petition. 3. A member of the Chesterfield County Health Department assure_ rte that I would be given the same X300 rate Juara_nteed to others. Because of the above listed circumstances and reasons, I respectfully submit this request for reduced sewage connection fee. CBC/des cc: E. Perlin O'Neill, Sr. District Supervisor Sincerely yours, CQ;u" Urn 6, C- tiacOdA,10 Carolyn B. Crowder rr TRAILER r% COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA OWNER'S REQUEST FOR SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION �j JUN 2 9 1977 =$750.00 I I NEW X EXISTING DATE .................................................. CONNECTION L---1 CHARGE a RESIDENCE = BUSINESS OTHER MULTI -FAMILY Attach Plat showing acreage if Business: Ernest & Margie Boyd owner of house no...2703...... on M.ilhorn St.,. I, ... ................................................ Street and Lot No .......... 6. ........... Block .......... D.........Sect ......................... of......M..i.1h.rIs7,...Trpct............................ Subdivision, Chesterfield County, Virginia, do hereby apply to the Board of Supervisors for a sewer connection to the prop:- check rop-check erty line of my lot, and in payment therefor attach hereto cash in the amount ofS................................................. I agree that no downspouts or gutters from roofs, catch basins or farm tile and lawns, footing drains or any other drains used to carry storm water will be allowed to discharge into the sewer, and if such conditions exist at any time I hereby agree to have same remedied at my expense upon notice thereof. I further agree to pay any service charge the said Board of Supervisors may levy for sewer service. It is understood and agreed that no other connection shall be made to said line or lines without the consent of the said Board of Supervisors or its duly authorized agents.. The house sewer from property line to house plumbing shall be installed by a properly certified master - plumber after the main sewer is made available and released for connections by the Utilities Department. The plumber shall obtain a permit to install the house connection, from the Building inspector's Office at the Chesterfield Courthouse. This request is not a permit to connect to the sewer. Upon completion of this form, please return it along with your check for the connection fee, as indicated above, so that a contract for sewer service connection, can be completed for you. If you desire to pay for this connection on the installment basis, it will be necessary for both husband and wife to execute an installment contract with the County. This can be done at the office of the Department of Utilities—Chesterfield Courthouse between the hours of 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Check here if you desire to pay this connection on an installment basis. Signed............................................................................................................... M UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO: XIX Request for reduced connection fee at the old rate of $600.00 from L. Hunter Beazley, Jr., 12665 Petersburg Street, Chester, Va. At the time our Right of Way Department obtained the sewer easement across Mr. Beazley's property, he was told that the pre- vailing sewer rate at that time was $600.00, but was not guaranteed same. Also, our records indicate that in consideration for him dedicating the easement he wished a free sewer connection fee, and he was told this could not be allowed. See attached letter. We recommend denial. District: Bermuda 0 1267( Box 428 Chester, May 26, Mr, David H. W elchons 'Engineering Department Chesterfield C.H. , Virginia 23832 Dear David: Virginia 2 1977 /. r,4k! C; ED C}itSlFitERD CDe?�1Y, VA. m, Ay 311977 UTILITIES DEPT. v j In reference to the new sewer connection fees, I request and would appreciate if you would appeal to the County Board of Supervisors my situation concerning this matter, When the original connection survey was made, we did not sign that survey by oversight. Since that time, we have been with the under- standing that as long as we connected when sewer was made available at our property, that was all that was necessary. We were not aware that a contract had to be signed with the County. Prior to the beginning of construction of the sewer lines on Winfree and Petersburg Streets and Brook Lane, and when we discussed with the County a right-of-way dedication for the sewer line through our property, house connection with the trunk line was discussed with the County Engineer and the construction contractor. We also requested at this time that we be given a house connection in compensation for the dedication of right-of-way. When construction of the trunk lines was under way, we discussed the proper place to install a connection for our house with the County Engineer and construction contractor. Several weeks ago, we discussed the procedure in requirement for house to trunk line inspection. As of this date, the sewer trunk line is not completed; and we fully expect to connect our house as we always had planned from the beginning of the project. For the above reasons, we feel that our connection fee should not be under the new connection fee rate schedule. Your understanding would be greatly appreciated. 0-15 4/ Do Q JL-/ Very truly yours, _VJ L. Hunter Beazley Ar', M UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO: XX Request from Mr. Dennis W. Davis, 5620 River Road, Matoaca, Virginia, 23803 for exemption from the monthly sewer service charge until he physically connects to the County sewer for the following reason: At the time Mr. Davis purchased this property, this office informed the lending institution and the Veterans Administration that sewer was not available for hook up at that time due to the limited capacity at the Old Town Creek Lagoon except in cases where there isseptic tank failure. Later, after Mr. Davis moved in, our office discovered it had misinformed the lending institution and the Veterans Administration, as the sewer connection fee had been previously paid which automatically allowed permission to connect on to the sewer system in this area. Since Mr. Davis is requesting that he only be exempt from having to pay the minimum monthly service charge, this office recommends approval. District: Matoaca UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO. XXII I Subject: Consideration of a petition for the vacation of a 10 foot alley in Block K in Bensley Village, located in Dale District. We have received a petition from Dodd's Inc., and i Philip A. Stillman and Norine H. Stillman ,(husband and wife) requesting that a 10 foot wide alley adjacent to Stanwix Lane in Bensley Village be vacated. I This has ireeti reviewed by Staff and approval is recommended. i . i o � h ff yA,X wAy M P� GN�p STANp//X D v Z 2M UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20,1977 ITEM NO. XXIII Subject: Resolutions authorizing the County Administrator to sign the following Deeds of Dedication accepting them on behalf of the County: 1. Beatrice M. Adams and Uridh S. Adams , located in Clover. Hill District. Map Section: 49-3 2. John Levi Sharpe & Mable L. Sharpe, husband and wife, Project No. DD77-02/2 located in Bermuda Ochre Subdivision. 3. Ewart`s Frozen Foods Company, located in Bermuda District. Project No. S77-21D/lA. { M UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE KEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO: XXIV (1) Request from Mr. William A. Johns, Bodie, Mills, Taylor and Puryear, Inc., Consultant Engineer for the Developer of Heritage Common subdivision,for the County to assist in acquiring off-site sewer easements. See Attached Letter. Recommend Approval District: Midlothian HERITAGE COMMONS 3oniny .P- 9 VICINITY MAP bodie, mitis, taylor and puryear, inc., engineers and surveyors � June 13, 1977 � ����}�G'• :'' r Mr. William 0. Wright Assistant County Engineer Chesterfield Courthouse Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Ref: Heritage Commons Offsite Sanitary Sewer F.N. 2544 Dear Mr. Wrights This letter is a request from the developers of Heritage Commons Subdivision for County's assistance in acquiring the necessary sanitary sewer easements across the property of Clarence H. Rosenbalm. Enclosed is a copy of the letter from Mr. Miller confirming his meeting with Mr. Rosenbalm and the denial from Mr. Rosenbalm to work with the developers in crossing his property. Also enclosed are four copies of the plat on Mr. Rosenbalm's property along with four copies of plat for Mary Adcock who has agreed to grant an easement across her property. Please prepare the.necessary agreement forms for the Adcock easements and the developer will have them signed. Please advise if we can be of any assistance in expediting this ac- quisition since the developers would like to start construction as soon as possible. Very truly yours, /Bodie, Mills, Taylor & Puryear, Inc. William A. Johns cc: Mr. Clifton M. Miller, III Encl. WAJ:cs o. box 2901.6'11 research rd., richmond, virginia 23235 phone (804) 794-6823 -. ICAN f1N1 Gr µ ;� F,TUTAGE �. .�s CORPORATION 427 ROSS BUILDING • RICHMOND, VI��'.!N;A 23219 G (L5O4) 644-3193 111:ine 1V, 1977 Mr. Clarence H. Rosenbalm 1244 Lotus Drive Richmond, Virginia 23235 Dear Mr. Rosenbalm: The purpose of this letter is to confirm my understanding -of your position with regard to our request that you grant an additional 6' utility and drainage easement to the existing 10' easement along your northern property line of Lot 17 as well as grant a 20' temporary construction easement to allow us to run the sewer lines to our subdivision. l During my visit with you this morning, you indicated that the only easement which exists across your property is the drainage easement in the creek bed and we would have to stay completely within that 10' boundary limitation. further, in response to my offer to make certain improvements to the creek channel on your property, you stated that you were not interest- ed in our doing anything to improve that particular area. I regret that we cannot work together on a mutually agree- able basis. You certainly made your position very clear. CMM,III:nmj Very truly yours, Ate' C N HE ITAGE LANI-D CORPORATION l� /I Clif M.ilAer, iI ire dent Developers of Heritage Commons UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE .,FETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 20, 1977 ITEM NO: XXIV - 3 Subject: Liquidated Damages Contract No. 7032-30 - Dwayne Lane Contractor: Fred W. Barnes Construction Co., Inc. Code: 73-330-234.0 We recommend the contractor deduct the following from his final estimate: Loss Revenues - $ 288.21 Inspection Cost - 19 hrs. @ $ 5.64 -------- 107.16 Transporation Cost - 19 hrs. @ $ 3.00 -------- 57.00 Total ----- $ 452.37 This is also the recommendation of the Consultant District: Midlothian a m En wM - COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPART,*NT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION sue 8, 1977 Mr. E. Karlin O'Neill, Chai.naaam Chesterfield county Hoard of supervisors 4517 Windward Drive Chester, Virginia 23831 Dear Mr. O'Neill. $. O. sox 3036 son Air, Virginia 23235 Rhes west street Railroad Grade Crossing Caster On May 11s 1977 the Hoard of 81?ervi80r8 passed a resolution mmitting rural addition funds for the fiscal yeas 1877-78 to be used to imeove west street at the 8CL railroad so that salpl could be taken into the State secondary sy"w& for mainntear>tanoe. These ir�u+av®ments vould include lights and gates. in order to further proceed with the necessary paperwork I would appreciate the Hoard passing a resolution establishing this arossing and requesting that it be added to the state secondwy system. After I have received this resolution I will tb m prepare a memoranaua requesting that the pxepeec highlamW division work Out the necessary details with the SCL Reil.road COMP ny for accomplishing the work. Sinaarely, r S. L. COV J1"• Resident Engine W E=jr:pmg cc I Mr. C. G. Ms:uel `/ Mr. Garland Dodd Project Name: Chesterfield Manor Estimated Water Main Cost: $52,800.00 Estimated Meter Installation Cost: _ 4,800.00 Total Estimated Cost of Project: $57,600.00 32 Connection fees @ $500.00 each = $16,000.00 Total County Expenditures = $41,600.00 Interest for 1 year @ 6% $2,496.00 ESTIMATED MONTHLY REVENUE Average Monthly Water Bill (8000 Gal/month) _ $8.62 Water Production Cost ($0.22/1000 Gallons) = 1.67 $6.95 Other Operating Costs = 3.66 $3.29 Debt Service ($0.085/1000 Gallons) = 0.68 Anticipated Monthly Revenue Per Connection = $2.61 ANTICIPATED ANNUAL REVENUE 32 connections x $2.61 per month x 12 = $1,002.24 { COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD INTRACOUNTY CORRESPONDENCE May 5, 1977 TO: Jack Manuel FROM: Lane Ramsey SUBJECT: Fire Hydrant Refunds During the Budget Hearings in January the Board cut an item from the Fire Department Budget for the installation of fire hydrants and indicated that the County should cease reimbursing developers $125.00 for each hydrant installed. Since that time it has been pointed out that the amount charged to the Fire Department budget also includes reimbursement to the Utilities Department of the total cost of a fire hydrant when no developer is involved. So far this budget year, the Fire Department has been charged as follows for the installation of Fire Hydrants: Reimbursement to Developers Reimbursement to Utilities Dept. Total charge to Fire Budget Amount Budgeted Budget Deficit The County Attorney has contacted various and builders associations, and has received the to rescinding the reimbursement policy: $25,000 47.479 $72,479 30.000 $42,479 developers, engineers, following response 1. Of the 56 developers contacted, 12 responded negetively to rescinding the reimbursement policy. 2. Of the 9 engineers contacted, 3 responded in favor of rescending the reimbursement policy. 3. Of the 2 Homebuilders Associations contacted, 1 responded negetively to rescinding the reimbursement policy. I believe the Fire Department will have enough surplus funds in it's overall budget to offset the $42,479.00 mentioned above. I would recommend that no appropriation action be made now and that we bring this item to the Board in June once we can tell more about how the budget will turn out. Page 2: Jack Manuel May 5, 1977 Please ask the Board on May 11, 1977 to take the following action concerning Fire Hydrants: 1. Allow Central Accounting to disregard Expense Account 11-071-292.0 Hydrant Installation as far as the Encumbrance System control and bring back to the Board on June 8, 1977 an appropriation request (if needed). L /3. Rescind ow---cent-irme the policy of reimbursing developers $125.00 per fire hydrant installed from the General Fund. Approve the policy of the General Fund continuing to reimburse the Utilities Department the actual cost of installing a fire hydrant when no developer is involved in the project. 4. Reinstate an amount under the Fire Prdection portion of the 1977-78 budget for the estimated costs of items 2 and 3 above (This should be set up as a separate responsibility center so that the operating budget will not be restricted by this category). LBR:gc cc: Bob Eanes Dave Welchons Charlie Quaiff PROPOSED ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE to vacate the 10 foot alley along Stanwix Lane adjacent to Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block K in the Village of Bensley; said lots being more fully shown in Deed Book 288, Page 186, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia, being more parti- cularly shown on a plat made by Virginia Surveys dated 5/11/77 and shaded in blue, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. WHEREAS, Dodd's Inc. , --_Zv�L'� ��f'i�• -hoe petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County to vacate the said alley as shown shaded in red on the plat referred to herein and attached hereto and made a part hereof', by reference; WHEREAS, Dodd's Inc., is the owner of a portion of lots 1, 2,' and 3 mentioned above; WHEREAS, Philip A. Stillman and Norine H. Stillman are the owners of lots 4, 5 and 6 mentioned above; WHEREAS, notice of the adoption of this ordinance has been given in accordance with Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia: 1. That pursuant to Section 15.1-482 (b) of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, that the 10 foot alley described above, shaded in blue on the aforesaid plat, be and hereby is vacated. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482 (b) of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, and a certified copy thereof together with the plat attached shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia and shall be indexed in the name of the County of Chesterfield as Grantor and Dodd's, Inc., and Philip A. Stillman and Norine H. Stillman as Grantees. -r 0 1'S Z � to 0 m �ul-+� s= 60 � 1 S� �IA"7.'7 STANwI� LAN D Iz 13 14 IS 5LK . .�. FLAT SHOWING PROPOSED VACATION OF A 10' WIDE ALLEY. VV irginia L*urbepO CERTIFIED 6Y William A•Froz;1 .�. VIRGINIA CERTIFICATE NO Ob433 . J. N. 701 Gt' Wiojam A. Prasise, Jr. ' > y 06493 rtuFf S;10b SCALE I �� = , Q 1 DATE `: i 1177 N0. �y (4) *40 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY CONCERNING THE PURCHASE OF 3.5 ACRES OF LND OWNED BY GRACE FLORENCE BAILEY WHEREAS, by resolution of this Board on February 26, 1975, is resolved that the County Attorney prepare a deed of iin and Sale for the purchase by the County of a fifty foot strip of land along Bailey Bridge Road containing 3.5+ acres the sum of $9,600.00; WHEREAS, it was resolved that such deed be submitted to the Board for approval; and, 4 WHEREAS, the property owner has agreed to sell such land for $9,600.00: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County. Board of Supervisors does hereby approve the purchase by the County of 3.5+ acres along Bailey Bridge Road from Grace Florence' Bailey for $9,600.00 and authorizes its Chairman to execute a deed on behalf of the County. M Dear Mr. Blackburn: M Enclosed is your application for a bingo/raffle permit. There is a $10 application fee which must be turned in when you return your application to us. Along with your application you must attach a resolution from one of your board meetings stating that your organization would like to hold bingo and raffles, it must be signed by each of your board members. If you have your application back to our office by June 16, 1977, it will go before the Board of Supervisors on June 22, 1977. If you have any further questions, pleas give our office a call on 748-1211. r CONSTITUTIGN A14D rY- LRVS OF TIM KA.J CHESTY" rC ASSOCIATION Incorpornted -April 29,. 1952 r - Article I - TITLE AND OP ; --.Cr Section Z: - ?`his Assac-lation shall be all.ed ", lE3 Manchester Athletic Assa.::;.ration of cliesterfiel.d County, Virgin ..-i. Section, 2: (a) •' llaprov© wthletic fmi lilies -.,17 Hance.,. ,star High School. (b) If) promote interest Lmnd 5, por- of the _nter•-scholastic I • of Manchester NIgi1 Sedco: (c) 'c> pxc-ntote andfostera spirit ::� l;001 -portsrtanship and ._-lendl.y r latiatiship in til i ITii br^>C4 " LftStlC sports. Article 11 ^ ORGA IZA; ON Section I: - The of the Associall-im. shall of Executive Corm -,-,,too •,too Iti vmber7, Active i+ic ,1 begs < :.d flonrr •3ry Momijoxs. Section 2: - The `�::ecutive 11+.j.l;ers- shall consist; of Prr.-7;.dont, Ist Vice, Pres: 'ant, 2nd Vice --President, Sec -1- tart', i irrespon ding asci I re3.suANr. See-ti.osl 3: ^ T11s, r :er;;hevsh:.j�.i; shall ccnsist, of an,, citi v::-: of good. re- utation who r'tn4•.S�ibutes se:vvriCs-a, 3•,.r4ends 1`'.: _-tin'-s .and prays dues. Section 4: ^ ilono: °i"_>'tia,:lzc3x:� si aii co:is:6st of rsons rer..ed vorl"!Ay of 5pc:;c al rs shalt I have fre-, lif timi-, rtcl =„ship tr:�iJi al + Assoc:in-ion px• .legc;; ' Section 5: ^ Thom. shall be F-Tt 'F. ecutivo Comrit,, ..c corm -:;od of the Preside.n•t, lm ec-ion :e Prst Paxe:sldent, 1:;t Vice- fesid....:, 2nd Vico-Pre dent, Serc'.:1i%'y, t:0ii�'..�jlt •t�5.r'!t, i..+=..;..�a} �1:Cwu.`s-:.... r, fy11Cs [:rd(7 t'tlti;t;f',s:8 rico:: ,,.ial�.iAssacaa:4.t i -i Exec . iLv, Cor:a':ti i'i:t,e Shall h a 'a 'Lhc 3i,'Gi '. authorize- of uthoriz -of -, si 1 not to exceed :) the f isca- ? v's.'-; t5 of ! . t socia-(:icn as CerTI:L"ieU' -at x.10 1 "i_.^i` of autim-i.-,azio"i • -• by f sy 1ry'1. �i t't.'Yu�. van.d. Secticsn 6: - The l 'Qsiciclii2 of ��110 A.ssoci.:i43cn S!'.-11 ha. -.r:. the i -ardor to aJ'0z0-41 yu fait,' E.2ypc'''.1,1.t1.5-1,” of .,a.. :i'twli not Co excited ; 25.170 i the fiseill c;l"Sca s of the .`:Ssacla#:i.ctt Cs Cert-Z'Aei at th-:� sire the autslorizatf_o.t by the mstlre;�. Section 7: w Tho a.,um e* vmy o-ielc ed off: Ccfr of • he As.,_- ziation t.rho :lmll, fivl%. to... �:; .� elu e s Eor any fj;}cal' _ car of 'i,ls too. shall ba rC3po9:tod i%p the 'free; ,amus to the ,socia :iza at a ., gul.a�. :- 3e•ting. Tlic tnsr 0-,-511ip shall, olect a nn.i',7 zr f,i l l the t"' Irl ire+; term of tlt) :c 'ff3 CL or o: `:Zz c3 in c1r;,'rttll3: Article III - CPPICRI': , 5oct aZ is - Tho . ccCui:iv:a o'" thy: Agrui;.-, coon s7ial2 Le rv2s3cicnt, lst S.f.e-1'r i .;;Lc",C31.1'`, , 2nd V)x:. — P7Ce! i e,. mt r, Sc, .t'ati: ai-yF, Coi`::'t sp, c.miJ1mg Sact, tvey, fne. fXt'::::L9.`tlTi. At a 1%�Il :i.ng ill 1101'C:kor of v "(. ' _"!-t. 3y0cc."m O:tJ:i r.o+r. ;t lh n.)A bo '.o;.,;,eCi ':)r a majoa-ity vote of the nrc•nbers present and shall hold a "Fico; :Cr-' Gro y,✓ars from dtunum: y lst of the follmrning year. Section 2: - There may be appointed by the pyesid'.ng of`cer such committees as mat, be deera¢d necessaa)y for the t-cansacx:lon of business. The n:. minatirg cor . i.ttee sixa.11 be eZ°:ctcd *ram the floor at the regul,.ir SepLca-iber meoti.ng. In the a lent tit vt no no.,unations are made, the prasi.ding officer will appoint a nominating cor�ssi t:.ee. Section 3: - In care of death, resignation or res.3val c an officer, an election shall be held at the first regular rating -thereafter to fill the unexp:" red term. Should a member w 4 adraw from the Association for any r .ason he shall imaed_•iateo.y turn in to the President all property of thi Association in his possession. Section 4: - ReteOV .1 of Office :•s (a.) C: ,arges of malfeasance, mwsfoa.sa .ce, o -.r other misconduct b an elected officer of the Ass )ciati(, A while in the p-rformanc© of iris duties as an-ff:t.cer or as a member o.'' the Association ma), be filed in wri-ing with the P resident of the Association, or if thc.. President be so c�::arged,, with -,lie First: like-Prc;ident These chargers must' di::tail the: alleged TA'scond uct oj' the o.ificer. (b) T, ese cha:gos uill be read to ti -3 wanbrrsla'p at the next r-gaslar meeting of the Associate 3n. A copy of the cl�arRes ;1s r.,,ad will be transm! ed to tho 3fficer so charged by cer::ifi ed L ;il w.W-in tort (10) days Alai1( °r ng thmeeting at whiell they a"a read. (c) A". the next regular meetin;� of tpie Association following the r_ading of the charges, the wl' 1 be read tn.ew 'co the E`,nbersiai.p uit.Ii any bomber o£ Cl Asst..: iation or any citizen d,;:; gn.ated by the charged offi.cc r having an opportunity to r.,spond to the chaTges. (d) r111owi.ng the re -reading of the ;harg 5 and response as dotailed ;.x item (c) of Section 4, of Article i:':I of these Py-la.as a r, -tier. spay be wade by a r::ember •r a remc?va Lite officer f.so�� office. L' on a proper seconding motion t .ie que i•L: ell, withou'c furie ier di ;.scussiun, s1_13 be put to the v sr:hers`%1D. An affi 7.matitve vote sovonty-five (75) pe. scent of those •, oting is xegrired for a. }pro oval of the Motion to rctiovcl. (e) :e officer, if remo-trod, will retain h. s membership in the A :soclatIon. Article IV - MEETINE1: Section 1: - (.a.) A quoruse for transacting busi.na: s slia+.;. be ten (10) iacj!'bors. (U) 1.:.ere shall be tecelvo (12) regal ar vcv,hly weetings of t1le A.,sociaglon in each year on s.icl: data,,data,,v as may be decidod by a majority vote of the members g'rosent. Section 2: - A spc Aa.l neetirg ray be called at : ny tiT t.E: by the President or by :u:,;- fiva morbbexs on application lo the "resident. Soction 3: - The of the regtalar macti.nrs shs:ll be ';:00 p,.m, P1ot$cdy Of all r.:3etinis shall bo Ffiven each ;mer.ber o3. tile Association eithox verba -Uy or writtcm, well in advanv: of a tveting. y Article V - DUES Section 1: - Dues shall be two dollar, ($2.00) per yeas , which shall acco:�pany verbal or written application membership. Section 2: - Mezt-(^s shall be notified in writing ing wlian dues axe payable. Any meDi)(,r natio recuses or neglects to pay 44wt, within 30 days after form -.l notification shall thereby aut.cxvati ,:ally forfeit his Meng :ship. Section 3: - An ay .ilication for merbership zhall not b , processed until the pias; active irorbar pays dues for the curr.- ;t year. Section 4: - 'Me menbozship dues shall be used defray the e:XI)Ozz: es of tt:: Association and to carri out they p:,- )gram and object of the Assoc.lation. Article VI - ROLL CALL Section 1: - At Cie request of any individual me-zber a c=all of tha meirbox-sh$p roll :hall he conducted by the1?ct:ording ::cretaay. Article VII All x rodzosoct al4Era%3.mns, mnenck°ents additions to tl:e Const.:` u i,ort and By-Lmgs shall be s0brii Ztc::? in writing at a regu; ar i eting. The proposed altorr tion amandr,onyt: and/or addi !on shall be referred to a special ci.teee for a report at V .a next regular nect:ing. The ve, vote of 3/4 o the ::x: bera present siliall. be required to r, lopt the prapose,6 alte,,atiaa, arrenc.' ants or addltioa y. ` 0, (6/16/'1) n E5 WHEREAS, Manchester High School Athletic Association provides funds for athletic needs at Manchester High School and WHEREAS as Manchester High School Athletic Association has been in existance since 1952 and WHEREAS the membership at its May meeting voted to conduct Bingo games, in order to provide funds for our work here at Manchester High School THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Manchester High School Athletic Association petitions the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors for a permit to hold Bingo games. n n APPLICATION FOR BINGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMIT The undersigned applicant, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.1-316 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, hereby petitions the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County for a one-year permit to conduct Bingo games and/or raffles. 1. The applicant, in support of this petition, says that it is a proper organization to conduct such Bingo games and/or raffles because (state here the kind of organization requesting said permit) 2. An authenticated copy of a resolution of the Board of Directors or other governing body of said organization requesting said permit is attached hereto, together with supporting evidence that said organization is an organization permitted to conduct said Bingo games and/or raffles under Section 18.1-316 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 3. The applicant further states that it has read all of the conditions which will be a part of said permit and agrees to comply therewith. APPLICANT STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY of CHESTERFIELD, to -wit: Subscribed and sworn to before me thisXff day of , 197 7 _ My commission expires /Y��-� /'eq �2jl_ tary Public 1h►' vo h,-J� 4-Z 77 017 go June 15, 1977 Mr. C. G. Manuel Acting County Administrator County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Manuel: On July 3, 1977 the methodist churches in Chesterfield County and South Richmond have arranged to use the county stadium for an Independence Day celebration. As a part of this celebration we would like to have a fireworks display at 9:15 p.m. on July 3rd. This display will be furnished and detonated by Mr. W. G. Bulifant, Jr., owner of Dixieland Displays. Mr. Bulifant is an experienced handler of fireworks and most recently handled the display at Chesterfield Airport during WRVQ's promotion. Mr. Bulifant has all the required permits for hauling and working with fireworks from the state and federal level but we need approval from the Board of Supervisors for the display. I would greatly appreciate it if you would request the Board's approval for us. Mr. Eanes, the Fire Marshall, has been contacted by Mr. Bulifant and is familiar with the plans. Should you have any questions about the display or Mr. Bulifant, I will try to answer them. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Yours very truly, mes A. Spence R. 0. Box 26 Chesterfield, Va. 23832 b V400 BRANDERMILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. 0. Box 287, Midlothian, Virginia 23113 June 2, 1977 276-2770 Mr. Merlin O'Neill Chairman, Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors Chesterfield, Va. 23832 Dear Mr. O'Neill, This is to request permission from the Board to discharge fireworks on July 4, 1977 at Brandermill. The Brandermill Community Association has contacted Mr. Buddy Sprouse, a County resident with years of experience with fireworks, to be in charge of setting off the display at 9:30 p.m. on the Peninsula in Sunday Park. We appreciate your consideration on this matter. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, sd4v,-�,� Ms. Sam McGee, Community Manager SM/klh VMWU: At an adjourned mating of the Board of Supsrvl"rs Of Chesterfield County, held at the Courthouse on Upon consideration whereof,WWon notion of Mr. O'Neil � , seconded by Mr. Bookman it is resolved that the Highway Ltepart nt be aut1wrized to surface treat Greenbriar, Section 3, in conjune.tion with its resurfacing schedule, and subsequently bill the CouUty. This mount is tart to exceed $4,OW.00. A Copy., T sste^- �i� �. ,.. ..� cty stratO ILM June 15, 1977 Board of Supervisors Chi-ateff i >ld Counter Gourthou4m Squate. Gentlemen: *40 luAJZ 21, 1917 !t,-�;urfacing all strrct8 iri that subdivision located in Matuaca District, Chesterfield County, known as Greenbriar, Section 3 After discussions with a representative of the County and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Highways, we have been advised that the streets as shown on a certain plat of Greenbriar, Section 3 require resurfacing. As the developers of the aforementioned subdivision, we have agreed that we will contribute up to, but not exceeding, the sum of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) to be applied towards the performance of the above mentioned work. Our understanding is that the actual resurfacing of the streets is to he done by the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is our further understandi.nf; that in the event the cost of performing the above mentioned work exceeds $4,000.00 that we shall not be responsible for any such excess or additional costs. We trust the above agreement on our part is satisfactory for you to authorize the performance of the above mentioned project. 'Be� rt E.�Ghidotti EAL) 4LLM. Ghidotti Sadie E. Henshaw M M JUu:I c-��. A^.NE• i-_,.�,.r:<EJUG.i!'l lei l.'Ici. �n_F'/"�ih'I(7 F,A:I'HA EEE FA t1���g�� 1,,1//;,,,,,l;;,r, COMMONWEALTH of VIRgTNL-i FL�BEFT S LAN'DES. STAUtiTJN, 17.1( 11,11 ! /' /h'It'] DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS &TRANSPORTATION T RAY HASSELL III. C-SAFEAKE -11 1. IKI,/ -I 1:1 1.'• 1221 EASTBROAD STREET CHARLGS S. HOOPER Jg. CgEv;E.-I RICHN4^OND, 23219 L. E. BRETT, JR. DISTRICT ENGINEER June 13, 1977 Mr. E. Merlin O'Neill, Chairman Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors 4517 Windward Drive Chester, Virginia 23831 Dear Mr. O'Neill: .' E L;6v'.,T, L, .__ r m . V, '_ G b11ITT(�'. LE E Fll`SrF� III :JII,ICTUR OF F' 1,4A%' •. ... k,L': FiAY. JF. D 1 F CTOR OF OPEF AT10%' J P RCYCR, JR DIRECTUR OF PLAV,IN: P ECOLDIRON Di RECTOR OF ENGINEERING IN REFLY PLEASE FEFER TO OFFICE OF DISTRICT ENGINEER P ETERSFUk G. VIRGINIA:3FC� P. O. Box 3036 Bon Air, Virginia 23235 Re: Greenbriar Subdivision Section 3 This is in reference to our meeting on Thursday, June 9, 1977, to discuss the roads within Section 3 of Greenbriar Subdivision being taken into the State secondary system. As I mentioned during our meeting, our surface treating contractor is presently performing schedule work for the Department in Chesterfield County. If you wish for the Department to resurface the roads in Section 3 on accounts receivable basis, then we will need an appropriate resolution from the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors. It is urgent that we receive this resolution as soon as possible so that this work can be done while our contractor is in the area. Sincerely, i E. L. Covingto , Jr. Resident Engineer ELCjr:pmg cc: Mr. J. W. Davenport Mr. V. J. Blankens 'p Mr. G. W. Harris Mr. C. G. Manue Mr. R. M. McElfish A HIGHWAY IS AS SAFE AS THE USER MAKES IT TAKE NOTICE That the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors will }sold a public hearing and take under consideration on Monday, June 20, 1977, ac 7:00 p.m., in the County Board Room at Chesterfield Courthouse, Chesterfield, Virginia, the Chesterfield General Plan 2000. If the Plan is approved and adopted by the Board of Supervisors, it shall control the general location, character and extent of each feature shown on the plan map or described in the text. It shall be used as a comprehensive guideline for zoning ordinance amendments and for making other similar decisions. Copies of this plan are on file in the Department of Community Development, 7714 Whitepine Road, Chesterfield Airport Industrial Park, Chesterfield, VA for public examination between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. of each regular business day. All persons favoring or opposing this Plan are invited to appear at the time and place herein stated. Michael C. Ritz Secretary q 4A ti m evi %Ue /=1-�7r�- es ; A)/3 c. (G U;-7 c. ry 3v6�� 7-114 1 tf i S 00 1-x /ILL J�TO6111 C Y %Ue /=1-�7r�- es ; A)/3 c. (G U;-7 c. ry 3v6�� 7-114 1 tf i t Ca(, 2-9 0 (lrti 75 ,D J -/-0 7,2/e L-4 4Y4 A4,40 W4r7`r/2 (QUA t 7 I f '' #t WIty t 3 l ps�allolltr6 k -&l6 S vccis ; /,s 18zco,-v711vG 1�U /veer 6W& y `111r6- /a',5©KZ 6 -ye-'V'�50 �uT / LSO % �A Cx-,- /W�,s4, S2vt-,O, �rU417t &OA17Y e�,�;fV Aa- AJ ,qiv 1/3 CICG U,2e "I% 4 /)z m m /i�� ,B� 7�e 4 .,w 7"Zlw�, 1-,06,?G CGovf i� fel'" NIXNLr5 rC 64au�- WI -116t-1 / ot- 6ieCC0601 LVl , TICIL6 �. 0 bn u& 4�O rVrv2 GJ�1�Z i�S 0AW I 997- AzaIl-96 y 2d 0 m jr�,D j►J L 7 7� /�.SC��C. Gt% LCr ��/ ivy /307 J:'A/v7 ,.DDD ✓ rfrG v �'�'f `' �J,� 50",'G 60j#fir L6167' a C47-,-" Ax'o earl 2 6 o, om') � C d Q 6*7- ��� Qs V. -O &Ice, c� 64C, J;A)Co6 t4 A�� n , 2fc-�OrNr-s9, m m bkj {l6ff W lr-L-, -"U Alf, ()l47)5LE WE vJ,4M V06E CoDlLS +SND (DgzGi�v'E,�S U� fix rci . Ati 70 6'101USI.G?*-2_<> Cc/t-3�, ivEA,451 7i(-6 %5, �h c, % �- �%�✓� bT�TU/—'r- S ,G CQti'- �J�C1•i�F TZr) Llp� ' AIVO 7V /LAINICVZ )CDrV/L, jq4,,atiret 144T��,4 n� �Q 0�41V *400 V ��'�zy ��c� rick. ti5'�.�'�iv�s•Er� ftrrv� 7L) ��'rJ,itl�o ZOO /�,�ye- v40�:, IM m -V- CA .J ,,x..4&7 WZV 70 lVg5- ,� 1,V6 el CWA� 40 Ute"IL5Z4 Pc,4,ti �T I�V(f. sn�cvu ,�� 1` f,73 LC)f�`� �� �c�v5 D,� �/,'Z. �c�it1 Z ils✓ 191. i m E5 �,-o Sip ,A%i4 L 1ZA-S L J G a7, vllwi 5, /��,tZos Ali /f�i�f L�z, W-f115616c�WC1- m m I�(/ CU/ fGi� ,�����'c G'�'•°v x,11 �-'7155-X1176,) /70 I�(/ CU/ fGi� ,�����'c G'�'•°v x,11 �-'7155-X1176,) /,wti /Qxv, , 45 .g �,'�,�� Gc. 7"-T- /.5 6v,4�-7-- WULIO d Yoc) r L.. t, VOW4(2 05 1`-/Z I _PTS TO i I m m 3 • L Ol-s4��0�✓ Q� ���'G t G�J�GiG �- i7 �''� �� Zr�,wLE.4 1 / ✓ �L Cl� � .... °`'fes" 6d ujwz� lvl,�e aw A 2 CLV, A),6616 t3� i /a✓11,Q Wl L L 7?i q 69 12i2t;e �7f D eic�,4 711'07eG t . Mw m 7-0 a)7" ukZt Ckt, Azf� -7V0 t�r�ULD 7-0 /�✓ ��y ,�c��;G� t� / [G� ✓�' ,� i .�i7,�1( (,�r�✓� 115 ��-1� � `Z� r��c a Z� Azo 4,5 wwfe s�,t1,o 6 0-,��,,t �✓'e iw,.'-/ ,Od�.,,• AAJO 9 v Iq C`j 9 1c,�c-c"o 1�ee - j� ��i aewl t &,?( 4L 0 ilk' 2 v /8 6,-rC-ld/o &f07- �A-4 6 a f eo -5, 673 Og -L-0 01�7- Asti; 4�2z/ y�r ul�L F X00 3 5 �rT�J� e' l5 s'1lW -PY f)/ n -'V49 -*4-) !TD 38 94/y p -Lo Av- ki-�- � 4 �V V�Lc� CLIZA.04 OeL-610�— < -I --Tn, 'T' c A Ll L L �Fl (41 i -7* C - C7 i clo-- I kc I COG (AA v i 0 J/ "&'US 7Z) 7746 AWCO A*C'-)61L' < /-S 7� //- 2� DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 31., 1977 Board of SupeXvisors J. P. Zooko prehensive Planning Division General Comm n , I85/I95 Western Corridor Study Area, Recommended changes and additions to policies as proposed in General Plan 2000, proposed September,.1976. 1. General Comment. In the process of the Commission public hearings several comments or particular issues were raised that deserved general discussion. A. Preservation of prime agricultural land, historic sites and scenic resources. It should be noted that there are policies that cover the above issues and that planning staff notes that future development of the county will be carried out with recogni- tion of environmental, fiscal and legal constraints. B. Official Map versus General Plan Map. There has been some confusion between the General Plan 2000 map and an "official map". The "official map" as defined in Virginia statutes is little more than a declaration of the intent to widen or create a new highway as well as identifi- cation of the existing and future public facilities sites. Because the County has no authority to establish an official map for highways and because public facility locations when they are identified in the General Plan are not specific, there is little or*no purpose to publishing an "official map" However, the County will adopt, as a part of this process a General Plan Map 2000 which will show approximate location and extent of land uses, public facilities and transportation facilities. C. Community Planning: Goal or Policy? There has been considerable discussion about planning for communities and developing the "sense of community" and whether it is appropriate to elevate this area to goal level. Planning staff agrees that it is important to plan for communities and feels that this need is more appropriately expressed as a statement of work rather than as a somewhat ephemeral goal, Policies are accomplished; goals are strived for. When the Community Planning process begins, planning staff will work with the community to establish focus and format for the plan and appropriate goals and policies for the Community being studied. 2. I -85/I-95 Western Corridor Study Area. Because of the many western corridor alternatives, planning staff feels that mapping a corridor study area is more appropriate than any particular alignment. This is sufficient to alert current and future residents of the county of the potential for a route in this area of the County as well as expressing the County's westerly alignment. On May 24, 1977, the Planning Commission certified to the Board a General Plan 2000: Land Use and Public Facilities Map which does not show a specific route location or a general corridor location for the westerly alignment of proposed -route.-I-85/1-9.5 ...... Therefore, the copy of the General P1an,2000;' 'Land'Use and Public'Facilities Map which is dated 24, 1977, and which is attached to this memorandum ref lectove intent of the Commission and the map that would be adopted by the.Board if no further amendments are made. 3. On May 24, 1977, the Planning Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors use the following resolution to adopt General Plan 2000: PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR GENERAL PLAN 2000 WHEREAS, title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 4, of the Code of Virginia provides for preparation of a comprehensive plan by all Virginia localities by July 1, 1980; and WHEREAS, the present Chesterfield General Plan 1995 Transportation, Land Use and Community Facilities was adopted October 25, 197,2, and must be reviewed within five gears of its adoption; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Chesterfield General Plan 2000 Report, hereinafter referred to as the Plan; and have recommended approval thereof; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the Plan; NOW THEREFORE, THIS BOARD RESOLVES That the Plan be approved and adopted with the following statements of conditions and policies: A. The Plan is to be considered as the basic planning document for Chesterfield County. The policy guidance �s to coin, from the Chesterfield General Plan 2000 Land Use and Public Facilities (a map of 1" _ :4000-' -scale}- and Chapter VY in the Chesterfield General Plan 2000. B. The Plan is intended to be general in nature; specific location; actual character and extent of uses are not intended to be shown thereon. C. The designation of public facilities and uses on the Plan is an expression of intent by the County to establish the facilities, although the expressed location is general (as shown thereon) and scheduling of public land acquisition or improvement is advisory only. D. The designation of private uses is general and advisory only and does not obligate the County to provide public facilities or utilities to any property or to include any property in any particular zoning district in accordance with the Plan; nor does the Plan prevent the County from including any property in any particular zoning district which is not in accordance with the Plan. E. The Plan is not intended to be a. Zoning Ordinance, but is intended to be a comprehensive g4idbline for the Zoning Ordinance and amendments thereto. The Board of Supervisors is not obligated -to follow this Plan in their regular decisions to amend the Zoning Ordinance and likewise, the Plan should not be relied upon as the only justification for, or against; zoning applications. F. The Planning Commission should begin a review of this Plan in 1979, or sooner, to provide the Board with recommenda- tions thereon within three years of the effective date of this resolution but the Plan shall be considered amendable at any time. G. The Board adopts the following changes and additions to the policies proposed in the Chesterfield General Plan 2000; r -proposed September, 1976. Amend--Policy-In to read -as follows: "'In* those areas where there' 'are' br inay be' 'seve'ral' rezoniri.'-applications'''to' the residential• or Industrial' cl•as'sif•ication, area=wide rezoning should' be utiliiz'ed' when possible"' . Amend Policy 1 p to read as follows: "Assist groups of property owner's'to formulate programs toward rehabilitation or consoliaa purpose". r properties vidual small Policy Iu which reads as follows: "Re be made with an understanding that a�3 ibly assist in es' for the same ng decisions should es of development cause direct and indirect costs and benefits to accrue within the County". Costs and benefits accrue to the economic, social, environmental and fiscal balance or the Countv. Information should be available which makes explicit, to the extent feasible inherent social, economic, fiscal and environmental effects of the proposed developments. Amend Policy 2g to read as follows: "Perform a study of the costs and benefits of this housing type as a low to moderate income housing alternative. In the interim encourage the location of mobile homes in mobile home parks or subdivisions and perm1t less 'individually__ permitted "mobile homes". This allows the impacts of the mo i e. ome to be ame iorated, can encourage low to moderate income housing in the private sechbr, and allows adequate opportunities for site and service planning. Delete Policy 4d. Intent of this policy was covered in the addition of Policy lu. Amend Policy 5c by deleting the comma and the words "Powhite Parkway" which follows the words "Interstate 85/95." Delete Policy 6m as per Board decision that construction of sidewalks not be required of subdividers. Add Policy 7i which reads as follows: "Develop a plan for hasing improvements to phblic water and sewer systems;_ phases should conform to five year intervals.' The phasing plan should a related to the General Plan 2000 and the financial capability of the systems. Based upon the phasing plan for public water and sewer systems, policies regarding dry sewers and central well systems can be developed. Add Policy 7j which reads as follows: "Study the State's standards for central well systems, encourage-reduction of thesestandards if appropriate, and determine an economical) easi a plan for central well systems". The central well system standards may be restrictive to the point of affecting the economic feasiblity of this public water service alternative Add Policy 8c which reads as follows: "Encourage the develop- ment of a farmers' market in the County". Add Policy 8d which reads as follows: "Review recommenda- tion and formulate policy on tax mechanisms and incentives which affect agriculture and forest production." The Commonwealth of Virginia and the Federal government have several programs for agriculture and forest production. As new programs emerge, local impacts should be assessed and policies adopted. Delete Policy 99 in its entirety and replace with the Delete Policy 9e. Policy 9b's explanation section should be expanded to include a sentence at the end as follows: Particular flood plains to be examined include the James River flood plain west of Richmond and the Appomattox River flood plain from Hopewell to Brasfield Dam. Amend Policy 9r by deleting the words "should be identified" after the word "wells". AND FURTHER RESOLVES, to note its appreciation to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for its financial assistance in the preparation of this Plan. sf . t1 5.. ` � � c � iS a °(.�,, , ,, ... � ,..�► rrj i F 71._. L, v, � � A<, a f- y c o .i..,aa„� '' V Toth'"i lbsterfield County Bo Mrd of Supo,rvis,,)rs: C?lestterf if 1a County 'ils .ud.at;eace for a Iong tithe. The historic Woods Church, build in 1707, stands as a reminder to this county's historic past. Change, no doubt, must come to this area, but the profound and permanei t effects which would be broug#t about be the acceptance of the Chesterfield County Plan, 2000, would alter in a brief 25 years this historic and scenic region beyond recognition br hose who have lived in it, and who are now livii here. A projected population of some 440,000 and the accompanying developipent of massive transportation systems, huge sewer complexes and all the orange an( purple plastic palaces which will follow such growth would end for all time the scenic and historic qualities of the Chesterfihld County that' we now know, We are told that we need "development" and "growth'; No one oppossas either "growth" or "developrpent", but many do profoundly stand against unchecked residential, commercial and industrial development. What the plan means by these terms is quite clear. it means industrial, comiierckal and" refdential growth. Despite some nice -sounding tributes to the environment, the Chester- field County rlan,2000 considers that the const ruction of a few bike";paths and neatly manacured parks satisfies the environmental requirements of the pla In fact, the Plan is of course a self-fulfilling prophecy. id?cx Projection in fact means promotion. "Planning" in fact means encouragement. Now who is to pay for this plan? We, t�izens of Chesterfield County,are being asked to pay for a project which that I know wantd: ?We are now faced with rapidly rising water and sewer rates, with a sewage system much in debt. Now we are askedid to pay for more. We are told that growth pays for itself. This is sheer nonesense, according to the Plan itself, the ability of growth to pay for itself decreasbs as the populationincreases. We are told that we need more jobs. let are we to trade a few months of building a McDonald's hamburger stand for the quality of the envioronmcnt for ourselves, our children ,and their children? My major concern is how this plan affects the quality of the' environment. There is no doubt at all ti►hat if this plan is implemented, the scenic_; value of our are will be forever destroyed. Noise, air and water pollution are recognized as problems, but with growth (industrial -commercial) as the main stress, such problems are quickly and shallowldealt witti. Two areas ar, of particular concern to me. The Appomattox River Tto b scenic on July 1st) and %kax Swift Creek. Swift creek and its tributaries from Pochontas Park to Colonial heights is indeed a scenic creek. The projected I-95 highway, and accompanying ddvelopments (as the federal highway study show, would profoundly alter -even destroy the scenic qualities of the Swif Creek system. Frank's Branck would be partially re -channeled. Swift Creek would soon become another "low -place" for the building of sewage systems to accomo di growing commercial and industrial sites. For those who wish to witness the death of a stream, xi-mply I urge you to walk down portions of Old Town Creek, from Branders Bridge Road in Colonial Heights to Nichols Store. That will be the fate of Swift Creek, and others. To rechannel a stream is to=1 I it. It is that simple. More pressing still is the issue of the xppuomattox. We all know the attitude of this board toward 1d&riStxingx getting it; declared a scenic river, this year. This Board (alone, as it turned out) was unimously against supporting Scenic River Designation for the Appomattox. Why? I have no doubt that such designation seemed as an irksome and .interfering stumbling block in the minds of the Supervisors to the future commercial, residential and industrial development of the Appomattox RiverBasin (Merlin Of Neil, after all Hi thq president of the Appomattox Basin Industrial Development Corporation). tat do you expect??? r, One project suggested in the Chesterfield County Plan, 2000, is particularly objectionable. That is the plan for a large sewer line to extend down the river from about Matoaca to Petersburg. Anyone with an ounce of envirofimenta1 sense cquld see that this would destfty the scenic quality of the river. - - - - t • 1.1i� `` ��✓K tr1 r �i G1ri Chesterfield county has some prime farm land. The County and state should be promoting more farming, rather than accepting a plan which will surely lead t o the breaTmp of more farms for- developments -commerical, r esidential industrial. With the oxisting world-wide food crisis, surely it is in the best lon4_ range interest of all Chesterfield County, Virginia and American citizens t o encourage, not discourage farming in areas where it can be productive. In conclusion, I have some basic suggestions. No matter what happens hese tonight, ami ex*c:kx this play must be accepted -or rejected on a broader basis than that of this, or any series of subsequent public hearings. I ask, and urgen tly that. 10' The Board secure documented evidence in the form of signed petitions by a majority of resident of this County thatthey approve of the Chesterfield County Plan, 2000 as it now stands. In lieu of such a petion theplan is obviously not aoomp4mble to the majority of citiizens it so deeply affects. C(<_. '11 a Am Cc 2. That the plan is too impopeaz t to passed on by pp�e who do mt reptesent the continued best interests of the people of this do:_irity. That the plan be submitted for vote in a g-eneralreferandum at the earliest possible time. That it not be accepted by this board until the peop16 have accepted or r e jected the plan on this basis ask that this letter be made part of the pu and r G►� ✓` /Board of Supervi s Hearing, Jane 20, 1977 Chesterfield General Plan 2000 Planning Commission Hearing, May 3, 1977 Chesterfield Jurisdictional Council, League of Woman Voters of Richmond Metro -Area Statement by: Dorothy Armstrong, Chairman Chesterfield Jurisdictional Council Resolution of land use problems and development of land use policies will require all the attention we can motivate if we are to adequately manage our land resources for the benefit of present and future generations. We have reached a zenith in land speculation and exploitation for profit which is determining the direction of land use to an alarming degree. "Land has become a negotiable commodity, tossed carelessly into the game of speculation for profit. Once in the market, not only its use but its very existence is subordinated to the highest bidder and shortest -term gain." (A Plan for Urban Growth - Newsletter, American Institute of Architects, January, 1972, Special Issue.) We commend the Chesterfield County Planning Department and the Planning Consultant for a major "first effort" in the compilation of data and projection of concepts and philosophies toward more comprehensive land use planning for the benefit of the people who choose to live in Chesterfield County. Any critical oomnent which follows is not intended to demean any portion of this positive approach to land use planning. May we first share three general concerns with you? We are concerned about the implementation of the concepts in Plan 2000 in view of the inability of the governing body to implement the 1972 General Plan for 1995. It has also been observed that the health, safety, and welfare portions of the planning act have not always been considerations in making zoning and planning decisions. Will the adoption of Plan 2000 have more impact upon land use decisions than the adoption of Plan -1995? Secondly, we are concerned about the decision to implement the plan without a land use map. We understand the constraints inherent in the adoption of a map, but we are more concerned about the citizen's ability to "get a handle on" land use as it affects property and the community. In view of the intense road development and massive impact of other development, we believe the citizen should have access to a visual aid which is readily understood. At this very moment, developers are building homes in areas subject to major impact of massive highway construction. And third, we are- concerned--about-the--lack-of emphasis on the development and planning for coatmunities. We note that community planning is one of four areas of composite planning. We will recommend that Cormunity Planning be elevated to "Goal" level later in this statement. The LWV Council members elected to assign four sub-oomnittees to "Goal" issues for study and recommendations. Their reports and recommendations are as follows: I. Residential and Commercial ( Goals 2 and 3) Residential (1) Land use decisions .should be supportive to a sense of community. (2) More attention should be given to better design for residential streets, intersections, and access roads. (3) There should be a more positive approach to protection of trees and spatial characteristics of neighborhood. (4) Adequate utilities and public services, including neighborhood parks, etc. should be provided for the older communities as well as the newly developed communities. (5) "Respect" for residential areas should be a part of the planning process. M A Page 2. (6) Provision of adequate buffer areas to shield residential areas from undue noise and traffic generating segments of community. (7) Planning is necessary for convenience commercial and professional clusters to provide for self-sufficiency of residential neighborhood. Commercial (1) Plan for small business clusters to serve communities rather than crowded corridors and huge shopping centers. �2� Traffic planning for large commercial areas is woefully inadequate. 3 A concerted planning effort should be made to revitalize declining commercial strips such as Route 1301. (4) Adequate buffering of commercial areas should be planned if there has not been a planned mix of compatible development of the land. (5) The feasibility of economic impact planning for healthy retention of existing businesses should be explored. (6) There is a need for a land use policy in regard to abandoned structures and derelict buildings. II. Public Services and Facilities ( Goal 6) It is noteworthy that the Plan 2000 makes frequent references to public recreational planning. Developers of large land areas should have a greater role in providing recreational areas. It should further be mandated that adequate open space and recreational areas be provided for larger apartment and townhouse complexes, and for mobile home communitie s. Suggestions for other recreational services includes public swimning pools (when swimming pool is constructed at Pocahontas State Park, it will be the only public swimming pool in the county), additional parks along the James River and other waterfront areas, lighting -of public tennis--oourts, and additional -public -golf -courses -- which provide open space as well as recreational activity. Although there is no documented shortage of health care facilities at the present time, the Planning Department should be prepared to advise about area in which facilities may be needed to meet future health needs. 'When planning for public facilities, size, mass, and traffic generation should be definite considerations. It is disturbing to note that the typical school size for planning elementary schools is 900 students (K through 6), and that an elementary school of this size is considered compatible with residential development. Traffic generation alone becomes and incompatible feature. We also seriously question the merits of a large elementary-school population in terms of the ultimate welfare and education of small children. Dight it not be better to plan for a 500 -pupil elementary school in a developing area which will also need a center for com+nunity activities and a community playground which could be provided by the same facility? In planning for public facilities, we strongly recommend that criteria be developed for the siting and protection of facility from adverse traffic conditions and incompatible zoning. We suggest the following guidelines for considerations (1) Placement in community in accordance with service to be provided.. (2) Site should provide easy access and adequate parking. 3 Site planning should include provision for outdoor activities and landscaping plans. (4) Zoning policies should be developed to protect public - facilities from adverse traffic conditions and incompatible zoning. (Applicable zoning measures should also apply to historical landmarks.) Page 3. The examples which would have benefitted from the application of the above criteria during the planning process are too numerous to mention. However, we would have to consider the courthouse complex as one of the best examples of poor planning for a public facility. III. Environmental ( Goal 9 ) We were very pleased with the comprehensive nature of the policy statements included in the enviroYmental goal. We are further pleased �, fG� to note that you may now remove the p of i ey item which calls for the T'�elorl determination of the advisability of designating the Appomattox as a Scenic River. The 19?? General Assembly has conveniently provided a Spositive answer. Although we enthusiastically support the adoption of all the policy statements except for the above item, we would enjoy knowing the answers to the foll=ing questions: With an enforceable and updated erosion and siltation ordinance, why is the new LaPrade Library faced with a very serious erosion problem? What enviromental impact assessments will you recommend for massive industrial, highway, and comnercial installations? Mat economic assessment tools are available to determine economic feasibility of certain types of business and oo=ercial developments? What should be the time frame for development after zoning is granted for commercial development? IV, Transportation ( Goal 5) Statement of goal: A transportation system providing the best possible service at a reasonable cost and with minimum impacts on the enviroment. Given the oircumstances in which we find ourselves, it is impossible for us to think of a transportation system providing the best oss_ibllee service at a reasonable cost and with minimum impacts on a en o=ent, ehn`community eve opment- as precede roa ulding ands ands in the right of way deemed essential for massive arteries for transporting the ever growing car and people population. And further, those of us who travel on Highway 1301, Forest Hill Avenue, Belt Boulevard, Highway 60, etc. are well aware of the non -planning for arterial ways in the past which has led to over -zoning, incompatible zoning, and impossible traffic situations. The LIM has reviewed and commented upon the Plan for the Development of -Highway 60; now an addendum paper to the Plan 2000, and we again urge the immediaoy of - the- adoption of-- the- plan formore--orderl-y—development-of Highway-60— before we are caught up in the same lack of planning for Highway 360 and other State arterial ways. The need for criteria or guidelines for establishing roadway patterns seems to us to be overwhelming. We realize that the sporadic availability of State and Federal funding makes such planning very complex, however, we believe that there are certain principles which could be adopted which would reflect a philosophy of road way planning in the county. Let us first consider an important principle of the Federal concept in establishing Interstate highways. Since the Interstates are supported by taxes from all citizens in the United States, it is to be expected that their design would be equally beneficial to all citizens from any State in the United States; therefore, their design would have as its primary objective the routing which accommodates the long distance traveller rather than a local government accommodation to facilitate - development. Facilitating internal development is the responsibility of local and State governnents in roadway design,. Should we not first determine what a road way is to do for us? Should a major arterial way be cluttered with commercial strip zoning Page 4, �W *40 providing an obstacle course for those attempting to comminute from home to work or from city to city. Should narrow streets and roads designed for residential use only be turned into major arterial ways and short cuts because of the clutter on our four lane State highways? Beceuse there has been no criteria and little long range planning, we find ourselves in the critical position of reacting to what has happened and the only alternatives are inadequate and undesirable. Our network of road ways has been determined to a large extent by developers. Many dangerous road and street situations are in existence which endanger life and property of road users because of incongruent intersections and lack of attention to comprehensive road design. Since oormunities have not had a participating role in wimaunity planning, residents are unaware of what is happening until it has happened. We strongly recommend that the governmental structure of the county allow for citizens to become involved in the planning as well as the "reaction" process. In depth follow-up to the Plan 2000 should be mandatory in terns of energy considerations. It is known by reliable sources in and out of government that an energy shortage is a part of the future of this country. With this knowledge, it would seem that we are expending more time and energy debating when it will happen than what we are going to do about it. The time is now to explore all alternatives in the area of transportation. Mass transit and Park and Ride facilities are only a part of the solution. Other considerations and recommendations are as follrnvs: 1. Planned Unit Development. More emphasis should be placed on the use of planned`4-DeveTopmen as a mora creative planning techni4us, Plan 2000 does not deal with the weaknesses inherent in undue dependency upon zoning and subdivision ordinances as regulators in land use planning. Because fragmented and incidental development decisions created problems that became more intense within rapidly urbanizing developments,- governments responded with standardization processes and guides for orderly development. The resulting zsumlMd" zoning ordinances create problems in planning since they do not deter strip -zoning nor - do they stop incompatible zoning. Only through the assessment of the total community unit can creative planning take place for the best interests of the inhabitants. We, therefore, recommend increased use of the Planned Unit Development technique in community planning and development. 2. Community Planning. The "growth unit" should be the community and growth should-l`e`-CesgneEnot as individual buildings and projects, but as human communities with the full range of physical facilities and human services that ensure -a life of qualityO We therefore -recommend that" Cotnunity Planning be - raised to the "Goal" level in Plan 2000 (becomes Goal 10). The policy statements should be community oriented supporting the community concept of planning and including all the desirable elements and components supportive to family life. Development plans should be created for small communities and mechanisms for implementation should be an accompanying necessity. We should further explore the possibilities and scope of citizen participation in the design and goveranoe of neighborhoods and communities. Let us attempt to ameliorate urban sprawl and raise the status of the eor,:munity in suburbia. 3. Growth Poli v. The late T. Edward Temple stated in 1974, "I have often remarke�iaf we Tuve done planning backwards in this country. Planning just does not happen uhtil we really begin to identify the problem. We have planned traditionally to respond in a short-term manner and often eith an incredible bias which says growth is progress. Thus, we have reasoned that growth should be pursued at all costs...in too many cases these costs have been too high._"_ The LAV also believes the costs are too high and calls for a public commitment to a concept of controlled angor directed growth. Unlimited growth has become a threa�o We_we eiFg of- We- people to the point that local government decisions for no -growth or limited growth are increasing in the State of Virginia and in other localities in the United States. People are saying we M M Page 5. should stop our expensive halter skelter development for a time so that we might take stock of how we want to live and how we want America to grow. We do not doubt the reality of growth. It is a question of the kind of growth, when, where, and how much. Although the plan speaks to growth management tools (Appendix II, A-4), because of significant potential for abuse and possible illegality in the' State of Virginia, the Plan 2000 makes no commitment to use of any of the tools for growth management. Although we realize that desirable implementation techniques of growth management must be explored in depth and would not be available as a part of the Plan, we recommend that a philosophy of controlled and/or directed growth be a part of the Comprehensive Plan for land use for the Year 2000. 4. �Ener�gy, Policy, In view of the need for long range planning to provide for sel�ific enoy in an energy -short future, the UMV recommends the development of an Energy Policy which will result in the exploration of transportation alternatives, planning for better community organization for self-sufficiency, education of citizens to the need and methods for energy conservation, and conservation of prime agricultural land for food production purposes. The water shortages in California and in the Northwest and the record setting cold temperatures of the winter just past should alert us to the need to start "banking" our alternatives. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Limitations In theory, a well -conceived comprehensive plan should provide a sound basis upon which a local government can make intelligent decisions on current land use and future development plans. Many people confuse adoption of a comprehensive plan with the reality of effective land use control. In reality, -the plan has no legal effect on existing land uses since it is no more than a philosophical guide to be used in making future land use decisions. 8auquier County spent years developing one of the most comprehensive plans in -the State of Virginia and when it was finally adopted, everyone breathed a great sigh of relief believing that they had a plan and that their land use problems would end. However, without implementation by selective rezoning and carefully drawn ordinances, the adoption of a comprehensive plan has little impact upon undesirable land use trends and land use exploitation. There is also the danger of premature rezonings before the requirement for such neer zoning is in .existence. It must also be recognized that many zoning ordinances, as presently drawn, permit the unplanned spread of incompatible uses ( particularly those of a residential and commercial nature) into the agricultural and open space areas. The zoning ordinance has not proven to be an effective tool in protecting the existing character of such areas. Gentlemen, if Plana 2000 is to make a difference, the hard decisions are yet to come. The work has really just begun. CHESTERFIELD GENERAV PLAN PROPOSED SEP-rEMER , 1976 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND MARCOU , O' LEA RY AND ASSOCIATES , CONSULTANTS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Providing a full copy of the Proposed General Plan,2000 for each person who might be interested would be very costly. Therefore, four copies of the full Plan have been placed in each of the County's li- braries and at the County's Planning Department. These copies may be checked out for a limited period of time. The background information, which is omitted in this Extract of the full Plan, is useful to individuals wishing to determine the basis for issues and policies that are found in this Extract, as well as for those individuals wishing a better understanding of the County. On the following 2 pages is the Table of Contents of the complete Proposed General P1an,2000; its purpose is two -fold. First, it identifies (with asterisks) those sections, or parts of sections, which are included in this Extract and, second, it gives the reader some idea of the information which can be found in a full copy of the Proposed General Plan,2000. Extracts,are available at no cost from the County Planning De- partment. Questions concerning the contents of this Extract or of the proposed Plan should be directed to: Mr. James P. Zook, Principal Planner, Planning Department, Chesterfield County, Chesterfield, VA 23832. Telephone number: 748-1236 Citizen input during the public meetings and hearings held on the Proposed General Plan,2000 will shape the Plan so that it better reflects the needs and desires of the citizens of Chesterfield County. With citizen involvement, the Plan, as adopted by the Board of Super- visors, will be a more viable guide for the County's future develop- ment. Michael C. Ritz, Director of Planning. CHAPTER V PUBLIC FACILITIES AND UTILITIES Parks and Open Spaces On April 11, 1974, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Park and Open Spaces Plan. See Map V-A. Since then, the County has implemented a significant park construction program. In 1975, Rockwood Park, the County's first large community park, was opened. In 1976, four neighborhood parks (Scoff, Ettrick, Har- rowgate and -latoaca) opened. The County is currently purchasing and planning for construction of Enon Perk. Future parks are also proposed for the Courthouse and 'lidlothian areas. A Park system for Chesterfield was identified in the Park and Open Spaces Plan. Four park types were established, sub -neigh- borhood, neighborhood, community and regional and/or state, Sub - neighborhood parks are small, spacial purpose parks for either pre-school children or elderly/retired and arc cost often in housing areas where these people are concentrated. These parks are important because they provide certain necial facilities; however they are least direct benefit to the general public, they should either be privately provided or, if provided by the public, as part of a larger park. Neighborhood parks comprise boti active and passive facilities, close in service area to an elementary school, 10+ acres in size, and centrally located in residential areas. Some neighbor- hood type facilities (swimming pools, tennis courts, community buildings) are often provided by private recreation associations while others (baseball, softball and football) are usually pub- licly provided, especially if they are lighted for night use. Community parks oan be general and/or special purpose, vary in size according to function but usually large, need sites close to arterial streets and are normally provided by local government. Regional and state parks serve areas larger than a single com- munity, are normally provided by several local or a state gover- nment, and developed around some natural resource (lake or river) and are sometimes single special purpose. Given recent progress of the County's park construction program, a review of the park needs adopted in 1074 in appropriate. Using the standards adopted by the Board at that time, the following needs can be identified for the next twenty years: V-1 Present Needs 1. There will continue to be a need for lighted tennis courts in several areas of the County. 2. Only two or three more lighted softball diamonds are needed . now. 3. Several more lighted and unlighted little league diamonds are needed in the built up areas of the County. 4. Two or three more lighted and several more unlighted quarter- back league football, fields are needed. 5. Some outdoor basketball courts at selected schools,and Rock- wood Park should be lighted. 6. At least two more community parks like Rockwood and Enon are now needed -one should be located on the Appomattox River above the Brasfield Dam and another one on the upper James River. Both of these parks should permit public access to the water. Projected Park Needs n of 1. willAfter the need aounty communityhpark forr eachofurther0inncrreaseeCounty of 25,000 will people. 2. If public use of indoor public school facilities continues, the County, in addition to any new schools constructed, may need to construct a large community building for indoor volley- ball, basketball, handball and paddleball. 3. Baseball, softball, tennis, and football facilities will need to be provided as and where the County's population grows. 4. The State should be continually encouraged to implement their plan for new parks in the County. 5. A public nature -education center/area may he needed within the next five to ten years, perhaps in conjunction with the commercial forest industry and state parks. 6. Public camping facilities at Pocahontas State Park should be enlarged. 7. One of the County's high school's tracks should be lighted within the next five to ten years, if the increased interest and activity in this sport continue. 8. A high school or community football field may need to be lighted and provided with a seating capacity of 10,000 people for high school games needing a large, neutral field. This facility also could include the track mentioned above. The Recreational Department is responsible for maintenance and operation of all County parks and the public recreation program. The Department also maintains and improves some of the public school ball fields. The Planning Department is presently respon- sible for the location andsite planning for new parks and pre- paration of construction plans and specifications. Contract bid opening is handled by the Department of General Services, while contract supervision is done by the Recreation Department. The 1974-75 expenditures for Recreation (capital and operating) �-rere $900,000. Available sources of non -County funding are the State V-2 Commission of Outdoor Recreation, U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recrea- tion, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Vir- ginia Department of Highways and Transportation (bikeways and park access roads, only). Several years ago a regional park authority was proposed in the Richmond area, even though Chesterfield vo- ters supported the proposal, it failed. It is not now considered feasible to revise it. See Appendix Tables V-A, V -B, and V -C for current County park standards. In late 1975, the Planning Department prepared a Bikeway Planning Report. Although there are presently bikeways at Pocahontas and Rockwood Park only, there may be further citizen interest there- in in the near future. The objectives and procedures suggested in the Bikeway Report should be followed for bikeway development. See Appendicies V -D, V -E, and V -F. Anticipated short range (FY - 76 - FY81) park expendutures appear in Appendix V -G. Fire Stations The Fire Station and Service District Location Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August �, 1973. See Map V -B, Al- though to date, none of the recommended new station sites have been built upon, the Robious site is to be contributed by an a- partment development and the Swift Creek site is to be dedica- ted by the Brandermill development. Negotations are in progress for the Dutch Cap and Buford sites. Additionally, the Phillips station (not shown on the 1973 plan) is under construction on River Road between its intersection of Hickory Road and ;lash Road. This station's development has caused the County to re- place the Union Branch site with the Phillips station. The 1973 fire station sites are shoran on the General Plan Clap and are still considered appropriate; therefore, the ohjectives and tentative site locations identified in the Fire Station and Service District Location Plan should continue to he used to guide Countydecision-making. It should be emphasized that the top priority station, Ruford, remains unbuilt and unsited. This priority needs attention. The projected new fire station program at this time is as follows: PHASE I (FY 76 -FY 31) Buford Dutch Gap R o b i o u s PHASE I I (FY 32 -FY 27) Centralia Courthouse Five Forks Reams South Chester Srri f t Creek V-3 PHASE III (FY '3 -FY 2000) Greensuood Iia 11 s koro Salisbury Skinquarter 6linterpock Standards In determining the locations of new fire station sites, the fol- lowing criteria were used: (1) Changes in areas where there is a possibility of continued or newly created congested traffic conditions. (2) The location of future development which will not only create congested traffic conditions, but /ill mean the close Proximity of large numbers of human lives. (3) Changes in traffic patterns caused by new thoroughfares. (4) Changes in trends in the location of commercial areas. (5) Growth and trends in residential areas. (6) Growth and trends in high intensity areas. (7) Changes in building heights for both offices and apartment buildings, type of construction, value of properties, etc. (0) The location of public buildings and other public facili- ties. (9) Growth of the County as determined by present and future land use control policies and regulations. (10) American Insurance Association distance standards. The present study, although analyzing a population impact over twice that of the 1973 Fire Station Plan, reconfirms that plan, because of the anticipated fire station requirements are dis- tance and area related, and not directly population related. Libraries The existing library facility situation is rapidly changing, For many years the County had only two libraries --Chester and' Hazen in Bon Air --both privately provided, but publicly main- tained and operated for the last several ,years. Since the 1974 bond issue for libraries, the County's library Board (respon- sible to and appointed by the Board of Supervisors for library operations) has opened two branch libraries --Bon Air (to re- place the small Hazen facility) and Ettrick-llatoaca. The La- Prade branch on Hicks Road near U. S. 360 and the central li- brary at the Courthouse are under construction and should be a- vailable for public use by 1977. See lap V -C. Two other branch libraries are now needed--'leadowdale Branch near Hopkins and Chippenham, and Midlothian Branch in or near the Village of Midlothian. Only two more sites can be identifi- ed as future needs --a►► Enon Branch, if t:he area continues to have residential growth, and the Brandermill Branch, after the population in that area grows substantially. Branches should be located on sites large enough for future facility expansion, with 20-25,000 people ti►ithin about 3 miles. The sites should have close access to the arterial road system and be located near, but not on, four lane clivided highways. V-4 Standards The following minimum standards were adopted Aril 27, 1970 by the State Library Board for buildings and egNippent: 1. Library facilities should be within ennY roach of every Ci- tizen. Maximum travel time to the library ; ould be 15 min- utes for urban areas and 39 minutes for rural areas. 2. All public library headquarters should have a oinimum of 2,000 sq. Ft. or 0.6 sq. ft. per persons living within a radius of 15 miles in the governmental arca served, which- ever is larger. 3. All library's headquarters should pro -in 50 seats per 30,000 population within a 15 "i l e ralins iii the government- al area served. When the La Prade and Central Libraries, opon, ill citizens will be within fifteen minutes driving time ou a Qu Vy Library. Tach of the Ettrick-gatoaca, La Prade and Ron 'ir ';ranches has 7,00 sq. ft. of public space and 500 sn, ft. , ,. ur,_ space. T52 CPS - ter Library will have 15,000 sq, ft, of p-! l is space and 5,000 sq. ft. of work space. This totals 41.,531 s ,. ft, of public space and 6,500 of wort: space for a total of 11,033 sq, ft. in all County Libraries. There will he 201 so 's in the Central i- Li- brary brary and 4050 seats in each branch for 4 Ln1 of 3GO-100 seats in County Libraries. Public Schools The County's public schools , are chc rc - i ; i 1 i Ly of the County School Board, w10 are appointed by the `t;i oul ElQctoral Board which is appointed by the Circuit: 'Court. Tho 107F-77 budget for schools is 540,352,OG4, of which $25,011,= is from the County General Fund. Schools are not originally i Pirt of the work pro- gram for this plan, but the Planning Staff's work with the School Administration for the $29,900,000 school !and issue, s+_hmi tted to Chesterfield's voters on June 1, 197' na hl & the Staff to, expand that bona issue background work i!lN COUNY SCh001 needs for 440,000 persons. Further planninn Inc—tion For sites will he needed. School Systems The elementary schools in the present ch -V s; ;tem are mostly Kindergarten through 6th grade schools. f i &-entary schools include K-5, 6 one has 6-9. Clover YU i , IV School !las grades 7-12, three high schools have grades V .l - Ad two have. 9-12. The recently passed bond issue 1 nails the n l system into a K-6, 7 9-12 system with special educ, %!P i Facilities availa- ble at all schools. V _. Appendix Table V -H represents the desinn capacities and enroll- ments of the County Schools. See clap VC. Table V-A indicates the additional capacity proposed by expen0 i tures of the >29,900, 000 bond issue. TABLE V-A Proposed Disposition of 129,900,?Ol 'school Bonds Date Item SWUnt Cost 1980-31 school year. Table V -C rcprese0 , t: : public school mels 1976-1977 Reams Elementary Addition ":) 600,000 1976-1977 Robious Elementary Addition 001 600,000 1976-1977 Supervision and Inspection* -0- 200,009 1977-1973 i•latoaca Hinh Addition -0- 500,000 1977-1973 'leadowbrook High Addition ?' l 11300,000 1977-1973 Carver Middle Addition •-0- 500,000 1977-1973 Beulah Elementary Addition 100 600,000 1977-1973 Salem Elementary Addition WO 600,000 1977-1973 Maintenance, Food Service ��`�, 10 in the, ho- rizon year. Students per grade Foo VIK, and Transportation )- 1,000,000 1973-1979 2 New Senior High Schools `', O . 1:x,000,000 1973-1979 Now Elementary School POO 2,500,000 1973-1979 Now diddle School 1.,'00 ';,000,001 WOO 29,900,000 Table V -B indicates the public school por-1 :.ion by grade through 1980-31 school year. Table V -C rcprese0 , t: : public school mels for a population of 440,000 persons after Or 029,909,000 fond issue schools are built. 1963, 3.33; in 1965, 3.29; in 1970, 3.14; and id 1"71, 2.97. School Population - Year 2009 The basis for school population for a O'?,`!" total County popu- opulation lationwas the Projections of the ilumb2r of Puuseholds and Fam- ilies, 1975-19_90 for_ the 11. S. Poi-)ul,atiu T '.� frc U. S. 11)ureau of Census. In 1940, etre average number- if , : Gns per household in the U. S. was 3.67, in 1950, 3.37; in !77 , 3 . 33; in 1963, 3.33; in 1965, 3.29; in 1970, 3.14; and id 1"71, 2.97. The On - sus Bureau projects that in 1190, this fi -ic, Pill be between 2.40 and 2.80, a decrease of 19.27 to ; . Tho quwh r of per- sons per household under 13 years of an. `:r i' ; will vary fr :i 0.60 to 0.09. In 1974, it was 0.56 , so 45 17-V Figure repre- sents a reduction in this age group of 2.' A 17.57 for tie V year period. The County had 234 pahlic Audonts leer population in 1P11-1970 peri ol . For a hnri znr wala - ti on, this figure is expected to Kcrr . 1 . i s t 207 to 137 per 1,000 for a public school population ��`�, 10 in the, ho- rizon year. Students per grade Foo VIK, "cnsUNCH on I,,, the same as for the period 1971 Wu!' E+ z WW AU aha w 00 � 1 cn100 1 00 zL►al O r- r -I H Ol axe a�z a°aH aHw O xr-I U I C7 UrnW ar-I w �z a4 In a 00 r- cp m N r- Ln d Ln 00 M lD V O 00 O O 00 r- V r N oho N r-4 N r- r - H O O Ol ON O rl O O N M d' l0 00 p r -I O r -I M w 00 H N N N N N N rn M M M M W M r M r-1 rn d' 01 Ol L.0 r- N O U) O 00 01 O O r -I kO 00 O M l0 N N N M M M r- I M M N 00 l0 W l0 -� p` p m - W M L p - ,-{ - r -I l0 d' r- lD N O 0 00 O N IT Ol r --I M cf' %D l0 Ln l0 r� Ol O -4 H H r1 N N Ln r- M N O N N N Ol M Ol r -I r`- 10 ON O r� N k0 r- O (n r - r M 'q' L.0 Ul 00 w 00 0) ri N M r -I r -i r -i r -i r -•I r -i .--I r1 N N N Ul N N O r� O cr r- I M O r- r- d' Ln O M dl M O r -I M LO h r- O r -f t` r -I M v' w 00 ri r -I r-1 r -I N N N N N N N rte• M M 00 Ln N r- N 00 Ln Ol 00 lqr M l0 Ol v' r -I Ul r -I r- Ln ct' 110 � 01 O M cr l0 h Ol r-{ r -i ?-I r -r N N N N N N N - —r - r, - l0 Ln . 01 M l0 00 N m t1' A Ul ON 61 rl Ol co l0 r- Ol H N N 00 cP l0 00 ON r -I r -I r -I r -I N N N N N N N M Ln r -I M l0 r- M N Ol L9 -P LO Ln M N r -I r� r --i Ol d' r -I Ol 0 lD 00' Ol r -I r -I M 00 V l0 00 al r- I r -I N N rV N N N N f• ) C M M 00 N cP N -i - O - -H - (n l0 M LD N O LO to N 00 Ln M N r 00 O r -I r -I N 00 Ln l0 00 O N Ln r --I N Ln 00 N 00 Ln l0 r -•I O N r-4 O (n 00 IZfl N O rte• 01 0) 01 N r -I 00 cT Ol r -I r A r -I r -I c}' r --I 00 00 co 00 Ln O r -I N Ln co N V' N Ln co N O M M 00 V N O 00 00 00 H O O 00 IT Ln 1` Ol r1 r -r r --I r{ N N 00 M N H N Ol N H O O N M 00 N N 00 M ter r- N 00 Ln M r- 00 Ol 00 Ol r -I r� M Ln l0 03 p 'A •-q r -I r -I ri N N N N N M N Cl r- N al N l0 N Lf) 00 (N 110 N 00 N 0 tl' O Ol 0 N r- d' r r- 00 l0 r- m r -I N V' Lr) ri r -I r -i r -I r--1 N N N N N N M l0 r -i Ln N Ol M V' Ol 00 r1 r- N O rA ri N d 00 d' r -A Ol r- l0 \D 00 r -I V' r� M Ii' l0 00 Ol r -I r --I H r -i U') N N 00 Ln N N N N N LD N 00 O 'd' 00 x M 0) M 00 H 00 Ln Ol IT O C - Lo zr Ln 00 r -I M r*- N M Ln 1� 0o r I r I r1 r -I N N N N N N N Ol O ri. . Z r1 N M Vr Ln L.O l0 o'P r- 00 r- r- r- 00 00 H I I I I I I I r -I I 1 I I I O r --I N M V' Lr) O Ri L,0 r- 00 Ol O U) r- r- r- I- r- r- rte• ::j r- r- On W rn m rn m rn 0) of rn rn rn rn rn U) r -I H r -I r -I r1 r -I r -I r -I r I H r -I r -i ro z 0 >~ 41 0� m 0 4Ja N •ri -rJ •H a 4J m 0 0 f!a Ul r --I •ri 0 0 I~ U r -I rn a 1 1 �.o H r- 00 Ol m r -I r --I Even if these grade levels are not then kh none, d- the school ad- ministration wi 1 1 have the opportunity W -q , ministration grade levels to other schools, i.e.: move the ninth qry l 15A middle school. This assumption produces 4G,202 V -G stwd Vs, 11,333 7-3 stu- dents and 22,322 9-12 students for a 40,01 ropulatiun. TaLI e V -C, while representing in teras of non n :; no l aci- the needed faci- 1ities for 440,000 Moos not represent 45, i:n — lities i nl c addition to existing schools (provided at loner par n;a ''A costs), con- plete school replacements or major rens. vc L in n (provided at; high to maJerate costs). A more detail:! pW, includion eval- uation of existing facil i ties and the it p K Ai Irl 1 i fe expect- ancies, cost of major renovations, more ; ;:ac:!: population ana- lysis, analysis of potential changes in "tok law or County po- licy (required attendance, mandatory pr•oqr "n, summer sessions, etc.) is needed. TAVLE. VC PROJECTED SCHOOL FAC1!.117 -1 U Putlic .:0n, l nipa-A:lditional Capacity School Capacity after 1973 -city •�r and Schools for Type, 1979 _School Year 440,090 _P�.__..`& '.inn 440,009 Population Elementary 10,39E 40 20,31 3 30 (K - G) 1liddl e 3,200 15 7633 !i High (9-12) 11?,5019 ':-_'' - .112822 V TOTAL 3 3 , 0 65 12, ^'^,303 43 NOTES: 1 Includes planned capacity of 29,901,9"" ' :r I issue of 1976. 2 Assumes additional capacity will he r vi! entirely by new schools - a Masis for evaluation, 5n HA realistic. Site Consideration For future School site selection the f 11!�:i ! luiJelincs Should considered: 1. The elementary schools ori 1 1 havp a 'i n ,r, ten through Grad, 6; middle schools, Grade 7 ani Q a V-4 schools, Grade through Grade 12. 2. (Minimum site standards for now schook . ill include e 13 acres for elementary schools, 30-35 acres f 1W schools, an.1 45-50 for high schools. 3. Typical schools sizes will L� ?)j P"entary gchoul ; 1,200 student middle schools, and 1. 0 n high schools. 4. School sites should be identified and purchased prior to con- struction and development of adjacent property, so that the private sector can anticipate and plan around these sites. 5. School sites should be large enough to provide space for park type facilities-ballfields, tennis courts and even pic- nic facilities in some cases. 6. Because only elementary schools can be considered neighbor- hood facilities; it is suggested that only these schools be located within subdivisions and then only on streets in ac- cessible areas. 7. High schools and middle schools should be located on arter- ials or major collectors, but not four lane divided facili- ties such as US 60 and US 360. Public Sanitary Sewer System The County's public sanitary sewer systeri is a public utility under the direction and responsibility of the "oard of Super- visors. In 1972,the County received a Coriprehensive County -wide Sanitary Sewer Study prepared by the consulting firms of R. Stuart Royer and Associates and J. K. Timmons and Associates. This study has been used as the County's plan for public sewers since then, except where changes were necessitated by further engineering refinements or State and Federal requirements. The Study continues to remain the County's sanitary sewer plan. 'lap V -D represents the system limits existing, for 1921, and for 440,000 people, if new development predor,iinately uses public sewer. The Comprehensive Sewerage Plan continues to reflect a good piping plan and, with a related construction program, can be a very useful Mechanism for public policy making. With the use of U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) funds, the County is now studying the costs and other characteristics of existing subdivisions without sewers. The County should soon be able to identify its future costs in this area. Solid Waste System Solid waste represents a problem of two kinds - collection and disposal. For many years the County has operated two sanitary landfills. The Bon Air landfill is on the State Girls' School property off Bon Air Road. Until 1974, the County operated its other landfill near Fort Darling - a part of tree Richmond Bat- tlefield Park System. See Hap V -C. Before that landfill's capa- city was reached, the County purchased a 50 acre site of Route 10 not far from Carver diddle School, now referred to as the Chester Landfill. The Fort Darling site i•,,as given to tiie U. S. Park Service -to add to the Fart Darling site. resides the two public sanitary landfills, there are several industrial land- fills and contractors spoils sites in the County. V-. The County picks ai trash once a month fry -,i all County resi- dences. County residents and businesses �'a7-00�tract with price vate collection services to pick UPtl, ir. - 'zany residents also us�� �:'�-">e services for or twice a creel,. privately tel y collected trash. �'ecause most trash and garbage � � ! � to County landfills, the 0u t ` s , rinary solid for delivery is in maintaininj pri of Crating the land waste responsibility fills. Growing solid waste problems in have C.r iva ;actor which have as recently needed public suppoon r�riv,t�( I{� 1'rr'.' ''lau(a�id col struc-"- doned or illegally standing V ,r;.r i ,� � ; contractual tion waste. The former was solved f, „ ".s. ;tore them on agreement with company to col riod,'an ! �:� err removal from .hr, County owned land for a short pe Count to scrap metal processors. Tho t:c�`�r,�-r'�r�;i•ion waste prob- y metal Ipr e the Cot►rrI I :. _.vrrecting. some 1 ern is presently ' zoning violations where_ no complaints !%eer, received and when the disposal site is safe anti saniWr';'. This study does not include a. plan for' ' `"` „sI'ni tary orbilessLrial landfills, construction spoils sites an I ij sources in this staging areas, because °f lack of authorized thy' ha "hard of Supervisors effort. Such a. plan was in May, 1976 and is currently being I -r-. pnr"'-- !. Public Vater System The County's public water system sere`:' a;.r; r', percent of the present County population. Presunt :;ources of public ,rater es - include reservoirs at Falling Creek, St; i f r. Wreck and Lake Cthe tete din on the Appomattox River. The C,,&Ly !,u i l `' �`nr�or► opera din water treatment plants at the .first t,'.:; p Ila ter Authority built and f erates several the nr,_rnicLaky i p1l ifti esrlwhoeareenem- Plant. The County is one of 9.7 million gal - Au of the Authority. The County uscd 7. ° to Ions per day in 1974-75. The present `'(� ultimate t i �aandc3�DC1 Swift in MGD of these plants are: Fal1inn 2; ,�,�,,i 1.x'0+. Chesterfield Creek, 10 and 12; and Appomattox, available h from the Ap- presently has 10 MGD treatment capacial.lie aill systems in the pomattox plant. There are also two 4 for the .rater users in County, which are operated by the Cry„ +.anl, the two subdivisions Physic Fill and rvigvt 'yaks. 11"he Department of General Services . r��'r"�, 4 the"s the landfills and administers the County's pica:-u.p V-9 The County's water system is operated as a public utility under the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors. This plan .does not include a water system plan, for it is beyond the work pro- gram, but Map NE indicates the limits of the existing, 1931 and ultimate population (440,000) water system if most new de- velopment uses public water. A water system plan and related improvements program would be of considerable aid to the County. The Board of Supervisors authorized a county gide water plan June 9, 1976. Also, through the use of Federal Community Deve- lopment funds, the County has many existing subdivisions now without County water being studied for future needs. Both plans should be of significant help to guiding future public water development. A related issue to public water is whether or not individual wells or central well systems should be used in sub- divisions if County water is not available at time of develop- ment. In 1974 the State Health Department raised its central well system standards so high that central well systems are not now feasible in the County. The County should enter into discussions with the State to revise these standards in order to encourage central well systems. When central well systems are installed, the County can very easily connect to a central well system when public water is extended to the area of the subdivision. Urban Run -Off and Drainage The County's engineering department administers the portions of the urban development process. The County has U. S. Corps of cn gineers Flood Plan Studies on most major creeks and rivers and the County is a Federal Flood Insurance community. The Corps studies are probably short range with respect to potential flood elevations and thus should be re-evaluatd to assure adequate protection. With respect to small area drainaoe planning, the County has completer.) a drainage plan for the U. S. 60, Huguenot, Robious area and is in the midst of similar studies in the Beulah- Dalebrook and Enon areas. The pollution impact on non -point drainage is being evaluated by the Richwond--Crater consortium in the "200" study being done on the portion of the James River Fa - sin in which Chesterfield lies. Recommendations from this plan may be of significant impact on urban development depending on U. S. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) and State Water Control Board (SUBC) policies. Pap V -F identifies the var- ious drainage areas of the County. V-10 DRAFT VI CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL PLAN 2000 Proposed Goals and Policies This section contains proposals for County goals and policies relating to land use and development. After review and comment by the people of the County, these goals and policies will be adopted by the Board of Supervisors and will guide the County's executive agencies in carrying out their programs. The organization of this section sets forth proposed goals, and then defines policies to implement these goals. Goal 1. Continuing development of the County in a manner which is sound and attractive, and which will result in the least possible adverse environment and fiscal impact. Policy la. Maintain a continous planning process to assure rational urban growth in the future. The County must plan, to insure that future public service needs will be accurately assessed and to prevent needless land -use conflicts. Policy lb. Encourage development in areas where adequate services and facilities exist or are progra.mmeu. This policy is aimed at the fullest utilization of existing and planned services. Development should be encouraged where surplus capacities, if any, exist, rather than in locations where services are already overloaded or have not been installed. Policy lc. Encourage more comprehensive scrutiny of develop- ment proposals by establishing appropriate administrative structures and policies. Administrative organizations and procedures should ensure adequate review of development proposals by all County agencies with an interest in them, to prevent harmful or inefficient designs and procedures. At the same time these procedures should not be so complicated or time-consuming that they add excessive cost to new housing and other facilities. Policy ld. Develop land use plans and policies for the County's communities. The general development plan and policies may be translated into specific community plans which will better facilitate zoning and public works decision-making. These area plans should be consistent with the overall general plan. Policy le. Encourage new and expanded commercial and industrial activities which will increase and diversify the County's economic base. The inevitable continuing population growth in the County must be supported by an increasing employment and tax base. Land for these activities should be identified and reserved wherever possible. Adverse economic base is more stable if the economy is depressed and less vulnerable to shifts in public demand, federal regulations, and energy costs. Policy lf. Utilize Planned Uni about more attractive, efficier mentally compatible development techniques permit the integrate sulting in lower utility costs, uses, and preservation of more t Development techniques to bring t energy -conserving, and environ - Planned unit development d design of large areas, re - better relationship between open space. land Policy lg. Continue to review the County Zoning ordinance to ensure functional utility with existing uses and use trends. Over a period of time, zoning may become inconsistent with actual uses. Zoning maps should be reviewed on a continuing basis to assure consistency and to avoid over -and under- zoning, and the text should be amended periodically to reflect changing condi- tions and zoning techniques. Policy lh. Regularly review text of Subdivision Regulations. Changing market demands and other factors require this review. Policy li. Give adequate notice to all parties affected by zoning or plan change. Citizens and institutions must be given the opportunity to review and understand development proposals affecting them if they are to react in a rational manner. Policy lj. Conserve and 2rotect existing sound development. Existing development in the County is very largely sound, and actions to preserve and protect this development from blighting influences is a very high priority. Policy lk. Establish clear agreements with developers on responsi- bilities for.pub icl services. In fairness to developers, future occupants of developments, and County taxpayers, a clear and consistent policy on responsibilities for the provision of services in new developments is necessary. As a matter of principle, services benefitting only occupants of a development and not traditionally provided by the County should be paid for by the developer-- and consequently by their occupants. Policy lm. Consider requirements for the dedication of land/or money in lieu of land in developments as a method of developer and homebuyer participation in the cost of neighborhood facilities. Pursuant to Policy lk, above, such dedications can be a way of placing more of the cost of neighborhood facilities on those persons who will be using them. Policyln. Utilize area -wide rezoning rather than parcel -by -parcel zoning wherever possible. Area -wide zoning can insure a more complete consideration of the overall development of an area and the relationship between its uses and services. This technique can also reduce the time which would be spent on a large number of small -area map changes. Area -wide rezonings can be coterminous with area master plans. Policy lo. Establish a formal procedure for apprising County and state officials of County plans and policies. It is important that all affected County and Stale -of f icials be aware of official county plans and policies, to assure that public actions will be consistent with them. Policy 1p. Formulate a specific program to help groups of property owners in the rehabilitation and redevelopment of their properties and to assist in the consolidation of individual small properties for the same purpose. Considerable savings can be accomplished in the rehabilitation of deteriorating properties or the construction of new housing and other facilities when a number of properties can be consolidated, since skills, materials, and work force can be pooled. Public policy should encourage this type of consolidation. Policy lq. Establish a 5 or 6 year annually updated capital improvements programming process. Such a process can facilitate the coordination of public works construction, the assignment of overall priorities, and the relating of the middle -range needs of the County's people to public works programs. Such a process should serve as the priority scheduling for this plan. Policy lr. Although the Plan map indicates compact growth, development outside of designated areas should not be considered in conflict with the Plan map. Areas passed over provide temporary and sometime long term open space for nearby residents. Policy ls. Establish a regular procedure for review and revision of the General Plan. Changing conditions will require periodic reconsideration of plan proposals. A systematic schedule of general -plan and community master plan reconsiderations will assure this necessary periodic review. State statutes require a review at least every five years. Policy lt. Study further the impact of the growth rates and locations shown on the Plan map. Better understanding of impacts and their appropriateness, affordability, and acceptability is necessary. Goal 2. Convenient, attractive, and liveable residential areas. Policy 2a. Encourage large-scale planning and development of residential areas. Large-scale planning can assure better relationship among residences, services, circulation, adjacent uses, and the natural environment, and can achieve savings in capital and operating costs of services. Policy 2b. Assure the consistency of zoning with residential densities and services. Zoning which permits densities or types greatly different from those already existing should be reconsidered. Residential areas in situations and locations where public utilities cannot be provided feasibly should be rezoned to densities permitting individual utility systems. Policy 2c. Where commercial or industrial zoning is inconsistent with establish residential communities, this zoning should be changed to residential or some other compatible district. Unused nonresidential zoning which has the potential to produce adverse effects on sound residential areas should be changed unless it is clearly appropriate. Policy 2d. Encourage a wide choice of residential densities and types_. Residents of the County should be given the widest possible choice of locations, types, and costs of housing, and therefore a range of costs and types should be encouraged in each community. Policy 2e. Require a minimum of two exterior.access roads in all subdivisions containing fifty or more lots. This type of access is necessary to insure adequate access by emergency vehicles in the event of the closing or obstruction of one entrance. Policy 2f. Develop criteria and a priority system for the provision of sewerage and water supply systems to existing residential subdivisions. There are a number of communities in the County which should be provided with public utilities. A rational system, based upon need, fiscalabilities and potential environmental problems, should guide the extension of utilities to these communities. Policy 2g. Encourage the location of mobile homes in mobile home parks and subdivisions and permit less individually permitted mobile homes. This allows the impacts of the mobile home to be amelinated, encourages low to moderate income housing within the private sector and allows adequate opportunities for site and service planning. Goal 3. Successful, convenient, and attractive commercial areas. Policy 3a. Monitor and evaluate recently established sign controls. The chaotic collections of signs exhibited in most of the County's commercial areas are unattractive and confusing, and detract from the pleasure and convenience of shopping and working in these areas. Policy 3b. Encourage the establishment of professional offices in the County. Professional offices are normally more attractive than other commercial facilities and produce fewer adverse impacts on their surroundings. Their establishment will bring additional employment opportunities and more convenient service to the County's residents. Specific areas should be designated for these activities. Policy 3c. Discourage the continuing spread of commercial strips along the County's arterials. Strip development causes unnecessary congestion and safety hazards on the.roads, high pollution levels, and excessive expenditures of energy. Policy 3d. Encourage in established commun the establishment of centers. Residential areas commercial activities to grow up around and Locus on established centers, Chester Bon Air, Ettrick & Matoaca, and continuing nave tenae such as commercial development in these centers will provide improved service to these residential areas. This policy also includes the concept of keeping these commercial areas compact and usable by pedestrians. Policy 3e. Reserve the interchanges along relocated I-85/95 for quality tourist and interstate traffic -related commercial facilities. Interstate freeway interchanges provide excellent opportunities for regional -traffic -serving facilities, such as motels, service stations, truck stops, restaurants, and commercial recreation parks, which can create employment income for County residents. Prime sites with good access and visibility from the freeway should be reserved for these uses. Goal 4. Improved employment opportunities in the County. Policy 4a. Im.plement commercial policies providing for improved employment opportunities. This includes in particular policies 3b and 3e. Policy 4b. Identify potential industrial areas and protect them from encroachment by other uses. It is important to have identified and reserved a varied supply of industrial sites in several locations in the County, in order to have sites meeting the needs of the maximum possible number of industries seeking sites in the County. The value of these sites will be greatly enhanced if encroachment by residential and commercial areas can be avoided. Policy 4c. Encourage diverse employment opportunities within the industrial sectors. This will moderate recessionary impacts, the County's economic and employment base. The diversity of the industrial/employment base creates the opportunity for varied business or industrial support services resulting in a vital economic base. Policy 4d. Encourage industrial development which does not overload the County's water, sewage, air or energy capabilities. Industries should be selectively recuited so that a net benefit accrues to the County; the effect on the service system and on the environment should represent a positive contribution to the social, economic and environmental balance. Goal .5. A transportation system providing the best possible service at a reasonable cost and with minimum impacts on the environment. Policy 5a. Adopt the arterial development Policies originally proposed in xoute 60 Plan. These policies will reinforce the tra trc carrying..capacity of County arterials will provide distinct areas for high intensity development and will contribute to the planned and attractive development of land uses which locate in high intensity areas. Policy 5b. Prepare a master plan for the County Airport, including consideration of noise and potential -hazard impacts. The airport plan should include not only proposals for the expansion of facilities on the airport but also for land--u.se and building restrictions for the protection of surrounding development which recognize the private property rights of owners and residents of nearby areas. Policy 5c. Encourage rapid corridor location approval by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for relocated Interstate 85/95, Powhite Parkway, relocated Virginia 1_47, Virginia 288 north of U.S. 360, and Temple Avenue extended. These routes should be committed as soon as possible to permit adjacent public and private land development planning to proceed, and to make possible land acquisition at the earliest possible time before land prices accelerate. Policy 5d. Encourage extension of Chippenham Parkway across the James River at the north and east ends to improve access to Henrico County. The rapid growth of both residential communities and employment in the inner and middle suburbs makes this accessibility improvement imperative. Policy 5e. Encourage the widening and improvement of traffic operations on Virginia Route 10 in Chester and U.S. 60 to eliminate heavy congestion. Route 10 in Chester and Route 60 near Chippenham Parkway contain the worst traffic congestion in the County. Improve- ment of these highway segments should have a high priority. Decrease in traffic congestion in the Chester area may require a bypass as well as widening. The County should encourage VDH&T toward a decision which will best facilitate traffic and minimize impact upon the Community. Policy 5f. Encourage a sound intrametropolitan and interstate circulation system by supporting the initiation and completion of State 95, Interstate 295, Virginia 288, and Powhite Parkway extended. Continuing rapid population growth will require the construction of these routes. Policy 5g. Encourage the design of collector routes so that congestion on arterial roads is ameliorated. The collector system has the potential to relieve much of the congestion on arterial roads. Collectors should be designed to facilitate the movement of traffic over moderate distances through the County. Policy 5h. Plan truck routes to avoid residential areas. Reviews of highway proposals and proposals for industrial and other activities involving truck -traffic generation should be aimed at the removal of truck traffic from primarily residential streets and roads. Policy 5i_. Encourage the establishment of bus transit systems to. serve higher -density and lower-income areas. Effective transit systems(largely bus in Chesterfield County) can greatly reduce the necessity for multiple automobile ownership, the cost of personal transportation, expenditure in the highway system, energy consump- tion and air pollution. Bicycle access and storage should be provided at bus "park -n -ride" lots. Policy 5j. Encourage the design and establishment of an integrated system of arterial and collector streets. Arterial and collector - street planning in the County has been largely incremental and uncoordinated. Design of a county -wide system, related to trip demands and abutting land uses, is necessary. VI -6 Policy 5k. Utilize "traffic operations" improvements, such as signalization, turning lanes, and clear pavement markings, to the greatest possible extent. These relatively inexpensive road im- provements can result in substantial increases in the capacity and the safety of County roadways. Policy 51. Redesign inadequate existing intersections and en- courage sufficient right of way acquisition at intersections. This will allow adequate intersection improvement based upon expected future traffic. Intersections are normally the ultimate capacity restrictions, therefore effective designs and opperation are essential to the County's road system. Policy 5m. Investigate the possibility of utilizing portions of major public -utility and abandoned railroad rights of way for bicycle and pedestrian parkways. These long, often level, rights of way provide excellent opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian routes which are much safer and more attractive than those along roadways. Policy 5n. Encourage State legislation to increase funding for County secondary roads. The existing formulas for the County's allocation do not adequately recognize the rapidity of urban develop- ment causing insufficient allocation for County roadways. Policy 5o. Encourage reduction of those State Subdivision Road Standards which are unduly excessive. Excessive paving require- ments cause undue expense to the developer/consumer. Decreased roadway widths could allow sidewalk construction for bicycle and pedestrian traffic with economics provided through decreased road- way requirements. Policy 5p. Identify the extent to which new development will provide off-site public road improvements. Identifying responsi- bility, extent and ownership, for these costs is an element in a complete assessment of the public improvement costs born by the developer/consumer and thereby facilitates reasonable distribution of the financial impact of new development. Goal 6. A system of public services and facilities meeting the needs of the existing and future County population. Policy 6a. Prepare, review and adopt a long-range school facilities plan. A long range school plan will make possible closer coordination of the school -site acquisition and school construction program with long-term population trends. Through coordinated long-range plan- ning, school -site location can be fully integrated with recreation - area and other public -facility programs. Policy 6b. Plan future school sites to allow adequate space for recreational activity serving not only the school community but the community at large. Combined school -recreation area sites can reduce land acquisition cost, provide better recreation facilities for schools, and permit coordinated programs for community use of school facilities. Policy 6c. Continue the at school sites and sepa be developed, providing of the whole population. ities for recreation and acquisition and development of parks, both rately. A total County park system should a variety of facilities serving the needs Water areas present significant opportun- public access should be facilitated. Policy 6d. Encourage subdivision developers and developers of large housin complexes to provide recreation sites and facilities for the use of residents. This type of development can be a sell- ing point for the subdivision, and at the same time can reduce the need for facilities provided at the taxpayers' expense as well as needless travel for recreational activity. (facilities should be identified by attractive permanant signs located at strategic points.) Policy 6e. Plan and provide bicycle paths and areas at general community parks and as special-purpose facilities. Planning should be through the process, identified in the Bikeways Planning Report. (1975) Policy 6f. Prepare specific park development plans for all neighborhood and community parks within the County, through a cool2erative process involving the Recreation Department and the Planning Department, using guidelines set forth in the Park. Plan. The review and approval of the above plans by the Planning Commission should be required. In addition to the informal citizen participation in community parks development planning through the above commissions, formal citizens partic- ipation in the preparation of neighborhood park or park -school development plans is recommended as a good method of determining the actual present need of neighborhood park users. Park Plan- ning should be an element in the small area Community Planning Process. (Policy ld) Policy 6g. Plan specific park facilities using the general loca- tions shown on the park plan map as a guide. Proposed community parks denoted by symbols on the map should be acquired as programmed by the County. A tree planting program should be established at parks which need more shaded areas. 6h. Provide lighting for night-time play at existing tennis courts at schools. The increasing popularity of tennis creates increased demand for these facilities which can be partially ac- comodated by extending the use of courts beyond day light constraints. Policy 6i. Acquire abandoned railroad rights of way which are in or adjacent to public and open space areas. The old Seaboard Coast Line Railwas right of way, for example, would serve as an excellent scenic parkway, bicycle path, or linear park. Policy 6j. Encourage the Division of Parks and the State Department of Conservation and Economic Development to improve and expand their facilities at Pocahontas State Park and to provide other state parks in the County as depicted in the Virginia Outdoors Plan, 1974. The advantage of State financed park facilities serves to broaden the recreational opportunity for County residents with less direct expense. Policy 6k. Acquire sites for schools, parks, libraries, and fire stations prior to development. Early acquisition of sites for public facilities can save money in time of rapidly rising land costs, can provide more flexibility in the selection of sites, and can prevent encroachment by private uses on prime sites. Policy 6m. Encourage the provision of sidewalks and bicycle paths leading to schools, parks, and other public services in private developments. Sidewalks should be provided along main routes to public services, especially those used by children. Policy 6n. Prepare, in cooperation with the Virginia State College Administration, a master plan for the future use of-VSC's extensive land holding. Coordination of VSC plans with County plans should be mutually beneficial. Policy 6o. Investigate obtaining use of large natural gas and electric transmission easements as well as public water and sewer easements for recreation use as bi areas would reduce the net cost -so ays/walkways. Use of these acilities provided. Goal 7. Provide an adequate level of public utilities for all County residents and activities. Inadequate levels can unduly inconvenience and incompacitate existing activity. Policy 7a. Adopt the County water plan now being prepared as an element of the General Plan. The water supply plan is an integral part of the County General Plan and must be coordinated closely with all other plan proposals. Policy 7b. Amend and adopt the County Comprehensive Sewerage Plan as an element of the General Plan. The sewerage plan also is an integral part of the General Plan. It is particularly important that the nature and density of proposed land development be coordinated with the sewerage system proposals. Policy 7c. Complete -the County Solid Waste Site Plan and adopt it as an element of the County General Plan. The location of and environmental factors associated with solid waste disposal are important to coordinated decision making. Reclamation plans and sequential use should also be identified. Policy 7d. Give priority for public facilities and utilities to existi q_developed areas. The greatest need for new public utilities is in the more compact existing unserved areas. Policy 7e. Encourage the appropriate State agency to identify important aquifer recharge areas in the County and establish controls to protect them. It is essential that development in the County be prevented from taking forms which will obstruct the recharge of major aquifers. Policy 7f. Assure adequate public water supply will be available to serve the Zo�5'n popu a ion of 440,000. The County should be aware of the magnitude of its future water needs so that is will be prepared to serve them. Water conservation may be desirable when determining the horizon supply necessary. Policy 7g. Assume adequate wastewater treatment capacity will exist to serve 440,000 people. The scope, location, costs and financing of these facilities will aid capital programming and avoid moratoria. Policy 7h. Prepare a Countywide storm drainage plan. Such a plan can help the County take advantage of natural surface drainage systems while controlling siltation, avoid the high construction and maintenance cost of man-made drainage systems, and provide for developer provided on site temporary storage retention. Goal 8. The preservation of viable agricultural industry in the Count . Policy 8a. Review the advantages and disadvantages of agricultural land preservation. The County must take rational view of the possible benefits of specific actions to preserve agricultural activity in terms of the over-all effects of such programs on farmers and on the community as a whole. Policy 8b. Support commercial agricultural and forestry activities. The County should encourage the continuation of viable agricultural and forestry enterprises. Goal 9. A natural environment which makes Chesterfield County an attractive place to live, work and shop. Policy 9a. Identify and preserve such unique environmental areas as floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes, lake and river shores, mature woodlands and others which should be protected from destruc- tion by new development. As the County continues to grow, the increasing demand for land will endanger natural areas which must be protected for their unique qualities, their poor developability, and/or their contribution to absorption of pollutants, modification of floods, and in general to ecological balance. The range of preservation methods should be identified and analyzed for application to particular areas in the County. Policy 9b. Examine flood plain areas to determine floodway areas to be preserved, recreational potentials, areas appropriate for stormwater stora e, and areas which should be in ublic owner- s i.p. Floodplains represent an important resource, not only for handling floodwaters and for pollutant filtration but also as re- creation areas and as divisions between imcompatible uses of land. They should be analyzed to determine portions which should be acquired or preserved, portions which can be used for recreation, and portions which can be used for other activities. VI -10 Policy 9c. Encourage better landscaping of highway rights of way. The adverse effects of major highways can be greatly modified by the use of landscaping in the right of way. Policy 9d. Require landscaping plans for new multiple -family and most commercial and industrial uses. The attractiveness of all of these uses can be improved through careful landscaping. Policy 9e. Protect historic and archeologically valuable buildings and sites. Preserved historic and archeological sites can be great educational and cultural assets. Historic buildings can never be replaced, and the County should try to prevent their destruction. Policy 9f. Locate and secure abandoned coal mine shafts. These mineshafts represent a physical danger if they remain open. They should be studied to determine whether construction waste can be used to fill them, and whether subsidence poses any threat to the public safety. Policy 9g. Determine the advisability of designation of the Appomattox River as a Scenic River. The Scenic Rivers program provides some aids in the preservation of rivers so designated. Policy 9h. Encourage the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to accele- rate their studies not already completed of creek and river floodplains. This will allow more accurate designation of flood- plain areas. Policy 9i. Encourage energy conservation in the location and design of public and private construction. Energy conservation can be acheived largely through construction design and site planning which reduces unnecessary fuel expenditures for heating and air-conditioning and through project location and design which reduces the use of motor vehicles. Policy 9j. Encourage the Coastal Zone Management planning agency to identify the limits and importance of the County's coastal zone areas and appropriate methods by which the County can protect them. Coastal zones include many of the most fragile ecological situations as well as areas which are in most demand for recreational and residential developments. Policy 9k. Utilize incentives to encourage developers to protect ecologically sensitive areas not otherwise subject to regulations. The Zoning ordinance could permit density or other bonuses for the preservation of sensitive areas. Policy 91. Undertake major studies directed toward the possible acquisition of the James River floodplain west of Richmond and the Appomattox River floodplain from Hopewell to Brasfield Dam. The ecological sensitivity of these areas may be best protected and effectively used as park or open space. Policy 9m. To reduce to the minimum practical air pollutants from both direct and indirect sources, as well as their effect on their sensitive receptors and residential areas. Pollution reduction from U.LLCCG SuULuCS WUU1.IIU.LUUU C.LLUL G5 Cu SC_LtZk_l."'Cly tCC LUa.L ca'itu locate industry ant properly locating sensitij receptors. Non point sources may be abated by measures prescribed for energy conservation. Policy 9n. Protect County streams and lakes and reservoirs from excessive pollution which may lead to unacceptably in- creasing the natural eutrophi.cation rate. Watershed management studies simili.ar to that being accomplished in the Swift Creek Reservoir should be considered for other areas in the County. If studies are not preformed a strict erosion and sedementation control ordinance should be enforced and flood plain area and steep slopes left in natural states. Policy 9o. Ensure the County has an adequate opportunity to provide in -put into all environmental resource studies performed, regardless of the auspices. The County should actively parti- cipate in the Coastal Zone management Program, the "208" process and other projects as they may affect the County. irregularities, which exist in the County. The County should request the Commission of Mineral Resources to make greater progress toward mapping the geology of Chesterfield and in particular identify and accurately locate faults, sills, and dikes and other potential geologic hazards which may exist and should be recognized in'the development of the County as well as mineral resources which sould be exploited prior to urbanization. Policy 9q. Ascertain the appropriate stabalization requirements for wet and/or high shrink swell soil areas of the County. These areas have been developed in other counties sometime with disasterous results. The County soil scientist is responsible for researchina practical response to these soils. Policy 9r. Identify health hazard associated with septic systems, effluent entering streams or wells should be identified. The public's welfare and health may lie adversely affected by inadequate disposal of.effluent. If effluent entering ground or surface waters causes water quality degradation and all the disadvantages of poor water quality are exacerbated. Policy 9s. Examine and quantify noise impacts that are associated with transportation facilities. Land area which in the long term will be impacted by noise generating by roadways, railways, and the airport facility should be identified. This will allow develop- ment to be more appropriately guided and where possible impacts may be ameliorated through timely request of noise abatement features. General Plan Maps. In addition to the above Goals and Policies, the Chesterfield General Plan also includes three maps: General Plan 20D0, Land Use and Public Facilities (1"-4000'), Map VI -A; General Plan 2000, Highway Transportation, Map VI -B; and General Plan 2000, Bus Transportation, Map VI -C. CHAPTER VII PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Virginia Statutes require that a community's plan shall recommend methods of implementation. These methods may include, but not be limited to,the following: an official map, a capital improvements program, Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. The County's Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance have been recently comprehensively revised and amended and are considered adequate at this time to meet the County's needs except for some recommendations noted in Appendix VII -A. General Plan policy recommends that the Board adopt a capital improvements programming process. An official map, under Virginia's Statutes, is little more than a plan for public facilities. Public facilities plans are specifically provided for in this Plan or are recommended to be considered separately, especially water and sewer. Therefore, County adoption of an official map is not recommended by this Plan. The above comments and the Plan .policies related to implementation reflect these means to implement this Plan: 1. Continue to maintain an up-to-date Zoning Ordinance. 2. Continue to maintain up-to-date Subdivision Regulations. 3. Adopt a capital improvement programming process. 4. Do not consider adoption of an official map. S. Prepare and adopt more detailed and specific community plans. 6. Prepare and adopt sector/corridor plans (Appendix VII -A). 7. Continue to evaluate this Plan and amend it as necessary. 8. Adopt the public water plan now being prepared. 9. Adopt a public sewerage plan. 10. Adopt the Solid Waste Site Plan now being prepared. 11. Prepare and adopt a school facility plan. VII -1 2 VI -14 03 A113 ""�� S3jadHJ � w a >- 2 ' t' �1 W Q r ~ 0 N 0 J V Y a Z - Z o r z s a F Q� U. cr_ Q{Lt s ¢ r wcc Z a W N Y O t ¢ W z W w a 0 o r r'- IL Q W 2 IL V W c 2 J V W d z = p r HJ z N O W W X W W O W 4 O 0. n11 flueu ._ . 2 VI -14 03 A113 ""�� S3jadHJ � w a >- 2 ' t' �1 Q a V J V �'• a Z - o -� J F Q� U. cr_ Q{Lt wcc Z a W w z w a cr V � c 9 VI -13 r N ♦ a ' V 9 VI -13 It TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST.OF FIGURES LIST OF MAPS CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 Geography . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Economy. . . . . . • I-1 . . . , Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3 CHAPTER II - BACKGROUND FOR PLANNING IN CHESTERFIELD . . II -1 State Planning Legislation . .II Emerging State and Federal Involvement . . . . . -1 . . . . . . . Extra -Local Effects of Plans II -2 . . , Composite Planning .. . . • ' ' ' ' II -2 . History of Planning in Chesterfield II -3 Existing Policies and Regulations II -3 Subject Areas Not Included II -4 The Actors in the Land Use Planning Process II -5 II -6 State Planning . . . ' ' ' ' ' Regional Planning , . . . II -6 -6 , , Local Planning . . . . . . . . ' . ' ' ' ' ' II . . , . Planning Process . . . . ' ' ' ' • ' II -7 . . . . , , , . . . . Plan Implementation . . II -8 . . . . . . . . . * Population Estimates II -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . * Population Projections . II -12 . . . Land Absorption , , , , II -13 , , , , , , , , , , , II -14 CHAPTER III - LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT III -1 General Land Use . , . . . . , . ,• • • . • . • . . Communities III -1 . Corridors and Highway Oriented Development . . III -3 III -6 . . . Land Use Categories Land Use Characteristics: Location and Compatibility Residential III -7 III -9 Development: Patterns, Growth and Impacts Commercial Development: Patterns, Growth III -20 and Impacts Industrial Development: Patterns, Growth and Impacts III -29 III -35 Public Land: General ConsiderationsIII-39 . . . Semi -Public Land: General Considerations , . . • . . Agricultural Land III -40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forest Lands . III -40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fiscal Impact . . . . III -41 . . . . . . . . , • . * . . . . Environment III -41 . . • • • . *Land Use and. EnvironmentalIssues III -42 . . . • • • • . CHAPTER IV - TRANSPORTATION III -73 . . . . . . . . Transportation Systems • . . . . . IV -1 *Transportation Issues IV -1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV -13 'CHAPTER V - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND UTILITIES . . . . . . . . .V-1 Parks and Open Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 Fire Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3 Libraries . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4 Public Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5 Public Sanitary Sewer Systems . . . . . . . . . . • • • . V-8 Solid Waste System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-8 Public Water System . . . . . . . . . . • • • ...V-9 Urban Run -Off and Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-10 *CHAPTER VI - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL PLAN - PROPOSED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . VI -1 *CHAPTER VII - PLAN IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . VII -1 APPENDIX . . . A-1 I . . . . . . . . A - II. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A- III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A- IV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A - V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A- VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 * Indicates those sections which are included in this Extract. ( DRAFT III CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL PLAN 2000 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The following issues resulted from the analysis of information pre- sented in the first 72 pages and related Appendices of Chapter III to the Chesterfield General Plan 2000, DRAFT. Planning Staff ex- pects that additional issues will be identified as well as amend- ments to those identified below. Chapter III information not reproduced in this abridgment of the full Plan draft would be useful to individuals wishing to add to the compilation of issues as well as affording a better understanding of the existing and future constraints and opportunities which provide the basis for the following Land Use and Environmental Issues which were identi- fied by Planning Staff and consultants. A number of issues relate, in general, to the County's future development. Few land uses or activities exist in isolation, unre- lated to other uses and activities around them, and so, many issues must be considered with respect to physical development as a whole.* Issue 1: The Rate of.Growth. An issue which has become widespread in the United States is that of the rate of growth and development, largely in suburban areas. Chesterfield County has been undergoing very rapid growth for more than 25 years, even during the recession - induced slow period of the middle 70s. The County has been able to construct extensive systems of trunk sewers and water storage and distribution and is developing other urban service systems, such as schools, parks and libraries. But continuing rapid growth—and at this point in time there is no indication of a slackening of growth— will put a continuing strain on the County's resources. While Chesterfield appears to be in a good position to deal with the ex- pected growth, there are many citizens who question the advisability of any encouragement of a continuing rapid population growth. Chesterfield has been accommodating on the order of half the metro- politan area's population increase for several years. While it is clear that the County cannot and probably should not attempt to stop its population growth, it can have some influence on the rate of its growth. Chesterfield already requires high de- velopment standards in new subdivisions throughout the County. Main- taining these standards, and raising them where appropriate, can have the effect of redirecting some growth to other parts of the metropolitan area. Costs and benefits of current growth rates should continue to be observed to establish a growth policy based on accurate observations. Issue 2: The Location of Growth. Although recent developments in the County have been largely on the fringe of the compactly settled area, a number of new projects, including the very large Brandermill community, are locating in the more rural sections. Chesterfield has put a large capital investgent into an extensive trunk sewer system, which can serve a substantial area in the northern, central and south central parts of the County. Any large amount of new growthbeyond the area served by these sewers can have important fiscal and environmental consequences, especially in view of soil * It i$ desirable that other issues be identified during the public hearing process to which this Plan is subjected. conditions through much of the southwest, which are unsatisfactory for the operation of septic fields. The County government can have more influence over the location of growth, than over its total rate, through zoning regulations, stand- ards for waste disposal and subdivision regulations. The implica- tions of permitting rapid growth in the southwest, on the one hand, compared with encouraging it within sewered areas, on the other, must be carefully considered. Issue -3: Balanced Growth. Balanced growth here refers to a bal- ance of residential and employment growth. At one extreme would be a situation where all of the population lived in the County and worked elsewhere. At the other would be a distribution of employ- ment facilities throughout the County in proportion to the distribu- tion of the population. Although a balanced distribution of population and jobs within the County could, theoretically, result in virtually no travel from home to work, it is clear from a practical standpoint that there will always be some travel. There is considerable cross -commutation today in Chesterfield County. But, generally speaking, an increase in balance, in this sense, should have the effect of reducing re- gional commutation, especially travel across such relative obstacles as the James and Appomattox Rivers. On the regional scale, the County can encourage balance only by en- couraging more employment in the County. There is probably little controversy about the encouragement of employment facilities in the County, primarily because these facilities can contribute heavily to the County's tax base, as well as providing conveniently located jobs. There is probably some.disagreement within the community about the type of employment to be encouraged here, because of some of the environmental effects which may be involved. On the County scale, balanced development becomes more controversial. While industry is to be encouraged, many residents will oppose its location near their homes, regardless of the added convenience which might result, because of visual and environmental effects and the prospect of additional automobile traffic congestion. Yet some dis- tribution of industrial and other employment facilities in the pri- marily residential portions of the County is clearly desirable in some respects—again, increased convenience for commuters and reduc- tion of the length of the journey to work. The location of employment within the County is directly subject to public land use policy, as implemented through the Zoning Ordinance. Clear choices will be presented as industries or industrial area developers propose new locations for their plants or developments. III -74 Issue 4. Fiscal Impact. The balancing of public -costs and reven- ues is a nearly universal problem which has become increasingly severe throughout the country, as rising costs of public ser- vices have combined with declining public revenues. Chesterfield County has been affected by this phenomenon less than many other jurisdictions, but as the County becomes more urbanized, addi- tional services will have to be provided to its population. Many costs can be reduced through the application of sound develop- ment principles in the land use plan and the County's development controls. Increasingly in the future, Chesterfield County will face choices between its current land development policy, which will probably result in increased public costs, and more rigorous management of land development. Some of these choices will be spelled out in more detail in Section VI , which describes land use proposals for the County. Residential Land Use Issues Issue 5. High Density Housing. Resistance to apartments, and to higher density housing types in general, has not been as high in Chesterfield County as it has been to mobile homes. But the traffic generated by these types and the load they can place on other public services may result in some increasing opposition to*them. It is probably inevitable that economic pressures for higher density housing will increase as the County continues to urbanize and the price of land goes up. And higher density types of housing are very desirable from the point s of view of saving land and keeping housing costs down. As with mobile homes, the County's choices will lie primarily in the standards applied to higher density housing and the locations in which it will be permitted. Standards should assure adequate and attractive housing without excessively costly requirements. Location could be left entirely to the dynamics of the market, which is seldom an adequate determinent where land development is concerned, or location standards can be utilized. Such stand- ards could require minimum levels of road access and proximity to services. Issue 6. The Provision of Low and Moderate Cost Housing. Although the cost of housing in the Richmond region is generally lower than that in many larger metropolitan areas, rents and sale prices have been rising recently. The 1970 Census reported that about half of the single family homes had values below $20,000, yet few houses could be purchased for less than $25,000 today. It has been esti- mated that 18 per cent of the County'.s.families cannot afford housing for sale or for rent at current market rates.* See C esterfield County, Housing Assistance Program, 1976. III -75 The County must search for ways to encourage the production of housing at lower relative prices, at least for the families who already live in the County. Some housing at lower costs can be made available as residents move into newer or larger houses, but housing costs have become so high that many families have deferred or given up purchasing better houses, and this "turn -over" supply of housing for lower income people may not materialize. Multi- family housing is a potential supply of moderate cost housing, but current housing preferences and development costs have limited the demand for this type. Mobile homes are another lower cost type, but neighborhood resistance to them is strong in most loda- tions because of their history of poor construction, poor location and site planning, and adverse visual and environmental impact. Chesterfield has many possible choices in the encouragement of moderate income housing production for its citizens, but most cur- rently known programs with this objective have met with limited success everywhere. Programs and experiments everywhere should be watched and their effectiveness evaluated in the light of Chesterfield's needs and resources. Some available actions can be encouragement of private programs using such State and Federal aids as mortgage insurance, the relaxation of selected development standards and others. Issue 7. Mobile Homes. Related to the preceding issue is that of mobile homes. These can provide adequate housing at relatively low prices (although financing costs and rapid depreciation reduce their apparent price advantage somewhat), but popular sentiment in many residential neighborhoods resists mobile home developments, because they are often poorly planned and/or unattractive and be- cause their occupants are considered unstable. Attractive mobile home developments are possible, but the added expenses of making them attractive may raise their price appreciably. Another problem of mobile homes is that under current practices they have very low taxes in comparison to single family homes. On the other hand, they are likely to house school children°'and .to require levels of public services comparable to those of multiple family housing. The County's choices with respect to mobile homes will lie in the type and level of standards applied and the locations in which they will be permitted or encourages. Encouraging their location only in mobile home park -s or subdivisions and not on individual isolated sites should be weighed. Higher standards, possibly desirable, must be viewed with respect to their effects on the total cost of'this housing. Issue 8. Single Family Location Patterns. A corollary of Issue T-11-9—that of the Countywide location of single family housing. As the price of land in the urban fringe increases, there may be a tendency to develop more housing in the rural areas beyond the watersheds served by the County's extensive trunk sewer system. III -76 The construction of large numbers of houses served only by septic tank systems can have serious environmental consequences, and a low density spread of housing can increase public service costs. Concentration of housing within sewered areas can eliminate these problems, and, at the same time, can accelerate the utilization of the existing sewerage systems (increasing connection fees and _monthly billings to the system without heavy additional capital investments) and conserve land. The County can exert varying amounts of influence on the spread of housing, and its choices will lie in the levels and types of control to be utilized. Issue 9. Development Standards. The improvement of standards in subdivision regulations is a concern of many County residents and officials. For example, many large subdivisions have only one access route. If the single road is cut off for any reason, emer- gency safety access --including that for fire and emergency equip- ment—is cut off with it. Although the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance accommodate innovative planning techniques, such as cluster and mixed density developments, only a few devel- opers have chosen to utilize them. A related issue is the relatively high standards, compared to other States, of State Highway Department subdivision road standards, increasing both housing and environmental costs. Issue 10. Incompatible Uses in Residential Areas. An important issue recently has been the intrusion of incompatible nonresiden- tial uses into residential neighborhoods. As we have noted in the section on land use relationships, nonresidential uses are not always and not under all circumstances incompatible with even low density residential uses. This type of nonresidential use is commonly dealt with in a zoning ordinance as a "conditional use", and the type of conditions noted in the compatibility tables in the Appendix, can be placed on their location in a residential area. Local opposition to a new use may be arbitrary, and ration- al standards, even handedly applied, can take much of the doubt and arbitrariness out of zoning decisions. The County has de- cided in the latest comprehensive revision of the Zoning Ordinance which uses should be excluded completely from residential areas, which can be conditionally included, and what conditions should be applied. These will need further review as the County grows and changes. Commercial Land Use Issues Chesterfield County has undergone a rapid growth in commercial facilities in recent years and, at least in some parts of the County, commercial facilities have outstripped their market. As a result, there is likely to be a slackening of commercial growth, especially in the northwest, and there is time for a careful eval- uation of the desirability of various commercial patterns. T T T '7 '7 Issue 11. Commercial Strip Development. The characteristic pat- term of commercial development in the County has been the strip along radia.l arterial highways—first U. S. 1 and 301, then U. S. 60, and most recently U. S. 360. Commercial enterprises on these roads seek exposure to travelers, and, in a search for relatively inexpensive land, have formed intermittent ribbons of commerce, with vacant land alternating with business establishments. Such a pattern can be wasteful of public utilities and services, since it can extend the area which must be served. It also interferes with the principal function of the roads, which is to carry traffic, and is, in practice, if not inherently, visually chaotic and un- attractive. One prototype plan dealing with the problems of Tommercial strips has already been prepared by the Planning Staff. A number of problems must be dealt with in this connection. Land uses other than commerce and some public services are not particularly suited to highway frontages, and most County subdivisions are set back several hundred feet from the right-of-way. This may have been done in anticipation of more profitable commercial development of the frontage, or because of the adverse environmental effects of the road, but it is common practice. On the other hand, a mar- ket for commercial facilities along all arterial frontages will not materialize for many years, even if it were desirable. For example, U. S. 1/301 has been zoned commercial for a depthof 300 feet or more on both sides since 1945 and much of that land, is still not developed for commercial uses. The choices which must be made in.this connection are whether to permit commercial development along all major arterial frontages and, if not, what portions should commerce be limited to. Land uses which can be made compatible with highway frontage must be identified, if all frontages are not to be zoned commercial. .Issue 12. Sho pin Centers. Shopping centers are generally con- 'gidered to a prefers le to highway strips (although some com- mercial activities function better in a strip than in a center— automobile sales, for example), but they still involve problems. The heavy traffic congestion at Cloverleaf Mall is a serious problem, for example. Issue 13. Older Sho ing Areas. Several older shopping areas, such as those in Bon Air and Chester, are clearly obsolete in that traffic cannot be accommodated and internal circulation— automobile and pedestrian-- is confused, difficult and dangerous. Solutions to these problems will involve close coordination between land use and highway planning—difficult here, since high- way planning is done by the State—and, eventually, some recon- struction of areas. Another problem is that some older shopping areas are declining because of competition from modern shopping centers, and commercial blight from this declining use and shifts to more marginal businesses can spread into adjacent residential 1. Guide for Development: A Plan for Midlothian Turnpike. Chesterfield County Planning Department, 1975. areas—a reason to keep these small centers from spreading. Issue 14. The U. S. 1-301 Corridor. A special issue, which is primarily commercial in nature, is the condition of the U. S. 1/301 corridor, which has declined seriously with the diversion of interregional traffic to Interstate 95. Here, as elsewhere, commercial blight is affecting adjacent residential areas. The frontage of this major highway represents an important land re- source, highly accessible and provided, through much of its length, with public services. Choices here involve methods of redevelopment, new uses which can be viable in the area, and ade- quate protection for residential sections. Industrial Land Use Issues Industrial issues in Chesterfield are, for the most part, similar to those in other communities: promoting new industry to enhance the economic base and achieving compatibility between industry and other uses. The County is relatively fortunate in that its best industrial sites involve relatively few conflicts with resi- dential areas. They either are large enough, as in the Bermuda Hundred area, that they are insulated from other uses, or are separated by Interstate 95 or Routes 1/301 from substantial resi- dential areas. Issue 15. Industrial Promotion and Growth. This, if an issue at all, is a noncontroversia one. There is very little dis- agreement that the County should encourage new industry, both to improve its tax base and to reduce the necessity to commute to other jurisdictions to work. Some choices are open to the County in how to encourage new industry: passively or through active search for and identification of sites, financial incentives and even public purchase of sites and construction of buildings. Issue 16. The Location of Industry Questions of location of industry in the County are the subject of somewhat more disagree- ment. There are obviously appropriate locations in the 1/301-I-95 corridor and in Bermuda Hundred, but travel routes to these loca- tions from the heavily populated north and central parts of the County are limited. From the points of view of convenience and reduction of the length of the journey to work, it makes good sense to locate new indus- try and other employment in the central.and western sections of the County. But this is likely to meet with considerable opposi- tion from residential neighbors of any proposed industrial loca- tion. Some small sites are available at the County Airport and in small industrial parks on Routes 360 and 60, but the total of employment in these areas may not be large. Choices will undoubt- edly be presented to Chesterfield County, as they have been in Fairfax County, which is in a similar position with respect to Washington, for the location of new employment facilities in and near some of the more affluent residential areas, and these choices will need careful examination. Land Use Issues: Miscellaneous Uses Miscellaneous uses --those which do not fall into the residential, commercial and industrial categories—are largely public and semi-public "institutional" uses. These are normally relatively uncontroversial, although some large institutions, such as hos- pitals and detention facilities, have presented serious problems recently. These problems are, for the most part, those dealt with in Issue 10: a matter of compatibility with their surroundings. Issue 17. The Location of Institutional Uses. Schools, hospitals, clubs and many public service establishments are in many ways most appropriately located in or near residential areas. They provide services to residential areas and very often include moderate to large areas of landscaped open space. But they also often involve heavy traffic, extensive parking areas, and operations, such as dining rooms, which are more commercial than institutional in character. Each institution is unique in terms of function, use of indoor and outdoor space, traffic generation, and other factors, and each must be reviewed on its own merits—most effectively,as we have noted, as a conditional use in the Zoning Ordinance. But. the County should identify general standards and guidelines for these uses, to avoid arbitrary treatment. Some can be very well suited to arterial sites (relating to Issue 11), while some, such as public schools, can be unsafe when so located. Environmental Land Use Issues Urbanization has and will continue to absorb previously undisturbed land, thereby affecting the environment, while creating systems necessary to support an increasing population. The extent to which the environment can remain undisturbed or temporarily dis- turbed, when and how the disruption will occur are issues that need both definition and resolution. Issue 18. Rapid urbanization has and will continue to change Chesterfield's landscape or topography. Actions taken during a period of rapid change should insure that the result will be a contribution instead of a deficit to the quality of life in Chesterfield. The County can remain a desirable place within which existing and future residents may live, work, shop or play. The continued desirability is, in part,dependent upon a respect for the natural environment when designing man-made features. The County should continue to require and improve enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance sections requiring site plan review prior to site alteration. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept, or the Conditional Use Permit process may well be the most efficient tool for guiding a site development in concert with existing topography. Issue 19. Disrupting natural features may affect construction costs, may cause structural damage and can cause irreparable harm to the environment. Constraints to development occur in areas where slopes are steep, flooding is probable, soils are generally wet or elastic, geology is significantly irregular or surface subsidence may occur. Most constraints are not insurmountable if development in the area properly designs for natural barriers. The degree to which the natural environment is disturbed or recognized in the development process will determine the net effect on the environment and the potential threat to the public's safety and welfare. Issue 20. Many areas of the County, particularly the west and southwest portions, are ill suited for septic system use. Partic- ularly in the Triassic area, much land is unsuitable; some sites may be suitable when lot sizes are extensive. The soil's capacity to absorb effluent is not an issue if public sewer and water are to be used by the development. The County should develop policy about extensions of and from the trunk sewer system, based upon fiscal analysis which indicates that sprawl is more costly than compact development if the County must spend large sums of money to relieve septic system problems in remote areas. Approving subdivision development on septic systems should be done as if the systems were permanent or at least until alternative systems are designed. Because the capability of the soil to absorb ef- fluent over an extended period of time is uncertain, failing system problems are a probability. It is likely that subdivi- sions approved without public water and sewer service will eventually require public sewer, unless a technology changes be- come acceptable in the Commonwealth. Issue 21. Ground water is currently depended upon to a limited deg— ree n Chesterfield; however, the potential for polluting the supply is possible. Information about subsurface hydrology is greatly lacking and the extent to which Chesterfield will become dependent upon ground water reserves in the future is also un- known. Also, the extent to which Chesterfield's land area re- charges ground water supplies in'other localities is uncertain. Therefore, it becomes important to protect ground water quality to the extent practical. Sanitary landfills (both public and private) and other waste disposal areas contain elements which when they decompose may pollute ground water through percolation. This may occur more readily in one area than in another depending on soil characteristics. The County should insure to the extent it is able that byproducts and wastes of existing and future in- dustrial activities in the County and plans for adequate dispos- al are evaluated and approved by appropriate governmental agencies. Issue 22. The County is currently surveying historic sites and structures to more adequately locate them and determine their im- portance. Given that Chesterfield is growing rapidly, there is great potential for overlooking past heritage when accommodating change. Historic structures often may be integrated into develop- ment plans at minimal or no cost. Significance of the historic sites to the Community should be a factor in the decision-making process. Issue 23. Unique environmental areas oftentimes represent sig-. ni.ficant recreation potential, both active and passive. These areas are enhanced when public access to them is provided, with care taken to insure that public use does not exceed the capacity of the unique area. Most of the County's unique environmental areas derive their significance from the presence of surface water and the continued viability of an area is, to some extent, depen- dent upon the quality of the water passing through it. Therefore, activity occurring within the watershed of a unique environmental area greatly affects the area,through siltation, urban and agricul- tural runoff and policy may be necessary to require certain areas within a watershed to remain in a natural state. Issue 24. Demand for agricultural, forest and mineral products will increase as the population increases. Chesterfield's re-. source production role in the future is unclear; however, Chester- field currently contributes to mineral, agricultural and forest production and very likely has some responsibility for continued production. Chesterfield has ample land for the next 25 years to accommodate both urban expansion projected as well as maintaining current and even expand levels of primary resource production/ex- traction. Speculation in a rapidly urbanizing area can adversely affect investment in primary resource activities. However, spec- ulation can be confined in certain areas of the County if policy defines proper locations for urban development. Issue 25. Since noise can interfere with an individual's ability to unction efficiently and comfortably within his environment, levels associated with transportation facilities and other sources should be described and considered on all development requests where significant noise levels occur or will likely occur in the future. Legislation precludes VDH&T from compensating property owners when noise impacts the property. Highway plans for the County should include noise abatement features in residential and other noise sensitive areas. Issue 26. Most urban areas throughout the United States are ex- periencing air quality problems and the Richmond and Tri -cities areas are no exception. The State Air pollution Control Board is the agency responsible for monitoring and issuing permits for both stationary and mobile sources. A significant source of pollu- tion is the motor vehicle, although neither the Richmond nor the Tri -cities SMSA are expected to exceed national standards in the long term, primarily due to Federal auto emission standards. The population increase projected for Chesterfield will mean a signifi- cant increase in travel throughout the County and the region. After no further technological reduction in auto emissions is possible and, for the foreseeable future, an increase in vehicle miles travel will mean an increase in auto related pollutants. Industrial power generating and heating facilities pollutants have decreased per unit produced but increased activity in the region will mean more air pollution. Air should be considered as an ex- haustible resource which may be budgeted so that economic activity and environmental quality goals are not inconsistent. Action taken by a locality to facilitate compatibility could involve planning which serves to reduce average trip lengths or total vehicle miles travelled by encouraging transit or other mechanisms for increased vehicle occupancy and by effecting the pattern of development so that distances between residential, employment, recreational and commercial activities are reduced. Stationary sources can be selectively recruited and located to re- duce impacts on regional air quality. However, air pollution in this area is not only affected by activity in the Richmond/Tri- cities region, but may be in part attributed to other areas and other States. Issue 27. The 208 planning process under way in the region.may affect Chesterfield's waste load allocation to the James and Appomattox Rivers. Since both point and non -point pollution are likely to be combined to form the total waste emitted by Chester- field, more selective industrial recruitment, more efficient use of water by industrial, residential and commercial activities, increased attention to agricultural and urban runoff and erosion reduction may be necessary to economically prosper within the environmental constraint of the assimilative capacity of the rivers. Inasmuch as the 208 study, when completed, may signifi- cantly affect future development within the County, it is im- portant that County officials become intimately involved in the process. Issue 28. The 208 study deals primarily with the viability of the James and Appomattox Rivers. Surface water in the County may require watershed studies similar to that being performed by County consultants in the Swift Creek Area. Eutrophication within surface waters is a process which is difficult to re- verse or stabilize, and reservoir or water body maintenance activ- ities are costly and repetitive unless the problem is arrested at its sources. Although the results of the Swift Creek study cannot be directly related to other watershed areas, many facets of the management plan may be applicable to other areas. In addition, several watersheds in the region will be analyzed in the 208 study and results may be applicable to Chesterfield watershed areas. T TT n'1 DRAFT IV CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL PLAN 2000 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES The following issues resulted from the analysis of the information presented in the first twelve pages and related Appendices of Chapter IV to the Chesterfield General Plan 2000, DRAFT. In addi- tion, year 2000 traffic volumes were identified through several sources, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, the I-95 relocation Environmental Impact Statement and primarily from UROAD (which is a computer model run with the assistance of the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission). Planning Staff expects that additional issues will be identified as well as amendments to those identified below. Chapter IV in- formation not reproduced in this abridgment of the General Plan 2000, DRAFT would be useful to individuals wishing to add to the compilation of issues as well as affording a better understanding of existing and future constraints and opportunities which pro- vided the basis for the following transportation issues. Transportation issues in Chesterfield County have to do largely with highway transportation, since this will continue to be the predominant mode. As the County approaches the "horizon" population of 440,000 some new modes will have to be introduced because of the higher urban densities which must accompany such a large population. However, this horizon lies many years in the future and while new technologies may become available in the longer future, the Plan must deal with foreseeable technologies and try to insure flexibility for the future. Transportation Issue 1—Congestion There are a number of points of heavy current traffic congestion in the County. The worst of these appear to be in the vicinity of Cloverleaf Mall and in central Chester. The Cloverleaf Mall situation can be substantially alleviated by redesign of the Route 60 -Chippenham Parkway interchange, and a widening of Route 10 through Chester is planned. Other points of heavy or rapidly growing congestion in the County are: Chippenham from US 360 to Hopkins; Huguenot from Woodmont to Rt 60; River Road and Chesterfield Avenue Intersection; Belmont from Turner to Chippenham; and Forest Hill Avenue from Richmond to Huguenot Road. Transportation Issue 2 ---Future Arterials New arterial roads will be needed as the County continues to grow. The routes identified for future construction are Powhite Parkway, I-288, and the western alignment for the new Interstate 95/85. These are the only corridors within which the need for high capacity roads can be identified for the long term. TV -13 Although these roads will be built by the State Highway Department (VDH&T) the county must establish its own priorities and assist.in specifying route locations. Transportation Issue 3 --Reservation of Advance Right -of -Way The point has been made frequently in this report that the County's future rate of growth is extremely difficult to foresee and that provision must be made in planning for the possibility of a very large population here in the next quarter-century. In the transportation planning process, one method for providing this flexibility will be the reservation in advance of rights-of-way for future highways -- both complete new rights of way for new routes (Issue 2) and additional right-of-way on existing roads which may need to be widened. Advance right-of-way acquisition creates problems -principally that of obtaining funds for the purchase of the land needed. In some cases, the developer of a large tract can afford to dedicate an arterial right-of-way, but for smaller tracts the amount of land needed can remove a substantia: acreage from development and fairness dictates that payment be made for the land. Unfortunately, funds are not always available for such payment at the time a developer is prepared to proceed with con- struction; in these cases, the VDHT has no option but to permit development to proceed. Another problem in the reservation of future right-of-way is the fact that land must often be reserved before the need for the highway is clearly evident, and a reluctant landowner may successfully block the purchase on the basis of the lack of a demon- strated need for the road. The public agencies involved must be able to document very clearly the necessity for the new or upgraded road. Transportation Issue 4 --Minor Arterials and Collectors A key to the effective movement of traffic through much of the county will be a well-designed secondary arterial and collector system, because the majority of the development will for many years be dispersed and at relatively low densities. This development pattern will generate a correspondingly dispersed traffic pattern, which must move safely and reasonably rapidly throughout the area. The successful de,sign of the secondary system must incorporate not only good road alignments and cross-sections which are the responsibility of the VDHT but also the careful design of abutting uses and their access -much of which can be accomplished through subdivision regulations and site -plan review. The county must continue to identify the most workable design techniques standards, and regulatory techniques to assure the workability of the secondary arterial systems. Transportation Issue 5 --Transit Service to the County Chesterfield County is still relatively sparsely settled, and a recent study of transit possibilities in the Richmond suburbs concluded that economic transit service in the greater part of the County is still not possible. only in areas close to the Richmond and Petersburg boundaries is transit likely to be possible without substantial subsidies. And the County's current pattern of growth -largely in detached single family housing -will not result in population densities high enough for economic transit service If rapid growth in the County continues, the demand for less expensive housing and the rising cost of land will probably result in higher densities which may provide sufficient support for transit in the longer future. The County may choose to encourage a pattern of higher density which can be served efficiently by transit lines; it can also continue to study feasible transit technology, to identify future options open to it for service to its citizens. More park and ride lots will be needed after the initial three (Bon Air, Route 60, and Chippenham/Rt 1).Additionally, regular transit service and special services for the elderly and poor will need to be expected. Transportation Issue 6 --Commercial Access Continuing population growth will result in a more rapid rate of commercial -area development in the middle and longer future. Thp existing congestion in the vicinity of Cloverleaf Mall must be avoided in the case of large future shopping centers. The County should approach this problem from two directions: first, by guiding new commercial growth to areas of substantial unused highway capacity and, second, by pressing for the assignment of high arterial construction priorities by VDH&T in areas of the most likely commercial growth. Normal market forces will tend to induce commercial growth in areas of high street capacity, but highway improvements generally lag behind the need for them. Transportation Issue 7 --Establishing Adequate Access for Major Facilitie This issue is actually a broader version of Issue 6: adequate access must be provided for uses and activities which generate high volumes of traffic. Again, the County's most effective action program to assure this adequate access, since design and location of highways is controlled by VDH&T, is to guide the activities toward locations with the appropriate levels of street and highway capacity, primarily through the zoning ordinance. Excessive access should be avoided by the same means. Transportation Issue 8 --Specific Capacity and Safety Improvements There are a number of specific points of traffic congestion and safety hazards throughout the County, and improvement of all of these undesirable conditions obviously cannot be accomplished simultaneously because of limitations on the amount of money available. A variety of projects are involved, including such actions as the widening of narrow bridges, the elimination of railroad grade crossings for heavily -travelled roads, and the improvement of intersections through signalization, channelization and other relatively inexpensive techniques. The County should continue its system of assigning priorities to these situations so as to make .rational and soundly - based recommendations to VDHT for continuing minor street and highway improvements. rTT i r r ' TO BR DISCUSSED ON MONDAY 6-20-77 BOARD MEMMM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 17, 1977 TO:, Board of Supervisor t�v FROM: Michael C. Ritz,,grector of Community Development SUBJECT: Enon Park On Tuesday, June 14, 1977, at a condemnation hearing, a purchase price of $340,000 was set for a 102+ acre parcel of land owned by Mr. Gilliam. This amount is $100,000 more than the total amount approved by the State Commission of Outdoor Recreation to purchase about 120 acres. This matter has been discussed with COR and we have been advised to file an amended application for additional financial assistance. This request could be heard in September. I understand there is considerable interest in the existing Fed- eral Recreational Money and have been advised that our chances for additional money will be greatly enhanced by applying for development funds as well as additional acquistion funds. The types of development most likely to be funded are passive types (picnicking, walking, boating, fishing, etc.). In addition to Mr. Gilliam's property, we would suggest that we try to acquire Mr. Stokes' land. This is about 5 acres just east of Mr. Gilliam's property. We do not believe we will need the land owned by Mrs. Crouch that was part of our original pro- posal. We would like the Board's permission to do the following: 1. Reappraise Mr. Stokes' land and attempt to purchase it. We would not suggest condemnation. 2. Investigate the availability of Recreational Access Funds and/or Game and Inland Fisheries Funds (for a boat ramp). 3. File an amended application with the COR for: a. Additional acquisition funds; b. Development funds; c. Recreational access funds (if available); d. Game and Inland Fisheries Funds (if available). 1. Memo - 6/17/77 i Bd. of Supervisors►" page 2 Prior to proceeding with #3 above, I would ha:,e to do the following: 1. Have final Court approval of the condemnation proceedings. 2. Prepare cost estimates for development funds. 3. Have various Board resolutions. I will report back at the July 13 meeting. MCR/jp 0 _.._1.-f_ VIRGINIA: At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, held at the Courthouse on June 20, 1977 at 1:00 p.m. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board of Super- visors hereby amends Section D-3 of the County of Chesterfield Airport Industrial Park Restrictive Covenants to require a minimum size of the principal building, excluding buildings for airplane storage and/()r service of 4,000 square feet for the southerly one acre parcel of the 3,36 acre tract owned by Marshall Cole, et al an the eastern side of WWtepine Road for development as a scientific laboratory. The Board expressed their willingness to consider similar requests in the future, Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr, Bookman and Mr. Dodd. A Copy: Teste- C. G, Manuel Interim County Administrator