02-11-1987 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MI/~UTES
February 11, 1987
Supervisors in Attendance:
Fir. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman
Mr. Jesse J. Mayes, Vice Chairman
~Lr. ~. H. Applegate
~_r. R. Garland Dodd
~Lrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Richard L. Medriek
County Administrator
Staf~ in Attendance:
Mr. Stanley Balderson,
Dir., Econ. Develop.
Ms. Jana Carter, Dir.
of Mousing
Ms. Joan Dclezal,
Clerk to the Doard
Chief Robert Eanes,
Fire Department
~r. Brad£ord S. Ha~er,
Assr. Ce. Admin.
Mr. William ~owell,
Dir., Gen. Services
Mr. Thomas Jacobsen,
Dir. of Planning
Ms. Mary Leu Lyle, Dir.
of Accounting
Mr. Robert Masden,
ASSt, CO. Admin. for
MI. R. J. McCracken,
Transp. Director
Mr. Richard Me,irish,
Dir. cf Env. Eng.
Mr. Steve Micas, Co.
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir. of News/Info.
Mr. F. O. Parks, Dir.,
Data Processing
Col. Joseph Pittman,
Chief of Police
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Asst.
CO. Ad, in. for Budget
aha Staffing
Mr. Richard ~ale, Asst.
CO. Adrain. for
~evelopment
MS, Joan Smith, Dir. of
Social Services
Mr. M. O. Mtith, Jr,,
Dir. of Parks & Rec.
Mr. David Welchons,
Dir. of Utilities
Mr. Frederick Willis,
Dir. of Human
Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at the Courthouse in Room
502 at 2:00 p.m. (EST).
1. ~ SESSION ON BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPRO%q~NTS PROC~RA~
Mr. Daniel ~tated the purpose of the work session was to discuss
an overview of the proposed FY88 Budget and Capital Improvements
Program.
Mr. Hedrick stated ~taff will present the proposed Budget,
answer questions and seek additional information from the Board
as to the final prepare=ion of the proposed budget.
87-69
Mr. Ra~sey presented a brief summar~ of the upcoming budget
meetings scheduled for the Board. He presented an overview of
the proposed FY88 material, which included a summary of revenue
comparison 1984-85 and percentages of the general and special
revenues 1984-85, which were prepared by the Richmond First
Club; FY87 total estimated rovcn~es; F¥88 budgeted revenue
projections, budget asoumption~ and uses of new revenues;
adjustments to balance FY88 budget; Board of Supervisors budget
objectives; policy options for allocating County resources; debt
management policy; and the operating budget implications
projects. He explained the sources and comparioono of the
general and special revenue funds and percentage comparisons, as
well as total anticipated estimated revenues, for Chesterfield
County as compared to Henrico County and the Citieo of Richmond
and Virginia Beach (i.e., projected real estate tax funds, per
capita rate and tax rate).
Discussion and questions ensued relative to the need to compare
assessed value of residential/commercial properties and provide
a breakdown ~c the Board; the substa~%tial differences in the tax
ba~e/strueture; the percentage of recordation taxes received by
the County and State; the differences in rates on business
licenses; definition of "miscellaneous income" (income derived
from contributions for the Libraries, parks, Federal grants,
reimbursements ~rom Mental Health/Mental Retardation, ets.); the
initiation of proration in 1988; increasing planning/rezoning
fees; tho acceleration Of rollback taxes to determine if
qualiiying land uses are being utilized; the need for work
sessions to discuss amending the land use program; increasing
the 9-1-1 fee; increasing the vehicle license fee; making the
lea£ and trash collection programs self-supporting; the
consolidation and/or elimination of programs, where feasible;
the percentage breakdown of indigent versus private paying
individuals in the nursing home and the recommendation ~er a
change in the ratio comparison; the landfill testing policy; the
need to retain revenue sharing road match funding; the use
regional statistics to attain Triple A bond rating; etc.
Mr. Daniel stated he would like staff to compile information for
future Boards o~ $~perviscrs on tax opportunities, meal =axes,
etc. Me stated there will have to be program adjustments, as
many items as presented would result in direct tax increases.
He stated the list as presented would have difficulty being
approved and he felt it important that staff review the material
to consolidate and/or eliminate programs to generate revenues
that will not deal with tax increases. He stated the Board
needo to know about operations, what impacts are, otc., and
should be provided with formatted details, justifications, etc.
Mr. Dedd expressed opposition to proration as well as amendment
of the land use program. He expressed concern for the monthly
leaf and trash collection programs and the number cf County
residents being taken care o~ at the nursing home, both private
and indigent. Be concurred with Mr. Mayes ~ha~ a model should
be developed giving consideration to the equitable distribution
of resources in the County but felt there is insufficient staff
to accomplish such action.
Mr. Mayes expressed concern regarding amending the land use
program; felt the monthly trash and leaf collection programs
should be addressed in more detail; opposed giving up district
allocations to unify road projects; felt spending money on the
water situation problem at the landfill should be included in
the budget; and requested under Budget Objectives that the last
entry ~e rewri:ten to state that consideration will be given to
the equitable distribution of resources as he felt a model needs
to be developed for the sake of fairness.
87-70
Mrs. Girone stated she felt a work session necessary to discuss
the ramifications of amending the land use program; stated that
new sources of revenue may have to be identified and she felt
the overall County budget should be managed more wisely, with
possible consolidations and/or elimination~ of some requests;
felt the revenue sharing road match fun~ing should be retained;
felt development of the road in the Industrial Park should be
postponed; and recormmended consideration of changing the ratio
of private/indigen~ patients at the nursing home.
Mr. Applega~e stated he felt the new budget funding i~ limited
and staff has tried to identify areas the Board may consider to
generate additional revenue without increasing real estate
taxes. He stated this Board will have to identify additional
income sources. He stated at some point in time services will
have to be sa~rified and as yet the public safety aspect has not
been addressed. He questioned the additional funding to
departments as it related to the overall total of new revenues.
Mr. Daniel stated he understood the Board to say the goals are
acceptable and are to be used as direction but not as a
reinforcement device to plus and minus opinions.
Tt was generally agreed the Board would recess for ~ive minutes.
Reconveninq:
Mr. Sale presented a brief summary of the Capital Improvements
~rogram recommended for FY 1987-88, which included the General
O~ligation Bend projects for fiscal years 1988 through 1993;
funding for yearly CIP's for fiscal years 1987 through 1993 and
anticipated non-funded projects, classified by priority. Mr.
Rarasey explained the financing of the projects and the debt
management policy, which included recommendations to retain at
least a 7.5% Fund Balance in the General Fund; that the debt
issued for the Enterprise Fund should ~e supported ~y revenues
generated by the enterprise activity (Revenue Bonds); that the
Coullty should pay from current revenues for at lea~t 20% of the
COSt Of the Capital ~mprovement Program for General Gevernment
Activities; that School Capital Facilities should be constructed
entirely with debt; that the County should retain a debt to
Assessment Ratio no higher than 3.5% of total assessed value;
that lease purchase financing for capital facilities should be
added to debt for calculating the debt to assessment ratio and
for financial planning and reporting purposes; that a Capital
Improvement Program should be updated each year; and that debt
service as a percentage of total General Government expenses
should not exceed 10%.
Discussion ensued regarding the criteria established Dy the
State Board of Education relative to granting literary loans;
financing through the Public School Authority; debt service
payback; 4% versus 6% market rates on literary loans; general
obligation bond projects and estimated expenditures; the
County's bond rating; the necessity/importance of replacing the
Co%~lty jail facility in FY87-88; ~unding and development of the
Lake Chesdin Recreation Area, Phase I; the number of vacant
seats in the schools in the northern sector of the County and in
the entire County; the need for two motor pools and planning
sta~; the CIP tax rate impact; operations impact; the need for
Utility taxes and what the impacts may be; etc.
Mr. Daniel stated he felt the subject material is not clearly
defined and he would like ~uture material on the Capital
87-71
Improvements Program to include a list of the topics and how it
is anticipated to raise the money and in what year.
Mr. Hedriok stated the subject material is to provide a scope
the financial impact as anticipated in 1988 and future material
on these projects will be based on the merits of the project~
and their rationale.
It was generally agreed that future material on the Capital
Improvements Programs will be formatted with more details such
as funding mechanisms, justifications, projects,
DINNER
The Board recessed at 4:40 p.m.
Restaurant for dinner.
to travel to the Farm House
Reconvening at 7:00 p.m.:
Mr. Hedrick introduced Dr. Glen Bohannon, Senior Pastor
Central Baptist Church, who 9ave the invocation.
3. pr.~nGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO 'r~ FLA~ OF THE UNITED STATES OF
A~ERICA
The Pledge of Allegiance
America wac recited.
to the Flag of the United States of
4. APPROVAL OFMIN%~E$
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
the minutes of January 28, 1987, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
5. COURTYADMINISTRATOR~S CO~E~TS
Mr. Hedrick stated he did not have any comments at this time.
6. BOARD COI~4I'~-r~.~-REPO~TS
Mr. Applegate stated he attended the Capital Region Airport
Commission (CPJ~¢) meeting at which the Executive Director
reported that enplanements increased 12% for ~986 and the
overall number of enplanements for the year was the highest
recorded iH the Airport's history. He stated a Grand Opening,
primarily for the new facility, is planned for Juno 2, 1957; the
Allegheny Com~uter Service Suburban Airlines will begin serving
Richmond International Airport daily and the Co~ission awarded
the new food/beverage concession to ATe Company.
Mrs. Girone stated the Richmond Regional Planning District
Commisaion (RRPDC) approved a new budget for fiscal year 1987-88
a~ ~he same per capita rate. She reported, although VACO
efforts had failed, a bill has been passed by the General
Assembly on annexation which provides a moratorium for eighteen
(18) months. She stated she attended the Lake Genito Committee
meeting at which a contract with the consultants for the Lake
Genito Study was ratified.
Mr. Dodd stated he attended the Metropolita~ Ecencmic
87-72
Development Council meeting at which a study was authorized fo=
implementing foreign involvement, a resolution was approved
supporting the Port Study, and Mr. Anthony Mehfo~d was elected
Chairman for the upcoming year.
Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes stated they did not have reports other
than those made at this time.
7--~ST$ TO POSTPON~ ACTION, EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR ChL%NGEM
IN T~ ORDER OF PP~SENTATION
Mr. Dodd requested that Item ll.B., Public Hearing to Conside~
the Adoption o~ Guidelines to Define Section 20-1.31(c) and
20-1.44(c) of the County Code Relating to the ~xtension of
Utility Services Which Promotes the Economic Duvalcpment of the
County, be deferred until February 25, 1987, as members of the
Chesterfield Business Council would like additional time te
study the matter. Mr. Daniel stated since the item has been
advertised for a public hearing it would have to be heard in its
scheduled sequence on the agenda; however, the request for
deferral could be made at that time.
On motion of the ~Lrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
deleted Item 12.C.2.o.4., Condemnation Proceedings for BuYer
Road Water Line Project Against Ms. Effie G. Seargeant and Ms.
Elsie S. cutchin; and adopted ~he agenda, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
8. ~OL~TIONS OF SPECIAL P~C(~ITION
8.A. MR. O. C. GRAVES, JR., OUTSTANDING CITIZP~N
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WI~EREAS, Oliver C. Graves, Jr. ia a combat veteran who was
awarded four battle stars while serving in the United States
Army; returned to e~ployment at Bellwood in July, 1946 where he
retired in 1979 with 33 years of service and joined the ~aticnal
Guard, 176 Infantry Combat Team in 1948; and
W~EREAS, in October 1950, Oliver joined the Volunteer Fire
Department of Chesterfield County, Chester Station Number l; is
still active in the Fire Department wherehe became President cf
the Board of Directors and Chaplain for the Department and paid
volunteers; and
W~EREAS, in 1956, Oliver joined the Auxiliary Policemen of
Chesterfield County where he was promoted to Executive Officer
and Captain, and in 1975 was made a Special Policeman with all
police powers and his present position in the Special Police is
Lieutenant, Public Relations O£~icer; and
%~t~Pd~AS, Oliver is a Deacon at Beyond Branch Baptist
Church, where he wa~ Chairman of the Soard for two years; is a
member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Le~ion
and was a member of the Board of Directors of the Chesterfield
County Fair Association representing the Matoaea District 1981 -
1984; and
WHeReAS, in 1986, Oliver was sworn in as a Deputy Sheriff
for Court Room Security, Chesterfield County.
NOW, TH~REFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors hereby acknowledges the good fortune of the
County to have Oliver C. Graves, Jr. as one of its outstandin~
public servants and as one of its citizens.
Vote: Unanimous
87-73
Mr. ~ayes presented Mr. Graves with the executed resolution and
congratulated him on hi~ achievements. Mr. Gr&ves expressed his
appreciation to the Board for the honor bestowed upon him.
SUPPORTING HERBERT C. GILL, JR. AS CIRCUIT COURT JUD~
FOR TWELFTH CIRCUIT
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
W~EREA$, In September of 1987 a vacancy will arise on the
bench of the yirginia Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial
Circuit due to the retirs~ent of The Honorable Ernest P. Gates
and
WHEREAS, Rerbert C. Gill, Jr. is a candidate to fill thl
vacancy On the bench cf the Circuit Court; and
WHEREAS, The combined Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Bar
Association has endorsed by acclamation, ~erbert C. Gill, Jr. as
a candidate for the Circuit Court bench when said judgeship
becomes available; and
WHEREAS, Herbert C. Gill, Jr. was born and raised in
Chesterfield County, graduated from T. C. Williams School of Law
in 1971, served the County as Assistant Common- wealth's
Attorney from 1971 to 1980 and since 1980 has been in private
practice in ~he County; and
WHEREAS, Herbert C. Gill, Jr- has consistently proven
himself in the past to be a worthy and ethical lawyer, a
faithful public servant and has exhibited the ty~e of demeanor
necessary to be a fair and effective judge; and
WHEREAS, Due to the fact that 90% of the population living
within the Twelfth Judicial Circuit live in Chesterfield County
and that by the year 1990 the population of the County will have
grown to a figure exceeding the population of the City of
Richmond, it is appropriate to select a candidate from
Chesterfield County to sit on the Circuit Court bench.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Hoard of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County that the Boar~ unanimously and
enthusiastically recommends Herbert C. Gill, Jr. as a candidate
for this vacancy that will arise on the bench of the Circuit
Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit and urges the
Chesterfield County Delegation to the General Assembly to
support his appointment.
Vote: Unanimous
8.C. PROCLAIMING FFZ~RUARY 25, 1987 AS "METRO FOOD DAY"
On motion of the Hoard, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, many families and individuals have a great need
for food to supplement limited resources; and
WHEREAS, METRO FOODSHARE DAY is a community-wide project
whereby employers will ask their employees to bring canned goods
on February 25th to an established food collection box or area
within the company; and
WHEREAS, the collected items will be taken to the Central
Virginia Food Bank, which will make them available ~e 600
agencies currently registered as emergency food distribution
sites in the metropolitan area.
NOW, TNEREFORE BE IT P~ESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County does hereby proclaim February
25, 1987 to be METRO FOODSHARE DAY in tho County of Chesterfield
87-74
and urges the business community and the citizens cf the Countp
to participate in this unified effort to collect food and otheI
personal care items to meet the local residents~ emergency needs
during the winter months.
Vote: Unanimous
Ms. Jean smith, Director Of social Services, and Ms. JeaE
Machenberg, Director of the VirGinia Food Bank, were presented
the executed resolution. Mr. Daniel stated the efiorts o~
"Metro Food Day" is a classic example of people working togetheri
to help those less fortunate and expressed appreciation for
their contribution to the County.
9. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSC~nm~L~D MA~=rKRS OR CLAIMS
There were no hearings of citizens on unscheduled matters or
claims.
10. DEFERRED
10.A. APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CONSIDF~RATION OF
1984 ZONING INVOLVEMENT POLICY
Mr. Dodd stated, since the previous discussion on a Board
appointee to the Planning Commission, he has learned that the
Planning Con~i~eion members do not desire to have a Board member
serve on the Commission and he withdrew the request.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
reaffirmed its 1984 policy regarding the proper involvement of
the Board members in the zoning process.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Dodd.
Nays: Mrs. Girone, as her position on this issue has not
changed.
10.B. ~$9~EST FOR REDUCED SEWER CONNECTION FEE FOR RESIDENTS
ON JEAN DRIVE
Mr. Welohon$ stated the request for a reduced sewer connection
fee for residents on Jean Drive was deferred from the January
28, 1987, Board meeting. He stated the' request is for a
reduction in the connection fee from $2500 to $1700. He stated
staff recommends denial of the request because the Board has
consistently adhered to a policy to uniformly impose the
applicable connection fee at the time application for connection
is made and any deviation would severely compromise the County's
ability to collect u~iform connection fees, while at the same
time jeopardize compliance with bond covenants.
Mr. Wallace Lewis, representing thc residents of Jean Drive
stated these residents were not included in the original survey
conducted in 1983 along Re,et Road and Priend Avenue to
determine which residents would agree to connect to public
sewer. He stated the residents of Jean Drive feel they should
be afforded service now at the same connection fee of $1700
which the residents of Friend Avenue paid.
Mr. Dodd stated there were extenuating circumstances surrounding
this matter and he did not feel the residents of Jean Drive
should be required to pay a $2500 connection fee for public
sewer since they were not included in the original survey. It
WaS indicated the cost difference would be approximately
$12,000.
Mr. Applegate questioned how approval of the lower rate would
relate to the bond covenants. Mr- Micas stated the Board is
obligated under the ordinance, as well as the bond covenant~, to
87-75
charge uni£orm connection fees and in the past the Board has
abided by the constraints of the ordinance. Mr. Applegate
questioned if the Jean Drive situation was similar to the Lucks
Lane situation whereby the difference in the cost of connection
to water service could not be waived. Mr. Micas stated it was.
Mr. Mayes stated he did not feel approval of this request would
be a deviation from policy since the residents were not informed
and should not be penalized for not knowing how to take
advantage of the original survey. Mr. Welchons stated the
County had not originally planned to install sewer along Jean
Drive and the residents were not notified of the survey.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by ~r. ~ayes, the Board approved
a request from sixteen (16) homeowners on Jean Drive to reduce
the sewer connection fee from $2,500 to $1,700.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Dodd and ~Lrs. Girone.
Nays: Mr. Applegate.
10.c. APPROPRIATION TO %%4E COLrNT~ MUSEUM TO CONTINUE HISTORY
BOOK PROJECT
Mr. Haa~er stated that the Board deferred action on a previous
request to appropriate funding for the completion of the County
Museum's History Book project. He mtated staff met with Mr. Ed
Moseley of the MUSe%~B Co~ittee who stated that a total of
$8,000 is required during FY 1987 to continue the project. He
stated staii is requesting that the remaining $15,333 for
publishing expenses be appropriated in the upcoming FY 1988
budget and if the $15,333 is insufficient to cover all the
costs, they will advise the Board.
Mr. Daniel questioned if approval of the funding for 1988 was
considered as voting on next year's budget. Mr. Micas stated
the Board would not be voting on next year's budget as they
would only be including the issue as one of the items to be
considered at the time the budget is presented to the Board.
~r. ~ayes stated money had previously been allocated for this
project and, although the money reverted to the General Fund, he
felt a commitment had been made and the funds should be
approved. Mr. Applegate stated he felt that if the Board were
to vote on the $15,333 it may be obligating itself on the issue
in FY 1988.
Mrs. Girone moved that the Board appropriate $8,000 from the
General Fund Contingency Account and the balance of
from the General Fund Balance, to continue the Chesterfield
County Museum History Book project. Mr. Mayes seconded the
motion.
Mr. Applegate questioned the use of the amount indicated in the
Board paper as the balance in the General Fund Contingency
Account and if it could be used ~or funding this item. Mr.
Hedrick stated the Board has the option o~ appropriating $12,639
from the General Fund Contingency Account and the balance of
$10,694 from the General Fund Balance to fund this project and
he reoo~e~ded such action be considered.
Mrs. Girone amended her motion to appropriate $12,639 from the
Seneral Fund Contingency Account and ~he balance of $10,694 from
the General Fund Balance, ~or a total of $23,333, to complete
the work and initiate publication of the Chesterfield County
Museum History Book project. Mr. Mayes seconded the amended
motion.
Mr. Ramsey pointed out that the use of $12,639 from the General
Fund Contingency Account would leave a remaining balance of
$20,694 to be taken from the General Fund Balance, for a total
of $33,333 to complete the project. ~t was indicated the figure
of $15,333 was incorrect in tbs Board paper and should have read
87~76
$25,333. He $~ated a balance of $20,694 would be required from
the General Fund Balance to complete the project.
Mrs. Girone amended her motion to appropriate $12,639 from the
General Fund Contingency Account and the balance of $20,694 from
the General Fund Balance, for a total of $33,333, to complete
the work and initiate publication of the Chesterfield County
Museum History Book project. Mr. Mayes seconded the amended
motion.
Mr. Applegate expressed concern regarding the amount of money it
would take to complete the project and that these £igures may be
insufficient. There was discussion concerning the ramifications
of appropriating the entire amount needed to complete the
project during the 1987 fiscal year Or whether to fund a portion
of it in Z987 and a portion in 1988, concern that the funding
may be insufficient and additional funding will be needed in the
future, anticipated budget cuts for FY 1987-88, etc. Mr.
Applegate eXpressed concern that the Museum staff has indicated
the amount of funding may be insufficient to complete the
project, that they may need to come back to request additional
funding and he moved to defer the item for two week~ in order to
clarify how much the project will actually cost. Mr. Dodd
stated he did not feel a deferral would be beneficial. There was
no second to the substitute motion and the Chairman declared the
motion dead for lack of a second.
A restatement of the motion was called for and on motion of Mrs.
Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board appropriated $12,639
from the General Fund Contingency Account and the balance of
$20,694 from the General Fund Balance, for a total of $33,333,
to complete the work and initiate publication of the
Chesterfield County Museum History Book project.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Dodd a~d Mrs. Girone.
Nays: Mr. Applegate.
10.D. APPOINTMENTS - DRUG ABUSE TASK FORCE
Mr. Daniel stated he would forego Dale District nominations for
the Drug Abuse Task Force at this time.
11. PUBLIC HEARINGs
ll.A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROBIBITION OF ANY TRUCK
OR TRUCK AND TRAILER OR SEMITRAILER COF~INATION, EXCEPT
A PICK~UP OR PA/q~L TRUCK FROM USING ROBIOUS ROAD (ROUTE
675) FROM MIDLOT~IAR TUR/~PIK~ (ROUTE 60) TO RUGUENOT
ROAD (ROUTE 147~.
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and ~ime had been advertise~ ~or a
public hearing to consider restriction of through truck traffic
on Robious Road between Midlothian Turnpike and Huguenot Road.
Mr. McCracken was present to address the matter.
Mr. Bruce Wingo voiced his support for the prohibition of
through truck traffic on Robious Road as a portion of this road
is unimproved, narrow, curvy, and is a ~afety hazard. ~e stated
there is poor drainage in this area and water rises above the
road when there is heavy rainfall. He stated the road maintains
a high volume of traffic and many accidents occur here,
There wam no opposition present.
Mr. Daniel pointed out that many requests, such as this, have
been forwarded to the virginia Department of Transportation and
the Department has been reluctant to support such requests.
Mrs. Girone stated she felt it would be appropriate to ban
87-77
through truck traffic on Robious Road as such vehicles can
access the commercial tracts from Huguenot Road or Route 60 and
she recommended this request be forwarded to the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the
following resolution was adopte~:
WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hag
received regue~t~ from citizens to restrict through truck
traffic on Robious Road (Route 675) between Midlothian Turnpike
(Route 60) and Huguenot Road (Route 147) by any truck or truck
and trailer or semi-trailer combination except pick-up or panel
trucks; and
WHEREAS, the Board has conducted a public hearing on the
question.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation
to restrict through truck traffic on Robious Road from
Midlothian Turnpike to Huguenot Road.
There was discussion on improvements to this road, which had
been deleted from the Huguenot Road project, and the lack of
VDOT honoring such requests.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone.
Abstention: Mr. Dodd.
ll.B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF GUIDELINES TO
DEFINE SECTION 20-1.31 (c) AND 20-1.44 (c) OF THE COL%T~Y
CODE RELATING TO T~E EXTRNSION OF UTILITY SERVICES WI~IC~
PROMOTES THE ECONOMIC DE~-ELOPMENT OF THE COUNT~/
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider the adoption of guidelines relating
=o the extension of utility service~ which promotes the economic
development of the County.
Mr. Dodd requested a deferral to allow input from the
Chesterfield Business Council.
There was no opposition present to the request for a deferral.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred
consideration of the guidelines relating to the extenmion of
utility services which promote the economic development of the
County until February 25, 1987.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.C. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO A~4END THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CH~$TERFIELDf 1978~ AS AMENDED~ BY
ADDING ARTICLE XXIII ILELATING TO HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND
LANDMARKS
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised ~or a
public hearing to consider an ordinance ~elating to historic
districts and landmarks.
Mr. Sale stated the proposed legislation would authorize the
creation of a preservation co~tmittee and establish standards for
the designation and establish procedures by which plans are
reviewed for work On landmarks er structures located within
preservation districts.
Mr. Micas stated the copy of the ordinance passe~ out to the
Board prior to the meeting indicates the changes as suggested by
the Planning Commission and staff. Mr. Pearsall questioned i~
the ordinance under consideration is the same as that advertised
87-78
for public hearing. Mr. Micas stated his ~nderstanding of the
matter is that the Planning Commission suggested changes and
those changes were incorporated i~te the revised ordinance and
the Board has the option of considering or rejecting those
suggestions. Mrs. Girone requested a clarification as to
whether or not the suggestions by Ms. Betsy Weaver that she read
into the minutes or suggeetions by the Ben Air Historical
Society were included in the new document. Mr. Micas stated
they were not. Mr. Applegate questioned whether or net the
ordinance distributed prior to the meeting was the same as that
included in the Board's packet. Mr. Micas stated it was.
Mr. Bill Martex Of the Richmond Board of Realtors voiced s~pport
of the concept of the ordinance and suggested several changes to
the document, which included that the at-large seats on the
preservation oon~ittee include property owners from the County,
with one or more being a realtor; that there be two public
hearings; that the standards for designation of historic
districts be better defined and reflect state and national
historic preservation g~idelines; that this action may be
creating a potential financial hardship on property owners
through mechanisms outlined and involved in the appeal and
appraisal processes; suggested that the time period be limited
to six (6) months for offers to sell for efficiency and cost
purposes; recon~ended that the certificate of appropriateness
and other such proposals be issued concurrently instead of in a
two tiered process; and that a preservation manual be adopted,
if available; and if not, they would like the opportunity to
contribute to the development of such a manual and share their
expertise. He s~ate~ the organization feels that this issue is
a question of private property rights versus protection of
historic landmarks and he requested the issue be deferred for
further study.
Mr, Carl Norris voiced his support of the ordinance and stated
he felt the ordinance needs a vehicle whereby land owners are
not punished for owning sites which could be considered as
historic la~d~arks. Me stated there should be an incentive
provided to those persons owning such sites.
Mr. Bryan Walker voiced support for the ordinance and agreed
that an incentive or tax break should be considered and would be
beneficial in obtaining approval of this proposal. He stated a
mechanism is needed whereby such sites can be preserved.
Mr. Jerry Jewett stated he felt the concept of attempting to
preserve historic sites in Chesterfield is a good idea; however,
he felt this type of legislation would need much consideration,
as it could be considered a type o~ condemnation. He stated he
felt the allotted time frame for offers to sell are too long and
will adversely affect the sale cf such sites, particularly since
most old proPerties do not have substantial commercial values.
He stated he felt a deferral of the matter would be beneficial,
as mere consideration should be given to the issue before it is
adopted.
Mr. John Pearsall, representing the Board of the Chesterfield
Historical Society, stated the proposed ordinance is a
recognition that Chesterfield County is becoming mere urbanized
and should be seeking to preserve the remnants of its past. He
stated approval of the ordinance will provide a mechanism
whereby the community and individuals will benefit from the
preservation of its historic landr~arks, which are its legacies
and heritage. He commended staff on the diligent efforts
exhibited in the formulation of the proposed ordinance. He
stated approval of this ordinance will not devalue property, is
not a form Of condemnation, will increase community values and
voiced support for it.
MS. Charlotte Farley voiced support for approval of this
ordinance and referenced Magnolia Grange as one of the County's
historical landmarks which is an important contribution and
87-79
educational aspect of the County. She stated legislation of
this type is extremely important as it will provide a mechanism
whereby such sites as Magnolia Grange can be preserved, not
destroyed.
There was no one else present to address the matter and Mr,
Daniel closed the p~blie hearing.
Mr. Daniel Stated there are many Virginia jurisdictions which
currently have historical districts and he felt the best way to
study an issue such as this would be to put it in me,ion. ~e
stated that through such an ordinance there are opportunities to
assure that every property owner receives fair and just
treatment. Ne stated he felt the ordinance is very complete and
offerB a~ opportunity to begin such a process.
Mr. Applegate expressed concern aB to the revised copy of
material provided to the Board prior to the meeting. Mr. Micas
stated the underlined language is a clarification as suggested
in light of the Planning Commission's and staff's concerns but
the ordinance is essentially the same as that advertised for
public hearing. Mr. Applegate questioned if tbs present zoning
ordinance enables the Board to zone or not zone property based
on whether Or not it is designated by a speaker as having
historic significance. Mr. Micas stated the Board Can currently
conBider the historic significance of any building in making a
zoning decision. Mr. Applegate expressed concern as to why the
ordinance needed to be changed. Mr. Micas stated this ordinance
does not specifiy use, which is the primary focus of the zoning
ordinance, but addresses exterior appearance and demolition,
which issues are not currently addressed by the zoning
ordinance. Mr. Applega~e suggested that the issue be de~erred
so a work ~ession could be scheduled to clarify concerns.
Mr. Mayes stated he felt the preservation of human values and
past relics have been ignored too long and that this ordinance
Mrs. ~irone questioned why the concerns of MB. BetBy Weaver and
the Ben Air Historical Society's were not addressed in the
revised material. Mr. Sale stated that s~aff, in reviewing Ms.
Weaver's concerns, felt the issues were already adflressed in the
ordinance and that no information had been submitted regarding
the concerns of the Ben Air Historical Society. Mrs. Girone
stated she felt the matter should be deferred for thirty days to
review the concerns expressed by interested individuals. Mr.
Dodd stated he felt the County's heritage is important and
should ho preserved and that the destruction of such sites iB
not in the best interest of the public. Ke stated he felt it
would be appropriate to approve the proposed ordinance now. Ne
suggested approval of the proposed ordinanc~ with an amendment
to geetion 21-211., Limitation on certificates, allowing ~welve
mo~ths, not six months, for the certificate of apprcpriateneBs
to become n~ll and void after the date issued.
Mr. Micas cited an error in the first paragraph of Mection
21-206, page 4, of the document and asked that it be corrected
to include the language as written in the version which shows
the additional and deleted language. Mr. Dodd stated both
amendments were acceptable.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Maye$, the Board adopted
the following ordinsnce:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TEE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF CHEStERFIeLD, 1978, BY ADDING ARTICLE XXIII
RELATING TO HISTORIC DIST~RICT$ AND LANDMARKS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(l) That Chapter 21 of ~he Code of the County of Chester~
87-80
field, Virginia is amended by enacting Article XXIII as follows:
Section 21-201. Desiqnation of historic districts.
Pursuant to Sections 15.1-489 and 15.1-503,2, Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the board of supervisors shall have
the authority to designate landmarks and landmark sites having
an important historical architectural Or cultural interest and
to establish historic districts within the county containing
buildings or places in which historic events occurred or having
special public value because of notable architectural or other
features relating to the cultural cr artistic heritage of the
county.
Section 21-202. Creation of preservation committee.
For the purposes of assisting in the administration o~ the
provisions of this article, there is hereby created a preserva-
tion committee. Such committee shall be composed of seven
members appointed by the Board of Supervisors. At least one
member shall be an architect or landscape architect, one member
shall be a contractor, one member shall be a representative of a
local historical society and one member shall be a
representative of the State Division of Historic Landmarks.
Members of the preservation committee shall be appointed for
three-year terms, and no member shall serve for more than two
consecutive terms.
Section 21-203, Procedure for desig~jADq an historic districtr
landmarks and landmark sites.
Applications for the creation of an historic district, or
the designation of landmarks and landmark sites shall be filed
with the director of planning, by the planning commission, board
of supervisors, the owner, contract purchaser with the owner's
written consent, the owner's agent or sixty percent of the
owners of all buildings within a proposed historic district.
The application shall be in such form and contain such
information as shall be prescribed by the director of planning.
The beard of supervisors may establish application fees in order
to defray the cost of application review.
Section 21-204. Responsibilities of the planninq commission and
preservation committee.
a. Upon receipt o£ an application the~ director of
planning shall, except in cases of a proposal initiated by the
planning oon~ission, refer such application to the planning
commission and the preservation committee for their review and
report.
b. Within sixty (60) days following the first meeting of
the planning commission after the receipt of such proposal or
application, the planning commission and the preservation
committee shall hold a joint public hearing to review such
application and shall prepare independent reports thereon
addressed to the board of supervisors.
c. Notice of such public heuring shall be given in the
same fashion as provided for in Section 15.1-431, Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended. The reports prepared by the
planning commission and the preservation committee shall address
the effect of the designation of the proposed district or
building on the future development of the county and s~eh other
matters as it shall deem appropriate and shall recon~end to the
board of supervisors that the proposed distric~ or landmark
either be designated, be designated with altered boundaries or
not be designated.
Section 21-205. Action by the board of supervisors.
a. Following the receipt of the recommendations and
87-81
reports of the preservation committee and the planning commis-
sion, the board of supervisors shall conduct a public hearing
and shall consider the request for designation of an historic
district, landmark or site. Such public hearing shall be
conducted in the same fashion as hearings conducted to consider
amendments to the county zoning ordinance. Written notification
shall be sent to all owners of property proposed for designation
as an historic landmark, a landmark site, or proposed for
inclusion within an historic district.
Section 21-206. Standards for designation of historic
districts.
No area of the county or ~uil~ing located within the county
shall be designated an historic district pursuant to the pro-
visions of this section unless such area or building shall
constitute a distinct section of the county building or building
site within the county and shall have the potential to provide
cultural and civic benefits by reason of the existence of at
least one of the following factors:
(1) The presence Of special historical interest relating
to local, state or national history.
(2) The presence of special character or aesthetic
interest or value caused by the development pattern of the area
or by natural, landscaping or topographical features of the
area.
(3) The presence of one or more periods or styles of
architecture tyPical of one or more eras in the history of the
county which gives the area a distinct character.
(4) The concentration of indigenous examples of local
architecture which have not been significantly altered from
their original design and which have a uniform scale and derive
~pecial value from the repetition cf scale and form.
(5) The presence of one c~ more distinguished buildings of
high architectural quality and historic interest.
Section 21-207. Certificates of appropriateness.
a- Authority. The preservation committee, acting as a
body, shall have authority to issue certificates of appropriate-
ness, in accordance with the provisions o~thisseetio~.
b. Certificate ~pquired. It shall be unlawful for any
person to perform, cause or permit any construction, alteration,
remodeling that would affect the exterior architectural appear-
ance or property thereof; or any removal, movement or demolition
of any building, structure, other improvement to the premises,
including land disturbing activities which has been designated a
landmark or landmark site or which is located within an area
which has been designated as an historic district, and no person
shall secure or issue a permit authorizing any such work unless
a certificate of appropriateness with respect to such work, and
in the ease of demolition of a principal structure, with respect
to the new construction proposed to replace such structure,
shall have first been issued pursuant to this section. Nc
person shall maintain any landmark, landmark site, or property
located within an historic district on which any such work has
been performed in the absence of, or in violation of the terms
of such a certificate. Provided, however, that reutine
maintenance that does not alter the existing exterior appearance
of any such structure shall not require obtaining a certificate
of appropriateness. The owner of an historic land~ark or
structure within an historic district shall, as a matter of
right, be entitled to raze or demolish such landmark without a
certificate of appropriateness provided that: (1) he has
applied for such right; (2) the owner has for the period of time
set forth in the schedule hereinafter set forth and at a price
87~82
reasonably related to its fair market value, made a bona fide
offer to sell such landmark, building or structure, and the land
pertaining thereto, to the county or to any person, firm,
corporation, government or agency thereof, or political
subdivision or agency thereof, which gives reasonable assurance
that it is willing to preserve and restore the landmark,
building or structure and the land pertaining thereto, and (3)
that no bona fide contract, binding upon all parties thereto,
shall have been executed for the sale of any such landmark,
building or structure, and the land pertaining thereto, prior to
the expiration o~ the applicable time period set forth in the
time schedule hereinafter stated. No offer to sell shall bo
made more than one year after a final decision by the preser-
vation committee, but thereafter the owner may renew his request
to the board of supervisors to approve the razing or demolition
of the historic land/~%rk, building or structure. The time
schedule for o~iers to sell shall be as follows: throe months
when the offering price is less than twenty-five thousand
dollars; four months when the offering price is twenty-five
~housand dollars or more but less than forty thousand dollars;
five months when the offering price is forth thousand dollars or
more but less than fifty-five thousand dollars; six months when
the offering price is fifty-five thousand dollars or more but
less than seventy-five thousand dollars; seven months when the
offering price is seventy-five thousand dollars or more but less
than ninety thousand dollars; and twelve months when the
offering price is ninety thousand dollars or mere.
See~ion 21-208. Applications for certificates of apRropriate-
a. Applications for certificates cf appropriateness shall
be submitted to the director of planning in such form as shall
be prescribed by the director of planning.
b. In any case where the work to be performed in confor-
mance with a certificate of appropriateness requires the
issuance of a variance or approval of a zoning change or other
permit or approval, no application for a certificate of
appropriateness shall he accepted until such other approval has
been issued. Tho issuance of any such other approval shall not
be deemed to establish any right to the issuance of a certif-
icate of appropriateness and such certificates shall only be
issued or denied solely on the basis of tho standards
established by this chapter.
Section 21-209. Action by the preservation committee.
a. within forty-five (45) days following the receipt of a
completed application for a certificate of appropriateness, the
preservation committee shall review the application and shall
either grant the certificate of appropriateness without
modification, grant the certificate of appropriateness with
modifications or subject to conditions, or deny the certificate
o~ appropriateness.
b. The committee may, or at the applicant's request
shall, meet with the applicant to review the application prior
to rendering any decision.
c. In considering such application the committee shall be
guided by the purposes for which landmarks, landmark sites and
historic districts are designated and by the particular
standards and considerations contained in the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and amendments as
adopted by the board o~ supervisors.
Section 21-210. Appeal procedure from preservation committee.
In any case in which the applicant is dissatisfied with the
decision of the preservation committee on his application for a
certificate of appropriateness, the applicant may appeal the
87-83
decision to the board Of supervisors within thirty (30) days Of
the decision by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the
board of supervisors.
section 21-211. Limitation on certificates.
A certificate of appropriateness shall become null and void
twelve (12) months after the date on which it was issued unles~
within such period the work authorized by such eerti£icate is
commenced. A certificate of appropriateness shall relate solely
to the work shown on plans approved within such certi~icat~ and
it shall be unlawful to deviate from any certificate of
appropriateness without obtaining an amended certificate in the
sams manner as herein provided for obtaining original
oer=ificates.
Section 21-212. Emergency alterations Or demolitions by public
officials.
No county official shall seek to remove, alter or demolish
any structure which is a landmark or is on a landmark site or in
an historic district, for the purpose of remedying conditions
determined to be dangerous to life, health or safety, unless a
certificate of appropriateness has been issued to permit such
removal, alteration or demolition provided, however, that the
certificate may require that the work not materially change or
detract from the exterior appearance o~ the structure where the
danger to life, health or safety m~y be aba=ed without so chang-
ing or detracting from the exterior appearance.
Section 21-213. A~p~eal from decision of the board of super~$-
Any aggrieved property owner shall have the right to appeal
any final decision of the Board of Supervisors pursuant to thi~
article by following the procedure set out in Section
15.1-503.2(c) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as ar~ended,
Section 2~-214. Penalties.
In addition to the penalties so provided in Section 21 of
this ordinance, any' person who demolishes, alters, or constr~cts
a building, structure or site in violation of this Article shall
be required to restore the building, structure or site to its
appearance prior to the violation.
Mr. Applegate reiterated his concern that the revised material
was not that which was advertised for public hearing. Mr.
Pearsall stated it was his understanding that the ordinance had
not been amended and was sent back to the Board with suggestions
by the Planning Commission as to how the ordinance might be
amended. Mr. Micas stated the amendments as made by Mr. Dodd %o
the proposed ordinance are permitted based on the advertising
made.
Mrs. Girone questioned if it would be the Board's desire to
provide a reference in the ordinance for consideration of a tax
incentive to maintain these sites and not have it taxed at the
sa~e ValUe level as general real estate in the County as it is
different, unique and worthy of special consideration. Mr.
Daniel stated that such a recommendation would be appropriate
coming from the Budget and Audit Committee if the ordinance were
adopted. He stated ~he method by which to accomplish such
action would be through inclusion in the budget and tax process.
Mr. Micas stated he was not aware of any legislation, currently
in Virginia law, that would permit special tax exemptions ~or
historic districts.
The vote on the motion was as follows:
87-84
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. SaFes and Mr. Dodd.
Nays: Mr. Applegate, as he felt a 30 day deferral was necessary
to resolve concerns.
Abstention: Mrs. Girone, as she felt the entire process was
badly handled.
It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five (5)
minutes.
ll.D. PUBLIC ~EARING TO CONSIDER THE CONVEYANCE OF A ONE-HALF
ACRE PARCEL IN TEE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK TO R & A
PARTNERSHIP dba/COLONIAL BEAUTY AND BARBERS SUPPLY COM-
PANY %rHICH PARCEL IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING
SITE AT 7741 WMITEpINE ROAD
Mr. ~edrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider the conveyance of a
parcel in the Airport Industrial Park to R & A Partnership.
Mr, Balderson was present representing the
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary
documents for the sale o£ a one-half acre parcel (at $25,000 per
acre) in the Airport Industrial Park, located adjacent to the
existing site at 7741 Whitepine Road, to R & A Partnership
dba/Colonial Beauty and Sarbers Supply Company.
Vote: Unanimous
12. NEW~JSIRES$
12-A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
12.A.1. REQUEST FOR REDUCED SPEED LIMIT ON HAPPY RILL ROAD
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the followinq
resolution was adopted:
WMEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County
has received requests from citizens to reduce the speed limit on
Happy Hill Road from Harrowgate Road to Route 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board requests the
Virginia Department of Transportation to reduce the speed limit
along that portion of Happy Hill Road.
Vote: Unanimous
12.A.2. ROUTE 10/ROUTE 1 INTERSECTIO~ IMPROVEMENT
Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board that he owns property to the
north of the Route 10/Route 1 intersection; however, he did not
feel him participation in the discussion woul~ jeopardize or
b~neflt this issue but he would abstain fro~ votinq o~ this
issue.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved Alternative II, authorizing staff to develop with VDOT
an accelerated construction schedule for the Route 10/Route
intersection, authorizing the acquisition of the right of way
for the project by whatever means necessary including
condemnation; and authorizing the County Administrator to enter
into construction contracts and take all necessary steps to
87-85
proceed with the construction of the Route 10/Route
intersection.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayea, Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone.
Abstention: Mr. Dodd.
12.A.3. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS
On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved street light installation cost approvals for 4400
Beulah Road (St. Augustine Parish), in the amount of $335.00, to
be expended from the Dale District Street Light Fund; and the
intersection of North Pinetta Road and Redington Drive, in the
a~ount of $105.00, and the intersection of North Pinetta Road
and Brucewood Drive, in the amount of $129.00, to be expended
from the Midlothian District Street Light Fund.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel requested that Mr. MoElfish inquire as to the
feasibiltiy and expense involved in installing a street light on
the nearest available pole at the intersection of Ironbridge
Road and Irongate Drive. Mr. Mayes inquired as to the status of
the street light installation on Temple Avenue. Mr. McElfish
stated he would check into the matter and advise Mr. Mayes.
12.A.4. ESTA~LIS~ENT OF POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR BELLWOOD/
BENSLEY HOUSING A/~D REHABILITATIO~ PROGRA~
On motion o~ Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board formally
adopted the pelicies and guidelines for the Bellwccd/Bensley
Housing and Rehabilitation Program. (A copy of said policies
and guidelines is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
12.A.5. ADJUSTMENT OF BUILDING PERMIT, ZONING ~ SUBDIVISION
FEES
Mr. Sale stated the Board approved the creation of additional
positions in the Departments of Building Inspections, Planning
and Environmental Enginaering in order to properly handle
increased workload. H~ ~tatsd, hewer®r, the additional
positions in Planning and Environmental Engineering were
contingent upon approval of a proposed fee schedule revised to
cover the added positions. He stated the proposed fee
adjustments do raise the revenue needed for these positions and
requested that the Board forward the proposed changes to the
Planning Commission for their consideration and recommendation.
He stated the request before the Board is a two phase proposal
whereby Phase I would raise fees to cover the increased
positions and Phase II, to become effective December 1987, is
designed to place the Development Review activity on a
self-supporting basis.
Mr. Dodd questioned if the Board paper was basically what the
Board agreed to at its November meeting. Mr. Applegate
questioned the source of the policy indicating the Development
Review activity would become self-supporting. Mr. Sale stated
this action is a recommendation of staff. Mr. Applegate stated
this was not part of what the Board had decided relative to this
matter. Mr. Daniel stated the Motion regarding the portion of
the fee structure that was required to cover expense of the new
employees was to be brought to the Bo~rd for consideration and
indicated that no employee would be permanent until after the
fee strut=ute was in place. Be stated the idea of additional
fees for the activity to become self-sufficient, whether
actually stated or an implied objective, should be formally
~7-86
adopted through the budget review proeoss, not as a part of the
Board paper.
Mr. Sale explained an oxamPle of these various fees on a typical
residential dwellinG or commercial development.
There was discussion regarding the rezonin9 and conditional use
fees, an analysis of the fees, its impact on staff, what fees
are neoessarM to cover the cost of new employees,
recommendations of management studies, etc.
On notion of Mrs. Girone~ seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
forwarded to the Planning Commission the proposed changes in the
Zoning/Subdivision fees for consideration and recommendation.
Mr. Applegate expressed concern that Phase I1 of the subject
paper was not included in the Board's direction to staff and
questioned if the two phases will take longer than if the Board
had only dealt with fees to cover the increased employoos. Mr.
Hodriok stated the bulk of the increase in the fees is in Phase
I and Staff felt the increase from Phase I to Phase II was
substantial enough in magnitude to warrant consideration at this
time.
Mr. Sale stated rocruitment ~cr thess positions is ongoin~ bnt
no one has been hired.
Mr. Daniel stated he could support the motion provided that the
analysis, as part of the study process, contained a two tier
structure, with one analysis indicating what the fee should bo
if only the cost of new employees is covered and one analysis
covering both the cost of new employees and the fair cost of the
workload. He stated with that accomplished he would ~eol the
intent of the ori~inal motion was beinG adhsred to. Mrs. Girone
stated that was acceptable.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
forwarded the proposed changes in the Zoning/Subdivision foos,
to include an analysis of the cost of new employees and an
analysis of the cost of new omployees a~d the fai~ cost cf the
workload, to the Planning commission for their consideration and
recommendation, with the understanding that a recommendation
would be forthcomin~ as Soo~ as possible.
Vote: Unanimous
12.B. CONSENT ITEMS
12.B.1. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination cf Brickhaven Drive in Ponnwood, Section ~ and a
portion of Section 3, Clover Mill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Apple9ate~
seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Brickhaven Drive in
Ponnwood, section 5 and a portion of Section 3, Clover ~ill
District, be and it hereby is establishod as a public road.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, bo and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary ~ystem, Brickhaven Drive, beginning at the
intersootion with existing Drexelbrook Road, State Route 2181,
and Going northerly 0.16 mile to end in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance
and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage
easements.
This road serves 18 lots.
87-87
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50~
right-of-way for this road.
These sections of Pen~wood are recorded as follows:
Section 5. Plat Book 51, Page 66, November 20, 1985
Section 3. Plat Book 43, Pages 35 & 3~, June 15, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County EnviroD3~ental Engineer, in accordance with
directions ~rom this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Welch Ceurt, silliman Drive and Silliman Court in
Belmont Hills Weet, Section "E" and a portion of Section "A",
Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applega%e,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Welch Court, Silliman
Drive and $illiman Court in Belmont Hills West, Section "E" and
a portion of Section "A", Clover Hill District, be and they
hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary system, Welch Court, beginning at the intersection
with existing Welch Drive, State Route 2199, and going northerly
0.12 mile tQ end in a cul-de-sac; Silliman Drive, beginning
where State Maintenance ends, existing $illiman Drive, State
Route 2193, and going westerly 0.03 mile to the i~tersection
with Silliman Court; and Silliman Court, beginning at the
intersection with silliman Drive and going southerly 0.11 mile
to end in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusivs of the adjacent elope, sight distance
and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage
easements.
These roads serve 29 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantee~ to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50'
right-of-way for all of these roads.
These Sections of Belmont Eills West are recorded as follows:
Section "E". Plat Book 44, Page 2, September 12, 1983.
Section "A". Plat Book 24, Pages 7 & 8, April 21, 1975.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions ~rom this Board, made report in writin~ upon his
examination of Willowynde Court in Woods Edge, Section 4,
Bermuda District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Willowynde Court in
Woods Edge, Section 4, Bermuda District, be and it hereby is
established as a public road.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, Willowynde Court, beginning at the
intersection with Willowynde Road, State Route 3371, and running
southerly 0.01 mile to end in a cul-de-sac.
This request is i~clusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance
and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage
easements.
87-88
This road serves 10 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a
right-cf-way for this road.
This section Of Woods Edge is recorded as
Section 4. Plat Book 47, Page 59~ october 17, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the Co%%~ty Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Loch Banif Road in Loch Baven, Clover ~ill
District.
Upon Consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved tha~ Loch Banif Road in
Loch Haven, Clover Hill District, be and it hereby is
established as a public road.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, Loch Banif Road, beginning where State
Maintenance ends, existing Loch Eani~ Road, state Route 2395,
and going westerly 0.20 mile to end in a temporary turnaround.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance
and designated Virginia Department Of Transportation drainage
easements.
This road serves 20 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50'
right-of-way for this road.
Loch ~aven is r~corded as follows:
Plat Book 28, Page 16, February 10, 1977.
Vote: Unanimous
12.B.2. INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION PLA~
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to take the
necessary steps to enter into a thr~ year contract, with an
option for a tWO year extension, wi~h David ~. Griffith and
Associates, Ltd., for au Indirect Co~t Allocation Plan. IIt is
noted that fees are contingent upon the County receiving
recoveries from the federal programs as a result of the plan.)
Vote: Unanimous
APPROPRIATE $25r000 DONATION FROM CITY OF RTC~OND FOR.
HENRICUS PAP~
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and appropriated the donation of $25,000 from the City
of Richmond to the Department of Parks and Recreation to assist
with the development, maintenance and promotion of ~enricus
Park.
Vote: Unanimous
87-89
12.c. UTILITIES ITEMS
12.C.1, WATER ITEMS
12,C.l.a. INTERJURISDICTIONAL AGREE~IENT FOR STUDY OF LAKE
GEMITO PROJECT
Mr. Micas stated the Board is being requested to appropriate
$60,000.00 from the Water Depart~ent fund balance as the
County's share of Phase I cf the Lake Genito feasibility study.
He stated the Counties of Chesterfield, Powhatan, Amelia and
Cumberland have formed a co~umittee to investigate the
feasibility of constructing the Lake Senito project and
organizing alternatives for building and managing the project.
He stated the interjurisdi~tional cost sharing for Phase I is
based on population as indicated per the agreement previously
approved by the Board.
On motion Of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, this County and the Counties of Powhatan, Amelia
and Cumberland (the "Cooperating Jurisdictions") have each ap-
pointed three voting members to an interjurisdietional
committee, the Lake Genito Study Committee; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Lake Genito Study Committee is
to explore the desirability and feasibility of the development
of a water impoundment ("Lake Genitc") in Powhatan, Amelia and
cumberland Counties to serve as a future source of water for the
Cooperating Jurisdictions and to serve other purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Lake ~enito Study Committee previously recom-
mended that a consultant should be employed to perform a study
(the "Lake Genito Study - PACC, First Phase") of and prepare a
report concerning various aspects of the proposed Lake Genito
Project; and
WHEREAS, during the First Phase of the Lake Genito Study -
PACC (the "First Phase"), the consultant shall project the water
supply needs of the Cooperating Jurisdictions and shall study
and advise the Cooperating Jurisdictions whether Lake Genito is
feasible as a long-range water supply source, whether, in view
of the projected water supply needs and the anticipated costs
and benefits of developing Lake Genito, further study of Lake
Genito by the Cooperating Jurisdictions is warranted, and what
organizational approaches should be employed, during further
study and development of Lake Genito; and
WHeReAS, by agreement dated July 2, 1986, the Cooperating
Jurisdictions agreed to employ a consulting engineer to perform
the First Phase; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the July 2, 1986 Agreement the Coop-
erating Jurisdictions in September of 1986 issued a Request for
Proposal for the First Phase; aa~
W~EREAS, the Cooperating Jurisdictions received numerous
p!oposals for the study and have through their Lake Genitc Study
Co~%mittee, in accordance with the competitive negotiation pro-
visions of the Virginia Public Procurement Act, selected Black &
Veatch, Inc., Consulting Engineers, of Rockville, Maryland (the
"Engineer") as the top-ranked offeror; a~d
WHEREAS, the Cooperating Jurisdictions, through their Lake
Genite Study Committee, and the Engineer have negotiated a
contract (the "Contract") among the Cooperating Jurisdictions
and the Engineer for the performance of the First Phase, a copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Genito Study Committee has recommended
that the Cooperating Jurisdictions enter into the attached
Contract for the performance of the First Phase; and
87-90
WHEREAS, tho Board believes that there are certain benefits
which may result to the County from development of Lake ~enito,
which benefits may include development of a future water source,
economic development, recreational opportunities, and other
benefits to the County; and
WHEREAS, in view of the possible benefits to the County
from a Lake Genito project, the Board believes it is in the best
interests of the County to enter into the attached Contract for
the performance of the First Phase of the Lake Oenito Study -
PACC; and
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes that the attached Contract is
for the performance of the First Phase, and describes but does
not authorize the performance of the Second Phase of the Lake
Genito Study - PACC. During the Second Phase, if subsequently
authorized by the Cooperating Jurisdictions, the consultant
would develop three rOOOK~ended alternatives for the development
of Lake Genito; and
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes that the $68,000 cost of the
First Phase shall be apportioned among the Cooperating Juris-
dictions on the basis of population and that the share o~ each
Cooperating Jurisdiction is as follows: County of Powhatan -
$4,743; County of Amelia - $2,974; County of cumberland
$2,796~ County of Chesterfield - $57,487.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County
Administrator is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the
County the interjurisdiotional agreement for the First Phase of
the Lake Genito Study - PACC attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLED, that the amount of $57,487 is
hereby appropriated from 5B (water) fund balance to 5H-5217-724E
to fund the County's share of the cost of the First Phase of the
Lake Genito ~tudy - PACC and that said $57,487 amount shall be
deposited with the Chesterfield County Department of Budget and
Accounting concurrent with the execution of the attached
Contract and shall be held and disbursed by the Chesterfield
County Department of Budget and Accounting in accordance with
the Contract.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of the Board, ~he following resol=~ionwas adopted:
WHEREAS, by Resolution adopted this same date, this County
and the Counties of Powhatan, A~elia, and CUmberland (the "Coop-
erating Jurisdictions") agreed to enter into a contract for the
performance of the First Phase of the Lake Genito Study - PACC
(the "First Phase") and the Cooperating Jurisdictions have
collectively appropriated sUms totalling $68,000 to fund the
lUmp sam fee for the First Phase; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Genito Study Committee has recommended
and this Board finds tha~ it would be in ~he best in~erests of
this County and would promote the successful completion of the
First Phase if each Cooperating Jurisdiction appropriates an
additional amount, equal to ten percent of its share of the
$68,000 lump slim fee for the First Phase, to create a
contingency fund (the "Lake Genito Study PACC Contingency
Fund") which could be used to fund change orders; and
WHEREAS, each Cooperating Jurisdiction is expected to adopt
a resolution substantially the same as this Resolution, which is
adopted in consideration of adoption of such resolutions by the
other Cooperating Jurisdictions.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the amount of $5,749 is
hereby appropriated from 5B (water) fund balance to 5H-5217-724E
87-91
to fund the' County's share of the Lake Genito Study PACC
Contingency Fund; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, ~ha~ the $5,749 amount shall be
deposited with the Chesterfield County Department of Budget and
Accounting, which shall hold and dispurse such funds upon direc-
tion of the Lake Genito study Committee, which is hereby au-
thorized to use such funds to fund any change orders to and
modifications of the contract for the First Phase of the Lake
senito Study - PACC (the "Contract'~) which it deems necessary or
desirable; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, ~ka~ change erders or modifications
authorized hereunder shall not exceed the total amount of the
Contingency Fund and no Cooperating Jurisdiction shall have any
liability pursuant to this resolution in excess of its share of
the Contingency Fund~ and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any funds remaining in the
Contingency Fund at the end of the First Pha~e Or upon any
termination of the Contract for the First Phase shall be used
first to pay for any outstanding change orders cr modifications
authc:ized pursuant to this Resolution and shall then be
distributed to the Cooperating Jurisdictions pro rata based on
their funding contributions or as otherwise directed by
unanimous vote of the Cooperating Jurisdictions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that no portion of the Contingency
Fund shall be expended unless all Contingency Fund contributions
are deposited with the Chesterfield Department of Budget and
Accounting concurrent with the execution of the Contract, and in
the event all contributions are not received by that date, each
contribution which has been received shall be i~t~ediately repaid
to the contributing Cogperating Jurisdiction.
Vote: Unanimous
12.C.l.b. REgUEST FOR PUBLIC WATER ON WHITEHOUSE ROAD
Mr. Welchons stated that, as a result of a petition, the
Utilities Department has conducted a survey on Whitehouse Road
to determine the number of residents who would sign contracts to
connect to public water. He stated 7~4%. of the residents
desire connection to public water.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
and authorized the Utilities Department to proceed with the
request for public water on Whitehouse Roa~, which project will
be funded from the FY 86-87 Capital Improvement Budget, water
line extensions to existing subdivision. It is noted the
estimated cost of this extension is
Vote: Unanimous
12.C.2. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
12.C.2.a. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER RENTAL OF COUNTY
OWNED PROPERTY AT 3761 COLLIER HILL ROAD
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set the
date of March 11, 1987, at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing to
consider rental of County owned property at 3761 Collier Hill
Road.
Vote: Unanimous
87-92
12.C.2.b. REQUEST FRO~ ~4R. A~D MRS. R. L. BATES TO AID IN
ACQUIRING SEWER EASEMENTS
Mr. Welchons stated the Hoard is requested to authorize stair to
assist Mr. and Mrs. R. L. Bates in acquiring offsite sewer
easements ~o serve their property along Hull Street Road, wezt
of GregorTf Pond Road, which easements they have been unable to
obtain from the property owners.
On motion of ~r, Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the Right of Way Manager to aid Mr. and
Mrs. Bates in acquiring offsite sewer easements to serve their
property along Hull Street Road, west o! Gregory Pond Road,
provided they execute a contract with the County agreeing to pay
for all the costs.
Vote: Unanimous
12.c.2.c. CONSIDER CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS FOR BUFORD ROAD
WATER LINE PROJ~CT
12.c.2.c.I. MR. AND MRS. JON M. ALBRIGHT
On motion of Mrs. Cirone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the following property owners ii the amount
set opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by registered mail on February 12, 19~7, e~ the County's
intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the
subject of said condemnation proceedings. This action is on an
emergency basis and the County intends ~o exercise immediate
right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of
Virginia,
Jon M. and Buford Road Water Line Project $1,107
Gina E. Albright
Vote: Unanimous
12.C.2.c.2. MR. AND MRS. DAVID A. DECOOK
On motion o~ Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the following property owners if the amount
set opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by registered mail on February 12, 1987, of the County's
intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the
subject Of said condemnation proceedings. This action is on an
emergency basis and the County intends to exercise immediate
right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of
Virginia.
David A. and Bulord Road Water Line Project $1,881
Helen R. DeCook
Vote: Unanimous
12.c.2.¢.3. MR. AND MRS. CHARLES B. ADAMS
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against :he following property owners if the amount
set opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by registered mail on February 12, 1987, o~ the County's
intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the
subject el said condemnation proceedings. This action is on an
87-93
emergency basis and the County intends to exercise immediate
rig~ of entry pursuan~ to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code o~
V~.
Charles H. and Buford Road Water Line Project $ 632
Athleen M. Adams
Vote: Unanimous
12.C.2.c.5. MR. AND MRS. LEWIS B. FISHER
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the following property owners if the amount
set opposite their names is not accepted. And be it ~urther
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by registered mail on February 12, 1987, of the County'~
intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the
s~bjee~ oi said condemnation proceedings. This action is on an
emergency basi~ and the County intends to exercise immediate
right of entry pursuant to Section 15.12238.1 of the Coda of
Virginia.
Lewis B. and Bu~ord Road Water Line Project
Dorothy D. Fisher
Vote: Unanimous
12.C.3. CONSENT ITEMS
12.C.3.a. CONTRACT FOR WATER LINE ON OLD ~TA~E ROm
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary
documents awarding contract W86-44CD, for construction of the
water line on Old Stage Road, to the low bidder, Richard L.
Crowder Construction, Inc., in the amount of $157,597.50~ and
transferred $16,387.41 from 5N-5835-442N to 5E-5835-644M to
cover contingencies.
Vote: Unanimous
12.c.3.b. AMENDED SEWER CONTRACT FOR MAYFAIR ESTATES~ SECTION
D A~D ~0R~ON OF S~C~ZON ~
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents for the following amended sewer comtraet:
Sewer Contract Number S86-142CD/7(8)6E29, Mayfair Estates -
Section D and Portion of Section B:
Developer: Irvin G. Homer
Contractor: Piedmont Construction Co., I~o.
Total Contract Cost: ~87,407.50
Total Estimated County Cost: $ 9~542.50
(Cash Refund)
Estimated Developer Cost: $ 77,865.00
Number of Connections: 48
Code: 5P-5724-8009
Vote: U~animcus
12.c.3.c. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG R!VERWAY ROAD FROM MR. AND
MRS. RALPE TNONER, JR.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute a deed of
87-94
dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of
a 30' strip of land along Riverway Road (Route 659) from Ralph
Thoner, Jr. and Barbara Thoner. (A copy cf the plat is filed
with the papers cf this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
12.C.3.d. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG HUGUENOT ROAD FROM SOUTH-
EASTERN ASSOCIATES, iNC.
On mo~ion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute a deed Of
dedication accepting, on behalf of the Cou21ty, the conveyance o~
a 20' strip of land along Huguenot Road from Southeastern
Associates, Inc. a Virginia Corporation. (A copy of the plat is
file~ with the papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimcus
12.C.3.e. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG 9UALLA ROAD FROM MR.
MATTHEW J. HAMILTONr JR.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
aD~ authorized the County Administrator to execute a deed of
dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of
a 30' strip of land along Qualta Road (Route 653) from Matthew
J. Har~ilton, Jr. (A copy of the plat is filed with the papers
of this Beard.)
Vote: Unanimous
12.C.3.f. DEED OF DEDICATION NORTH OF MALL DRIVE FROM WOOD-
LANDS A~GCIATES
On motion of Mr. Dcdd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute a deed of
dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of
a variable width strip of land North of Mall Drive (Route 819)
from Woodlands Associates, A Virginia Limited Partnership. (A
cody of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
12.C.3,~. V~CO ~ASEMENT FOR THE FALLING CPdEEK SEWAGE pUMPING
STATION
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County
Administrator to execute an easement with VeDee for a 15 foot
wide underground easement to serve the Falling Creek sewage
pumping station. (A cody of the plat is filed with the papers!
of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
12.4. REPORTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a report on the developer
water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator,
12.D. REPORTS
Mr. Eedrick presented the Board with a status report on the
General Fund Balance, General Fund Contingency Account, RoadI
Reserve Funds, Capitalized Lease Purchases, District Road and
Street Light Funds and schedule of School Literary Loans,
87-95
Mr. Hedriok stated the Virginia Department of Transportation has
formally notified the county of the acceptance o£ the followinc
streets into the State secondary System:
ADDITIONS: LENGTH
~ILLTC~ F~d~J~S ~UBDIVI~if~N
Route 3580 (Hilltop Farms Drive) - From Route 717 to
Route 3582 0.14 Mi
Route 3581 (Hilltop Farms Terrace) - From 0.04 mile
west o~ Route 3580 to 0.04 mile east o~ Route 3580 0.08 Mi.
Route 3582 (Hilltop Farm~ Drive) - From 0.05 mile
west o~ Route 3580 to 0.07 mile east of Route 3580 0.12 Mi.
BRANCH'S TRACE, PHASE I
Route 940 (Stable Gate Road)
mile north of Route 655
- From Route 655 to 0.08
0.08 Mi.
CRADDOCK POINT SUBDIVISION~ SECTIONS 1 & 2
Route 3570 (~and Kills Drive) - From Route 1/301 to
0.16 milo west of Route 3572 0.30 Mi.
Route 3572 (Pine Meadows Circle) - From Route 3570 to
0.20 mile northwest of Route 3570 0.20 Mi.
12-E. EXECUTIVE SES$IO~
On motion o~ Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board went
into Executive Session to consult with legal counsel concerning
Chesterfield County versus Brown Boveri, pursuant to Section
2.1-344 (a) (6) of the Code e£ virginia, 1950, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
13. ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. D0dd, seconded by Mrs. Gir0ne, the Board
adjourned at 9:45 p.m. (~ST) until 2:00 p.m. on February 18,
1987.
Vote: Unanimous
Richard 'L. Redrick
County Administrator
87-96