Loading...
1988-09-28 PacketI (�, ESTERFIELD couN X CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832.0040 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS G. H. APPLEGATE, CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT MAURICE B. SULLIVAN, VICE CHAIRMAN MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT AGENDA DISTRICT HAR YMUDA G. DAN E DALE DISTRICT JESSE J. MAYES MATOACA DISTRICT LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 COURTHOUSE TIME: 9:00 A.M. Page 1. Invocation at 9:00 a.m. Pastor Joe Vought Lutheran Church of Our Savior 2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America 3. Approval of Minutes 4. County Administrator's Comments 5. Board Committee Reports 6. Requests to Postpone Action, Emergency Additions or Changes in the Order of Presentation 7. Resolutions and Special Recognitions 8. Hearings of Citizens on Unscheduled Matters or Claims L- 9. Deferred Items A. Consider Request from Spring Trace Associates for Aid in Acquiring 1 a Sewer Easement Across Property of Mrs. Lavelette G. Henry ......................... B. Request to Aid Queensmill Corporation in Acquiring a Sewer Easement Across Property of Mr. and Mrs. William G. Haneke.................. 5 10. Public Hearings A. To Consider Conveyance of Leases of Real Property at Chesterfield Courthouse, Midlothian Middle School, Providence Middle School and Ironbridge Park for Operation of Food Concessions ...................... 9 Board of Supervisors Agenda Page 2 10. Public Hearings (continued) Page B. To Consider an Ordinance to Amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as Amended, by Amending Section 19-34 and 19-35 Relating to Taxicabs and Other Vehicles for Hire....... .............. 11 C. To Consider an Ordinance to Amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as Amended, by Amending Sections 17-28 and 17-29 Relating to Easement and Right - of -Way Vacation Applications and Fees ............. 16 D. To Consider Conveyance of a 2.5 Acre Parcel in the Chesterfield Airport Industrial Park to Delta Associates, P.E., Inc ......... ............ .............. 23 E. To Consider an Ordinance to Establish the Route 10/Lewis Road Area Special Tax or Assessment Sewer District to Construct Certain Sewer Facilities Therein and to Impose Certain Taxes or Assessments Upon Owners of Property Located Therein by Enacting Article X, Chapter 20................. 25 11. New Business A. Request of the Christmas Mother for the 1988 Christmas Mother Program ..................... 30 B. School Capital Project Revisions .................. 31 C. Appointments ...................................... 34 D. Consent Items 1. Appropriation for Repairs to Lindberg Drive... ....... .................. 36 2. State Road Acceptance Revision for West Providence Road Extension ..................................... 38 3. State Road Acceptance...... ................ 40 4. Appropriation of Funds to Police Department from Drug Investigation............ 51 5. Allocation of Funds for Purchase of Playground Equipment at C. C. Wells Elementary School..... .. .... •......... 53 6. Rescind Route 288 Resolution Adopted on September 14, 1988 and Adopt Revised Resolution ............................ 54 M M Board of Supervisors Agenda Page 3 E. Community Development Items Page 1. Street Light Installation Cost Approvals ..................................... 56 68 2. Street Light Request .......................... 3. Set Date for Public Hearing to Consider Restriction of Through Truck Traffic on Fallow Drive • and Deerfield Drive .......................... 71 4. Authorization to Execute Lease/ Purchase Agreement for Acquisition of a Geographically -Based Information 74 5. System...... ............. Resolution SupportingElimination of ,Q Through Traffic on Old Warson Drive e,44,",o1ka4U in Salem Woods Subdivision ...... .. .......... 76 6. Refer Ordinance to Planning Commission Regarding Notification of Adjacent Property Owners Regarding Tentative Subdivision Review ............................ 79 F. Utilities Department Items 1. Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance Vacating Portions of 16 Foot Sewer Easement and 10 Foot Temporary Construction Easement Across Lot 17, Block A, Winters Hill Place ............................ 82 2. Consider Request for Public Water Service on Skybird Road and SkybirdCourt ................................. 85 3. Consent Items a. Authorization for Right of Entry to Virginia Department of Transportation for Construction of Road Improvements and Set Date for Public Hearing for Conveyance of Right -of -Way 88 1. Along Route 10... .................... 96 2. Along Hopkins Road .................... b. Acceptance of Deeds of Dedication 1. Boulders View Drive and Boulders View Lane from Sigma CJ Associates and Petula Associates, LTD ....................... 103 2. Appomattox Industrial Park from Oliver D. Rudy, Trustee.......... 106 `4d Board of Supervisors Agenda Page 4 b. Consent Items (continued) Page 3. Goodes Bridge Road from George G. Egerton and John L. Irvin............ ......... ....... 109 4. Tarris Lane from Oliver D. Rudy, Trustee .............................. 112 4. Reports ...................................... 115 G. Reports .......................................... 117 H. Lunch at 12:00 noon John Howlett's Tavern I. Mobile Home Requests at 2:00 p.m. 1. 88SR0215 - Clifford W. Carter, Dale District 2. 88SR0216 - William and Hannah Davis, Bermuda District 3. 88SR0217 - Steven C. Morgan, Bermuda District 4. 88SR0218 - Gary L. Groux, Matoaca District J. Rezoning Requests 1. 885005 - Irvin G. Horner, Matoaca District 2. 88SN0063 - Contel Cellular, Inc., Midlothian District 3. 88SN0069 - FFS Partnership, Midlothian District 4. 875039 - Freeport Development Group, Bermuda District 5. 885002 - Shoosmith Brothers, Inc., Matoaca District 6. 88SN0045 - Tedco-Equities-Northgate, Clover Hill District 7. 88SN0055 - James E. Cole, Matoaca District 8. 88SN0059 - Midlothian Enterprises, Inc. and Laveer Interests, Midlothian District 9. 88SN0065 - RDF Associates and William R. Cawthorn, Midlothian District 10. 88SN0083 - Mervin and Jean Price, Bermuda District 11. 88SN0085 - Karen Mercer/Keswick Realty, Inc., Clover Hill District Board of Supervisors Agenda Page 5 J. Rezoning Requests (continued) 12. 88SNO090 - Mall Associates, Matoaca District 13. 88SNO093 - The Ashmont Company, Midlothian District 14. 88SNO125 - William Henry Jones, Midlothian District 15. 88SNO126 - Timothy Carter Brown, Midlothian District 16. 88SNO143 - Brandermill Woods, Ltd., Clover Hill District 12. Adjournment THE MATOACA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Chesterfield County September 28, 1988 I am, Jesse J. Mayes, Supervisor of the Matoaca Magisterial District of Chesterfield County, and I speak on behalf of the citizens of the Matoaca District. It is believed that the failure, on the part of the local, state, and national governments to address the safe disposal of solid waste, on a priority basis, has precipitated the greatest public health and safety crisis of this century. The solid and hazardous waste problem that the state faces is a public health and safety problem; it is not a problem for speculation. I take this opportunity to call your attention to the problem of the safe disposal of solid waste in the Matoaca District of the County where the majority of the rural population depends on well water for health and safety for themselves and their children. There does not appear to be an acceptable safe solid waste disposal plan, in place, in Chesterfield County to justify the approval of any new landfills until an approved statewide regional plan is in place in the County; therefore, I seek your help in urging all agencies, state and local, that have responsibility for the public health and safety, to make the safe disposal of solid waste the state's number one priority, and to stop the approval of NEW landfills until safe disposal plans are in place. The Richmond Regional Planning District Commission and the Crater Plann- ing District Commission are working hard to come up with a regional plan for the safe disposal of solid waste; however, it appears that the General Assembly of Virginia expects that each county and city should invent its own solution to the solid waste problem. The question is: What will Virginia do with 100 different solutions to the solid waste problem, after all County resources have been exhousted finding solutions? There does not appear to be any single solution to the safe disposal of the solid waste problem; however, the best approach to a safe solution appears to consist of a mix of technological systems applied together in some ratio to each other, with a sanitary landfill as the common element for safely storing the residue of a central disposal system. To propose a single -purpose recycling system to solve the solid waste problem, alone, minimizes the complexity of the problem, and misleads the public; such singular approaches, in seeking solutions, appear to give critics of the regional approach to solving the problem the leverage to eliminate considerations for comprehensive alternatives without having to address the public health and safety aspect of the problem. By Western standards, Japan is recycling about one-half of its municiple waste..., and has build some 2,000 waste incinerators and resource recovery plants, and safely burns two-thirds of the waste that remains after recycling. Only 10 percent of Japan's waste is sent directly to landfills. Waste minimization, resource recovery, composting, recycling, waste - to -energy incineration, and waste stabilization are complementary strategies to address the solid waste problem on a regional and statewide basis, and these strageties are not mutually exclusive. Solid waste disposal regions throughout the state, utilizing the above cited strategies, would appear to be the best approach to solving the safe disposal of solid waste in Virginia. M M CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETINGDATE; September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: 11.E.5. SUBJECT; Through Traffic on old Warson Drive COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board is requested to adopt the attached resolution expressing support for the elimination of through traffic on Old Warson Drive in Salem Woods Subdivision.' BACKGROUND: On July 27, 1988, the Board of Supervisors requested the Planning Commission to review the County's policy for extending stub roads between subdivisions. The Board also requested the Commission to review the traffic problem on Old Warson Drive in Salem Woods. On September 13, 1988, the Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the stub road policy. Salem Woods residents appeared at the hearing and asked the Commission to support the closing of Old Warson Drive near Thornington Drive so that through traffic would be eliminated on the street. The Planning Commission passed a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors support the residents request to restrict through traffic. (Continued on Page Two) OA(OL--- PREPARED BY: R J. McCracken D rector of Transportation ATTACHMENTS: YES ® NO O SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M i enda Item Board Ag 1988 September 28, Old Warson Drive Page Two ar traffic problems t that additional time as needed to study the ul The Commission fey parts and the other stub road policy requested staff to have additional e thBoard. They identified by r 1988e arding these issues in time for a November , recopublic hearing. 988 RECONMEXIDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the requesting VDOT to implement measures which traffic from utilizing Old Warson Drive. DISTRICT: Dale. attached resolution will prohibit through 0 77 WHEREAS, the residents Board of Supervisors' support Old Warson Drive, and CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: At the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors held at the Courthouse on September 28, 1988 at 9:00 a.m. of Salem Woods have requested the for eliminating through traffic on WHEREAS, Old Warson Drive is a local street and is not intended to carry high volumes of traffic, and WHEREAS, Centralia Road and Salem Church Road are arterial roads and are intended to carry high volumes of traffic, and WHEREAS, Centralia Road and Salem Church Road provide an acceptable alternate route for through traffic now utilizing Old Warson Road, and WHEREAS, through traffic utilizing Old Warson Drive poses a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Salem Woods. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to review and address possible solutions to the through traffic problem on Old Warson Drive. Vote: Certified By: Joan S. Dolezal, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors 0 �R Notes of Address to the Planning Commission Public Hearing Regarding the "Stub Road" Policy \� September 13, 1988 n My name is David Mathews and I am a resident of the Brentwood Subdivision. I am here tonight speaking on behalf of the residents of Brentwood and hopefully for the majority of all the residents of Chesterfield County. We support the Commission and Staff's policy on "stub roads" in as much as it provides for the planned, orderly and responsible development of the County. We believe that builders and developers should be allowed to develop their property and in no way do we wish to deny them reasonable access to necessary roads .and thoroughfares. Given the possible options of condemnation suits and the uprooting of families and neighbors the concept of a „stub road" policy would appear to be an appropriate means of providing for such orderly development. However, we do wish to take exception to the current "stub road" policy on three major points. First, in the case of Brentwood, the Belfield Road stub connector will provide the principal access for the future residents of Salem Estates, a 215 lot subdivision currently under development. The Planning Staffs report, in recommending approval of this subdivision, stated that traffic generated by this development was expected to add approximately 2,150 average daily trips through Lair Drive and Belfield Road. This figure is well below Staff's target Oa ceiling of 3000 vehicles per day. It appears, however, that the Planning Staff failed to consider the significant amount of "cut - through" traffic which could be expected once Salem Estates is connected to the Indian Springs Subdivision at Upton Road as called for in the plans. For this reason we request that the k. - Planning Commission direct the Staff to review the street layout of Salem Estates with the intent of redesianina to discouraae its use as a "cut -through" route. Secondly, one of the five factors Staff considers in requiring subdivision "stub roads" is that "..traffic volumes on streets within the subdivisions will not exceed 3,000 vehicles per day as a result of the extension of the stub." We believe that this target ceiling is too high and is, in fact, totally inconsistent with the Staff and Commission's other planning parameters. For example, in the case again of Salem Estates,F the Staff's report recommending approval requires the developer to provide a minimum of three means of access for the 215 planned homes. I ask you, where is the logic in requiring multiple access routes to handle expected traffic volumes while permitting all of that traffic to be funnelled through a single "stub road" into an existing subdivision? With this in mind we respectfully reauest the Commission to review their current "stub road" policy and amend it to provide for a lower traffic target ceiling which would be more consistent and acceptable to current planning conditions. P 3 Finally, with the Commission's and the audience's indulgence, I wish to speak to a third and more serious concern with regard to the current "stub road" policy. Over the past twenty or -so years Chesterfield County has been very fortunate in that its major developments have been undertaken by responsible businessmen who are also civic minded residents of this county. Individuals such as J. K. Timmons, W. S. Carnes, Bryce Powell, Irvin Horner, Dick Collier, W. S. Pinchbeck and many others felt a civic responsibility to develop this county in a manner which was consistent with the general welfare of all citizens. They were not ruled strictly by the pursuit of the dollar but instead found their ultimate success in working with the community to pursue a vision of what this county could become. Unfortunately as is the case in all things, the development of this county is now passing to a new generation. A generation which I fear will not hold to the same standards nor share the same concerns as the individuals I've mentioned and the citizens who are here tonight. One of the major concerns which we have and which the current "stub road" policy does not address is a provision for the maintenance and continuity of existing property standards when adjacent subdivisions are approved for development. We understand that a developer has a right to develop his property and we do not seek to deny him that right. We also appreciate the fact that all prospective homebuyers, regardless of race, creed, color, sex or national origin, have a right to equal %W 1*0 4 housing opportunities. Again we would not seek to abridge these rights. But we do feel strongly that existing homeowners have rights as well. We have the right to feel secure in our real estate investment and that it will not be jeopardized by irresponsible development. We also believe that we have a right to maintain the "quality of life" that we have worked to develop with our neighbors, schools, churches, civic organizations and with surrounding businesses. Finally, we believe that the rights of existing homeowners are just as important, if not more so, than the rights of developers and homebuyers and that our rights should be protected by a comprehensive subdivision ordinange. The primary goal of the Planning Commission and Staff should be to safeguard these rights we have outlined. This is your responsibility to the residents of this county and though it may not be a legal responsibility it most certainly is a moral obligation. With this in mind we would now like to make two final requests. One we ask that the Commission revise the current "stub road" policy to provide for adequate maintenance of continuity between adloinina subdivisions. And two, we request that the Planning Commission make it a policy to keep the public, the existing property owner, informed of all requests to develop surrounding properties. It is a matter of public record that the Planning Staff was recently directed by the Commission, at the request of the Board %i1V `'' 0 5 of Supervisors, to recommend revisions to the old subdivision ordinance. The revisions, as recommended by Staff and approved by the Commission included provisions for the Staff to consider the impact new developments would have on county services such as schools, roads, utilities and emergency services. In addition, Staff recommended and the Commission approved adoption of a policy of providing public notice to existing property owners when reviewing applications for new subdivisions. The Planning Staff and Commission are to be commended for their wisdom and concern in addressing these needed policies. However, the fact that the Board of Supervisors failed to approve the proposed policy regarding public notice is cause for alarm. I question the Supervisors' motives in refusing to adopt this much needed policy and request that the Planning Commission resubmit this proposal to the Board of Supervisors for further consideration at the earliest possible opportunity. In closing, let me say that we did not come here tonight with stacks of petitions and legions of supporters. Instead we came here tonight as a group of concerned citizens with a worthy appeal to an intelligent and responsible body of men. That appeal is that you should follow what you already know is the proper course of action in developing this county. Please don't disappoint us. Please help us to realize that vision of what this county can become. September 28, 1988 Board of Supervisors' Meeting Through Traffic on Old Warson Drive Ms. Dolezal: Item ll.E.5. is a resolution supporting elimination of through traffic on Old Warson Drive in Salem Woods Subdivision. Mr. Sale. Mr. Sale• Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Mr. Ramsey, the Board referred to the Planning Commission reconsideration of the County's policy regarding stub roads. Now, on July 27th, the Planning Commission did have a hearing on stub roads and they... as part of that hearing, they heard... they took testimony from various residents that are having difficulty with stub roads cutting through their neighborhoods. Yes, sir. Mr. Ramsey: You are on 11.E.5.? Mr. Sale• This is Old Warson Drive. Mr. Applegate: Old Warson Drive --through traffic? Mr. Sale: Excuse me, my preliminary takes a long time to get to that point. The Planning Commission has asked that that portion dealing with stub roads... it will be coming back to the Board specifically dealing with stub roads at a later point. I believe it is in November. But in the meantime, one of the hearings or some of the testimony that was given related to Old Warson Drive. The Planning Commission specifically asked that the Board consider a resolution requesting VDOT to reconsider or to consider the closing of Old Warson Drive. I believe that there is an individual appearing for Mr. Daniel that would like to speak to this and perhaps it would be appropriate at this time to hear from that individual. Mr. Applegate: Speaking to the through traffic? Mr. Sale• Yes, sir, on Old Warson Drive. Mr. Applegate: Not the stub road? We are not going to get into stub roads. Through Traffic on Old Warson Drive Page 2 Mr. Sale: Mr. Daniel: No. Just the closing of the road. Mr. Applegate: Okay, fine. Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Micas and Madam Clerk. May I call you Madam Clerk? Ms. Dolezal: Um hum. Mr. Cunningham: I am Chairman of the Neighborhood Watch of the Salem Woods Homeowners Association and I come before you this morning to request your resolution to the Virginia Transportation Board recommending the closing, the closing of Old Warson Drive in Salem Woods. Salem Woods Subdivision is bounded on the south by Centralia Road, on the west and north by Salem Church Road and on the east by Shamrock Road. Our subdivision is divided in the middle by an elongated lake and there are approximately 200 residences south of the lake and about 75 north of the lake. Access to Salem Woods Subdivision is made from Salem Church Road onto two streets on the north side, Old Warson Drive on the west and that is at the intersection by the school complex there on Salem Church Road. Post Horn, Remora and Shamrock Drives on the south and Thorington Drive on the east. Several months ago, a petition by the residents of our neighborhood was circulated, signed by numerous individuals. The purpose of the petition is to close Old Warson Drive. In reality, it's... the place we want to close is a few feet over on Thorington Drive at the eastern boundary of our subdivision and, as you know, that petition was subsequently filed with our Supervisor, Mr. Daniel, and by your resolution referred to the Planning Commission. Old Warson Drive is now under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. The decision to close or not to close Old Warson Drive will be made by the State Transportation Board. %W `so Through Traffic on Old Warson Drive Page 3 However, if our request to close Old Warson Drive is to have any chance of success, it must come to that Board with a solid recommendation of first the Planning Commission and second the recommendation of this Board. The Planning Commission in its last session unanimously concurred in our request. When I moved to Salem Woods in May of 1980, Old Warson Drive was blocked exactly where we propose to be blocked now. Many of us were led to believe that Old Warson Drive and Thorington would never be connected. Subsequently, however, we all woke up one day to find that Old Warson and Thorington had been joined and the street was opened. But all that is history. It is in fact a fate of complete and we are now faced with the consequences of that action today. The real question is --is there a problem so great that it requires the drastic step of closing off an existing road --and I would like to take the next couple of minutes to tell you about that. In 1986, VDOT surveyed our street and estimated that the vehicle trips per day numbered 2,500 vehicles. I am talking about a stretch of road one half mile long in the middle of a subdivision. If that survey were taken today, I can assure that it would exceed 3,000 vehicle trips per day on Old Warson Drive. Secondly, VDOT has revitalized, reviewing its policy of these neighborhood traffic control. I am here to tell you today that first, it is the only way to solve our problem is to shut down Old Warson Drive. Old Warson Drive should be viewed for the purpose of which it was intended, that is a spine road for our neighborhood. With the exception of a few tiny cul-de-sacs, every street in our subdivision south of the lake goes into Old Warson Drive. In addition, the principle common ground, the meeting spot, recreation and leisure facility is located on Old Warson Drive exactly in the middle from one end to the other. Through Traffic on Old Warson Drive Page 4 The road is extra wide and should be available for the heavy pedestrian traffic flowing from all corners of our subdivision to the common ground. The road should be safe for children, to come and go to their playground in the common area. The road should be safe for our people to walk their babies in their carriages, to walk side by side and to ride bicycles safely without fear of a catastrophe happening and their whole family being wiped out. These are our wants, these are our desires. We want to live in peace in our neighborhood. What do we actually have? Well, the first answer is readily exposed by looking at the sheer numbers--3,000 vehicles on a half mile road in the middle of a subdivision, a residential area, is ludicrous. Those vehicles belong back where they should have been in the first place --up on Centralia Drive and on Salem Church Road. Only half of our residents in our neighborhood use Old Warson Drive in going to and from work or to the stores. Rather than use Old Warson Drive, they go up Remora, Post Horn, Shamrock onto Centralia and then go to the shopping centers or to work. In less... in other words, what I am telling you, is that less than 10%*of these of vehicle trips per day are -made by residents of Salem Woods. Where then are these vehicles coming from? Are they destined for non-residents to visit in our neighborhood? Well, if you call speeding fifty and sixty miles an hour through a residential street as visiting our neighborhood, I can assure we have visitors. But, these folks are not visitors. They have no business in Salem Woods. What they are using is Old Warson Road as a shortcut and they refuse to adhere to the twenty-five mile per hour speed limit. They are simply folks hell-bent on getting to work and getting back home so they can sit in their chair and drink their martinis and their beer, and they don't give a damn for the people walking along the roads. `1 W *40 Through Traffic on Old Warson Drive Page 5 These people have direct access to where they are going by staying on Centralia and Salem Church Roads. I can assure you it is not a question of if a child is going to be killed on that street, it is only a question of when. Now... it is only a question of when, unless that street is shut down. Is there other things that can be done? Well, we have attempted to do many things and I worked very closely with the Department of Transportation and have given them a lot of suggestions and some of those have been adopted. For example, the State did come and paint a double yellow line from one end of Old Warson Drive to the other, stop signs were installed in all of the embedding streets „they have placed some limited number of no parking signs near the entrances of the common ground as I requested. Some of my requests were not granted and I can understand. For example, we requested speed bumps --rejected. I requested three way parking... three way stop signs on several intersections. Those were rejected because it's against VDOT's policy. I requested that pedestrian/ bicycle lanes be installed on at least one side of Old Warson Drive and that was rejected.' I have to tell you, the painting of -the yellow lines, it has a limited affect. It does by and large keep the speeders on their own side of the road that is until they come up behind a resident who is driving twenty and twenty-five miles an hour and they have no hesitation in crossing the double yellow line. Well, I am sure the first thing you are going to say is, speeding is something to be taken care of by law enforcement. Let me tell you what has happened. First, I have to acknowledge at the outset, that the Chesterfield County Police Department has been absolutely magnificent to the residents in our neighborhood. There is in fact a love affair going on between the Police Department and the residents of Salem Church Road as far as we're Through Traffic on Old Warson Drive Page 6 concerned. We have probably had more than our share of radar cars. But, unfortunately, this Police Department does not have enough officers or radar cars to maintain a twenty-four vigilance on Old Warson Drive and that is the time span in which the speeding occurs. It really picks up at 6:30 in the morning and goes on until 9 and 10 o'clock at night. Mr. Chairman, I requested the summary of arrests on Old Warson Drive from the Police Department and they notified me that in the first seven months of this year, that they had issued a total of 48 summonses for speeding and reckless driving. I have a very strong suspicion that that is more tickets than is written by the State Police ip that time frame on Interstate 95 between downtown Richmond and Chester. On the first Sunday in August, a radar car was parked in front of my house and in one hour, he nailed nine speeders. The next Sunday, another radar car was there and got six in forty minutes. When I confer with the members of the Chesterfield County Police Department, and as soon as I mention the name Old Warson Drive, they get this wiry little grin on their face, and say, Oh, Russ, you mean Old Warson Speedway. They know what the problem is and they have been absolutely great in trying to help us, but it is not enough. There is no one act which is going stop the speeding on Old Warson Drive. Closing that road will have a significant impact on speeders. Mr. Chairman, we are frustrated, we are angry, we need help and we need it now. We have been forced as citizens, some of us, to engage in a law enforcement program of our own. This is arranged from housewives standing on the curb, begging and screaming at cars to slow down. It has also driven some of us to the diversion of engaging in acts which possibly could be considered by some as impersonation of a police officer. For example, I have a little program called the Slumbering Bear and I take a white car K A Through Traffic on Old Warson Drive Page 7 out and park it on Old Warson Drive and I borrow a store mannequin and I throw a jacket over the mannequin and a hat which looks somewhat like a police officer's hat and let him sit there for fifteen, twenty minutes at a time and you would be surprised at the number of vehicles who slowed from forty-five down to twenty to look and see if that piece of black cummerbund that I have got hanging on a clothes hangar out the window, is really not a radar. We shouldn't be forced to acts of this kind. We need your support, we need it today and I would certainly beg you to pass a resolution directed to the Virginia Department of Transportation asking that they close Old Warson Drive. Close it, -no throughway signs is not going to cure our problem. The biggest way to cure our problem is to shut down that street. Thank you very much. Mr. Applegate: Could we have your name for the record? You didn't state it. Mr. Cunningham: Yes, sir. My name is Russell Cunningham, 5518 Old Warson Drive, Richmond, Virginia 23237. Mr. Applegate: Fine, thank you so much. Mr. Cunningham: Thank you and I appreciate you taking me out of order, Mr. Chairman. I am due to hold court at ten and if I am not there, I am going to have to hold myself in contempt. Thank you. Mr. Applegate: Mr. Daniel, do you want to follow up on this very important paper? Mr. Daniel• Yes. Just one minute, Russ. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cunningham, I think in his presentation this morning, has actually toned down considerably the remarks that have been made to me by the public in general that live in Salem Woods. This has been an on -going problem and after trying everything that is normal procedure, we have not been able to make any headway at all in this very serious M C5 Through Traffic on Old Warson Drive Page 8 safety problem and feel that this is probably the only feasible solution that we have at our fingertips at this moment. I would like to commend all of the citizens and residents of Salem Woods for their diligence in this situation. I certainly share with them their frustration and hope that the Highway Department would act favorably with the recommendation and I would like to move that we approve the resolution and forward it to the Highway Commission along with a transcript of Russ Cunningham's presentation this morning. Mr. Applegate: Would it be helpful to have a Board resolution? Mr. Daniel: Yes, it ,would and I would offer that we have a Board resolution. Mr. Applegate: Mr. Daniel makes a motion for a Board resolution to adopt the resolution. Mr. Currin: Second. Mr. Applegate: Seconded by Mr. Currin. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. All: Aye. , Mr. Applegate: All opposed? So ordered. . CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE; September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: 9M SUBJECT Request to Aid Queensmill Corporation in Acquiring a Sewer Easement COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: �0��Z Ama"� SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff requests the Board to authorize the Right of Way Manager to aid Queensmill Corporation in acquiring a sewer easement across the property of William G. and Mary Keegan Haneke located north of Huguenot Road and west of Woodmont Drive. Mr. Bernard Savage, President of Queensmill Corporation has requested the .County to aid the corporation in acquiring an easement for a sewer line across the property of William G. and Mary Keegan Haneke. This sewer line will serve a proposed section of Queenspark Subdivision and can be extended to serve an existing home and other vacant property. Mr. Savage has offered $500.00 for the easement but has been unable to reach an agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Haneke. Staff feels that Mr. Savage has made a reasonable offer, but an agreement is not likely to be reached. PREPARED BY: ATTACHMENTS: YES A NO O 6ph E. Aeck, Jr. st. Director of Utilities SIGNATURE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR () 015 M M Board Agenda September 28, 1988 Page 2 RECOMIENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Right of Way Manager to aid Queensmill Corporation in acquiring the easement provided the corporation will enter into a contract with the County agreeing to pay for all the costs. DISTRICT: Midlothian r, 06 a• VICINITY SKETCH Q OR Hj/ a`� P REEL S� •:-,Or ge.NA� a ♦ C` ,i Pa i ! $ 5 TounG dpHOR OR to - O` r ' R 1 C N 0 N C 3 n n TER• 00 l' O •aYSwOwr �� • o�� � , W4.rr b•r r � 1 = s 1p rti wOsr .E- p C/d.L +aU _ttl r •� ` 3 e � `j °� Rh rG r. RO p C I � "ASS wL a •� I a.. �� �' .!� a: \ O r' aJJEw • O j`� n = CJ r..at,_ d or a J L $ e 7 ' 13•-=� � � - � � a� s., `j\tea a :'�J+� r 9 729 \~ O Y )w j la _ 4y to iZ 3 O c+~�9 �Ofp J'B• = eSLC.r .. y - a We +r+MONO P Ga J 'hOEP H O i 8 •ISavp. v'' ,. qCO c r RN = �! �Lr/t � 3 � Y �•C •] Z �O on j wUGUEw p^ �, O vrLL,GE -•.r a rdo, Cf• B bCa nlo�n •• ••re w �'+°� .+•e.r woo• O r . yr CraE ,.�oSi "!'rT .r °L.r • 7;ra0 O 0 L ELE- SC.. �,.�• �`t• �� s'at \ u�L �wawWrt► 'a 4 ,0 4c QJ Jf•E' CT i CT �i, ,:. vrR r • am S °- •trrlFOwE7 0• ..-�S Op u � SMrrG •�- °.�.�- '. , A.rC''c. Nuquoo \ Jr C 7 i 'C T a O Cw•tttY t• !4' S q o_ s C�CM { ° LA- 0 ` Owir T7� pw \NCH spwI •Cs� MolOrfO/ r �r ftrT� t:QCo y,� P CHESTER. Ro ' FIELD ti°�pl CE at WALL - ivy I $� •� t ti o M a c �• _ o I a MIDL07M GN luoe �., L O•L;,�wK...rvt ^ i c c ` x ° T O cT 4 G $ r ? le t L , • � y � �� ' 7c �-� Pe FAR (s �' awls RC s 1 ri • M 14 4 t`G CGU W,. n ,H 4= - h1, L avw i dr W Y F 2 N t u \. Y :1 v, 1li i-'> t1 d l O < Q�jYlt�ia��F'.e�i dQ ,f ��� ZI1Qn-1LL0.5�z� , Y �� ry "c t �,E •,• sort' c� �I i � � � 1 ® In MEETING DATE: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: 10.A. SUBJECT: Approval of leases of real property at various park sites to operate food concessions - PUBLIC HEARING. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board of Supervisors is requested to approve the conveyance of leases of real property to the Chesterfield Quarterback League to operate food concessions. BACKGROUND: Each year, the Chesterfield Quarterback League requests seasonal concession contracts for its member associations to operate at various parks. These athletic associations rely on food concessions to help offset the costs of offering a youth football program. Under a seasonal contract, an approved association is allowed to operate a concession for home dates during the fall season. A public hearing is required and the Board of Supervisors must convey these leases at the various park sites. The public hearing will consider the conveyance of leases of real property to the Chesterfield Quarterback League to operate food concessions at the following locations from September 10 - November 12, 1988: Chesterfield Courthouse t Midlothian Middle School Providence Middle School PREPARED BY: Ironbridg.e•P�ark ATTACHMENTS: YES ❑ NO SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR n RECOMMENDATION: Staf f recommends that the of real property to the operate food concessions i n Board approve the conveyance of leases Chesterfield Quarterback League to this public hearing. PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII WARD OF • JPERVISORS G. H. APPLEGATE, CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT MAURICE B. SULLIVAN, VICE CHAIRMAN MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT C. F. CURRIN, JR. BERMUDA DISTRICT HARRY G. DANIEL DALE DISTRICT JESSE J. MAYES MATOACA DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY P.O. Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 MEMORANDUM TO: Richmond News Leader FROM: Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors DATE: August 26, 1988 SUBJECT: Meetings and Coming Events One (1) time, Wednesday, September 14, 1988 One (1) time, Wednesday, September 21, 1988 LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Please confirm by calling the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Office at 748-1200. C� . � --- " " n: Joan S. Dolezal Clerk to the Board of rvisors tmp Attachment n BOARD OF : jPERVISORS G. H. APPLEGATE, CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT MAURICE B. SULLIVAN, VICE CHAIRMAN MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT C. F. CURRIN, JR. BERMUDA DISTRICT HARRY G. DANIEL DALE DISTRICT JESSE J. MAYES MATOACA DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNT P.O. Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 I DI • ' 1 TO: Progress Index FROM: Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors DATE: August 26, 1988 SUBJECT: Meetings and Coming Events One (1) time, Wednesday, September 14, 1988 One (1) time, Wednesday, September 21, 1988 LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Please confirm by calling the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Office at 748-1200. = " a) ,.Q 51*- )A V Joan S. Dolezal Clerk to the Board of Supervisors tmp Attachment TARE NOTICE Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, at a regular meeting on September 28, 1988 at 9:00 a.m. in the County Board Room at Chesterfield Courthouse, Chesterfield, Virginia, will hold public hearings to consider: 1. The conveyance of leases of real property at Chesterfield Courthouse, Midlothian Middle School, Providence Middle School and Ironbridge Park to operate food concessions. 2. An ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending Section 19-34 and 19-35 relating to taxicabs and other vehicles for hire. 3. An ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending Sections 17-28 and 17-29 relating to easement and right-of-way vacation applications and fees. 4. The conveyance of all that parcel of land, containing 2.52 acres, more or less, and located at the Chesterfield County Airport Industrial Park in Dale Magisterial District of Chesterfield County, Virginia, fronting approximately 200 feet on the eastern line of Whitepine Road. The property is bounded on the north by the property of Robert W. Adams and L. A. Lehman and on the south, by the property of CCC Properties, Inc. Tax Map 79-6 (3) Part of Lot 11. Copies of the ordinances and plats are on file in the County Administrator's Office, Chesterfield, Virginia, and may be examined by all interested persons between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. xichniond *0' Newspapers, Inc. An Affiliate of Media General P.O. BOX C-32333 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23293-0001 804-649-6000 COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 40 ATTN: JOAN DOLEZAL CHESTERFIELD, VA 23832' DATE ICODEI DESCRIPTION 14SEP E LEGAL NOTICE Take noti14a the Board of Su- pervlaors of Chesterfield County, Vk�lnia, at a regular meeting on $601•WAW 28, flip at M. am. In 00 CO"-. Board Rwm at s, Cheater. Vk9h* will hold Public 1 To °O+aCa Whew oCourt f admKof am Ironbridge Park to operate food concessions. 2. An ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chester- field, 1878, as on 1amended, by amendin35 relating sto tiaxicabs and other vehicles for hire. 3. An ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chester- field, 1978, as amended, byy amending Sections 17-28 end 17- 29 relating to easement and right- of-way vacation applications and fees. 4. The conveyance of all that par. cel of land, containing 2.52 acres, more or less, end located at the property Is by the oroo RATE LINES # OF RUN 50 ►'- CREDITS RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. J Publisher of THE RICHMOND NEWS LEADER Richmond, Va...., E; ,',,�,. This is to certifyLEUH� NU I IUL that the attached....... Pub - was published in Theews """"" lished in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia. a newspa er pub- ........Up.1;r�..................................................'�.1 I�QQ I 9.�6.V............. T e first insertion being ven.......v.E P 14 1988 orn to ............ ^............ �r3 su cri •••••••••••• t �� ore me is ......... .... .................... Nota yh,P�,u�blic GERALDINE JOHNSON Sid`ommission eQ,r!r3tt,Pa•�r�;1�, I�yl d SUPERVISOR, ACCT& `GO�M' of the oIn th C and My commission elcptres oteta atre on Me In fM County an?. MdCMNR ........._ .... .................... Administrator's Office, Cheater. field, Vlr Iola, and may 220806 - examined �y all interested pe°rMonda EASE REFER TO YOUR CUSTAMER # ►.-U8C►6 somabetty tithe hours of 8:3ra.m. to pm., through Fridae Mondaya.m. to o.w aS 1. t,► mush frldMY— r-- - TOTAL B :=51 . I% CASH DISCOUNT IF PAII OR BEFORE 15th OF THE SUCCEEDING MO NO DISCOUNT ALLOWED THEREAFTER. M 0 The EVENINGS AND SUNDAY 15 FRANKLIN ST.. PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA 23804 AD COPY DATE • ACCOUNT:ah. S t' A U I { cc), FX{ Uf SU/0Q-e-V i S° � S RE: '-TCk G iU C44 u bII c F) QC( r ►,- Dates Published:___ Q� )� -Z) �9 S Inches l 0 Per inch $ TAKE NOTICE Take mice that the Board of rvty, Viof Chester. field rginia, at a regular meeting on Sep- tember 28, 1988 at 9:00 a.m. in the County Board Room at Chesterfield: Courthouse, Chesterfield, Virginia, will hold public hearings to consider: 1. The conveyance of leases of real at Chesterfield Midlothian Middle School Providence Middle Sc" and Ironbridge Park to op- erate food concessions. , 2. An ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield., 1978, as amended, .by amending Section 19-34 and 1945 re- lating to taxicabs and other vehicles for hire. 3. An ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending Sections 17-28 and 17-29 re- lating to easement and right-of-way vacation ap- plications and fees. 4. The conveyance of all that parcel of land, con- taining 2.52 acres, more or less, and located at the Chesterfield County Air. port Industrial Park in Dale Magisterial District of Chesterfield County, Virguua, fronting approxi- mately 200 feel on the Rio tern iof Whitt the of Robert Adamssiu:d L.A. Lehman,: and on the south, by the property of CCC Proper- ties, Inc. Tax Map 794 t3i Part of Lot 11. Copies of the ordinances,' and plats are on file in OW County Administrator's, Office, Chesterfield, Virgi-.,_ nia, and may be examined, by allintwated persons, between the hour# of 8:30 a.m, to 3:00 p.m., Monday, through gFW Yid (804) 732-3456 M c.� rr�r Ems) CID 1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: 10.1g. SUB CT: Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to Sections 19-34 and 19-35 Code of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, Virginia, 1978, as amended, Relating to the Issuance of Taxi Licenses COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: d 4e� SUMMARY OF INFORMATION *- The County's licensing ordinance for taxi drivers, Article 3 of Chapter 19, requires that a taxi driver's license shall be revoked if the driver is convicted of, pleads guilty to, or pleads nolo contendere to: (1) Any felony; (2) Any larceny, assault, battery, crime of moral turpitude or illegal possession of controlled substances where such crime is other than a felony; (3) Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; (4) Three (3) or more moving violations within a twelve (12) month period; or (5) Three (3) or more violations of the taxi cab regulations. (Continued) PREPARED BY: Steven L. Micas County Attorney ATTACHMENTS: YES NO ❑ SLM/bam2740:B7 SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMIRISTRAT90 M The County Code , however, does not contain a provision that a public vehicle driver's license shall not be issued if an applicant has committed acts or entered pleas that would constitute grounds for revoking a license. The possibility exists that a convicted felon would be entitled to a public vehicle driver's license despite the fact that the license application came only days after a conviction. Because the reasons for revoking a public vehicle driver's license should apply to issuing a license, it is advisable to conform the provisions regarding issuance of public vehicle driver's license with the provisions for revoking a public vehicle driver's license. Recommendation: This amendment has been requested by the Chief of Police. That the proposed amendment be adopted by the Board effective September 28, 1988. SLM/bam2740:B7 / AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE 1978, AS AMENDED, B, m,cmu�G SECTION ' .`-34 AND 19-35 RELATING TO TAXICABS AND OTHER VEHICLES FOR HIRE BE IT ORDAINED by the 1�oard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County that: 1. Sections 19-34 and 19-35 of the Chesterfi 1978, as amended, are amended by amending and re-enacting ti the following sections: A. No person shall drive or operate a public vehicle, taxicab or for -hire car within the county unless he shall have obtained a special license to be known as a "public vehicle driver's license," which shall be in addition to any B. The chief Of police of the C_ouroty shall lot a public vehicle drivev- who -has been contendere to any of the fc,ijowing: other license required of such person. ^-� t batte lie of moral �tch crime is other than a felony-, le influence of alcohol or on of taxicabs or other for -hire cars or vehicles ing twelve (12) months. Application for ax public vehicle driver's license shall be made in writing to the chief &f police of the county, and shall show the following: (a) Full name of applicant. (b) Present address. 19-34. (o) Age and place of birth. (d) Places of previous address and employment for the past five (5) years. (e) Height, weight, color, color of eyes, color of hair and sex. (f) Whether or not applicant is in good physical condition. (g) Whether or not applicant has good hearing and good eyesight. i t (h) Whether or not the applicant is, or has been, within the period of two (2) years last past, addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors, drugs or other forms of ^ narcotics, and, if so, to what extent- (i) Whether or not applicant has ever been convicted of° pleaded guilty to or entered a plea of nolo contendere to r�r�m�nx*�-�m"vw--�x`�c��^��ng-mc»�~xx�r--���rp������e�--�nx��--���--owc��--n*m�:n PO++CeftryY of the matters contained in Section I" if so, such ot'her information as EffiWil be bv the Police- (j) The record of applicant with respect to offenses connected with the operation of motor vehicles and other offenses affecting the suitability of the applicant as a person who should be permitted to operate a public vehicle, including assault and battery and other offenses against. the person and larceny and robbery. (k) Whether or not applicant has previously been employed or licensed as a driver or chauffeur, and, if so, whether or not his license or permit has ever been revoked or suspended for any reason. (l) What experience, if any, applicant has had in the operation of cars. (m) The name and address of the owner of the for -hire vehicle to be operated by applicant and if different, the name and address of the company for whom the applicant will be driving. . Each applicant shall apply for his license in person, and have his fingerprints takenv which fingerprints shall constitute a part of his application, and each applicant s"al file with his application two (2) recent photographs of himselfv of a size designated by the chief of Polices one 19-34. ~ (1) of which shall be attached to, and shall become part a t of the applicationv and the other of which shall be pat attached to the license; if issued, in such a manner that no at a other photograph may be substituted therefor without probability of detection. w o 19-34. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA September 28, 1988 MEETING DATE: ITEM NUMBER: 10 C. SUBJECT ' Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to §§17-28 and 29 Chesterfield County Code Relating to Processing for Vacation of Public Easements Rights of Way and to Consider an Amendment to the Board's Vacation Policy. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: A,,X,XO d Z�e6vv-( SUMMARY OF INFORMATION. Currently, a property owner or other interested person may apply to the County for the vacation of public streets and alleys shown on recorded plats. All applications for vacations are submitted to the Right of Way section of the Utilities Department for review. In addition, for all applications which must be considered by the Board at a public hearing, the hearing must be advertised in the newspaper prior to submission to the Board of Supervisors for action. The County receives approximately 25 applications for vacations a year. §15.1-482.1 of the Code of Virginia, which provides that the County may charge the applicant a processing fee, was recently amended by the General Assembly to permit the County to charge up to $150 for processing an application. Staff is requesting that the Board increase the current processing fee from $50 to $100 to help defray the administrative costs associated with review of each application. (Continued) S���PREPARED BY: Steven L. Micas County Attorney ATTACHMENTS: YES NO ❑ SPP/bam2781:B7 SIGNATURE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M 15 Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to §§17-28 and 29 Chesterfield County Code Relating to Processing for Vacation of Public Easements Rights of Way and to Consider an Amendment to the Board's Vacation Policy. September 28, 1988 Page 2 In addition, §15.1-482.1 of the Code of Virginia also permits the County to charge an applicant the estimated cost of advertising the vacation public hearing. Advertising costs have recently increased and now average $150 per application. The advertising fee currently charged to applicants is $50 pursuant to Board policy. Accordingly, staff requests that the Board amend its current policy governing vacations to increase the advertising charge. The proposed policy not only provides for increased advertising and processing fees but also 1) amends the process of notifying adjacent landowners to ensure that all landowners are adequately notified of the proposed vacation, 2) provides that the processing and advertising fees paid by an applicant are non-refundable as is currently the case with rezoning fees and 3) clarifies the practice of submitting applications to Storer Cable in accordance with current practice. Although a public hearing is not required to amend a Board policy, staff recommends that the policy amendment be considered at the same time as the public hearing on the ordinance amendment. Recommendation: That the Board adopt the attached ordinance and amend the existing right-of-way vacation policy at the same time. SPP/bam2781:B7 0 17 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE 1978, AS AMENDED, B, WENDING ECTIONS -28 AND 17-29 RELATING TO -EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION APPLICATIONS AND FEES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County that: 1. Sections 17-28 and 17-29 of the 1978, as amended, are amended by amending and re-enacting the following sections: Each application to vacate a street, alley, road, easement, public way, plat or portion thereof pursuant to s~--sction 5.1-481 or 15.1-482 of the as ~ended -all be submitted to the right-of-way engfneer �v' ' ='' Ct 5T��ti��n ��n-hhe of—theo imission to the board of department of utilities for yto sub administrative review prior shall b� made on forms supervisors. Such application sh a provided for that purpose by the right-of-way engfneer wctiertSuch application shall be accompanied by all ^ �i 15 1 481 or 15 documents required by section 1-482 of the . - . Code of Vir-gi—r�Aa, as amended. Section 17-M_Feges. In addition to the estimated cost of advertising the notice of the public hearing to consider the ordinance to vacate the applicant shall pay to the county an application ' dollars �� �$������ process img fee of f����-- submitted o ----�or |$100.00i for each application su eo pur="=..^ , �^___ as amended. 15.1-482.1 of the Code Sj_yingInjA, VAC038.T%T M M PROPOSED BOARD POLICY CONCERNING EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATIONS 1. The Board of Supervisors will consider applications for vacations during the Department of Utilities' portion of regularly scheduled meetings of the Board. 2. All request for vacation shall be referred to and handled by the Right of Way Section of the Department of Utilities. 3. A $250.00 fee ($100.00 application fee plus the cost of advertising esti- mated to be $150.00) shall be charged for each application. 4. Once an application has been filed for a requested vacation, no portion of the $250.00 fee will be refunded to the applicant, even if the request is denied or the application is withdrawn. 5. In cases where the application is for the vacation of a right of way, street, alley, or road, all adjoining owners must sign the approval state- ment attached to the application or be notified by certified letter and a copy of the certified letter and return receipt submitted with the applica- tion. 6. No petition will be considered unless an application, plats, fees, and approval statements, or copies of the certified letters and return receipts, if required, are received by the Right of Way Section. 7. Upon receipt of the application, fees, plats, and approval statements, or copies of the certified letters and return receipts, if required, the Right M of Way Section shall route the plat to staff and Chesterfield Cablevision, Incorporated, for recommendations of approval or disapproval. All recom- mendations shall be returned by the date specified by the Right of Way Section. 8. After staff review, the Right of Way Section shall prepare the proposed ordinance and forward to the County Attorney for legal review. 9. The Right of Way Section shall advertise the notice of public hearing to consider the ordinance to vacate. 10. The Right of Way Section shall place the request on the Board of Super- visors agenda. 11. Upon approval of the proposed ordinance, any conditions or restrictions placed therein by the Board shall be incorporated by the Right of Way Section and approved by the County Attorney. A certified copy of the ordinance shall be returned to the Right of Way Section who will notify the applicant. The applicant must provide recordation fee to the Right of Way Section within thirty (30) days of approval by the Board. 12. The Right of Way Section shall record the ordinance and notify the appli- cant when the vacation is effective. 0 20 bam2675:137 -2- n Existing Board Adopted Policy EXISTING BOARD POLICY CONCERNING EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATIONS Mr. Painter and Mr. John Harmon presented a revision of the County's policy to vacate easements and rights of way dedicated by subdivision plat. Discussion of this policy followed, and the question was raised as to whether this item should come before the Board for consideration. Mrs. Girone moved for general approval, seconded by mr. Bookman, with an amendment to item number four (4) and the Board so approved this policy for consideration and review of petitions to vacate a street, alley, road, easement, public way, plat or portion thereof: 1. The Board of Supervisors will consider petitions for vacation only at the regular scheduled Department of Utilities meeting before the Board of Supervisors. 2. All requests for vacations shall be referred to and handled by the Right of Way Section in the Department of Utilities. 3. A $100.00 fee ($50.00 application fee plus the cost of advertising esti- mated to be $50.00) shall be charged for each application. 4. All owners abutting the area to be vacated must be given an opportunity to sign the application for the vacation of a right of way, street or road. 5. No petition will be considered unless an application, required documents, and fees are received by the Right of Way Section. bam2675:137 -3- 6. Upon receipt of the application, fees, and required documents, the Right of Way Section shall route them to the staff for recommendations of approval or disapproval. All recommendations shall be returned by the date specified by them. 7. After staff review, the documents shall be forwarded to the County Attorney for legal review. The documents shall be returned to the Right of Way Section not later than two weeks before the Board Meeting at which the request is scheduled to be considered. 8. The Right of Way Section shall advertise the notice of public hearing to consider the ordinance to vacate. 9. The Right of Way Section shall place the petition on the Board Meeting agenda. 10. Upon approval by the Board of the written instrument or proposed ordi- nance, the County Attorney shall, where necessary, incorporate any conditions or restrictions placed therein by the Board. The County A/torney shall return a certified copy of the ordinance to the Right of Way Section who shall notify the applicant. The applicant must provide recordation fee to the Right of Way Section within thirty (30) days of approval by the Board. 11. The Right of Way Section shall record the ordinance and notify the appli- cant when the vacation is effective. 11 2 bam2675 :B7 -4- n MEETING DATE: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA September 28, 1988 10.D. ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: Public hearing to consider conveyance of a parcel in the Chesterfield Airport Industrial Park to Delta Associates P.E., Inc. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: 1�n2.e°�n SUMMARY OF INFORMATION *- Delta Associates P.E., Inc. plans to build a 10,000 square foot office building and a hangar for 3 aircraft on a 2.5 acre lot. The lot lies between the US Army Reserve and Commonwealth Controls Corporation along Whitepine Road. The sale of the 2.5 acres would be at the current land price of $55,000/acre. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board convey the 2.5 acre parcel on the attached map to Delta Associates P.E., Inc. Attachment AGI8S15/neh n PREPARED BY: — Gary R. McLaren Director of Economic Development ATTACHMENTS: YES NO O SIGNATURE: COU TY ADMINISTRATOR s o, O q �< <� �S �13 ti N E 0 RCRERGE SUBDIVISION �5` `•9�8.s3 IN RORDS= i1.92! RC. REMRINIMG BCutiDRRV 35' R-09�.9�' M CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA September 28, 1988 MEETING DATE: ITEM NUMBER: 10.E. STET' Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to Establish the Route 10 Sewer Assessment District and to Authorize Issuance of Revenue Bonds COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Developers are currently showing an increased interest in commercial development for the area of the County along Route 10 stretching from Lewis Road eastward to Ecoff Avenue. (See attached map.) The area is surrounded by residential develop- ments and contains 706.69 acres of flat to rolling land that has experienced minimal development to date. Potential developers are interested in developing the area for retail and office type uses. The majority of the area is zoned agricultural with some commercial zoning. Proposed developments in the area would create a large volume of wastewater flow and public sewer is not currently available to the area. In order to adequately serve the area, it would be necessary to construct gravity sewer trunk lines and a sewer pump station. (See attached map showing proposed facilities.) (Continued) PREPARED BY: David H. Welchons Director, Utilities ATTACHMENTS: YES 91 NO ❑ SPP/bam2780:B7 SIGNATURE: C'ie' 0 215 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Hearing Date to Consider an Ordinance to Establish the Route 10 Sewer Assessment District and to Authorize Issuance of Revenue Bonds September 28, 1988 Page 2 If the utility lines are installed, it is recommended that the sewer pump station and gravity sewer trunk lines be financed through the establishment of a Sewer Assessment District. An assessment district may be established only by ordinance as was done for the Ruffin Mill Road Sewer Assessment District. The total cost of the project is estimated to be approxi- mately $2.5 million and the estimated assessment if assessed on an acreage basis would be $3,545.40 per acre. A map of the proposed district and a list of the property owners in the district with the estimated assessment for each property owner are attached. Payment of the assessment would be due upon completion of the project, or, alternatively, the property owner could pay the assessment in semi-annual installments of principal and interest over a ten-year period sent with the real estate bill. The Board of Supervisors sets the interest rate at a rate not to exceed the judgment rate of interest (8%). The current interest cost for utility revenue bonds is estimated to be 8%. Since the assessment cannot be made until the project is completed, the Department of Utilities is requesting that upon creation of the assessment district, the Board would also authorize the issuance of $2.5 million in revenue bonds to fund the project. The bonds would be repaid through the monies collected pursuant to the assessment district. Recommendation: Staff recommends 1) that the attached ordinance to establish the Route 10 Sewer Assessment District be adopted and 2) that resolution authorizing the issuance of $2.5 million in revenue bonds to fund the project also be adopted. SPP/bam2780:B7 19 \ AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE ROUTE 10/LEWlS ROAD AREA SPECIAL TAX OR ASSESSMENT SEWER DISTRICT, TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN SEWER FACILITIES THEREIN, AND TO IMPOSE CERTAIN TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS UPON OWNERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED THEREIN BY ENACTING ARTICLE X, CHAPTER 20 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: 1978, (1) That the ` as amended, is amended an reenacted by adding to Chapter 20 a new articlev Article X, as follows: Article X~ Route 10/Lewis Road Area t In the context of this Articlev the definitions contained in this section shall be observed and appliedv except when the context clearly otherwise. indicates Distr ict. ~vzstric7-' o=,=..= ,..~ Special Tax or Assessment Sewer District." "Map of the District" means the map entitled "Route 10/Lewie Road Sewer Assessment District" prepared by County of Chesterfield Department of Utilities, ° dated July 11, 1988, which map is on file with the Director of Utilities. Pursuant to - 195W, Sections 15.1-239 et seq. of the as _ amended° there is hereby created in the County the Route 10/Lewis Road .Area Special Taw or Assessment Sewer District. The area of the District shall be and the same is hereby � 27 bam040,twt fixed within the boundaries depicted on the Map Of the District. Sect i an____ C) 19 •ruct i can of 1-=."+ n Sewer Facilities in and Ad -i acent— to the District. The Utilities Department shall cause to be constructed in and adjacent to the District the sewer line and appurtenant facilities depicted on the Map of the District. Sect ign ;= 0-192- Taxes or Assessments :)or, Owners of Property Located --- Within the Ut r �it . The cost of construction of the sewer line and appurtenant facilities located within the District shall be apportioned among the owners of property abutting the sewer line. The amount of the tax or assessment charged to each such owner of abutting property shall be in the same proportion to the total cost of the improvements constructed within the District pursuant to Section 20-191 as the acreage located within the District which is owned by the abutting property owner bears to the total acreage in the District. The amount finally taxed or assessed agalrost each landowner shall be reported to the treasurer as soon as practicable, after completion of the sewer line and appurtenant facilities located within the District, and the treasurer shall enter the same as provided for other taxes. sessment s. S Et i or, e Any person against whom an assessment provided for in this Article X has been finally made shall pay the full amount Of an assessment provided for in this Article X, on the due 4) 219 bam040. txt k° ' date of the first tax bill on which such assessment is shown. In no event, however, shall any part of the assessment be due prior to the completion of the sewer line and appurtenant facilities constructed pursuant to this Article X. As an alternative to payment as provided above, a person against whom an assessment provided for in this Article X has been made may pay such assessment in twenty equal semi-annual principal installments over a period of 10 years, together with simple interest on the unpaid principal balance at the rate of 8 percent per annum. The first of such installments shall be due on and interest on the unpaid principal balance shall accrue from the date on which the full amount of the assessment would otherwise have been due as provided above. bam040.tXt c n BOAPO OF SUPERVISORS G. H. APPLEGATE, CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT MAURICE B. SULLIVAN, VICE CHAIRMAN MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT C. F. CURRIN, JR. BERMUDA DISTRICT HARRY G. DANIEL DALE DISTRICT JESSE J. MAYES MATOACA DISTRICT 4 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY P.O. Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 4 I D1I "q \"0 � V TO: Progress Index FROM: Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors DATE: August 26, 1988 SUBJECT: Meetings and Coming Events One (1) time, Wednesday, September 7, 1988 One (1) time, Wednesday, September 14, 1988 LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Please confirm by calling the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Office at 748-1200. oan S. Dolezal Clerk to the Board of Su rvisors tmp Attachment 09 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS G. H. APPLEGATE, CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT MAURICE B. SULLIVAN, VICE CHAIRMAN MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT C. F. CURRIN, JR. BERMUDA DISTRICT HARRY G. DANIEL DALE DISTRICT JESSE J. MAYES MATOACA DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY P.O. Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 MEMORANDUM TO: Richmond News Leader FROM: Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors DATE: August 26, 1988 SUBJECT: Meetings and Coming Events One (1) time, Wednesday, September 7, 1988 One (1) time, Wednesday, September 14, 1988 LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Please confirm by calling the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Office at 748-1200. Joan S. Dolezal Clerk to the Board of Su rvisors tmp Attachment n M TARE NOTICE Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, at a regular meeting on September 28, 1988 at 9:00 a.m. in the County Board Room at Chesterfield Courthouse, Chesterfield, Virginia, will hold a public hearing to consider the enactment, pursuant to Section 15.1-239, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, of an ordinance entitled, "An Ordinance to Establish the Route 10 Area Sewer Assessment District, To Construct Certain Sewerage Facilities Therein, and To Impose Certain Taxes or Assessments Upon the Owners of Property Located Therein." The proposed ordinance provides for the creation of the Route 10 Area Sewer Assessment District, which contains approximately 706.69 acres of land in southeastern Chesterfield County in the Matoaca and Bermuda Magisterial Districts. The district is located between Ecoff Avenue and Lewis Road on both the northern and southern sides of Route 10. The district is depicted on the map of the District referred to below. The ordinance further provides for the construction of certain sewerage facilities within the District, and for the imposition of certain taxes or assessments upon the owners of the property located within the District to fund the cost of constructing such sewerage facilities. Enactment of this ordinance will result in special taxes or assessments against the owners of property located in the District. A list of the owners of property located in the District and of the amount of the special tax or assessment to be made against each owner is set forth below. ROUTE 10/LEWIS RD. SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT K Yc Y[Yc*Yt 7k yl 7k 7k IY 7k 7k 7k 7k 11rwer 7k 7kx�7M w7K 7k vc iK 7k �7k Yt�w7k�7k�Yr Yt Ytx��7k Yr 7k YC w Yt ik xYt YC lk x7k 7k xYt 7k 7k *7k YC 7K w YC YC YCw Y[7K tt 7t Yt Yt 7K 7k OWNER _ ACREAGE ASSESSMENT K 7k 7k �C Yt k 7k tK Y[ 7k Nf Y[ tt 7k yt 7k 7k 'k 7k yf IVC 7k 7k Yt 7K Yc 71t 7k y[ 11[ YC tk k yt 7K 7k Yc Yt 7k Yl 7K Yt tk 7k YC ]k tK 7k 7C lK Yc 1K 7k Yf Y[ YC 7k YC 7k * Yr tk 1K 7k Yr yr YC 7k 7K Yc 1k Yt 1k 7k 7k YC YC 7k Yr l H.W. COPLEY 122.81 $435,410.820 2 C.E. & F.H. WOLFE, SR. 4.1 $14,536.148 3 J.T. & N.W. CROWDER 10.18 $36,092.192 1 HCA REALTY, INC. 8.56 $30,348.641 3 K.R. & N.J. BERGER 7.04 $24,959.630 M.W. COLE 5.27 $18,684.269 1 M.W. COLE 21.04 $74,595.258 3 M.W. COLE 1.06 $3,758.126 L.C. & M.W. COLE 7.2 $25,526.894 R.M. & J.D. ALLEN 1.19 $4,219.028 R.M. ALLEN 15.44 $54,741.007 H.M. & HULDA SHOOSMITH, ET ALS 1.52 $5,339.011 3 J. SHOOSMITH & H.M. SHOOSMITH, JP.. 8.01 $28,398.670 1 JACK T. SHOOSMITH, ET ALS 2 $7,090.804 3 E.D. & M.S. HARRIS 5 $17,727.010 DYNAMIC ASSOC. 10 $35,454.020 1 CITNALTA CORPORATION 107.53 $3,81,237.077 3 Z.G. & C.G. DAVIS 31.97 $113,346.502 3 Z.G. & C.G. DAVIS 2.91 $10,317.120 T.R. & M.T. COBBS 2.69 $9,537.1.:' 1 SHOOSMITH BROS., INC. 24.95 $88,457.780 SHOOSMITH BROS., INC. 5.7 $20,208.791 3 SHOOSMITH BROS., INC. 48.67 $172,554.715 1n 11 t;F_F24.003 AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE ROUTE 10/LEWIS ROAD AREA SPECIAL TAX OR ASSESSMENT SEWER DISTRICT, TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN SEWER FACILITIES THEREIN, AND TO IMPOSE CERTAIN TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS UPON OWNERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED THEREIN BY ENACTING ARTICLE X, CHAPTER 20 BE IT ORDAINED by Chesterfield County: . the Board of Supervisors of (1) That the Code of the Countv of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended an reenacted by adding to Chapter 20 a new article, Article X, as follows: Article X. Route 10/Lewis Road Area Special Tax or Assessment Sewer District Section 20-189. Definitions. In the context of this Article, the definitions contained in this section shall be observed and applied, except when the context clearly indicates otherwise. - District. "District" means the "Route 10/Lewis Road Special Taw or Assessment Sewer District." Map of the District. "Map of the District" means the map entitled "Route 10/Lewis Road Sewer Assessment District" prepared by County of Chesterfield Department of Utilities, - ---dated Jul-y 4 1, 1988,whichmap -is onf-j-le��v--the-Director — � of Utilities. ^ Sect'on 20-190. Establishment of Route 10/Lewis Road Area Special Tax or Assessment Bewer District, Pursuant to Sections 15.1-239 et seq. of the 1950, as amended, there is hereby created in the County the Route 10/Lewis Road Area Special Tam or Assessment Sewer Di'strict.' The area of the District shall be and the is n by - r, fixed within the boundaries depicted on the Map of the District. Section 20-191. Construction of Certain Sewer Facilities in and A iacent to the District. The Utilities Department shall cause to be constructed in and adjacent to the District the sewer line and appurtenant facilities depicted on the Map of the District. Section 20-192. Taxes or Assessments upon Owners of Property Located Within the District. The cost of ` construction of the sewer line and appurtenant facilities located within the District shall be apportioned among the owners of property abutting the sewer line. The amount of the tau or assessment charged to each such owner of abutting property shall be in the same proportion to the total cost of the improvements constructed within the District pursuant to Section 20-191 as the acreage located within the District which is owned by the abutting property owner bears to the total acreage in the District. Upon completion of the construction, the Director of Utilities shall mail to eaoh landowner notice of the final amount of the tau or assessment. If the landowner pays the assessment within 30 days of the date such letter is mailed by the Director of utilities, no interest thereon shall be charged. If the landowner does not make payment within 30 days of such mailing by the Director of Utilities, the Director of Utilities shall report the amount of the tax or assessment ` to the treasurery and the treasurer shall enter the same as ' bam04w txt provided for other taxes with interest to be paid as set forth in Section 20-193. Section 20-193. Installment Rayment of assessments. Any person against whom an assessment provided for in this Article X has been finally made shall pay the full amount of an assessment provided for in this Article X, pursuant to Section 20-192, or on the due date of the first taw bill on which such assessment is shown. In no event, however, shall any part of the assessment be due prior to the completion of the sewerline and appurtenant facilities constructed pursuant to this Article X. As an alternative to payment as provided above, a person against whom an assessment provided for in this Article X has been made may pay such assessment in twenty equal semi-annual installments over a period of 10 years, together with simple interest on the unpaid principal balance at the rate of 8 percent per annum. Interest shall accrue beginning 30 days after the date upon which the Director of Utilities mails notice to the landowners, as provided in Section 20-192. The first of such installments shall be due on the date on which the full amount of the assessment would otherwise have been due as provided above. . Section 20-194. Release of property. Any person ' against whom an assessment provided for in this Article X has been made may obtain a full release, a partial release, or partial releases of any lien imposed upon his property with respect to such assessment. The amount of acreage released shall be a percentage of the total acreage 'subject'^ ` � � - to the lien of the assessment, which percentage shall not exceed the percentage of the principal amount of the total assessment which has already been paid. A release available under this section shall be granted within 30 days after written application for such release is made to the Director of Utilities. After the Director of Utilities has determined the amount of acreage, if any, which the applicant is entitled to have released, the applicant may designate an area or areas of his property, containing that amount of acreage, to which the release shall apply. bam040.txt bam04O.txt Richmond Newspapersf Inc. An Affiliate of Media General P.O. BOX C-32333 RICHMON , VIRG 64INIA 2 293-0001 �°- i::t-)�t_1t� DATE �'I IOF.I"�Ei4 COUNTY OF CIAESTERF IELD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS p.O. i~iOX 40 A-C'TN: JOAN DOLEZAL Chik=STC R I LLD, VA 23832 AC> a IF I f D CR1:11Z INCHES AMOUNT DA DESCRIPTION RAT RUNE3 RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. 07' Bard Of 6upera1sor8 Of Chesterfield Publisher of et i s regular, areedng on bar 28, a.m. in the cowry Bard Room�hesteriietd ChTHE R I C HM O ceterfield, �ranM, wIN hold a public hearing ND NEWS LEADER the aileclrnent, purguent to Seodmf 15,1.239 of Vkginia, 1950, ea amended, of an ordinance end- �. t Est h the ' Route 10 Ares Sewer Dlstrfct, To Conattuct c n Richmond Va.�`d.L. [ ...... Certain Sewerage faciN- ..71008 .......... and To l mppae Certain Taxes or Assessments Upon qt P►oAeEty located Therein , This is to certify that the attached... LE �a^ p ` ; The pksm fop the creation of the Route 1O Sewer 8mam District; which contains arm ms•ae ` of WWI" southeastern Cheater- as published in The Lea ... . . .. •-•.... ews a newspaper pub_ shed in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia. dell County the Matoros and Qermuda Magiatsdai ohs- r� S E P 988 .. Ecoff Avenue and Lewis ......................................... ! 1q .................. ................... and southern sides of Route 10. "I of the DisMCt referred to itirNter ............. the first insertion SE Q Q 'van....... 71988 Pmv*s for the con construction of being certain � fi INr Ne$ Within the District, and for the im- POWW'Of certain taxes or assessmerftthes upon the owners of IOUN within the Distrust ......................... his worn to pus r e fore me (7 to fund the cost of conshuctingsuch SOWMP facilities: Emarrient of this ordinance wiN rceult in special taxes or as. sessmeM against the owners of oroy W. tat i t o ary Public �� � + ;� ';X?y y R; , ond: SUPERVISOR, ACCTS. C, y trial. A list of the ownere of property located In the District located h Di ��� commission ex' Nei ' p. �C and of the amount Of the special -tax or rise ssment to be ...................................... made against each Owner Is Set forth below, 71 TLE r :OIClID1881ou owp...._ KIN. COI 1eZe1 ei4 Ly'a KW. c row >w 6 Y a F HOA 1av law. ME fir caw. cpu t,a � T.a La. a atw. cocaAUD " `e.• r N,M.aaroowrn,at,w IsmE F ' r .Mlao MTn, tr rtn, a+ aor �f , onuuaeate K411 ' Aapc a s,tT,m,,. OITNALTACOIfrOltA&OAfATM IoT.ie yayj� L4aCaoAMla e1ei eHaeNpB Ta aa� ass S1ostlT.r:o fG��t� E fiE . ilLa ea t 8.7480 1n,.e • + G. F �• r' MIOOaMTMf110{ ex: 1atTa,ee17 e J T. N Y. arI00aMITlf J III NgQMln11 16 21 N�1, �11a �NY,� ie pa,lat0e0 %CASH DISCOUNT IF PAII aT awu �aa.usaae el•� eeaT, ".M z OR BEFORE 15th OF THE SUCCEEDING MO e 17 ` TOTAL NO DISCOUNT ALLOWED THEREAFTERcow . Tee:N �,eeee00.fi 41' die ordinance and map are on file in the County Administrator's Office, Chestef W, Viiygirrla, and may; be examined by all k tefestpd persons between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Newspapers, Inc. P.O. BOX C-32333 An Affiliate of Media General 804-649-6000 ' ^ COUNTY OF |ESTERFIELD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 40 ATTN: JOAN DOLEZAL CHE3TERFIELD, VA 23832 DATE CODEJ DESCRIPTION 148 1. 1 1 1 1 0M WTICE 10 R*e` SO MO Board Of SuWvIs0rS Of Chesterfield Mat a regular meeting on September 28, .-M. in the County B rd Room at Chesterfield Chesterfield, Virginia, owaill'hold a public hearing **ftsidar the OnICIMORt, Pursuant to Won 15.1-239, Code of IfIrginia. 1950, as amended, of an ordinance enti. A4 tled, "An Ordinance to Establish the Route 10 Area Sewer Asses0nW District, To Construct Certain Sewerage Facili- OuTtweln, and To Impose Certain Taxes or Assessments UPO",lhtOwM of Property Located Therein." The . ', ordinance provides for the creation of the 10 Area Smr Assessment District, which contains Ii 70&69 acres of land In southeastern Chester. The district is located between E0Off Avenue and Lewis 'ROIIKI on both the northern and southern sides of Route 10. The district Is dVicted On the map of the District referred to below.The Crown further provides for the construction of *0 of carw taxes or assessments upon the owners of 'the Pq" located Within the District to fund the cost of CORSWdIng such sewerage facilities. Enactment of this ordinance will result in special taxes or as. sessments against the owners of property located In the Dis'. trict. A list of the owners of prop" located In the District and Of the amount Of the special tax or assessment to be made against each owner Is set forth below. an 744 IT ALE 2 8008wrHmmsoo. acts .Lt. =KVINCONITH Is ses,18teso Copies of the -ordinance and map are on file In the County [__tA Inistrator's Office, Chesterfield, Virginia, and MO be om OxAM111041 by all interested persons between the hours of 220806 TE 14SEP88 CREDITS MOUNT INCHES A I NE HIuHmwwND NEWSPAPERS,Publisher of of "HE RICHMOND NEWS LEADER 'his is to certify that the attached ..... LEGAL N OTIC E Published in The Richmond Ne Leader, a newspaper Pub - id in the City of Richmond, Statewosf Virginia. ���D �4�M�� ~/.L-.r~�_,_��7O�� ---`—^^^—`^~`~— [� ��1��� first given _. '_.'u�t..|_�7Q.' �°' T. —' _�'--��~-- ",^^"= , . ~ � ...................... Notary Public ity of Richmond: r� ! -------.----�� GERALDINE JOHN4 --%i���-----. 556.60 vaCASH DISCOUNT /pPAID Ow OR acponc 15tm OF THE muccsso/mm xxomTn. mODISCOUNT ALLOWED THEREAFTER. P.. BO •' Y� J V � 4 .t�' 15 FRANKUN' ST PETERSBURG, VA 23804.0071 PHONE (804) 732-3456 fj .: �+'�Jli'+, � � .+Ji.i V f, ��' '2YI.q, Y • y. T.. {. . V'j" �� n�V' CHESTERFIELD COUNTY r: '; .. *.J Yl 9/30/88 r� A/P=BELINDA„fASHMORE a « , � ; �' DATE ``AccOur►T 002271 �. �;;,, P.O.. BO.X 40 t No. -, CHESTERFIELDS YA f•.. ' 1�269.4023832 ,t AMOUNT DUE L 1 1/2 %( SERVICE CHARGE ON PAST DUE BALANCES) ANNUAL. RATE ' k'•_' - `• ._, ,,;r �}��'; at-�4`d �'' ., :r?• `i; i. sr�,. .,. y..t ,-.. °'_ ,'�` �' � '� ^tea.; -.. THIS INVOICE IS DUE UPON RECEIPT I Fi 1s% MMMMFJ"_M: MEETING DATE SUBJECT: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: 11.A. Request of the Christmas Mother Committee for the 1988 Christmas Mother Program COUNTY AD INISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: f� a' / OUG C/ , t6 t WA G►0 Z j0 The Chesterfield -Colonial Heights Christmas Mother Committee has requested permission to address the Board to ask for support with this year's program. Ms. Hilda R. Taylor, this year's Christmas Mother, will make a short presentation at the Board meeting. The Christmas Mother Program has been very successful over the years in bringing Christmas to the needy children and the elderly of Chesterfield County and Colonial Heights. Ms. Taylor will request permission to ask County employees to sponsor families or children and will be requesting $3,500 from the County. A total of $3,000 has been budgeted for Christmas Mother expenses in the FY88 budget. The Board donated $3,000 last year from the contingency fund. Employee support throughout the departments has been excellent in the past. Staff recommends support of the program again this year. PREPARED BY. ATTACHMENTS: YES O NO Y' SIGNATURE: COUN Y ADMINISTRATOR 11 '10) ~^ � C H E"� T E R F | E L o ' C D L,] xv [A L H E | G * T s ` 71, C+/R|GTwxs COMMITTEE p o. sox zr ` cnEsrsnF/c[ o, v/*s/m/^ 2a832 Dear Friends and Neighbors. Merry Christmas 1988! Already the Chesterfield - smzaTMASmmHcn Colonial Heights Christmas Committee is working Mrs. P. B. Taw/or. Jr. to make this Christmas happier for the less fortunate in our community and we need your help. CHAIRMAN It is our goal that no child in our community be m-s' R. GaruSoya's without a gift on Christmas morning and that no COORDINATOR family be hungry on Christmas day. Mrs. Car/ A. Sizemore We sincerely hope that you will include support asnnuoA o/srnInr of our Christmas program as you plan your 1988 Mrs. L. cme,u Armstrong Christmas giving. There are many ways that you Mrs. Mrs. Herbert M. Brack James D. oza,x can help: m,". e"ue,t cz^"s m,=. n,s` L°ve,"= Cole E. E. Davis ( 1 ) Sponsor a family, providing gifts and Mrs. Le" mup,° food for a Christmas dinner. m,. Marvin eewo (2) Sponsor a foster child. omvEe HILL nIarnIcr (3) Make up food boxes, bug gifts for teens Beverley B. oo°oeu and children. Mrs. John T. **rmno (4) Donate money to be used by the Committee Mrs. Stephen P. Mitcham Mrs. James p°~,i°o to purchase food, clothing and toys for m~s ' Donald pxpzns unsponsored families, the elderly and o»Ls ozornzcr nursing home residents. Mrs. Alexander B. Sadler (5) Donate used toys and clothing. There is a mry, m"a" omi Ieu real need for coats of all sizes and for m^rv«cA oIarnInr childrens clothing. (6) VOLUNTEER TO HELP at the Center. m,. Melvin o""i°l m,°. Preston Holmes m,a. Walter C. Link Please contact Sandra Sizemore" Christmas m,m ' Mrs. e°,�=� E. m���� ' Keith Nicholson Coordinator, at 748-1183 BEGINNING 0CT0BER 3 from Mrs. I°sac Ridley 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. and November and December Mrs. m,". DeWitt oc"uuwr Lester ,="=°u from 9:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. mIoLor*z»w ozornIcr We look forward to hearing from you as together w~m' L. Bradford Armstrong we attempt to meet the increasing number of m,m, Frank Dial m,m. o",Ie, H. sWorm requests for special help at Christmas. Often it m," m°s' Linwood E. o"a=o" «�'rea w,'nona,y is in sharing with others that we receive personal Jog at Christmas. I wish this Jog for cm'wvIm- xsIs*ro each of you. m,=. ni=h°,u A. c,/=so" m,, James Pond Sincerely, m,' Dean Williams Hilda R. Taylor Christmas Mother 1988 The,000 Colonial Heights Christmas Mother Invites YOU to Help us decorate this tree So that No ONE in Chesterfield or Colonial sleights %W wake up on Christmas morning 'Without a reason to 9Z§joice in this Season of Peace and Yoy! You can be Santa Claus! Over 100 Foster Children will 9&d help this year. If you sponsor a foster Child for Christmas you will know his first name, his sizes and needs in clothing And his special Christmas %,uh. At least 1,200 families will need your help in 1988. you will begiven each child's first name, size in clothing And his special Christmas %ish. Donations can help us shop for 2,000 people. This Christmas Many Elderly folks, Teenagers and families ,PW not be sponsored by anyone. Your donations can provide for their Christmas Nods. You can help 3,500 needy people this year. Please sponsor a family or a child Or send a checkpayable to qhe Chesterfield- Colonial .9�feights Christmas Mother fund. The Christmas Committee P.O. Box 27 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Hilda Taylor Christmas Mother Sandra Sizemore Christmas Coordinator Telephone: 748-1183 to 00 II 00 II O 00 ^ II 00 II II II '� N II U �O II M N CV --I00 to ~ 00 II CV (N ce) t— r E" O, 11 v1 II C FF-a II � II co d II Ce) - 00 c7N O h• u1 cM r— I` 00 II Ql cr1 cv cr) Vl cV d P4 O " En d H I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I ( I I I 00�� a a t7 E7 ri :1 U) -W O J i a) f 4 I4 a a) ca U 1 Z7 O O En ri In. F4 00 F+ O a a) En En a 4-J -H b M r•4 (Z En a) 14 a a 4-4 I•+ U ri -W Eli 11 a N O En O O a co •H a) a x a O v En -�4 Cl. in. x a —1 a) 0) n 1-1 a u UJ Cl) >+ 4-1 E C ri I'= .L'. -H O Q co m co s, a) 0o co 0 o0 a o. c b a) u - s4 (n. a) —i -H -H �+ m UcnU a v a a a) 4-)wx arx yJ co v a) En En O O +1 4j s, 4-1 r♦ v ri v .n •ra En o a 0,a O 4-j a) E H i :1 0 U U E En E E U) r•E -.4 .(-- m O O O co -a O u [s.. fl. U d U > U) ' M► Fin^nci-? Re-ort - 1987 BQ7.Qrca 9.r- of Febru^ry 4, 1997....... ....................... 22, 5t-8. Ja 0 Don,tions...... ............... ...............� 48,4,56.19 Interest ................. .•.... ............ 880.23 Re br t- s .. • ... ................. ....... 93.00 ��5- acia l Use" Done ti on ....................... 2,00. 0 Income- 419;629.42 Tot-1 ... .... .... ' 72,177. 46 a;CPET 931S Co orai.netor Is SaInry (Inc1.FI,A-`?95.c'?1..... Cleric-1 "Torker..... .... ............... 500.00 gerp.ting Expense: Office... ................ 2,058.51 Center................... 273.90 Storage ........... .475.00 Gifts (Elderly -Nursing Home, etc.) ........... 1,899.10 Foster Child Checks .......................... 2,530.00 Food: 1Asat.................................. 2,780.68 Staples ............................... 8,9 56.11 . Tcys............•........... ................ 7,880.93 School Gifts.... •.. • • •....................... 1,973.60 Clothing: Purch9ses ......................... 9,816.96 Production ........................ 71.08 Emergency Fund... ............... 711.18 "Special Use" Funds. ......................... 200.00 Total Esnses....:.......... Q 4a,413.03 ,�/ Balance on `'and as of Februery 5, 1988........ 27, 764.43 Submitted by:-LJ.3.� ;c .a.-aZ-y,Tressurer-Bockkeeuer ITE1:1S i 1986 Actual 1987 5udget 1987 _Actual i 99 31999.00 1968 , Budget 'totes 325.00 3 0 P, 00 i 248.25 Coordinetorts Salary3,500.00 300.00 4,0""0.00 Clerierl Worker ; 500.00 800.00 500.00 i 800.00 OPerAting Office E:mense: Center Storage 1,734.61 i 2,000.00 2,058.5-1 273.90 ! 475.00 2,000. 00 _ 250. 00 550.00. 197.15 j 250.00 ------ 550.00-4 Gi is - Elderly (Nursing Home, etc.) 1,853.66 ! i 2,500.00 ( 1,899.10 3,000.00 Foster Children_ Checks 2,620.00 j 3,100.00 2,530,00 3, 000.00 F00�: Meet 3,254.41 3,500.00 2, 780. 68 �_ 4,000. 00 's Staples ! 81919.14 9,500.00 8,956.11 ; 9,500. 00 j TOYS 4,888.28 8,000.00 7,880.93 10. 000. 00 School Supplies ------ 1,500.00 1,973.60 2,000. 00 I Purchv se s 10,072.55 - 12,O00.00CLOT'MG: !? " l �.9 6 12,000. 00 Production j 37.62 150. GO ! 71.08 100.00 Emergency Fund-Dir. Soc: Serv: ----- 1 711.18 1, 500. 00 Discretion.nry Fund ------ ---7750.00 ! 200.00 1 ------ _350.00 r "SDecie.l Use" runds 100.00 ----- 200.00 i Emergency Fund-Com ittee ; 300.00 ' TOTF.LS _ 37,9 27. 66 49 ,100.00 44, 413.0347 5. 00 - Adopted by Chri stria s Committee: February 8,^1988 D» to ) CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETINGDATE: September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: ll.B. SUBJECT: School Capital Project Revisions COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The School Board approved revisions to the School Capital Project Fund on August 23, 1988 and September 13, 1988. These revisions were transfers of bond funds between projects except for the $291,567 for Food Service equipment and renovations and the $760,000 of recovered funds received for Matoaca Middle School renovations. A listing of all projects is attached. The CODE OF VIRGINIA states that a public hearing is necessary in the event of increasing the annual budget by 1% of total revenue or $500,000, whichever is lesser (Section 15.1-162.1); therefore, a public hearing for the appropriation of recovered funds in the amount of $760,000 is necessary. Board Action Required: It is requested that the Board of Supervisors appropriate $291,567 from Food Service fund balance to the four projects for food service equipment and renovations and hold a public hearing for the appropriation of the $760,000 recovered for Matoaca Middle School renovations. PREPARED BY: Ralpli L. Westbay Assistant Superintendent of Finance ATTACHMENTS: YES 13 NO O SIGNATURE: " ?1 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M VIRGINIA: At a regular meeting of the Chesterfield County School Board held Tuesday evening, September 13, 1988, at seven -thirty o'clock in the Board Room of the School Administration Building PRESENT: Maria Keritsis, Chairman Jeffrey S. Cribbs, Vice -Chairman Griffin R. Burton William H. Goodwyn, Jr. Jean Copeland On motion of Mrs. Copeland, seconded by Mr. Cribbs, the School Board of Chesterfield County requests the Board of Supervisors to appropriate $760,000 to the School Capital Projects Fund for the purpose of making necessary renovations at Matoaca Middle School. a copy teste u 32 *90 SCHOOL CIP PRC,JECTS Prepared by School Finance 8/17/a8 Previous Expenditures Revised 8/23/88 8:+23/8a Initial Budget Current 6 Encumbranc Needs Budget ;zalance Budget Rev i51ons Budget To Dace Bud-1get Change Available Code Project Title 1: Description (1) i2) (3}=(1}+(2} (4} B115* Greenfield Elementary 300 00o 600 006 960,000 873,822 875,6,60 (25:t?;)tj} 1 178 B12F Reams Elementary 200,00C) 145,000 345,000 358,534 460, oirs 55,000 41,446 B136* Matoaca Middle 250,00! 104,000 354,000 344075 345,000 (9,00w L25 B13N Robious Middle 2910,'111O' 1221000 372,000 364,242 400,000 28,000 3c,75B B09 Salem Middle LO-50 0f.t1 1991000 358,000 351,103 400,000 40it{l)tj 48,89", B13T* Swift Creek: Middle IOf) ,00i1 () 1ii)6(1 C) si (100,000) ij B15E Manchester High 600,060 0 600,000 186,306 ?)C: C!00 00 000 5 13,700 B213 Grantee Hall Bus Loop0 j 25 t?00 , 2`.000 145035 1 3ijC OOG , 2�� tiC)C) J5,0 L085,965 B21E* Beulah Elementary 50,000 0 50,000 117,783 17,800 (32,200) 17 FOLD Matoaca Elementary 150,100 0 150,000 108,168 150,0(it) 0 41,312 B22M* Swift Creek Elementary 50,0fj0 [) 50,000 11,627 11,700 138,300) 73 B256 Matoaca High 500.000 0 500,0)0 306g532 800 000 300 C1C ,.)0 4 4.3,468 B250 Thomas Dale High 300,000 0 300.1000 196;199 '100,000 400,01)6 503,801 B499 Feasibility Study;Energy Conserv. 500,000 86,480 586,400 477,600 1,971,480 1,385,000 1,493,8810 B599 Supervision1Contirgency 6,100,000 (4;792,334) 1,307,666 7RO,370 2,354,233 1,046,567 1,5?3,863 C111 Gordon Elementary 850,000 ij 8501000 632,867 ?Oij,Oiji; (150,000! 6?,i33 C117 Harrowgate Elementary 850,600 61,400 711,400 911,394 950,000 38,600 38,A-06 C119 Hening Elementary 950,000 17,400 967,400 967,351 1,000000 32,600 32,649 C11T Enon Elementary 2,?ClO,Qi;O 200,000 2,900,000 2,419,761 2,500,000 (400,OOtj) 81,23; C111' Ettrick: Elementary 5,700 3 06 (1000000) 41 600, 000 3R 997R 856 4,100,000 000 R 000 (500, } 0 12,14 4 C121* Jacobs Rd, (Central 360) 5,250.000 0 5,250,000 5.053,602 5,055,000 (195,000) 1,398 C122 Evergreen (Genito'60) g ? Cs00.C10is R- is 7,000,600 • 6,667,480 6,700,Oi)0 3ni) r):>tj} ,•• �o JL, JL C123 Crenshaw ElementarV 5,750,OQij 0 `,750000 4,952,545 5R050,1)00 ;700,Qi1f?} 9/.4_,_; C12B Hopkins Elementary 1,850,000 0 1850 000 1539 002 1 6001;000 ? 50(1001 60. 998 C12H Robious Elementary 300,000 172,006 470 f)o0 451,982 500 000 08 -iC)o 4B 0118 C12K Salem Elementary 200.1000 125,000 325,000 323,494 400,000 ?5,000 76,50 C12P Watkins Elementary 1,2i)0,000 i1 1,200,000 992,738 I, SOf1,000 (1ij;j,iiiji?; 11?,?,5s 012R* hells Elementary 2,000000 76 000 2,076,000 2,017 547 2,017,600 (58,4001 5.3 C12T West Providence Elementary 5.000,000 0 5,0001,000 4,601,961 5,075,000 75,Otjij 473039 CILU Clover Hill Elementary 360 West 5,00010100 51000,000 4,223,095 4„00100v (3ts:;ti100 476,905 C13A Carver Jr. 1,("00,000 710,000 1,710,000 1,685,828 1,700,000 (10.000) 14,172 C13C Chester Jr. 2, 100 106 2,00,000 4,100,000 3,909,989 45206,000 1r,(1,Otj0 29ir,(11 C13E Falling Creek Jr. 7Ci0,IOC; ij 700,000 655,633 750,000 50,000 94,.067 C!31* Midlothian Middle i) 12, 000 12,000 11,923 12,t)ijC; C13L Providence Middle 850,000 0 850,000 531,1?Cl 550,000 (30Cf,r'1t?0) 18,830 C15N Monacan High 15600,000 0 15600,000 1,324,412 1,500,OIV, 0 (1601000) 175,588 C1?9* Tech Center 700, l00 (500,Oi1n1 20t1,C)ij0 0 (200,000) 0 C21Li Crestwood Elementary 300,Oo 3}1,2r00 3314200 321,5b2 35Ci,ijit0 1B,vOtj 28,438 C210 Davis Elementary 3f_;01001 35 006 R ''• 335,000 329,854 35-1DONO 151006 21,136 LL1L r' , Gates t El amen ary 1 550 ?ijii ,- 11 4?4 i)C}tj , 2,029,000 `ter' q it,t_� 9) '? i{C;il , •-,-.. i 129 «< 0) , 6 1. {-. C25A L. C, Bird High 1,600,000 0 1,600 ,000 1,408,069 1,500,000 (100,000) 71,931 .tU CE50 n Clover Hill Hiah. 2,200.1000 767,000 , 7, 100 2 96 { r,,27. 2 82: 5 2,820 300 , (46 700 1 . } 5 2J C25J Meadowbrook High 0,000,060 0 3,0005000 2,721,782 3,500,000 500,000 778,218 CL5L �! Midlothian high 1,750,000 0 1,75t.1,ti0ij , t-t_�,.375 1 6- ,620,, t;f1 1 5 - 1. 29,400) .1 _ 15,225 TOTALS $71,850,000 ($515,854371,334,146 $63,313,594 $71,6254713 $291,567 $8,31.2,119 (i`, The 1985 bonds amounted to $33M1 YPSA bonds amounted to $22.850M; and, literary loan funds were $16M totaling '$71.850M. t2) The 1981 Supervision! ortingency account overspent by $67,761; therefore, these funds had to come from the 198.R bonds. Also, on March 22, 1983, the School Board approved an Energy Conservation Grant for $51,9(,7 which increased funds available, The $51')fj,000 literary loan for Chesterfield Technical Center was not approved. Total changes equal a reduction of $515,854, (6) Food Service (Fund 25) is reimbursing Construction. (Fund 32) VI 1,567 fir food service equipment and renDvations in lour elementary schools (Enon, Ettrick, Greenfield, and C. C. Wells), * Projects complete as of 6.30!88, 33 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER. SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS APPOMATTOX BASIN (ABIDCO) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: A Apkavq 11.C. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SUMMARY OF INFORMATION. g "t / The terms of office for Mr. May s (Board representative) and Mr. Currin (business representativ on ABIDCO expire September 30, 1988. Both have expressed a sire to continue serving. Term of office would be effective i and expire September 30, 1989. The Board should suspend its rules to allow for simultaneous nomination and appointment at this time. W PREPARED BY: ATTACHMENTS: YES NO O SIGNATURE: W() COUNT ADMINISTRATOR �? n ABIDCO M APPOMATTOX BASIN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Monument Professional Building, 1964 Wakefield Street Post Office Box 1808, Petershurg, Virginia 23805 Phone (804) 732-8971 September 6, 1988 Mr. Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator Post Office Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Lane, I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors of ABIDCO, in regard to next year's Board appointments (effective October 1, 1988) from your Board of Supervisors. As you will recall, the Articles of Incorporation call for the following: "Prior to October 1 of each year, each such governing body shall appoint two members to the Board of Directors, one of whom shall be a member of the governing body of said political subdivision and the other of whom shall be actively affiliated with a business located in said political subdivision. The directors shall serve for a term of one year, beginning on October 1 of each year." The County's current members to the Board of Directors are: Jesse J. Mayes C. F. Currin, Jr. Please give me a call if you have any questions concerning this request. Again, thank you for all of your fine support. Sincerely, Dennis K. Morris Executive Director DKM : kb e SEP VN cc: Charles E . Townes cC3uN Y County of Chesterfield, City of Colonial Heights, 34 County of Dinwiddie, City of Hopewell, City of Petershurg MEETING DATE: SUBJECT' CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: ll . D.1. Appropriation For Repairs to Lindberg Drive COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: &""' � ovq SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board is requested to appropriate funds from the Matoaca District Three Cent Road Fund for proposed improvements to Lindberg Drive. BACKGROUND: Colonel Mayes has requested staff to prepare this item for an appropriation of funds for placement of stone on Lindberg Drive between Harrowgate Road and its current terminus. These improvements will not bring this street up to State standards. RECOMMENDATION If the Board wishes to perform the street maintenance, $600 should be appropriated from the Matoaca District Three Cent Road Fund for placement of stone on Lindberg Drive. DISTRICT: Matoaca. PREPARED BY: R. McCracken D.rector of Transportation ATTACHMENTS: YES ® NO 0 SIGNATURE: �7W 0 COU TY ADMINISTRATOR �� _ ?V f� 9 SLAP et r �ti = o 'OIL o :ECM PP 2 Q o � 00 0t O} J O � r} P / r� hit 1 d V♦r pp Ito 0 Lin erg Drive 4LoRua \:FT e:LSI ow RO I Rp \ -. 112 WAft a \ 0 a ti \. SM IfT \ / \ \ 627 cl RO �J 4 / 4� ao COLON L xt 2 104 n a• ��, 625 :8 Y v� 4,jLER G DE pq HE T O CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: 11.D.2. SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance Revision - West Providence Road Extension COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The state road acceptance resolution for West Providence Road Extension was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the July 27, 1988 meeting. The last sentence of Paragraph 9 reads as follows, "Deed Book 1301, Page 349, February 13, 1978". The resolution should be amended to read as follows, "Deed Book 1332, Page 845, July-26, 1978. DISTRICT: Clover Hill RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests the Board amend the attached resolution for State acceptance of West Providence Road Extension. PREPARED BY: Z'- Richard/M. McElfish, P.E. Director E ATTACHMENTS: YES � NO El Environmental Engineering SIGNATURE: 20U 3R, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: At the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors held at the Courthouse on September 28, 1988 at 9:00 a.m. This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board made report in writing upon his examination of West Providence Road Extension, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of seconded by it is resolved that West Providence Road Extension, 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, West Providence Road Extension, beginning at existing West Providence Road, State Route 678, and going westerly 0.24 mile to end in a dead end. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. This road serves adjacent parcels. This project was constructed with public school funds. Therefore the maintenance fees and bond should be waived. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 70' right-of-way for this road. This section of West Providence Road Extension is recorded as follows: Plat Book 31, Pages 79 & 80, July 26, 1978. Deed Book 1332, Page 845, July 26, 1978. Vote: Certified By: Joan S. Dolezal, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors t1 ,: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: CLOVER HILL DISTRICT: Acorn Ridge Fiddlers Ridge Heather Glen Long Cove North Chase Sunrise Bluff West Bay West Branch Willow Glenn MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT: Foundry Run Section 7 ITEM NUMBER: 11 _ D _ 3 PREPARED BY: C Richard M. Mrs lfish, P.E. Director ATTACHMENTS: YES NO O Environmental Engineering r . SIGNATURE: 40 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR n In M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - Acorn Ridge MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 Woodlake Village Acorn Ridge Road Acorn Ridge Place Acorn Ridge,Court ACORN RIDGE AG'O �N f1iOG'E Ay f r r L 44 ro'' V Fr Q o i 5 ) 1 1 0 41 LWA M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - Fiddlers Ridge MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 Fiddlers Ridge Road Fiddlers Ridge Place Fiddlers Ridge Lane Fiddlers Ridge Court FIDDLERS RIDGE Tf,'/S PROTECT '� I vA,F,ew �4� V � ,ya,QBou.P PoivTE �'GCover- f-l�GG ro SAC �hu�� scree �racz... M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - Heather Glen MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 Woodlake Village Parkway Heather Glen Road HEATHER GLEN f/EAT�/ER GG Eit/ � �r V ILL A 5 � C �o C 0 r S ,QCuf� 3roC r) 4 :3 n n M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - Long Cove MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 Long Cove Road Long Cove Court Long Cove Place LONG COVE Fu rueff w000L.+KE oAr. e,� V 14 4.4 CE LONG r a� SW/FT C.4EEt 2ESEQVo/R o� sT4��c„ C c ovER ~po -se 40� W /LL 0 f FJc%/oOG tic.v... e.vo u. S .?ou7E 3Go n F5 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - North Chase MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 Woodlake Village Parkway Long Cove Road North Chase Road North Chase Court North Chase,Place NORTH CHASE NO.PTN Ca/aSE ✓/C 7 �J F .1 0 00 � 5•wifT C,rt'�F�t- RCSERti'U/� ti f S yc' �iw r u M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - Sunrise Bluff MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 Woodlake Village Parkway SUNRISE BLUFF SITE Q4y V2LA42E SUNRISE 00 BLUFF � WEST BAY DR COURT SUNRISE BLUFF SWIFT . CREFK RESERVOIR 0 46 n n M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - West Bay MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 Woodlake Village Parkway West Bay Drive West Bay Place West Bay Rood West Bay Court WEST BAY v Fu>URE !✓c+oOGJKE OPT/O� c? �E �� � Ss✓//T CTEEK �PESER✓D/? G.� � CcovE ' u s ,P rc 7- F5 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - West Branch MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 Woodlake Village Parkway West Branch Road WEST BRANCH �a wEs r e¢ /� NULL STaEE'% Ra'40 e .Q rE 3l00 (C. ��N M M M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - Willow Glenn MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 Willow Glen Road WILLOW GLENN W/L[OW off' CovE eO • a / US. �?'UTE 3100 .�+UGG ST.PEET .?O. M n TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - Foundry Run Section 7 MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 Middlewood Road Middlewood Circle Middlewood Terrace FOUNDRY RUN SECTION 7 l U Q i a� � Foaiz� .2.vL c�'E�'t�oTt 1 �o a �s +l ) 0 MEETING DATE: 9-28-88 SUBJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: ll . D. 4 . 1!ppropriation of funds to Police Department. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: &XA/7K g--to SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board is requested to appropriate $242,106 obtained from a drug investigation to the Police Department. BACKGROUND: During a drug investigation conducted by the Federal Drug Agency and area jurisdictions, money was seized of which Chesterfield received $242,106. The -drug investigation was conducted by Chesterfield Police and turned over to the Federal Drug Agency. Chesterfield Police was assigned to work undercover on the case with Federal agents. This being a large operation a number of other area jurisdictions were also involved. (cont'd. Page 2) RECOMMENDATION: PREPARED BY: �" J ATTACHMENTS: YES O NO y SIGNATURE: CIZ4\ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M Agenda Page 2 BACKGROUND: (cont'd.) Under Federal law property and money that is seized as a product of illegal operation can be forfeited and shared with the local jurisdictions involved. The amount the jurisdictions share is determined by the input of each jurisdiction. Chesterfield's amount was the largest because of extensive involvement in the case. The stipulation is that the property and money seized during an investigation be used exclusive of the jurisdiction's normal operating budget allotment, and be used in the fight against drugs. Therefore, it is requested the Board re -appropriate $242,106 back to the Police Department of purchase the following capital equipment to aid in the fight against drugs. New Equipment: Desk Top Publishing Unit $15,000 Fireams Automated Training System $50,000 Upgrade of firearms and equipment for Tactical Unit $10,000 Various equipment from budget add - back lists including replacement equipment $77,106 Operations of investigations $75,000 Van type vehicle (Arrowstar type) for transporting the drug dog $15,000 fI r �, h 1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 29, 1988 ITEM NUMBER. 11.D.5. SUBJECT: Allocation of funds for purchase of playground equipment at C. C. Wells Elementary School. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board of Supervisors is requested to approve transfer of $1,800 from the Hatoaca District 3 Cent Road Funds to the Parks and Recreation Department for the purchase of playground equipment and surfacing materials. Background Funds are requested to supplement PTA donations. The Wells PTA will donate funds for the remaining costs with total playground equipment purchase of approximately $9,000.00. Colonel Mayes has.requested this transfer of funds. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the transfer of $1,800.00 to the Parks and Recreation Department from the 3 Cent Road Fund (Matoaca District). PREPARED BY � 11. D. "Pete" Stith, Jr. Director, Parks & Recreatio ATTACHMENTS: YES O NO SIGNATURE: �2k 5,7 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR R CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 SUBJECT: Route 288 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS: .a,��bl�?(Q�tQCf SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: ITEM NUMBER: ll . D. 6 . The Board is requested to rescind the Route 288 resolution adopted on September 14, 1988 and to adopt the attached resolution expressing support for the Commonwealth Transportation Board's selection of a western corridor for Route 288. PREPARED BY:/Y ; &760AUA... R. VJ. McCracken Director of Transportation ATTACHMENTS: YES ® NO O SIGNATURE: W0 OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR J CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: At the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors held at the Courthouse on September 28, 1988 at 9:00 a.m. WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation at the request of Chesterfield County and the Richmond Regional Metropolitan Planning Organization completed an Environmental Impact Study for the northern leg of Route 288 from the Powhite Parkway Extension to I-64, and WHEREAS, the Department studied over 28 different locations for Route 288, and WHEREAS, the Department conducted the study with the upmost integrity and professionalism, and WHEREAS, the Department conducted numerous informational meetings on the various locations which were studied, and WHEREAS, over 6,000 citizens participated in the public hearing process, and WHEREAS, the citizens participating in the public hearing process expressed overwhelming support for a western corridor for Route 288 within Chesterfield County, and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board upon review of the Environmental Impact Study and the input of the citizens and local governments selected corridor 4 Modified as the location for Route 288, and WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors endorses and supports the Commonwealth Transportation Board's selection for Route 288 within Chesterfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors commends the Commonwealth Transportation Board for their vision and courage in the selection of a western corridor for Route 288 within Chesterfield County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors has pledged to take all possible measures to support the construction of a western Route 288 within Chesterfield County and will, therefore, designate the County's FY-89 Revenue Sharing Funds for the survey and design of the Commonwealth Transportation Board's Route 288 corridor from the Powhite Parkway Extension to the Chesterfield County/Powhatan County Line. Vote: Certified By: Joan S. Dolezal, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors (0 s4 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: Spntemher 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: /A UBJECT; Option to Purchase Property Adjacent to Point of Rocks Park COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board of Supervisors is requested to authorize the County Administrator to execute an option agreement for purchase of 7.51 acres of land adjacent to Point of Rocks Park. The option would cost $5,000 applicable toward the total purchase price of $70,000. Funds for the option are available in the Point of Rocks Bond Fund and funds for the purchase are included in the November 1988 Bond Referendum. BACKGROUND: The Youth Soccer program in the Enon area has grown rapidly and there is a shortage of practice and good quality game fields. Purchase of this property will allow for development of two to three soccer fields to supplement the existing football and baseball/softball facilities. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Administrator to sign the option for purchase of the property adjacent to Point of Rocks Park per the attached document. PREPARED 8Y: ATTACHMENTS: YES D NO SK F . SIGN AT LIRE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR /, or' 4' CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 SUBJECT ITEM NUMBER: /Z A 9,- Airport Obstruction Removal - Project 05 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: 44r -W. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This item requests Board approval to accept Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and State grants, enter into necessary contracts and appropriate matching funds for the 1988 Airport Improvement Project - Obstruction Removal. The County has received notice that the Federal Aviation Administration has approved $27,000 and the State has approved $1,500 for this year as Airport Improvement Program #05, Obstruction Removal. This will require a 5% County match of $1,500. The funds will be used to selectively clear obstructions from land on which the County has previously acquired aviation easements. Notification of FAA approval of the grant was received on September 26, 1988 and must be accepted by the County on or before September 30, 1988. Therefore, Board approval is needed at the September 28th meeting. wo: William H. Howell Director of General Services ATTACHMENTS: YES O NO SIGNATURE:r_,rlw COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Page 2 September 28, 1988 Action Requested: 1. Authorize the County Administrator to accept Federal grant of $27,000 and State grant of $1,500 and enter into contracts with the Federal and State governments for expenditure of said funds. 2. Authorize the County Administrator to solicit bids for the obstruction removal work and enter into a contract with the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. 3. Appropriate matching County funds of $1,500 from the Industrial Park'Reserve account. BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT COMMENTS: This item requests an appropriation of $1500 from the Industrial Park Reserve Account in order to fund the required County match for this grant. The Industrial Park Reserve Account is $287,400 as of June 30, 1988. Acceptance of the grant also constitutes appropriation of both federal and state grant funds. mes J ma . Steg' r .rector of Budget & Management CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA September 28, 1988 .11.E.1. MEETING DATE: ITEM NUMBER: S Bl� JECT: Streetlight Installation Cost Approvals COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: BERMUDA DISTRICT: Location approved July 27, 1988 Board Meeting Intersection of Biltmore Drive and Wood Dale Road Cost to install light $1,809.87 Intersection of Holly Hill Road and Wood Dale Road Cost to install light $835.92 Intersection of Malibu Street and Wood Dale Road Cost to install light $2,316.84 Intersection of Marsden Road and Wood Dale Road Cost to install light $1,536.39 Intersection of Rochelle Road and Wood Dale Road Cost to install light $841.08 (Continued on next page) PREPARED BY:�%�%`i � Richard M. NtElfish, P.E. Director Environmental Engineering ATTACHMENTS: YES NO 0 0 56 SIGNATURE: YM — COUN Y ADMINISTRATOR n Streetlight Installation Cost Approvals September 28, 1988 Page 2 MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT: Locations approved February 24, 1988 Board Meeting 1601 Greenfield Drive Cost to install light $1,369.98 Intersection of Early Settlers Road and Red Lion Place Cost to install light $1,271.94 NOTE: Requests are in order of priority NOTE: The Bermuda District streetlight account does not have sufficient funds to install all the lights requested. (Balance $4,399) NOTE: The Midlothian District has $6,000 available. 19 11200 Iron Bridge Road Chester. Virginia 13831 SEP - 21988 b ENGhYWING Mem1 it Mr. Larry P. Douberly Envixtrsmen tal Engineering Chesterfield County P. 0. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Douberly, r 0 VIRGINIA POWER Thank you for your letter of August 9, , regarding est- imate number 07 808 00312 . We have oatpleted our estimate to install one Lumen High Pressure Sodium Lutunair at Biltmore & Wooddale The cost to the County for the installaion of this light with Tgumbe r two wiring is $1, 8 0 9 .8 7 , Aescrived as follows: Total Cost of Jab $ 1,865.00 Less revenue credit at 4 :1 Ratio 462.00 Cost to County $ 1,403.00 x 1.29 = $1,809.87 This cost will be effective for ninety days frasn the date of this letter. If we do not receive your authorization to proceed with this work within the ninety day period we will cancel this project. Should you require this work to be performed at a later date, please make a new request and anew cost will be submitted to you. The necessary engineering and construction work is being scheduled to provide for connection of your service by Oc tbad . ob 2 4 - (This con- nection date may vary slightly in the event of badw�.) In order for us to be able to provide service by the above connection date, the items checked below must be ccupleted by October 3 1988 X Letter of authorization returned to Virginia Power X Aquisition of right-of-way and/or State Highway Permits Should there be any questions, orif I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 7 51- 4 0 41 S' cerely, .. ussell, ,.. Fri•cke Servicee `P.enresentative � 58 mdh M 11200 G-on Brie&e Road Cbester, birginia 2.N)1 Mr. Larry P. Douberly Envirormnental Engineering Chesterfield Cotm- tY P. 0. Box 40 chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Douberly, 0 VIRGIN/A POWER Thank you for your letter of August 9, 1988 regarding est- imate number 07 808 00309 . We have completed our estimate to install one Lumen High Pressure Sodium Luiinair at Holly Hill and Woo le. The cost to the County for the installaien of this light with r 'urhP r two wiring is $ 8 3 5.9 2 descrived as follows: Total Cost of Jab $ 1,110.0 0 Less revenue credit at 4:1 Ratio 46 .00 cost to County $ 643.00 x 1.2 9=$ 8 3 5.9 2 This cost will be effective for ninety days from the date of this letter. If we do not receive Your authorization to proceed with this work within the ninety day period we will cancel this project. Should you require this work to be performed at a later date, please make a new request and anew cost will be submitted to you. The necessary engineering and construction work is being scheduled to provide for connection of your service by (This con notion date may vary slightly in the event o wea order for us to be able to provide service by the above connection date, the items checked below must be completed by October 3, 1988 X Letter of authorization returned to Virg nia Power —7— Aquisition of right-of-way and/or State Highway Permits Should there be any questions, or -'if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 7 51- 4 0 41 Sincerely, Russell _ricke Service Rer_resentative 0 59 mdh 11200 Iron Birclge Road Cheaer, Virginia 23831 pp �` SEP — 1988 VIRGIN/A POWER �CzitVSERiNiG %[ DS�A. Mr. Larry P. Douberly Environmental Engineering Chesterfield county P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Douberly, Thank you for your letter of August 9, 1988 , regarding est- imate number 07 808 00310 we have completed our estimate to install one Lumen High Pressure Sodium Lmdnair at Malibu & Wooddale The cost to the County for the installaion of this light with rurbp_r two wiring is $ 2, 316 .8 4 , ' descrived as follows: Total Cost of Job $ 2,258.00 Less revenue credit at 4 :1 Ratio 462.00 cost to County $ 1, 796 .0 0 x (T E RF) = $ 2 , 316 . 8 4 This cost will be effective for ninety days from the date of this letter. If we do not receive your authorization to proceed with this work within the ninety day period we will cancel this project. Should you require this work to be performed at a later date, please make a new request and anew cost will be submitted to you. The necessary e-�i neeri ng COnst�,ion work is-i-^-�3 Gc-hed�ul to provide for connection of your service by (This con- nection date may vary slightly in the event of bad weather.) In for us to be able to provide service by the above connection date, the items checked below must be completed by Oct o b r 3. 1 9 R R X Letter of authorization returned to Virginia Power X Aquisition of right-of-way and/or State Highway Permits Should there be any questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at r751.44 E t�cke l Service'Representative 0 60 irdh n In 11200 Iron 13nche Road Chester b irgiWa 23-36I "i�C1V�D Pnu���y iGVi�' SEP =• 21988 ► Mr. Larry P. Douberly Envirornrental Engineering Chesterfield County P. 0. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Douberly, 0 VIRGIN/A POWER Thank you for your letter of August 9, 1988 , regarding est- imate number 0 7 -8 0 8 00311 We have oompleted our estimate to install one L�en High pressure Sodium Luninair at Marsden & Wooddale The cost to the County for the installaion of this light with number two wiring is $1, 5 3 6 . 3 9 , descrived as follows: Total cost of Job $ 1,653.00 Less revenue credit at 4 :1 Ratio 462.00 cost to County $ 1,191. 00 x 1. 29 = $1, 5 3 6. 3 9 This cost will be effective for ninety days from the date of this letter. If we do not receive your authorization to proceed with this work within the ninety day period we will cancel this project. Should you require this work to be performed at a later date, please make a new request and anew cost will be sd m-fitted to you. The neoessas:Y eng-,� tiering and cc nst--vct3.m rk is being scllx '-121ed to provide for axmecticn of your service by p (This con nection date may vary slightly in the event of bi3d weatber.) In order for us to be able to provide service by the above connection date, the items checked below must be oonpleted by October 3 19 8 8 ' x Letter of authorization returned to Virginia Power x Aquisition of right -of --way and/or State Highway Permits Should there be any questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 7 51- 4 n 41 S' �ss:e ly,Rull, Fricke Service `Representative ,dh M 11 200 Iron Bridge I?oaci Chester, 6'irginia Mr. Larry P. Douberly Envirormental Engineering Chesterfield Cow-ity P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Douberly, 0 VIRGINIA POWER Thank you for your letter of August 9, 1988 , regarding est- imate nu Tter 07 808 00308 . we have caepleted our estimate to install one Lumen high Pressure Sodium. Luminair at Rochelle Rd & Wooddale . The cost to the County for the installaion of this light with nuirb_er two wiring is $ 8 41.0 8 , descrived as follows: Total Cost of Job $ 1,114.00 Less revenue credit at 4 :1 Ratio 462.00 cost to County $ 652.00 x 1.29 = $ 8 41.0 8 This cost will be effective for ninety days fra, the date of this letter. If we do not receive your authorization to proceed with this work within the ninety day period we will cancel this project. Should you require this work to be performed at a later date, please make a new request and anew cost will be submitted to you. The necessary engineering and construction work is being scheduled to provide for connection of your service by October 24 1 A S S (This con- nection date may vary slightly in the event of bad weather.) In order for us to be able to provide service by the above connection date, the items checked below must be cmpleted by October 3 19 8 8 X Letter of authorization returned to Virginia -Power X Aquisition of right-of-way and/or State Highway Permits Should there be any questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at sincerely, �/ Russell `T. Fricke Service Representative n In 1-4 500 .11idlolhiau TuruInke Midlothian, t irginia 21-311 August 19, 1988 Douglas Salyers Environmental Engineering Chesterfield County P. 0. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Salyers: 0 VIRGIN/A POWER Thank you for your letter of February 25, 1988, regarding estimate number 05-802-309. We have completed our estimate to install 1 8000 Lumen High Pressure Sodium luminair at 1601 Greenfield Drive. The cost to the County for the installation of this light with 100'of wiring is $1369.98, described as follows: Total cost of job $1497.00 Less revenue credit at 4:1 ratio $436.00 TI M . 00 Plus Tax $307.98 Cost to County $1369.98 This cost will be effective for ninety days from the date of this letter. If we do not receive your authorization to proceed with this work within the ninety day period we will cancel this project. Should you require this work to be performed at a later date, please make a new request and a new cost will be submitted to you. The necessary engineering and construction work is being scheduled to provide for connection of your service by September 20, 1988. (This connection date may vary slightly in the event of bad weather.) In order for us to be able to provide service by the above connection date, the items checked below must be completed by August 31, 1988. x Letter of authorization returned to Virginia Power ; Easement x Aquisition of Right -of Way and/or State Highway Permits Should there be any questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 379-3805. Sincerely, �'::) .ate L. T. Bates Service Representative � CDQttly r:37?l�,3 Fill AUG221988 s 12' fNG�N�,y�Gi or.agr�Nr r n 1-4500 ,11icllothiccrr Tru-upikc Midlothian, l hgiuicr 2->11i August 19, 1988 Douglas Salyers Environmental Engineering Chesterfield County P. 0. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Salyers: 104 VIRGINIA POWER Thank you for your letter of February 25, 1988, regarding estimate number 05-802-308. We have completed our estimate to install 1 8000 Lumen High Pressure Sodium luminair at Early Settlers Road and Red Lion Place. The cost to the County for the installation of this light with 99'of wiring is $1271.94, described as follows: Total cost of job $1422.00 Less revenue credit at 4:1 ratio $436.00 .zu- Plus Tax $285.94 Cost to County $1271.94 This cost will be effective for ninety days from the date of this letter. If we do not receive your authorization to proceed with this work within the ninety day period we will cancel this project. Should you require this work to be performed at a later date, please make a new request and a new cost will be submitted to you. The necessary engineering and construction work is being scheduled to provide for connection of your service by September 20, 1988. (This connection date may vary slightly in the event of bad weather.) In order for us to be able to provide service by the above connection date, the items checked below must be completed by August 31, 1988. x Letter of authorization returned to Virginia Power x Aquisition of Right -of Way and/or State Highway Permits Should there be any questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 379-4805. Sincerely, L. T. Bates Service Representative ��1; FJo ter 1\ AUG '9 2 21988 `PCs 'ryi�^rt , 0 64 FY 86-87 STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS ESTIMATED INSTALLATION DATE LOCATION AMOUNT DISTRICT DATE 3/11/87 Seti Ct/Cogbill Rd *257.24 Dale 4/01/88 4/08/87 Dalebrook Dr/Echoway Rd 419 Dale 4/01/88 FY 87-88 STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS 7/08/87 Black Oak Rd/Salem Church Rd 1,195 Dale 4/01/88 7/08/87 Seti Ct/Cogbill Rd **1,249.76 Dale 4/01/88 9/23/87 3518 Luckylee Cresent 892.24 Bermuda 4/01/88 10/14/87 Kingsland Rd/Cochise Tr 526.24 Dale 3/15/88 10/28/87 Cherylann Rd/Vickilee Rd 467.00 Clover H. 4/01/88 10/28/87 Bridgewood Rd/Fort Sumter Rd 997.24 Matoaca 4/01/88 1/13/88 Esther Ln/Gimbel Dr 768.00 Bermuda 6/15/88 1/27/88 Drakeshire Rd/Grassmere Rd 1,001.00 Dale 6/30/88 1/27/88 Bonnie Brae Dr/Tyme Rd 931.00 Dale 6/30/88 3/23/88 Indian Springs Dr/Shanto Ct 1,073.00 Dale 7/31/88 *(716.00) 6/22/88 Heatherstone Dr in cul-de-sac 817.00 Bermuda 11/30/88 FY 88-89 STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS 7/27/88 Overlea Dr/Sunfield Dr 1,570.24 Matoaca 12/31/88 0 65 M Page Two 7/27/88 Stigall Dr/Sunfield Dr. 1,156.15 Matoaca 12/31/88 7/27/88 Sunfield Dr/Sunfield Ct 920.08 Matoaca 12/31/88 7/27/88 Stigall Ct/Stigall Dr 1,232.26 Matoaca 12/31/88 8/24/88 Southland Dr. midway of street 1,079.73 Bermuda 1/31/89 8/24/88 Rivermont Rd/Spruce Ave 521.16 Bermuda 1/31/89 8/24/88 Airfield Dr/Whitepine Rd 1,048.77 Co. Wide 1/31/89 8/24/88 Stable Gate Rd/Tree Line Ter 1,139.07 Dale 1/31/89 *Funds taken from 3 Cent Road Fund **Funds originally appropriated at the 3/11/87 Board meeting. 0 66 • �.. U Q1 N N r-i O r-1 Ea U 0) T--I M N O Ln fM M O r-i O C1 41 cd • • • J~ �d W b� •rl r-{ 00 00 01 O C1 (/1 O O t0 r- d' w M co 0 N r-q er qw wx 4J O � 0 0 O o O O O (/� U .1-1 O N O O O O q 4J O 0) O O O O 00 •ri t0 I- t0 to W w W aJ JH W rw a EE+ t) 0 x � c� a H l3r 400 a w E-+ (7, w� qw O a � N EEn � m w O N O z q 4; r•i Ln m w O N 0 0 (d N N N Ln r4 iQ 44 O O O O O a ab 'd N Ln O z U W A H cd Ix E 0 tJ� O o 0 0 0 0 H c� •� o 0 0 0 0 q 4J o O O o O aJ Ql •rq Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln 00 > 4 r-1 r-1 r-i ri ri a a 1-1 w0 z a� �4 a U a a W U w w M (a U Ln w eN r4 U N> Ln r•q O N a >40 \ >a 1 O t0 r-1 Ln z 3 a >, .0 0 34 •ri W E-i �4 (d wU •r•� b •r•I 4J x •� 3 � 4 a)O UI 34 O r A 4J 'd U J CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 SUBJECT: Streetlight Request COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: In ITEM NUMBER: 11.E . 2 . SUMMARY OF INFORMATION BERMUDA DISTRICT• Intersection of East Hundred Road and Spruce Avenue (south side of E. Hundred Road). PREPARED BY: Richard M. Mcg' fish, P.E. Director ATTACHMENTS: YES NO O Environmental Engineering SIGNATURE: C/ O 68 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR n STREET LIGHT REQUEST BERMUDA District DATE OF REQUEST September 1, 1988 TAX MAP 136-9 NAME OF REQUESTOR Frank Bryant ADDRESS 14210 Barberry Court PHONE NUMBER - HOME541-1329 WORK REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF East :?undred Road AND Spruce Avenue REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE PLACED PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE # OR SET POLE COMMENTS Meets criteria. Request through County Administrator's Office ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch) 0 69 a4o F— z• P �O I `e = 0 O U ar • • a� .y c� • • • P�. a ¢ � 4 � � a o� �•` n 0 S LLJ o ` ` W • a• Z � � J • a U h W ,' UWJ a cc \ 0 s �' •� • � A • a` � ai r, o e2 • `' 4 I u f C a •• 4--0J., � i I t • ' I • n i I� N (�O (D ks) I C i CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETINGDATE: September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: ll.E.3. SUBJECT: Through Truck Traffic Restriction - Fallow Drive and Deerfield Drive COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board is requested to set a public hearing date to consider prohibition of through truck traffic on Fallow Drive and Deerfield Drive. BACKGROUND: The County has received a request from area citizens to restrict through truck traffic on Fallow Drive from Courthouse Road to Deerfield Drive and Deerfield Drive from Fallow Drive to Route 10. The recommended alternate route is Courthouse Road and Route 10. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has five primary criteria it considers when a restriction is requested. Based on staff 's preliminary review, the request will probably satisfy 3 of VDOT's criteria for imposing a restriction; 1) an acceptable alternate route will be available, 2) Fallow Drive and Deerfield Drive are classified as local roads, and 3) there are at least 12 dwellings per 1000 feet on the roads in question. (Continued on Page Two) PREPARED BY: R. J. McCracken D ector of Transportation ATTACHMENTS: YES ® NO O SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR n M Board Agenda Item September 28, 1988 Through Truck Traffic Restriction - Fallow Drive and Deerfield Drive Page Two The request will probably not satisfy 2 of VDOT's criteria; 1) the number of through trucks on the proposed restricted route probably does not exceed 5% of the total traffic and 2) the number of truck accidents on the proposed restricted route is not excessive. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board set ho(-) • q a-�f 7 4 as a public hearing date to consider a through truck traffic prohibition on Fallow Drive and Deerfield Drive and authorize the advertisement for that hearing. DISTRICT: Dale. *400 PROPOSED THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC RESTRICTION Proposed Restricted Route Alternate Route x 0 rn 0 1 Somlar 100 11 RF/ 'L0 ,, 1111111111111 11111111►1►►111►►►1►ll►ll�►0, I / ' Rd V I 11 920Cr 0 { ; 0 O ! o / /• � n - — i JM11 i1J•J � 1 � II N � 1 I1� PO MEETING DATE: SUBJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: 11.E . 4 . Authorization to Execute a Lease Purchase Agreement for Acquisition of a Geographically -Based Information System COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: �ee�or►vru.r�.� 1 � - 4 - F � �� �x�� lu'��r'`� f� .� Q�yuo-�, SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff and the County's consultant, detailed description of an automated numerous County departments and the 24, 1988. Plangraphics, Inc. presented a mapping system which will benefit development community on August The presentation described the need to photograph the County, establish a new marker system, convert coordinates to digital information for processing data through the County's computer system and the broad* applicability to share this data throughout County and School departments. This project will be undertaken over a three to four year period. A team of data processing staff will be hired on a project basis to design, code and coordinate the development of the databases. Photography is contemplated late this winter. Computer work will proceed after the photography is digitized by a contractor. Major project expenses will consist of aerial photography, digitization of photographic information, acquisition of software and computer equipment and systems programming costs as provided by the County's Information Technology Department. PREPARED BY; ATTACHMENTS: YES ❑ NO, SIGNATURE: COUMTY ADMINISTRATOR Agenda Item - September 28, 1988 Authorization to Execute Lease Purchase Agreement for Acquisition of Geographically -Based Information System Page 2 Staff recommends that a lease purchase financing be executed to obtain the funding necessary to develop the system. A total of $3.5 million will need to be financed over a ten year period. Based on interest rates of 6.5 to 7 percent, debt service would range between $480 - 500,000 annually. BUDGET & MMAGFI4ENT COMMENTS: Source of funds to cover anticipated debt service payments will come from a combination general fund tax, supported funds and utility funds. The Board has appropriated $200,000 in the Utility fund to initiate this project in the FY 1989 budget. Approval of this item will require the inclusion of debt service payments to cover this financing in the FY 1990 budget. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors: 1) Authorize the County Administrator to execute all necessary documents to place a $3.5 million lease purchase financing to develop the GIS System. 2) Appropriate $4 million ($3.5 million in lease purchase funding and $.5 million in estimated interest earnings) to the GIS Capital Project Account. BSH.ajc.agen56. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: 11.E.6. SUBJECT • Notification of adjacent property owners regarding tentative subdivision review. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: �� � •,, � Jk SUMMARY OF INFORMATION BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission passed a motion, at their September 13, 1988 meeting, to request the Board of Supervisors to consider requiring notification to adjacent property owners when the street and lot pattern of a subdivision is finalized (tentative subdivision review). Earlier this year, this notification procedure was recommended by the Planning Commission as part of the recently adopted subdivision ordinance. (See Attachment) After several public hearings, the Board of Supervisors did not adopt this procedure. Consequently, no public notification to adjacent property owners is made by either staff or the developer when a tentative subdivision is reviewed by the County. The County zoning ordinance requires notification of a proposed rezoning to nearby property owners through sign posting, legal notice in an area newspaper, and written notice to adjacent property owners. The tentative subdivision plan is usually reviewed by the Planning Commission after the rezoning hearings. PREPARED Br-��er Thomas E. J obson Director of Planning ATTACHMENTS: YES )K NO 13 SIGNATURE CO NTY ADMINISTRATOR 2SEPT28/B:AGENDA/gok SUBDIVISION NOTIFICATION AGENDA - September 28, 1988 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: The County Planning Commission recommends that an amendment to the County's subdivision ordinance should be initiated and referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing which would require public notification of applications for tentative subdivision approval. 0 'go 2SEPT28/B:AGENDA/gok Sec. 18-16. Procedure for subdivision approval. The following procedure shall be followed for approval of subdivision plats: (a) Tentative plats. The subdivider s:.all prepare a proposed tentative plat in accordance with the provisions of division 1° 2 -, (Sections - 0 thy.. 18-24) of this article, including a proposal for the 'installation of improve- menzs and intended dedication of public lands, and submit such plat to the Director of Planning. Public Notice. The applicant shall furnish with his application a list of names and addresses of all persons owning property adjacent to and neighboring the property owned or leased by the applicant. No application shall be acted on until the owners of adjoining property and owners of any property across any street, road or railroad right-of-way from such property shall have been given not less than ten (10) days written notice sent by registered, certified or first class mail for any decision of the agent. If such written notice is provided by first class mail, the planning staff shall make affidavit that such mailings have been made and file such affidavit with the papers in the case. In the event the property is situated at or within one hundred (100) feet of the intersection of any t-.TO or more roads or highways, at or within one hundred (100) feet of the intersection of any road or highwav with any railroad right-of-way or within one hundred (100) feet .of the intersection of the right-of-way of any two railroads, the notice required above must also be given tothe owners of property situated at all corners of any such intersection. Public Notices shall be posted on the property fifteen (15) days prior to the Director of Planning's decision on the plat. No reposting shall be required. Notices shall otherwise be posted in accordance with Section 21-6.1 Ordi Upon receipt of such proposed plat, the Director of Planning shall obtain the required recommendations from the Department of Planning and other public agencies. After receipt of such recommendations, the Director of Planning shall either (1) approve such tentative plat, if such plat is in conformity with the provisions of this chapter; or (2) approve the plat subject to modifications; or (3) reject the tentative plat. Written findings giving specific reasons for disapproval shall be reported to the subdivider within thirt.7 days after receipt of a completed tentative plat. Such reasons shall relate in general terms such modifications or corrections as will permit approval of the plat. All approval or rejection shall be made by the Director of Planning. 0 R CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: 11.F.2. SUBJECT Consideration of a request for Public Water Service - Skybird Road and Skybird Court COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION : On September 14, 1988, Mr. Kennedy spoke to the Board of Supervisors requesting that public water be extended to serve Skybird Road. This road contains 26 lots of which 23 presently contain homes. Mr. Kennedy alleged that the water received from private wells was bad smelling and was contaminated. The Health Department has indicated no evidence of contamination harmful to human consumption BACKGROUND; In Spring, 1987 the Board of Supervisors approved the extension of public water to portions of Glebe Point as well as other subdivisions. At that time, there had been no complaints from residents along Skybird Road of problems with their private water supply and petitions accumulated by the neighborhood residents for service contained no signatures from Skybird Road residents. Following this action, the Board requested staff to pursue future extensions of utility service to existing subdivisions through assessment and/or development district financing in order to avoid raising rates for the existing individual water and/or sewer system user. PREPARED BY: David H. Welchons ATTACHMENTS: YES* NO ■ Director of Utilities r� 85 SIGNATURE:-- COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR n Board Agenda September 28, 1988 Page 2 The estimated cost to provide public water serve to Skybird Road residents is $225,000. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that public water extension to Skybird Road be pursued through an assessment district. If the Board concurs, staff will meet with residents of Skybird Road to further explore their interest in receiving public water. The Alternative to an assessment district approach for extension to existing subdivisions would be to: A. add this and other similar requests to the capital improvement program as funding becomes available. B. remove approved projects from the capital improvement program and substitute public water to Skybird Road and other similar requested areas. 0 R'7 p r 1 1, • r / p � M r•r+.�r.! • ! r UNDER © '� i CONSTRUCTION ! ••. , PROPOSED 1 1 ; ® ® °� ■ . � � r •��N • / / t / t 1 �� � �' ■ •• � �' ; i; gKYBIR� PROPOSED • CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE : September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: l l . F . 3 . b . 2 . SUBJECT Acceptance of Deed of Dedication for Right of Way for the Appomattox Industrial Park. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff requests the Board accept the conveyance of two variable width parcels of land containing 0.84 acres and 3.10 acres from Oliver D. Rudy, Trustee, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. BACKGROUND: In order to construct the industrial access road project in Appomatox Industrial Park, the dedication of the right of way containing 0.84 acres and 3.10 acres is necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board accept the conveyance of this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. DISTRICT: Bermuda Al PREPARED BY: David H. Welchon Director of Utilities ATTACHMENTS: YES NO O SIGNATURE: At COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ,RiW APPOMATOX INDUSTRIAL PARS! � V r 1 r / 62 1 0 1 0 wOVN1 — . � - �•• INr. s 0 %LL a ro .' � �OOs gtlet p v \ M a �-♦ •asi.•e» 9 a ti7VIP Cr•a� i ! /e-1 i� Coe re 1 CURVE TABLE DELTA ARC RADIUS :1 62'48'42" 72.27' 60.00' :2 12.29'39" 153.10' 712.36' :3 12.32.41" 142.83' 652.36, :4 16.00*42' 604.48' 2145.17' :3 16.16'28" 388.791360.75' :6 96.25*19" 46.37' 40.00' :7 246'23'19" 258.05 $0.00' :8 16116*26' 405.63' 1428.75' :9 16108'42" 567.ST' 2003.17' G¢� OLIVER D. RUDY, TRUSTEE TM I30-10 (I) 3 TO RT. C9 S C3 W w u p J� U a p E C2 � � j 3 w S 58'05'SP w 0.00' LINE APPROXIMATELY 00 ALONG 100 YEAR FLOOD c 4� 0.00' W. PLAIN LIMIT. N L 300.00' 15.00 ACRES 717,92' OLIVER D. RUDY, TRUSTEE TM 150-10 (1) 3 FUJI LATEX TM I50-00 (1) 35 N HOWARD TM I50-13 (1) 6 NOTE: TMS PLAT DOES NOT REPRESENT AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY. PLAT OF 15.00 ACRES OF LAND SITUATED OFF RUFFIN MILL ROAD - STATE ROUTE 746 BERMUDA DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA REV:. AUG.. 10,. 1988 SCALE: I" " 300' JUNE 9. 198 CHARLES C. TOWNES a ASSOCIATES, P.C. CIVIL ENGINEERS PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS RICHdOND VIRGINIA DRAWN 8Y RCE F/B COMPUTED BY JTG T/M APPROVED BY /1 M 19 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: ll.F.3.b.4. SUBJECT: Acceptance of Deed of Dedication along Tarris Lane from Oliver D. Rudy, Trustee under the provisions of a certain trust agreement dated November 17, 1967, and designated The Community Grocery Trust Agreement. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: A60�� Aeot�( SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff requests the Board accept the conveyance of a 10' strip of land along Tarris Lane from The Community Grocery Trust Agreement, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. bAUNUMUUND : It is the policy of the County to acquire right of way whenever possible through development to meet the ultimate road width as shown on the Plan 2000. The dedication of this right of way conforms to that plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board accept the conveyance of this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. DISTRICT: Matoaca ATTACHMENTS: YES NO ❑ PREPARED BY: /00e I oseph Beck, Jr. Asst. Director of Utilities SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADM I I STR R VICINITY SKETCH LOT 2 1lj �n LOT LOCUST GROVE SUBDIVISION T.M 132 - 16 (2) THE COMMUNITY GROCERY TRUST '/SGREEMENT D.B. 1916, Pg. 392 Q o �; 0.0 29 AC RE o N w 126. 20 -^ --- N 69 °40 00 E - - _ TA R R IS LANE�L - - STATE ROUTE 4 706 / 'Jeffrey T. Col,in" rJ No. DIN Q It SC w W �r-r A LJ Q PLAT OF PART OF I_OT 1, LOCUST GROVE SUf3DIVISION 0.019 ACRE TO BE DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD FOR AMITI(M-L WIDENING OF TARRIS LANE - STATE ROUTE_` 706 MATOACA DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1 " -- 25 ' MAY 10, CHLES C TCWNES & ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ENGINEERS - PLANNERS - LAND SURV' COLONIAL_ HEIGHTS, VIRGINIA '7r ry ATTN'. p wfq uy H' F I COMFVrED BY F/ B T/M 132-16(2)1 M CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: ll. F. 3. a.1. SUBJECT: Authorization for a Right of Entry to the Virginia Department of Transporatation for the Construction of Road Improvements and Set a Public Hearing for Conveyance of the Right of Way along Route 10 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Transportation has made an offer of $37,140.00 for the necessary right of way and easements across Curtis Elementary, Thomas Dale High and Chester Middle Schools for the Route 10 widening project. Since the Virginia Department of Transportation is attempting to secure the right of way by the end of September so that the construction project can be advertised, VDOT has asked that the Board grant a right of entry. This request has been approved by the school administration and is consistent with construction plans for the relocated bus loop at Thomas Dale. ATTACHMENTS: YES I PREPARED BY: Jos p Beck/Jr. t. Direct of 'es NO O fi 88 SIGNATURE: ��w COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Transportation has made an offer of $37,140.00 for the necessary right of way and easements across Curtis Elementary, Thomas Dale High and Chester Middle Schools for the Route 10 widening project. Since the Virginia Department of Transportation is attempting to secure the right of way by the end of September so that the construction project can be advertised, VDOT has asked that the Board grant a right of entry. This request has been approved by the school administration and is consistent with construction plans for the relocated bus loop at Thomas Dale. ATTACHMENTS: YES I PREPARED BY: Jos p Beck/Jr. t. Direct of 'es NO O fi 88 SIGNATURE: ��w COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Board Agenda September 28, 1988 Page 2 RECOMUMATION : Staff recommends that the Board approve the right of entry requested by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The County Administrator will obtain an option agreement and the Board should authorize the County Administrator to sign the option, authorize the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to sign the utility easements and set a public hearing for October 26, 1988 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the conveyance of the right of way. Staff further recommends that the proceeds be deposited in the Revenue Sharing Road Projects Fund. DISTRICT: Bermuda or# II I■ e �o:ogD; ° °°e qL a �a I MATCH L/NE : u 2 q o b pa a Aw M�9'Fn (� ° Cli v9i v[f fi P A. 3. of aR v9 69,9< om A 'vvab. qr. w ,ip•[aB''.. ta 31 A q � i 2 p a y- 1 y� i �� i •� �, a [ V i f / RiwD R99S [ + • _ter T- a w_ -- a � ry -FRN Ez,e�z�E SiinS�v .. ti � _ •_ - y�j�dT-� 4 P cwi c°. O S \e a yr• ,y,, i I •.' I r.ti� nj� /I`a c R � ° L 3 •n rzi . � � �� �, a ala YIE Nay :�yl I I R•l �b � n n R 3 SI'e. cc -DO' n �O /I I� MATCH LINE STA. 798v I a i Ay bb m a bm mb V V b ,; m V b b bb y ro bb yy b0 4 44 4 y♦ ♦� N yy OCp ~p�U2<C��� Y O=`bi �No°54e�F' ♦ 2 O i2 v02vk �Yh�ti� CO .Soo qF' e RFo O A r N-b �y °oa nLi4^�°qb m aNa O roV V^imN :�4VV �4pp y am"aa APu �o e'°1e'u m'a n, 1150 SHEET`NO. 8 a �" $ -•' .J' 4 SIN o a �• , ,` � a a` o°�o o°°�� � a � a 4 ; sr . cc.Dpe i, 3t339�Q . a� ro Srr vy E- ... `�.._ M[1•Jl'JI'W •PJI9I' 4 a mi a i 1 '1 m iajlU 4�0 k b anYm � p�J �q • � �L�. -tom `tip YB ��..'.J bt 60 i ♦I-0Ys sra cc,[fc a`` _� ``2 ay 41 �• o d ory�\ � [ RN Y �� aA [D C 797t�7ap JiO CG:M Fnr Gvrh�R/90 L[W. Jj•n q yy I`O •.{�fA /'RB•J9'•I'w i �'.� '5100 J/o, l� oIa olo aNN _ 6e AJ Imo— �a NO. O W t o Wil C t o a m man �m U N QOa N jl i R • �4 w� 'q j9B �. DyN bl —119 �r SIII cG•ra c�By.oz''lEl vs rR �'�( !i STREET z - • PO N. / sl'd CO•lie' �I �1�•Ell. s -• Gi � IZ a r Bl ' 1 o L;�� r l 1 p u I .�01 . Pd w i 1 �.. m a IB9 •I ` l i t. n vl $I 3 i eI9`. ^~I y' S• � 3' wr .. tU' Slro/nsr'� � e- w:' a a o' RtW O •BN zfJ �`ta::: 1 3; A" Eta< w 3 1 3 t Gi2 ° S!7•A'zBE /PJ JO'.SJ ' ��� �: it !'ail3 Ef( f Sl'0 Ca -SO fnl 6'll' 3• b JJr•Jr'lf Vo 3 mm�< n1 1.: i ?I /sItecc-gor.3 c-,Gu I. ll'1 e R'Oe AI If • IS' l I _ w 1 n t ?AEI . Fil o I It I7 ''cootw-0 0I w 11j 101nel=sir/= c�r.nr�eB'�� c I ! 1 PC. SIA. 803+8746-- 3 ubat aIS 0// Rio 5 ru S Y - �; Li°n PoI> 1 f aN ° lelron _WO_ 5 , m PC. 804128.51 3 1 �1 CI Slk. 's 8 MATCH LINE STA. 805�'OG F � s k as aaa aaa as as as as a o �r<O O OCOu<O`� np�0 <O n ��o`wiopO owoioY,go`iowxo`�o � 'nmoro v4^m'+vAac °oaq Tu`"m^woa�N+n �aaa^�5�,a1e "'oa o�oa4oe��A�ua'aR� A �oee -�ogOooiA o m�T po�railT OpOy2O CCU FT N�9SA lN�yb Ov �OOi.NO �:�v °j :L = 4 at a 42e L o w ' �rl�i cgs ogma ,�,e�,l< -• a c>,h Y"vmti a � S/k CO-90 fnl. aull'r Nam. R'°kW "Z7' >F `• n zo-o'E r,url 0 we /s/J � wo:wy�y :� + • •! Q - BOO w 84 ao.j 3 800065.94 D ioi ( Eew< I e _ w .—PTA. S 80/+ -- 0378 T. — 0/l. RP - £ I c •• :, zo"aw � I SQ I N a \ w nvj 2 Ra 2 ryrn �Rv C' �J •O OQo '. m Hn l_�mk cG-/J fM. Gwn••A'°'s. a w•JJ' NO.-- l_�mk cG-/J fM. Gwn••A'°'s. a w•JJ' NO.-- i � k4AA`4 V V hh��bb a0 C,x� xhk p ■■ i 4 A�Lr On awn 1n0�. L'. Aa Nn�. n U� JO e�o�o¢ ioLO .?�? A A G:0 �O ! �Sao.ax n = nxvy�q Y� byv = O MV Y i ` 4 o a F 805T >Ei5rA. b I• oh V♦h� $ Ed6J° ��ly�U 6 1 h e iii l ' 4 1 17 �1 0 , ° 1 I s a F� aVb�iB ev .. 3 .4 sl'L Ca•f0 f+e ernM _ i , '} ., 3 W 3� 3 v �n's. Pew • f o ._ °. a n 0gtal ar ^: � 1 •::I::i. :�.I I I .:• ° I iiiiM�i. I I h r 674B08r/079 �_sr>aZyafnrE„r, ,a, Off °a a ry�Po TATQ 808,•/367 . v� g�+ z /s s/ I ; v a c � 'rvyF•enu �`w ° + 1.':1 �w,r 1 I= I• ♦ 2 a J 4vR i yy Ie+ 0 CNESafL'-AKE4NO �oeMAG'TEG '•'•EPHONE- �_34 `a Aoa �� P O ♦ � Y � o �'' fl� S/J Ca ��• �I♦ N I fii� b o of a2!Cw a tila it� — iy �. I � 1 r I � w n _ w P >t 4o;Y 1 �ap9 r G 'w �svwecr /1 moo° •� �a OTi 1. 1•� C I Crr .tI°R 90. Plimenrnr C Ir . E°slminl. T I)3 w/I •J9 W FLIP �� .. nd- °mlo �/[CB-sOErG O I oZ Op I _ _ o' • aN ♦ O+S ~ 4 I. 4�tq ' i I I$ �`e ! A os'��•W j I off^ � � `� � >• _ _ WIF r O'�,1lPCay Y uI� mA� 810 o�ln Y02 I �- � � I I a , o m . aE9 m N N 000 ` I . I ' n n�@ U I I� O m 1 pp 4 44 hb hh M L I '� O O V Y 7 •� E 3 Y w o II CG-90 Ent Gu//sr RIRb Rl W• 12' iS"s. m^ VAaipgp � LYmam a�wAapa 1 0 N I I Y..:. 90 E < Gu//s, st 1 `Y• < . I lI WC/6 Rs9ef r I .I I I r Is. 3 i o Z o q Z y .04 OY 73 i � � Var nm v Ow i S/b CG- 90 E,, Guns, 6Y1 1 4 ; I va 00 1 I 8F PC. B/3+40,32 O O Y2 a q� N I. t�-I C6- !O Fn< Gu„sr gs04U M§'6• N/TN'J6'W ♦J2 p j n a a Sib cG 9orm O ' n. Ri0l W.16' spi ]i-:'.:: b a 1 1 • L A � I, G6•90 Fnt Guiirr RSOb Ri. M•If' • s p m.: I j � �Q S,> CG+90 En,. Gvnsr •S'a, 6 815 m m p g m n I Oi t m 'i 't O O p0 m i of mo s mks NSE y Oi o>��� maG yw � OV �1 I �.,' I Orp �� ww by Va lq�i O Gal r \lDi I I : w ': ': iFi s♦40� p �I= s WY m J1'J. CG-9G En[ a,", w y 7�j� 12 R•Cb 1/W•/6' / �1J:v 06.33'37'{y ...� CG-/2 Curs Cu/ ,•ym ' _ 1 A 11y O O 00 1111LaV /G1.I 1"� N O C I 0 N r� �y Tr m j "EA a `t �yl�ia y,C�` CSC. .GC Cal`.h wCl`. I 'j abb p��ey �a mu4 Y4aa h�. a i aft �u I=..•.8a�1�Y04A4T am43 nk�' (� \'�� v m �sma^�oa1eooao ^"a^a.o sNEEr�� �' $ ' X nr��mh�d' heap#aa>r e°ve° ,quo^ 0� TA $L3 �1 t3/.B2 u ro i 7�hO" oA�# qaw °uo.°°•x q cN �(NE ott MAT is i. �yu\eY O $ mtoo mnQ A I O "D mo's.o � . _ >< ?mte 1 Y `� � '� o � q � >°. w $ � sn 1 "�• (i1 jNn ,�) O a o g . " � � : o' ° g I n • Wnls' el :? �::1 ;':::':�;'; (qC (U m 1 _° f ^m o " h � y h V r ... •. 4.'::'t:,fti � `O ? •c f NN f» � iii i I ` sl'a cc' F N00'62'31'E "' y f Jf 1{ Me I Ce/1 co Mq/ s. rro 820 �•4i to »., sn I is nni ' �`.\r 4' .`� a "�;;��}�� `I:•:::` /-�n/`e. n ^.oa ' a° y % °L I aiI •cr + I, r.: � :1 np T c `n wYY� i . ° � a � e na. I^I $la a m + ° I I �. C • c� '` i•� h *04.48 " �l �� �. - ti ►�.h, a J a �gsl.erao/iaN I'0`•"'• �.[ " 4� it r G G p y 1♦7 o uoPC.B22s4/.55 ' i �i/ '/� 1/lf3 � ++ ,.jF t 11 Swv YB O/l Rev F �h � N.��• v O R 1 I�' .9D r IN Re44 LI w'j6• I w > 1 m m � 2 _ L. t ''1 I:: , j � IO %f/ee/I Enlr. •.. - .- n.�-- >` I ^ mm� -,h •i ':< why a•..°D o ^ oo PL 823t4100 _ 1 a* '� 11Y,i iWOaObp� ♦ oYnl ~ Z4 y Swver a Off Rev Slr • h r ;,;rSTCId LlN£ sm. 624d Ord ;HEFT goo I CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA September 28, 1988 MEETING DATE: ITEM NUMBER: ll. F. 3. a. 2 . Authorization for a Right of Entry to the Virginia SUBJECT: Department of Transportation for the Construction of Road Improvements and Set a Public Hearing for the Conveyance of the Right of Way along Hopkins Road COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: kWWAML4d- SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Transportation has made an offer of $6,835.00 for the necessary right of way and easements across Hopkins and Beulah Elementary Schools for the road improvement project along Hopkins Road. Since the Virginia Department of Transportation is attempting to secure the right of way by the end of September so that the construction project can be advertised, VDOT has asked that the Board grant a right of entry. The school administration has reviewed this request and it does not interfere with their operations. PREPARED BY: s p e Jr. sst. Director of Utilities ATTACHMENTS: YES �p NO 0 SIGNATURE: c7w 96 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR �W `MO Board Agenda September 28, 1988 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the right of entry requested by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The County Administrator will obtain an option agreement and the Board should authorize the County Administrator to sign the option, authorize the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to sign the utility easements and set a public hearing for October 26, 1988 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the conveyance of the right of way. Staff further recommends that the proceeds be deposited in the Revenue Sharing Road Projects Fund. DISTRICT: Dale u. �•L%.,�•. 9i \ris y� V � — 1 ITYly •+ I\ M I Cx. v"rdrav, 'vr --TT✓e—+c-e �� +r.oel o 0 0 0 0 W�lh .�` ��i 4�y^'c5 p4p i OS�- o r'D s / r =r - 1 - A h I ' W 0 � � V 0 n a � �� 99 ty` ti % A n S Al+leb/ine S!i dd"V J/,ee! No 7 ,e Ny ::: ...� LV•t'i'-70 En/. .Gryo.'.P/. - - I 5. r. "Un > n ^ ? •, y O C _/SJJ Ci!!V) �2➢/Td % �_ �. I aIll —� N➢ddJ'!rF oNet' r t I .� ti� vW�❑s � i:t ° ^pia �Ij,, I y ^,c. �I .,s<e.n� (Vd.%d'E j6J/ 1 ��c. i,.e .i, •]-' L i ',I I� f 1 BfG COrYN.F'lE IQ70 ,{ 70 .P. f 2470 N7d'/4 46 E� v�0 •359 ^2 --' PJTTi J13l.y yldf3/'6�. %' Nl➢' JSl" -, i,•N_N.•LL._ `ly IV \• I,1 k I , . !! � � � ✓� d ..w/.. Nl/ehbne !/.➢. JJ+SO .f.Mr! No 9 'f 5 CONN,PTf Il70 ✓( a pp 9L � 'n v w'+ DQ ET) o � C i (N7d'NtOl 0'J (dl6d'i ^ CwQG.�d2mo C6/1.Peq b! y �'2J_O/'N 'i� W+feArun Or/re ro eM l!7/—� o C.ri6 � ffl>z.:p E•L/I.Pc7e' o � L la•,/ I/N l a, V� � � , O r u ht I I;ZI p I: II li to °a 4� �o y III / � a � .". /r a ..c..•....r 0 0 \ 41 I .tjf• ��o,I� h/h/A,/w! lex .wvr-w �I oto I WS � � q♦ ny -YL1 Olt _ n o v � z.�c� fo l✓N wef•d zE =\� � I II �4 3 y�e•�:I?od�c'P �o\44kti a�c�-lo-l� 1 nl In J/'I ///i/. a n 27' 23' PoTJ3• ➢f Ol h{' ` I ��I LJU �� P (��c� d•d!mlJJ-Pr/i I S+ ,•I I II [�r ��1 s � dn.l> (•11�'" ram" reR/e _ a � y �Rw cr�R �tb e r /rnP `j� •roonaw.•e• a,�o� I �c,`1 � 3 . Itiy �. `�`�•"^ taNf n�wr,a'u„n Z .LS6> ti� V O r Makh/ J!D No 9 / ` e G Q7 Sikef id �!IT / w., h •� Je, reJSF /sssl tirrl , -1_ I p � I I p 4 Os'f 'Pc v I I ry4* �Q PT707,J9 I FI1 "Y 114 � j p II I O 2p \i IIII I � .Cl ey C' 1 I �; � ♦0 v a Sur PT 7eR sa 1 1 IIII Hj .i = •n a SD1'1/JI' — — � a E �N7D%I.itl'I..T7' � ND!•N'M'lI INfi' I µPee RPOID /e J, 1J I r v 7 I I o000\ c, �• •�l �W/eo M/AGOi � • _ - �✓ - '+701 Je PTE i7o Meadawd /e B/vd� ail i •'-_` III ~ I I 11 I IIII "• \, 1 hI; c,e'ti Vie twog 4 4 V R C/A MJIII 0 .eP l,.Le• /nr n. er . e s iir`aI ve r` /vnsev�w Eu,/ /G'LS^ao fare. ti a N tNo m� DLO mid o 0 lb O M a• "W/ w M" 4 /Je l r/t/ ON it �1 rre sqn T� !a e+ °per 4 e, \ b'NM y AIrn. � �d••�ll+ roL_]I _^R z 770 ✓PO.6/66 — "t ,' lit Io ao :A mw V '`r 1 Mod M� 0 o yx S r1lC(DI VI/e• I/O� O rw \ _ pest 2 Jt if l� 10' S 7.0 f ^ �:''`;Ip4 ?n YOn �(/f wr�a r/Nk ram`"•�yY , :4v\�Wn kkl: r MY/I• ( 1 � 1 wrtr4� \ roa°O • s✓r rrF j-fil of <I l o. a 8 ^ / now r—,Zu _ ;o u n /4'•7tS'UIi./y Easamrn/R(pd A— end [/V Te/prone Ca / n== rvGs-Jni�ttcr.a> �ra �RRR11 I•.�/.fw• C//I.N C(/rJflfl � `♦ � GV'P Fev —� �� P/JJ•J1. 1! .rrs.cr/.n �s x fs fFG ,Sp r,� �1 n o C 16 C � N 111 III viiv.� ,d.7 I I� Gls rri Ia/N// • .—a Be .:.,ice . p Ai:r (n ^ - T`e' dl.,kr .njJ. G CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: ll.F.3.b.1. SUBJECT Acceptance of Deed of Dedication for Boulders View Drive and Boulders View Lane from Sigma CJ Associates, A Virginia Limited Partnership and Petula Associates, LTD., An Iowa Corporation COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: d� SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff requests the Board accept the conveyance of Boulders View Drive and Boulders View Lane from Sigma CJ Associates, A Virginia Limited Partnership and Petula Associates, LTD., An Iowa Corporation, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. BACKGROUND: The Construction of Boulders View Drive and Boulders View Lane is necessary for the Boulders Development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board accept the conveyance of this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. DISTRICT: Midlothian PREPARED BY: aeph E. B , Jr. Asst. Director of ATTACHMENTS: YES NO 0 Utilities SIGNATURE: OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR VICINITY SKETCH BOULDERS VIEW DRIVE AND nQULDERS VIR IANF ■ P(0)REST iSO SOUTHERN �G G \ 4 {A 4, z a� o p r_ Rp �� 11 666 J� � N *1 Jq I , 0 Bbw0mB / 4 I \ . 60vLCf,� Blmrlewrpa Sn..nq 1 [ '\ 2 N�wSwETT 2 CIN1 Awpw CT ] ZIN&ICNE CT � 1 4 GwqCT �w CT ' DaTSHUE CT Tl: \ w C 684MONT CT M to T CMIN60Ei4v DR �( 68EL4SC0 DR 99oNNCCtBANN OR N OL MtOj \ t. C. N. a a � c4Ov(wL[a[ t a v � 1� t G, 11w R= 40.00 L=35.07 SIGMA C.J. ASSOCIATES, ET AL R=600.92 R=25.00 R=330.00 L=84.06/ L=38.02 L=142.89 BOULDERS VIEW L=1 R=270.00 R= 50.00 L=211.81 0.888 ACRES DRIVE R=540.92 L=75.67 R=296.60 z! i w Rlw 171.32 R_3R_3 SIGMA C.J. ASSOCIATES, ET AL D. B. 1637 PG. 1037 TAX PARCEL * 19-10) 16 CE 0.593 ACRES R= 50.00 L=208.91 92.46 1'49'05" E " $ 61'49' 0 -g 0 R=25.00 L=39.27 R=25.00 L=37.81. off% so R=745.0 L=37.17 > 9 ' ' > CO m �o I 1 Ln i m � I I = i i I 1 cz � $ o i ut� -;o OI I o, I 1 I 0o ' I Ln O C w (r�l i I C7 R-917.00 L-107.14 ha A` LNPNER-601.384gJ"W 026R=� 2LR� oo`oEs 8 a .�15.00 L=37.81 `-� \ R=40.00 SIGMA C.J. ASSOCIATES, ET AL L=37.10 PLAT SHOWING TWO PARCELS OF LAND � CONTAINING 1.481 ACRES LYING WEST OF TH OFF CHINABERRY BOULEVARD, TO BE {� DEDICATED TO CHESTERFIELD CO. KENNETH N. COX Z MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT V CERT 1039 A- CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA P.C. LAND 9 J.K. ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS RICHMOND. VIRGINIA CHECKED BY: 1:'-'*4y DATE: 6-7-88 SCALE: 1"-100' DRAWN BY: CSS 1►I 12gIA g14N .o 110 5 J, -s' 1*W' `4 h CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 SUBJECT ITEM NUMBER: 11. F . 3 . b . 3 . Acceptance of Deed of Dedication along Goodes Bridge Road from George G. Egerton and John L. Irvin COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: P, eo, —o- � � d SUMMARY OF INFORMATION : Staff requests the Board accept the conveyance of a 15' strip of land along Goodes Bridge Road from George G. Egerton and John L. Irvin, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. BACKGROUND: It is the policy of the County to acquire right of way whenever possible through development to meet the ultimate road width as shown on the Plan 2000. The dedication of this right of way conforms to that plan. RECOMIIKEENDATION : Staff recommends that the Board accept the conveyance of this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. DISTRICT: DALE PREPARED B' ATTACHMENTS: YES NO ❑ Asst. Director of Utilities 0109 SIGNATURE: C/ lr COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR HULL STREET ROADIUIS, R�JUT�H36O � G NI i� 3zNM1IN aQ = R � I oSCI ;'ICj R� z aM''F ? �I %3 60 \i vv - 0 N Q 9.1-11 CT 9 CNT.4cr `' 5. 9 Fa P p° 6. 9 Ll C 5 9E ^CT vo PO 2 `?EI_�MON7 0 RO ` K5 � _//�. t♦ MCA � ��! ..\� ' l � P i �iJ /<'�..��!/ /C •l� ,,sue � I'__^ /'•'�+�N ` �'> J_� t ° IC?. (/ \\ �r '��• I 'N r' ..c sc 5 1 _'v \ — I 4:, \� v `. �°�.�' _ � .`. \ \f G' � • e_ C a R0 RO c _ \C.y _CS 44 40 n wocC _ "S C ,JO._ `I '•. '� r �. �•o _ cl c.. Eller KEMTOR ��j4a III Sri \�� I ,•/� � �1 C» !� � s� OR nti _TIC i O . o' V�O �O�/ ��(�� / s;.•' I W IOF-- ro 0 612 7q KK LEd !7[ L.iNG-_. v rueNE�:.2D, Map showing proposed 15fL. sLri.p Lo Chesterfi.eld County for fULUre widening of Coodes Bridge Road along 1)ro1)erty siLuated in Lhe Dale Oistri.ct of Chester.fi.eld County, Va Scale: 1''=100' March -10, 1985 CORSO & ASSOCLATES, LTD. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA On CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA M MEETINGDATE: September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: 11.F.4. SUBJECT Report of Water and Sewer Contracts by Developers COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION; The following water and sewer contracts were executed by the County Administrator: 1. U88-199D Beacon Hill - Phase II Developer: Mid -Atlantic Financial Group, Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc. Number of Water Connections: 40 Number of Sewer Connections: 40 2. U88-200D Burge Avenue/Office Warehouse Developer: Burge Associates Contractor: John Marshall, Inc. Number of Water Connections: 1 Number of Sewer Connections: 1 3. U88-190D Arbor Landing - Section 4 Developer: IMG/Chesterfield Associates Contractor: Richard L. Crowder Number of Water Connections: 7 Number of Sewer Connections: 7 Clover Hill Inc. $31,632.00 $ 9,125.00 Bermuda $8,560.00 $1,700.00 Matoaca $17,259.00 $23,612.00 PREPARED BY: _6�4 � d 1) tv I W" " — Directo of Utilities ATTACHMENTS: YES O NO SIGNATURE: (�4 �• COUNTY ADMI TRAT M Agenda Item September 28, 1988 Page 2 4. U88-201D Millcreek - Section 4 Developer: Park Associates, LTD. Contractor: William M. Harmon Number of Water Connections: 29 Number of Sewer Connections: 29 5. U88-173D Spinnaker Cove - Section 2 Developer: Brandermill Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc. Number of Water Connections: 22 Number of Sewer Connections: 22 E5 Matoaca $16,450.00 $39,474.00 Clover Hill $24,691.00 $35,034.00 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA REPORTS September 28, 1988 11.G.1. MEETING DATE: REPORT ON: Status of General Fund Contingency Account, General Fund Balance, Road Reserve Funds, District Road and Street Light Funds, Lease Purchases and School Board Agenda ATTACHMENTS: YES A NO [] SIGNATURE: __ r>" \ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M M CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STATUS OF GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT September 21, 1988 Date Department/Description Amount 07/01/88 Original FY89 Budget Appropriation 06/08/88 Planning - Chester & Courthouse Road Plan $100,000.00 Balance $100,000.00 0.00 n M CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL FUND BALANCE September 21, 1988 Board Meeting Date Description Amount Balance 07/01/88 FY89 Budgeted Beginning $9,403,300* Fund Balance 06/08/88 Planning - Chester & Courthouse Road Plan $10,000 9,393,300 07/27/88 Schools - Management Study 76,500 9,316,800 08/24/88 Debris Landfill Inspection Program - Landfill Inspector position with associated costs and contractual costs 65,340 9,251,460 09/14/88 Fire - Three CT positions, benefits, training costs, supplies, etc., for Matoaca Fire Dept. 122,200 9,373,660 * Unaudited CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ROAD RESERVE FUNDS September 21, 1988 Board Meeting Rt. 36 Rt. 10 Date Description Ettrick Chester 05/09/84 Route 36 Ettrick - Appropriated for design contract with VDH&T $ 150,000 10/10/84 Route 10 - Design work for widening through Chester $ 350,000 10/10/84 Route 36 Ettrick - Additional funds for design contract with VDH&T 165,000 08/28/85 Route 36 Ettrick - Transferred General Funds to Ruffin Mill Road project (133,000) 08/28/85 Route 36 Ettrick - Use of Revenue Sharing funds 133,000 03/12/86 Route 36 Ettrick - Reduce Revenue Sharing and add back General Funds 0 03/12/86 Route 10 - Reduce General Funds and add Revenue Sharing Funds $133,000 0 05/28/86** Route 36 Ettrick - Appropriate Reserve funds 2,500,000 05/28/86** Route 10 - Appropriate Reserve funds 1,485,000 Total Project Appropriation 2,815,000 1,835,000 * $4,500,000 was reserved 7/1/84 for these projects. **Chester project loaned the Ettrick project $165,000 5/28/86. On 8/27/86 this loan was repaid through Revenue Sharing Road Match Funds. R. U 01 N N r-I O r-I U1 U 01 ri m N O Ln 1 0 M m CD r-I O 01 Y rd . . . d' 1` H H W d' tit ri H 00 00 01 O 01 4 rd ro l0 l0 01 00 O w r-4 cp �P H 4J N 0 O O O O O O O (lI N •-1 O N O O O O A 4J O rn O O O O z s4 01 b 00 -r•1 w 1` �D kD W W w 4J >4 >4 wa E•1 u] O x >4 � a H 00 ¢, ►4 00 Q O1 E-I r-1 W W E-I N U! U Ln W d' H O U] 0 M l0 O N O A4 ri Ln w w O N 0 P: N N N Ln r-I I) :3 A O w W O CDO O CD C) �C Riro cl N Ln O z 0 a)U wD M H td P4 P O 0 O O O O O O H pG H O O O O O A +) O O O O O 4-) rn •r•1 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln 00 00 a r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I wo z a U a a 1 N 34 �4 M N W d' Cl rd N Ln %D 1Y' r-I U U> Ln r-I O N Q >4O ft �-I 1 O l0 r-1 Ln z 7 4 >1 r-I r-I r-1 M 4 O 34 -r-I 34 E 1 �4 (d W U r-I N •ri rd •r•I +-j x rq 3 U R1 (d 4 •ri rd 34 U 41 'Jr 41 E~ > U O H is u! �4 O r-q 41 rd :1 rl N ri td RS -r-I O z U Prepared by Accounting Department *4 September 14 1988 SCHEDULE OF CAPITALIZED LEASE PURCHASES Original Date Date Lease Lease Lease Outstanding Purchase Purchase Purchase Balance Description Amount Began Ends 06/30/88 Major Capital Facilities Lease Purchase: Jail Addition $ 245,385 10/87 12/01 $ 233,940 Data Processing, 1,839,219 10/87 12/01 1,753,436 Human Services, 4,489,377 10/87 12/01 4,279,988 Courts Building 16,796,019 10/87 12/01 16,012,636 23,370,000 22,280,000 Vehicle and Communi- cations Mainten- ance Building 1,000,000 9/82 6/90 336,633 Subtotal 24,370,000 22,616,633 Major Equipment Lease Purchase: Communications Equipment: 800 MHz System 2,888,682 10/84 7/91 1,456,285 800 MHz Equip. - Rescue Squads 85,137 6/88 6/93 85,137 Sheriff 139,963 6/88 6/93 139,963 Fire Vehicles 1,558,449 6/88 6/93 1,558,449 Fire Equipment 217,100 6/88 6/93 217,100 A T & T Phone Equip. 946,351 6/88 6/93 946,351 Mobile Radios - Police 762,170 12/86 6/91 469,657 Automatic Call Distributors 189,897 12/86 6/91 119,662 Subtotal 6,787,749 4,992,604 vl2'� In Description Leaf pickup equipment Data Processing equipment Accounting System Voting Machines Subtotal Routine Equipment Lease Purchase: Microfilm Equipment Vehicles: Schools Copiers Nursing Home Copier Utilities Copier Airport: Fuel Truck Mowing Equipment Subtotal TOTAL Original Date Date Lease Lease Lease Outstanding Purchase Purchase Purchase Balance Amount Began Ends 06/30/88 214,819 12/86 1,436,641 12/86 250,000 10/84 132,800 7/85 2,034,260 75,640 4/85 290,068 7/87 43,250 12/83 6,836 9/83 14,960 7/84 22,907 12/86 9,989 12/86 463,650 $33,655,659 6/91 127,991 9/89 320,242 9/91 126,633 6/90 60,059 634,925 3/90 29,738 6/92 232,209 8/92 33,700 8/88 - 6/89 3,488 6/91 13,663 6/91 6,294 319,092 $28,563,254 Arc M M CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA School Administration Building September 27, 1988 9900 Krause Road 7:30 p.m. Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS Mrs. Maria Keritsis-Chairman, Clover Hill Jeffrey S. Cribbs-Vice Chairman, Midlothian William H. Goodwyn, Jr., Bermuda Griffin R. Burton, Dale Mrs. Jean Copeland, Matoaca E.E. (Gene) Davis, Ed.D., Division Superintendent AGENDA Regular Meeting of the School Board A. Call to Order, Roll Call, Flag Salute - Mrs. Keritsis, presiding. B. Acceptance of Minutes September 13, 1988 (Regular School Board Meeting) C. Agenda Approval D. Awards and Recognitions #14 - Recognition of Chesterfield and German Students Participating in the Ameurop Cultural Relations Fellowship #33 - Recognition of National School Bus Safety Week E. Superintendent's Report #22 - Monthly Financial Report for July, 1988 #25 - Capital Projects Status Report #32 - Latchkey Task Force Report F. Action Items 1. Consent Agenda Personnel #27 - Recommended Personnel Action for 1988-89 U jZ�; Business and Operations #28 - Construction Change Orders for Ettrick Elementary School #29 - Request Approval of Petty Cash Reimbursement for August, 1988, Disbursements #30 - Health Insurance Plans 1988419 (To be delivered Tuesday evening) #31 - Technology Financing and Procurement Resolutions and Agreement G. Non -agenda Items H. Discussion Agenda. (No public testimony will be accepted on discussion agenda items.) J. Announcements, Communications, School Board Comments K. Executive Session (personnel, legal, land/property acquisition) L. Adjournment General Information The Chesterfield School Board meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month with the exception of July when it meets on the second Tuesda0r. August when it meets on the fourth Tuesday, November when it meets on the third Tuesday, and December when it meets on the second Tuesday. The meetings begin at 7:30 p.m. All meetings are open to the public and are held in the Board Room of the School Administration Building, 9900 Krause Road, Chesterfield, Virginia. If the place or time is changed, the public will be notified. Following is the procure by which the public may speak before the School Board at any of the above meetings: 1. Persons wishing to be heard on action items must notify the Superintendent's Office by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. 2. Persons who have requested to offer public testimony will be heard when each item is considered. 3. Persons to be heard on non -agenda items will be heard during the specified section of the meeting. 4. It is requested that an individual conduct his/her presentation in three minutes; representatives of a group may speak for five minutes. 5. Public delegations. (Public delegations or their representatives are required to submit in writing their requests for hearings and their proposals to the Division Superintendent at least five days prior to' the meeting at which they wish to be heard.) a n 2 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA School Board Meeting Minutes for September 13, 1988 The regular meeting of the Chesterfield County School Board was held on September 13, 1988, at seven thirty o'clock in the Board Room of the School Administration Building. Present: Maria Keritsis, Clover Hill; Jeffrey S. Cribbs, Midlothian; Griffin R. Burton, Dale; William H. Goodwyn, Jr., Bermuda; Jean Copeland, Matoaca; Dr. E. E. (Gene) Davis, Superintendent; Or Ann Fuqua, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction; Thomas R. Fulghum, Assistant Superintendent for Operations and Facilities; Ralph Westbay, Assistant Superintendent for Finance; Dr. Joyce Luck, Acting Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources; Dr. Carl Chafin, Managing Director for Planning and Evaluation; Debra Marlow, Director for Community Relations; and Pat Bartlam, School Board Secretary. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. Mrs. Keritsis recognized members of Junior Girl Scout Troop 651. The minutes of the August 23, 1988, meeting were approved as presented. AGENDA APPROVAL Dr. Davis stated a recommended personnel action addendum had been placed before the Board with Memorandum #16. The agenda was approved as amended. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS Memorandum #2 - Recognition of Catherine M. Welsh - Fulbright Scholar Ms. Welsh was introduced by Dr. Veronica Cooper and Mr. Jimmy Sublett. The U.S. Department of Education administers a variety of activities to expand international and foreign language studies in the United States. Catherine Welsh from Thomas Dale High School participated in the Seminars Abroad Program. She completed the six week Jerusalem Seminar on Ancient and Modern Israel this summer. The new logo pin, "Educating Students for Life" was presented to Ms. Welsh by Mr. Goodwyn; a certificate was presented by Mrs. Keritsis. Debra Marlow and the staff presented each School Board member with the new lapel pin. Memorandum #13 - Recognition of Ukrop's Golden Gift Program The Ukrop's Golden Gift program was established as part of the Fiftieth Anniversary Celebration of Ukrop's Inc. as a means of giving a gift back to the community who supported the company over the last 50 years. In the spring of 1988, Chesterfield County Schools received $57,990 from the first Golden Gift program which helped finance playground equipment, books for libraries, band uniforms and a variety of other projects. Mr. Bobby Ukrop and Mr. Jim Ukrop were in attendance to represent Ukrop's Inc. They were presented a piece of art work by a second grader, Nicole Lacy Walton, from Falling Creek Elementary School. Kellie Grace Pheasant from Chalkley Elementary was also recognized for her art work which is part of the Virginia Museum show. Lapel pins were presented to the Ukrops by Mrs. Keritsis and Mr. Cribbs. Mrs. Keritsis presented the young artists with book marks with the new logo. Mrs. Shelly Spiker, art teacher, was recognized and presented a pin by Mrs. Keritsis. SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT Dr. Davis commented the opening of the 1988-89 school year had been very, very successful. Schools were "off and running" from the very first day, and several teachers started homework on the first day. Dr. Chafin stated there are over 41,000 students in attendance in Chesterfield County Public Schools. Dr. Fuqua informed the Board that Russian will be taught at four high schools, and Japanese will be taught at two high schools. Dr. Davis said there were several new PTAs being formed. Mrs. Keritsis asked if there were any difficulties filling positions. Dr. Luck stated the School System is in very good shape at this time. Memorandum #3 - Analysis of U.S. Department of Education Report, "American Education: Making It Work" Dr. Fuqua stated this report is provided at the request of the School Board and attempts to provide an outline of Part I and Part II of the report. Part I of the report summarizes the best available educational research and performance data to judge educational accomplishments over the five years since A Nation at Risk outlined the steps American education must take to improvi-7 Part II identifies five fundamental avenues or key imperatives which should guide continued educational reform. The staff has attempted to give the Board some idea of the status of Chesterfield County in regard to each of the items in Part II. The Board expressed pleasure that Chesterfield County is a leader in achieving state and national goals as outlined in A Nation at Risk. The Board requested that a copy of this analysis be shared in the Leadership Memo and be sent to the Board of Supervisors and communication networks. ACTION ITEMS Memorandum #16 --Recommended Personnel Action for 1988-89 (and Addendum) It is recommended that the School Board approve the personnel actions as listed and authorize the Superintendent to offer contracts, make assignments, approve appropriate salary placements in accordance with adopted salary scales or give appropriate notice of the action taken. Mr. Cribbs moved the adoption of Memorandum #16 and Addendum; Mr. Burton seconded the motion and it was approved. 2 Dr. Chafin introduced to the Board the new Specialist in Research and Evaluation, Dr. Lisa DiNunno. Memorandum #E20 - Family Life Education Community Involvement Team Dr. Organ stated that for the past three months, the staff has been in the process of informing the community about the State mandate for the development of Family Life Education and Community Involvement Team. During this time, nominations have been secured from people in the community expressing an interest in serving on the team. The following people were recommended to serve as the Community Involvement Team representatives: Parent Representatives: Carol G. Adams, Georgia W. Cobbs, Frank P. Crane, D. Min., Peggy Graeser, Bennet Greenberg, Phyllis Hussey, Dorothy C. Jordan, Georgia Marcinkevicius, Susan Miller, M.D., Linda F. Pfeffer, Lowell E. Qualls, and Sharon R. Veatch. A9encv Representatives: Carol A. Boisineau, Mildred M. Jones, and Willie W. Schmidt. Education Representatives: Marilyn Bray, JoAnn Bush, Bonnie Reid, Marcella Sharp, Vivian Simmons, Jeff Beatman, and.Wayne Dean. Mr. Goodwyn thanked those who expressed interest in serving on this committee and moved to approve and appoint those people who have been recommended. Mrs. Copeland seconded the motion, and it carried. Mr. Cribbs thanked Dr. Organ for all his work and for listening well and responding to the community. Memorandum #E17 - Special Education Advisory Committee Appointments Dr. Finkler stated the Chesterfield County Special Education Advisory Committee currently has nine members since the resignation of two Committee members. The by-laws of the Committee recommend that a minimum of 12 members be appointed by the School Board. It is recommended that the following people be appointed to the Special Education Advisory Committee for three- year terms: Dr. E. Davis Martin, Jr., Mr. David R. Creecy, Mr. J. Brian Haley, and Mr. James A. Arsenault. Mr. Cribbs moved the appointment of these individuals; Mr. Burton seconded the motion, and it was approved. It is recommended that the School Board approve these change orders resulting in a decrease of $6,490.39 and authorize the Superintendent to implement the changes. Mr Burton moved to approve these change orders; Mr. Goodwyn seconded the motion, and it was approved. 3 Memorandum #21 - Resolution to Request Appropriation of Capital Protects Funds The School Board approved a revised School Capital Projects Fund budget at the August 23, 1988, meeting. Section 15.1-162.1 of the CODE OF VIRGINIA states that a public hearing is necessary in the event of increasing the annual budget by 1% of total revenues or $500,000, whichever is lesser. It is recommended that the School Board approve the revised project budget for the School Capital Projects Fund and adopt the following resolution to the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors requesting the appropriation of $760,000 to the School Capital Projects Fund: RESOLUTION On motion of Mrs. Copeland, seconded by Mr. Cribbs, the School Board of Chesterfield County requests the Board of Supervisors to appropriate $760,00O to the School Capital Projects Fund for the purpose of making necessary renovations at Matoaca Middle School. The motion was carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS. COMMUNICATIONS. SCHOOL BOARO'COMMENTS There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 4 f 1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA REPORTS September 24, 1988 11.G.2. MEETING DATE: REPORT ON: Roads Accepted into the State Secondary System i ATTACHMENTS: YES NO Cl f/1 0 SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR V . w gyp Glgr,' r I I� B COMMONWEALTH of VIRGI IA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RAY D. PETHTEL RICHMOND, 23219 COMMISSIONER September 16, 1988 Secondary System Addition and Abandonment Chesterfield County Project: 0147-020-101, C507 Board of Supervisors County of Chesterfield P. 0. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: OSCAR K. MABRY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER As requested in your resolution dated March 9, 1988, the following addition to and abandonment from the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are hereby approved, effective September 14, 1988. ADDITION LENGTH Section 2 of new location Route 815; Project: 0147-020-101, C507 0.06 Mi. Section 1 of old location Route 815; Project: 0147-020-101, C507 0.08 Mi. Sincerely, Oscar K. Mabry Deputy Commissioner TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY • �® c1a,� "rII mJ�Mpt0. COMMONWEALTH H of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RAY D. PETHTEL RICHMOND, 23219 OSCAR K. MABRY COMMISSIONER September 6, 1988 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Secondary System Addition Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors County of Chesterfield P . 0. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: As requested in your resolution dated July 23, 1986, the following addition to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County is hereby approved, effectived September 2, 1988. ADDITION SALISBURY, SECTION C; LAKEVIEW, SECTION 2 Route 1069 (Chalkwell Drive) - From Route 1019 to a Southeast cul-de-sac. 0.24 Mi. Sincerely, (1ezxov-eX Oscar K. Mabry Deputy Commissioner 01,32 TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY d® GI{y,� �f°.ana COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RAY D. PETHTEL RICHMOND, 23219 COMMISSIONER September 14, 1988 Secondary System Addition Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors County of Chesterfield P. 0. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: OSCAR K. MABRY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER As requested in your resolution dated May 11, 1988, the following addition to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County is hereby approved, effective September 13, 1988. ADDITION FOREST WOOD - SECTION 2 LENGTH Route 3601 (Forest Wood Court) - From Route 3602 to a Southwest cul-de-sac. 0.05 Mi. Sincerely, Oscar K. Mabry Deputy Commissioner o133 TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY �® Ctarq*40 i � I a epYR0. Y$" COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGI IA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RAY D. PETHTEL RICHMOND, 23219 COMMISSIONER September 14, 1988 Secondary System Additions Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors County of Chesterfield P. 0. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: OSCAR K. MABRY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER As requested in your resolution dated April 27, 1988, the following additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are hereby approved, effective September 13, 1988. ADDITIONS LENGTH QUEENSPARK - SECTION A-1 Route 832 (Robious Crossing Drive) - From 0.60 mile North of Route 711 to 0.94 mile North of Route 711. 0.34 Mi. Route 4080 (Castlestone Road) - From Route 815 to Route 4081. 0.23 Mi. Route 4081 (Castle Hill Road) - From 0.03 mile North to Route 4080 to a South cul-de-sac. 0.19 Mi. Sincerely, Oscar K. Mabry Deputy Commissioner 10134 TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: ll. F.1. SUBJECT: UTILITY PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance to Vacate Portions of a 16' Sewer Easement and a 10, Temporary Construction Easement Across Lot 17, Block A, Winters Hill Place COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff has received an application from Bodie, Taylor and Puryear, Inc., agent for Julian D. and Renee V. Burleigh requesting the vacation of portions of a 16' sewer easement and a 10' temporary construction easement Lot 17, Block A, Winters Hill Place. This request has been reviewed by the Utilities Staff. Based on the comments from the planning section of the Utility Department, Staff has approved the vacation on the condition that the sewer line. be extended to the rear property line at the owner's expense. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance to vacate a portion of the drainage and sewer easement across Lot 6, Block BB, Queensmill, Section J, only upon extension of the sewer line as recommended. DISTRICT: Clover Hill ATTACHMENTS: YES 0' NO 0 PREPARED BY: oseph E ck, Jr. Asst. Director of Utilities SIGNATURE: CA COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 0 82 W T n1TF R .V T I �H�Y�ETCH ,S This is to certity that on �els _ . I maoe an accurate field survey of the premises shown hereon; that all improvements *mown or visible are shown hereon, tt; ai no encroachments by improvements edher tr joining premises, or from subject premises upon adjoining premises, other n asShown hereon. According to the current respe atonal rRoo nsurance Program rate map, this property Is located within Zone .-- underground, Power is ( vJ underground, ( ) overhead; telephone is (-� rground, ( )overhead. New (✓) % Complete I�`'�'� ; Old ( ) •By A/Y e : �u Il an `D�ur lvtgh Now or V-ormerl TranK V,. � Trances Wad Klns -.- -- S44°�5' 55 w ---.. ���..-te►e�„o�P. plod 8 E) np-rnm o � ---�- � Aalin ear CD 00 F1ood d" (-�4er5uiVj5ton?la�� --i✓ �J O ° O (3lleaCI ► s TEM p. L'oN"M in FfeMe C.sa'Cd Q V�Ic RTe D ° � Yet„ l..Distl = SE4UEf� 6R� lei -�.I I I bust * Ij23 -ro 6F- VAu' W 'n I JulI 7I aH� ID IV 170. S Nis s'p1,TH OF h.. JLo� 11,31oc1� A �lah o � J urve Map RORERT IL TROMAS z y lace I n Cho-5�ef N-0 CoNB V11e�rs � U � CERTIFICATE NO. DATE: 51 1 ISE (t O 1471 0 1`, IA/ \) -4 ROBERT K. THOMAS AND ASSOCIATES SCALE: 1 ' 30 fp LAND 5 CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR RICHMOND, VIRGINIA FILE: C `` pQQ ke-5 T ' 4'a CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 28, 1988 ITEM NUMBER: 9.A. SUBJECT: Consideration of a Request from Spring Trace Associates for Aid in Acquiring a Sewer Easement COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff requests the Board to authorize the Right of Way Manager to aid Spring Trace Associates in acquiring a sewer easement across the property of Mrs. Lavelette G. Henry, and to authorize the County Attorney to proceed with the use of eminent domain to allow the surveyors to enter the property to design the sewer line. Background: Utilities staff has received a request from Spring Trace Associates for aid in acquiring a sewer easement along Deer Run to serve Spring Trace Subdivision. The developer has contacted the owner regarding an easement based on the attached sketch, but is unable to complete the design without obtaining survey data. The owner will not allow access for the surveyors and does not want an additional easement on her property. PREPARED By� David H. Welchons Director of Utilities ATTACHMENTS: YES 0 NO ■ SIGNATURE: y4r (� 0 COUNTY AD INISTRATOR M Board Agenda September 28, 1988 Page 2 The alternate route for the sewer which is property would not serve the entire Spring additional property upstream. In keeping with to design sewers to serve the entire drainage public health and welfare it is necessary that installed in this location. around the Henry Trace parcel or the County Policy area, and for the the sewer line be Staff believes that the developer has made a reasonable effort to acquire the easement, and since the design cannot be completed without the survey, the use of eminent domain is necessary. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Right of Way Manager to aid the developer in acquiring the easement and authorize the County Attorney to begin condemnation to gain right of entry for the surveyors. District: Matoaca VICINITY SKETCH • SPRING TRACE AS C S A t �j c, f CS _ nRI GE O 1 r < A MF ORO LLJ ANDER L RD d "z e I I A Nr a ^. fRBERRT wlo 48 36o a`G 7..r J R100 O `D O 652o 114. �. Q I. PLANTER' WOOD RO\\ / /' •' . iq 9 2. OLD BARN T. t° °� `no r, '�'�. t PECAN ( o 3. FARM -CREST ?� �In�L _ �I , 7E R. �rf �\ / i v• s0 _ 4 GATE POST CT.\ �� S. FORM BROOK CT U \ 6. PEPPERCORN PL.• 2 I•A/IV.R10G \RK=AY EAST •,` wrld8 b ( �E 7. PAINTED POST LA I Ar 1 B. MORNING -ILL LA. 9. MORNING HILL CT. D/ 6 S /TOmOnOvM r° 10. HERITAGE WOOS TRAIL T 1. G Ch �• `sy '� + II. HERITAGE WOODS RIDGE rMARK �• Mp Bo S`ry Q0. IZ. HERITAGE WOODS LA. IOGE I 2 SOUARQ r (� �Cy GOB t�•QL 13. NORTH HERITAGE WOODS RD. • , �.}y ti0 S ������ •� IA. WEST HER17AGE WOODS P,>r. SON p( •0 • .. 4,y (^� J i4J I3. SOUTH NE RrtA.;E WOODS TERR 16. EAST HERITAGEWdODS �,�=�H 17. OLD WELL TCR IB. OLO y LL LA. 797 O� \Lr^/ 19- FIyFRINGS RD. / O O ae 20. �rvE SPRINGS CT. WATER .� �I �" S- 1 a 4} E1 FILTRA N v �� ,/' 0 �•n, ..} G a¢ PLANT GF- r r r •;J• / cKIMc je a r . vER .+ILL / v SG`I 000' a y CLWILL-rt O w N EO�y "AC" /�S ?O / 0.37 i • ° � rL 0 OUAILW000 S� o�i '• i y i / RO tfA� . 3 / p / t srAo °w o Brov,n Grove PE un o Church ♦. < I r yC or � 0� Zd1 654 LAIFORK Pt. 662 pa TRIPLE yJ o u W G �' a Z N DEERPmm I OR 75 76---s1_...---- �61 ((�� if .'j September 28, 1988 Board of Supervisors Meeting Consider Request from Spring Trace Associates for Aid in Acquiring a Sewer Easemnt across the Property of Ms. Lavelette G. Henry Ms. Dolezal•_ Item 9 are deferred items. A) Consider request from Spring Trace Associates for aid in acquiring a sewer easement across property of Ms. Lavelette Henry. Mr. Sale. Mr. Sale• Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, this is a request for public health and safety purposes. We are recommending that the Board authorize the Right of Manager in the Utilities Department to aid the developer in acquiring an easement. Actually, it's to go on to the property and to prepare a plat map so that we could then possibly obtain a sewer easement and we would be aiding Spring Trace Associates in acquiring this easement. Mr. Applegate: Colonel Mayes. Mr. Mayes• Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Sale something. I noted that you are recommending in your summary the use of eminent domain to... forcing Mrs. Henry to permit the surveyors to go onto the property. why would... why is it necessary to use eminent domain to do that? Has the person negotiated with Mrs. Henry? Mr. Sale• Yes, sir. As I understand, the property owners are unwilling to have anybody come on their property. They are opposed to any additional easement on their property. This does not foreclose further negotiations; but, it does sort of move the negotiation along. Mr. Mayes• And, the use of this extreme method... is this a public subdivision that is going to be supported? Mr. Sale• Yes, sir, it is a public sub... I am not sure what you mean by a public subdivision... but... Ms. Lavelette G. Henry Page 2 I mean is it... well, maybe, let me ask Mr. Mayes• this question then. Will Mrs. Henry get any benefit from the operation of this property that is going to be serviced? Mr. Sale• From the subdivision? Mr. Mayes: Yes. Mr. Sale• Well, the property owners will get of the payment for the benefits in terms easement across their property once that... Will Mrs. Henry derive any benefit from Mr. Mayes• it? Mr. Sale• She is o4e of the property owners who... she is the property owner in terms of the property from which the easement is needed. I might also point out that this subdivision that would be developed, or is in the process of being developed, would be on public sewer and public water which is in the... I think, is a policy of the Board to try and encourage public utilities to prevent/further any contamination. It is not a matter of the public utility Mr. Mayes• itself. We are talking about a principle here, a very important asking the Board principle and you are to permit the staff to aid the developer. You said nothing about permitting the staff to aid Mrs. Henry, and what bothers me is if you pursue the eminent domain it means we will have to go into court, right? Conceivably. I mean if the parties Mr. Sale• don't negotiate. Yes, sir. Okay. When we go into court, then Mrs. Mr. Mayes• Henry will have to get a lawyer, isn't that correct? Sale• Well, in that case I'd refer to Mr. Mr. Micas. Ms. Lavelette G. Henry Page 3 Well, I would assume that she is not a Mr. Mayes• lawyer, she will need a lawyer to go into court, right? Now, staff is going to have to have a lawyer there to, right? Mr. Sale: No, sir. Mr. Mayes• Well, the County is going to have to have a lawyer. No, it is between the developer and the Mr. Ramsey• land owner. Mr. Micas•_ Well, in an eminent domain action, if it ever came to that, we would represent the County for the acquisition. I felt that that would be the case. In Mr. Mayes• that case then, Mrs. Henry is going to have to pay for her lawyer and a lawyer for the County. That is not fair, Mr. Sale. I feel that the contractor should deal with Mrs. Henry and if he is not satisfied, then he should go into court and I don't think the County should be a party to it. That is my position on it. Mr. Applegate• Let me see, we keep getting tied up on condemnations and the these type of County policy and what the County's rights or responsibilities are. I think there is a legal matter in which to deal with what ultimately ends up as condemnation. Is that correct? Petition the Circuit Court, Circuit Court has commissioners who hear the case and after hearing the information, then they make the final award. It doesn't mean that you cut off negotiations between the developer or the land owner. Is that correct? Mr. Micas: That is right. Mr. Applegate• So you actually go to court and the Circuit Court of Chesterfield would determine through a body of commissioners what the award and the just compensation is. Ms. Lavelette G. Henry Page 4 Mr. Mayes: Why should the County go to court? Mr. Applegate: The County is not going to go to court. All the County is asking is that the County is assisting the developer in moving along condemnation. Is that right, Mr. Micas? Mr. Micas: Well, eventually the County would go to Court and the policy of the Board, historically, has been that we would acquire these easements because it is for the general good of the public because it places a greater number of people on public sewer and water. Mr. Mayes: But, you didn't say on the general good of the public. You say to assist this contractor. Mr. Micas• Well, what that means is the Board historically has determined it is better off to have these subdivisions on public sewer and water because the Board doesn't have to go back later on and extend public sewer and water. Mr. Mayes• Oh, I agree. I think every subdivision ought to be on water and sewer. I agree with that, but Mrs. Henry has a right and that right should not be violated by this Board., Mr. Currin: But, in helping to get sewer and water to other areas, on top of Page 2, it says the alternate route for the sewer is around the Henry property would not serve the entire Spring Trace parcel or additional property upstream. Mr. Mayes• Well, I think the court ought to make that judgement. I don't think this Board ought to make it. Mr. Sale• Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that all of the Board realizes that the developer cannot take this matter to court, its only the County that can bring this matter to court. Maybe, Mr. Micas might want to expand on that for a moment. Ms. Lavelette G. Henry Page 5 Mr. Micas•_ I really don't have to expand on it, you're right. Mr. Sale• That, in fact it isn't the developer it is cannot take Mrs. Henry to court, only the County that can move from a stalemated position to a further negotiation position in the courts. I realize that it is an inconvenience Mr. Mayes• for this development to run around the property to get sewer there, I understand that. But, I also understand that Mrs. Henry has a right to say no and this court... this Board does not have the right to violate that. Mr. Applegate•_ Mr. Micas, could you just enlighten the Board as to County policy in such matters, please. Mr. Micas• The Board has taken the position that it is important to facilitate the extension of public sewer and water to as many areas as possible in the County and the Board in the past... for that reason has when all negotiations have failed, have agreed on occasion to acquire public sewer and water easements. The purpose again, I think is to extend public sewer and water to*the largest number of citizens. -The citizen who must convey the easement, will be justly compensated. The court has a mechanism in which the land owner will be justly compensated. In fact, the way it is set up in Virginia, the land owner appoints the majority of the panel that sets the cost. So, in many ways, the land owner basically has the ability to control how much he actually receives. That has just been the Board's policy, you are not obligated to do that. That doesn't make it right. You know, I Mr. Mayes• have a problem with this Board setting the fair price. I think the court ought to do that. Mr. Applegate• The court does do that. Ms. Lavelette G. Henry Page 6 Mr. Mayes• Okay, then the court is not going to be assisting the contractor any more than he is going to be assisting Mrs. Henry. He is going to make a just decision. I think what this Board is doing is saying to the staff, we're going to use the power of this Board to get... to enforce eminent domain to get the sewer across there. That is the objection of Mrs. Henry and certainly I will be opposed to that. Now, if this Board wants to override my point of view on it and do it... you know... let the record show that. Mr. Daniel• Mr. Chairman, if we were to take Colonel Mayes' approach, then would we have a situation where a neighboring land owner did not want to willfully grant a sewer easement or water easement, which has been done in the past to go across... to serve that subdivision, the zoning probably shouldn't even be approved to begin with. But, we went through that process and at the time of the zoning, we apparently put the individual on notice that he had to have public water to his site. I know that every time one of these comes up, we spend a lot of time reassuring ourselves, that the overall public good... and I guess when you are talking about public facilities... we got one coming up in a minute where somebody is going to come forward with what was left over from the last meeting, and says my wells are bad because you didn't have public water coming to my part of the subdivision. It may be the only way that public water can get there. It may not be the best way, but based on what I have heard through the courts, the land owner in this case, Mrs. Henry, will be well compensated for her loss. I support Mrs. Henry personally. I understand that she had nothing to do with the zoning next to her. But, still the water for the public good has got to be provided there and if the mechanism the State has prescribed that we follow to �w 1*00 Ms. Lavelette G. Henry Page 7 do that, I think we have no choice but to support the recommendations of staff. Mr. Mayes: Could I comment on it for a minute? Mr. Applegate: Yes. Mr. Mayes: You said that should have been taken care of during the zoning, right? Mr. Daniel: Yes. Mr. Mayes: It was taken care of during the zoning. If the minutes will... I am sure the minutes will show that the contractor agreed to go around that property. That is how he got the zoning. I remember that. He agreed to go around the property,and somewhere it is in the record. Mr. Daniel: I am willing to take a morning deferral while somebody researches that if he feels that strongly about it. Mr. Mayes: Alright, let's defer it for thirty (30) days. Mr. Daniel: No, let's defer it to later on this morning, they can go upstairs and examine... Mr. Mayes: Well, I don't have any problem with that. I know it's in there because that is the reason why we approved it. Mr. Daniel: Dick, could somebody get the zoning out and then bring it back in another hour? Mr. Sale: Yes, sir. Mr. Applegate: Alright, we will table the matter until the end of the agenda. Mr. Mayes: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. M M September 28, 1988 Board of Supervisors Meeting Consider Request from Spring Trace Associates for Aid in Acquiring a Sewer Easemnt across the Property of Ms. Lavelette G. Henry - Later in the Day Ms. Dolezal: Item 9.A. Mr. Applegate: We had asked that somebody check on the minutes of the 87SO20 in Matoaca District. We can pass this around, it basically says Mr. Mayes inquired if there was a portion of the property that could not be served by sewer without going through the Henry's property. Mr. Phelps stated "that the preferred route to provide sewer service would be across the Henry's property, but that the Utilities Department has offered other possible routes, but the entire property could be served by sewer." Mr. Doug Sowers stated "that the letter Mrs. Henry sent to him stated that they would sell the applicant an easement or some of their land when it was needed. He also noted there was no guarantee the County would assist in the condemnation proceedings. He stated that the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, Seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved the zoning to Residential (k-15) for 700 feet adjacent to Bailey Bridge Road and Residential (R-9) on the remainder, subject to the following conditions. Then it goes to proffered condition here. It says, "applicant shall investigate alternate methods for serving the upper portion of the subject parcel, including the purchase of a sewer easement to the east prior to seeking County's assistance in obtaining an offsite sewer easement including the adjacent property to the east. Applicant acknowledges that there is no guarantee, the County will condemn for sewer easement to the east." And there it is. Mr. Mayes: Mr. Chairman, my suggestion is as I stated before --if the lady will sell him the land, I think he ought to negotiate with her to buy it. I Ms. Lavelette G. Henry Page 9 Mr. Applegate: Well, I think that is the reason they have asked for acceptance. I mean they have asked our assistance because they have sat down and tried to talk... now I know that Dr. Henry did die probably sixty days ago or so, and she probably has not had a mind to be talking to anyone, but maybe staff can bring us up to speed as to what Mr. Sowers... it says Sowers, I was under the impression it was DuVal, but... Mr. Mayes: But, she stated she was selling the property when the time again. Mr. Applegate: That's the purpose... but, she evidently... I don't know... Where are we, Mr. Welchons? Mr. Welchons: A couple of things have happened since the zoning. One is the property has again changed hands and I don't think Sowers has any interest now. It is another group and I don't think it is Duval. Sowers at one time had, as I understood it from the conversation that... they had about agreed on a sale price, there was something on the interest and I am not sure what happened from that point. But, the property is not owned by Sowers now, since the zoning has sold it to another group. The sewer line can be put in without an easement on the Henry's, it will have to be a greater depth that is not as easily maintained, and I think they will lose a couple of lots, which is not a major concern to the developer. The Utilities Department feels like this is the proper location for the easement, not only to serve that property but the Henry's property also and property upstream from both pieces of property should be used. When the Henry's property is developed, there is going to have to be a sewer line worked in within feet of this proposed routing to serve the property. Ms. Lavelette G. Henry Page 10 Mr. Currin• How many more acres, if in fact it is done through this method, how many more acres could be sewered then if its not done through this paper? Mr. Welchons• You are approaching the head of the drainage area and I don't know the exact acreage. It is not a very large portion of property upstream from... but it won't be able to be served through Spring Trace. So, if it develops without an easement through the Henry's they will not be able to utilize public sewer for that remaining property that is in that drainage area. Mr. Mayes: Mr. Chairman. r Mr. Applegate: Yes. Mr. Mayes• That is changing the issue before us. We ought to deal with the issue before us and from what I can see here is clear that the paper ought to be denied and I am ready to make a motion. Mr. Applegate• Yes, Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan•_ Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I think we are skirting around or treading on what could be an extremely dangerous precedent here. I agree with Colonel Mayes up to a point. That point being that certainly we need to and all of us need to respect the property rights of the owner. However, there is a greater good and the greater good is providing that service for the other people in the area. The greater good is the maintenance of that sewer system which Mr. Welchons tells us is better accomplished through this particular easement area and the greater good is allowing other property that is in that area to be better served and better developed through this particular route. Certainly, we need to work out, it needs to be worked out with the land owner, a price for that easement that is fair to all parties. But, if that is not n n Ms. Lavelette G. Henry Page 11 resolvable, and we are told by staff that leads up to this point and has not been resolvable, than it seems to me that we have got to, for the greater good of the citizens of this County, we got to... we got to step in. Mr. Mayes• But, Mr. Sullivan... Mr. Sullivan•_ No one else has the right of condemnation. When we get right down to it, we can't ask the developer to do that. He doesn't have that right. So, to say that we are going to allow them to do it, for us to step back, disregards the actual facts of the matters. The facts of the matter are when you,get down to it, we are the only ones who can do it. Mr. Currin• Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Micas for a legal opinion on what was said at the zoning case and what is actually occurring now. Mr. Micas• I think maybe Mr. Welchons will have to indicate... I think that they have complied with the zoning condition by analyzing alternative routes, so I think they are in compliance with the zoning. Mr. Applegate: Mr. Welchons, you indicated here that easement would serve perhaps this sewer upstream. Mr. Welchons: Yes, sir. Mr. Applegate• How far upstream, would it involve that Birkdale or Birddale or... Mr..Welchons•_ No, sir. There is some property... I am trying to think which way the direction... upstream from... Mr. Applegate• This looks like to me it's down there in Mockingbird Lane or something. Mockingbird? Mr. Currin: Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lavelette G. Henry Page 12 Mr. Applegate: Excuse me, I will get to your question next. Mr. Welchons: The property that is upstream is basically upstream from the Spring Trace Subdivision. In other words, the sewer line would go through the Henry's into Spring Trace and then later be extended beyond Spring Trace to some property that drains in that same area. Mr. Applegate: Does that include the Birkdale property? Mr. Welchons: No, sir. The Birkdale is... I think in Spring Run, but it is not this particular draw through the Henry's. I don't think the drainage from Birkdale comes through the Henry's property. Mr. Applegate: okay. Mr. Currin: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Applegate: Yes. Mr. Currin• I would like to ask Mr. Mayes something. Let's assume in your case, that this were a water easement and they have a subdivision up past, upstream or wherever, downstream, with a subdivision had no public water and had thirty wells that were failing, and you had to get an easement to get them public water so that they could have drinking water. How would you feel in that case, if the same thing had occurred? Mr. Mayes• I don't know how I would I feel --that is a what if. We are talking about this paper and all of the good things that Mr. Sullivan mentioned are fine, but it doesn't deal with this paper. We are dealing with a paper which is restricted to what is recommended here and what is recommended here is contrary to the minutes as I referred to --that the developer said he would go around it. I am ready to make a motion to deny it. Mr. Applegate: Well, make your motion. Mr. Mayes: I -move that we deny this request. Mr. Applegate: We have a motion for denial, do we have a second? Mr. Daniel: Second, but I want to say something. Mr. Applegate: Seconded by Mr. Daniel, now you can counter. Mr. Daniel: Again, all of'this is how you appraise the problem. In my judgement, it looks like... a particular zoning was granted that clearly says there is no guarantee that you are going to be able to come across the Henry's property and that was accepted. As I understand it, there is an alternative even though it is not the best alternative in the world, there is an alternative. In talking about the greater good of the County, I didn't sense... Dave, maybe I am wrong, that there is a clear and present need to do it through the Henry's property. It does offer some opportunities for somebody later, but is there any absolute need that the County has got to go and assist in this? Is there an absolute need? Is your department going to close down and have mucho problems because... Mr. Welchons: There is not an absolute need until such time as the other property develops. Mr. Daniel: But, we don't even have that in front of US. Mr. Welchons: That is correct. Mr. Daniel: So, there is no absolute need. I rest back my case. As I said, I have gone and forth on this and you know every time I listen I hear something else that swings me and this time I have swung back to I can't see the need. Mr. Sullivan: Perhaps, the need is less than absolute. Mr. Welchons, did I hear you say, that the easement through this property, M Ms. Lavelette G. Henry Page 14 would better serve the sewer utility because it would be easier maintained for the advantage of the people on the service? Mr. Welchons: Yes, sir. In order to serve Spring Trace by not going through this, we are going have to put the sewer at an exceptionally deep to serve those lots. Mr. Mayes: That is not a consideration for this paper. Mr. Applegate: Dave, to be sure I am completely certain. I just want to understand the location upstream, when he is talking about upstream, because I want to be sure that I don't have a conflict of interest. The fact that I am involved in a tract of land that is beyond Birkdale, up Spring Run and... Mr. Welchons: I think you are west, considerably west of the property we are talking about. Mr. Applegate: Way west? Mr. Welchons: Yes, sir. Mr. Applegate: I just want to be sure. Alright, we have a motion to deny the request and has been seconded by Mr. Daniel. All in favor signify by saying aye. Mr. Daniel: Aye. Mr. Mayes: Aye. Mr. Applegate: opposed? Mr. Applegate: No. Mr. Sullivan: No. Mr. Currin: No. Mr. Applegate: Motion fails, three/two. Mr. Micas• We need another motion. Ms. Lavelette G. Henry Page 15 Mr. Applegate: Now we need a motion to approve. Mr. Sullivan: Move approval. Mr. Applegate: I have a motion by Mr. Sullivan to approve the request. Do we have a second? Mr. Currin: Second. Mr. Applegate: We have a second by Mr. Currin. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Mr. Applegate: Aye. Mr. Sullivan: Aye. Mr. Currin: Aye. Mr. Daniel: Aye. Mr. Applegate: Opposed? Mr. Mayes: No. Mr. Applegate: Let it show that Mr. Mayes votes no. ll.L. REZONING REQUESTS 875020 In Matoaca Magisterial District, DOUGLAS R. SOWERS requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 92.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 850 feet on the north line of Bailey Bridge Road, approximately 3,800 feet southwest of Quailwood Road, also located at the eastern terminus of Master Stag Drive. Tax Map 76-6 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 20). Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Residential R-9 and R-15, subject to a single condition and acceptance of certain proffered conditions. Mr. Mayes inquired if there were a portion of the property that could not be served by sewer without going through the Henry's property. Mr. Phelps stated that the preferred route to provide sewer service would be across the Henry's property, but that the Utilities Departmen as ottered other possible routes, but the entire property could be served by sewer �. Mr. Doug Sowers stated that the letter Mrs. Henry sent to him stated that they would sell the applicant an easement or some of their land when needed. He also noted there was no guarantees the County would assist in condemnation proceedings. He stated that the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved rezoning to Residential (R-15) for 700 feet adjacent to Bailey Bridge' Road and Residential (R-9) on the remainder subject to the following condition: A fifty (50) foot building setback line and buffer, exclusive of utility easements, shall be provided on lots adjacent to Bailey Bridge Road. The area within this buffer shall be planted and/or left in its natural state if there is sufficient vegetation to provide adequate screening. Prior to recordation of subdivision plats, the developer shall flag this buffer for inspection by the Planning Department. If sufficient vegetation does not exist, a landscaping plan shall be approved by the Planning Department and a bond posted to cover the cost of implementing the plan, prior to recordation of subdivision plats. This building setback line and buffer shall be noted on final check and record plats. The Planning Commission may modify this condition at the time of tentative subdivision review to allow for access break(s). (P&T) And further the Board accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. Because of topographical features all lots north of the major tributary bisecting property (approximately 1,200 feet from Deer Run Subdivision) shall have a minimum gross area of 10,000 square feet and an average lot size of at least 12,250 square feet. r, r.. 5*400 Vote: Unanimous 865133 In Dale Magisterial District, GLOBE REALTY PROFIT SHARING, EARLINE M. GOULD, J&L ASSOCIATES, AND METRO ASSOCIATES requested rezoning from Residential (R-7) and Convenience Business (B-1) to. Office Business (0) with Conditional Use Planned Development on a 6.6 acre parcel fronting approximately 540 feet on the east line of Iron Bridge Road, also fronting approximately 510 feet on the northwest line of Cogbill Road, and northeast of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 52-14 (1) Parcels 21, 22,123, 25, 62, and 65 (Sheet 15). Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request, subject to certain conditions, but recommend that the setback exception along Cogbill Road not be granted and that the proferred condition not be accepted. Mr. Dean Hawkins, the applicant's representative, stated their concerns were transportation related per a letter forwarded to the County. He stated their major concern was Cogbill Road requiring 90 feet of right-of-way. He stated when the Central Area Plan was first initiated, the 90 foot right-of-way had not been required, but that when the plan was revised and resubmitted, the:'90 feet of right-of-way was then required. He stated that they do not believe the 90 feet is necessary. He stated that he felt Cogbill Road should have a 70 foot right-of-way, which is -acceptable to the applicant. He stated that a 70 foot right-of-way would allow a 25 foot setback but the applicant would agree to a 35 foot setback from the 70 foot right-of-way and if the County ever needs the 90 foot right-of-way, the additional 10 foot would be available on the applicant's side of the road. He stated they would also have a 30 rear yard setback instead of the required 20 feet. He stated that the applicant wants to comply with all the regulations and in some cases they are going further than is required. He stated they do agree with the overlay district as well. He stated that the curbs and gutters required in Condition #17 should not be required until the Virginia Department of Transportation has specific plans for the area. Mr: Daniel asked Mr. McCracken to explain the plan for the intersection of Route 10 and Cogbill Road. Mr. McCracken stated the Virginia Department of Transportation is preliminary design requires at least 42 feet of right-of-way from the center of Cogbill Road. He stated that utility easements will be required at least 16 to 20 feet beyond the right-of-way. He stated that staff wa.s concerned that with the initial design prepared there is very little verticular storage on Cogbill Road; that the expanded right-of-way will have to extend further east; in addition, the turn lanes that the developer will need to handle the traffic on Cogbill Road will also require widening of Cogbill Road, etc. and that the 90 foot right of way is needed. He stated the developer is not being asked to provide any right-of-way donations. Mr. Daniel inquired if the developer did not build in the 35 foot setback and if they needed the 90 feet, would they still be able to build their elan without impactinq this plan. Mr. 0 September 23, 1988 DELIVERED BY HAND Steven L. Micas, Esquire County Attorney County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Re: Spatig v. Wessel, et al. Robbins v. Wessel, et al. Settlement Offer Dear Steve: Following the settlement conference we had on September 22, 1988, please be advised that we hereby offer to settle the consolidated wrongful death cases as follows: Spatig Case - $100,000.00 Robbins Case - $235,895.00 The settlement figures above are proportionate compromise values, figured upon the respective economic losses suffered by the plaintiffs. Our settlement offers are open until Friday, October 7, 1988, at 9:00 a.m., at which time such offers, if not accepted, will automatically be withdrawn. Since you have, on two occasions, requested that we identify which facts and factors would justify your settlement of this case, we have listed below the factors which justify these settlements: 1. The plaintiffs' witnesses, coupled with Mr. diGrazia's expert testimony, justify an award in this case; 2. There seems to be no way this case will not proceed to the jury over Wessel's motion to strike; w Steven L. Micas, Esquire September 23, 1988 Page Two 15 3. The probable sympathetic reaction to the plaintiffs in the instant cases by the jury; 4. Plaintiffs' pending motion against defendant Wessel which is set for hearing on October 7, 1988, at 9:00 a.m.; 5. The strong likelihood that the Court has already committed reversible error in its ruling on Wessel's immunity plea; 6. The distinct possibility that on appeal this case will set precedent damaging to the Chesterfield County Police Department and police departments throughout the state; namely, by adopting the plaintiffs' standard of negligence as pleaded in their Count I, in overruling the Court's immunity opinion, and by adopting the plaintiffs' theory of causation and rejecting the line of cases that arbitrarily bar recovery where the police vehicle is not physically involved in the accident, a likelihood that is made clear in Judge Shelton's Letter Opinion of May 23, 1988, at Page 5; 7. The litigation costs to the County in completing the trial and appeal process; and 8. Most importantly, the very reasonable offers by the plaintiffs in light of the huge exposure to the defendant and the County in this case. We appreciate this opportunity to present to your office, the defendant, and the Board of Supervisors our specific settlement offers in this case. Cordially, C� Kenneth W. Nye, Esquire Counsel for Spatig Estate Irvin V. Cantor, Esquire Counsel for Robbins Estate BOARD OF SUPERVISORS G. H. APPLEGATE, CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT MAURICE B. SULLIVAN, VICE CHAIRMAN MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT C. F. CURRIN, JR. BERMUDA DISTRICT HARRY G. DANIEL DALE DISTRICT JESSE J. MAYES MATOACA DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY � P.O. Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Lane B. Ramsey, County Administrator n yu FROM: R. J. McCracken, Director of Transportation DATE: September 27, 1988 SUBJECT: Route 288 North of Powhite Parkway Henrico Notice of Appeal LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR We have reviewed Henrico County's Notice of Appeal regarding VDOT's corridor selection for Route 288 and offer the following: 1. The decision is Counties of Henr Richmond_ contrary to the recommendation of the o, Powhatan and Hanover, and the City of Comment: This is a correct statement. 2. The decision is contrary to the recommendation of VDOT's staff as submitted by Chief Engineer Hodge. Comment: This is a correct statement. Hodge had recommended Corridor 6B Modified, a western alignment in Chesterfield County which swung east north of the James River. 3. The decision is contrary to the recommendation of the Richmond Metropolitan Planning Organization (hereafter "MPO"). Comment: This is a correct statement. On May 12, 1988, the MPO voted to endorse Alternative 9 as the preferred corridor for Route 288. The vote was 10 ayes, 7 nays, 3 abstentions. Chesterfield and Goochland voting against the resolution, Henrico, City of Richmond, Hanover voting in support of the resolution. M M Route 288 North of Powhite Parkway Henrico Notice of Appeal September 27, 1988 Page Two 4. The decision is contrary to the MPO Thoroughfare Plan. Comment: The current MPO Thoroughfare Plan generally depicts an eastern location for Route 288. The Thoroughfare Plan, however, is not intended to present an exact alignment of any roadway. VDOT's Route 288 corridor is, therefore, not contrary to the Thoroughfare Plan. 5. Route 288 cannot practically be constructed without federal funds yet the project is ineligible for federal funds since it is in conflict with the MPO Thoroughfare Plan. Comment: The method for financing Route 288 has not been determined. Federal funds, state funds, toll revenue, and/or local bond revenue could be utilized to financed the project. Unless Route 288 is constructed with federal funds, there is no requirement for the roadway to be included in the MPO Thoroughfare Plan. Nothing precludes Route 288 from being added to the Thoroughfare Plan in the future if the MPO so desires. 6. The decision is not based upon or does it serve the traffic needs of the Richmond Metropolitan Area. Comment: We disagree with this statement. VDOT's Route 288 corridor location in Chesterfield adequately serves the traffic needs in Chesterfield and Goochland. An eastern alignment (Alternative 9) would not meet Chesterfield's transportation needs. 7. The decision is inconsistent with VDOT's and the Board's August 28, 1969 decision on corridor selection which has _been relied upon by the County and local jurisdictions for their road construction and other use planning. Comment: In 1985, the Board of Supervisors adopted a western location for Route 288 in Chesterfield County because of the significant change in the character of the property surrounding the original VDOT 1969 corridor. The County's transportation plans have been developed around the revised location for Route 288. In 1984, Henrico requested the MPO to downgrade Route 288 from an interstate type facility to a major arterial between Interstate 64 and the Henrico/Goochland County Line. The MPO subsequently approved Henrico's request and reclassified Route 288 as a principle arterial. Henrico will no doubt argue that this action was taken so that they could preserve the right-of-way for Route 288. On the other hand, it could be argued that Henrico acknowledged that Route 288 as a limited M M Route 288 North of Powhite Parkway Henrico Notice of Appeal September 27, 1988 Page Three access facility could no longer be constructed in the original VDOT corridor. VDOT's Environmental Impact Studies clearly show that an arterial highway would be inadequate to handle the projected volumes of traffic for Route 288. 8. As a result of the County's reliance upon the prior decision of VDOT and the Board, the County has been severely damaged. Comment: It could be argued that Chesterfield would be damaged if any route other than that selected by VDOT was constructed south of the James River. 9. The decision is inconsistent with representations made by VDOT and the Board to induce the County to approve the Parham- Chippenham Connector; the County's approval of the Parham-Chippenham Connector was based upon the traffic patterns which would result from an eastern alignment of Route 288. Comment: Henrico and the City have both been very sensitive to the potential for widening the Parham-Chippenham Connector to six lanes. It has been our position that traffic demands on the connector would eventually force the City and Henrico to widening the road to six lanes or else live with a congested roadway. The location of Route 288 while reducing the amount of traffic on the connector will not eliminate the need to widen the connector at some future date. We believe that VDOT shares our opinion. 10. VDOT's and the Board's design and construction to date of the Parham-Chippenham Connector is predicated on the eastern_ alignment of Route 288 which was rejected by the Board. Comment: The design and construction of the Parham-Chippenham connector has primarily been a function of cost. VDOT acquired additional right-of-way through the City section of the connector which provides for future widening of the connector. VDOT's procedures on the design of the connector were consistent with their practices for designing any highway. 11. As a result of the Parham - western alianment of State F expect in excess of /U,000 cars County between River Road and I-E will result in: nham Connector and 288, Henrico County ;r day spilling into amona other things. c this a. An accelerated need to widen River Road to four lanes. in M Route 288 North of Powhite Parkway Henrico Notice of Appeal September 27, 1988 Page Four b. A potential need to widen Patterson Avenue to six to eight lanes in the vicinity of the Patterson -Parham intersection. C. A grade separation at the intersection of Parham and Patterson Avenues. d. A likely need to widen Parham Road to six lanes between River Road and I-64. e. An accelerated need to widen Gaskins Road to four lanes between Patterson and River Roads. f. A likely need to widen Gaskins Road to six lanes between Patterson and I-64. g. A likely need to widen Lauderdale Avenue to six lanes. Comment: We have not analyzed the impact of VDOT's Route 288 corridor on Henrico's local streets. It appears as though some of these roads would have to be improved regardless of whether 288 is constructed or not. 12. The Countv states its belief that the decision was based tP fantc_ Comment: VDOT followed their routine study procedures on Route 288. The public hearing process provided everyone an opportunity to address the inadequacies of VDOT's study. The Commonwealth Transportation Board had the opportunity to review these comments as well as VDOT's staff position and the consultant study. The facts are adequate. 13. VDOT and the f ina failed to give adequate consideration to Comment: If this statement refers to the financial impact of Henrico having to pay for additional road improvements because of the decision, VDOT is not required to consider Henrico's financial status when selecting a corridor for a highway. If the statement refers to financial impact/socioeconomic impact of VDOT's decision, this was adequately addressed in the Environmental Impact Study. 14. The County states its belief that the decision was arbitr and capricious and without substantial evidence to supp it. Comment: We disagree with this assessment. `o Route 288 North of Powhite Parkway Henrico Notice of Appeal September 27, 1988 Page Five We believe the County should strongly oppose any reconsideration of the Route 288 corridor decision. If VDOT decides to reconsider the matter, we could again be forced to deal with the eastern alignment since Henrico, Hanover, Powhatan, and the City still supports this alignment. RM8S50/ens cc: Richard F. Sale n " �� RICHMOND AREA METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION c/o RICHMOND REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 2201 WEST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23220 (804) 358-3684 RESOLUTION ROUTE 288 IMPACT STUDY RECOMMENDATION 1 On motion of Stanley Balderson, Jr., seconded by Robert Hammond, the MPO unanimously approved Recommendation 1 from the Route 288 Impact Study as follows: RESOLVED, That the MPO amends the 1995 Trans- portation Plan to reflect the approved redesign of former Route 288 in Henrico County from a limited access to a con- trolled access facility. This is to certify that the above Resolution was unanimously adopted by the Richmond Area Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organi- zation at its meeting held on November 8, 1984. WITNESS: Kat erine E. Straub Daniel N. Lysy Administrative Assistant MPO Secretary Voting Members: Chesterfield County Capital Region Airport Commission Goochland County Greater Richmond Transit Company Hanover County Richmond Metropolitan Authority Henrico County Richmond Regional Planning District Commission City of Richmond Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation n M RICHMOND AREA METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION c/o RICHMOND REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 2201 WEST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23220 (804) 358-3684 RESOLUTION 'STATE ROUTE 288 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND FEDERAL AID SYSTEM REVISION On motion of Anthony E. Dowd, seconded by Robert Hammond, the MPO unanimously adopted the following Resolution: RESOLVED, That the Richmond Area Metropolitan Trans- portation Planning Organization approves Henrico County's request to modify the Functional Classification of proposed State Route 288 from the southern urbanized area boundary (Goochland/Henrico County line) to the northern urbanized area boundary (near Church Road) to an Other Principal Arterial; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Richmond Area Metro- politan Transportation Planning Organization approves the change in Federal Aid designation for the same section of proposed State Route 288 mentioned above, to a Federal Aid Urban System facility. This is to certify that the above Resolution was unanimously adopted by the Richmond Area Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization at its meeting held on August 9, 1984. ATTEST: Kathe ine E. Straub Daniel N. Lysy Administrative Assistant MPO Secretary ` Voting Members: Chesterfield County Capital Region Airport Commission Goochland County Greater Richmond Transit Company Hanover County Richmond Metropolitan Authority Henrico County Richmond Regional Planning District Commission City of Richmond Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA OF HENRIC0 P. T. RUTLEDGE, JR. Director of Public Works County Engineer (804) 747-4393 July 27, 1984 Mr. Dan Lysy Richmond Regional Planning District Commission 2201 W. Broad Street Richmond, VA 23220 Re: Functional Classification - State Route 288 Dear Dan: For several months now, Henrico County has been pursuing a reclassification of the State Route 288 corridor in order to protect the corridor from future development and in order to have the roadway built to ensure travel throughout the Metropolitan area. In reference to that, the Henrico County Board of Supervisors passed a Resolution on August 10, 1983, amending the Major Thoroughfare Plan by reclassifying State Route 288 from an interstate -type facility to a major arterial between Interstate 64 and the Henrico County/Goochland County line. The Resolution also called for State Route 288 to be designated as an Urban Principle Arterial within the confines of the urban boundary which is the Henrico County/Goochland County Line and Interstate 64. We have been pursuing the matter with the Goochland County Board of Supervisors and have recently received the necessary Resolutions which have been passed to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation so that the Virginia Highway and Transportation Commission may act upon the downgrading and reclassification. In order to pursue the matter further, we would need a change in the Major Thoroughfare Plan reclassifying the State Route 288 connector within the confines of Henrico County to a Urban Principle Arterial. Between the Henrico County/ Gooch land County line and State Route 6, it is suggested this remain a Rural Principle Arterial. Consideration of this matter by the MPO at its August 9 meeting would be appreciated. Should you have any questions, please let me know. Very truly yours, G.� Virgil R. Hazelett, P.E. Assistant Director of Public Works cc: Mrs. Angela Moore PARHAtA AND HUNGARY SPRING ROADS P. O. BOX 77032 PICHMOtID. `/IRGI�JIA 23273 Ow or S 0 ). U rnlIMTV OF HFNRICO- VIRGINIA ROUTING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTE Agenda item No.4/0/— ,F Page No. 1 Of 2 Agenda Title Resolution -Major Thoroughfare Plan Amendment --State Route 28' MGR DPU DPW J R/W FIN PLAN INSTRUCTIONS: This form is to be completed in triplicate, green (original), yellow and white, and submitted to the Office of the County Manager by noon the Wednesday preceding the Board Meeting at which it is to be presented. Attach contracts, maps, plans and/or data which may be necessary for presentation of the paper to the Board. Under comments always state the recommendation of the department and the concurrence of the County Manager. If the ordinance or resolution requires more than one page, half sheet: must be used for all pages except the last page. The Department Head should sign paper in black ink. POL PERS CO. ATTY REC MHIMR For Clerk's Use Only: ADM SER The Board approved the following Resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors adopted the 1995 Land Use Plan as amended on November 27, 1974; and WHEREAS, the Major Thoroughfare Plan is a special consideration outlined on the Land Use Plan map which consists of interstates, major and minor arterials, and major and minor collectors; and WHEREAS, the Major Thoroughfare Plan has been amended by the Board of Supervisors in recognition of changes which have occurred in the County; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 14, 1993, on the reclassification of 1" ate Route 288 from an Interstate -type facility to a Major Arterial between Interstate 64 and the County line; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 1983, the Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors the re class ifieatiQn of State Route 288 from an Interstate -type facility to a Major Arterial between Interstate 64 and the County line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Henrico approves the amendment to the Major Thoroughfare Plan which reclassifies State Route 288 from an Interstate -type facility to a Major Arterial between Interstate 64 and the County line. I o0 y = 0 N O V > U ROUTING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . MINUTE Agenda Item Page No. 2 of 2 Agenda Title Resolution -Major Thoroughfare Plan Amendment- -State Route 288 MC;fi OPU DPW RAW FIN PLAN INSTRUCTIONS: This form is to be completed in triplicate, green (original), yellow and white, and submitted to the Office of the County Manager by noon. the Wednesday preceding the Board Meeting at which it is to be presented. Attach contracts, maps, plans and/or data which may be necessary for presentation of the paper to the Board. Under comments always state the recommendation of the department and the concurrence of the County Manager. If the ordinance or resolution requires more than one page, half sheets must be used for all pages except the last page. The Department Head should sign paper in black ink. . POL PERS CO. ATTY REC MH/MR For Clerk's Use Only: ADM SER BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors directs the County Engineer to do the following: 1. Pursue the possibility of obtaining State and Federal funds to design and build the road as a Major Arterial. 2. In cooperation with VDH&T and FHWA proceed to resolve the question of the design for the transition section from I-295 to 288 in the vicinity of Broad Street Road. 3. Request VDH&T to reclassify State Route 288 so that it is an urban principal arterial instead of a rural principal arterial. ApIrROVEID Comments: The Staff supports this reclassification of State Route 288 from an Interstate -type facility to a Major Arterial. By Department Head ' By County Manager DatUG 10 1981' / -BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION i ( /] Approved/ Moved by (1 } h-*_h�Seconded by ( ] Denied ''1i (2) (2) ( J Received REMARKS: ( ) Deferred to �) YES NO OTHER Kaechele, D. i IIMehfoud, A. Shadwell, R. Waldrop, J. / ___ RESOLUTION - Major Thoroughfare Plan Amendment, State Route 298 The Planning Commission directed the staff to advertise a hearing on a reclassification of State Route 288 from an Interstate -type facility to a Major Arterial roadway. The reason for this request was that the Update 2000 Land Use Plan's proposals were made based on Route 288 being a controlled access r � la jo! ar ter iai facility. F ur a ler, u 12r a dre i �V Fcdcrai yr State funds programmed to construct State Route 288 in the foreseeable future. In order to implement the Major Thoroughfare Plan, the County needs to reclassify State Route 288 so that development plans can be reviewed in accordance with the reduced right-of-way and controlled access requirements of a Major Arterial instead of an Interstate -type facility. A brief report has been prepared by the Planning Office and Public Works staff on the amendment request. At a public hearing on July 14, the Planning Commission recommended the following: 1. State Route 288 should be reclassified from an Interstate -type facility to a Major Arterial. 2. The County should pursue the possibility of obtaining State and Federal funds to design and build the road as a Major Arterial. 3. The County in cooperation with VDH&T and FHWA should proceed to resolve the question of the design for the transition section from I-295 to 288 in the vicinity of Broad Street Road. 4. The County should request VDHT to reclassify State Route 288 so that it is urban principal arterial instead of a rural principal arterial. CL • � O Y U hAI IAITV AC LJ C!►IQIM \/I Q/"_IIUTA • unNc : -__BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTE Agenda Item No • Page No. 1of2 Agenda Title Resolution -Major Thoroughfare Plan Amendment --State Route 288 - R " t 4N INSTRUCTIONS: This form is to be completed in triplicate, green (original). yellow and white, and submittad to the Office of tha County Manage► by noon the Wednesday preceding the Board Meeting at which it is to be presented. Attach contracts, maps. plans and/or date which may be necessary for presentation of the papa► to the Board. Under comments always state the recommendation of the department and the concurrence of the County Manage` If the ordinetsce or resolution requires more than one page. half sheets must be used for all pages except the last page. The Department Head should sign paper in black ink. - � 4s ATTY C I rWa For Clerk's Use Only: AA SEA e Board approved the following Resolution: •iEREASr the Board of Supervisors adopted the 1995 Land Use Plan as amended on November 27, 74; and iEREAS, the Major Thoroughfare Plan is a special consideration outlined on the Land Use Plan map 1ch consists of interstates, major and minor arterials, and major and minor collectors; and iEREAS, the Major Thoroughfare Plan has been amended by the Board of Supervisors in recognition changes which have occurred in the County; and iEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 14, 1983, on the reclassification of ite Route 288 from an Interstate -type facility to a Major Arterial between Interstate 64 and the aunty line; and iEREAS, on July 14, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors the _lassification of State Route 288 from an Interstate -type facility to a Major Arterial between :erstate 64 and the County line. )W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Henrico proves the amendment to the Major Thoroughfare Plan which reclassifies State Route 288 from an :erstate-type facility to a Major Arterial between Interstate 64 and the County line. r r ! apartment Head By County Manager :,'• �;.- +• r' '_' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION tit '. r Approved Moved by (1) Seconded by (1) 1" ponied (2) (2) I Received •.. REMARKS: 1 Def .cared to 3>� YES NO OTHER R Dixon, L — Kaeztale, D. ._ Mehfoud, A. _ Shidw,M, R. 11 RICHMOND AREA METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION c/o RICHMOND REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 1141 2201 WELT BROAD STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23220 (804) 358-3684 RESOLUTION ROUTE 288 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT On motion of David Kaechele, seconded by Geline Williams, the Richmond Area Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization adopted the following Resolution by a roll call vote of 10 Ayes, 7 Nays and 3 Abstentions (see attached sheet): RESOLVED, That the Richmond Area Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization hereby recommends to the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Commonwealth Transportation Board that Alternate 9 (Eastern Route), as contained in the Route 288 draft Environmental Impact Statement, be selected, as it best represents the intent of the 1995 Transportation Plan in meeting the identified needs of the Region and that this be communicated to the Commonwealth Transportation Board as soon as possible. This is to certify that the above Resolution was adopted by the Richmond Area Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization at its meeting held on May 12, 1988. WITNESS: Kath _'ne E. Stlraub Daniel N. Lysy Office Manager MPO Secretary Richmond Regional Planning District Commission Voting Members: Chesterfield County Caoital Region Airport Commission Goochland County Greater Richmond Transit Company Hanover County Richmond Metropolitan Authority Henrico County Richmond Regional Planning District Commission City of Richmond Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation 14 • COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF HENRICO rg°gyp+ OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY q M[PPiG. JOSEPH P. RAPISARDA, JR. COUNTY ATTORNEY September 20, 1988 JOHN L. KNIGHT GEORGE T. ELMORE. III J.T. TOKARZ W. TODD BENSON RHYSA GRIFFITH SOUTH JAMES A. EICHNER ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS Drew St. J. Carneal, Esq. City Attorney City of Richmond Suite 300 City Hall Richmond, Virginia 23219 James W. Hopper, Esq. Gardner, Moss & Hopper, P.C. 629 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Re: State Route 288 Gentlemen: y�611 1e 19 2021' C000 A FP � t AR nND HUNGARY G ROADS Ej NIA 23273 (804) 672-4342 Sterling E. Rives, III, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Fairfax 3900 University Drive Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Steven L. Micas, Esq. County Attorney Chesterfield County P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Attached for your information is a copy of a Notice of Appeal to the selection of the corridor for Route 288. Sincerely, 2 'W. Todd Benson Enclosure 0 NOTICE OF APPEAL COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA, V. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD SERVE: The Honorable Ray D. Pethtel Commissioner Department of Transportation Chairman Transportation Board Commonwealth Transportation Virginia Department of Richmond, Virginia 23219 In order to protect its rights under Virginia law, including the Administrative Process Act, the County of II Virginia (hereinafter "the County"), hereby gives the it Henrico, " and �I Virginia Department of Transportation (hereinafter "VDOT ), I the C ommonwealth•Transportation Board (hereinafter "the Board") I to sue VDOT and the Board if and as Inotice of its intent -selection of State Route 288 necessary over the corridor on other things, the Count• (hereinafter "the decision") . Am g states as its grounds for appeal the following: 1. The decision is contrary to the recommendation of the =' and the City of Counties of Henrico, Powhatan, and Hanover, Richmond. 2. The decision is contrary to the recommendation of t`= Chief Engineer Hodge. VDOT staff as submitted by I� 3. The decision is contrary to the recommendation of t'= Richmond Metropolitan Planning Organization (hereinafter .� "MPO") . A Oil C•` -2- (.IZ 4. The decision is contrary to the MPO Thoroughfare Plan. i�ffQ 5. Route 288 cannot practically be constructed without federal funds yet the project is ineligible for federal funds since it is in conflict with the MPO Thoroughfare Plan. r� 6. The decision is not based upon nor does it serve the traffic needs of the Richmond metropolitan area. 7. The decision is inconsistent with VDOT's and the Board's August 28, 1969 decision on corridor selection, which has been relied upon by the County and other local jurisdictions for their road construction and other land use iplanning. 8. As a result of the County's reliance upon the prior I decision of VDOT and the Board, the County has been severely damaged. 9. The decision is inconsistent with the representations made by VDOT and the Board to induce the County to approve the Parham-Chippenham connector; the.Oounty's approval of the Parham-Chippenham connector was based upon the traffic patterns which would result from an eastern alignment of Route 288. 10. VDOT's and the Board's design and construction to date of the Parham-Chippenham connector is predicated on the eastern alignment of Route 288 which was rejected by the Board. 11. As a result of the Parham-Chippenham connector, and the western alignment of State Route 288, Henrico County can t. expect in excess of 70,000 cars per day spilling into the County between River Road and I-64; among other things, this I., will result in: M 0 0 r< -3- a. An accelerated need to widen River Road to four lanes. b. A potential need to widen Patterson Avenue to six to eight lanes in the vicinity of the Patterson -Parham intersection. c. A grade separation at the intersection of Parham and Patterson Avenues. d. A likely need to widen Parham Road to six lanes between River Road and I-64. e. An accelerated need to widen Gaskins Road to four lanes between Patterson and River Roads. f. A likely need to widen Gaskins Road to six lanes between Patterson and I-64. g. A likely need to widen Lauderdale Avenue to six lanes . 12. The County states its.belief that the decision was based upon inadequate facts. 13. VDOT,and the Board failed to give adequate consideration to the financial impact on Henrico County. 14. The County states its belief that the decision was arbitrary and capricious and without substantial evidence to support it. Suit will be filed, if necessary, in the Circuit Court of the County of Henrico or in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.., -4- RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA i rl By Counsel Joseph P. Rapisarda, Jr. County Attorney W. Todd Benson Assistant County Attorney County of Henrico P. 0. Box 27032 Richmond, Virginia 23273 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal was mailed by regular United States mail, postage prepaid, to each of the following on this 19th day of September, 1988: The Honorable Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Department of Transportation, commonwealth Transportation Board, 1401 East Broad Street,,_Richmond, Virginia 23219; and the Honorable Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia, 101 North 8th Sreet, Richmond, Virginia 23219. Counsel n In COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF HENRICO OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY JOSEPH P. RAPISARDA, JR. COUNTY ATTORNEY JOHN L. KNIGHT GEORGE T. ELMORE, III J.T. TOKARZ W. TODD BENSON RHYSA GRIFFITH SOUTH JAMES A. EICHNER ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS Drew St. J. Carneal, Esq. City Attorney City of Richmond Suite 300 City Hall Richmond, Virginia 23219 James W. Hopper, Esq. Gardner, Moss & Hopper, P.C. 629 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Re: State Route 288 Gentlemen: September 20, 1988 y�61� �g 1920Z�?2�j NJFP 19 � ROADS R I C.SLIRGI N I A 23273 (804) 672-4342 Sterling E. Rives, III, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Fairfax 3900 University Drive Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Steven L. Micas, Esq. County Attorney Chesterfield County P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Attached for your information is a copy of a Notice of Appeal to the selection of the corridor for Route 288. Sincerely, 'W. Todd Benson Enclosure 4 r z�� clOtUN� joy FDMti� SERE �LDci w _ n NOTICE OF APPEAL COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA, V. ) VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, j AND COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD ) SERVE: The Honorable Ray D. Pethtel Commissioner Department of Transportation Chairman Commonwealth Transportation Board Virginia Department of Transportation Richmond, Virginia 23219 In order to protect its rights under Virginia law, including the Administrative Process Act, the County of Henrico, Virginia (hereinafter "the County"), hereby gives the it and ` Virginia Department of Transportation (hereinafter "VDOT"), n II I� the Commonwealth•Transportation Board (hereinafter "the Board") II notice of its intent to sue VDOT and the Board if and as ne cessary over the corridor selection of State Route 288 (hereinafter "the decision"). Among other things, the County states as its grounds for appeal the following: 1. The decision is contrary to the recommendation of the I' Countses of Henrico, Powhatan, and Hanover, and the City of Richmond. to the recommendation of the 2. The decision is contrary VDOT staff as submitted by Chief Engineer Hodge. 3. The decision is contrary to the recommendation of t'� Metropolitan Planning Or (hereinafter Metro I� Richmond P "MPO") . -2- 4. The decision is contrary to the MPO Thoroughfare Plan. 5. Route 288 cannot practically be constructed without federal funds yet the project is ineligible for federal funds since it is in conflict with the MPO Thoroughfare Plan. 6. The decision is not based upon nor does it serve the traffic needs of the Richmond metropolitan area. 7. The decision is inconsistent with VDOT's and the Board's August 28, 1969 decision on corridor selection, which has been relied upon by the County and other local jurisdictions for their road construction and other land use planning. 8. As a result of the County's reliance upon the prior decision of VDOT and the Board, the County has been severely damaged. 9. The decision is inconsistent with the representations made by VDOT and the Board to induce the County to approve the Parham-Chippenham connector; the.dounty's approval of the Parham-Chippenham connector was based upon the traffic patterns which would result from an eastern alignment of Route 288. 10. VDOT's and the Board's design and construction to date of the Parham-Chippenham connector is predicated on the eastern alignment of Route 288 which was rejected by the Board. 11. As a result of the Parham-Chippenham connector, and the western alignment of State Route 288, Henrico County can 4. expect in excess of 70,000 cars per day spilling into the County between River Road and I-64; among other things, this will result in: n In -3- a. An accelerated need to widen River Road to four lanes. b. A potential need to widen Patterson Avenue to six to eight lanes in the vicinity of the Patterson -Parham intersection. c. A grade separation at the intersection of Parham and Patterson Avenues. d. A likely need to widen Parham Road to six lanes between River Road and I-64. e. An accelerated need to widen Gaskins Road to four lanes between Patterson and River Roads. f. A likely need to widen Gaskins Road to six lanes between Patterson and I-64. g. A likely need to widen Lauderdale Avenue to six lanes. 12. The County states its belief that the decision was R based upon inadequate facts. , . 13. VDOT,and the Board failed to give adequate consideration to the financial impact on Henrico County. 14. The County states its belief that the decision was arbitrary and capricious and without substantial evidence to support it. suit will be filed, if necessary, in the Circuit Court of the County of Henrico or in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.- M -4- RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA i By Counsel Joseph P. Rapisarda, Jr. County Attorney W. Todd Benson Assistant County Attorney County of Henrico P. 0. Box 27032 Richmond, Virginia 23273 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal was mailed by regular United States mail, postage prepaid, to each of the following on this 19th day of September, 1988: The Honorable Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Department of Transportation, Commonwealth Transportation Board, 1401 East Broad Street,`Richmond, Virginia 23219; and the Honorable MAry Sue Terry, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia, 101 North 8th Sreet, Richmond, Virginia 23219. Counsel