Loading...
09-25-85 MinutesBOARD OIP SUPERVISORS September 25, 1985 Supervisors in Attendance: ?~r. G. ~. Appl~gate, Chairman Mr. Jesse J. ~ayes, Vice Chairman Mr. Harry G. Daniel b~. R. Garland Dod~ Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. Richard L. ~edrick County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley Balderson, Dir., Econ. Develop. Mr. Kenneth Cronin, Act, Dir,, Personnel Mrs, Doris DeHart, Legislative Coord. Mr. James Gillentine, Nursing Some Admin. Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst. County Administrator Mr. William Howell, Dir. of Gen. Services Mr. Robert Ma~den, Asst. Co. Admin. for Human services Mr. Richard McElfish, Dir. of Env. Eng. Mr. Steve Micas, CO. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of News/Info. Services Mr. Jeffrey Muz~ly, ASSr. CO. Admin, for Development Col. Joseph Pittman~ Chief of Police Mr. Lane Ramsay, Dir. of B~dget & Acctg. Ms. Jean Smith, Dir. of Social Services Mr. R. M. Spencer, Adm. Supervisor Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Exec, Asst., Co. Adm. Mr. Robsrt Waganknecht, Dir. of Libraries Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilitie~ Mr. James Zook, Acting Dir. cf Planning Mr. App]egate called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:00 a.m. (EDST). !. INVOCATION .~r. ~gp!egate introduced Rev. Charles L. Thompson, Senior Pastor of the Southsid~ Church of the Nazarene, who gave the invocation. 2. APPRGVAL OF On mo'rich of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the minutes of September 1~, 1985, as amended, vote: Unanimous 85-703 3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATORt$ COFAMENTS Mr, ~edrick stated the sale of the water and sewer bonds was completed in New York this week and everything was in order. Mrs. Girone stated that she was glad this was reported in public as a citizen indicated they were unaware of this action. Mr, Hedrick stated there had been numerous public work se~ions and everything was accomplished properly and legally. 4, BOA~/) COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Dodd stated there was a meetinq Of the Capital Region Airport Commission at which the name of {<!~e Airport was changed to Richmond International AirDort, Byr~ Field. HS stated the construction and cost is still on schedule for the expansion. Mr. Mayes stated he attended a Federa~L ~._edit Union Banquet at the Marriott ~epresenti~g ~h~ County and attended a New~ Conference at the Metro Center in conjunction with "Business Week" in the Metropolitan area this week, Mrs. ~irone stated she attended a ~tate ' DeveloI~ment seminar at the Hyatt and t~ marcher present from the Richmond Region' which was disappointing because of the~. i~$ue. She stated it was a very good effort~ in regard to economic development. ,qent oi Economic only one staff ,~ning Commission ,ivement in this ~f the State's Mrs. ~irone stated she attended a meeting at Maymont wherm there was a reception for Ms. Louise Burke, who wrote a book on the parks in the region in which Chesterfield is recognized. Mrs. Girone stated she participated in a 5eagle of Women Voters, Women in Polltios session. She stated the Water Resources Task Force met at the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (t~R~DC) and it is turning into a major issue. She stated they are beginning the statewide water plan and the advisory committee to the Water Control Board has reco~uended five pieces of legislation which would create inter-basin transfer by permit which means that the State Water Control Board could control the economic development of bhe Commonwealth through the ~llocation of water by allewinq water to be transferred from one area to another. She stated the regional committee at the RRPDC includes all the communities in the Appomattox Basin as well as ~elia. She Stated ~owhatan County discussed this matter and instructed their Board m~hber to talk with Chesterfield County. She stated the report from the RRPDC suggested that Amelia and Powhatan talk with Chesterfield as the County doez own property that could be a dam site for Lake Genito in the future. She stated the lon~ range projection is that Chesterfield County will need another water source and most are l~oking at the Lake Genlto con,apt, Sba mtated the question is whether the localities should work together and work out an arrangement and do its own thing before the state 9ets into a water plan and has the power to authorize various uses of the water. She stated discussions of this matter will be handled through the Committee at the RRPDC. There was additional discussion regarding laws that allow jurisdictions tO take water from othe~ jurisdictions, etc. Mrs. Girona stated she attended the Virginia Municipal League Conference in Roanoke at which the Virginia Association of Counties Transportation Committee met and they will be presenting recommend~hio~%s supporting a bond referendum baaed on the economic needs ,Df the Commonwealth at the VACO annual meeting in November. Mrs. Girone sta~ed she m~t with %he Gordon School Athletic Association to discuss their athletic needs regarding the bond 85-704 ® © referendnm, She stated she met with Mr. Morrison of the Ramsgate Subdivision as there was a problem with pot holes and the tar and gravel. She stated this brings up an issue of what th~ County requires the developers to do initially with regard to roads, ii we should go to a requirement cf plant mix from a maintenance aspect as tar and gravel is a waste of money as it has to be redone over and over. Mrs. Girone stated she went to the opening of the Sixth Street Market Place. She stated she met informally with a member of each of the Pcwhatan and Goochland Boards as well as Mr. Ted Thompson of the Tuckahoe Plantation regarding plans to extend Route 288 and how it would help Chesterfield's position if they were also in support of our plans. She stated ~he also met with four ci-~ic associations to discuss the bond referendum. Mr. Daniel stated he met with the Meadowbrook Civic Association and reviewed the bond referendum. He stated he attended a dinner for Senator Byrd at the Marriott, he attended the Metro Contour reception and the RRPDC meeting. He stated with regard to economic development, there is a co~ittee chartered by the current chairman of the P~RPDC and they have had a meeting and will be reporting back relating to issue~ that affect development but not necessarily regarding recruitment. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the water needs situation referred to by Mrs. Girone could not be more apparent than it was in New York. He stated their reservoir is under 45% capacity and normally it is 75-80% and they have taken measures to reduce consumption as it is critical. 5~ P~EQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION~ F2~RGENCY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES IN T~E ORDER OF PRESENTATION on motion of Mr. Dodd~ seconded by Mr. Mayas the Board added Item 6.D., Resolution Recognizing Senator Fred Gray; added Item 10.F.4.g., Water Contract for Hunt Club Apartments; added to existing Item 1O.B.i., Bingo Permit Request from L. C. Bird Athletic Boosters Club; added to existing Item 1O.H., Executive Session, for consultation with legal counsel regarding legal matters concerning the County Cafeteria pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (6) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel requested that the County Attorney investigate the bingo laws, especially in regard to athletic associations, schools, other such service organizations in the County, if the bureaucracy can be ~liminated or reduced regarding these permits. Mr. Micas stated he would investigate the matter. 6. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION 6.A. RECOGNIZING MS. NOSE G. DUNDALOW, NURSING HOME Mr. Cronin introduced Mr. Gillentine, Administrator of the Lucy Corr Nursing Home. Mr. Gillentine introduced Ms. Rose G. Dundalow and briefly outlined her working experience with the County. On motion of the Board, the fei!owing resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Ms. Nose G. Dundalow will retire from the ~ursing ~eme, Chesterfield County, on. September 27, 1985; and WHEREAS, Ms. Dundalow has provided 15 years of quality service to the citizens cf Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss MS. Dundalow's diligent service. 85-705 ® © NOW THEBEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board of Supervisors pablicly recognizes Ms. Dundalow and extends Qn behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for her service to the County. AND HE IT FURTHER RESOLVHD, that a copy of this resolution be presented ~o MS. Dundalow and that this resolutlo~ be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chssterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous bls. Dundalow stated how much she had enjoyed working with the County. Mr. Appletato presented Mrs. Dundalow with the executed resolution. 6.B. P~COGNIZIMG DR. SEIDA GOMEZ, LIBRARY SERVICES Mr. Cronin introduced Mr. Robert Wagenknecht, Director of Librar Services. Mr. ~.~genknecht introduced Dr. Seida Gomez and briefl reviewed her ~.. "ice with the County. On motion of th. board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Dr. Seida Gomez will retire from the Library Services Department, Chesterfield County, on October 1, 1985; an W}tEREAS, Dr. Gomez has provided 17 years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss Dr. Gomez's diligent service. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RBS0LVED, that this Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Dr. Gomez and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for her service to the County. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Dr. Gomez and that this resolution be permanentl recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented Dr. Gomez with the executed re~olution. Dr. Gomes expressed appreciation for the recognition and stated she ~njoyed working for the County. 6.c. RECOGNITIOH ~ GOVERlqOR'S SCHOOL FOR GIFTED Mr. Stith introduced Mr. Rarlan L. South and MS. April M. Quarls who were selected to attend the Governor's School for the Gifted. He stated this involved competition across the state and reflects positively on the County school system. On mo%ion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, MS. April Michelle Quarles is a student at Matoaca Bigh School and ranks in the top five of her senior high school class; and WHEREAS, Her academic pursuits have led her to take advanced university courses in math, computer, and engineering; and WHeReAS, Ms. Quarles is an active member in various clubs, activities and organizations in both her school and community; and 85-706 © © ~REAS, She is a member in good standing of the National Honor Society, National French ~onor Society, and a member of the ~ion Saptist Church; and WKEREAS, She was selected and attended the Governor's School for the Gi~ted at Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University. T~EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE, D, that the Board of Supervisors congratulates Ms. Quarles on these outstanding achievements and wishes her continued succes~ in her educational career. Vof~: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented the executed resolution to Ms. Quarles. On motion of 'the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Harlan Luke South is a senior at Matoaca High School and ranks in the top five of his senior cla~s and is both th~ President of the student body and the Vice President of the senior class; and WHeReAS, H~ is active in numerous school organizations and activities which include the National Honor Society, Preach National Historical Society, Key Club, Science Club, Foren~ics Club, school newspaper and the yearbook staff; and Wt{~R~AS~ He hopes to continue his studies after ~raduation; and WHEREAS~ Mr. South was chosen to attend the Governor's School for tko Gifted at Mary Baldwin College and Boys State. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors congratulates Mr. South on these outstanding accomplishments and wishes him continued success in his educational pursuits. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate pre,anted the executed resolution to Mr. South. Mr. Maye~ recognized and welcomed the Principal of Matoaca High School, Mrs. Alenla Wilder, and Ms. Quarlcs' father who were also present. 6.D. RECOGNITION HONORING SENATOR FREDERICK T. ~PJ%Y Mr. Daniel stated a dinner was being held in honor of Senator Frederick T. Gray and offered the following resolution for consideration to be presented at that time. On motion of the Board, the fol!owin9 re~olution was adopted: WHEREAS, The Honorable Frederick T. Gray has served Chesterfield County end the Commonwealth of Virginia with distinction and honor for many years; and WHEREAS, His gift of caring add his many deeds of excellence have provided for all citizens a brighte~ future; and WHEH~AS, Hi~ leadership has been an admiring force in all our accomplishments; and WHEREAS, Bis service in the General Assembly of Virginia i~ pursuit of fair and equitable laws for all citizens has presente~ an example o~ citizenship to inspire all for generations to come. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County ~oar( of Supervisors hereby commends the Honorable Frederick T. Gray ox ~5-707 © © his n~ny accomplishments and wishes for him and for his lovely wife many years of happiness. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel recognized Delegate N. Leslie Saunders who was present and instrumental in setting up the dinner. Mr. Applegate stated the resolution would be presented by Mr. Redriek. 7. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS Mr. ~edrick stated there were no citizens scheduled for this meeting. 8~ DEFERRED ITEMS 8.A. APPOINTMB~TS - YOUTH BE~VICR$ COM~IIS~iON It was generally agreed that the appointments to the Youth Services Commission, one each for Midlothian and Clover Hill Districts, be deferred until October 9, 1985. 8.B. APPOIETMENTS - CITIZENS COMMITTEE ~OH CONSIDEP~TION OF A CHARTER On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board nominated Dr. Chong M. Pek to the Citizens Committe~ for Consideration of a Charter representing Midlothian District which formal appointment would be made at the October 9, 1985 meeting. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate stacsd that he had not received a confirmation from the person he would like to nominate at this time but he would at the October 9, 1985 mseting. It was generally agreed that the rules of the Board of Supervisors would be suspended at the October 9, 198~ meeting to allow the ~ominatien and appointment of a Clover Rill District representative at the same meeting. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred appointment of the Citizens Cow~ittee for Consideration of a Charter until October 9, ]985. Vote: Unanimous 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Nedrick indicated there were no public hearings scheduled this meeting. 1~. N-EWBUSINESS 10.A. BUDGET ISSUES 10.A.1. REQUEST FROM CMRISTNAS MOT~IER COMMITTEE FOR 1985 Mr. Hedge introduced Mrs. Carrie Rogers, the 1985 Christmas Mother. Mrs. Rogers stated that the Board ha~ always supported the Christmas Program ~n th~ past and she requested an additional appropriation of $500 to the alresdy budgeted $2,500. She outlined the adopted families programs, the self-referred families, e~c. and stated because of the economic conditions there bare been additional requests for help. She stated they have also requested additional financial assistance from Col0nia] Heights as well and hoped this would also be approved. She 85-708 invited the Board .to visit the Christmas Mother operation between December 6,-22, ]9~5 at the Fair Grounds Building. She stated hundreds of people are in~.o!ved in this program, the schools, private organizations, citizens, etc. She stated the Committee is dedicated to make certain no child goes without Christmas. She presented the Board with a letter and fact sheet on the accomplishments and needs. She introduced Ms. Jean Smith and Ms. Linde Aspirall who were also present. On motion of ~r. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board appropriated an additional $500 from the General Fund Contingency to the already budgeted $2,500 (total of $3,000) for the Christmas Mother program. Vote 10..A.2. ADJUSTMg~T TO REd, TH DEPARTMENT AND NURSING HOME BUDGETS Mr. ~asden stated that when the 1985~86 budget was adopted, all the figures were not in for the Health Department because it is cooperative budget with the State providing 55%. He stated in the interim the Btate has reviewed the Health Department's operetion and agreed that additional staff is necessary to meet the demands. He stated th~ administrative stsff has done all that can be done to accommodate the work load with existing sta~ but in order to handle the ever increasing work load and provide services in a reasonable time, additions1 staff is necessary. stated also, because of the Nursing Home Management initiatives, they will not need the entire $400,000 supp].ement that was appropriated for the'ceming year. ~[e ststed by reallocating of the funds from the Nursing !{ems to the Health Department, a transfeu and no additional appropriation will be needed from tbs ~oard to match the $89,264 additional funds from the State for the additional staff. Mr. Hedrick stated the unused Nursing ~{ome supplement would normally return to the General Fund at the end of the year. He stated there bas been basically a freeze an State Health Department budgets in past years and this yea: the State p~evided additional money and not within the normal budget cycle. Ha stated the County is faced with the need and in the past the Beard has considered this type of situation on a ease by case basis, dealing with service levels. Be stated this year additional funds ars being provided in the amount of $89,264. stated that since $400~000 was allocated to the ~uman Service area, the Nursing Hone, that the transfer could be made without affectinq the Beard's contingency or the fund balance. Mr. Dodd staled he felt uncomfortable this early in the budget year seeing th=t tl%ere is $86,422 available ~rom the Nursing budget which was requested as a supplement. He stated he knows the Health Department runs au efficient operation but to suggest a ~% reduction in an appropriation at this time, just does not seem to be justified. Mrs. Girone stated this is for the curren~ budget and 'that the last year's figures fer closing OUt the Health Department budget have not been received yet, but when th~ budget ~a~ approved, the Board indicated there were items for ths Mental Health Department, Fire Department, etc. that could possibly be funded when the year end figures were received. She stated that the Board should look into last year's funds and wha~ the balance may be. Mr. Bedrick stated there is a time constraint at this time because if the funds are net matched, they will be unavailable to the County. ~e ~tated he would like to have waited to see the results of the year end figures and other requests. He stated this request will allow you to be abl~ to continue a service level that the Board has actually been losing on, whereas the other~ are new or expanded programs. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the problem i~ that two months ago 85-709 © the Board budgeted $400,000 and now staff is indicating they can eliminate $86,422 from that appropriation. Mz. Bedrick stated although the budget is adopted in June, it is put together in January and Pebruary and that it was a Subsidy and staff tried to account for the worst situation. Me stated through management initiatives, etc. the staff does try to reduce the subsidy as much as pos~ibl, e. Mr. Dodd skated he did not question the uze of the funds for the tIealth Department, only where the money was ¢omin~ from. Mr. Daniel i~',~luired if it would be more appropriate to take the money from 'toe c~"'~eral Fund and then when the year ~nd figures are resolved, t~ ~oard co~l~ review the commitments that were made to other p~'. ~¢'~cts and %0 this issue and make the adjustments at that time. ~ Appleqate stated he felt it would be better to take the money from a~ ~l~eady a!loc~ted sum. Mr. Daniel stated that he was concerned si£~ce it is only 3 months into the budget year, thst there may be a request to recover that $86,422 at the end of the year. He stated the contingency account is for such emergencies ss this and then adjustments can be made as the year progresses. Mr. Applegate stated that would amount to an appropriation of $486,422 with which he would be uncomiortable. Mr. Nedrick stated staff did 'take the worse situation for the subsidy needed in an effort nsf to have to request an additional appropriation at year end and try to reduce the subsidy through management initiatives. Mr. Dodd stated he would rather have staff request what they felt actually necessary. Mr. ~pplegate stated that he was concerned that the Board started out with a $500,000 c0n~ingescy and within two months it has been reduced by half. The Board indicated this discussion was noh one of the Nealth Department and its needs, but from where the matching funds would be taken. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board transferred $86,422 from the Nursing Nome supplement to the Eealth Department budget which allows the County to match additional state funds in the cooperative budget. Vote: Unanimous 10.B. CONSENT ITEMS 1O.B.1. REQUESTS FOR BINGO AND OR RAFFLE PERMITS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by F~, Dodd, the Board approved the requests for bingo and/or raffle permits from the Midlothian High School Music Boosters, the Monacao High School Athletic BoOsters and the L. C. Bird School Athletic Boosters for calendar year ~985. Vote: UDanimous 10.B,2. STATE ROAD ACCE~TANC~ This day the County Environmental Engineer~ in accordance with directions f~om this Board, made report in writing ~p0n his examination of Geelou Road, Genlou Circle and Genlou Court in Morningside Woods, Sectio~ 2, Matoaca District. ~pon conside~ati0n whereof, and on ~otion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, ;t is resolved that Genlou Road, Genlou ~ircle and Genlou Court in Morningside Woods, Section 2, Matoaca District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it flit%her resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested %o take into the Secondary System, Genlou Road, beginning where 85-710 ® © State Maintenance .ends, Genlou Road, State Route 3097, and going 0.05 mile northwesterly to the intersection with Genlou Court, then continuing 0.06 mile westerly to the intersection with Genlou Circle, =hen continuing 0.04 mile southerly to tie into proposed Genlou Road; Genlou Court, beginning at the intersection with Genlou Road and going 0.06 mile northerly to a cul-de-sac; and Gentou Circle, beginning at the intersection with Genlou Road and going 0.03 mile northwesterly to a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distance These roads serve 27 lots, And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guaran- tees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50' right-cf-way for all of these roads except for Genlou Circle which has a right-of-way. This section of Morningside Woods is recorded as fellows: Section 2. Plat Rook 43, Pages 13 & 14, May 24, 1983. This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Harbour Pointe Road~ Bayport Landing Road, Bayport Landing Terrace and Bayport Landing Court in a portion of Rockport Landing and Bayport Landing, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Harbcur Pointe Road, Bay~ort Landing Roadr Bayport Landing Terrace and Bayport Landin COUrt in a portion of Rockport Landing and Bayport Landing, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established a~ public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the ~econdary ~ystem, Marbonr ~ointe Road~ beginning where State Maintenance ends, Harbour Pointe Road, State Route 3200, and going 0.40 mile westerly to the intersection with Bayport Landing Road; Bayport Landing Road, beginning at the intersection with Harbour Polnte Road and going 0.04 mile northerly to the intersection with Bayport Landing Terrace, then continuing 0.09 mile westerly to a cul-de-sac; Bayport Landing Terrace, beginning at the intersection with Bayport Landing Road and going 0.05 mile easterly to the intersection with Bayport Lan~ing Court~ then continuing 0.Io mile southerly to a cul-de-sac~ and Bayport Landing Court, beginning at the inter- section with Bayport Landing Terrace and going 0.04 mile southeasterly to a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distance easements. These roads serve 41 lots. And be it further resolved~ that the Board of S'dpervisors guaran- tees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 40' right-of-way for all cf these roads except Narbouz Polnte Road which has a variable 80' to 120' right-of-way. These sections of Rockport Landing and Bayport Landing are recorded as follows: Rockport Landing. Plat Book 34, Pages 30 & 31, August 1, 1979. Beyport Landing. Plat Book 34, Pages 98 & 99, November 7, 1979. 85-711 © © This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Hackberry Road and Starpine Lane in Bermuda Gardens, Section C, Bermuda District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Hackberry Road and Starpi~: Lane in Bermuda Gardens, Section C, Bermuda District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of ttighways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Hackberry Road, beginning at the intersection with State Street, State Route 698, and going 0,11 mile easterly to the intersection with Starpine Lane, then continuing 0.03 mile easterly to a dead end; and Starpine Lane, beginning at the intersection with ~ackberry Road and going 0.06 mile southerly tc tie into existing Starpine Lane, State Route 2488. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distance These roads serve t8 lots. Also, by virtue of thes~ roads providing a public service, they may be added to the system as an addition under Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guaran- tees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50~ right-of-way for ali of these roads. This section of Bermuda Gardens is recorded as follows: Section C. Plat Hook 39, Page 14, July 17, 1981. This day the County Environmental Engineer, in aooordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Old Creek Road, Laught0n Drive, Laughton Court and -Ashmeade Place in Old Creek West, Sections 4, 5 and 6, Clover Eill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Old Creek Road, !,aughton Drive, Laughton Court and Ashmeade Place in 01d Creek West, Sections 4, 5 and 6, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highway~ and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Old Creek Road, beginning where State Maintensnce ends, Old Creek Road, State Route 2222, and going 0.02 mile easterly to the intersection with Laughton Drive, then continuing 0.05 mile easterly to the intersecti6n with Dare} Lane, then continuing 0.05 mile easterly to the intersection will Ashmeade Place, then continuing 0.03 mile easterly to a dead end; Laughton Drive, beginning a% the intereaction with Old Creek Rea6 and going 0.06 mile southwesterly to the intersection with Laughton Court, then continuing 0.04 mile southwesterly to a temporary turnaround; Laughton Court, beginning at the inter- section with Laughton Drive and going 0.03 mile southeasterly tO 85-712 © © a cul~de--sac~ a~ Ashmeade Place, beginning at the intersection ~4ith Old Creek Road and going 0.03 mile southwesterly to a This request is inclusive of the adjace~'~t slope and site distance These scads serve 32 lots. Also, by rjr'rue of *~,~se roads providing a public service, they may be added to t~ ~tem as an addition under Section 33.I-229 of the Code of Vi~t~ And be it further ~ t.ved, that the Board of Supervisors guaran-. taws to the ~irgiD: · .,partment of Highways a 50' right-of-way for all of these These sections of Old Creek West are recorded as follows: Section 4. Section 5. Section 6. Plat Book 40, Page 31, December 8, 1981. Plat Hook 41, Pa~e 25, July 6, 19B2. Plat Hook 43, Page 88, August 31, 1983. 10.B.3. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL INVESTIGATIONS AGREEMENT FOR POLIC~ On motion of Mrs. Gi~0ne, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the Chief of Police to enter into an a~reement authorizing m~lti-jurisdictional investigations between Chesterfield, Menrico, Richmond and the State Police which will be accomplished within existing budget constraints. Vote: Unanimous 10.C. GROUP HOMES OPEn, TED BY ENVIRONMENT FOR HU~Wk%N SERVICES Mr. Masden stated the Environment for Human Services, Inc. is a private for profit corporation, operating group home$ in the County as well as other localities. Me stated there are three operating in the County currently and numerous complaints have been received from citizens in th~ vicinity of the homes regardino the children who are in the homes. He s~ated when the homes first began, the children were not severely disturbed but the trend is changing to allow severely disturbed children to be placed there. Ee stated since the County does not supervise or have any licensing authority, staff has relayed the concerns to the State. Me stated the State has indicated there is an investigation cB~rently underway and they are also concerned. He stated another point of concern is that when a child ia placed by the Co~rt with the Social Services Department, we have little option as it is very difficult to have that child placed and get services and treatment. He stated staff feels that the two State Departments of Social Services and Mental Health and Mental Retardation should work with the County and other localities to see if we can get some options for placement better than we have now. Mrs. Girone stated that the community has been concerned about the operation of one of the~e homes on Pinetta Drive since its inception and the children are out of control and it has beer reported. She stated there is a long history of problems with the home and they are concerned about the children as well as th~ neighborh.oed and wlth the recent death of the child in Richmond it ha$ focuGed more attention on this operation. On motion of Mrs. Girone~ seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, Environment for Human Services, Inc. operates thre~ Group Homes located within the County of Chesterfield; and 85-713 Wberea~r Ther~ h~ve beeq numerous ~omp!aints ~rom citizens in the vicinity of these homes concerning the level of supervision provided for the children placed in these homes; and Wkereas, Our local ~.an Services Agency staff have relayed these complaints to the State Department of Mental Health/Mental Retardation which is the licensing agency without significant resslts; and Whereas, Many of the children bein~ placed in these homes are more severely emotionally disturbed than in the past; and Whereasr It appears that Environment for Human Services, Ins has not msin~ned adequate staff to deal appropriately with the condition of t!.~ 'Dildren being placed in the~e homes; and Whereas, An · .:r-growing nuF~er of children with severe emotional problc~ are ~eing placed in the custody of local Social Service D,'~)artments without appropriate resources er options availab~ for placing such children. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisor~ of Chester£ield ~:ounty that the State Department of Mental Health/Mental Retardation initiate a thorough investigation of the operation of the homes operated by the EnviroD/uent for ~%iman Services, Ins. in Chesterfield County. Be It Further Resolved that the Stats Department of Mental ~ealth/Mental Retardation and Social Services develop plans in conjunction with local Social Services and Community Services Boards, for the provision of appropriate ~esources and options for placement of such children %0 alleviate this critical problem. 10.D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 10.D.i. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the installation of street lights at the following locations with any necessary fund~ ~o be expended from the District Street Light Funds as indicated: l. Barberry Court and Barberry Lane, Bermuda 2. N. Enon Church Road and Mount Blanco Road, Bermuda 3. 5524 Kay Road, Bermuda 4. 10O0 Turner Road, Clover Hill 5. Marhleridge Road and Clearlake Road, Clover Hill 6. Battenburg Place and Ctearlake Road, Clover ~ill 7. N. Vickilee Road and Clearlake Road, Clover 8. Cheyney Circle and Clearlake Road, Clover Bill 9. 2920 Emblem Drive, Dale 10+ Robious Road and Early Settlers Road, Midlothian Vote: Unanimous 10.D.2. CONTRACT FOR IMPROV~4ENTS 'AT AIRiOORT INDUSTRIAL PARK On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board: 1. Appropriated $23,732 from the Airport Industrial Park Reserve for Upgrading of Virginia Pine Court and the capping of the emergency road, 2. Authorized the County Administrator to enter into a contract with Shoosmith Brothers for the above mentioned work in an amount not to exceed $23,732. 85-714 10.D.3. ORDINANCETRHGAFJ~NG CONDITIONAL USES FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITY USES TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW On motion oX Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation, an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending Sections 21-3, 21-80, 21-81, 21-150 and.21-15t relating to public and private utility uses as conditional uses. 10.H~ MERC. ER OF STOF~R COPS~;UNICATIONS WITH SCI MERGEB CORP. M~. Micas explained that the current franchise agreement with St0rer Communications requires the Board to approve any substantial management or financial changes with regard to the Cable T.V. company. He stated Storer was subject to an adversarial takeover several months ago and in defense of that takeover attempt, Storer has worked out an arrangement that they will become a subsidiary of a larger company known as SC! Merger. Be stated they will no longer be publicly traded and will in fact insulate themselves from adversarial take0ver~, He stated this has been termed a leverage buyout which means that the holding company taking over Storer has had to borrow money to accomplish, the takeover and this cost of the borrowing will have to be paid back through the earnings of Storer Cable. Mr. Daniel stated this concept wss discussed last year which the Board was assured that that would never have anything to do with rates locally. Mr. Micas stated if the Board has any questions regarding service levels, rates, etc., Mr. Sa~nders and'Mr. MacNei!ly were present. ~e stated there is no legal justification by which the County could reject this transaction. ~_r. DanieJ. stated he had no problem with the transaction but was not endorsing any changes in services, rates, personal commitments, etc. of the local affiliate. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the fo!]~wing resolution: Whereas, Chesterfield County, Virginia, enacted an ordinance on November 22, 197B, setting forth the terms and conditions for the regulation of a cable television system (CATV) and providing for the award of a franchise; and Whereas, Chesterfield County granted a CATV franchise tc Chesterfield Cablevision, a subsidiary of Storer Co~nmunications, in June, 1979; and Whereas, Section 7-10 of the franchise agreement between Chesterfield County and Chesterfield Cablevision requires the consent of the Board of Supervisors to the recapitalization and merger plan of Storer Communications, Incorporated, the parent company of Chesterfield Cablevision to the extent to which the recapitalization plan, as set ~orth in the merger agreement (the "Plan"), involves a change of stockholders of Storer Communications, Incorporated; and Whereas, Chesterfield Cablevision has requested that such consent be granted. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved: Section 1. Approval and consent is hereby given for the assignment and transfer of control of the CATV franchise held by Chesterfield Cablevision, pursuant to the Plan. Section 2. That this Resolution shall become effective upor its passage and approval. Vote: Unanimous 85-715 10.F. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS 10.F.1. REPORTS Mr. Welchon$ presented the Board with a list of developer wate~ and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. t0.R.2. PUBLIC B~AKING TO CONSIDER CONVEYANCE OF PARCEL OF LAND dONG REAb~S ROAD Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of a parcel of land along Reams Road to Mr. and Mrs. R. L. Brown, III and Agnes E. B. Cain. ~%ere was no one present to discuss the matter. On motion of Mrs. GirOne, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the conveyance of the 0.17 acre parcel of land along Reams Road to Mr. and Mrs. R. L. Brown, III and Agnes E. B. Cain and authorized the Cl~airman o~ the Board and the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed; a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board. This parcel is in exchange for a water easement across the remainder of their property and is in excess o~ the ultimate Reams Road right of way. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.3. CONTRACT FOR COALFIELD WATER LINE On motion of Mrs. Giro~e, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for Contract W85-1B, for construction of a 24" water line on Coalfield Road to F. L. Showalter, Incorporated, in the amount of $400,820 based on ductile iron pipe. It is noted that funds for this project have been appropriated under prior Capital Improvement Budgets; therefore, no additional appropriation is necessary. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Dodd inquired if this was out of the bond funds. Mr. Welchens stated it was. Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone inquired if this line would be constructed on the west side of Coalfield Road. Mr. Welchons. stated where the citizens were concerned, th( line would be shifted to the west side. ~LrS. Girone stated there is a lauy located across fr~m Watkins School, going north or behind the Monacan bailfiel~, who is intares=ed in public water and inquired if water can be extended. Mr. Welshons stated he would be glad to check into this matter. Mrs. Gircne inquired if this line were jus~ going to the south side o~ Watkins School. Mr. Welchons stated this is the first of a two phase project. He stated plans for the continuation involved some discussion on alignment for Powhite, etc. for the re~t of the line coming to the Genito Road area. He stated the plans are basically complete and will be advertised this week. Mrs. Girone inquired about water between Carriage Hills and Watkin~ School. Mr. Welchons stated there is water in that section of Coalfield Road. 10.~.3.b. CONTRACT FOR AIRPORT WATER PUMPING STATIO~ On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents for Contract W85-45B for construction of the Airport Water Pu~ping Station in the amount of $778,279 to Norcarva Construction, Incorporated, base~ on recommendations from Wiley Wilson Consulting Engineers. It is noted that funds for this 85-716 @ project have been appropriated under prior'Capital Improvement Budgets; ~herefore, ne a~ditional appropriation is necessary. Mrs. Girone expressed concern about iow bids and what the results could be. Mr. ~{edrick stated quality checks are accomplished and if the~e are substantive reasons for rejecting the low bid, then the County has options of rejecting the low bid and accepting the second bid or rejecting all bids. Mrs. Cirone inquired about estimate. Mr. Welchons stated the estimate was $1,000,000 but staff does not anticipate any problems. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.3.c. SEWER CONTRACT F~.~R REYMET ROAD AND FRIEND AVENUE On motion of Mr. Dedd, seconde~ by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for sewer contract $83-66C/7($)366E for construction o5 sewer lines to serve the Reymet Road and Friend Avenue area to the low bidder, G. L. Howard, IncorpOrated, in the ~mount of $364,08~.17, and further the Board appropriated $125,000.00 which provides for a contingency from 5P-5835-900R (Extensions Fund) tc 5P-5835~366E. It is noted that the amount previously appropriated was $300,000.00. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.3.d. AID DEVELOPER IN ACQUIRING EASEMENT ON CROOKED BRANCH On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized the Right of Way Division to aid Pioneer Financial Services in acquiring sewer easements along Crooked Branch to serve Wrexham Estates provided the developer executes a contract agreeing to pay for all the costs involved. 10.F.4. CONSENT ITEMS 10.F.4.a. SEWER CONTRACT FOR HUNT CLUB APARTMENTS On motion Mr. Oodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer contract: Sewer Contract Number S85-121CD/7(8)5C1M; Hunt Club Apartments, Off$ite Sewers Developer: Brandermill - Oxford Limited Partnership Contractor= J. Steven Cha~in, Incorporated Total Contract Cost: $62,973.74 Total Estimated County Cost: $37,721.19 (Refund from Connection Fees) Estimated Developer COSt: $25,252.55 Number of Connections: 0 Code: 5N-2511-997 Vote: Unanin~ous 10.F.4.b. SEWER CONTRACT FOR FINCHLEY.~ SECTIONS A AND B On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary 85-717 © © documents for the~f~ilowing ~ewer contract: Sewer Contract Number S85-116CD; Finehley, Sections A and H; offsite Sewer Lings Developer: Strum Land Corporation Contractor: Castle Equipment Corporation Total Contract Cos%: $68,525.26 Total Estimated County Cost: $50,400.00 (Refund from Connection Peesl Estimated Developer Cost: $18,125.26 Number of ConnecSions: 24 Code: 5N-2511-997 10.F.4.C. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG WINTERPOCE ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents, accepting on behalf of the County, the conveyance of 35' strip of land along Winterpock Road from Ray Kemp ~aynes and Sharon T. Haynes. Vote: Unanimous VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG BRADLEY BRIDGE RO~ On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman of the Hoard and County Administrator to execute the necessary quit-claim deed vacating a 20' drainage easement across a parcel of land along Bradley Bridge Road owned by John Daniel Robbins, I~I. VACATION OF EASEMENT ADJACENT TO HEATHEEIDG~ SEC, On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Beard approved and authorized tbs Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to execute the necessary quit-claim deed vacating a drainage easement across a parcel of land adjacent to Heatheridge, Section 1 owned by SAMCO Development Corp. l~.F.4.f. VACATION OF PORTION OF EASEM~N~ ALONG HUGUENOT ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seeoaded by Mr. Mayes, the Boar~ approved and authorized the Chairman of the Hoard and County Administrate! to execute the necessary quit-claim deed vacating a portion of a 20' drainage easement across a parcel of land along Huguenot Roa¢ owned by Southeastern Associates, Incorporated. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.4.g. WATER CONTRACT FOR HUNT CLUB APARTMENTS On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayee, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contact: Water Contract Number W85-155CD; Eunt Club Apartments, Phas~ I Developer: Brandermill-Oxford Development Enterprises, Inc Contractor: J. Steven Chafin, Inc. 85-718 Total Contract Cost: $152,567.55 Total Estimated County Cost: 35~010.15 (Refund through Connection Fees) Estimated Developer Cost: $117,557.40 Nut. ar of Connections: 8 (i76 Apartment Units) Code: 5E-2511-997 Vote: Unanimous 10.G. REPORTS Mr. Hedrick presented the Hoard with reports on the status of the General Fund Contingency Account and on the Volunteer Services Program. Mrs. Girone stated the letter included in the report on Volunteer Services to Mrs. DeHart very nice and commended Mrs. DeHart on a fine job. Mr. Medrick stated the County had been officially notified that the roads in the following subdivisions had been formally accepte into the State Secondary System, effective September 9, 1985: Walton Park - Sections H & K Glenpark Lane - From Route 1385 to 0.03 mile northwest of Fennimore Road. 0.13 mi. Glenshade Drive - From Route 1084 to Glenpark Lane. 0.1t mi. Fennimore Road - From 0.04 mile southwest of Glenpark Lane to 0,03 mile northeast of Fennimore Terrace. 0.14 mi. Fennimore Terrace - From Fennimore Road to a southeast cul-de-sac. 0.08 mi. Queenemill - Sections C-2 and C-3 Kingcross Road ~ From 0.04 mile north of Route 1384 to 0.03 mile north of Castleway Road. 0.07 mi. Castleway Road - From Ringscross Road to 0.02 mile west of Lady Jean Court. 0.27 mi. ~enhy"s Place -.From CastlQway Road to a southwest cul-de-sac. 0.DB mi. Lady Jean Court - ~rom Castleway Road to a south cul-de-sac. 0.09 mi. Walton Park - ~eetions E, J-2 and J-) Watch Hill Road - From Route 1385 to a south cul-de-sac. 0.25 mi. Watch Hill Terrace - From Watch Hill Road to an east cul-de-sac. 0.09 mi. Carefree Court - From Watch Hill Road to an east cul-de-sac. 0.04 mi. Watch Point West - From Watch Hill Road to a west cul-de-sac. 0.04 mi. Watch Point East - From Watch Hill Road to an east cul-de-sac. 0.05 mi. 85-719 EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board went into ~xecutive Session to consider legal matters concerning Plantation Pipeline Company v. Chesterfield County, Virginia and to consult with legal counsel regarding the County Cafeteria pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (6) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board suspended the rules to allow inc3~. '{on of an emergency item involving Plantation Pipe Line Company. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Patterson, Assistant County Attorney, stated that state law provides for a procedure by which the County can file a petition with the State Corporation Commission and request their technical staff to look into environmental and safety issues of the operation of any public service corporation such as the pipe line facility. On motion of the Beard, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, in 1964, Plantation Pipe Line Company constructed in the County of Chesterfield an eight inch pipeline for the transportation of liquid petroleum products, approximately fourteen miles in length; and Whereas, since. 1964, the County has experienced a growth rate in excess of the national average, and several residential subdivisions have been constructed on property through which the pipeline runs; and Whereas, Plantation Pipe Line Company has now proposed to construct an additional, larger pipeline in the same easement; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors is concerned that an additional and larger pipeline constructed in such proximity to an existing pipeline in existing and proposed residential subdivisions may increase the risk of accident and injury. Now, Therefoze, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors directs the County Attorney to file a petition with the State Corporation commission requesting a determination of the nature and extent of the risks of the construction and operation of an additional fourteen-inch pipeline, the appropriate depth of such lines, the minimum proximity to dwellings and the feasibility of alternative routes. Vote: Unanimous It was generally agreed the Board would recess for lunch at the Airport Crosswind Restaurant. The Board on its way to lunch toured the Circuit Court Clerk's ' oflice and viewed a demonstration of the computer assisted deed recording system. 85-720 b~ presiding. 1Q.I. REQUESTS FOR MOBILE HOME PERMITS 8~SR13~ I~ Bermuda Msgisterial District, Mrs. Betty M. Kaye requested r~newal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property f~onting the north llne of Freedom Lane approximately 600 feet w~st of Shady Lane and better known as 3032 Freedom Lane. Tax ~,l~p 53-2 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 16). | Mrs. Kaye was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved t~is request for a peri~ ef five years subject to the following s~andard condition~: The applicant sbai1 be the owner and occupant of the mobile No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, recruited front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 fee~ to any e~isting residence. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shaxl then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of th~ Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. A~y violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation e~ the Mobile Home Permit, 10.J. REQUESTS FOR REZONING 85S089 I~ Midlothian Magisterial District, DF~M PARTNERSHIP requested r~zoning from Agricultural (A) to ~esidential (R-9) on a 12.38 acre parcel fronting approximately 330 feet on the north line of Old Buckingham Road, approximately 800 feet east Of Unison Drive. T~x Map 16-6 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 7). · ~oole s~ated the applicant had requested a deferral of 60 d~ys. There was no opposition present Mrs. Girone inquired wh~ t~e applrcant requested the d.eferral. Mr. Mark Sowers was presen a~d stated they are trying to work Out some of the problems l~herent with the property and would probably proffer Bo~ conditions. 85-721 On motion of Mrs. Gircne, seconded by Mr. App!eqate, the Board apt~roved the request for a deferral until NoveBlber 27, 1985. In/Midlothian ,~sgisterial District, COUNTRY FARMS CONVENIENT Ma~T~ A$$OCIATM requested re~onisg from Agricultural (A) to Community Buf~ ~ (B-2) of 1.?1 acres, plus Conditional Use Planned Deve~<~),ent on this tract and an additional 0.37 tract zoned Co~m{unity Business (B-2), fronting approximately 387 fe~t on the w~? line of ~uguenot Road also fronting appro×i- ms,ely 402 f~et on Alverser Dr~ve, and located in the southwest quadrant of I:he intersection o~ these roads. Tax Map 16-8 (1) P~rcel 9 and Part Of Parcel 10 (Sheet 7). Peele stated ~he applicant had requested withdrawal of the ~licatien. Mrs. ~irone stated she would like the Board to hear case. ~r. Sherwood Strum, representinq Mr. ~ogese who was to be at the meeting today, stated they would like to the application because there was some opposition in the and return at a later date to discuss what they ~ld lik~ to do with the property. Mrs. Girone stated she had scussod the matter 9itt Mr. Bogese and she asked that he with zoning of the property since he had already paid his but he indicated he had no interest in the property at this and he would like it withdrawn. She stated that a problem ists and she would like the Board to understand the situation hea~ the case because she felt it would be in the best of the County. Mr. MincKs stated that if the Board cides it wants to hear the cage, the request for withdrawal e~ not have to be honored. He stated once the application has ~iled the Board can hear the application or it can grant Mr. Strum stated that the applicant notified him fly this date that he could not be present, he did not have any the plats or necessary material pertinent to the case and a deferral of the case, Mrs. ~irone stated she felt Board ~h0uld hear the case today. She stated Mr. Bogese he was not interested in this parcel but only the parcels the rear. ~r. Strum stated that Mr. Bogese is still under with Mrs. Walker and he does have an interest in the property hut perhaps not in proceeding with the application as re~iewed by the Planning Cor~misslon. It was generally agreed t~at this matter would be discussed at the time scheduled on alenda' 85. S009 (Amended) Z~ Midlothian Magisterial District, SOUTNPORT DEVELOPMENT C~RPO~J~TION requested rezoning from Agricultural to R~sidentiat (R-9) of 64.6 acres and to Residential (R-25) of 26. aqres on a 91 acre parcel lying approximately 970 feet off the nqrth line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 1,900 feet west o~ 0tterdale Road. Tax Map 14 (1) Part of Parcel 50 (Sheets 1, aid 6). M~. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the request. Mr. Doug Sowers was present and stated they this was a proper use of the property, it follows the County s M~ster Plan~ i~ is best suited for residential, the sewer capacity will allow 180 connections for the 9~ acres and they w~ll proffer 180 homes on th~ property and a 100 ft. buffer h~ween B-9 and any potentmal use on the front. He stated the 85-722 and the whole site should be submitted under a C6nditional Use Planned Development and if the Board desires t~zs, they wall do so. | Mr. Wesley Stigail, representing the property owmers, stated that the County negotzated wkth the property owners for the constructzon of a pumping station ~n the area at a cost of approxzmately $500,000 which was to serve other land as well. stated the statzon has been completed and the reason for doing so was to get 200 residential sewer connectione for this property. I~ stated if the property is not zoned residential and the 200 sewer connections a~e not utilized, there must have been a m~understendJng between the two parties. He stated the plan i~ very good for %he area, it is adjacent to Salisbury, it will ~nefit the County, etc. He requested approval cf the a~plzcatzon. ~r. D0dd znquzred when ~he funds were aoquzred for the pump station. Mr. Stigall stated it was just completed this y~ar but he did not h~ve the exact dates. Mrs. Girone stated the pump station ~erves land other than just this parcel. ~r. S~gall sta~ed the station was constructed to serve this property~ the property below it and Salisbury Mr. Daniel stated normal requeets for thzs area have been Condztzonal Use Planned D~velopments and inquired why that was not used for this request a~d why the road f~ontage of the site was not included. Mr. S~ t~gall stated that could be accomplished by the owners and the a~plicants of this case. i' pplegate inquired if there were enough sewer connections a~ailable to serve this property. Mr. Peele stated he understands there are 200 sewer connections for this parcel and the appllcan~ has indicated they will proffer 180 homes. He further, noted that the proffer has not been submitted in writing, therefore, the Board could not accept it today. Mr. Applegate znqulred about the zngress/egress, ~ Peele stated th~ ingress/egress would be restricted to a single point. Be stated t~e Board ~ranted a Conditional Use Planned Development to convert an existing brick home into an office and the access wduld cross Route 60 ho the north. |. ack H~dder, adjacent landowner, stated he was not cogtaoted by anyone regarding the development of the property and it would ~bstantially ~ifeet him. ~e stated he was not in opposition necessarzly but he thought there should be contact between adjacent property ow~er~ in cases such as this. He stated he wonla not lzke development to continue west of the bridge over t~e railroad track~ which would allow for spot zoning. He stated h~ would like to know what is planned for Midlothian Turnpike w~ich also affects his property, se stated he felt he should be zncluded as to what the plans are for the entire area. When a~ked, Mr. ~odder stated the County had notified him of the r~quest but the applicant had not contacted him regarding their plan. Mr. Stigall ~tated the applicant is not going all the way t~ Route 60 and he did not feel Mr. ~odder's property actually a~joined the property, Mr. Dodd stated he felt Mr. Hodder's concerns were for the development of the entire area. ~s. Girone stated the applicant is not addressing the frontage o~ ROUte 60 and is excluding a large part of the parcel at this t~me. She stated the Board will recall where residential uses h~ve been zoned in the rea~ of a parcel and the front parcel is l~ft unzoned, a commercial use i~ proposed in the future and u~ually the neighborhood is very upset because they feel they b~ught in a nice wooded ares and that it mhould remain that way. she stated another problem is that the Powhite/Route 288 Land Us Plan that is coming before the Board for a final vote on October 9~h shows ROUte 288 runnin~ up the west side o~ this land and it shows the potential for an interchange at ROUte 60 and if that were approved, there would be single family houses next to an x~terchange and the right of way of Route 28~. She stated the reason for Route 288 is for economic d~velopment and so this use w6uld not be the highest and best use cf this land by placing 85-723 R-9 residential use al©ns an interchange and along the right of ~aylof a circumferential highway. She stated she had talked with thelapplieant and discussed M-1 zoning from Route 60 to the creek ~nd R-25 zoning on the north side of the creek toward Salisbury. ~he stated she thought this was worked out bat the applicant indicates the capacity of the p~mp station is not adequate to ~cc6mmodate that. She state~ she felt the pump station could be increased but she understandm the applicant still wants R-9. She ~ta~ed the Planning Commission recommended denial and she, too, ~ecls this is not the highest and best use of the property. | Dn ~otion of ~4zs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board ~en~ed the request. got~: Unanimous 85S075: in ~lover ~{ill Magisterial District KENNETH E. TURN,R, JR. 'equested ~'ezonlng from Agr!cultural (A) to Residential (R-12) ,les Conditional Use Plan.ned Development to parmgt use and bulk !xceptlons on a 2~.4u acre parcel f~0nting approximately 350 feet ~n ~he west line of Turner Road across from Dyer Lane. Tax Map ~ir. Peele staked the P.lanning Commission 29-14 (1) Part°of Parcel 3 Sheet 9) had recommended denial Df the request for use exceptions for an office/day care center and rec6mmend~d approval of R-i2 sorting with Conditional Use Planned evelopment sub,eot to certain condmtxons. Mr. Ed Wllley was ~resent representing the applxcant. He stated the matter had [ef~rred several t~mes to allow the applicant to meet with resident~ of Porestdale and proffers have be~n offered based on thelmeetings. He presented their revised plan which eliminated the loffiee/day care center on Turner Road as recommended by the Planning Coaumission. ~e briefly outlined the plan for the 36 subdivision and the extension of Wynnewood and McKesson Drives. He stated all the cr~terla for lot szze requxrements are met sxcept for the east l~ne of McKesson and an area along Wynnewood sndl.they have asked for a variance to the 90 ft. frontage requirement on those lots. ~e stated they are adhering to the 90 ft. rule for all properties that adjoin Forestdale Subdivision and have proposed that one story homes be 1,500 sq. ft., one and half story homes be 1,800 sq. ft. and two story homes be 1,800 sq. Irt. He reviewed conditions that an architectural control =ommittee be appointed from the neighboring co~ur~unity~ that there be a traditional archmtectural appearance and that landscapxng andlbuffering be provided in areas that are adjacent to the existing subdivision. He stated the applicant would prefer not to ~ave to build Sandlewood so that he could accommodate the 90 ft. I rule'adjacent to the subdivision which the Planning Co~ission also recommended. He stated some people in the area feel that access through the neighborhood will not allow children to ~lay together that ~o to ~ohool together and will disrupt the cOmmunity spirit. He stated if the Board desires to extend Sandlewood, the applicant would like to be permitted to have 37 lot~ so they could vary from their idea of the 90 foot rule back against that subdivision because by putting the street through the~ loose a lot and by paying for the street they lose the cost of %nether lot. Ne stated the lot width would be 75 ft. and would average 80 ft. He stated the last sentence in Condition indicates there would be nc access permitted through the buffer zon~ to Turner Road. He ~teted that condition indicates there would be a buffer along Turner Road but in another condition it ~ta~es that the applicant has to dedicate right of way which the Highway Department needs for Turner Road. He stated that if you are not to'utilize the road, it is awkward to ask the developer to Contribute the frontage. He stated they would prefer that 85-724 ~he ~entence be deleted. He stated if it were determined later :ha~ access to Turner Road was needed, that sentence would )rohibit it. He stated another quesfion involves unfinished ~quare footage in the homes. He requested the Board not to place ~ prohibition against unfinished rooms ~n houses ~n th~s ~ubdlvzslon s~noe ~t w~ll not affect anyone but the purchaser. ~r. IGeorge Weston, President of the Forestdale Civic Association, ~tated they are ,~ncer~ed with several issues involving Woodfield ~ubdzv~s~on. He :~tated Mr. Turner met with the Forestdale Czvlc %ss6ciation in May to discuss the development, show the layout ~ndlexhibit the homes he intended to build and then in June there core two informa] ~eetings for him to discuss other aspects Of :helproposal. He stated the main concern was on the size and )ty~e of th homes and although there was some general consensus ~n ~he home~ ~.here was not total agreement. He stated the needings did not bind the Association to any concessionm or ~ec~sions. He stated subsequently a petition was circulated in lul~ asking that McKesson Drive,. as proposed, be extended to ~andlewood Drive. Re stated in addition, a subsequent petition waslsubmitted to the County addressing all the concerns they have about Woodfi~ld and the membership of Porestdale Civic AssOciation voted to approve this. He stated the current petition recommends ~ngress and egress 0nly from Turner Road. ~e sta~ed staff recommended against the Turner Road access due to inadequate sits distance. He stated the oreliminary Turner Road construction plans show that s~te distances w~ll be improved at yet Lane and at the lntersectlon of Turner Road and Dell Drive which should allow for reco~slderat~on cf tho Turner Road entrance. ! Mrs~ Robert Murray was present and reviewed the typical homes of the~Yorestdale Subdivision of which she presented pictures, she sta~ed there ~xists an active civic association, a neighborhood watch program, a monthly newsletter, an annual fund raising schslarsh~p program, there are a number of social events, their Women's Committee has a welcoming eon~ittee and provides for the flowers and landacaping that mark the neighborhood boundary, etc. She~stated this makes their neighborhood a community rather than jus~ a conglomeration of homes. She explained ecm~ of the dra~naqe problems {n the n~ighborhood and the safety problems tha~ exist and stated they are concerned with the widening of Turner Road and its proposed elevation. She stated Mr. Turner should be required to prove to the residents that his development wii~ not increase their drainage problem and suggested that u~derground storm sewers be ~nstalled for all of the ditches and uha~ the new development be requzred to have sto_n/ sewers. She erased that they do not object to R-12 but they do object to Mr. Tumor's proposal with regard to their thoughts and concerns, the~ feel he may be the wrong developer for the area and his request for development should be denied. | Mrs/ Linda Baltz stated the residents of the area are extremely concerned about the traific problems existing in Forestdale now and~what the impact will be o£ the proposed development. She s~a~ed it is currently used by many people who are not me~bers of their subdivision, that Chevelle Drive and others are used as thoroughfares to Cloverleaf Mall and Route 60, etc. She stated Del~ Drive average~ over 2000 vehicles daily, the speed limit is not,obeyed, etc. She stated these problems can only increase wit the approval of this development. ~he stated a number 85-725 of the intersections in Forestdale have poor visibility and site distance and two of the worst would be used by the new development, that the Dell Drive and McKesson intersection is dangerous, the Dell Drive and Turner Road intersection is too congested at this time and the new homes will only increase safety pr~blem$, she stated the Turner Road expansion may help the overall traffic flow through the County but it will not be good ior Forestdale with projections of 25,000 vehicles per day. She stated this will impact the residents and their children. She stated bec~u~? "~' 'he impact of Wcodfield, the incomplete Pocoschock Hill~ bt~,~ ~pment and the Turner Road expansion on Forestdale, the overwhelming majority feel the needs of the co~unity would be better served if Woodfield had its own entrance and exit onto Turner Road which would eliminate the necessity o£ cuttin!~ I.?[rough McKesson and Wynnewood Drives and cuttin9 an e~it through Sandlewood Drive. She stated the site distance is better at Turner Road and Dyer Lane then at Dell Drive and with the planned expansion, the visibility at Dyer Lane should be qreatly improved. She stated access onto Turner Road would provide the new residents with a more direct accee~ to Route 60 and 360, Turner Road is being expanded to handle more traffic, etc. She staked that if Woodfield does not have an access to Turner Road they would inSiSt that sandlewood Drive be ~xtendad to McKesson Drive for the reaEons stated in the petition, she stated because of the traffic problems existing, the entrance and exit onto Turner Road with no connection to Porestdale is the only alternative that is in their and the County's best interest. Mrs. Kathy Childress stated many of the residents agree with the R-12 zoning but disagree with many of the exceptions the developer is requesting. She stated average lots are 10o ft., cul-de-sac lots are 75 ft., the 90 ft. lot is compatible, the front yard setbacks should be consistent with the existing homes closest to the site and not s~rictly to the 30 ft. setback, etc. She stated they looked at Foxbury Subdivision as sugqested by Mr. Turner and most of the homes appear to be less than two years old and many are still unfinished and are thus no way compatible to those homes in FOreatdale. She stated in Forestdale there are 50 ranch style homes with approximately 1700 sq. ft. of finished livable space, there are 56 two-etories with appro×imately 2100 sq. ~t. of finished livable space, 66 rtl-levels with 2123 sq, ft. of finished livable space, and four bi-levels with approximately 2100 sq. ft. of finished livable space. She stated many feel that since Forestdate has only one cape cod, that Mr. Turner's cape cod should be deleted. She stated there are a 10t of tri-levela but they are no longer good sellers. She stated they would not like to see the homes that are built remain empty, they would llke Mr. Turner to agree to build ranch style homes with a minimum of 1500 sq. ft. of finished livable space, two stories with 1728 sq. ft. of finished livable space, that the total of the homes have an average square footage of 190~ sq. ft. of finished livable space since Forestdale does. She stated the proposed homes, referred to as starter homes, don't belong in this established mature neighborhood. She stated most of the residents have owned homes before coming =o Fo~estdale, they have worked hard to buy their home, they keep the neighborhood desirable and Woodfield will detract from the area. She stated Woodfield could be an asset to Forestdale with the changes requested. Mr. Weston stated they would like condition ~2 to include three residents from Forestdale on the Woodfield Architectural Committee, Condition ~3 require that no two homes of the same ~tyle be built on adjoining tots, Condition ~9 require that no houses be constructed with rustic siding; and Condition ~13 specify brick lattice work under the porche~. He stated in addition conditions ~3 and $12 which deal with square footages might need to be rewritten as well. He'~'~tated the neighborhood i~ not opposed to a new subdivision per se but they feel strongl~ 85-726 that if you are dealing with the mere extension cf two existing streets, the size, quality and character should be compatible with that already there. He stated Forestdale is not a starter home subdivision and he did not feel their investment should be damaged for the sake of growth. He stated the just presented amended conditions by the applicant have not been reviewed thoroughly. ~!~ stated they supported the deletion of Condition ~2 as proposed. '?ported the deletion of the last sentence in Condition 94, !~i.:y supported condition 96 as amended if it indicated minin,~ heated liveable square footage for the figures oetlined; and t~'~ seoOnd sentence in Condition 7 (1) would need adjustin9 with ti~e new square footage offered. He stated also the residents were interested in colonial architecture. Mr. Willey stated the square footage proffered meant minimum and they felt traditional and colonial were the same hut they will abide by the colonial proffer. Mr. Applegate expressed appreciation for e~"~ ~! input and participation in this matter both from t~, ~icant and the residents. He stated drainage in the his desire that the new development not he asked Mr. McElfish to keep abreast ~tated he looked into trying to get i~" Turner Road and with the widening and Road, staff is of the opinion that the · .:~ and it would be se the problem and situation. He ~nd egress onto ements of Turner ~istance problems that exist at Dell Drive and Dyer ~anc ' be eliminated. He ~tated that was staff's major consideration but on the other hand, the residents and children in the new subdivision and Forestdale will be neighbors and it is a concern that the children going to school would not visit each other unless they went down Dell Drive to Turner Road to the new point of ingress/egress and perhaps there may be a need for a new point; however, if ingress/egress w~re allowed off Turner Road as well as another point of ingress it will become a short cut through the subdivision. He stated he felt square footage did not denote quality as the type of construction is more impertant. He stated the average one story home in Forestdale is 1400 sq. ft., two stories are 2113 ag, it. and rtl-levels are 2041 sq. ft. He stated fha unfinished square footage is not compatible and would not carry the value Q£ a completed home. He reviewed the conditions in detail and stated that it would include single ingress and egress off of Turner Road at Dyer Lane. On motion ~f Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr, Daniel, the Board denied the use exceptions of office/day care and approved R-12 zoning with Conditional Use Planned D~v~lepment subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Kenneth E. Turner, Jr. and Associates, dated 3/20/85, shall be considered the Master Plan. 2. Forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the oenterline of Turner Road or right of way and easements, as required by the approved Turner Road Construction Plans, whichever is 9rester, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, for future road utility improvements.' (T) 85-727 A fifty (50) foot buffer and building setback shall be provided along Turner Road. This buffer shall be landscaped with evergreen plant material to provide a yeah-round screen for homesites adjacent to Turner Road. Conceptual plans for this Buffer shall be submitted in conjunction with tentative subdivision plats. No access shall be permitted through this buffer to Turner Road~ except for a single public road opposite Dyer Lane. (p&Bs) (Note: A revised ~aster Plan reflecting all Planning Staff recommendations must be submitted in conjunction with tentative subdivision approval.) The ~?lanning Commission may reduce the s~anda~d ninety (90) foo~ let width to a minimum cf seventy-five {75) feet during schematic plan approval for all lots not adjacent to Porestdale S~bdivision. All one-story homes shall have a minimum of 1,500 square feet finished heated liveble space. Ail othe~ homes shall have a minimum of 1,800 square feet finished heated livable space. (CPC&BS) The applicant shall record th~ following as restrictive a. All homes shall conform to a colonial architectural style. b. Nc home shall be erected or altered on any lots until the construction plans have been approved in writing by an Architectural Control Committee. Particular attention shs!l be given to quality end types of material, exterior design, harmony with existing homes and location with respect to topography and finished grade. Three members of the com~ittee shall be selected from th~ Forestdale Civic Association. This member's sol~ responsibility shall be to insure that all restrictive covenants and proffered conditions are adhered c. Ail houses must have some covered exterior appurte- nances on either the front or side elevation such as stoops, porches, decks, or breezeways. These exterior appurtenances must have a minimum of 40 ~quare feet. d. No fences shall be permitted along lot lines so as to encompass the entire lot. e. The exterior walls of foundations shall be constructed of brick. f. The exterior of all chimneys shall be constructed o~ brick. g. No prefabricated houses will be erected on any lots. h. No aluminum siding will be used with the exception cf aluminum tri~. Trim may include gutters, downspouts, fascia, and soffit. i. Ail windows shall be double hung wooden mullions. Storm windows and bay windows of standard construction will be allowed. j. Roof pitch except ~or covered porches shall have a mfnimnm o~ 5" rise per foot. k. On Lots 1 and 24, Block A and~Lots 1 and 11, Block B, two-story homes only shall be constructed. 85-728 Any open porch built on piers with a height exceeding 3' shall be enclosed with wooden or brick lattice work. Ail Virginia Power, C&P Telephone, and television cables shall be underground. There will be no above ground transmission poles constructed in Woodfield Subdivision. Vote: Unanimous It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes. 99S071 In Midlothian Magisterial District, C~ ~:Y FARMS CONVENIENT MARTS A~SOCIATES requested rezoning f~ .~'icultural (A) to Community Busluess (~-2) of 1.71 acre '~ Conditional Use Planned Development on this tract and ~tional 0.37 acre tract zoned Community Business lB-l), ng approximately 387 feet on the west line of Huguenot Road fronting approxi- mately 402 feet on Alverser Drive, anf! .~ed in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of these ~oads, Tax Map 16-8 (1) Parcel 9 and Part of Parcel 18 (Sheet 71. Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the request. Mr. Strum stated the applicant would like a withdrawal er a deferral because they do not have the file and information that is necessary to discuss the matter. Mrs. Girone stated the =pplication is for 1.71 acres that is zoned agricultural and .3 of an acre that is zoned B-2. she atated ten different civic associations are concerned. She stated years ago Mrs. Allen wanted to put an antique shop on the small. parcel and for 29 years there has been no use made of the land and the balance has remained agricultural. She stated the assessor has assessed the land as agricultural and in 1981 the assessor increased the assessment to $39,000 at which time Mrs. Allen appealed the assessment and it was reduced to $7,800 by Board of Equalization. She stated the assessor was authorized ignore tbs B-2 zoning and it has beep assessed as though it were agricultural land since. She stated the General Plan 2000 recommends this land and the surrounding land for residential and the whole area is a concern to the coat, unity because of the intense commercial use on Route 60. She reviewed the philosophy of using office zoning as a buffer between intense commercial and residential neighborhoods as was done ~or the Penney's trac't as well as the adjacent parcel on Alverser. She stated the intent of the new Northern Area Plan is to zone all of this land between Route 60 a~d the residential community as office. She stated tbs problem with this application involves a convenience store and gas pumps and by leaving this as is today, the 8-~ ~oned property could have a small self-service gas station on the property with no restrictions, buffers, etc. She stated what is being zoned Route 147 has been office and within walking distance of this site, three of the ~our corners at the intersection of Route 60 · nd Courthouse Road are gas stations with two 7-11's close by. She stated the community is against gas pumps on fhia s~te. She stated she would like the Board to consider zoning this property office with a Conditional Use Planned Development which is compatible with changes made in the area in recent years. Mr. Dodd inquired if the Board could hear the opposition and not actually voted on th~ issue today since the applicant is not present. Mrs. Girone stated that Mr. Boqcse called her on Friday and indicated he wanted to withdraw the application. She stated she advised him that he had paid his fee and he might use it and thai 85-729 office was the highest and best use 6f the property and why didn't he just go on with the zoning. She stated he indicated he had lost interest in the smaller parcel. Mrs. Qi~cne stated she was concerned that gas pumps might be placed on the front parcel which could be the reason for withdrawing this request and the community is very much opposed to that use. She stated office is compatible with what is b~ing done in the area end a convenience store or gas pumps would be unsightly and cause additional traffic problems. She stated Chesterfield Mall will be expanding as well and a convenience store or gas pumps on this small parcel would be u~,~afe and they are concerned that someone may come in fo~ a building permit to construct same. Mr. Danie! inquired if the Beard sent this back to the Planning Commission for reprocessinq for office use would it prohibit the Construction of gas pumps if the owner wanted to construct them. Mr. Mincks stated pu~s could be installed as the zoning exists to make this a permitted use. Mr. Daniel stated he felt there should be some legal mechanism which would allow the County to review euch cases and prevent permits, etc. from being issued. Mr. and mrs. Scott Verser, adjacent property owners, stated their opposition to any retail business adjoining a residential area as it would ba totally out of place but they would not object to office use. They indicated convenience steres involve a lot of light, traffic, late hours, noise and air pollution, trash, the potential for robberies, people abasing others property, etc. They indicated they did not need day cars centers, beauty parlors, ets. as there are enough located i~ the area. They indicated their support for office use. Mr. Joe Boisineau spoke On behalf of the 01d Coach village, Wind~or Forests and other subdivisions down 01d Buckingham Road as well as citizens in the area, and stated the community is opposed to any commercial or retail development but Would favor an office u~e. Me cited retail development being toe close to residential areas, traffic problems which exist, as well as the problems mentioned by Mr. and Mrs. Verser. Mr. Mayas stated that he was concerned that a decision would be made today without hearin~ the applicant's case. Mrs. Girone stated the applicant had presented a letter asking for withdrawal as he did not want the Board to consider it. She stated he indicated he had no further interest in the property as he wanted to develop seven acres in the rear. Mr. 'Daniel inquired if the applicant's agent wo~ld guarantee that no building permits would be applied for if the case was deferred. Mr. Strum stated he could not co~it to that request. Mr. Daniel stated if the applicant would accept that, the Board would defer the request. Mrs. Girone stated that if the applicant was not concerned with the property, why is there an objection to the Board rezoning the property. Mr. Dodd stated h~, too, felt uncomfortable voting on the issue without the applicant being present. Mr. Daniel stated the applicant is being given the Opportunity to indicate that he will not request a building permit and with that assurance a deferral could be considered. Mr. Strum stated he could not speak for the applicant. Mrs. Girone inquired if Mrs. Walker, the property owner, would agree not to apply for a building permit until the Planning Con~ission reconsiders the case. Mrs. Walker stated that ehe would not apply for a permit. Mr. Daniel inc~lired ii the ownership has actually been'transferred to the applicant and if that would be a legal protection that the owner of the property will not apply for any building permit until the matter has b~en resolved. Mr. Applegate stated he did ~ot feel that would be legally binding because the property is still under contract and tbs applicant can apply for a building permit and tho County would have to issue it. F~. Mincks stated that was correct. Mrs. Girone stated that staff has advised that the Board could zone this office with a Conditional Use Planned Development and if the developer wants to come back to add a bank~ or whatever~ the application can be entertained. She stated everything in the neighborhood is office. ShE stated several months ago she discussed with Mr. Strum that the COnvenience store was not appropriate, that gas pumps wore not appropriate, they reviewed other developments that would compliment the community, etc. She stated office is used as a buffer between heavy commercial on Route 60 and residential and this has been done consistently. Mrs. Girone moved that the .3 acre parcel be zoned office with a Conditional Use Planned Development and if the applicant would like to apply for e ~ ,ok, or whatever and develop a suitable plan, it can be con:3~ered at a later date. Mr. Strum stated he felt the Board was hearing the case and he felt the Board should listen to his preSentatiou. Mrs. Girone withdrew her motion. Mr. Strum stated the applicant requested a withdrawal and, as the applicant's agent, he requested a 30 day deferral and the Board is still hearing the case. He stated the corner lot size is in dispute between the County assessor and the planning department; he indicated where a convenient mart and several shops were indicated on the original plan and stated there is a similar project at the corner of Turner Road and Walmsley Boulevard; that trash is not a problem; that these sto~es close about 9 or 10 p.m.; that there is a highly developed plan for landscaping which is not available today which will screen the read and property o~ners from the strip shopping center; etc. stated there is already commercial use in the area at the intersection of Old Buckingham and Huguenot Roads. }{e presented a schematic plan of the proposal. ~e stated the development will cost approximately $1,200,000 -$1,300,00 excluding land costs of $238,500 and this would be an improvement as well as additional tax revenue for the County more so than if there were an office building on the corner. Mr. White, a realtor with Elam & Funsten, stated that he felt it would be inadvisable to take action on a rezoning which might impose circumstances on the owner of the property which sh~ did not anticipate as she did not make the request. ~e stated he felt the Board should not rule on this particular request but delay action on rezoning the property until after this ia cleared up as there are two questions in contention. Mrs. Gircne stated the County Attorney has advised the Board that whenever an application is filed, the matter is open at that point. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the assessor's evaluation indicates that the property was felt to be agricultural so he did not feel it was a question of down zosing because throuqh the Mrs. Emily Walker, executrix of the estate of Lucille B. Allen, stated that part of the property is zoned ~-2 and if it is not assessed as B-2 she was not aware of it. Mrs. Girone stated tha~ when assessing, stai£ does not take into consideration the zonin, category but its uses in the area and that is why this has been treated as agricultural land. She ~tated prior to 1981 or after 1981 it has been taxed only as agrleultural land. She stated in 1981 it was assessed higher but Ms. Allen filed the request for reduction as she felt it was an unreasonable assessment at which point the ~oard of Zqua!ization reduced the assessment to agricultural land. Mrs. Walker stated the tax bill does 85-731 indicate B-2. Mrs. Carol B~isineau stated they are concerned with the property values dec,easing, they plan to live in the area a long time and they are being closed ~n by business, that they were told if they did not agree with what was going on a gas station would be put in, etc. Mr. Applegate suggested that the acreage zoned B-2 be zoned to agricultural rather than rezoning to office. Mrs. Girone stated the plan for ' ~-ntire area is office add it is appropriate for the entire pa~ She stated that if the parcel is zoned office with a Conditional Use Planned Development with a bank this is the highest and best use and if the applicant does not want that he can reapply. She stated she offered to work with the developer and he indicated he would pre,er a withdrawal. Mr. Daniel inquired why the inclusion of s bank i~ being considered. He stated he was comfortable with a Conditional Use Planned Development for office with conditions coming back later or down zoning to agricultural until someone nails down what it should be. He stated he was uncomfortable that the appl~cant or property owner will not agree to not apply for building permits until the application is reconsidered but to include a bank with the Conditional Use Planned Development seemed inappropriate at this time. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board denied thc request for rezoning from Agricultural (A) to ~-2 and approved rezening from Agricultural (A) and Community Business (B-2} to office (o) with a Conditional Use Planned Development subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to obtaining schematic plan approval on any individual structure, a Master Plan for the entire 2.08 acres shall be submitted to the Plsnning Commission for approval. (P) 2. All structures shall have a Colonial Williamsburg architectural style. The sides and rear of buildings all shall have an appearance similar to the ~ront. No building Ehall exceed a height cf ~wo (2) stories. Architectural renderings shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. 3. Outdoor lighting she1! be low level, not to exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet. The lighting fixtures shall be compatible with the architectural style Of the building. Building lighting shall be permitted only for the purpose o~ lighting building entrances/exits and signs. In conjunctio~ with schematic plan review, a lighting plan depicting this requirement shall be ~ubmitted to the Planning C0mmis~ion for approval. (p) 4. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic. (EE) 5. Prior to release o~ a building permit, a minimum Of sixty (6~) feet of right of way, measured from the centerllne of Huguenot Road, and thirty (30) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Alverser Drive or right of way as shown On the Huguenot Road widening plans, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. Additional right of way, as deemed necessary by VDH&T and the TranspOrtation Department, shall be dedicated for the purpose of realigning the Alverser Drive/Huguenot Road intersection. (T) 6. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along Hugueno~ Road and Alverser Drive, and the Alverser 85-732 Drive/Rugcenot Road intersection shall be realigned. Pavement widenlngand curb and gutter along Huguenot Road shall be installed according to the Huguenot Road Widening Plans. 7. A single entrance/exit shall be permitted each to Huguenot Road and Alverser Drive. These access points shall be located as far away from the intersection as possible and shall be designed to allow shared use at such time that adjacent property is developed. 8. Within the required setbacks along Alverser Drive and Huguenot B~e$, ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted. These pla:~'~.~ shall be of sufficient density and height to minimize the view of parking areas from Alverser Drive and Huguenot Road. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting these ~equirements shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. 9. Signs shall comply with the requirements of Division 7.1 Special Sign Districts of the Zoning Ordinance relative to office pa=k, except that the one (1) freestanding sign permitted shall not exceed an aggregate area of fifty ~quare feet and a height of ten (10) feet. Sign colors and style shall be compatible with the architectural style of the building. (P) ~rs. Girone stated this is compatible with the neighborhood and if the applicant wants to consider a bank Or whatever, the Board could consider it. Mr. Applegate inquired if this would impose a hardship on a property owner by zoning the entire tract back to office rather than zoning the B-2 to agricultural and then at the appropriate time, they will still have to go with what the Northern /~rea Plan requires. Mrs. Girone ztated that based on the policy of what they have seen in Midlothian, they use office as a buffer between residential and heavy commercial on Route 60, She stated that thim has been done in this neighborhood twice recently for the Penney's tract and the Hubbard tract. Mr. Applegate inquired how this would affect the tax rate for the property owner. Mr. Daniel stated that the property owner can use ~he argument which was presented in 1981 regarding the taxation of the property being used as agricultural rather than business. Mr. Mayas suggested that the Board take Mr. Applegate'~ suggestion and zone to agricultural. Mr. Daniel stated the zoning only indicates the proper use and they will still probably be taxed at agricultural rates until they physically change the use. Mr. Hedrick stated that he wss certain the fair ~arket value will be used in assessing the property and he could not understand why the change was made in 1981. ~s a~ded with the changes made in the area in recent years, he did not feel it would be assessed as agricultural use when eveIything around it is office an~ commercial use. He stated the assessment will change regardless of the zoning. Mr. Daniel stated if there had been a commitment for no building permits being issued, that would have been acceptable, but the. Board does have an obligation to the public as well. Mr. Mayes stated he is opposed to the Board being witness and judge at the same time in this particular A vote On the motion: Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Abstention: Mr. Mayes. 85-733 85S10i In Bermuda Magisterial District, ICI AMERICAS, INC. requested a Conditional Use to permit an o~tdoor recreational facility (softball field and skce~ range) in a Heavy Industrial District on a ]6 acre parcel located at the northern terminus of Discovery Drive. Tax Map 119-12 Il) Part of Parcel 3 (Sheet 34). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request snbject to certain conditions. A gentlemen was present repres~ ~zng the applicant. There was no opposition present. On motion of ME. ~:odd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request su~..ieot to the following condition: The plan submitted with this application shall be considered the plan o~ development. (P) Vote: Unanimous 85S104 In Dale Magisterial District, CA~LL D. DICKERSON requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use exceptions (retail sale of lawn and garden items, plants not produced on property, and gift shop) and bulk e~ceptione (paving} in an Agricultural (A) District on a 4.08 acre parcel fronting approximately 296 feet on the west line of Iron Bridge Road, approximately 680 feet south of West Rock Spring Drive. Tax Map 52-10 (1) Parcel 30 (Sheet 15). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the request. Mr. Dickerson stated he was a farmer and growing flowers is an aspect of farming, he has owned greenhouses in the CountY since 1961, he has been farming since 195S, etc. He stated he felt what has happened on Route 60 and Route 360 will happen on'Route 10. He stated the license law indicatee that if he grows plants in Chesterfield County he can sell them anywhere in the County so he brought h~s plants from Providence Road to this property On Route 10 and th~ Planning staff stated this cannot be done unless he obtains proper zoning. He stated the Planning Commission required plans for the future and so the application includes other issues as well. He stated the property is zoned agricultural so he can grow the plants on the property~ He reviewed conditions to which he did ~ot a~ree regarding buffers, paving and curbing, displaying and outside storage, e single entrance/exit, the construction and location of the greenhouses, ~tc. He stated if the Board could not agree with what he was requesting, he felt the request should be denied. He submitted a petition signed by approximately 200 of his customers who were in favor of this request. Mr, J. B. White, adjacent property Owner, stated large trucks ~rem other parts of the State bring in plante, the residents would rather the area remain residential with the restriction of commercialization of Route 10. He.stated it is and has been a nice residential community and requested denial of this request. He presented a petition signed by approximately 19 residents surrounding the property and an additional 40 residents in the vicinity who are opposed. Mrs. Frances Hart, resident of Rock Spring Farms, submitted a petition signed by 130 residents in Rock Spring Far~s Opposed to the request. She stated the zoning character of this area was established last year when Mr. Rowe sought zoning on property adjacent to this property for residential and commercial. She stated his businese zoning was denied and she requested the Board deny this request. She stated that the petition submitted by Mr. Dickerson is probably signed by people who do not live in the area. 85-734 Mr. Jay Rowe, owner of the rest of the Justice property, stated that he did request business zoning last year and was denied and since that time he has gotten a group of good builders to develo his property. ~e stated they are concerned about building expensive homes if this request is approved. He stated he had considered purchasing this property but he was told that if ther were to be commercial development it would have be in the future and under a Master Plan and after the Route 10 Corridor Plan was completed. He stated that the plan indicates this area should be residential. Tie s~ the real estate agent was aware there would be problems obta~niPg the necessary permits for this operation and Mr. Dickerso~ wss aware of it as well. H~ stated he has develope~ a quality plan and he does not want to build homes in the area if this req~u:~ ~s approved. He requested that the application be denied and tha!. ' property be rezoned to residential (R-40). There were approximately 20 p~ople pre~ ,t in opposition. Mr. Daniel stated he did not feel far~,~ · and greenhouses are comparable in this particular case. H~ ~ted he disagreed with Mr. Dickersoe that Route lO will look 1.~ ~te 60 and Route 360 with time because since he has been on t: ~ it has been established that Route 10 will not loc~ ute 60 or Route 360. He stated that is why the Centr;~ ~ lan was established which is now being reviewed by the PI '~lmmission and the public, ~e stated north of the inter. ~.~, of Cogbill Road is listed for residential uses between now and the year 2000. He stated the Rowe property has developed well and when his case was considered, these issues were also considered. He stated he felt the request to permit retail sale of plants, lawn a~d garden items and items not produced on the property is out of character for what is there an~ what is planned and is not an appropriate land use. He stated he felt the request should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Wher~a$~ Carl D. Dickerson, in Zoning Case No. $5S104, has requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on property located on Iron Bridge Road; and Whereas, propertie~ to the east and west are zoned for single-family residential uses; and Whereas, properties adjoining this parcel to the north and south, while they are zoned Agricultural (A), are developed for single family residential uses; and Whereas, the ~roposed uses represent a commercial intrusion into a single family neighborhood, On motion of Mr. Daniel, the Board resolved to refer Zoning Case No.. 85S104~ Carl D. Dickerson, to the Planning Commission for consideration and public hearing of zesldential zoning on this parcel. Mr. Daniel stated some might say that some conditional uses have been allowed but he stated they were not retail and the outside of the home would remain with a residential look. He stated only one time has anything recently been zoned commercial which was a combination of property already zoned B-2 for an upgrade and a Conditional Use Planned Development. Mr. Daniel stated if this is approved the applicant can continue to use that parcel to grow eeedlings, etc. and sell products which he grows there but he cannot import products or use it for retail sales. Mr. Peele stated a 12 sq. ft. sign would be permitted. ~e stated that if the property remains agricultural, the applicant can build any number of greenhouses on the property, he can use these structures to grow flowers, ets. and he san sell them Outside or in another structure. He stated he cannot store plants here to · .. 85-735 bm taken to another place for sale, he cannot bring in plants grown elsewhere, be cannot.sell garden supplies, etc. He stated if the property is zoned residential, the applicant could continue to do the permitted uses noted abov~ but he could not expend the use. Mr. Daniel inquired if the parcel could be zoned residential at this time. Mr. Mincks stated it could not because of the legal advertisement. Mr. Daniel withdrew his motion in order to handle the matter in proper sequence'. On motion of ~(. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board sustained the r. ":mendation for denial by the Planning Commission. Whereas, Carl D. Dickurson, in Zoning Case NO. 85S104, has requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on property located on Iron Bridge Road; and Whereas, properties to the east and west are zoned for singlc-£amily residential uses; and Whereas, properties adjoining this parcel to the north and south, while they are zoned Agricultural (A), are ~eveloped for single family residential uses; and Whereas, the proposed uses represent a con~nercial intrusion into a single family neighborhood, On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board referred Zoning Case No.. 85S104, Carl ~. Dickerson, to the Planning Commission for consideration and public hearing of residential zoning on this parcel and authorized double advertising for the November meetings ior the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Vote: Unanimous Mrs. Girone excused herself from the meeting. On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~econded by Mr. Dodd, the Board directed the staff to prepare an application on behalf of the Board of Supervisors to rezone the Dickersen property p!u~ other area agriculturally zoned property currently used for residential purposes. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd. Absent: Mrs. Girone0 85S108 {Amended) In Bermuda Magisterial District, B. FQP~CE SILL requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) and Residential (R-25) on a 237.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 930 feet on the east line of Woods Edge Road, approximately 4,400 feet south of Lawing Drive. Tax Map 134-10 (2) Radtke Valley Farms, Lots 12, 13, 14 and Part of 15; Tax Map 134-13 (2) Radtke Valle~ Farms, I~t 8; ~nd Tax Map 134-14 (2) Radtke Valley Farms, Part of~Lot tl (Sheet 42). Mr. Peele stated the Flanning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to acceptance of the proffered conditions. Mr. Jeff Collins was present r~presenting the applicant. Mr. Daniel excused himself from the meeting. 85-736 Mr. Dedd stated a civil war fort is located on the property and the applicant has agreed to donat~ two acres of the property for preservation of the site with details ~or the control of the site to be worked out later. He stated the location bas a lot of history and co~t~ended Mr. Hill fo~ ~greeing to preserve the historical site and requested ~taff to work with Mr. Hill as there may be some shilting of lots necessary. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the request subject to the two acres being dedicated to an appropriate ; y to preserve the civil war fort area and subject to ac~ ~Dce of the following proffers: i. A ~aximum e£ 225 lots shall be developed on the subject property. Proffers applicable to the Residential (R-25) portion of the property are: a. All dwellings shall have a minimum of 1,800 square feet of heated living area. b. The latest recorde~ restrictive covenants for Walthal Mill Subdivision shall be part of the restrictive covenants for this R-25 area. c. The restrictive covenants shall include the statement that all dwellings shall have full brick foundations. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Dodd. Absent: M~. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting. 855109 In Dale Magisterial District, C. WAYNE GOFP AND CHARLES E. BAILEY, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 0.9 acre parcel fronting approximately 210 feet on the east line of Salem Church Road, approximately 880 feet south of King$1and Road. Tax Map 80-7 (1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet 22). Mr. Pole stated the Planning Commission had denied rezoning to R-9 and recommended approval of resoling to R-12 subject to certain conditions. Mr. Golf was present and stated the R-I2 rezoning was acceptable and requested the 50 ft. buffer be reduced to 30 ft. There was no opposition pres~nt. Mr. Daniel inquired about the widening of Salem Church Road and if the buffer would be adequate. Mr. Peele stated there is another dedication for a widening ~trip and it would not impact the buffer. On motion of Mr. D&nlel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board denied the request for R-9 and approved Residential {R-12) subject to th, following condition: A thirty (30) foot buffe~ ~trip and building setback, exclusive of utility easements and widening strips, shall be provided along Salem Church Road. The area within this buffer shall be left in its natural state and no access shsll be permitted to Salem Church Road through this buffer. Deed~ for aDy lot(s) containing this buffer shall be so noted. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd. Absene: Mrs. Girone. 85-737 B55110 · n Dale Magisterial District, DAVID W. WINDER requested a Conditional Use to permit a plumbing/heating business (including the fabrication of sheet metal duct work) in an Agricultural (A) District ena 1.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 210 feet cn the west line of Goodes Bridge Road, approximately 220 feet north of Walmsley Boulevard. Tax Map 40-2 (1) Parcel 13 (Sheet 15). Mr. Peele stated the Planning commission had recommended approv~ of the request ~ubject to c~rtain conditions. Mr. Winder was present and requested that Condition ~3 be changed to allow additional time to install curb and gutter should weather conditions prevent the construction. ~e indicated he planned %c move from ~oute 10 within 60! days. There was no opposition present. on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by C. Aubrey Featherston, III, dated dune 24, 1985, shall be considered the plan of development. (P) 2. Prior to obtaining a building permit, thirty (30) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of ~oodes Sridge Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chester- field, free and unrestricted. (T) 3. Prior to June !, 1986, additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along Goodes ~ridge Road. (T) 4. Concrete curb and ~utter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (EE) 5. Outside storage ar~as shall be screened ~rom view of adjacent properties and Goodes Bridge Road. Screening shall be accomplished with solid fencing, landscaping, or a co~bination thereof. A privacy fence with plantings on both sides shall be installed along the northern property line for a sufficient distance to screen all uses from the adjacent single family ~esidence to the north. A screeniDg plan shall be ~ubmitted ~o the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P&CPC) 6. Uses permitted shall be limited to a DlumbiDg/heating businesa to include sheet metal fabrication as an accessory use. (P) 7. Signs shall be as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance for Convenience Business (B-l) Districts. (p) 8. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U) 9. Outdoor lighting shall be low level and positioned so as not to project light into the adjacent single family residence to %he north. (CPC) 10. The sheet me=al shop's hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 Noon on Saturday. There shall be no Sunday operation of the sheet metal shop+ (CPC) {N6te: The Zoning Ordinance requires that the proposed chop/storage building be set back a minimum of fifteen (15} feet from the side property line. The final site plans must conform to this requirement.} Ayes: 5~. ~pplegate~ Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd. Absent: M-rs. Girone. 85-738 85SI13 In Clover H±il Magisterial District, J,M. BEE$ON, JR., CURTIS WAYNE SUMMERLIN, AND JOESI MICHAEL pRATT requested amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Cases 74S021 and 83S202) to permit excepti¢)ns to the required number of parking spaces in a Residential (R-7) District on a 30.18 acre parcel fronting 'approximately 1,750 feet on the south line of Old Hundred Road, also fronting approximately 530 feet on the west lin~ of Brandermill'Parkway and located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 36-10 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 13). Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that he is associated with Brandermill Woods, declared a conflict cf interest pursuant to tho Virginia C0mpreheBsive Conflict oi Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. Mr. ~o01e stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the .request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Ted Chandler was present r.esresenting the applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J,K. Timmons. & Associates, P.C., dated Say 50, 1985, shall'be considered the plan of development for that area shown, to include Phase I and the portion of Phase II shown on the plan of develop~nent (i.e., the 3-story, 33 unit structure.) (P) 2. A 0.2' parking Space exception per dwelling unit shall be granted for the area encompassed by this request. For cluster home residences, a minimum of 0.3 parking spaces per dwelling unit, e×clu~xve of enclosed or driveway spaces, shall be provided within 200 feet of building entrances fo~ common use. These spaces shall be dispersed throughout the development to be easily aooe~si~le to all buildings. Each space shall be accessible to building entrances by a sidewalk. (P) ~. A pedestrian circulation system shall be p~ovided to · nterconnect all buildings within thi~ development and to connect to Brandermill's pedestrian-ways and bike paths. 4. In con]unction with the'approval of %his request, the Planning Commi~s{ou shall grant schematic plan approval of the plan of development. [Note: All other conditions of Cases 83S20~ and 74~021 remain applicable ~e this development.) ~ea: Mr. Mayes~ Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd. Absent: Mr. Appiegare and Mrs. Girone. 'Mr. Applegate returned ~o the meeting. 85S121 In ~ermuda Magisterial District, DAVID S. PARRISE, OR. requested Conditional Use Planned Development to per, it use exceptions in a Sight Industrial (M-i) District on a 189.75 acre parcel fronting approximately 2,400 feet on the north llne of Rufftn Mill Road, approximately 2,700 feet east of Route 1-95. Tax Map 150 (1) Parcel 4 and 150-5 (11 Parcel 1 (Sheet 42). Mr. Poole Stated the Planning Con~ission had recommended approval of th~ request subject to certain conditions and 85-739 subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting staff had met with the applicant and have prepared an addendum which addresses some ~f the applicant's concernc. Mr. Ted Chandler, representing the applicant, stated that in addition to the addendum prepared by staff there is an addendum prepared by the applicant. He reelected in addition to the addenda, that the buffer be 15 ft. from Ruffin Mill Road on the couthslde of the property for parkinq. Mr. Dodd stated he felt 30 ft. wa~ more appropriate in this instance. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The fo~lowinq conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by GSGSB shall be considered the Master Plan, except that the remainder of the property may be developed for industrial uses permitted herein. (P) 2. All loading and outside storage areae ehall be screened from view of public roads. A screening plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final cite plan review. {P) 3. All drivsways and parking areas shall be paved. (B$) 4. A twenty-five. (25) foot parking setback and a fifty (50) foot building setback chall be maintained along the southern property line. A fifty (50) foot building and parking set- pack shall be maintained along the eastern property line adjacent to Rnffin Mill Road. A one hundred (100) foot building and parking setback shall be maintained along the remainder of the eactern property line. A fifty (50) foot building and parking setback chall be maintained along the northern property line. A thirty (30) foot building and parking setback chall be maintained along the wectern property line north of Ashton Creek. Screening, eo~eisting of topographical featurec and/or exicting treec or newly in- stalled vegetation, shall be accomplished in these setbacks. D~tailed landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. 5. Prior to ~elease of a building permit, forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of the portion of Ruffin Mill Road which abuts the southern property line, and thirty (~0} feet o~ right of way, measured from the centerline of the portion of Ruf£in Mill Road which abuts the easter~ property line, or right of way necessary to accommodate the proposed Industrial Access road, which~ver iS greater, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and ~nrestrieted. (T) 6. Uses north cf Ashton Creek ~hall be limited to Light Industrial (M-i). The following uses shall be permitted south of Ashto~ Creek: a. Light Industrial (M-l). b. ~eneral Industrial (M-2), except sanitary sewage treatment plants. c. A meat products processing and manufacturing facility (an M-3 use). (P)~ 7. There shall be no access to the portion of the site located north of Ashton Creek from ths adjacent property to the north or east. All access fo property north of Ashton Creek shall be through the subject property from the south or through property to the west at such time as it is zoned and/or developed for inductrial use. ,. 85-740 In'conjunction with final site plan review, colored ren- derings or elevations of structures shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. Structures shall be designed and constructed so as to a~eet a quality appearance. In conjunction with the approval o~ this request, the Planning Commission shall g~ant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan for the meat processing and manufacturing facility, subject to the conditions stated herein. (Note:· Any future development on the remaining portion of the property must obtain schematic plan approval from the Planning Commission.) Ayes: Mr. Applegate~ Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd. Absent: Mrs. Girone. 11. ADJOURNMENT On mo%ion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adjourned a% 5:30 p.m. until 12:00 noon on October 9, 1985 at the Airport Creaswind Restaurant. Ayes: M~.' Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd. Absent: M~. Girone. Ridh~f£d 'L. Hedridk County Administrator 85-741