Loading...
02-27-85 MinutesBOARD OF SUPeRViSORS MINUTES February 27, 1985 Supe~isor$ in Attendance: Mr. G. H. Applegate, Chairman Mr. Jesse J. Mayes, Vice Chairman Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. R. Garland Dodd Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. Richard L. Hedrlck County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley R. Balderson Dir. of Planning Mr. N. E. Carmlchaet, Comm. of Revenue Ms. Suzan Craik, VPI EXtension Set. Mr. Ken Cronin~ Asst. Personnal Dir. Mrs. Doris DeNs,t, Legislative Coord. Mr. Michael Golden, Chief of Parks Mr. Robert Hodderr Buildinq Official ~. Elmer Hodge, Asst. County Adminietrator Mr. William Howell, Dir. of Gen. Services Dr. Burr Lowe, Dir., Men~al Eealth/~etard. Mr. Robert Masden, Asst. Co. Admin. for Human Services Mr. Richard McElfish, Dir. of Env. Eng. Mr. R. J. McCracken, Transp. Director Mr. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of News/Info. Services Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy, Asst. Co. Admin. for Development Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of Budget & Acctg. Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Exec. Asst., Co. Adm. Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities Mr. James Zook, Dir. of Comp. Planning/Devel. Mr. Applegate called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:05 a.m. (EST). 1. INVOCATION Mr. Dodd gave the invocation. ~. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of ~rs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the minutes of February 13, 1985, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 85-092 COUNTY kDMINISTRATOR~ S COMMENTS Mr. Hedrick statsd he had two introductions to make which he ~euld like to defer to later in the day as the gentlemen were not ~resent. The Board indicated this was acceptable. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Applegate reported a meeting had been held by the Capital Region Airport Commission on February 26, 1985, at which time the Commission was advised that the traffic at the Airport was up 9.3% in January over 1984; that a coramittee was appointed by the Commission to work with the cab drivers to improve the appearance of ground transportation at the Airport; the bids are out and are to be opened on March 27, 1985 for the expansion project; and a consultant will hs selected to look at the overall management of Lhe Airport as to duties and responsibilities of the employees. Me stated a magazine article had been written highlighting the Dew runway and pad as the Commission selected a contractor who recommended the old concrete be recycled which will save mpproximately $500,000 in the construction of the new facility. Mrs. Girone stated that on behalf of the Board and the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission she will he meeting with ithe Executive Committee of the Chamber to further the cause of ithe the 508 Loan pros:am. She stated while she could not make a commitment for the Board she a$$umes it is still the intent to support the c~eatien of an office that would operate a small business loan program in the region. She stated it may involve some help in-kind match from the County Attorney's office. She stated the in~ent was that the four major jurisdictions would operate the program and include the small rural counties as they ars not large enough to have their own and have requested to be included. She stated Henrico and Hanover ar~ in favor and Richmond is considering this as they have a program now in conjunction with the Renaissance. 5. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION~ EMERGENCY ;kDDITIONS OR CHANCES IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by M~s. glrene, the Board deleted Item 10.E.3.c., Authorization to Proceed with Condemnation for a Water Easement Across Property of Bobby E. and Mary Leu Wiley, Surnett Drive; added to the scheduled Executive Session, discussion concerning a prospective business where ne previous announcement has been made cf the business' interest in locating in the community pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (4) because of the emergency nature of the issue; added 10.D.5., Route 36 Grade Separation Project because of the emergency nature of the issue; and adopted the agenda as amended. Vote: Unanimous 6. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION ~.A. ROBERT MACON PEILLIPS, M.D. Mr. Dodd stated that Dr. Robert M. Phillips has retired from private practice in the Village of Chester and it is requested that the proposed resolution be adopted and that he be authorized · to present it to Dr. Phillips at a reception in March. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Robert Macon Phillips, M.D. retired from private ~ractice on February 15, 1985 after providing medical assistance B5-093 to residents of Chesterfield County since 1952 when he began his practice in the Village of Chester; and WHE~AS, Dr. Phillips greatly assisted Chesterfield County by aiding in the establishment of the Lucy Corr Nursing Home, by serving as a consultant for the Home, and by serving as its M~dical Director without compensation and with untiring efforts for many years; and WHEREAS, Dr. Phillips, after his retirement will continue to provide medical expertise to County residents as well as others through his association with Chippenham Hospital, Johnston-Willis Hospital a~d McGuire Veterans Hospital; and W~R~AS, Dr. Phillips is highly respected by the community and hi~ peers for his unwavering dedication and'loyalty to the medical profession which he has exhibited over the past 33 years. NOW, THER~KO~t~, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes Dr. Phillips' dedicated service ~o Chesterfield County and its citizenry and warmly wishes him a long and happy retirement which he so richly deserves for his many years of patience while providing special assistance and care to the Sick and elderly. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Dodd accepted the framed resolution for presentation %0 Dr. Phillips, on behalf of the Board. 6.B. M~. GERALD E. LAP~, UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Mr. Ken Cronin introduced Mr. Dave Welchons. ~r. Welchons briefly outlined ~r. Lapell's experience with the County and indicated Mr. Lapell could not be present as he was just recently released from the hospital. On motion of the Board, the follewlng resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Gerald E. Lapell will retire from the Utilities Department, Chesterfield County, on February 28, 1985; and W~ER~AS, Mr. Lapell has provided over 22 years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WH~P~EAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss Mr. Lapell's diligent service. NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this ~oard of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Lapell and extends on behalf of its mer~oers and the citlsens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his service to the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER R~SOLV~D that a copy of this Resolution be presented to Mr. Lapell and that thi~ Resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Hoard of :S~pervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Welchons aCCepted the resolution and Mr. Applegate requested that it be presented to Mr. Lapell along with the Board's gratitude. 7. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS %.A. MR. ANT~QN¥ SOLURY, SOUND BARRIERS FOR POWHITE PARKWAY Mr. Solury, a resident of the Buford E~tates Subdivision, requested that the Board provide sound barriers along the Powhite 85-094 Parkway Extension and asked that the Virginia Department of 5ighways and Transportation not take any action that would make it more difficult to do this and that they help to any degree that they can. He stated that be had seen news items indicating that rights of way are beinq acquired at this time, that construction is to begin early next year and that bending is being e0nsidered for road projects but nothing has been said about noise barriers. He stated he understands that people do buy hOmeS along highways and therefore noise should not b~ a concern but indicated that was an unjust comparison because if people buy knowing a highway exists, houses are priced accordingly and it is a conscious decision. He stated when he moved here in 1976 he did not know about the Powhite Parkway Extension nor did his neighbors and they were not told by anyone. He stated tO place this in an area where there are established neighborhoods without consideration £or the residents is incomprehensible. He stated the study prepared by the Department Df Hiqhways identified severe noise impacts and strongly recommended noise barriers as being cost effective. He stated he understands that the noise impacts of this roadway will be among the worst of any highway projects built in Virginia. ae stated their property values will be affected and this is a major investment by people. Be stated of the more than 30 people who spoke at the public hearing, only two or three did not request noise barriers. Be stated some of the people feel that the noise barriers should have been included in the bond referendum last June and that the road extension may bring additional revenues to the County which will benefit the entire County. Ne stated these funds could be Used to Construct the sound barriers to help these residents who will bear this burden for the rest of the County. He stated bondinq of roads should be viewed as a progressive financing mechanism and as an investment in the future of the County. ge stated if we wait until sufficient funds are available from the state, it will be too late. Ne stated we need to provide the interest structure now to handle the desired development which would create the return on this investment through increased tax revenues. He stated businesses would also feel this would be a better place to located since the County is willing to solve its own problems. He stated the position that the State should provide all funding is outdated as it is the County who receives the additional revenues from development which has created the need £or these facilities. He stated he had given Mrs. Girone some info~mati0n on local financing options which he hoped all would review. H~ stated hundreds of families ishare the same concerns as he does and he collected a petition signed by every homeowner in the Huford Estates Subdivision requesting the noise barriers. He stated he could obtain a petition from all the residents along the entire corridor. He stated there was one other neighbor present but others could not attend as it was a day meeting. He requested the Board's assistance in this matter and stated appreciation to the Board for granting him the opportunity to speak. Mr. Hedrick stated this matter is still under consideration by the Board and the Board is caught in a dile~u~a between its concern for the citizens along the corridor, what it represents County wide for future road projects and the fact that there is only so much money which is not enough to construct the roads necessary. He stated it is not an easy decision. He stated since the issue is still under consideration, nothing has happened that would prevent the construction or erection of sound barriers and that it was a matter of when it could be done and · how much it would cost. Mr. Solury stated he wanted to speak up today because he was concerned that the County may go with a package that may be strictly road improvements and the barriers are not going to be there and may never be. Mr. Applegate assured 85-095 Mr. Solury that the Board sharez his concerns and avery attempt will be made to build a road and build it right. Ha thanked Mr. Solury for addressing the Board. 8. DEFERRED ITEMS 8.A. FL~SSRS. JOHN SMITH AI~D JOSEPH MATYI~O, RIGHWAY PLANS AND TRAFFIC FLOW STUDIES IN WESTERN CHESTERFIELD Mr. Applegate stated that the Board had fully intended t6 have the Route 288/Powhitc Plan available by the end cf the month. He stated staff has indicated they have the plan, it is being finalized, they will distribute it to the Board next week and will be made available to the public on March 8, 1985. Mr. Eedrick distributed a copy of the schedule for Powhite/Route 288 Plan. Mr. Matyiko stated that the VDH&T plan was approved subject to design changes at Coalfield Road, covered more than 80 acres and provided for full interchange of traffic between Powhlte and ~oute 288. He stated prezent known VDH&T offers to purchase interchange rights of way project an acreage cost of $2,200,000+. He stated the VDH&T's offer to Chesmid Matyiko, Inc. to purchase 37.66 acres of land and damages (closing of Coalfield Road) amounts to $1,202,089.00. He stated other area offers include the payment of an additional $105,765.00 for damages over and above the offer to the acreage. He stated this amounts to an offer cf $272,204.00 in damages or offer for damages in these two initial offers. Be stated it is their opinion that if Coalfield Road is either closed or denied access to Powhlte that the resultant total of damages incurred by VDH&T and Chesterfield County could well exceed $5,000,000. He stated this $272,204.00 would, in conjunction with the pistol flyer which would reduce the land used and the cost thereof by fifty percent, would more than pay the cost of the overpass and diamond interchange at Coalfield, Powhite and 288 right of way westerly ~rom Coalfield Road, and additionally obviates any additional damages to Coalfield Road property. He stated they believe this is in the common interest of all the citizens of Chesterfield County and that all monies either public or private should be spent judiciously for the common benefit of all of Chesterfield. Mr. Smith discussed Powhite, the traffic to the west, the need for the ability to travel north and south, where it should go, what it should carry~ etc. He stated this all began when zoning was initiated and staff has had the developed traffic figures since 1980, etc. He stated five years later they have been asked to meet with staff two or more times about learning something that the people who are developing alternatives have made available. He stated at this time they have not had access to any concrete plans by the consultants nor have they had any contact with the consultants or anyone who represents the consultant with regard to input in the plan. He stated it has been more than four weeks since he was assured that they would have seen this finished project. He stated he did not feel there was any effort to present or provide the Board with the figures and facts. He pointed to a plat and explained the road network of the draft to the Highway Department and an alternate for a ipistol flyover/cloverleaf that would allow one to travel in all directions, reduce costs, etc. S5-096 Mr. Appleqate stated he had been assured by staff that the report will be available to the public on March 8, 1985. Mr. Dodd stated that the time is slipping away for all concerned in this matter and the State could possibly ask for the closing of Coalfield Road. He stated the time is also slipping by for 295 and Route 10 as they are still trying to close off Bermuda Hundred Road. He inquired when the Board would take a atand on an interchange that will destroy a traffic pattern on 295. He stated some may say there is no relationship but its the same at two ends of the County. He stated letters have been written, we have yet to hear anything and they will be going to bid in the near future. Mr. Smith stated every comment he has received is that "the Highway Department is doing something because the County has asked them tO". Mr. Daniel referred to the stubbing o~f of a major thorouqhfare and routing it into another collector street as was done along Cegbill Road when Chippenham Parkway was being considered. He stated this was a short term solution and the County should consider long term solutions. Mr. Appleqate stated there is a policy for offering additional designs for Coalfield Road, ~owhite, etc. that has to be adhered to until it is changed. Mr. Dodd expressed additional concern for Bermuda Hundred Road. Mr. Applegate stated that perhaps the Board should work with staff on this matter. Mr. ~ayes inquired about the money for damages, etc. as outlined earlier. 5e stated he felt he needed some cements with respect to the questions that have been raised. Mr. Mioaa stated traditionally the damages that may occur for acquiring right of way by the Highway Department have been a Highway Department problem and he is sure the landowners have been dealing with the Highway Department. He stated they have their own legal rules they have to adhere to and it is exclusively a Highway Department issue. Mr. Smith took issue with the statements by Mr. Micas, and Mr. Applegate declared him out of order. Mr. Hedrick stated to da~e the Board has not taken action to effect the design of Pewhite Parkway, as the corridor selected and the design selected have been primarily decisions by the State Highway Department and the State Highway Commission. He stated when this project looked like it might occur, the County was contacted by a number cf landowners up and down the corridor asking for alternatives to the design by the Highway Department. Be stated at that time the Board adopted a policy that indicated to landowners a willingness to allow those property owners to contract with the State Highway Department to have alternative designs reviewed but had to be done et the expense of those individuals making the inquiries. He stated the Board, at that time, deemed that these designs would be to the benefit of these persons who were raising the questions. Me stated since that time, two property owners have entered into contract with the ~ighway Department and one hee paid money to have an alternative demign take place. He stated this is a similar situation t~ the other property owners end that Mr. Smith and Mr. Matyiko should contract with the Highway Department on their design and that all should be treated equally. He stated then the Highway Department could study it, review it and have cost estimates developed, etc. He stated this Board, to date, has not altered the design oi ~owhite Parkway except that this area is being studied by a consultant whereby those property owners were given an opportunity to look a= the preliminary design alternatives that our consultant had developed for that area. He stated at that same time that plan was being submitted to the Highway 85-097 Department for thei~ comments. Ne stated he i~ concerned that Mr. ~atyiko and Mr. ~$mith have presented the pistol flyover concept on more than one occasion to the Board and it has always' been conceptual in nature and unless the Board deviates from its policy, the only way to have this alternative looked at in detail is to have a contract whereby that design is actually developed through the Highway Department, studied and cost benefits made. Ne stated othe~wlse these statements of impact, costs, etc. are conjecture and there is no way to know if they are true. Mr. Smith started to contradict Mr. Hedrick's statements and was called out of order, but continued on. Mr. Apptegate declared a five minute recess. Reconvening: Mr. Eedrick introduced Dr. Wallace McMichael, Professor from the Department of Pttblic Administration at Virginia State University. Ne stated he and Dr. Murel Jones will be working with the County with the Budget and Personnel Departments and with the legislative programs. Ee stated in exchange some of the department directors will be asked to speak at the University. Be stated the County is almo helping the University with Data Processing projects, etc. as an exchange program. The Board welcomed Dr. McMichael. APPOINTMENTS APPOMATTOX BASIN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board appointed Mr. Maye~ as the Board representative and F~r. Jeffrey B. Muzzy as the staff representatives to the Appomattox Basin Industrial Development Corporation which appointments are effective innnediately and will expire in September, 1985. Vote: Unanimoas 8.B.2.b. KEEP CHESTERFIELD CLEAN CORPORATION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board appointed the following people to the Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation effective i~mediately whose terms will expire on January 31, t986: Mr. William ~arris, Matoa~a District Mrs. Marilyn Kim, Bermuda District Mrs. Willie Smith, Dale District M_rs. Ann Belsha, Clover Hilt District Mr. or Mrs. william Dieterich, Midlothian District Vote: Unanimous 9. PUBLIC HEA~ZNGS Mr. Hedrick stated there were no public hearings scheduled for the meeting. 85-098 10. NEW BUSINESS 10.A. FUNDS FOR MIDLOTHIAN ATHLETIC BOOSTER ASSOCIATION Mrs. Girone stated the School Administration looked into this request for funds for the Midlothian Athletic Booster AsSOciation /or the installation of water systems in the baseball and softball fields and has agreed to fund the improvements. She stated nO action is necessary at this time. On motion of Mrs. Qirone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board referred this matter to the School Board for action. Vote: Unanimous Mrs. Girone introduced Mr. Greg Wroniewicz, President of the Midlothian Athletic Booster Association, whose association raised $24,500 toward various projects for the athletic fields at the new Midlothian Senior Righ School. Mr. Applegate stated this is another example of the private sector helping the government ~und needed projects. Mr. Wroniewicz stated the people in the Midlothian area need to be commended as they have raised that amount of money since May~ 1984 for the athletic projects. Applegate congratulated Mr. Wroniewicz for the outstanding wo~k which they had accomplished. Mr. Daniel stated there have been a number of projects which the public sector has assisted in financing over the last year and requested that the Director cf News and Information Services prepare a press release on these special contributions. 10.B. CONSENT ITEMS 10.B.1. MESUPAL ~BALTH SERVIC~S FOR H~RING IMPAIRED On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to accept on behalf of the County a grant in the amount of $7,500 from the State Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation for FY85 increasing the hearing impaired program from the presently funded $42,000 to $49,500 and further the Board appropriated the $7,500 to the Mental Health and Mental Retardation budget. Vote: Unanimous 10.B.2. ~TAT~ ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Willowbranch Drive and Wiaterleaf Drive in Willowhurst, Section B, Dale District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Willowbranch Drive and Winterleaf Driv~ in Willowhurst, Section B, Dale District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Bighways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Willowbranch Drive, beginning where existing state maintained Willowbranch Drive, State Route 3290, ends, and running northwesterly 0.15 mile to end at the intersection with Winterleaf Drive; and Winterleaf Drive, beginning at the intersection with Willowbranch Drive and running easterly 0.03 mile to end in a deadend. Again Winterleaf Drive, beginning at the intersection with Willowbranch Drive and running westerly 0.07 mile to end in a temporary turnaround. 85-099 Thiz request is inclusive of the adjacent slope easements. These roads serve 26 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 foot right-of-way for all of these roads. This section of Willewhurst is recorded as follows: Section B. Plat Book 44, Page 8, September 19, 1983. Vote: Unanimous 10.B.3. ~INGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMITS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Eoard approved the requests for bingo and/or raffle permits from the Ben Air-Midlothian Lions Club and the Midlothian Youth Soccer League, Inc. for calendar year 1985. Vote: Unanimous 10.C. APPOINTMENT TO YOUTH SERVICES COMMISSION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~irs. Girone, the Board accepted the resignation of M~. Earl L. Lewis, Dale Dis~rict, f~om the Youth Services Commiszion effective December, 1984, and further the Board nominated Ms. Phillippa Batms to the Youth Services Commission which formal appointment will be made at the March 13, 1985 meetin9. Vote: Unanimous 10.D. COMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 10.D.1. MATOACA VILLAGE PLAM Mr. Balderson stated that in the fall of 1985 there was a zoning requeet for business use in a residential area of Matoaca Village. H~ stated that there was a controversial hearing about mixed zoning in the area and the Board seeking additional guidance, asked staff to study land use and transportation compatibility in the area. He stated the staff would like the Board to accept the study as did the Planning Commission. Me further stated the study will be used by staff in its recon~nendations on land use and transportation issues in the area. He stated staff will review the study when incorporating it as part of the overview in looking at the southern area plan He introduced Mr. Zook, Chief of Comprehensive Planning, and Ms. Margaret Reynolds, chief planner assigned to the project. Mr. Sock stated staff was impressed with the residents' attitude toward the community's appearance. He stated also that if attention is not paid to this community's growth and development, it could suffer adversely. He gave the Hoard a presentation of the study including the existing land use, sewer and water capability, unique assets regarding environmental features, public facilities, 50-60 historical sites, the Appomattox Scenic River, soil types, population forecasts, open spaces, commercial~residential areae, etc. Mr. Mayas stated the Planning staff did an outstanding job on the plan and it was impressive how they dealt with the residents, the detail, etc. 85-100 On motion of Mr. Mayas, s~onded by Mr. Dodd, the Board accepted the Matoaca Village Plan as presented by staff with a special appreciation to staff for their work. Vote: Unanimous 10.D.2. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC EEARING REGARDING SITE PLANS On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard referred the zoning ordinance amendment relating to site plans to the Blanning Co~ission for public hearing at its March 19, 1985 meeting and the Boa~d set tko date of April 10, 1985, at 7:00 ~.m. for its public hearing. rote: Unanimous 10.D.3. STREET LIGHT REQUEST On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the installation Gf a street light at the intersection of Robious Road and Sandhurst Lane with any neoessary funds to be expended from the Midlothian District Street Light Funds. Vote: Unanimous 10.D.4. UPGRADING EXISTING STREET LIGHT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the upgrading of the existing street light at 13332 Midlothian Turnpike from a 7,000 lumen mercury vapor to a 14,000 sodium vapo~ with $285.00 to be expended from the Midlothian District Street Light Funds. Vote: Unanimous 10.D.5. ROUTE 36 GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board auth0ri~ed the County Administrator to instruct VDH&T to proceed with the development of the preliminary schemes of an underpass/overpass alternative for the connection of River Road to Chesterfield Avenue and an underpass/overpass alternative for the connection of River Road to East River Road and that the County Administrator also inform VDH&T that County funds have been programmed for the construction of this project as soon as the design is approved. Vote: Unanimous 10.E. UTILITIES D~gARTM~NT 10.E.1. REPORTS 10.~.l.a. WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL REPORTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with the water and sewer financial reports. 10.E.l.b. DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS ~r. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water and sewer contracts ex~cuted by the County Administrator. 85-101 10. E. 2. PINANCIAL MATTER~ 10.E. 2.a. ADOPTION OF WASTEWATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Mr. Welchons stated the next five items were discussed in detail at the work session held hy the Board on Pebruary 13, 1985. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervieors on April 28, 1982, authorized Austin Brockenbrough and Associates and Boyle Engineering Corporatioh to update the County's Wastewater System Master Plan; and Whereas, the Wastewater System Master Plan wac presented to the Board of Supervisors at a work session on February 13, 1985; and Whereas, the Plan projests the wastewater facility needs through the year 2025; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors recognizes that the provision of a Wastewater System has a direct effect on the County's g~owth and development; and Whereas, the Board of Supervieors further recognizes that the Wastewater System Master Plan is an integral ~l~ment of the County's overall growth management program; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors affirms that the following principles establish a framework coordinating the Wastewater Syetem Master Plan with the overall County growth management program: - development being encouraged within or contiguou~ to th~ urban eervice area; development outside the service area will bear the additional costs associated with its chosen location; and - development will be in substantial accord with the County's General Plan; and - all future development will be encouraged to connect to the sewer system; and development will be encouraged to share in the costs of providing new facilities in proportion to the service required by that development. NOW, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Chesterfield County Soard of Supervisors, this 27th day of February 1985, that the Wastewater System Master Plan is hereby adopted. Vote: Unanimous 10.E.2.b. ADOPTION OF WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Mr. Dodd stated he was concerned that the proposed program may not allow for deviations from the plan. Me stated he wanted to make certain there was flexibility included to handle emergency situations should they arise. Mr. Hedrick stated the plan would set the priority liut but it would allow for deviations. Mr. Daniel stated he would like to review the priorities with staff prior to adoption of the program. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred consideration of the water capital improvement program until March 13, 1985 in order to allow staff to review the district prioritie~ with members of the Board. Vote: Unanimous 85-102 ADOPTION OF SEW-ER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred consideration of the se~er capital improvement program until March 13, 1985 in order to allow stair to review the district ~riorities with the members of the Board. It was generally agreed that the staff would review the projects with the Board members and if there is a problem, a work session with the entire Board could be scheduled. 10.E.2.d. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE 1984-85 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board 1. Appropriate $680,000 from 567 Bond Surplus to the following: A) 380-1-65027-4393 - $440,000 B) 380-1-65447-2142 - 50,000 C) 380-1-65457-2142 - 150,000 D) 380-1-65467-2142 - 40,000 2. Transferred $50,086.60 from 300-1-71000-4393 (Miscellaneous Sewer Contracts) to 388-1-73021-4393. 3. Appropriated a total of $729,913.40 from 574 Surplus to the following: A) 380-1-73021-4393 - $519,913.40 B) 380-1-75191-2141 - 210,000.00 Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel stated one of the projects involved Rock Spring Farms and inquired why it has taken so long. Mr. Welchons stated this involves the procurement act regarding the selection of engineers whioh is taking additional time. Mr. Daniel stated perhaps documentation should be gathered to have the procurement act modified. ~here was some discussion regarding the additional funding for Rock Spring Farms. 10.E.2.e. PROCEED WITH SALE OF WATER AND SEWER BONDS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrm. Girone, the Board authorized continuation of the ~eeessary steps to sell the water and sewer bonds which is anticipated to be in July-August, 1985. Vote: Unanimous M~L. Micas stated the state law which formally permits the Board to issus the bonds will not be effeotive until July 1, 1985 so the Board will be asked to formally approve the issuance of bonds after July 1, 1985. 10.E.3. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS 10.E.3.a. COUNTEROFFER FOR RIGHT OF WAY FOR EAST AVENUE On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board accepted the counteroffer of $500.00 for the purchase ef 0.138 acres by the County for the East Avenue project from Jordan D. and Barbara J. Temple. Vote: Unanimous 10.E.3.b. CONDEMNATION OF WATER EAHBMENT ON BURNFTT DRIVE On motion of Mr. Applagate, seconded by Mr. Mayas, thc Board authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owners if the amount aa set opposite their names ia not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owners by registered mail on February 28, 1985 of the intention of the County to enter upon and take the property which iz to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. An emergency existing, this resolution shall be declared in full force and effect immediately upon passage pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of virginia. Marshall D. and Mary Ann Boater W85-12C/J $383.00 Vote: Unanimous 10.E.4. CONSENT ITEMS 10.E.4.a. WATER LINE INSTALLATION FOR GLEBE POINT SUBDIVISION On' motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayos, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execut~ any necessary documents for the following water eontra0t: W85-48CD/6(8)5482 Installation of Water Lines for Glebe Point Subdivizion Developer; Shooamith Brothers, Inc. Contractor; Shoosmith Brothers, Inc. Total Contract Cost: Estimated Refund through Connections: Estimated Cash Refund: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost; Number of Connections: 12 Code: 566-1-00556-0000 And further the Board transferred $8,241.64 from 380-1-62000-7212 to 380-1~65482-7212 and appropriated $17,758.36 from 563 Surplus. Vote: Unanimoua $96,641.00 $ 9,150.00 23,620.00 $32,770.00 563,871.00 10.E.4.b. WATER LINES FOR MOUNTCLAIR ROAD O~ ~otion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary docu/~ents for Contract W84-43B/6(8)4437, Water Lines on Mountclair Road, to Stoneman Excavating Co. Inc. in the amount of $50,379.30 and further $23,300 was appropriated from 567 Bond Surplus to 380-1-64437-4393. It is noted there was a previous appropriation in the amount cf $$6,700. Vote: Unanimous 10.E.4.C. WATER LI~S FOR CHESTERFIELD MANOR On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for Contract W84-45B/6{8)4457, Water Lines in Chesterfield Manor to O. D. Duncanson, Jr. and Sons in the amount of $121,808.50 based on P.V.C. ~ipe. It is noted no additional appropriation is required. Vote: Unanimous 85-104 10.E.4.d. SEABOARD COASTLINE AGREEMENT - REYMET AND FRIEND $83-66D/7(8)3661 On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Hayes the Board adopted the tollowing resolution: Be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, in regular meeting assembled that the Chairman of said Eoard o~ Supervisore, be and he hereby is, authorized to enter into an agreement with the Seaboard System Railroad, Inc., and to sign same On behalf of said County whereby said Railroad Company grants unto said County the riqht or license to install and maintain, for the purpose of conducting domestic Sewerage; as particularly described in said agreement, which agreement is dated January 18, 1985, a copy of which agreement is tiled with this Board of Supervisors. Vote: Unanimous 10.E.4.e. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG BELMONT ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to accept, On behalf of the county, a 30 ft. strip of land along Belmont Road from Fair Havens Independent Methodist Church. Vote: Unanimous 10.E.4.f. DEED OF DEDICATION FROM BRANDERMILL On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved i and authorised the County Administrator to accept, on behalf o~ the County, a parcel of land containing 0.371 acres located within Brandermitl Trade Center which is being dedicated to the County for a water pump station by Brandermill. Vote: Unanimous 10.E.4.g. DEED OF .DEDICATION ALONG SHIELDS ROAD On motion of Mr. Dedd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized th~ County Administrator to accept, on behalf of the County, a 10 ft. strip of land along Shields Road Russell L. and Mildred M. Dail. Vote: Unanimous 10.~. REPORTS Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a status report of the General Fund Contingency Account and the General Fund Balance. 10.G. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss the condition, asquisition or use of real property for public purposes Or the disposition of publicly held property and the location cf a prospective business in the County which has not previously disclosed its interest in locating in the co~unity pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (al {2) and (4) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconveninq: 85-105 The Board recessed to travel to Room 502 to meet with membere of the School Board and School Administration to review the proposed 1985-86 school budge~. Reconvening: LUNCH - PRBSENTATION OF SCHOOL BUDGET Mm. Applegate welcomed members of the School Board and Dr. Sullins. (It is noted that Mrs. Maria Keritsis was absent due to a death in the family). He stated the purpose of the meeting was for the Board to be presented with a review of the proposed School budget. He stated that he had reviewed the School budget and that it and the format were very well done.' Dr. Partin ~tated the process was handled di~ierently this year and they did listen to the public, principals, teachers, etc. to obtain the most input that was available. Es stated the budget includes programs and details lrom the point of growth and stated that good schools draw population. He stated appreciation to the Board for its support, cooperation and concern for the School system. Dr. Sullins explained in detail the list of issues used to prepare the budget which were: Eow to maintain and improve the quality cf the programs and services we now have; 2. How to provide personnel, facilities and resources for continuing increases in enrollment; 3. How to provide equity in programs and services to all students; 4. How to introduce new and expanded programs which will be compatible without County curriculum; and 5. How to provid~ appropriate salaries and benefits for school personnel. He presented and explained additional slides dealing with the pupil/teacher ratio; how money (increase and decrease) is distributed in various categories; the operation budget revenue for 1985-86; five year comparison in revenue; the operation budget expendituresl the per pupil expenditure for operations for 1983-84, other items requested but not included, etc. Dr. Sulllns also presented a chart indicating the additional state funds in thc Hchool budget and the total budget which amounts to $124,854,394. Ee stated this reflects the most progressive improvement in the School system in education in any one year in the past decade. He stated the thrust is improving teachers' ealarle~ and the delivery of services to the children. There was some discussion regarding the timetable for adoption of the School budget which the Board indicated they would like adopted prior to Way 1, 1985. The Board congratulated the School Board/Administration on a job well done. The Board recessed to travel to the Board Room for the afternoon Reconvening: 85-106 Mr. Applegate introduced Mr. Bill Peele, Chief of Development Review, who will be presenting staff comments during the zoning sessions and Mr. John MoCracken, Director of Transportation, who will also be participating in the zoning meeting~. Mr. Applegate stated that Mr. Mayes would be presiding over the zoning sesziou pursuant to the rules and procedures of the Board. Mr. Daniel stated that he would have ko be leaving early this date and requested that the Board hear the Dale District cases first rather than in order ax advertised. The Board agreed that this would be acceptable. 10.H. PJ~QUEST FOR MOBILE HOME PER~IT 85SR019 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Elias Breeding requested renewal of a Mobile Rome Permit on property which he owns fronting on the east line of Seminole Avenue, approximately 100 f~et south of Maywood Street. Tax Map 98-6 (3) Belmeade, Block 13, Lot~ 31-34 (Sheet 32) and better known as 10607 Seminole Avenue. Mr. Breeding was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request for a period of five years subject to the following standard conditions: 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. 2. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor ~hall 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. 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoninq requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existinq residence. 4. No additional port, anent-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. 5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office ef the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation Or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous 10.I. R~QUBSTS FOR REz0NING 84S196 In Dale Magisterial District, GROV~R C. AND ROSA H. KESLER AND LEWIS T. AND MARION ~. WOODCOCK requested rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Convenience Business (B-I) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a convenience store on a 1.46 acre parcel fronting approximately 305 feet on the east line of 85-107 ~urner Road also fronting approximately 70 feet on Walmsley ~oulevard, and located in the sou=heast quadrant of the intersec- tion of these roads. Tax Map 40-6 (1) Parcels 14 and 15 (Sheet ~r. Peele stated the applicant had requested withdrawal of this ~ase. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~econded by Mrs. Girone, the Board accepted the applicant's request for withdrawal. 84S101 In Dale Magisterial District, CEESTERFIELD TOWING, INC. requested s Conditional Use to permit a motor vehicle towing and repair business in an Agricult%ral (A) District on a 2.61 acre parcel fronting approximately 470 feet on the east line of Hopkins Road at its intersection with Laurel Oak Road. Tax Map 81-5 (1) Parcel 19 and Tax Map 81-9 (1) Parcel 13 (Sheet 23). Mr. Peele stated the applicant had requested withdrawal of the spplication. There was no opposition present. Mr. Daniel presented the Hoard with a petition against the case. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board accepted the applicant's request for withdrawal. Vote: Unanimous 85SOll In Dale Magisterial District, BERNARD R. HUFF, INC. requested Conditional Use to permit a contractor's ehop and storage in an Agricultural (A) District on a 2.3 acre parcel fronting approximately 475 feet on the north line of Thurston Rd., adja~ cent to the west line of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. Tax Map 81-10 (1) Parcels 1 and 2 (Sheet 23). Mr. Peele Stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval ef the request subject to certain conditions. There was no one present in opposition to the request. Mr. Huff was present and stated he would like the request granted for ten years rather than six years and would like to be allowed to place a structure ~ ~on the site comparable to what exists now. Mr. Daniel stated that he had received a petition from area residents in favor of this request and he stated that this property has been used for similar purpose for several years. On motion cf Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan submitted with the application shall be considered the plan of development. A second structure, similar to the existing structure, may be constructed. 2. This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Bernard R. Huff, Inc., and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. (P) 3. Thi~ Conditional Use shall be granted for a period not to exceed ten (10) years from the date of approval. (P&CPC) 4. There shall be nO more than two (2) employees and no more than two (2) employee cars located on the site. There shall be no outside storage of equipment, materials or supplies. With the exception of equipment parked outside for cleaning purposes and employee parking, all operation shall be confined to the inside cf the existing structure. (P) 85-108 The existing parking area and driveway shall be graveled with a minimu~ of six (6) inches of number 21 or 2lA stone. The driveway and parking area shall be delineated by a permanent means (i.e., railroad timbers, concrete curb and gutter, etc.). Hours of operation shall be confined to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. There shall be no Saturday or Sunday operations. (Note: VDH&T has indicated that commercial entrance permits must be obtained. It will be necessary to install a stan- dard co~m~eroial entrance along Thurston Road.) 84S064 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ~JR, A VA PARTNERSHIP requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 163.5 acre parcel lying at the western terminus of West Providence Road. Tax Map 38-9 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheets 13 and 14). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial o£ the request. Mr. Pat Bowe was present representing the applicant and stated they have been attempting to work out access to this parcel for many years. He stated they would like the Board to make a decision on three pertinent issues on the case which involves: 1. the zoning of the property to R-9 with the proffering of a maximum of 300 units; 2. that they be allowed to use Rrovldence Road as the main entrance to the property; and 3. that they be granted relief on the rule of no more than 50 units can be constructed prior to the second access being constructed. He explained the reasoning in detail for each request and asked for rezoning to R-9 with the three exceptions. Mr. Micas stated that verbal proffers could not be accepted. He stated that prof£ers must be submitted in writing prior to the Board meeting. Mr. Bowe stated they had a meeting last week and the last page of the report indicates this. Mr. Nicas stated the state law indicates that the developer must submit proffers in writing. Be stated further that the access road and the relief On the 50 units are subdivision issues that can only be addressed by the Planning Commission through subdivision review and not by the Board. He stated it would not be proper for the Board to accept these proffers. There was no opposition present. Mr. Appleqate inquired if the zoning were changed to R-12 could the Board accept the proffer and waive the other requirements. Mr. Mi~a~ stated it could not. When asked, Mr. Bowe stated he would accept a deferral~ if necessary. After further discussion, it was On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that this matter be deferred until March 27, 1985 to allow the developer time to submit the proffers in the correct form. Vote: Unanimous 85-109 84S134 In Matoaca Maqisterial District, WILFRED AND JANICE requesteda Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions in a Residential (R-7) District on a 1.58 acre parcel fronting approximately 155 feet on the north line of River Road, approximately 50 feet east of Wilcox Street. Tax Map 186-4 (1) Parcel 8 (Sheet 52). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Co~mission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. He stated that a study of the Matoaoa Village was authorized by the Board and that study suggested that this use was not appropriate in this area. Mr. Jeff Collins, representing the applicant, stated the exists in the area and the applicant will abide by the conditions recommended. He stated they do not feel this is inappropriate, it is only two houses away from the exishinq business area, there is a dilapidated building on the site, the Planning Commission approved the request, and he felt this would enhance property values in the area. Fir. William Ingles, an adjacent property owner, stated his opposition to the request for business in a residential area. He stated that he agreed with the Matoaca Villaqe Plan and commended staff for their work. Another adjacent property owner was present and indicated his opposition as well. Mrs. Rowlett stated she had met with the Matoaca Advisory Board and had canvassed the area as to the desires of the residents and had submitted a plat indicating those opposed and those in favor. She stated She was concerned that the area being recommended for business in the Matoaca Village Plan has roads that are too small end will not accommodate additional traffic but River Road can. She stated that to begin a business it is necessary to be readily accessible to the cuetomers. She reviewed the history of the application and the area. She stated their application would not disrupt anyone's property whereby other alternatives could. Mr. Dodd stated that he felt sympathetic to the Rowletts but he could not vote in favor of busineee in a residential area next to residents who are opposed. Mr. Rowlett submitted pictures of the existing structure, the proposed structure, etc. He discussed fire protection, the small streets, three schools, the need for this drug store in the area, etc. Mrs. Girone stated that she felt the Board should adhere to the plan which was compiled basically because of this case. Mr. Appleqate stated that the plan addressed the protection of the quality of life and he felt this dr~g store would do that. Mr. Mayes stated he sympathized with the applicant and that there was a desire to bring business and industry to the County but he could not approve placing businessem in residential areas when the adjacent property owners were opposed. He statmd even though people want the businesses, the people next door have to be in favor. ~e stated the area is not zoned for business and based on those two points he could not recommend approval. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board denied this request. Vote: Unanimous 84S20I In Bermuda Magisterial District, W.E. DUKE AND SONS, INC. requested Conditional Use to permit a landfill in a Community 85-110 Business (~-2) District on an 11.0 acre parcel fronting approzi- mately 800 feet on the east llne of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 600 feet south of Osborne Road. Tax Map 98-14 (1) Parcel 6 (.~heet 32). Mr. Peele ~tated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to certain conditions and the B~ard had deferred tine request from the last meeting to allow the applicant to be pres,~nt. There was no opposition present. Mr. Dodd inquired if this request was just for building materials. Mr. Duke stated it was for stumps, concrete, etc. Mr. Dodd stated recently there was a problem with dumping. Mr. Duke stated that they have installed a cable across the roadway now which should eliminate the public dumping. Mr. Dodd stated h8 had received calls of concern on how long the landfill would be there, etc. Mr. Duke stated they are not trying to detract from the area and noted that what they will be doing in the future will be an asset. Mr. Pools stated site plans where the fill areas are, etc. will have to be submitted at termination of the usa. Mr. Daniel ~tated he was concerned that some of the main areas in t]~e County ars being used for landfills. Mr. Peele stated filling would not occupy the entire site and if they went out of the area designated they would be in ~oncempliance. Mr. Duke reviewed the site and the proposed operation, the topography of the area and the low terrain. After furt]%er discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, resolved that this request he approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Wi][tiam J. Schmidt, updated 9/6/84, shall be considered the plan of development. (P) Prier to any filling, plans showing the location of the 100 year floodplain, limits of the fill, erosion control measu::es, final grading and stabilization of the site upon completion of filling shall be submitted to =nvironmental ~ngineering ~or approval. Finished grades shall not exceed a elope of 3:1. (EE) (Note: The Floodplain Management Ordinance prohibits any filling within the limits of the 100 year floodplain or within five (5) (horizontal) feet of the limits of the floodplain). 3. Fill material ~hall be confined to building materials, soil, stone~ recks, Stumps or other natural inert material. No household garbage or waste shall be dumped on the site. 4. After completion of the landfilllng activities, a plat shewing the location of the fill area and types of material buried shall be submitted to th~ Planning Department. This plat ~hall be accompanied by a soil engineering report defin:~ng the nature of the fill. The requirement of this condil:ion shall be affixed to a plat of the ~ubject property and, %~pen approval by the Planning Department, recorded in the C:~ro~it Court Record Room with the property reference. (SS) 5. No facilities shall be constructed over fill areas unless soil engineerinq studies prove the suitability of such COhere-action. (SS) 6. During the hours of operation, a supervisor shall be located on the site for the purpose of monitoring and directing the fill activity. (R) 7. The entrance shall be barricaded with a gate which shall be locke([ when the supervisor recp/ired by the preceding condition is not at the site. 85-111 8. The wooded areas shall remain undisturbed, as shown on the plan, and shall be retained to serve as buffers. (P) 9. The existing earth berms along Jeffc~s0n Davis Highway shall be maintained. However, if VDH&T de%ermines that the berms block sight distance along Jefferson Davis Highway, the berms shall be relocated to the east and planted with evergreen trees to minimize the view from Jefferson Davis Highway. (p) 10. This Conditional Use shall be granted for a period not to exceed five (5) years from date of approval. (P&CPC) Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel excused himself from the meeting. 84S060 (Amended) In Midlothian Magisterial District, W.H. JONES requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-7) to Residential (R-9) and Light Industrial (M-l) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on a 28.0 acre parcel lying app:oximately 550 feet off the so~th line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 500 £eet west of Mt. Pisgah Dr. Tax Map 16-13 (1) Parcels 2 and 5 (Sheet 7). Mr. Boole stated the' Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. John Henson was present representing the applicant. He stated this request encompasses 28 acres, lS of which will be zoned R-9. He stated on 17 of the 18 acres~ they propose to construct a 180 unit retirement home and he explained the layout, access, buffering, etc. Mrs. Girone inquired about the access road to Walton Park. Mr. Henson stated the plan will be redesigned to %he southern end oX the property to eliminate the access road. Mrs. Joycc Crawford stated she was not totally opposed to this request hut questions this being proposed over the strip mining areas in Midlothian and if it should affect their well, would they he protected. Mr. ~enson stated they would aeoept a condition to provide public water if the development adversely affects their well. Mr. Micas stated this would be setting a dangerous precedent by placing conditions in sening cases that indemnify or guarantee certain impacts on adjacent property that may ocour because of the development. He stated this should be a private matter and should not be addressed at this time. Mr. Henson stated a soils firm would be giving them reports on the property which will determine where certain structures may or may not be proper. Mr. Applegate inquired if a rest home were to be constructed. Mr. Henson stated the applicant will be se~ling that portion of the property to another firm who will be buildinq a rest home. Mr. P0ele stated that a rest home will have to be built there or it will require an amendment to the application. Mrs. ~irone stated she felt this was a good plan and requested that the applicant be mindful of the two concerns of Mrs. Crawford. She stated the applicant was at her monthly meeting and satisfied most of the concerns of the residents. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: · 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated 11/19/84, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 85~112 2. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the eastern and southern property lines, along the northern boundary of the residential tract and between the residential and the industrial t~actS. Other than walking trails in the residential tract, fences and/or terms, there shall be no facilities permitted within these buffers. With the exception cf underbrush, all existing vegetation within these buffers shall be maintained and shall be supplemented where necessary to affect a proper screen. At the time of schematic plan review, conceptual landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted in oonjunction with final site plan review. (P&CPC) 3. In conjunction with the approval of this request, exceptions to the 100 foot setback requirement for M-1 uses adjacent to residential zoning shall be granted, as shown on the Master Plan. (P) 4. The view of the office/warehouse loading areas shall be minimized from the east/west drive by landscaping on both sides of %he entrances into these areas. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted for approval in conjunction with final si~c plan review. (P) 5. The architectural style of the office/warehouses shall blend with the architectural style of the rest home. In conjunction with schematic plan submission, a colored rendering shall be submitted to the Planninq Commission for approval. (P) 6. The rest home shall have an architectural style, as d~pict~d in the renderings submitted with %he application. (P) 7. Ail roads, driveways and parking areas shall ~e paved. Concrete curb and gutter shall be ins%ailed around the perimeter e~ driveways and parking area~. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedes- trian traffic. 8. The emergency access, shown on the Master Plan to Walton Park Road, shall be eliminated. The second access into the rest home shall be provided via a connection between the southern driveways in the office/warehouse tract and the rest home tract. This southern driveway shall be connected to the proposed north/south road. (T&P) 9. The OCCupants of the rest home shall be restricted to the aged (i.e., 60 years old and older), infirm, chronically ill or incurably afflicted. (P) 10. The proposed east/we~= public road, as shown on the Master Plan along the northern boundary, shall be designed as private driveway. This driveway shall be designed as a divided road with two (2) twenty-four (24) foot lanes, face of curb to iace of curb, separated by a four (4) foot median. The exact location of crossovers along this driveway shall be determined at the time of schematic plan review. (p) 11. The proposed north/south public road, as shown on the Master Plan, shall have a minimum right of way of seventy (70) feet. This road shall be constructed as a four (4) lane divided road, with two (2) twenty-four (24) foot lanes, face of curb to face of curb, separated by a median. This typical section shall extend from Route 60 to the southerr~Gost access into the office/warehouse tract. A 85-113 minimum o~ twenty (20) feet shall be maintained between the eastern boundary of the Midlothian Middle School athletic field and the right of way. This twenty (20) foot area shall be landscaped in accordance with the "Minimum Guidelines for Landscaped Buffers." A landscaping plan de- picting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site plan review. Landscaping shall be accomplished prior to the release of any occupancy permits. (T) 12. Additional pavement and curb and gutter, to accommodate and right turn movements, shall be constructed along Route 60, as deemed necessary by VDH&T and Transportation Department. (T) 13. Within the residential tract, sidewalks shall be provided from parking areas to building entrances. Sidewalks shall be a minimum of four (4) feet wide. (P) 14. Within the residential tract, parking spaces shall be provided at a ratio of one (1] space £or each bedroom. A centrally located storage area for bcate, truok~, travel and utility trailers shall be provided~ the total of which may be subtracted from the required number of space~. (P) 15. ~xcept for directional signs, a single freestanding sign identifying the office/warehouse tract shall be permitted. This sign shall not exceed an aggregate area of fifty (50} square feet and a height of ten (10) feet. Building mounted signs shall be as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Signs for the rest home shall be as permitted by the Zoning Ordi- nance for institutional uses. The rest home identification ~ign may be located within the office/warehouse tract. Signs shall neither be luminous nor illuminated. Signs shall be similar in color, style and material and shall blend with the architectural style of the structures. Prior to erection of the signs, colored renderinge shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. 16. Parcel 5, Tax Map 16-13 shall be rezoned to Residential (R-9) and uses permitted shall he limited to single family residential. (P&CPC) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Daniel. 84Sl18 (Amended) In Clover Hill Magisterial District, DOUGLAS C. BRADBURY requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) with Conditional Use Planned Development on a 62 acre parcel at the southwestern terminus of Sunset Hill Drive. Tax Map 38-14 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommen~e~ approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jim Hayes, representing the applicant, was present and crated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. Mr. Applegate inquired how condition number 3 would be complied · with regarding the road network. Mr. MoCracken explained the access that was proposed. Mr. Mayes explained the etub road situation, the second access after 59 lots have been recorded, other possible property accesses, etc. Mr. Applegate stated he was concerned that the Board is considering zoning property that would require improvements on adjacent property to the nor=h and northwest. He stated he would not approve the connector road as it exists on the plat with people living in the middle of a 85-114 median. Mr. Hayes stated the applicant was requested to prepare a master plan for the area disregarding property lines and this was their attempt to do this realizing Powhite to the north presented a barrier, Falling Creek pretty much circled the prcperty, etc. He stated there is no obligation on anyone's part to build the collector road. Mr. Peele ~tated condition number 3 could be amended by the Planning Commission at a later date if the applicant makes a good faith effort to develop another access that is not available. Mr. Applegate stated he could not accept the connector road at this time as he did not feel this would be proper and the houses would depreciate in value. It was generally agreed that mention of a collector should be eliminated from the conditions. After further discussionr it was on moticn of Mr. Appleqate, secended by Mr. Dodd~ the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan entitled Brandon, prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, Inc., dated June 25, 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. The applicant's road plan shall serve as a guide to.major road development in the area bounded by Courthouse Road, Falling Creek and the proposed Powhite Parkway. This condition may be modified by the Planning Commission during cChematic plan review. The Second public road aceecs required by the Subdivision Ordinance shall be prcvlded prior to the recordation of more than 59 lots or the icsuance of more than 50 building permits. (Be) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Daniel. $4S193 (Amended) In Matoaca Magisterial District, LaVERNE C. COLE requested rezoning from Agricultural (A} to Convenience Business (~-1} plus Conditional Use Planned Development on an 11.58 acre parcel fronting approximately 259 feet on the west line of Iron Bridge Rd., approximately 1,300 feet south of Greenyard Rd. Tax Map 96-13 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 31). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commiscion had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. He added further that staff had recommended a 60 day deferral since the request includes only a portion of a larger parcel of land and that the request parcel lies withi~ the Central Planning Area. Mr. Cole was present, stated the conditions were acceptable and requested that the application not be deferred at this time. He indicated that ceveral other requects had been approved recently that were in the same general area and he did not feel the study would be completed within 60 days. He added further that there had been previous deferrals and they would prefer to proceed with the case. There was no opposition present. Mr. Mayes ctated he did not feel the applicant should be penalized at this point until the report is completed. .On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the Master Plan and textual ctatement prepared by Austin Brockenbrough and Associates, revised 11/27/84, shall be considered the plan of development. (p) 85-115 2. The structures shall have an architectural style similar to the pictures submitted with the application. 3. In conjunction with schematic plan review, a site landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Plants shall consist cf Ornamental trees and shrubs to supplement native vege- tation that will be retained. {P) 4. Except directional signs which ~hall be governed by Zoning Ordinance requirements, one (1) £reestanding sign shall be permitted identifying this development and the tenantm therein. This sign shall not exceed an aqgregate area of 100 square feet and a height of ten (10) feet. Individual freestanding buildings shall be permitted building-mounted signs not to exceed an aggregate area of 0.5 square feet £or each One foot cf buildinq frontage. Business signs ~kay be illuminated, but shall not be luminous. Prior to erection of any signs, a sign package depicting typical colors, mate- rials and styles shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for.approval. (P) 5. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed along Route 10, as deemed necessary by VDH&T and the Transportation Department. (T} 6. The developer shall be responsible for modifications to the existing crossover and installation of left turn lau~s, as deemed necessary by the Transportation Department and VDH&T. (T and VDH&T) 7. The proposed public roads shall be dedicated by su/Ddivision plat. The roads shall be constructed to a minimum typical section of forty (40) feet, face of curb to face of curb. (T and VDE&T) 8. Curb and qutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (ES) 9. Prior to obtaining a building permit, a Master Drainage Plan for the entire 11.58 acres shall be submitted to and approved by ~nvironmental Engineering. (Note: P~ior to obtaining building permits, schematic plans must be approved by the Planning Commission.) Ayes: Mr. Appl~gate, Mr. Maye$,.Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Daniel. 8~8001 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, WINSTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 43.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 753 feet on the south line of Lucks Ln. approximately 900 feet east of Spirea Rd. Tax Map 37~4 (1) Part of Parcel 6 (Sheet 13). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Mr. Hayes was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Daniel. $5-116 85S002 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, BRANDERMILL requeeted rezoning from Residential (R-7) and Light Industrial (M-l) to Office Business (0) plus amendment to a previously granbed Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 74S021) on a 49.1 acre parcel fronting the north line of Hull Street Rd. in two (2) places for a total of approximately 2,300 feet at Harbour Polnte Parkway. Tax Map 61-16 (1) Parcels 1 and 5 (Sheet 20). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. J. B. Campbell was present representing the applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable. There wes no Opposition present. On motion of Mr. Apptegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The plan submitted with the application, titled: Harbour Pointe Executive Center, prepared by CM$S Architecte, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. Concrete curb and gutter shall be used throughout the project. (EE) 3. Turn lanes shell be provided along Harbour Pointe Parkway, as deemed necessary by the Transportation Department and VDH&T at the =ime of site plan review. (T) Ayes= Mr. App!egate, Mr. Mayes, ~. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Daniel. 85S003 In Sermuda Magisterial District, THE CO,UNITY BANK reca~eeted Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk exceptions in a Convenience Business (B-l) District on a 1.79 acre parcel fronting approximately 258 fe~t on the south line of West Hundred Rd., also fronting approximately 344 feet on Winfree St., and located in the ~outheast quadrant of the intersection Of these roads. Tax Map 115-7 (2) Chester, Block Q2, Lots 412, 413, 413B and 414 (Sheet 32). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commiseion had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Ee presented the Board with an addendum which outlined two conditions which the applicant would like modified. Ne stated staff is in agreement with the modifications. ~r. Dean Hawkins was present representing the applicant and stated the conditions as amended were acceptable. Ee stated ~re. Lindsey, an adjacent property owner, is agreeable with the proposal. Mr. Dodd inquired if the applicant still wanted the tot playground loca=ed to the east and about any entrance to Dodomead Street. Mr. ~awkins stated there was no formal entrance on Dodomead and they would like to keep the tot playground as it exists now. Mr. Peele stated condition ~10 gives the Planning Commission the latitude to allow the applicant to leave the tot playground where it is and they have submitted detailed plans showing grading, landscaping, etc. and that would be presented to the Planning Commission in March. There was no opposition present. After further consideration, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, resolved that the Board approve this request subject to the following conditions; 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Dean E. ~awkins, revised November 25, 1984~ shall be censidered the Master Plan. (P) 85-117 2. Structures shall be as depicted in the elevations prepared by Dean ~. ~awkins, dated November 25, 1984. Facades shall employ brick and/or wood siding. Building colors shall be subdued. In conjunction with schematic plan submission, colored elevations (renderings) shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. (P) 3. P~ier to release of a building permit, forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of West ~undred Road, thirty (30) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Winfree Street, and twenty-five (25) feet of right of way, ~easu~ed from the oenterline of Dodomeade Street, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T, VDH&T and CPC) 4. Prior to release of final occupancy permits, additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along the entire property frontage abutting Route 10 and Winfree Street. (T, VD~&T and CPC) 5. Additional pavement shall be constructed along Route 10 to accommodate a left turn lane for the proposed entrance/exit. (T and VDB&T) 6. If the e~isting sidewalk along Route 10 is disturbed during construction, the developer shall be responsible for its replacement and/or restoration. (T) 7. If VDH&T and/or the Transportation Department determines that signal modification is neoessary because of this development at the intersection of Winfree Street and Ruute 10, the developer shall bear the cost. (T, VDH&T and CPC) 8. The following bulk exceptions shall be granted for the bank and day care center use, exclusively: A. A thirty-five (35) foot exception to the fifty (50) feet driveway and parking setback requirement from Route 10. B. A ten (10) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot building setback requirement from Route 10. C. An 8.5 foot exception to the twenty (20) foot setback requirement for canopies Zrom Winfree Street. D. kn exception to the parking requirement for day care centers. Parking shall be provided based on a ratio of one (1) space for each six (6) children enrolled, up to a maximum of six (6) spaces plus one for each employee. In addition, an area shall be provided for drop-off and delivery, which is physically separated from the parking area and is connected to the building by a sidewalk. (~) 9. Between the Route 10 and Winfree Street rights of way and driveways or parking areas, a three (3) to four (4) foot high undulating, landscaped earth berm shall be installed. In those areas where ~t is necessary to utilize the fifteen (15) foot setback for storm water retention, a berm shall not he required provided landscaping is accomplished which minimizes the view of driveways and parking areas from Route 10 and Winfree Street. Landscaping shall consist of ornamental trees and shrubs. A fifteen (15} foot buffer shall be maintained along the eastern property line and a twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained along the southern property line. These buffers shall be landscaped with a combination of evergreens and ornamental trees and shrubs. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Com- mission for approval, in conjunction with schematic pl=n submission. A detailed landscaping plan shall be 85-118 ~ubmitted to the Blanning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P) 10. Playground areas shall be enclosed with a fenoe, having a minimum height of four (4) feet. (BS) 11. 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 pedes- trian traffic. (~) 12. If detention is employed, it shall be designed to hold a ten (10) year post development runoff with a release rate which can be handled by the existing storm sewer system. 13. Outdoor lighting shall be low level, not to exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet, and shall be positioned so as not to project light into adjacent properties. 14. With the exception of directional signs, two (2) free- standing signs, not to exceed an aggregate area of silty-eight (6~) square feet (one (1) at thirty-two (32) square feet and One (1) at thirty-six (36) square feet), shall be permitted identifyinq this development. These siqn~ ~hall not exceed a height of ten (10) feet. These signs shall be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from right ~f way lines. Suilding-mounted signs shall De no lar~er than one (1) square foot for each two (2) ~eet of buil4inq frontage. Signs may be ex- ternally liqhted Or may be internally liqhted if the sign field is opaque with translucent letters. Sign colors and materials shall blend with the structures. Directional signs shall be ~overned by Zoning Ordinance requirements for B-1 Districts. Prior to erection of any ~igns, a sign package showing typical styles, colors~ materials, etc. sha~l be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. (P&CPC) (~ote: Prior to obtaining a buildinq permit, s~he~atic plans must be approved by the Planning Commission.) Ayes: M~. Applegats, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Daniel. SSS005 In Matoaca Magisterial District, MIDLOTBIA~ ENTERPRISES, INC. requested rezoning from Aqricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) on a 1,425 acre parcel fronting apDreximately 6,950 feet on the west line o~ Nash Rd., approximately 1,300 feet north of Woodpecker Rd., also fronting approximately 1,400 feet on the south line of Beach Rd., approximately 200 feet east of Carlow Rd. Tax Map 94 (1) Parcels 8, 12 and 14; Tax Map 112 (1) Parcels 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, ~ and 9; and Tax Map 113 (1) Parcel 1 and Part of Parcel 32 Sheets 30, 31 and 39). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Mr. Bryce Powell was present representing the application. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mmyes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved the request. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Daniel. 85$007 In Matoaca Magisterial DistrUst, C~0VER AS$OCIATBS recfuested resonin9 from AGricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) on a 156.0 acr~ parcel fronting approximately 520 feet on the north line of Spring Run Rd., approximately 1,400 feet east of Bending Oak Dr. Tax Map 92-3 (1) Part of Farcel 20 and ~ax Map 92-7 (1) Part of Barcel 3 (Sheets 20 and 29). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to acceptance of the proffered conditions. Mr. Charles Vette was present reprssenting the applicant and explained the proffers submitted. He stated he had met with the residents of Clover ~itl Farms and stated he felt it was a successful meeting as their main concerns were for the types of homes and traffic. Re stated the size of homes in their proposed subdivision are similar to those in Clover Kill Farms. described the road surface in Clover Hill Farms and the proposed subdivision which he felt was of better quality. He described the area, the homes proposed, the lots, the average assessments for existing homes in Clover Hill Farms, etc. with which he felt their development wo~ld be compatible. Mr. Milt Nevrenchanr a resident of Clover Hill Farms, was present and stated they did meet with Mr. Vette but they do not feel the meeting was as successful as he does. He stated they have a stable neighborhood; the minimum square footaqe for homes is 1,700 in the area but most are 2,500-3,200; etc. He stated they are concerned about the quality of life to be maintained in Clover Sill Farms but mainly about the safety factor. Ee stated the plat show~ connecting Singer Road turns their subdivision into a collector road. He stated this would detract from their quality of life. He stated there is a con, unity recreational center and the only way the children Get to the center is by walking down the road as there are no sidewalks and this additional traffic will cause safety problems. Mrs. Girone inquired about the road network and connection to Spring Run Road. Mr. Vett stated they intend to construct the entrance on Spring Run Road first and not extend Singer Road until it necessary. Mr. ~evrenchan stated they do not want Singer Road extended at all and added that Spring Run Road is dangerous enough now as 49% of the residents have had accidents in the neighborhood or direct vicinity of the area as well as visitors. He ~tated 83% of the residents do not want the neighborhood connected to anything. He referred to additional development to the east which would also provide that their subdivision become a connector for the entire area when there are alternatives available such as a Woodlake concept, access to Bailey Bridge Road, allow 50 homes and no more until he could obtain additional land; etc. Hs stated car accidents will be with kids and not cars, they don't want to harm their quality of life at the benefit of a developer, a developer is a risk taker and what he is proposing maximizes his opportunity at their expense. Mar. Bill Harris stated that Spring Run Road is a thoroughfare that carries about 1,500 cars per day and this proposal will add 950 trips per day when accidents already occur, He stated there is a curve where there were two fatalities on Spring Run, the residents travel that way and are concerned with the added traffic. Mr. Norman Foa~s and Mr. Boyd stated they were opposed to this request as their children have to wait for the bus in various hours of the morning and additional traffic will present dangerous situations. Mr. Vetta stated he did not take the traffic Concerns lightly as he had taken a traffic Count in the area for vehicles traveling west vs. east and the travel time to various locations in the 85-120 County. He stated more than 75% travelled east. Mr. Mayes stated he was concerned with the cars coming through Clover Hill Farms subdivision and their quality of life which would be reduced. Mr. retie stated they had designed the extension of Singer Road so that it was not a through straight street and felt the routing would discourage people from traveling through Clover Hill Farms to the west. He outlined the main entrance way into the subdivision and the remainder of the road network in the proposed suhdivisicne as well as adjusting Singer Road south to discourage through traffic. Mr. ~oote stated similar points were discussed at the Planning Con~ission meeting and they deferred the subdivision issue until the developer could met with the opposition. Mrs. Girone stated she ~ympathized with the citizens but this type of situation existe all over the County when people move into an area which is undeveloped, she stated a developer is coming in now with a compatible development and is connecting to another subdivision. She stated stub roads are placed in order for subdivisions to connect to undeveloped l~nd. She stated she did not feel the Board had any alternative hut to zone the property. Mr. Applegate stated he could understand the concern for people traveling through the eubdivision down Singer Road onto Bending Oak Road but he did not feel that would happen. ~e inquired if second entrance could be on 01d Chestnut Circle instead of Singer Road. ~e stated further that there are only 95 lots proposed and the developer could get 172 lots on the same proper%y. Mr. ~edrick advised the Board that these questions should be addressed by the Planning Con~mieaion at subdivision review and the Board cannot make these types of decisions. He stated he made this point in order that people do not feel decisions are being made here and now. Mr. Dodd stated he felt this was good planning in thie area and sited other types of experiences in Bermuda District. After further discussion, it was on mOtiOn of Mr. ~ayes, seconded by Mr. Dedd, resolved that this request be approved subject to acceptancs of the following proffers: 1. A minimum lot size of 37,g00 squar~ 2. An average lot size of not less than 1.10 acres. 3, A minimum lot width, measured at the building line, of 125 feet. Ayes: Mr. Apptegate, Mr. F~yes, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Daniel. Mr. Hedriok informed the p~ople preeent they could address their concerns regarding the 'roads at the March Planning Commission meeting during subdivision review. Mr. Applegate dieclesed to the Board that his company is involved in the sale of the property involved in the next soning case. He declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Compreheneive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himee!£ from the meeting . 8~Sg08 In Midlothian Magisterial District, VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY requested amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 80S092) to p~rmit outside storage, a 30 foot exception to the 100 foot height limitation for towere, and revision of the Master Plan in a Light Industrial (M-l) District on an 11.8 acre parcel fronting approximately 608 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike across from 0tterdale Rd. Tax Map 15 (1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet 7). 85-121 Y~r. Peele stated the Planning Contmiasion had reco~ended approval of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Ashby Baum was present and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was ne Oppeeltion present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan titled "Proposed Vepco District Headquarters," dated 10/22/84, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. The outside storage area shall be enclosed by an eight (8) foot high solid board fence and landscaping, similar to that shown on the Master Plan. (P) 3. In addition to landscaping to screen outside storage areas, site landscaping shall be accomplished in accordance with the Master Plan. (P) 4. Access into the site shall be located a minimum of 165 feet from Route 60. (T) 5. Additional pavement and curb and g~tter shall be installed along the entire Route 60 frontage, as deemed necessary by VDH&T and the Transportation Department. 6. The structure shall have an architectural style as depicted in the renderings titled "Proposed Vepco Headquarters, Midlothian Turnpike and Otterdale Road," dated 10/22/84. 7. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval the Master Plan. (P) (Note: All conditions of Conditional Use Planned Develop- ment 80S092 shall apply. 1 Ayes: Mr. Mayes, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Applegate and Mr. Daniel. Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting. 855O10 In Midlothian Magisterial District, BERNARD L. AND JUDIT~ MATHEWS requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk exceptions (setbacks] in an Agricultural (A) District on a 0.51 acre parcel fronting approximately 105 feet on the south line of Midlothlan Turnpike, approximately 2,400 feet west of 0tterdale Rd. Tax Map 14 (1) Parcel 35 (Sheets 5 and 6). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Dean Hawkins was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the request subject to the following conditions: l. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Dean ~. Hawkins, dated October 5, 1984, shall be considered the ~aster Plan. (P) 2. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan. (P) (Note: All previously imposed conditions for Conditional U~e 84S138 must be adhered to.) Ay~: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. DanieL. 85-122 85S013 In Matoaea Magisterial District, RICHMOND VENTURE CO., LTD. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business (B-2) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on a 26.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,800 feet on the south line o£ Hull Street Rd., also fronting approximately 1,370 feet on Gonito Rd., and located in the south- east quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 49-10 (1) Part of Parcels 12 and 14 (sheet 14). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this rec/uest subject to certain conditions. Mr. Ed Willey, Jr. was present representing the applicant an~ state~ the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Bhilip A. Shaw and Assoc., P.C., revised 11/15/84, and the application shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the southern property line, unless modified by the Planning Commission through schematic plan review o£ a buffer plan which proves that sufficient screening can be accomplished in a lesser width. The buffer width shall be exclusive of any drainage, water Or sewer easements. The buffer shall be landscaped so as to screen this development from adjacent properties. A conceptual lands0aping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan r~view. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within ninety (90) days of clearing and rough grading. 3. A forty (40) foot setback shall be permitted along Hull Street Road. Within this setback, a three (3) to four (4) foot high undulating earth b=rm shall be installed. This berm shall be landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs. Berming and landscaping shall not be permitted within the water easement along Null Street Road. A fifty (50) foot setback shall be maintained along Genito Road. Ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted within this setback. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement chall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in eon- junction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within ninety (90) days of clearing and rough grading. 4. Parkinq areac shall have at least five (5) square feet of interior landscaping for each space. ~ach landscaped area shall contain a minimum fifty (50) square feet; shall have a minimum dimension of at least five (5) feet; and shall include at least one (1) tree, having a clear trunk of at least five (5) feet. The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs, ground cover or other authorized landscaping material. The total number of trees shall not be less than on~ (1) for each 200 square feet, or fraction thereof, of required interior landscaped area. Landscaped areas shall be located so as to divide and break up the expanse of paving. The area designated as required setbacks shall not be calculated as required landscaped area. Conceptual plans depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within ninety (90) days of clearing and rough grading. (P&CPC) 85-123 5. Schematic plans shall be submitted for approval for the entire development. (P) 6. ~rior to erection of any signs, a complete sign package, include typical colors, sizes, lighting, etc., shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Signs shall comply with the requirements of the respective zoning classification, unless modified by the Planning Commission through schematic plan approval. (P) 7. Lighting for building L and the future development tract shall be low level, not to exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet and positioned so as not to project light into adjacent residential property. (P) 8. 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 pedes- trian access. 9, Prier to release of a building permit, forty-five (45) feet of right of way measured from the centerline of Genito Read shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T) 10. An additional lane of pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along Genlto and Hull Street Roads for the entire property frontage. This construction may be phased in conjunction with the phasing of the development. A phasing plan shall be submitted to the Transportation Department for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. (T) 11. Access to Genito Road shall be limited to three (3) entrances/exits. The northernmost access shall align with Stigall Drive. The second access shall be designed to serve the shopping center and the loading areas. The third access shall be located to serve the office/warehouse tract and the shopping center loading area (see Staff's amended access plan). (T&CPC) 12. Access to Hull Street Road shall be limited to a maximum of four {4) entrances/exits as follows: a. One (1) entrance/exit shall be permitted to serve the service station (Building A) and the restaurant (Building B). This accezz shall be a minimum of 200 feet east of the Route 360/Genito Road intersection. b. The second access shall be designed as the main entrance/exit into the shopping center and shall be located a minimum of 750 feet east of the Route 360/Genito Read intersection. The developer shall be responsible for relocation of the existing crossover on Bull Street Road, east of this entrance/exit. A left turn lane shall be constructed at the crossover. c, ~f the easterrumost existing crossover which serves this site is ClOSed, a third entrance/exit shall be permitted approximately t,2§0 feet east of the Route 360/Genito Road intersection. d. I~ the easternmost existing crossover which serve~ this site is closed, a fourth entrance/exit shall be permitted between 1,550 and 1,700 feet east of the Route 360/Genito Road intersection. This entrance/exit shall be permitted only if documentation is submitted to VDE&T and the Transportation Department, verifying adequate sight distance or a method of obtaining adequate sight distance. (T) 85-124 13. Entrances/exits to public roads, permitted herein, shall have a minimum of two (2), twenty-four (24) foot wide lanes (measured from face of curb to face of curb) separated by a median. This typical section shall extend a minimum length of 165 feet into the property measured from the property line. There shall be no access or median breaks permitted along this 165 foot section. However, if schematic plans ere submitted which prove that traffic circulation problems would net occur by allowing access along the 165 foot section, .or that traffic can be handled with a less typical section, the Planning Commission may modify the condition. 14. The structures shall have an architectural style as depicted in the renderings prepared by Freeman & Morgan, Architects, P.O., submitted with the application. 15. Prior to release cf any building permits, an overall master drainage plan shall be submitted to Environmental Engineering for approval. 16. Unit L shall be limited to office/warehouse or retail uses, exclusively. Retail use shall only be permitted if it is accessory to an office/warehouse use, does not exceed 1,000 square feet for each individual business establishment and is limited to a use permitted in the B-1 District. {P) 17. All uses located within the "Future Development Area" shall be limited to Convenience Business (9-1) uses. (P) lS. In conjunction with site plan submission, a plan for retention/detention for that portion of the site which drains to Homer's Run shall be submitted to Environ- mental Engineering for approval. (EE) 19. The exterior of the Hornet ~ouse shall be preserved. Other than normal maintenance, there shall be no exterior additions or alterations without schematic plan approval by the Planning Commission. In conjunction with schematic plan submission for the conversion of the house, detailed landscaping plans that will enhance the architectural significance of the structure shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Daniel. @55014 In Midlothlan ~agistarial District, JONATHAN P. AND MARY BETH A. T~RP~ELL, D.V.M. requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a veterinary hospital in Community Husinems (9-2) and Residential (R-7) Districts on a 2.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 83 feet On the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 420 feet west of Walton Park Rd. Tax Map 16-9 (1) Part of Parcel 33 (Sheet 7). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject tO certain conditions. Mr. Terrell was present representing the applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was nc opposition present. On motion of Firs. Girone, seconded by ~r. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Weodrow K. Corer, Inc., dated November 14, 1984, and the application shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be limited exclusively to a veterinary hospital. (p) 85-125 3. The building shall have an architectural style similar to that depicted in the elevations prepared by Furr Associates, dated November 1984. (P) 4. Curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (EE) 5. Access to this parcel shall be designed and constructed to be shared with the existing, adjacent commercial development to the east. The existing access which serves the adjacent development to the east shall be eliminated. (T and VDH&T) 6. Prior to the release of a final occupancy permit, additional pavement and curt and gutter shall be constructed along the entire property frontage abutting Route 60. 7. A single freestanding sign identifying this use shall be permitted. The sign shall be no larger than twenty-eight (28) square feet and shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet. Signs shall employ subdued colors and shall be similar to the sketch submitted with the application. Signs may be externally lighted, but may only be internally lighted if the signfield is opaque with translucent letters. Directional signs shall be as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance in Community Business (S-2) Districts. Building mounted signs shall be permitted, based on one (1) square foot for each two (2) feet of building frontage. (P) The previous conditions notwithstanding, all bulk requirements of the Community Business (B-2) District shall apply. (P) (Note: Prior to obtaining a building permit, schematic plans must be approved by the Planning Com~issicn.) Absent: Mr. Daniel. 85S015 In Midlothian Magisterial District, JAMES F. HUBBARD requested rezoning from Residential {R-7) to Office Business (0) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit u~e and bulk ~xcaptions on a 6.12 acre parcel fronting approximately 480 feet on the north line of Old B~okingham Rd., also fronting approxi- mately 680 feet on Alverser Dr., and located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 16-8 (1) Parcels 4 and 6 (Sheet 7). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Hubbard was present and stated the conditions were acceptable. He stated due to the road network and the drainage district, they felt this is the only feasible use and they hope the neighbors will be agreeable to the architectural desiqn. There was ne opposition present. Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: '1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, Inc., dated November 15, 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. The structures to be erected on the parcel shall have an architectural style similar to that depicted in the picture~ and renderings submitted with the application. The day care center shall be similar to the office buildings in architectural style. (p) 85-126 3. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the . perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage ~hall be designed $o as not to interfere with pedes- trian traffic. (~} 4. Prior to the ic~uance of the first building permit within each drainage outfall, a master drainage plan shall be submitted to Environmental Engineering for approval for that drainage outfall. 5. Prior to the release of a building permit~ thirty (30) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline~ of Old Buckingham Road and Alverser Drive, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T and VDH&T) 6. Additional pavement and curb and gutter (22 feet from centerline to face of curb) shall be constructed along the entire property frontage abutting Alverser Drive. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be con- structed along the entire frontage abutting Old Bucking- ham Road. These improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of any final occupancy permits. (T and VDH&T) 7. A twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained along the northern, western and eastern property lines where adjacent to residential zoning. These buffers shall be land~caped to minimize the view of driveways and parking areas from adjacent development. Ornamental tr~s and shrubs shall be installed between the right cf way lines and proposed improvements. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P} 8. Driveways and parking areas shall be landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs to divide up the expanse of pavement. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commis- sion for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning D~partment for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P) 9. No building shall exceed a height of two (2) ~tories. (P) 10. Lighting shall be low level, not to exceed a h~ight of fifteen (15) feet and shall be positioned se as not to project light into adjacent property. (P) 11. SIGNS a. One (1) freestanding sign visible from 01d Suckingham Road and/or Alverser Drive, net to exceed fifty (50) square feet in area and a height o£ ten (10) feet, shall be permitted identifying this development and the tenants therein. b. Individual buildings shall be permitted one (1) freestanding sign each, not to exceed five (5) feet in height and an area of ten (10) square feet. These signs shall be located within the complex and positioned se as not to be legible from public roads. These signs shall be cimilar to each other in cize, shape, and material. c. Signs may be externally lighted, but may be internally lighted if the signfield is opaque with translucent letterc. 85-127 d. Directional signs (entrance/exit, etc.) shall be governed by Zoning Ordinance requirements. e. Prior to er~cti0n of any ~igns, a comprehensive sign package to include colors, materials and typical designs shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Signs shall blend with the architectural style of the development. (P) 12. In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant an exception to permit a day care center on the request parcel. Also, the day care center shall be granted an exception to the required number of parking spaces. Parking shall be provided based on a ratio of one (1) parking ~pace for each ~fx' (6) children enrolled, up bo a maximum of six (6) spaces, plus one (1) for each employee. An urea £cr drop-off and pick-up shall be provided which im meparated from the main parking area. (P) (Note: Prior to obtaining a building permit, schematic plans must be approved by the Planning Con~ission.) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. M~yes, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Abstention: Mr. Daniel because he was not present during the entire discussion of the case. 855016 I~ Bermuda Magisterial District, T. HARRISON BURT requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use (offices) and bulk exceptions in a Residential (R-7) District on a 0.44 acrs parcel fronting approximately 95 feet On the north line of West Hundred Rd., also fronting approximately 200 feet on Old Centralia Rd., and located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 115-3 (1) Parcel 35 (Sheet 32). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Conumission had recommended approval subject to certain conditi0n~. Mr. Jeff Collins was present representing the applicant. He requested that they be allowed to have a 32 sq. ft. sign rather than l0 sq. ft. and presented a sketch. He also requested that they be allowed to amend the schematic plan which indicates the building will have 1,768 sq. ft. to 2,000 sq. ft. Mr. Peele indicated these changes were acceptable to staff. Mr. Dodd stated he would prefer to have one sign on the site. Mr. Collins stated this was acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Charles C. TOWheE and Associates, dated November 19, 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan. 2. The structure shall have an architectural style as depicted in the elevations submitted with the application. The building may be increased to 2,000 square feet. (P&BS} 3. One (1) freestanding sign, not to exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area and a height of six (6) feet, shall be permitted. This sign may be illuminated but shall not be luminous. The facades of the sign shall employ subdued colors. The sign shall be of wood construction similar to the applicant's plan. Prior to erection of the sign, colored renderings shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (BS) 85-128 4. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along Old Centralia Road and Route 10, as deemed necessary by the Transportation Department and VDH&T. (T and VDE&TI 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, forty-five (45) feet of right of way measured from the centerline of West Hundred Road, and thirty (30) feet of right of way measured from the centerline of Old Cent~alia Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chester£ield, free and unrestricted. (T and VDH&T) 6. Access shall be limited to one (1) entrance/exit to Old Centralia Road. This access shall be located as far from the intersection of Route 10 and Old Csntralia Road as practical. (T and VDH&T) 7. The parking area shall be screened from view of adjacent property to the north by existing vegetation, supplemented with additional planting. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan submission. An exception to the requirement that the parking area be screened from view of adjacent property to the west shall be granted. (P) 8. Concrete curb and gutter shall be in,tailed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (EE) 9. Drainage shall not be directed northward through the residential area. (EE) lO. The previous conditions notwi%hstandinq, all bulk requirements of the Office Business (o) District shall apply. (P) (Note: This requires that driveways and parking areas be paved.) 11. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan. (P) Mr. Applegate disclosed to the ~oard that his company is involved in the sale of the property involved in the next zoning case. He declared a conflict of inter,st pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. 85S017 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, TURNER AND ASSOCIATES requested rezening from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (M-l) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exception~ on a 22.0 acre parcel fronting the east line of Branchway Rd. in two places for a total of approximately 850 feet, approximately 350 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 17-9 (1) Parcels 7, 8, 9 and 11 (sheet 8). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. John Henson was present representing the applicant. Ec ~tated the applicant would like to amend condition 911 to read that all use exceptions shall be confined ~c an area "200" ft. rather than "260" ft. ss it is a difference of one additional building. Mr. Peele indicated staff did not not have any objections to this amendment. There was no opposition present. 85-129 On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girene, ~he Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The £ollowing conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, Inc., dated 10/30/84, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. Ail utility lines shall be provided with underground distribution. (P) 3. All driveways and parking areas shall be paved. (P) 4. Ail private drives and entrances shall be paved to a width of not less than 25 f~et. (P) 5. Concrete curb and gutte~ shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not to intertere with pedes- trian access. 6. A buffer, not to exceed a width of thirty (30) feet, shall be established along the southern property line, adjacent to Tax Map 17-13 (1) Parcel 2 (Garnett Property), if deemed appropriate at the time of schematic plan review. {P) 7. Ail buildings shall be set back a minimum of seventy (70) feet from Branchway Road. All uses fronting Branchway Road shall be limited to offices. At the time of schematic plan review, the Planning Commission may modify this condition. (P~CPC) 8. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, thirty (30) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Branehway Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along Branchway Road. (~) 9. The proposed public roads shall have a minimum right of way of sixty (60) feet which shall be dedicated by subdivision plat. The road shall be constructed to a width of forty (40) feet, face of curb to face of curb. (T) 10. The exact location of the north/south stub roads shall be determined by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the first schematic plan review, or in conjunction with review of the subdivision plat to dedicate the roads. (T) 11. All use exceptions shall be confined to an area 200 feet off Branchway Road. Use exceptions shall be limited to the following: a. All Convenience Business (B-l) uses; plus, b. Wholesale greenhouses c. Carpenter and cabinet shops d. Contractors' offices & display rooms e. ~lectrical, plumbing and/or heating shops sales and service f. Fraternal, philanthropic, and aharitable.uses g. Health clubs h. Laboratories i. Printing shops j. Repair services, except of automobiles k. Schools - commercial, trade, music, dance, business, vocational and training 1. Tool and equipment rental m. Communication studios and stations (not towers) n. Cocktail lounges, dining halls, night clubs o. Con%racto~s shop and storage yard P. Exposition building or center, stadiums, arena 85-130 Se U. V. W. Feed, seed, fuel, and ice sales Public utility service buildings, including facilities for construction or repair or for the service or storage of utility materials or equipment Recreational establishments, indoor Utility trailer and truck rental Veterinary hospitals, boarding kennels or clinics Freight forwarding, packing and crating services Wholesale trade (P) 12. In conjunction with the approval of this request, a ten (10) foot exception to the twenty-five (25) foot side yard setback requirement and the thirty (30) foot rear yard setback requirement shall be granted. (P) 13. In conjunction with schematic plan review for any site with outside storage, a conceptual plan for screening shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. A detailed plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (p) Ayes: Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Applegate. Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting. 85S026 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS requested reconsideration of a previously granted Conditional Use (Case 81S064) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use exceptions in a Residential (R-7) District on an 8.5 acre parcel fronting along the north and south lines of Ives Lane, beginning at a point approximately 400 feet south of Dell Drive, and also fronting the east and west lines of Bowlin Court. Tax Map 40-1 (12) Pocoshock Hills, Section 4, Block A, Lots 11 through 33 and Block B, Lots 8 through 11 (Sheet 15). Mr. Poole stated this case was double advertised for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors February meetings. He stated the Planning Commission deferred the case for 30 days and it would be in order for the Board to do the same. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred this case until March 27, 1985. Vote: Unanimous 11. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adjourned at 4:20 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. on March 13, 1985. Vote: Unanimous Ric~H L. Hearick County Administrator G. H. Kp~lega~ Chairman 85-131