The URL can be used to link to this page

03-13-85 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES March 13, 1985 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. G. H. Applegate, Chairman Mr. Jesse J. Mayes, Vice Chairman Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. R. Garland Dodd A~s. Joan Girone Mr. Richard L. Bedrick County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley R, Balderson, Dir. of Planning Mr. N. E. Carmichael, Comm. of Revenue Mrs. Doris DeHart, Legislative Coord. Chief Robert =anes, Fire Depaztment Mr. Phil Heater, Dir. of Parks & Rec. Mr. ~lmer Hodge, Asst. County Administrator Mr. John Marling, Principal Planner Mr. Robert Masden, Asst. Co. Admin. for Human Services Mr. Richard McEl£ieh, Dir. of Env. Eng. Mr. R. J. McCracken, Transp. Director Mrs. Mary A. McGuire, Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of News/Info. Services Mr. Je~Prey Muzzy, Asst. CO. Aclmin. for Development Major Linwood Parrish, Police Department Mr. Gary Patterson, Asst. CO. Attorney Mr. William Poole, Chief of Development Review Mr. Lane R~msey, Dir. of Budget & Acctg. ~r. Jay Stegmaier, Chief of Budget and Mgr. Mr. M. D. Stitht Jr.~ Exee. Asst., CO. Adm. Mr. David Welchcns, Dir. of Utilities Mr. Applegate celled the meeting to order at the Courthouse in Room 502 at 2:00 p.m. (EST). 1. PRESENTATION OF POWHITE PLAN Mr. Balderson stated the Board had received a copy of the Transportation and Land Use Plan for the Powhite/Rcute 288 Development area. He presented a schedule for formal adoption of the plan. He noted staff has not made an analysis or a 85-132 recommendation of the report but would do so by the end of the month. He stated that affected area localities had also been sent copies of the plan for their input. He introduced Mr. John Marling who is the staff coordinator working with the consultants in this project. Mr. Marling gave the Board an overview of the plan--revlewing the study area, the core area, the goals and objectives, the recormuended land use plan, the growth management and implementation plan, long and short term actions, the study and core area transportation improvements for existing and committed development and the study and core areas transportation ~mprovements for ultimate development. Mr. Dodd and Mr. Daniel expressed concern regarding Coalfield Road as they were not satisfied at this time with the cul-de-sacing and inquired about bridging, connecting, etc. ~r. Daniel stated at the time Powhite Parkway opens, he has no preference for either a bridge over Coalfield Road or a connector from Route 288 and Powhite to Lucks Lane/Coalfield Road, but at any rate he £elt the County should have one or the other or both et the tine Powhite opens. Mr. Hedrick stated that if there wer~ any changes in the plan at this point it would slow down the precess and the Nighway Department will be making the final decieion. He stated that the money was the problem at this point but in the future it could be bridged, connected, tunnelled~ etc. Mr. Appleqate recognized Deputy Sheriff Rudolph Jarrell and appointed him Sergeant at Arms for the remainder of the Board meeting. There was considerable discussion regarding the history of the project, area economic development, the interchanges in Henrieo County vs. those in Chestarfleld, the alternative plan's effect on area property owners, etc. The Board recessed for five minutes. Reconvening: 2. P~VIEW OF THE 1985-86 BUDGET Mr. Ramsey presented the Board with the list of budget objectives which had been agreed upon by the Board and on which the budget had been formulated, he reviewed the general government and enterprise funds, the fund balance and expenditure totals, the 1986 fund balance projection, the 1984-85 revised revenues, revenues ~er 1984-85 and 1985-86, real estat~ taxes, other significant revenue increases, the general fund cost increases from prior commitments and fixed costs, etc. Mr. Mayes requested that a 12th objective be added to the existing list of objectives which would be "To design a formula for equitable distribution of the resources throughout the County". After some discussion, it was generally agreed this would be added although the Board felt that decieion was reached at the February 21 and 22, 1985 meeting. Mr. Jay Stegmaier reviewed the new positions requested by the departments in the budget and items not reco~ended for funding. Mr. Ramsey reviewed the revenue issues, the potential tax rate impact of budget decisions and the schedule for adoption of the 1985-86 budget. Mr. Hedrick stated the Board would receive the budget in final form next week and staff recommended a balanced budget as well as maintaining existing services. Me elated the current and projected finances are good. Mr. Applegate indicated a desire to have the budget adopted by April 24, 1985. Mr. Hedrick stated the staff would like several work sessions to review each division's budget with the Board. It was generally agreed that the Board would be polled for dates for the work sessions. The Board recessed for five minutes. Reeonvening: 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by }~r. Daniel, the Board went into Executiv~ Session to discuss the condition, acquisition or USe of real property for public purposes pursuant to Section 85-133 2.1-344 (a) (2) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reeenvening: 4. INVOCATION Mr. Applegate introduced Reverend Henry E. Riley~ Jr., Pastor of Beulah Methodist Church, who gave the invocation. 5. APPROVAL OF MINU~ES 5.A. FEBRUARY 13~ 1985 On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board amended the minutes of February 13, 1985, to change the'interest payments for the Literary Loan for the new school at 360 West, Woodlake~ to four per cent rather than three per cent. 5.B. FEBRUARY 21 and 22, 1985 On motion of Mrs. cirea¢, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the minutes of February 21 and 22, 1985, as amended. Vote: Unanimous .~..C. FEBRUARY ~7, 1985 On motion of Mrs. Girene, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved the minutes of February 27, 1985, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS Mr. Hedrick congratulated Mrs. Girono on being the recipient of the Richmond First Club's Good Government Award. Mrs. Girone expressed appreciation fo the Board, the Administration and the citizens who had made this possible. 7. ~OARD COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Daniel stated he attended a Works Program Committee meotlng for the Richmond MPO. He stated he hrouqht up the Chippenham-Laburnum bridge project because, to both Chostorfield's and Henrico's dimmay, the Eiqhway Department ham no information or thoughts regarding this bridge. He stated after further discussion that date it was suqge~ted that the co~itments that were made to date regarding the transfer of federal funds, etc. bo included in the Preallocatien Hearing Statement. Me stated he would ask that thim be included in the statement which is a separate item On tho agenda. Mrs. Girone stated there will not be a Richmond Regional Planning District Commission or MPC meeting this month as they ere currently working on the budget. Mrs. Girone stated she did meet with the Chamber of Commerce Committee regarding the 503 Small Business Loan Program and they are interested and ara waiting to see what is done in Washington with regard to the Small Busines~ Administration. Mr. Applegate stated he met with the Airport Ground Transportatiun Committee which is an arm o~ the Capital Region 85-134 Airport Commission to work out a plan for the ground transportation improvements for Byrd Airport. ~e stated the construction of the terminal will begin within 45-60 days and they have devised a plan that will suffice temporarily. Ee stated Groome Transportation and the cab drivers are working toqether. 8. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION, EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR CF~NGES IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayee, the Board deferred Item #10, Claim of Ms. Barbara Pitt for Value cf Lost Rings, until March 27, 1985; deferred Item ~13.B.10, R~queet by the Virqinia Rousing and Development Authority to Approve Tax-Exempt Financing for Walden Place until March 27, 1985; deferred Item 13.~.3., Refer Ordinance to Repeal R-7 Zoning Category and to Downzone All Zoned but Unplatted R-7 Acreage to Appropriate Zoninq Category to the Planning Commission until April 10, 1985; deleted Item #13.F., Righway Engineer; renumbered Item 12.B., To Consider Request by the Lynchburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority to Approve Tax-Exempt Financing for the Rehabilitation of the Ampthill Square Apartments to Item 13.E.9.; and adopted tf amended agenda. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Micas stated that On Item #13.E.10., the developer had called and requested this deferral. He stated there are also three other housing issues tonight to be addressed and because of the 60 day letter requirement, you can only defer thi~ for two week~. He stated otherwise, the Board may run the risk of some action that may not be consistent with Board policy. 9. RESOLUTIONS 0F SPECIAL RECOGNITION Mr. Eedriek stated there were no resolutions scheduled for the meeting. 10. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCEEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS Mr. Hedrick sta%ed the single item scheduled for this meeting had been deferred until March 27, 1985, previously. 11. DEFERRED ITEMS ADOPTION OF WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAm{ On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted thm Water Capital Improvement Program for FY 86-91, a copy of which is filed with the papers of thim Board. ll.B. ADOPTION OF WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the Wastewater Capital Improvement Program for FY 86-91, a copy of which is filed with the papers of thim Board. Vote: Unanimous ll.C. APPOINTMMNTS - YOUTH SERVICES COMMISSION On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mrs. Girone~ the Board appointed Miss Philippe Bates to the Youth Services Commission, 85-135 as the Youth representative for Dale District~ filling the unexpired term of Mr. Earl Lewis who resi~ne~. The e~pointment i~ effective immediately and will ex, ire On June 30, 1985. 12. PUBSIC E~AR!NGS ~ RESTRICTION OF THROUGM TRUCK WRAF~!C Mr. 5edrick stated this date and time had been scheduled for a public hearing to consider the restriction of through truck traffic on Courthouse Road. Mr. McCracken explained th~ restriction would be cn Courthouse Road from Route 360 to Route 10 with the alternate route being from Route 360, to Chippenham Parkway and back to Route 10. He stated Courthouse Road is a major arterial in the County road network, carries between 6-10,000 vehicles per day, most are commercial and industrial, the alternate route is approximately 5 miles longer one way, travel time would be almost doubled, Route 2~8 construction would hel~ in this situation, and it is unlikely trucks would use the alternate route as suggested. Be stated truck drivers would probably use Walm~ley, Turner, etc. or others which would be less desirable than Courthouse and ~tated staff recommended denial cf the restriction. Mr. Applega%e stated Chat he had received calls from people who were opposed but did net want to address the Board. He encouraged thos~ who were in favor or opposed ho this request to let their views be known during the course of the hearing. Mrs. Anna Adkins stated she lived on and was most concerned with the ~ection of Courthouse Road between Genito Road and Five Forks. She stated she was in favor of this request because the ~oad has never been rebased, has no ~houlders, is nar~0w and curving; the ditches are deep and close to the road; there are numerous accidents in the area; there has been a lot of development of subdivisions, shopping center~, and churches which increased traffic. She stated she felt Courthouse Road is nc place for trucks and recommended further that the road be improved which would decrease safety hazards. She stated she is always being told money is the factor for not improving the road but ~he feels money has bean spent on less traveled and less dangerous roads. Ms. Ellen Parnham, President o£ the Richmond Area ~icysling Association, stated there is a report by the ~ighway Department regarding the longer trucks which indicates they are unsuitable for %be roads on which they are traveling; %hat there are dramatic increases in accidents and deaths with the decreasing width of the roads; she referred to the AS~T© guidelines which show the problems experienced on roads between cars and tractor-trailer traffic and the road designs; she referred to a film by the California Department of Transportation showing that truckm actually travel in the opposing lanes; etc. She demonstrated a truck and car going around a similar curve and its effect. She stated her support of the nequest to restrict trucks on Courthouse Road. Mr. Bobby Wiley, stated this road was not designed ~or tractor-trailers and there have been a lot of accidents. He stated problems with shifting loads and the danger it causes, the high speed at which they travel, etc. He stated his wife had been involved in an accident when a truck collided with her, there are a lot of school children getting cn and off school buses which causes dangerous situations; that Chippenham was designed for these trucks, etc. Me stated he was concerned there will be a fatality on the road. There were approximately 10 people present in favor of the restriction. Mr. Roy Terry, employee of Overnight Transportation, stated they were neither in favor nor in opposition to this request; 85-136 lowever, if the request were approved they would like a provision included which would allow deliveries to homes and institutions along the road. Mr. ~icas stated that is understood in all resolutions of restrictions such as this. 5~. Skitch Rudy, on behalf of Shoosmith Brothers, Inc., stated he was in favor of all the safety precautions that this restriction was designed to protect but that 40% of the new work that Shoosmith has contracted to do is down Courthouse Road. He stated that work hag already been contracted, that they are committed for at least one year, etc. He stated this alternate route would be appro×imately 14 miles round trip, they make a lot of trips and it will affect them dramatically. Me stated this will affect a lot of small and large businesses in the County and they feel this should be considered. He stated that the trucks will be traveling alternative roads which cannot handle the loads nor the traffic such as Beach ROad, Walmsley, etc. He suggested that if this is approved, that there at least be a grace period between now and when it would go into effect so they could prepare their bids, finish work, etc., accordingly. Mrs. Girone stated that if this is approved, it usually takes about one year to be formally accomplished. Mr. John Knoblin, representing Builders Supply of Hopewell, stated 80% of their business is done approximately west of Route I and a large majority is done by traveling on Courthouse Road. He stated they haul large leads of material, make 12-16 trips per day, this would increase their Operating costs by $63,000 a year and costs will increase to th~ consumer as well. Ms stated he could understand where, if necessary, semi-trailers would present a problem but felt others which are smaller should be allowed to use the road. He stated he felt this restriction would greatly harm the financial aspects of small businesses. Mr. John Smith stated that it appeared the proper solution to this situation is to repair the road and establish a maintenance policy of setting the ditches back. He stated proper maintenance and proper utilization of funds for this purpose would be better than beginning a policy of closing every road that becomes a little inconvenient to travel. Mr. Morris Seek, President of N. B. Goodwyn Lumber Company, stated this situation has existed for years. He stated Courthouse Road has net been improved in 30 years and he would like the Beard to request that Courthouse Road and Genito Road from Route 360 be improved before any other improvements are made elsewhere. He discussed the lack of fundinq and support for roads in the County and stated that other jurisdictions do not have tolls but there is not one toll-free road in the County. He inquired about Highway Department surveys which have been accomplished for years on Courthouse Road and why the Department has net taken the surveys and improved the road as they must know the situation is critical. He stated there is no room for error On Courthouse Road, and requested a resolution from the Board be sent requesting two feet of roadbed on each lane plus a 4 ft. compacted surfaced treated area sloping to the ditch line. ss stated this proposal should be denied and that Courthouse Road should be improved. He stated Courthouse Road is a busy road and it is no place for joggers, bikers, etc. Me discussed the right of way acquisition and how it is accomplished by the Highway Department which he felt wrong. Mr. Jim Marilla, District Manager for Virginia Power's Chesterfield office, stated he was not in favor nor in opposition of this closing. He stated he would like something to provide for emergency service trucks to utilize the road if this is approved to provide service for its customers. Mr. Applegate assured Mr. Marilla s provision would be included in the resolution if it were adopted. 85-137 4r. Proctor Wilson, representing Stone container Corporation and a resident of the County, stated they do not own trucks but a lot of the businesses dealing with their company use Courthouse Road. He stated he felt the truckers will use other alternative routes to save time and they will not use the toll roads in an effort to save money. Be stated there are a lot of timber holding companies on Courthouse Road and when timber is harvested, the trucks will still use Courthouse Road. Be encouraged road improvements and the Route 2S8 by-pass as soon as possible. He stated the General Assembly changed the method of allocating funds and he felt the urban counties will receive more and hopes the County will get additional funds for roads. Mr. G. H. Jamerson, representing Jamerson Trucking Company from Appomattox, stated they have had accidents in the County but they have repaired what they have damaged. He stated some of this may have been due to driver error, however, he felt '85% of the accidents have been because of Courthouse Road. He stated they use the road 65-70 times a week and the alternate route will cost him $1,200 per week and they have to compete with other businesses. He recommended denial of the request and improvements to Courthouse Road. Ms. JoAnne Scott, representing Scott Pallet and other lumber companies in Southside Virginia, stated she was opposed to the restriction of through truck traffic. She stated safsty iS the greatest concern which it should be and those who operate trucks are also concerned about safety on the highways and cited costs of trucks, the hiring of experienced drivers, the review cf their maintenance records and equipment, the cost of insurance, maintaining their equipment in the best condition, etc. She stated they bear the burden of safety morally and financially. She stated this restriction will be a detriment to industry. She Suggested that with the change in allocation of road funds, that these additional funds be used to improve Courthouse Road. Mr. Leonard W~iteside, representing J. H. Martin and Sons, stated his Opposition to this request as other alternative roads which cannot handle the traffic will be used which also involved schools, etc. He stated with the improvement on the curve on Courthouse Road there have not been any more accidents which were occurring frequently and stated this should indicate improvements are necessary. Me stated they will lose a great deal of money if they cannot use Courthouse Road. Mr. B. B. Jackson, representing Jackson Pulpwood Company of Burkevilla, stated he hauls on Courthouse Road and is opposed to the restriction of trucks. He recommended improvements to Courthouee Road. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mx. Daniel stated that this Board is concerned with safety and he would put health, safety and welfare of citizens above sound financial business issues. He stated the need ~or Route 288 is again confirmed tonight. He stated Courthouse Road has always been at the top of the list for improvements, however, there are always so many projects at the top of the list that there is not enough money to address anyone's number one priority. He stated if the restriction of throuqh truck traffic would eliminate health, safety and welfare concerns on Courthouse Road he could support it. He stated he felt Jessup, Turner and Walmsley, is where the traffic would be shifted and would only compound those other roads which could not handle it and would cause a worse situation. He stated he could not support the restriction but he could support other resolutions which might eliminate some of the technical problems associated with Courthouee Road, for example, widening of pavement in areas or other temporary measures, until Route 288 is built. 85-138 Me. Girone stated she felt the issue is very serious and she would support the restriction. She stated the truckers speed on Courthouse Road, there are children in the area, and she feels this is a health, safety and welfare issue. She stated she felt this Board should be on record as doing all that is possible to protect the people and that it be sent to the Eighway Department for the process to continue to restrict the truck traffic. She stated the County would have widened or improved the road if the money had been available. Mr. Mayas stated he agreed with the restriction of truck traffic and for the safety of residents and if he had to make a choice between voting for public safety and increased costs for transportation, he would vote for the safety. He stated, however, in this case he could not shift the problem from one road to another road as the truckers will use Turner, WaLmeley, etc. He stated the choice is not between a business making a profit versus public safety but what is the best route to take. He stated the problem is the County has bad roads and just to shift the road problem w~uld not be right. He stated that the County needs to improve all the roads which would be justice to both sides. Mr. Dodd inquired of the businessmen in the County, if a bond issue were on the ballot for Route 288, would it be supported. Mr. Back inquired why every foot of road in the County has to have a bond issue whereby in other areas the state builds the roads. Mr. ~odd stated the money for roads comes from the General Assembly. Ne stated that the Board restricted truck traffic on Osborne Road and the people are using Kingsdale which is creating a worse problem. He stated he felt this would be a similar situation and other roads may be more adversely affected. He stated he felt everyone needs to work to make Route 288 a reality. Mr. Applegate stated that the County did not receive additional funding with the formula revised by the General Assembly and in fact, it lost approximately $1,000,000 net this year. He stated Courthouse Road has been under study to make improvements but the cost i~ $32,000,000 and that is why Route 288 was considered as it would actually cost less. Be stated this restriction was breught to the Board because of requests he had received from citizens and he understands the problems with small businesses and their costs; however, he is charged with the responsibility of trying to protect the safety and quality cf life of the citizens. He stated he thought the intent cf the alternate route would have been Route 360 to Chippenham, Chippenham to Route 1 and 95 and then to other the areas. He stated that although that was probably a longer distance, something has to occur in order to have something done with regard to roads as the County is completely choked down. He stated school buses, citizens, etc. travel this road and until we can convince the State that we are in dire need of roads, we have to look after the citizens' safety. He stated he is not trying to hurt businesses but if we go through the public hearing process we can impress upon the Commonwealth that we need the money. He requested that the Board refer this to the Highway Department and let them deal with it through the public hearing process. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board hereby requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, to restrict through truck tra£fic on Courthouse Read, from Route 360 to Route 10. Mr. Daniel stated that he felt this would create a worse transportation situation by diverting the problem to another area and it may be better where it is. He stated other road networks will be adversely affected to which no One will have an answer or money to improve. Mr. Dodd stated that if something is sent to the Highway Department that we know is impractical and one that we know they will not approve, when we do need something they will not listen to something that is critical and in need of- attention. Mr. Applegate stated he f~lt this is a life 85-139 threatening situation and should not be taken lightly. Mrs. Girone stated that all the trucks using Courthouse Road will use several different routes and it will be dispersed and may not make an impact on any one road. On motion of Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board denied the request to restrict tbZrough truck traffic on Courthouse Road from Route 360 to Route 10 and requested the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to study the speed l~mit on Courthouse Road with the intent of reducing it to 40 mph. Ayes: Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd. Nays: Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone. It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes. Reconvening: 12.C. ORDINANCE RELATING TO Mr. Medrick stated this dat~ and time had been scheduled for a public hearing to consider a zoning ordinance amendment relating to signs. Mr. Balderson stated that the Board, after considering the status of siqns in the County and increased public concern about sign proliferation, sign size and appearance, had requezted staff to review the zoning ordinance regulating sign use and draft an amendment for review. Me Stated the ~oard sent the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Me stated the Planning Commission had appointed a three man Planning Commission committee to review the recommended ordinance. He crated the committee then e×panded its committee to include an ad hoc group representing the sign industry, business community and citizens. He stated the committee met numerous times and recommended changes to the amendment. ~tated the Planning Commission held its public hearing and recommended approval of the proposal as submitted to the Board tonight. He stated the Planning Commission members are here, except for ene~ and Mr. Kelly Miller, Chairman of the study committee, is present to address the Board. Mr. Miller stated that it is unusual for the Planning Commission to come before the Board but they feel the proposal is substantial and had involved a lot of effort. He stated the Planning Commission held its hea~ing, listened to input and recognized additional study war necessary. Ne stated they appointed a committee who met for five er six months in an attempt to achieve a degree Of harmony, to bring into balance some of the problems which currently exist, recognizing that they did not create a perfect instrument but that they tried to achieve fairness and address problems that exist. He stated there is a horror of sign clutter on Route 60, some of which may be illegal. He stated this amendment may prevent this from occurring in other undeveloped areas. Me stated they tried to address the two districts outlined--Route 60 ~rom Courthouse Road to the Powhatan line and Route 10 from Chippenham to the Chester Village. He stated the four basic is~ue~ addressed were: 1. To eliminate temporary/mobile portable signs; 2. Address out parcels whsreby there is a proliferation of signs in an attempt to eliminate clutter; 3. Outdoor advertising, i.e., billboards; and 4. Enforcement. He stated some may say they are being harmed ~y not being able to advertise the way they would like, but in a county that is growing as fast as this, residents need to he protected as well as potential businesses that may want to locate here. He 85-140 stated he felt this paper is in the best interest of the County, has been thoroughly discussed and debated, and he felt the timing ~S proper for its adoption. He stated eventually it may be wise to adopt this sign ordinance County-wide if it does not cause an undue hardship. Mr. Charles Batchelor~ an officer of the ~our Seasons Neighborhood Association, stated their support of the ordinance~ especially the portion related to Route 60. 5e stated this subdivision is located one-half mile from Ronte 60 and is comprised of about 63 homes. He stated signs have their place but they would like to maintain the attractive atmosphere that has been established. He stated the Planning Commission and staff deserve their appreciation. There was nO One else present in favor of this request. Mr. Ray Hevener, representing the Virginia ~asoline Retail and Automotive Repair Association, stated their opposition to the proposal. He ztated the County is obtaining a reputation oi being anti-small business and this would enhance that reputation. He stated the advertising that small business does is similar but not the same as the larger corporate business but they do not have the money to spend for ads in papers and magazines. He stated the small portable signs are very effective in their t~ade advertising specials, etc. He stated he felt the enforoement issue will be giving another agency police powers and this disturbs him. Mr. Lee Bassett, developer of ~idlothian Village (commercial and office park in the Village of Midlothian), stated he is for the eign ordinance, agrees with eliminating the sign proliferation on Route 60, but is opposed to a single portion of the ordinance. He ~tated %hey developed their property with a Conditional Use Planned Development which he outlined. He stated they prepared a sign package which eliminates all large freestanding signs, the maximum freestanding sign is five feet high with 10 sq. ft. of sign area, etc. He stated what conoerns hi~ is that the amendment is inequitable in one respect in that he would be permitted to have signs based On building frontage and not ba~ed on lot frontage. He stated their development iea mixture of lots for sale and a cents~ section which will be developed as a shopping center. Be ~tated staff has stated they will interpret their development as Ohm complete shopping center mven though they have a dedicated ~oad in the center which will separate areas. He stated someone can go across Midlothian Turnpike, buy a parcel of land the same size as they can buy in their park, and end up with approximately 3 times the amount of signage. Ee stated this situation should be addressed. Mr. Peele stated the zssue of ~ip/]s on freestanding parcels versus out parcels is not very clear cut. He stated on individual parcels sign areas are regulated by let frontage and in the shopping centers on building frontage. ~e stated it is entirely possible that in the development Mr. Sassett is developing with the multitude of buildings that will be built, that this shopping center may end up with a larger aggregate area of signs than a single parcel with the same amount of road frontage would have. He stated it is entirely dependent on the total linear feet of building frontage that Mr. Bassett builds. He stated it is also possible that if he builds small buildings in the shopping center, he may end up with less total signs than if he had a single freestanding paroel. He stated it is not an "either/or" situation but depends · on exact circumstances of the development. Mrs. Girone stated that this is an inequity that should be addressed. Mr. Poote stated he did not know if the ordinance can insure total equity since building size controls sign size in shopping centers. Mrs. Girone inquired since he is selling individual parcel~, can't he use either the building or lot frontage. Mr. Peele stated that with his development under the proposed ordinance amendment it 85-141 !Il would be classified as a ~hopping center. He stated there have been problems with other shopping centare leaving, out parcels as separate and those out parcels get special consideration that the shopping center proper does not get. He stated this amendment would reeolve this inequity. Mr. Bassett stated this may create a situation where a developer will look at the total situation a littls different and not ask for a Conditional Use Planned Development and would subdivide the parcels under the current zoning and sell them off. He stated he agreed that a Conditional Use Planned Development does create better development so this may create another problem. M_~. Ray Davis, service station operator, stated he has been in the businecc for 15 years, they don't have a large advertising budget, signs on the read fill their needs the best and money is invested in signs. He inquired about the grandfatherlng o£ existing sign~ and stated the propocal will be detrimental to his business. He stated they have to compete with the big business and signs are the most effective way, especially through the portable sign mechanism. Mr. Balderson stated any sign that is legally in existence et this time would be a leqal non-conforming use upon th~ adoption of the ordinance. Be stated if that sign were destroyed, it would have to be replaced with a sign that complied with the then current ordinance. Mr. Gordon Will, an operator of several businecsec in the County, crated portable signs are efficient. He stated the federal government issued a statement on the most economical form of advertising available to small business and found nationwide that location marquees with eha~geable letters were ths highest return for the advertising dollar. He stated he is in favor of portable signs and any prohibition of them would hurt businesses in the County, fire departments, rescue s~uadc, etc. He requested that the Board not infringe on the fair trad~ laws. Mr. Parker Arnold, representing Tyson Sign Company, stated he was a menber of the ad hoc committee. He stated a letter, a copy of which is filed with the paperc of this Board, was sent to the Board by several co~ittee mengo~rs opposing the sign ordinance. He read the letter and indicated they felt enforcement was the key to the snccesc or failure of any ordinance, that the proposal is not in the best interest of the County es it reacts to the symptoms and does not address the problems and that they were opposed to the special sign districts. He stated they agree with the elimination of the portable signs County-wide and recommended that the Board adopt the definitions contained in the proposal in the first five pages of Draft 917 as well as the General slg~ prevision 2.163 (h) regarding portable signs and that with these changes, the present regulations are reasonable. He stated they felt this would eliminate the visual clutter. He stated the proposal will have a negative effect on the independent businessman which will in turn have a negative effect on the County's ha× base. He stated he felt the proposal does not address the problem as the problem ls the illegal signs. Mrs. Girone inquired what the solutions were to improve the appearance and why are people %nhappy with it. Mr. Arnold stated they do not see it from the same perspective as the businessman which is their only link with the customer. ~e stated signs %oo biq or too small are problemc and educe the traffic problems. He discucced signage for various areas and developments in the County and in other jurisdictions. 85-142 Mr. Tommy Williams, representing Moore Sign Corporation, stated he felt a lot of the sign problem on Route 60 ie the illegal signs. Mrs. Girone stated that later this evening the Board will be considering hiring additional staff to check on legal signs, ets. but in the past, the ordinance was only enforced based on complaints. Mr. Williams stated that this ordinance will be restricting the businessman for something the County has not been regulating. He stated if the illegal and non-conforming signs were eliminated there would be a different perspective. He stated he has a sign at the intersection cf Route 10 and 95 which generates a lot of business from around the country. He stated this ordinance will not hurt his business but it could others but he would like to keep the County on the map and business successful in the County. Ms. Deborah Boyer, owner of "Frame of Mind" at the intersection of Route 360 and Courthouse Road, stated she uses portable signs as her business is 300 ft. off the road. She stated she needed this to attract business to her store and needs the ability to advertise specials. Mr. Willis Blackwoodr representing S. L. Nusbanm and Co., skated he was an ad hoc committee member and he is in favor of the proposal but he does have a recommended change. He stated that he felt the people did not understand what is being proposed. He stated the proposal does allow freestanding signs and attraction boards. He stated that he supports all of the changes listed up to the proposed sign districts. He stated he is in the shoppinq center business and the amendment does provide for equity that did not exist previously. He stated, however, the concern with the special sign district is that it will set up two sets of regulations in the County and administratively it will cause a problem and from a practical standpoint it is not needed. He stated the proposal has tightened up the signs and the districts will take it too fur. He stated that he felt eventually this sign district may be approved County-wide which the ad hoc committee did not feel would be wise. He stated he felt the Board should adopt it up to the special sign district portion and enforce and monitor it. He stated the ordinance currently requires that each sign have a permit tag which should be enforced and would make it easier to determine ii a sign were legal. Mr. Paul Stotts, attorney representing the Outdoor Advertising Association and certain sign companies in the County, stated these are the companies who make the billboards which is a sign that is not on the property where the business is located. He stated he was concerned with the procedures on how this got to the Board, as he was on the ad hoc committee representing the billboard industry, they went through the ordinance word by word, no discussion of billboard changes o~tside of the two districts took place while he was there, it was discussed once during a meeting when he was absent, they talked about conditional use for signs for the two sign districts, but after the ad hoc committee was through a draft (#14} was sent for comments, in which there was no mention of billboard changes. He stated in January he went to get a copy of the ordinance a~d it was not available even after it was published as being available, after another call he received a copy of the proposal (draft %t7) which addressed billboards which could only be allowed under conditional use, which he did not feel was fai~. Re stated they are concerned with the proposed Section 21-62 of draft 17, certain spacing, etc. is acceptable but it takes away the right to construct billboards anywhere in Chesterfield County. He stated this is a legitimate business and it is in the communication media and they are interested in reaching the people they want as their clientele. He stated this is taking the businessman and the billboard industry's right. He stated setting standards you give the rules of the game, they know where they can build, and can go about their business. ~e stated they used to build only in 85-143 B-3 but now they will have to submit a conditional use which is time-eons~ming, outlined problems with leasinq land for their clients and other problems that they experience with take down time, relocating the signs, requesting another conditional use, etc. He stated this disrupts the business of the sign company as well as the business that is being advertised. He stated they are Opposed to this sign ordinance as a mechanism eventually covering the entire County. He stated they feel the present ordinance should be enforced. Me added also that billboards are regulated by the Btate which regulations are very strict and more so than County's. He inquired where the public clamor is for the change. Mrs. Girone stated this sign ordinance bogen originally with the Route 60 corridor from Courthouse Road to Powhatan and another area was added later and the Planning Commission considering the entire County. Mr. Stotts stated they were in favor of the Route 40 corridor. Mr. Carter Myers, a resident of the County, stated he was in favor of looking at the enforcement of the existing ordinance and possibly modifying what ordinances exist. He stated Dr. Hancock would be referring to voluntary enforcement that the Chesterfield Business Council might be behind and if we let the people know what the problem is, some of us will do something about it. He stated portable signs do detraat from appearance but there could be restrictions placed on them. He stated they could be mounted, framed, etc. which would improve the appearance or develop a reader board in a sign. He stated the new ordinance proposes One freestanding sign rather than two which means there could not be another sign even in the ground. He stated Dick Strauss would be moving his business with two franchises and he would not be ~ble to advertise Pord and Isuzu with only one sign. He stated Murray Oldsmobile is thinking about going OUt On Route 40 in the sign district and Qeneral Motors has a very good looking sign package which could not he used. He described other businesses in the area and stressed ~etter enforcement and voluntary enforcement. Mr. Bob Strum stated he was a small businessman and his concern i: that this County should operate like a business. He stated it concerns him that staff was used to develop this ordinance which could have been used to monitor the ordinance that exists. ~e stated he was in favor of enforcing what exists and not making it any harder for the businessman. Dr. Sam ~anoock~ Chairman of the Chesterfield Business Council, stated they are for quality life in the County and would like to work toward that end. He stated the Board should also be cognizant of the impact on the small businesses and not place unfair restrictions on their opportunities. He stated it is the Business Council's feeling that the special sign district not be enacted at this time and that an active and aggressive sign enforcement program be implemented enforcing the current regulations and be monitored for a period of at least one year. He stated the siqnaqe quality could be reviewed by a Citizens Ad Hoe Ordinance Review Commission, Planning Commission members and Plannin~ staff for recommendations to the Board. He stated they would be an active and positive partner to achieve a higher standard of signage in the County. A copy of the statement is filed with the papers of this Board. Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone indicated they were members of the Business Council and were unaware of this issue coming before the Council. Dr. Hancock stated this ~ from the Board of 85-144 Directors and from polling the individual me~abers. There being no one else present to discuss the matter, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dodd skated he had initially requested that the Route 10 corridor be studied as he felt perhaps the County could prevent some of the mistakes made on Route 60 with regard to signage. Me stated, however, as this unfolds he feels there is some unfairness involved, there is a problem when a businessman cannot advertise his product, there is a problem with not being able to place a billboard in a B-3 area, ekc. Me stated perhaps enforcement may be the key. He stated small businesses have struggled for the past five to six years and they had no federal program to aid thsm. Me stated he felt this was infringing cna free enterprise myetem and to do anything other than an enforcement program at this point is wrong. He stated he could favor some tightening up of portable signs. M-r. Mayes stated he felt staff is competent and trying to protect the quality of life in the County that exists; however, he sta%md the calls and letters he has received leaves doubt a~ to whether or not the businessmen's rights have been thoroughly considered. He skated he felt there have been questions asked that have not been answered. He stated he had q~emtions as to the participation by small business people and others in the development of this ordinance. M_rs. Girone stated she would like the Midlothian portion oX the ordinance deferred for 30 days am she was unaware of the situation raised by Mr. Bassetk. Mrm. Girone moved that the Midlokhian Corridor sign district be deferred for 30 days to investigate the equity between the B-3 individuals parcel and shopping center. She stated she began this dimcummion and felt thi~ pcrbion could stand alone. Mr. Daniel staked he has spoken regarding the perception Midlothian Pike gives and it is not the only area but ik exemplifies the problem. He stated the perception that is coming back is that "anything you want in Chesterfield County, you can get". He stated businesm im multi-tiered in that big business stimulates the economy of little business. ~e stated when people are discussing comin~ into the County, they want ko know how mtrong the County is committed to the quality of life. Me stated points have been made on enforcement that need ko be put into action. He stated we mhould have uniform enforcement of existing ordinances and monitor the enforcement for a one year period. He mtated we could then see where we stand and see how our neighbors are coping with similar problems. He stated he did have a problem with dealing with portions of the County. He stated whatever is in one area, should apply through other districts. Be stated he supported the enforcement of existing ordinancem and monitoring and reviewing the situation after a year. He stated the Business Council and other responsible leaders can play vital roles in addremming the problems that have been identified, He stated the Board can regulate the signage through Conditional Use Planned Development when zoning is requested. Mr. Applegate stated he originally felt enforcement was the problem. He stated he and Col. Mayes indicated they were opposed and weuld like to take it on a soning case by zoning case basis and nok go to any special sign districts. He stated Mrs, Girone had brought forth the original proposal for the Route 60 corridor and he tends to agree that if the Board wanted to approve the 85-145 Route 60 corridor on a trial basis that would be fine but he felt enforcement is the most important thing at this time. Mrs. Girone stated sha could have the information back to the Board within 30 days. She stated the people in Midlothian are offended by the appearance and they are opposed to the remainder of the road continuing like the part of the road at the malls. She stated she asked when this first came up, that it be the only request and that other areas not be included. Mr. Dodd suggested an amendment to the motion which would indicate there would only be enforcement on the balance of the County. Firs. Girone stated there would be no reason for deferral then as she would like to work out the details of the B-3 and shopping centers and pass it on a one year trial basis. She stated the business community and the citizens are in agreement, etc. She stated she felt the com~unlty deserves a standard of devolopment that they support. Mr. Daniel stated that this would not be uniform in the County as indicated. Mrs. Girone stated the County is not uniform and stated no one is objecting to the ~idlothian corridor sign district. Mr. Dodd stated he felt the enforcement problem was the issue and the Board is in agreement with that and that the Midlothian Corridor could be discussed at another time. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone~ the Board moved that any action on this ordinance be delayed until April 10, 1985 with the understanding that the Board will probably support only enforcement at that time. Vote: Unanimous 12.D. USE OF CREDIT CARDS IN PAYMENT OF TAXES Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been established for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to allow the use of credit cards in payment of taxes. Mrs. McGuire was present and stated the only concern she had received regarding the proposal was from people who did not understand the setup. There was no one present to discuss tho proposed ordinance. Mr. Daniel inquired about the mailing of payments and delinquencies to which Mrs. McGuire explained that the form com~its the taxpayers to the charge. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopte~ the following ordinance: AE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF TEE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING SECTION 8-12.5 RELATIEG TO THE USE OF CREDIT CARDS FOR PAYMENT OF TAXES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia: t. That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia~ 1978, as amended, is amended by adding Section 8-12,5 as follows: Sec. 8-12.5. Use of credit card in ~ayment of taxes. The treasurer is authorized to accept payments of local taxes by use of a credit card. In addition to any penalties and interest, the treasurer shall add to such payment a sum not to exceed four per eentum of the amount of the tax, penalty and interest paid, as a service charge for the acceptance of such card. Such service charge shall not exceed the percentage charged to the county by the credit card company. 85-146 12.E. LEASE OF MAGNOLIA GRANGE TO HISTORICAL SOCIETY M~. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the lease o~ Magnolia Grange to the Chesterfield Historical Society. Mr. Gary Patterson referred to the lease agreement which incorporated conditions negotiated by Mr. Daniel which were accepted by the Society and Board. He stated there is also a clause which reserves the right to the Board to modify the terms o£ the agreement anytime the Board deems it necessary. Mrs. Lucille Moseley, President of the Historical Society, stated they appreciated the Board's support. She stated they are concernsd with one clause on Page 6, Section "E", which indicates the Board retains the right to unilaterally modify the terms of this agreement at anytime and requested that it be amended. She stated that more acceptable language would be that it is not terminable at will hut is terminable if the Society defaults in their obligations. She stated they have been told that is what the language means but they would prefer it actually said this. Mr. Patterson stated that there is e normal clause which indicates if they default it is terminable, hut this clause is another which was added to the guidelines and it indicates the Board has the ultimate responsibility to make sure that public facilities ara used in an appropriate fashion and that at some time in the future, conditions or needs may change and the Board retains the right to modify. Mr. Daniel stated this was brought to the attention of the County by Mrs. Girone through her association with Maymont and it was felt that the County needed this particular protection. He stated they may never need to have to call upon it but some situation could arise and it may be necessary. He stated the County is responsible for the site, it purchased it, it owns it, etc. Be stated the Historical Society is given full custodianship over it and as long as reasonable people prevail in both the public end private sector, there should be no problem. Mrs. Mary B. Howe e~pressad appreciation to the Board for the saving of Magnolia Grang~ and for the confidence in the Historical Society in this regard. Mr. Daniel stated the Beard paper indicates two rooms are to be reserved exclusively for the County which is not true but indicated the language is correct in the agreement. On motion of Mrl Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the Use Agreement for Magnolia Grange granting use of the facility to the Historical Society and a~thorized the Chairman of the Beard to execute said Agreement. Vote: Unanimous 12.F. ORDINANCE RELATING TO SUBDIVISION OF LA~D Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing tc consider an ordinance to redefine subdivision to preclude cutting off road front lots without obtaining subdivision approval and to allow the Director of Planning to approve resubdivisions for adjustment of building lines and flood plains. Mr. Balderson explained that the ordinance was twofold in that it addressed road stripping and administrative approval to minor changes to lot lines and flood plain lines. He explained the ordinance was requested after a number of instances where nonregulation of road front lot development caused problems. He stated traffic safety and congestion and good land use planning are the major reasons for approval of this ordinance. 85-147 Mr. McCracken stated the main problems are with the increasing conflict'points with the road etripping, re~tric~ing of the future road improvements, the increasing traffic volumes, and the safety issues involved with these problems. Mr. Daniel inquired if those problems could be addressed administratively without an ordinance. Mr. McCracken stated if the ordinance allows the development to occur, there is often no input from the Planning Cou~ission, staff or Highway Department and it is virtually impossible to make the person move their entrance. He stated it has been proven that the more conflict points, the more accidents occur. Mr. Dodd inquired ii the County could change the ordinance to not allow building permits until the access has been approved. Mr. McCracken stated if the staff could look at these lots as a package rather than a single lot, you could combine some, check site distance, etc. Mr. Balderson stated this ordinance will provide for good planning prinoiple~, will enhance residential environment, will enhance safety, will permit d~velopment decisions to be made while the developer has maximum options available, does not preclude anyone from what they do now or what they intend in the future but requires the Planning Commission to review the practice of subdividing land on the County's public roads and minimizes the problems with noncompatible land uses, etc. He stated it permits the Board and Planning Commission to address density decisions prior to development and the ability to look at its Overall development policies and bring these kinds of strip developments into the same category that we are considering when other subdivisions are reviewed. He reviewed and explained the issuee mentioned in opposition to this request, such as usurping property rights, the Commission mu~t approve every request for family parcels, destroying of open ~pace, current practice~ of subdivision and stripping land will change, and cost. ~e stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Applegate inquired if someone owned 200 acres and wished to cut a 5 acre parcel off, do they have to zone the entire tract. Mr. ~alderson stated that if this is the original parcel, they have the right to make the division. He stated when they cut off the second parcel they would have to come before the Planning Commission for tentative subdivision approval. He stated the subdivision ordinance also requires that the property be rezoned before the Planning Commission considers the tentative plan. He stated this requirement could be waived under certain circumstance~. There was no one in favor of this ordinance. Mr. J. Koyall Robertson, a resident of Matoaca District, ~tated he owned a farm, has deeded land to his children and grandchildren, and was concerned about how this might affect his wishes to continue to do so in the future. He stated other people in the district are also interested in having their children return and operate the farms. He stated he was not sure what this signified but was concerned with ramiiications that might not he seen. 'He stated he questioned an agricultural unit as a subdivision as it seems unnecessary. Mr. Jim Dyson, a resident of Matoaea District, stated his opposition to this request. He stated what exists currently seem~ to be sufficient, there are enough requirements placed on a person, that the County cannot lose control of culverts, etc. He stated with the aqriouttural adversity today to restrict the ~armer one step further by not allowing him to cut off a one or two acre lot to help bail him out of a situation would be wrong. He stated agriculture is taking a step back but they would like to preserve it as much as they could. He stated having to come to the Planning Commission, could adversely affect a farmer. 85-14~ Mr. Carroll Foster, a real estate broker, stated primary land affected by this ordinance does not have sewage. He Stated there is a lot of farm land and timber land which car~ies a lower tax base and once this is adopted and the remainder of the land will be residential and tax base will be higher. Be stated there is a lot of land in the County that cannot accommodate a septic tank and therefore is not residential. He discussed fees for soil analysis, fees for subdividing the land, the cost of a layout of a subdivision, the fact that people would not landlock property, buffering property, etc. Be stated this will deny people rights for large lots. He stated there are too many questions unanswered, the people were not informed properly and he recommended denial of this ordinance. Ee suggested this matter, if not denied, be deferred at least 12 months to be reviewed by a committee. Ms. Harriet Borner, a resident of Genito Ro~d, urged the Board to deny thim amendment. She stated that people who want to sell a lot every si× years or so, will have to be zoned residential to pay taxes on it when it is growing timber, they will be forced to sell, and then the areas will be overdeveloped in the County and community. She stated the homes and people require the services, not the open land and the timber. Mr. David Freeman, owner of several large tracts in the County, stated he purchased the tracts because of the frontage and now the County is saying you can't use it. He requested the Board not put any more burdens on the people. Mr. Pete Bush, a resident o~ Matoaca District, stated the reasons for the ordinance are not defensible. He stated the Highway Department controls driveways, it is also controlled in subdivisions and on road front lots, etc. and the Highway Department will require you to remove a road culvert if done improperly. He stated subdivision homeowners do not share driveways. Me stated the justifications are inadequate. Me stated there is property in the County where a preclusion of residential development is wrong as it will not be developed for many years. Mr. Skitch Rudy stated he was unaware of this proposal until t~o days pnlor to the Planning Commission and he felt there had not been muck of an opportunity for people to realize what is proposed. He stated he felt it was ridiculous tc make som~ people "road strippers" but then allow a family man who has children to do the same thing without Planning Commission review. Be stated if the purpose is to prevent road stripping, it should be uniform. Be stated the other concern is the time that it will take to do something and what it costs. He stated any lawyer who can read a deed description, if there is a beginning point, can draw a deed description and does not need a surveyor and it can be recorded with nO cost. ~e stated this is what the people want the right to do and have the right to do and bought thinking this is what they could dc. He stated if they have to subdivide their property, they have to rezone it which will take at least 120 days with no problems and this will cost $250 plus $10 per acre to dc something that is simple. He stated he felt government was overreaching its power tO impose these kinds of conditions en the people. He stated people who own rural real estate don't need this. He stated he felt that the County was trying to obtain dedication along the roadway rather than purchasing it and he felt this was too high a price to pay. 85-149 Mr. ~erry ~ewett stated he felt traffic along the arterials would be solved by applying the road rules that you can't apply to the existing arterials, because they are already built up, to the secondary roads that have no traffic and will be subjected to zoning and subdivision development. He stated he understood that you would not "have" to rezone but he related an instance when he tried to subdivide 10 lots and the problems that he experienced and the expenses involved for plats, engineering, etc. He stated he felt a study should be made for a program such as this as you have to consider the traffic flow on the roads under consider- ation and make your ordinance relate to those. He stated people still build homes on Rou~e 60 and there ica tremendouc ~ount of traffic. He stated this is an ~ntirely different situation and most of the County is not and will not be subdivided. He discussed Clarendon which he felt was gOOd planning but not good aesthetics and he would hate to see that imposed on the rest of the County and he felt %his was completely unnecessary for 50% of the County. He stated he felt a setback requirement could be estahliched which would be standard, perhaps based on density of traffic rather than going into the subdivision process to sell off a piece Of land. He stated the few houses on the large lots do not create the traffic problem. There bsing no one elce to discuss this matter, the Board closed the public hearing. There were approximately 40 people present oppocition to this Ordinance. Mr. Daniel stated this ordinance was net designed to cause concerns from the rural part of the County. He stated it may have a place in an urban area but not in the rural area and it was not the rural area that identified the problem. He crated emerged from a zoning case where an applicant had carved off his front footage, wanted the County to zone the back portion of it and then went to the Planning Commission to approve the funnelling of the traffic through another subdivision. He stated many times when you look at a solution to a problem, yon create a larger problem. He stated with the comments stated tonight, he could not vote for this. He stated he did not know the answer but he felt the County would have to treat urban problems in an urban society end decide how we leave the rural community alone. Mrs. Girone stated that she agreed with these statements and that the County is very diverse. She stated the problems in the rural areas are not like Robious Road. She stated perhaps it would best best to review all the road corridors in the County and identify whets it should pertain. She stated She did not feel there was anything before the Board that could be voted on tonight and suggested a deferral. Mr. Mayes stated most of the people reqeustinq denial are from Matoaca District and they had spoken. Mr. Dodd stated land use has suffered in Bermuda District where houses have been huilt where inductriat should have been, etc. but there has always been a right to get to the road and use it. He stated if the Highway Department has too much traffic on the road, they should build another. He stated a person has a right to use the road in front of him. He stated he felt this issue should be denied. Mr. Applegate stated one basic thing comes to his mind and that is violation of real property rights. He stated he agreed with staff that there is a safety problem that is increasing; however, there seems to be a right of an individual who owns property to have an opportunity tO develop that property without too many regulations. He stated he wished the Board, Planning Commission or staff could handle this on an individual basis whereby an acre, two acres, etc. could be cut off and that a plan 85-150 could be submitted to be sure that it doesn't create a safety situation. He stated Courthouse Road is a prime example oi what staff was trying to prevent whereby people have subdivided lots and created a bad situation on a curve. He stated tkis concerned him but based on the sentiment and hie Own conviction he would support the denial of this request. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board denied the change in the ordinance a~ proposed. Vote: Unanimous 15. ~7~W BUSINESS 13.A. BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS 13.A.1. ONE FOR LIFE FUNDS TO VOLUNTEER PJESCUE SQUADE On motion of Mrs. Girone~ seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board appropriated $23,770, to the Chesterfield County Association of Volunteer Rescue ~quads, which funds were collected by the Division of Motor Vehicles~ transferred to the Department of Health for support of the EMS program and then to the County for distribution. Vote: Unanimous 13.A.2. INTEREST FOR PAYMENT ON POWHITE BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board increased anticipated revenue, transferred from interest earned on Powhite notes $775,200 and increased anticipated expense, payment of interest charges on Powhite notes, $775,200. 13.A.3. ADJUSTMENT TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1985-86 BUDGET On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved and authorized the hiring of seven additional personnel as follows with $51,200 appropriated from the general fund balance to the Planning Department budget: 2 Senior Clerical Aids 1 Zoning Tnspeetor 2 Planners 1 Planning Technician 1 Drafting Technician Mr. Daniel suggested that funds be taken from accounts where positions had not been filled or had funds available. It was indicated that the budget is adjusted by 4% to take into consideration payroll adjustments and there is not enough to Vote: Unanimous 13.A.4. CONSULTANT ASSISTANCE FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by M~. Mayes, the Board approved the appropriation of $90,000 to Gecure consultant assistance in preparing the land use portion~ of the Southern and Western Area Plans, as well as the land use and transportation p~rtions for thc balance of the Northern Area Pla~ with f~d$ to he expended 85-151 from the general fund balance and further that the Purchasing Director is requested to waive the consultant selection process. 13.B. SET PUBLIC NEARING DATES 13.B.1. ORDI~J~CE ESTABLISHING TAX RATE mD BUDGET On motion of Mr. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegabe~ the Board set the date of April 3, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. to consider an ordinance establishing the annual tax levy on various classes cf property for the County of Chesterfield and the proposed 1985-86 budget. Vote; Unanimous l~.B.2. SUBDIVISION, ZONING AND SITE PLAN FEES On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set the date of April 24, 1985 at 9:00 a.m. for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amendin9 Sections 18-11, 21-9 and 21-77 relating to subdivision, zoning and ~ite plan review fees. Vote: Unanimous DISPOSITION OF U~CLAIMED PERSONAL PROPERTY On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set the date of April 10, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend and reenact the Code of the County of Chesterfield ~ 197~, as amended by adding an Article IX within Chapter 2 containing ~ 2-52 through 2-55 relating to the disposition of unclaimed personal property. Vote: Unanimous OFF-DUTY EMPLOYMENT OF POLICE OFFICERS/DEPUTY SHERIFFS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set the date of April t9, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend Chapter 16 of the Code cf the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, 1978, as amended, by adding Section 16-12 relating to off-duty employment of policemen and deputy sheriffs. Vote: Unanimous 13.C. CONSENT ITEMS 13.C.1. BINGO/P~%~FLE I On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the request for bingo and/or raffle permits for J. B. Watkins P.T.O. and Reams Road Elementary P.T.A. for calendar year 1985. Vote: Unanimous 13.c.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made a report in writing upon his examination of Cyrus Street, Amasis Court, MacBeth Court and Do~ius Drive in Kings Forest, Sections 7 & 8, Dale District. 85-152 Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Cyrus Street, Amasis Court, MacBeth Court and Derius Drive in Kings Forest, Sections 7 & 8, Dale District, be and they hereby are established ae public And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Cyrus Street, State Route 2807, and running southerly 0.50 mile to the intersection with Amasis Court, then continuing southerly 0.06 mile to the intersection with MacBeth Court, then continuing southerly 0.06 mile %o the intersection with Dories Drive, then continuing southerly 0.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Amasia Court, beginning at the intersection with Cyrus Street and running easterly 0.18 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; MacBeth Court, beginning at the intersection with Cyrus Street and running easterly 0.16 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Dories Drive, beginning at the intersection with Cyrus Street and running easterly 0.17 mile to tie into proposed Dorius Drive, Kings ForeSt, Section 9. This ~equest is inclusive of the adjacent slope easements. These road~ merve 111 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Hoard of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Hiqhways a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads except Amami~ Court and MacBeth Court which have a 40' right-of-way, and Cyrus Street which has a variable 40' to 50' right-of-way. These sections of Kings Forest are recorded as follows: Section 7. Plat Book 40, Page 80, March 8, 1982. Section 8. Plat Book 43, Pagem 94 & 95, September 8, 1983. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Mistwood Forest Drive, Sonnenburg Drive, Mistwood Forest Court and Barkwood Court in Mistwood Forest, Section 1, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Mistwood Forest Drive, Sonnenburg Drive, Mistwood Forest Court and Barkwood Court in Mistwood Forest, Section 1, Matcaca District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further re~olved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Mistwood Forest Drive, beginning at its intersection with ~appy Hill Road, State Route 619, and running northeasterly 0.10 mile to the intersection with Sonnenburq Drive, then continuing northeasterly 0.06 mile to the intersection with Mistwood Forest Court, then continuing northeasterly 0.02 mile to end in a dead end; Sonnenburg Drive, beginning at the intersection with Mistwood Forest Drive and running northwesterly 0.01 mile to a dead end; Miatwood Forest Court, beginning at the intersection with Mistwood Forcer Drive and running northwesterly 0.14 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Barkwood Court, beginning at the intersection with Mistwood Forest Drive and running southeasterly 0.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope easements. These roads serve 56 lots. 65-153 And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department Of Highways a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads except Mistwood Forest Drive which has a variable 50' to 80' right-of-way and Barkwood Court which has a 40' right-of-way. This section of Mistwood Porest is recorded as follows: Section 1. Plat Book 43, Page 21, June 2, 1983. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance With directions from thie Board, made report in writing upon his examinatlen ef Summertree Drive and Sum~ertree Court in Willowhurst, Section C, Dale District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Summertree Drive and Summertree Court in Willowhurst, Section C, Dale District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginie Department of ~ighways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Summertree Drive, beginning at its intersection with Sum~ertree Court, then continuing southwesterly 0.03 mile to a dead end; and Summertree Court, beginning at the intersection with Summertree Drive and running southwesterly 0.03 mile to end in cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope easements. These roads serve 10 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virqinia Department of Highways a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads except summertree Court whic~ has a 40' right-of-way. This section of Willowhurst is recorded as follows= Section C. Plat Book 45, Page 63, April 18, 1984. Vote: Unanimous 13.C.3. ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AND FEES FOR DATA PROCESSING On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the County Administrator to increase the contract for services from $65,000 to $89,660 and adjusted the scope of services accordingly for the Data Processing Building. It is noted the additional funds are available within the current appropriation for the project. Vote: Unanimous 13.C.4. COMPUTERS FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board increased revenues by $18,435 and appropriated the same amount tc the Police Department for the purchase of three personal computers. It is noted these funds came from the sale of police software to other police departments and it was understood the funds would be used for future au=omation in the department. Vote: Unanimous 85-154 LEASE OF TOWER SPACE FROM NATIONWIDE COMMUNICATIONS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents leasing tower space for the Police and Fire Emergency coK~unications system from Nationwide Communications, Inc. through August 3, 1987, at no cost to the County. Vote: Unanimous 13.C.6~ CONTINUING DELEGATION AUTHORITY - INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following re~elution: Whereas, the Board of Supervisors cf Chesterfield County, by resolution adopted September 12, 1984, delegated to the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Cheaterfield the power to make allocations of the "private activity bond limit" on industrial development bonds available to the County under Section 103 (n) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code), and the Governor's Executive Order 50[84); and Whereas, the Governor has issued a new order, ~xecutive Order 54(85) which substantially continues the procedure for the allocation of the "private activity bond limits" to "private activity bonds" issued by "issuing authorities"; and Whereas, the Board wishes to continue the delegation of the Authority for allocation until such times as it shall, by subsequent resolution, amend or revoke such authority. Be It Resolved By The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Chesterfield: 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield hereby deleqates to the Authority the power tO make allocations of the "private activity bond limit" available to the County under Section 103 (n) of the Code and Executive Order 54(85), as it may be amended or supplemented (the "Order") to "private activity bonds" issued to finance projects located within the County. 2. The power of allocation delegated hereby shall include both (i) the power to allocate the "local allocation" of the County and (ii) the power to specify those projects for which allocations from the "State Reserve" shall be requested by the County. The Authority is hereby appointed, to the extent permissible under the Order, the "Authorized Representative" of the Board for the purpose of filing all applications and other documents necessary or appropriate under the Order to obtain any requested allocation from the "State Reserve." 3. The Board, its officers, the officers of the County, the Authority and the officers of the Authority shall cooperate in complying with the requirements of Section 103 n of the Code (and any implementing Treasury regulations, whether temporary or final) and the Order, to the end that there shall be allocated to all "private activity bonds" issued to finance project~ located within the County and which the Authority deems worthy, sufficient "private activity bond limit" to assure exemption of interest on the bonds from Federal income taxation. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous 13.D. BEESTABLISEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF AUDIT COMMITTEE Mr. Apple~ate inquired if any Board member were interested in being appointed to the Audit Co~ittee. Mr. Dodd and Mr. Daniel indicated their desire that the Budget and Audit Committee be 85-155 established and not just the Audit Committee. Mr. Applegate stated the budget process was nearing completion and did not feel it necessary at this time. It was generally agreed Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone would serve on the Audit Committee. 13.E. CONL~UNITY D~VELOPM~T ITE~ 13.E.1. SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD EXTENSION On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board allocated $40,000 of the 1984-85 revenue eharing funds from Bermuda District to the Southlake Boulevard E×tension project with the understanding that this amount will be reimbursed from tha 1985-86 revenue sharing allocation for the Midlothian District. Vote: Unanimou~ 13.E.2. H=F=R POWEITE/ROUTE 288 PLAN TO PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Hedrick stated staff recoum%ends that the Board transmit the Transportation and Land Use Plan for the Powhite/Route 288 Development area to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation. Mr. Daniel inquired about the questions that were unanswered with regard to Coalfield Road. Mr. Applegate stated there were some concerns with regard to the Transportation Study which may have stated the Board had indicated that existing Coalfield Road be cul-de-saced but stated that Mr. Eedrick indicated that was not the case. Mr. Hedrick stated this question could be remanded to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations Or it could be segregated and dealt with. Mr. Balderson stated that as the process begins, there will be a lot of questions by the Planning Commission, citizen~, etc. and they will bring those issues into focus into the plan as they go through'the process. He stated hopefully when the Board holds its public hearing to consider the adoption of the plan, all the issues will be brought before the Board. He stated staff will note the Board's comments and transmit them to the Planning Commission and ask that they reflect upon that in their comments. Mr. Daniel inquired if the ~oard could get an answer on the Coalfield Road situation pretty quickly so that we knew that if we don't let the Highway Department know something by a certain date, that it will be cul-de-saoed. He stated he felt it wee important that we address that and knew that if we don't tall the ~ighway Department what we want, we will get what they ~uggest. He inquired what that date is. Mr. Applegate stated the paper before the Board is to transmit this plan to the Planning Commission a~d then he could request ~r. Hedrick to ascertain that date. Mr. Daniel requested that a directive be issued to Mr. Bedrick to ascertain when the deadline was for making recommendatione regarding Coalfield Road and/or a connector from Route 288/Powhite to Coalfield. On motion of Mrs. ~irone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Soard transmitted the TraDsportation and Land Uee Plan for the Powhite/288 Development Area draft to the Planning Commission for consideration and public hearing. Mr. Dodd inquired if a notation should be made with regard to the Coalfield questions. Mr. Balderson stated staff would communicate this to the Planning Commission. Vote: Unanlmou~ Mr. Applegate requested that Mr. Hedrick ~orward an inquiry as soon as possible to the Highway Department to determine when the deadline is for the County to make a recommendation regarding Coalfield Road. 85-156 13.E.4. 1985-86 PRIMARY PR~ALLOCATION gEARING Mr. McCraoken presented the Board with a proposed statement for the 1985-86 primary preallocation hearing which had been amended frem the original sent out. Mrs. Girone stated she thought the Board had agreed to fund Route 288 ~ro~ Route 360 to P~ute 10 and felt a statement should be included. Mr. Applegate inquired if the Board should be on re~crd asking the Highway DepartmEnt to repay those funds. Mrs. Girone stated that Commissioner King indicated informally that if the County funded the road for $30,000,000 and money was received from tolls, they would apply the funds toward four laning it as it is only proposed for two lanes. Mr. Applegate inquired if that was in writing. Mrs. Girone stated the Board could remind them that is what we would like to have done. Mr. Dodd requested a statement inserted regarding the Bermuda Hundred Road at the 295 interchange before it is too late and Mr. Daniel requested a statement regarding the Laburnum bridge to refresh the Eighway Department on its con~i~ent to move the highway funding for the lower mileage connector between 1-85 and 95 up to that, supplement it with State money to have the Laburnum Bridge built and put it on paper in the 6 Year Plan. Mr. Mayes stated there is nc mention of an underpass/overpass on the statement regarding Route 36 nor mention of the grade separation, ge stated he did not understand why the last sentence on the Route 36 grade crossing statement asked that the Highway Department provide additional funda for the project. Hedrick explained that that was just the County's appeal for s~me additional funds. Mr. Mayes stated that sentence could be left out. ~e stated the other mention of Route 36 does not mention the bridge over the railroad and the Appomattox River. Be stated Chesterfield Avenue could be connected e nln~ber of ways but he wants a bridge over the Appomattox and requested that wording inserted. Mr. Hedrick reviewed the road priorities established at the February 21 and 22, 1985 work session regarding primary roads. Mr. Mayes again inquired why the county was ~equesting the Highway Department to pay for these roads when the Board decided it would be funded by the County. Mr. Eedrick stated this is just a formality that the County goes through each year. Mr. Mayes stated he did not want the projects hindered fn any way but was still concerned that no other project requests the Highway Department to assist in the financing. Mr. Hedrick stated hopefully they will assist in all the projects and if the statement were removed, it would obviate the possibility of their helping. He assured Mr. Mayes the project has been agreed upon by the Board. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Roard approved the preallocation statement to be made by the Chairman as amended. Vote: Unanimous It was generally agreed that the revised statement would be forwarded to the Board for review prior to being presented. 13.E.5. STR~T LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS On motion of Mr, Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred consideration of the street light requests in Clover · Hill District until April 10, 1985. Vote: Unanimous On motion cf ~r. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved the installation of street lights at the following locations with any necessary funds to be expended from the ~at0aca District Street Light Funds: 85-157 1. Greenbzia~ Drive and Carmel Drive - $1,138.00 2. Bollinger Drive and Bollinger Court - $695.00 13.E.6. ~TRE~T DIG~T INSTALLATION COST APPROVAL On motion of Mrs. Girone, ~econded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the installation of street lights at the following locations with funds to be paid from the general fund balance: 1. Courthouse Road Extended and %ronbridge Road - $1,800.00. 2. Courthouse Road and Reyean Road - $1,650.00. 13.E.7. STREET LICBT REQUEST On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the installation of street lights at the following locations with any necessary funds to be expended from ~he District Street Light Funds as indicated: 1. Entrance to Falling Creek Middle Echool - Dale 2. Inter~ection of %ronbridge Drive and Beulah Road - Dale 3. Intersection of Rattlesnake Road and Jimmy Winters Road - Midlothian IrOngate and Ironbridge Roads - Dale, if it meets the establish criteria. 13,E.$. HOUSING POLICY ON MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING Mr. Micas stated there is a federal program which permits housing autho~itle~ to issue tax-exempt bonds to developers of multi-family housing. He stated because of the large amount cf zoned but undeveloped multi-family acreage, the County has received a number of requests for new multi-family projects and w~ have projects using the federal t~×-exempt program which requires allocation of 20% of the those units to low and moderate income tenants. He stated staff has considered the implications ef those requests and it appears at the present time that there is ar adequate range of housinq opportunities for all incom~ levels within the County. He Stated, in addition, the conventional market has supplied sufficient financing needs of developsrs and there is some philosophical concern of the Board ~hat financing is a matter that is more appropriately left to the private sector and the private developers and the Board should not participate in those decisions. He ~tated further that there is a ri~k that the tax-exempt bonds mu~t be issued by ~?~DA or another housing authority and that the timing, quality and direction of multi-family growth in the County, to some degree, may be delegated or lost from this Board of Supervisors. ~e presented the Board with a proposed policy. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopted %he following housing policy on multi-family housing: The financing of new multi-family projects within the County is a responsibility of developers using conventional sources of funds within the private s~ctor. Because the Board of Supervisors is ultimately responsible for the direction and quality of growth within the County and because there currently exists an adequate range of housing choices for citizens of all income ranges, it is inappropriate for the Board of Supervisors t~ interfere in the financing of new multi-family projects within 85-158 the County. The Beard will consider tax-exempt financing for th~ rehabilitation of existing multi-family projects so long as there is a showing of a substantial public benefit to the residents of that multi-family project. 13.E.9. PUBLIC HEARING FOR LYNCHBURG HOUSING AUTHORITY Mr. Hedri~k stated this date had been advertised for a public hearing to consider a request by the Virginia Housing and Development Authority for tax-exempt financing for the rehabilitation of the Ampthill Square Apartments. Mr. Micas stated based on the adopted policy, if the Board finds that there is a public advantage to improving the quality o'f units at the Ampthill Square Apartments, it would be appropriate to approve the financing. He stated staff recommends approval because it feels that this will accomplish a substantial public benefit by improving the quality of the apartment project. Mr. William Strickland was present representing the applicant. There was no Opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mayas, the Hoard adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia (th% "Board") has been requested by ~eritage Court Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") to approve the issuance of revenue bonds to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of a multi-family apartment project known as Heritage Court ApartJ~ents (formerly Ampthill Square Apartments) located in Chesterfield County, Virginia (the '*Project"); and W~EREAS, the Lynchbu~9 Redevelopment and ~ousing Authority (the "Authority") has adopted a resolution agreeing to with the financing Of the Project by the issuance of up $2,25D,000 of its revenue bonds (the "Bonds"); and WH~REAB, the plans for the Projeet have been described to the Board by the Partnership, and the Hoard has found that the Project will improve housing conditions in Chesterfield County, will provide rental housing for persons of varied economic means and will help prevent the occurrence of slum, blight and substandard living conditions; and WHH~%EAS~ Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Cods of 1954, as amended {the "Cede") provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is located must approve the issuance of ~he Sends; and WHEREAS, the Projeo= is located in Chesterfield County and the Board constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of Chestezfield County; and WI~HREAS, the Board of Supervisors has expressed its general support for the financing of rehabilitation projects of existing multi-family projents through the use of tax-exempt bonds issued by Housing Authorities; and W~R~A$, the Board has held a public hearing on =he issuance of the Bonds as required by Section 103(k) of the Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Partnership, as required by Section 103(k) of the Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 85-159 2. As requi~d by Section 36-29 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, aS amended, the Bonds shall provide that they shall not constitute a debt o~ pledge of the faith and credit of the City of Lynchbu~g, Chesterfield County, the Commonwealth of Virqinia or any political subdivision thereof. 3. The issuance of the Bonds is conditioned on the agreement by the Authority that Section 36-23 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, does not apply to this financing and that the Authority will derive none of th~ riqhts in Chesterfield County acgorded by such section. Any other authority may, with the consent of the BOard, operate in Chesterfield County wi%hour obtaining any consent from the Authority. 4. ~he Partnership covenants to comply with all appropriate conditions of development imposed by the Chesterfield County Planning Department. 5. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Incom~ Tax Reg21ations Section 5f.103-2(f) (1), this Resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption. 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 13.E.11. TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING FOR CREEKW00D CR0$STNG ~. Skitch Rudy was present representing the applicant in the request by the Virginia Housing and Development Authority to approve tax exempt financing for Creekwood Crossing and requested a two week deferral. There was no one present to discuss the matter. On motion of ~lr. Applegat~, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board deferred consideration of this request until March 27, 1985. Vote: Unanimous 13.G. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS 13.~.1. SET PUBLIC BEARING DATES SALE OF OLD UTILITIES DEPAR~MEN~ STORACE YARD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board set the date of April 10, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider the sale of the Old Utilities Department storage yard at 5021 Walmsley Boulevard in the City of Richmond. Vote: Unanimous 13.G.l.b. CONSID~R VACATION OF VINELAND ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set the date of April 10, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider the vacation of vineland Road, unimproved, within Ben Air Terrace. Vote: Unanimous 13.G.2. CONSENT ITEMS 13.G.2.a. WATER CONTRACT FOR ASHLEY GROVE, SECTIONS C AND D On motion of Mrs. Girone, secended by Mr. Dodd, the Board 85-160 approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: W85-31CD/6(8)5312, Installation of Water Lines for Ashley Grove, Sections C and D Developer: Ashley Grove, Inc. Contractor: J. Steven Chafin, Inc. Total Contract Cost: Refunds through connection ~ees: Cash Refunds: Total E~timated County Cost: Estimated Developer cost: Number of Connections: 12 Code: 566-1-00556-0000 And further the Board appropriated from 563 Surplus, $2,600.00 to 380-1-65312-7212. Vote: Unanimous $25,336.50 $1,800.00 2,331.40 $4,131.40 4,131.40 $21,205.10 13.G.2.b. ADJUSTMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR W83-108CD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by M~. Dodd, the Board appropriated $1,243,55 from 563 Surplus to 380-1-63085-4393 for the Kingstand Road Water Line Extension, W83-108CD, because of the extensive underground utilities encountered on the job resulting in the cost overrun. Vote: Unanimous 13.G.2.c. MISCELLANEOUS WORK AT TEE PAMS AVENUE WATER TANK SITE On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by 9Lt. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for Contract W84-32B/~(8)4327, Pha~e II, for the construction of foundations~ water line extensions and site work for the water storage tank On Pam~ Avenue to =he iow bidder, Halifax Builders, Inc., in the amount of $326,880.00. 13.G.3. REPORTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water and sewer contacts executed by the County Administrator. 13.E. REPORT~ ~-r. Hedrick presented the Board with a report on the status of th( general fund balance and on the general fund contingency account. Mr. Hedrick stated the County had been formally notified that the roads in William Gwyne Estates, 360 Commercial Park had been accepted into the State Secondary system effective February 21, 1985: Length Speeks Drive - From Route 360 running 0.24 mile northwesterly to a dead end. 0.24 mi. 14. ADJOURNMENT It was generally agreed the Deputy Clerk would poll the Board for work sessions on the budget in the near future. 85-161 On motion of Mr. Daniel, Seconded by Mrs. Gi~one, the Board adjourned at 12:30 p.m. until 9:00 a.m. on March 27, 1985. Vote: Unanimous Ri ' L. ~edrick County Administrator Chairman S5-162