The URL can be used to link to this page

05-22-85 MinutesBOA}{D QF SUPERVISOR~ MINUTES May 22, 1985 Supervi$or~ in Attendance: ~. ~. Applegate, Chairman Jesse J. Hayes, Vic~ Chairman Barry G. Daniel R. Garland bodd Mr. Richard L. Hedric~ County Administratur Staff fn Atte~]dance: Mr~ S~anl~y R. Balderson Dir. o£ Planning Mr. Tom Callahan, AirpQrt Manager Legislative Personnel Dir. Ms, Vir~inla Gordon, ~z. Phi] Hesker~ Dir. ~f Parks & Rec. Human Services Mr. R~,chard ~c21fish, ~rs. Pauline Nitcn~l~, ~ervic~$ Mr. Richar~ ~unnally~ o~ Budget & Acctc, Mr. David Mr. Applegate called tn~ n~ee~ng ~,o order i. INVOCATION st. John'~ Epi~cOpa~ Chu~ch~ Who ~ave t~e invoca~oa. ~r, Da~,~e] tr~p he had rake~ with MeS~r~. App~egate and Hedrick to Ge~many~ don't realize how important peace, justice, freedo~ and digni~y are which Americans take for granted. approved the minutes of ~ay 8, ].985;'a~ Snbm~ttefl. Vet~: Unanimous 3. CO[raTTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMF~NT~ Mr. Hedriek in%reduced Mr. Anthony b~wd, Executive Director of the capitsl Region Airport Co~ission. Mr. D~d stated ~n .~e~day~ May 28, 1985, ~he gr0~db~eaking c~renony Nill be held for the expansion and modernization p~ogram f~ ~he Airport Terminal building. H~ ~tated thi~ could ~ot have tak~n appreciation for tbs cooperation received ~rom the Board for the Airport Co~l~aion, He ~tag~d Lkls projeo~ ha~ been ~inancially, Eowe and Mr. Hubert Tay].or~ ~srs of khe un~e~ri'~in7 t~am OppOrtunity to work Wi~h represmntatlves c~ ~he three j~risdict!ons to bcin~ thi~ financing to a successful conclusion. ~r. ~drick iDtroduced Mr. Bill Pritchard, ~ach~r, and the Ctovsr 5ill Migh is unique in hha= etudents attend from ~id!othian, Matoaca and Clover Hill Dis~rich~, ~e utatmd %hey ~ould be %i~iting the Jaxl, %he General D~strict Cou~t~ the Circuit Court Clark's office and %he Ccunty Attorney's Office. The Bo~rd welcomed a!l present. Mr. Gillentin~ in%reduced ~g..]an ~]ewberry, ~ireetor ~ Physical position since 1983, has boon ~n emp].oyme mince 1980, is an authoxity in the field of physJ.csl therapy, ~c. ~e statad thc is among tha top three or four i.~ th, COuDtrv. He Sta~ed that she has authored a chapter, Fal].~ of ~he ~ld~rly~ in an authoritative te~%book~ ~he Ps~choloqy of Aging. The Board congratulated Mn. Newberl~y on thls acco:~pii~hment a~d for cooperation. Mm sta~ed there were aeYoba%ic~ model airplan~ flight d~cmstrations, flybym of ~orld War ri t~alners, homemade aircrafts, skydivers, arts and cragts dlsplays, an Air Force h~lic0ptef, military recruiters, demonstrations by [he Canine COrps, live musio~ 50-80 children received fr~c ride~ by Chesterfield Pilots Ass~ciat~cn~ ate, tie ~tated it was a success becallse not onl~ wa~ the f~%c~lAty ~d~onst~ated to the pu~l.i¢ but Applegate cc~.ende~ ~. Catlahan en ~fs d~n~on~r~ion 85~321 stated hew fortunate the C0~Dty was to have him as an employee. 4. BOARD Mr. Dodd stated thee M~ssrS. Dowd and Mehfou~ had given the late~t accounting of the happenings at the Capital Region Airpor! Commission. Mr. Mayes stated he had represented the County and presented the e~ecuted resolution ~t the 250th Anniversary Celebration O~ Amelia County. He ~tated h~ met with the Matoaea Advisory Committee who camo to a decision to have mn ov~pa~ rather than an underpa~s at the grade crossing in ~ttrick. He stated now County can advise the Mighway ~part~ent on how tu proceed. Be Diamond, eour=esy of PhiliD Morris, which was ~ery nic~. Mrs, Giron~ ~tated the Riuhm~nd Regional Planning District Corc~/s~ion mat last week and approved th~ b~dge% and there is money to study the possibility ~ Lake ~enito being a reservoir and funds ~or a port study. ~}]e stated ~he Transportation Con~ission aisc met and they are concerned about the Eolise skid pad which is not serviceable. She s'tate~ they a~e really interested in the poss~bili'~y of a P01ice/P~re training and additional amenitims that would b~ included stroh as a skid pad. She stated the Board should deal with ~his and how it could be funded i~ th~s were necess~Jy~ otherwise, the skid pad needs to be refurbished. She stated the Midlothi~n Sigh School dedication was held last Sunday and there was mention 0I th~ new entrance which is necessary and should b~ reaay by the time to the Ches=erfield B~siness Council along with representatives of ~DC ~nd CO%~TOUR which was very interesting and exciting. stated that Bon Air Day Wa~ last ~aturday with a parade, sec. it was enjoyed by all. She stated that she and Mr. Applegate hal attended the Police ~morial Service laze Thursday~ She stated thai Congressman Thomas Bliley came to the Sen Air Libra~ and th~r~ was an outstandi~ turnout and went several hours over schedule and ke w~ pl~asmd wi~h the input and r~pocse. 5. REQ~T~ TO POSTPONE ACTI~_~_EMEP~Ei~CY ADDITION~ OR CKANGKM ~N TH~ 0~uzm OF Consld~ra%~on of a Traffic Light at th~ Int~r~ection Of Courthouse Read and Route 10 ~ item t~.F.'?.; added 1985-86 Regarding Turner Road ~$ ~tem k9.~'.9.~ d~e~sd 1U.M.~ Execute C~rtificate Purchase Avre~mcat in Conjunction with Lease/Pu~chas~ suildings; def~zre~ un~il J~.~ne 12, !985~ It%m l~.G.3.e., Vacation of Midlothian Manor, Sect]on ~L$ azld further th~ Board adopted thc agenda aa amended. 6. ~ESOLUTIONS O~ SPECIAL 6.A. CLAYTON C. CASSEI,, PAR~"'kND R~EAT~QN DEPARTmeNT zM.T. GaluSha introduced Mr. Phil ]~es%e~. Mr. Hector introduced Nr. Cassel and brqofly outlined his work e~perienc~ with the County and the ~ark~ and ReumeaLi0n De~a~'tment and indicat~ he B5-32~ WI{EREAS~ Clayton C. Casael retired from %he Barks and Recreation Department, Chesterfield County, on May 1, 1~85~ and W~ER~, Mr. Cassel provided nine years cf quality s~rvioe W~EREAS, Chesterfie].d County an~ the hoard of s~pervisors will mis~ Mr. Caz~el'z diligent ~ervice. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this ~oard o~ ~utervisor$ publicly recognizes Mr. Cassel and extend5 on behalf of ihs m~mber~ and th~ citizens of Chesterfield County their appreuia=ion for his ~erv=oe to ~he county. bs presented to Mr. Casssl and that this R~so!~t~on be pezmanently recoxde~ among th.e papers of this ~oard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented Hr. Cass~l with the executed Mr. Applegate introduced Mr. Tom Innss, chairman of the "~mke ~me~ica get~er Committee'~ for the Richmond ~ear~ of R~altors. He stated Mr. Innes had been actively intolv~d in tki~ project for lead,ns real~ors acros~ the nation bringinq recognition to the Board, h~ has initiated many projects which have returned much 'the community such as prcgrmms aqainst drug abuse, promoting spring ct~an.-up~ ~tc. He $~ed shore was a Realtor Walk-A-Then Against Child Abuse which ra±~ed $15,000 across the ~tate, of which $5,U0~ ~as raised in Richmond alone. ~r. Inn,s sta~ed that Mr., Applegate had s~arte~ ~sny programs of which the Richmond Board of R~_altors is proud and ~hen he was in charge of the national ~evel as well, ~ pre~ented ~he Board with the Real%ers' official "Make A~erica Befte~ Com~aittee" caps. Ha ~tated the fun~s would be u~ed to p~educe booklets to help prevent child abuse. On motion ~f the Board, the following re~o!utie~ wa~ adopted: WHEREAS, child Abuse is a national problem ore,sing ali ~EREAS, Ail children should hnvc the right tO a h~ppy h~althy family lif~ by enjoying lov~, 1. a~ghter and security~ and WHEHEAS, The virgiuia ASsOciation of ~ealtorm, of which Richmond ~oard of Rea].~ors ~s ~n integral per~, have held on May 14, ]985. children affected who will be aided and possibly removed fro~ %he organizers, ~he participants a~ the conur~.o,tors of Mr, App!egat~ presented Mr. Inn%~ with ~he execu=e~ res01utf0~. 7. HEARINGS OF CITIZEN~ ON UNSCheDULeD MATTEkS Mr. 5adrick indicated t~ere w~re no citf~ens scheduled for thi~ m~et±ng. 8. DEFER~D ITEMS $.~. REFE~ ~0NI~G OI~IN~NCE ~ENDMEETS TO PLANNING COMMISSION F~V. Hedr~ck ~ta~e~ the Doard wa~ presented w~th the proposed zoning ordinance amendments at the May 8, 1985 meeting and a work session was held on May ~0, 1985, Mr. Balderson stated et the last work session the Board indicated ~t ~ght WaD~ tO ~nter%ain some additional regu!mtion with r~spect ~e curb and guttering in residential e~bdi~isionS. He further stated that such regul~t£ons would be more appropriately i~stituted through a ~ubdi~isio~ ordinance amendment. He stated, ther~fore~ the ~oard would elco submit a proposal to amend the subdivision ordinance in that respect. Mr. Applegate sta~ed =kc inten~ is to cut down on high density which requires i~cre~se~ County services and all ~oard members agreed =hfs would b~ if the best ih~ere~t of the County. He stated, however, the dat~ of ~y 20 or May 22, 1985 for an effective date was i~approgriate. He stated he had received several calls with ~egard to thi~ matter. ~ thor8 is a subdivLslen whic~ is soRei~ R-7, the deve!mper bee not recorded his plats althcug~ he has i~stalled wa~er~ sewer, etc., be cannot until he ebtain~ his off-site easements and this would place thi~ developer in a posture of'~inancial disaster. stated he understands ~ha~ a~proximately ~8% of the existing R-7 ~u the County is already platted. He stated he felt that if the Board takes this actioe~ the R-? property shout~ be identified and the owners notified, giving them ample tlms to mak~ de.eloped in phases, and if there is a requir®ment that ~ke property be ~-9 or ~-1~, th~ ~evelope~ may not be a~le to ~e]l Mr. Dedd ~tated rathe~ than ch~ng~ the date, perkaps it could indicate "when the roads ar~ in" and this w~u!d covmr circumstances. Mr. Applegate stated it really depend~ 0n how developer develops his property. Mrs. Girone s%a~ad she felt a reasonable date change w:}uld be a bette~ method i~ ~hich to handl~ the matter discussed by Mr. Apptegate. ~he stated the ~oard is not tryioq to present a hardship on a d~veloper but ilIve~ted money ~n a development and 'to suddenly cut them off is already platted end if there is ~ 90 day d~lay, a higher priority out,lng down on fhe deBt, fy b~ just del~yinq i~ ae~ it will not and S~ptemher t would b~ acceptmb]e. Mr. Daniel inquired if tcwnhouses~ m~lti-family, etc. Mr. ~ice~ indicated various dates would be mo~e diffJcu!t to impose and he ~ugqe~ted a singl~ date for all issues. Mr. A~plegate reviewed the 'development of the ~tate~ there were many options regardfng the proposed changes and he expected the Planning Commission to review end have the Bnerd could hold its public hear]n? sometime in July or August. transmittal to I:he Planning Commission with the understanding that it would be effective upon the da:e of Board appr0~a]. Mrs. Girone discussed a develoDer who purchased 100 acres of R-7 by lot and has not yet begun development. St~e stated if this R-7 were ~henged, there will be fewee lots and could inflict a financial hardship and now he has to develop a plan, do of August 1st as a target date. Be s~a~[ed individual eases will emerge at the ~iDe of the hea~ing~ ~nd the effective date can be changed. Mr. Apptegate suggested that Angust ~4, 1985 be d~te that the ordinance ehould be considered a~ well as the date the ord~mane~ would be effective. Mr. ~i~ss explained that if this date is set, it could net be ~oved up and cautioned about i~dividual exceptions, On motion of Mr. Dodd~ seconded by ~r. Mayas, the ~oard forwarded to thc Planning Con~ission for revie~ and recommendation, ordinances regarding repealing th~ R-7 zoning category and rezoning all zoned b~t unp!atted R-7 aOreag8 to an appropriate zoning category~ proposed residen=ial-townhouse zoning district, and residential multiple family zoning district and further au'hhorlzed staff also to su~m%~ to the Planning Com~is$ion a proposal to amend the subdivision ordinance regarding cUrb and Mrs. girone inquired if the &mendment regarding curb an~ gutter Batder~on ~teted that it wculd be drafted and for%~a~ded to th~ Planning Commission for review. ~8. Giru~e stated she di~ not feel it should nectars/fly bs required iD every situation. Board would make th~ f]~al d~termination. ~. ~edrick s~ated staff had surveyed the ~eller~ley Subdivision ~ewer if i~ were made available. H~ stated seven of the 16 cancelled. in the Kellerele~ 9. PDBLIC F~ARINGS : ..AT~ CODE CI~APTER~ TO ASI{ERE TO C[~'ANC~EE ][]{ ~;TA'fE CODE NUb~BER!NG ~EQUEMCES eoasider an ord~anc~ am~uding Chapters ~ and ].2 pertaining to BE IT ORDAINEQ by the ~nard of Supervisors Of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia~ 1. That Chapter S of the Code of tho County ef Chesterfield, Virginia, ~97~ aa amended, is mm~.nded and reenacted by amending the following sections~ Sec. 8-3. Board of equalization All duties $~[d ail powers conferred ky ].~w in th~ review equalization of assessments of real estaLe in the county shall ~xarcised by a county board of equalization of composed of five me~0e~E appointed for te].~s not to exceed one year and expiring six months ~f%er the effective d~tm of the assessmeDt ~or which they are appointed by the judge of the circuit court pursuant to the proui~io~$ of seetie~ 58.1-3370 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, The board of ~upervisors shall, in January of each year~ by a resolution approved by a m~3erity of all of its members, direc% the judge Of th~ circui~ court to make ~ppropriate appointments to ~he board of equalization o~ assessments for the ensuing year. The board tax roils when acquires by owner~ no% subject to ~axat~6n~ and t¢ the bo~r4 of equalization of assessments shell k,e filled b~ the shall b~ removabie by the judge of the circuit cour~ for adopted by the board o~ supervisors~ SeC. 8-I1. Same--Appeal from as~c~K~m~Dt s~aOa ~ursuant to C~ this article may apply fo~ r~lief to th.~ clrcui~ court o%: 5~-1~398~ of the Cod~ of Virginia. Certified pollution con~rol equipmen~ and facilities, defined by sectio~ 5f~.I~3660 of tf~ Cod~% 0f VirgisJ. a, as amended shall con~it'nte a separate c].~s of rs~al property and shall land upon which the certified p01!ut~.on control e~ipment and Sec. 8~12.2. Abolition of ~inansc. Pursuan~ to the authority c~n~aioed in ~ection ~8.1-3151 of The Code O~ Virginia, as amehded, the county finance board Cina~ce board are hereby vested in ~hm board of supervisors~ Sec. 8-14.1. Same--C~rtifi~d ~o] lut~on co:~trol e~pmen% an~ 'facll ~ties. Certified pollu'~ion cor~trol equ!pn~er.t anO~ f~cilihie~, as machinery and see. 8-18. Findings_of co.stye The county finde that the preservation of real ~etate devoted to agr£eultu=a[, horticultural, forest ~nd open space uses wifh~n its boundaries as in the public J. nterest andI having heretofore adopted a land use plan, hereby ordains that such rea article 4 of chapter 52 of title 58,1 of the Code of Virginia an, o~ this article. Sec. 8-],~. ApplicationS. (a) The owner of any real estate m~eting %h~ criteria set forth in sections 58.1-3230 and 58.1-3233(~} Qf the Cod~ of Virginia may, at lea~t sixty days preceding the tax year for which such tazation is eought~ apply to the coenty assessor for the classification, assessment and taxation of ~uch property for procedure8 set forth in s~ction 58.1-S~38 of the Code cf Virginia; provld~d, ~hat in nny yea~ in which a general reassessment ia being mad~ tho propers? owner may sub.it such application until thirty ~ay~ have el~pu~d after his notice of iacrease in assessment is mailed in ac~':ordance with the Code of year, ~hichev~ is Inter. ~u. ch ~pp!icati~n sh~l], ba on for~s provided by the s~a~£~ aepartment of taka=ion and Supplied by county assessor and sh~l!, include ~uck additional photograph~ and drawing9 ~ may h~'requlred by the county assessor. An application fee e~ tan dealers shall accompany eec? application. (b~ A separate applicatio~ shall be filed for each parcel ~ec. 8-22. Roll-back There is hereby imposad, a re!l-back ta~, and interest thereon, in ~Ue~ amounts as may bo determined under th~ Coda of Virginia, ~ection 5~.1-3~97, upon any property as to which the u~u chan~es to a nonqualifying Sec. 8-24. A %cab~l~} e~ st~ta applieable to local lev~es a~ real estate assessn~nt and prcvisien~ relating to 'ha~ l~en~ and the correction o~ erroneous assessments, and for such purposes the roll-back taxes shall be S~o. 8-28.1. Definitions. For the p%~pes~% of this article, th~ £ollowin~ wo~ds shall ~avs the meanings res)ect~,ve].y ascribed to them by ~his section; Virginia. N~t ~I~. A b~nk~'s net capital comported purauant to section 58.1-12~5 of the Code o~ V~rginia. S~c. 8~28.2. (a) ~ursuant ~0 the pro,.'is~ons 0f chapter 12 of title 5~.1 located within the boundaries of the'county a tax on net c~pital forth in section 58.]2]?0g Of :;ha CO~ of Virginia. 85-327 cr affiliate of the prinsipa% office, tko tax upon such branch shall be apportioned as provided by section 58.%-1211 of the Code of Virginia. Sac. 8-28.3. Filing of ~turD ~n~ ~ayment of not later ~han ~ruh 1 o~ any ~uch y~art all banks whose principal offices are located within the county shall prepare and seetiou 58.1-120~ o~ the Cod~ of V%r~inia, in duplicate, ~hich co~i~$ione= of th~ revenue shall certify a copy of much filing of the bank's return end schedule a~d ~h~]l forthwith transmit such cer~ifie~ copy to =he state depart~nt of taxation. {b) In the ~v~nt that the p~'incipal office of a bank is located outside th~ boundaries of the county and such ba~k has bran0h offices located within the ooun~y~ in addJtion to filing requirem~n%~ ~et forth in subsecfl0n (3) of this any bank conducting such branch business ~balI ii].s wi~h th~ co~i~ioner of th~ revenue a copy of the real estate deduction schedule, apportio~mn~ ~nd OLDer items which arc re~uirud hy section~ 58.~-12~1, 5~.].-1207 and 58.1-1212 of th~ Code of virginia. {c) Each bank, on or befor~ the firs~ day o~ Ju~e of y~mr, shall pay inh~ th~ ~reasnrmr~ ~fi~e ail taxes pur$'u~nt to this article. Sec, 8~30. Imposition; rate to be in addition to stale sales Pursuant to tit~e 5~.1, chapter 6, sections 58.1-605 and 58.I-606 of t~e Code of Virginia, loc~] gmnerai reha~I a~le~ general fund of the 0ossify is hereby levied. Such t~:=~s shall added tc th~ rat~ of the s~a~e sa!e~ and t~e tax~ imposed by chapter 6, title 58,[ of the Code of Virginia. They ~}~all b~ subject to all provisions Of ~hapter 6 of ~iit].e 59.1 of the Code of Virginia, all the amendments thereto and the r,a].es and 58.2~606 of ~h~ Cnda of Virginia, ~]1~ toce. I general retail and use ta~e~ ]evle~ pursuant ~o th. ia article shall ~ administered an~{ collect6;d b~~ the stat~ tnx co~is~ioaer in the $~a~e sales and u~e t. axe~, wit. b the ~dj~ls~lnan~ %-~quirmd by s~ction 5g,I-62R 0f lihe Co~ie of Virginia. The cou.nky finds that the e:icocraL-eme~%~ of tbs us~ and p~b].ic imterest and hereby ordains tho.t certified energy ~quipment, facitit~s or devices, as define~ by section 58.1-3661 of the Cod~ o~ Virginia, ma~ in accordanc~ with th~ nrovisions of thiz a~ticl(~ b~ exempted fro~ real e~ta~e and t. angi~e personal S=c. 8-34. ~'~1 ication. bu~].d~ng offJ.cia~, for exa~p'tJ.o!l of cer'tifiied sonar energy eq~ipmeht~ facilities or d~vi.ce~, as d~fined by section 0f the Code of ~;~rgi;~J.a, from rea! estate and tangib!~ property taxa%ion; p~ovided, 'that Such eq~lip~nt, ~ac~lity oY 85-329 device is attached to and used solely in conjunction with th~ Sec. $-35. Determination of qDa. lifieaticn. (a) If~ after ~x~mination of such equipment, facility or device, the office of the county building official determines that th~ unit primarily performs any of the ~unctJons set forth in section 58.1~3661(B) of the Code of Vi fginia and conforms to th~ requirements of tho stabe office of'housing,' 8n~h office shall approve suuh ~pplication. The a©unty building official ~hall forthwith transmit such application to the state office of housin~ which shall terrify to the COunty assessor property approved by the County building official as meeting all r~quire- ments qualifying ~u~h equipment~ facility er device fo~ from taxation. (b) Any person aggrieved by a decision of th~ county building Official may appeal Suck decision to th,= technical review board~ which m~y affirm or revzrsa such d~cision. tel~phou~ line par month. This tax shall bu paid by the SeC. 19-$3. ~ou a~pli~able to shOws~ etc,~ ins~d~ fair. ~rounds. The provisions of l~hls d£v~sina shell nut apply to circuses, certificate fro~ the judge of the circuit court of the county licensed pursuant tc Code o~ Virpinia, ~ect. iOn furnishing or providings ~ co~n Qper~ed amussmen% machine, as Virginia, shall pay ~ license ~ax o~ t~o hnndr~d dollars and thirty-six hundredths of one Der' centum of th~ gross r~ceipt~ received b~ s~ch ope~a~o£ from~ atau~ement machines operated within the county_ Thi~ ~ec+ioD ~hali not apply ~ any person owning IeS~ than three coin machines and operatiKg such machines on property owned or leased, by such ~erson. This section shall tak~ affeclt .tartary l, 19~. Vote: Unan~moum . ~5.-329 C 9.B. ORDinANCE RE~O TO PRECINCT ~OUNDARIES/PO[.L~N~ Mr. ~edrick mtmt~d this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing ho .o~nsider an ordinance regarding preclnc~ COunty Attorney, explained the ordinance. Ther~ was =o one seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following AN ORDINANCE TO A~4D TIlE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 197~ AS AMENDED, BY A~END~N0 ~ 7,1-2 RELATING TO PRECINCT BOUNDARIES AND POLLING PLACES BE IT ORDAINED ~y the Board of Supel~i~o~s of Chesterfield County~ i, That ~ 7.1-2 o~ the Cod~ of thm County of Chesterfiel.d is amended ~nd reeRacted as f~lows: The following 511all b~'~ the precinct boundaries o © © ~IDLQT~IAN UOTINO P~ECiNCT= Commmncing at the oente~ line of Winhe~rfi~%d Road ~State Route 714) with the boundary ].i~ Of ChnDter~ie]d County it~ inter~ection with the center li~e of Swift C~eek; ~h~nce of Otterda~e ~oad (S~ate Ron~e ~67); thence northwardly on the center line cf 0tterda]e Road to its i~t~r~action with the c~nte= Line of Old Rundred P~%ad (State Route ~52); thenc~ ~outhea~t~&rd]y on th~ center llne of ©l~ ~undre~ ~odd to i~s J. ntersectio~ with naa center l~ne of Genito Road (Stat~ 604}; thence eastwardly on ~e~i~o Road ~o it9 i~er~ec~Jo~ with Coal£ie].d Road (State Route 75~); th&nee northwardly on center line of Coalfield Road to it~ inharseotio31 with Luck~ Lane Lane to its inter~ection with ~ne c~nter line of Pall~n~ Creek~ then along the center lane of Falling U:ce~k to its iat~rsectlon with the west&rn branch of Pai~in~ Czee~; <hen along the center line of the western br~0rt of Fall. lng C~eek as ;i~ meanders along in a northwasbwardlv d~rectJ, ea to it~ inter~ec'ti0n with the the cen~e£ ~ine of ~idlothien Tuzl'ipike tO its intersechi©n with the center line of Failing CYeek~ thence r, orthwardly along the center line cf Falling Creek to :Lbs iAtersection with the center line of th~ Southern RafJwa7~ '~heBce wes~w~dly alon~ ~h~ centex tlng of the Sou:horn Railway to its intersection with the line of State Route 71~ (Winterfield Eoa~}; thence nozrhwardly aI©ng the center linc of State Route 7~4 to ~he po~% o~ b99i, nning, The vo~ing place ~or Mi~lothian Voting Precinct ~hg~l be Midlothian High Schooi~ 401 Charter Colony Parkway,. ~YCAi~OF~E VOTING PRECINCT: Beginning at the center line ~f Lucks Lane (State Route where it intersects with Falling Cre~k; thence eastwardly along LuCkS Lane to its inter,action with Courthouse Road {State Route 6§3); thence northwardly on the cant~r line of Courthouse Road to its intersection with the center line of Branchway Road; thence northwardly on Branchway Rosd to its intersection with the we~twardly along the center line of U,S+ ~o%~'~c NO. 6C to its inter~eeticn with the C~nner line of Coal. field Road ($~ate Route 754); thence southwardly on the center line of Coalfield Road with its intersection of the center li~ of the western branch cf Falling Creek; thence along the western branch Of ~llinq Creek of beginning, ~idlothian ~id~le School~ ~ialothian Turn~ike. Beginning at the center %ins of Hull Street Road {U,S. R~ute 360) wher~ it intersects with ot~erdale Road (State Hoots 667}; thence in a northwardly direction to its inSs~section ~ith Road to its intersection with the center lJ.ne of Swift Creek SWIFT CREEK VOTING PRECINCT: Beginning at the cen~er l~ne of Hull Street Road where it westwurdly along }|uli ~tr~et Road to its intersection w~.th ~,~ift Creek Reser%~oir; thence northwsrdly along ~uch r~$e~oir until i~ inter~eot$ wi~h Genies Kcad {~tate Route 604)~ thence eastwardly along G~nito Road to its inke~]~ect~on with Old ~:n~red Road State Route 652); ~henoe southwardly aton~ Old Hundred Road to the point of beginning. The voting ~lace f~u' S~i~ creek Vo~inq Precinct shall be at Swift Creek Mid~le Sch£,o.f.~ 370~ Old Hundred Road. United States Justice Department pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Vote: UnanimOU~ 9.C. PROHIBITION OW T[~R~UgR TRgCK THAFFIC OM ~APP¥ HILL ROAD Dublic hearing ~o c~nsider the p~hibition of through truck traffic on Rappy Hill I~c. ad b~tween Wood~ E,19e Roed and 0.65 mile so~th of ~ocds Edge ~oRd. Mr. McCrackeD stated a p~tition %~as received from r~d~pt~ ~1o~9 (~h.[~ cor~id0~ requesting the road. He stated the alternate ro~te would be Happy Mill Road to that the prohibition be approved. On motion of Mr. Mayasr seconded by Mr. Dedd, the Board adopted th. follewinq re~olutios: on Happy Hill Read (Route 619), fro~t Weeds Edge Road {Route 620) ~o restrict through truck traffic on ~ppy Mill B~ad frc~ WOOd~ Mr. Dodd explained -the proce~s by tbs Virginia Department o~ Highways and Transportation to those pr~$en~ in regard to this 9.D. CO~4MUNI?Y DF, VF. LOP~]ENT BLOCK GRANT FOR BENSL~7£/RELLWOOD AREA ~r. ~edxick ata~d this date and time had b~en advertised for ~ p~blic h~aring to receive public set.ant regarding the County's Virginia Cua~unity Devel~gment Block Grant App~ication for application. ~e in~roduced ~t~.s. Linde Gra~ewicz whu &u~roduced different than the application last full ara; 1. There is $50,000 ~i1~ 7irginia Housing and Devel~ment $)0,000. Sh~ stated staff is attempting re negotieae application is ~pprevad~ She ~tated ~he floral co~ for houn~.:~q r~habi!itation is $36S,Q00, area as they have contaminated wells. ~r. Dodd expressed there arc problems in the urea with wel!a, this er~ has been in~0acted by zoning 20-30 years ago, etc. He stated he hoped th~ application would be mor~ successful this year th~n last. There wsre approximately l0 people present in favor of this application. On motion Of ~. oo~d, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the ~oard adopted the following resolution: Whereas, Financial assistance is available to units of ~ene~al local government through ~he Commonwealth of V~rginia Communisy Development Block Grant Program; and Whereas, In order to avail itself of ~uch financial of ~eusinq and Community Develo~'~ent an application for a CO,unity Improvement Grant. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Bcar~ of o~ Chestexfietd County~ VJ. rginla, that; t. The County wl~i apply fo~ a $700,000 Virqinia a~plica~ion will incl~d= funds for housing $70Q,OOO i~ VCDBG fund~, 8188,006 in-kiD~ County $]55,000 in U~DA funds and $~0,OO0 in private co~itted to t~is project. apptJcation~ including all understanding~ and ~. H~sb~r stated that the Parks and 9~creation Department l&ke to appJ~y fo~ fund~ fro~ t~e U. S. Department of Education through its office of Special =deca~iou and Rehabilitative funding for initiatinq special, rectos:ions] projects for ~¢ith ~i¢~anoe of onbe~ County agencies which would be ~n the r~s'idents. ~he stated they hod been considering the conatructiou good Opportunity to pursue it. She utated this ~wimming pool would be the only one ad~pked %0 the handicapped ~n the County On motion O~ Mrs. Giro~e, seconded b~ ~r. Hayes, %he ~oard authorized the County Administrator to submit a §rant application of which is filed with the ~:a'pezs o~ thi~ ~oard~ 10.B. $12,090 Gl{ANT FOR JUVENILE DETENTION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd~ the Board approved and authorized the Cousty Administrator r~ ac~pt a USDA Food S~rvice Grant in the a~louDt of $12,000 for improvements to food service program at the Juvenkle Deue~ti(m Home and the revenues and axp~nditc~e~ to rs~l~% ~h%~ increase. 5Irs. Gir~ne inquired if the !ea$~ space fox the Ex~nsien Service invo%ve~ a~y energy gonservat~on imp~ovem~nt~ as it is always cold in the building. ~r. ~uDna%~.y sba:ed fke ~ui~ding has been bought by other~ and hhe~ ha~e b~en making repairs for tbs past several weeks. ~r. Mayas inquired why the COunty did not ~on~ider pur~ha~in~ the building~ not know if the ~ounty was aware of the sale of the building~ the County does own quite a blt of proper%y, ~he County is involva~ with the constr~ction of t~ree buildings ah thi~ ~i~s which for a period of two year~ at a cost of $16,320 per yma~ with Vote: UnanimOus Dr. Lowe stated Mental Heal,h/Me,tel Retardation S~rvicez training that will lead to oomp~£tive employment. Me ~tated that food ~rvio~ job~ i~ an occt~pation of thig n~bu~ ~ad they office but!ainu. Ha s'tated they will provide traxning for the the amount of $~0,~00 ham ~een aDDle'red for e~ipment start-up Stated ~everal departmcnt~ had bsen involved in this it will be a worthwhile pro,ram and ~t will imprbve s~rvi~es for operational expanses will be paid ~Or by $~i~ of food I. Aut~orize~ the Mental Healtb/F[antal Rotan'darien D~psr~meDt 2. Accepted and appropriated $50,000 £~om the $~ahe of Virginia for food mervlce equipment. expend~ture~ for tho operation of '~his pro,ram in the FY This day the County Environmental EDginess, in accordance with directions ir©la this ~o~rd~ made report in writing upon examination of Bridl~ Path Drive and Brld~e ~a~h Court in Country ~ome Estates, Sections 2 and ~, ~atoae5 District. Upon consideration whereof, and on m~tien of Nrc. ~irone, Seconded by ~r_ Dodd, it is resolved that ~ridle Path Drive and Drid~e Path Court in Country Home E~tatea~ S~ctions 2 and roa~s. And be it f~rther resolved, that th~ Virginia D~eart~unt of Highways and Transportation, be ~ud it hereby is requested to take into the ~econdary System, A~idle Path Drive, beginning at thm end of State maintained ~i~le Pa%~ Drlve~ State Ro~lte 1370~ and running northwesterly G.02 mile to the intersection with Bridle Path Court, then continuing northwesterly 8.13 milt to end in ~ cul-de-sac; and Bridle Path Cou~t~ beginning at the intersection ~ith Bridle Path Drive and ruDnlng northeasterly 0.02 mile to the end in a cul-de-sac.' ~hls request is inclusive of the adjacent slope These roads carve 20 A~d he it furthe¥ resolve~, th~-~ the Retard ot guu=antees to th~ Virginia D*partment of Highways a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads. These sections of Co'entry Bome Estates are recorded ss follows: Section 2. Plat Book 3~, Pages 59 and 6U~ S~pte~ber l~, 1981. This day the Coonty EnViZonmental En~ineer~ in accordance with directions from t~tis Board, n~ade report in writing upon his examinatiol% of T~t~rling Rosd and Tete~Iing Cou~t in Lakewood Farms, Section F, Bermuda D/strict. seconded by Mr. D©dd, it ia resolved tha.t ~t~rling Roa~ and Teterling Cmur~ in Lakewood Farms, S~ction F, Bernmda District, And be it further resslv~s~ tha'~ the Vlrgin~a Department of Highways aud Tre?%s~ortati~n~ be and J.t hereby is requested to end of existing State iaainta~ned T~Leriln§ Road. Stat~ ~o%~te 311~, and run, lng southerly 0.03 ~i&e to the intersection with Tuterling Court, then c~Dtinui~g southerly 0.07 mi].e te end in a ~emporaxy turnaroundz s~d Tes~rLin~ COurt, begi~ing at the intmrSectiun with T~terlinq Road mud runnin~ w~s~erly 0~15 mile to en~ in a col-de-stol This request is inclusive of fha s~jacent slope easements. These roads serve 18 lots. And be it further re~©lvedt ~hat the Boar~% o~ Supervisors ~ua~antees to the V'irglnLa Department O~ ~ghw~.ys a 50~ ~gh't-Of-way for T~t~rli.n~ Court and.a 60~ rigkt-of-%~ay for Tef~r]ing Road. '.. 85.-335 Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Simplicity Street and Simplicity Court in C0u~thouse G~een ~outh, Section A, ~al.e Di~t~ict. Qpo~ consideration whereof, and on motion of ~rs. Girone, meconded by Mr. Dodd, it i5 resolved that Simplicity Street and simplicity Court in Courthouse Green Sou~h, sgct~ou A, District, he and they hereby are established as pub]is roads. And ~e it further re~olved, that ~]e Virginia Dopartmen= of ~ighways and Transpor=at~on, be and it hereby is requested to and running southerly 0.03 mile =~ th~ int~¥$~ction ~ith ~implicity Court, then sont~.nuing southerly 0.09 mile t~np0rary turnaround, and Szmp]lei~yCo~lrt, bec]nniag at intersection with 8i~pl!city Street and rnnnimg easterly 0.~9 mile to and in a cul~de--sac~ This request im inclu$iYe of ~h~ adjaoen~ slope This day th~ County ~nvironmental Engineer~ in aec0~dance with dirmctioam fcem this Bo~rd, nude examiuation of ~aLoh Mill ~ead, Watch ~il]. T~Mrac~, Carefr~ Court~ Watch Point East a~d Watch portion of Section ~ a~d Mac,ions J-2 and J--3, Mi~lothian seoon4ed by ~r. Qa~d, i~ is reso].¥ed 'that Watch Pill ~oad, Watch J-3, Midlothian District~ b~ nnd %hey hereby ar~ es~ablishe~ az public road~. 9c~ng 0.06 mile southerly to 'th~ inter~eetiou with Wa~uh Hill Terrace, th~n co~tinuing ~.07 mile so,:Lhwe$~erly to the southwesterly to the intersection wit[% Watdh Point East and Watch Point W~st, the~ coDtlnuing ~.05 mile aouthwest~r!y %o a cul.~de-sac: Watch ~J. ll Terracm, b~ginnimg a9 the iute£sectiun Watch ~ill Roa~ and going 9.0~ mile aoutheazLerly to a Wats5 ~ilt Paad and going O.OK mile SOUtheasterly tO a :ul-de-sac; and Watch Point W~t~ beginnin~ at the intersection :ul-de-sac. ?hese roads serve 50 !ots~ Section J-2. Plat Book 42, Page 64, March 2, i9~3. This day tho County Environmental Mngineer, in acgor~anc~ with directions from %his Board, made report in wzitinq upon his examination of KiDgs~ross Ros~, Camtleway Road, Jan~y'~ Place and Lady Jean Cou~t in Queensmill, sections C-2 and C-3~ Midlethian Diatr~ct. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of ~rs. Girou~, And be it further resolved, ~hat ~he Virginia Department of going 0.04 m~le northwesterly to 'the intersection with Oast]e~ey ~urn~rouud; CaYtleway ~ead, beginning at the interssction ~ith with denny's Place, then con~inulng 0.16 mile westerly ~o the intersection with Ca~tleway Road and going (].08 mi].~ southerly And be it further resolved, that ~h~ ~oard o~ Supervisor~ guarantees to=the Virgini~ D~:pari~ent of ~iph~¢ays a 50' Sec~iQn C-~. Pl~% Rook ~3, 9~9e ~!, Jun~ 2]~ 19~F. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with examination of Zady ~hley Road an~ Lauzen Road in Queen,milt, Sections D and ?, C~over Hill and Midlothlan ~5-337 ~econded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Lady Amhley Road and Laurie Lane in Oueensmill, Seations D and F, Clover Hill and Midlothian Di~t~icts, be and they hereby are established as 5ublio roads. Nd be it luther resolved, that tho Virginia Department af ~ighways and Transportation, be and it hereby is toques'ted to take,into the ~econdary System, Lady Ashley Road~ beginninq at th~ ~nter~tion w~th Kingeoross Road, Sta~n ~oute ~3~8, and going 0.04 mile northwesterly to a cul-de-sac. Ag~in~ heginni:%g at the intersection with Lady Ashley Roan, S~a~e Route 1355, Lane, then continuing 0,17 nile southeasterly to u temporary turnaround; and Lauren Lane~ beylnnlng at tk= inter,notion with Lady Ashley Road and going 0.04 ~iie northeasterly to a dead end. Thim request is inclusive cf the ad~acen~ slope easemonts. Th~se roads serv% 20 lots. And b~ it further fe~olved~ that the Board o~ S~pervisors ~uarantees to the Virginia Department o~ ~ighway$ ~ ri~ht-of-way for all of thane roads. These sections of Que~nsmill a~e recorded as fellows~ $~otion D. ?let ~ook 4]~ Peg= 29~ July ].5~ 1982. Section F. Plat Soak ~3, Page 16, ~ey i7, Lakent Lane in ~randywins Forast~ S~c~io~ District. seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Saim~ Joan Aveeno, Section E, Clover Hill District, be ~nd %hey hereby are I{ighways end Transportations, be and it kereby is reqnasted to 33~0, and going 0~06 mile ea~k~rly tu ~¢ intarS~2iO~ wi~h Reuben Roa~, then contin~]~l%~ Q.~ mile ~e~terly to ~ :empQraxy tnrnaround~ D~u~w~ Roa~], beginning at th~ ~ntersection with SaiDt Joan ~venue and goinq 0.07 mite ~ou~herly %0 the intersectio~ with Laksna Lane, tbeL th~ road become~ Celia Crescent; Celia Crescent, beeinnln9 at the intersection with La~ent Lane and goin9 0.04 mlle e~utherly tc tie iDto proposed Celia Crescent, Dakin~ Landin§ subdivision; and L~keat Lane, b~g]~n~ng at the inter~ection with ~uben ~o~d and Celie C~e~ent and goin9 0.~ mile southwesterly to tie into proposed Lakent Lane in ~ubdivision~ Section B. And be it further resolved/ tha~ the ~oard of SapervJ. sors guarantees to the virginia Department of Highways a 50' right-of-wry ~or all of these roads except Sein~ Joan Avenue which hoe a GO' right-cZ-way. This section Of Brandywine Forest is recorded as 10~E.2. TPJ%NSFER OF ROBIOUS SCHOOL ACCESS,.,FUNDS On motio~ of ~rs. Girone, scot,dod by Far. Do~d~ the Board · transferred $13,000 from the Robi0us school Access Road project to ~h~ ~eaeraI Fund to partial.ty r~pay the advancement for the Charter Colony Parkway proja0t~. Vote: Unaaimoum 10.F. OO~vJ3NITY DEVELOPF~NT ITEMS 18.F.1. STBEET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST ~p~ROVALS ©n motion of ~. Daniel, s~onlded by ~r. DodO, the Board deferred Consideration of ~he strset ~iiqh~ installation co~t~ for ~onnie until July 10, Vote: Unanlmo~s on mot$on of Mr+ Daniel, seconded by M~$. Girone, th~ BQRrd deferred indefinitely con~iderat~OD of ~h~ street l~ht insta]laEion ¢o~t at ~h~ intersection of Edgemere Boulevard and P~l~ton~ ($1,997.00) and rugu~ste~ that stuff di~c~ thi~ matter ~ith th~ ci~{c ~oclution as to the po~ibilit? Of thuir participating financially in the coat uf this street light. ~ete: Unanimous Staff was directed to hold ~ny r~cl~eSts fo~ street light installation cOStS wher~ ~hore ~ere insufficient funds until the July 10, 1985 m~ef±ng~ 10.F.2. STREET LT~HT I~EQUESTS ~etwsen 2120 and ~201 O~bOrne Road until July On motion of P~r, ~.yes~ aecon~ad ~y Mrs. q~m m*.~ Th,9 Boar(~ d~nied Stz'e~t Light i. Brae~ro~k Drive and i}zaebroo'k 10'.F.3. ROUTE 36 G~DE 5~&~TtON P~OJECT ~N ETTRIC~ 9'rude sepaxa~ion. H'~ stated from those who do not aqree with the .kd~risory Col~itte~ exists in ether area:~ of the Co~ty. Ha ~tated that he would like the Boar~ %~5 c~nslder W~.. is zn %he bust interest of the Cuunty in this ma~ter,' I{a stated he ~ould support what the © Advisory Co~it%ee did initially to get this project started, but it is his personal opinion the overpass is not the best way to proceed. Mr. Daniel stated 'it is in the best interest of The Co=nty to get across the railroad track when the train is going by, whether it ~e ever or under.' Me stated he would yield.to the ~eoision as to what is the best way to accomplish this technically through professional judgment and he £elt the comt differential and the professional staff should guide theEeh~d in this ~rs. Girone stated that in ~he end the Highway Depsrtme~ will build what they feel is cost eff~ctiv~ as in past projects. Mr. aedriuk reminded theBoard that there is $4,~00,~90 to Cover this project and the Che~t~r over that w~]l have to be funded from snother source. Mr. Daniel sta~ed some of ~hat has been spe~ an~ t~ere should only be a balance of about $3,985,0~0, Mr. Applega%m stated that the BOard voted to Su~ort the gra~e separation project an~ he would support Mr. Mayes' Mr. Dodd stared the Advisory Board made thmir decision because they fstt they might ge~ the o~erpas5 but the underpass they migh= no% llve %o se~. He.stated he ~elt the undurpass was the htut but inquired if ultizens WOuld rather USa the overpass for 3-~ y~ars or would rather wait 10 years to get the underpass. design of the River Roa~ ~0 ~amt Riv~ ~ad alig~mn~ a~ an ~Lr. McCracken sta~ed the Roard has previously taken action to allocate some of the Revenue ~haring ~u~d~ that have been set up in the budget and staf~ recommends t~at the remainder ~e allocated as well ~o we can obtain the appropriate state match from the Mighway D~partmant. ~. Appl~gate indicate4 every district had ~unds allocated except one. Mr. Bedrick inquired if the'letter h~ received £ro~ the Highwey D*partm~nt indica=ing that there ~ould b~ .o~]y $490~000 to be ms,shed, wa~ actually $70,009 less than the Board' had appropriated. ~Z, McCraoRen stated that the Roe~d paper deal~ with the 1984-85 allocations and the letter'xoferred to the i985-85 budget. ~r. Daniel inqxlired if thi~ were the %~st of the money fox the He,tins RQ~d project. Mr. ~cCracken state~ it ~as th~ ~a~t of the ~evanue Sharing ~unds and he felt this migh~ complete the project. When asked what tbs total cost of tile project was, Mr. ~Czaeken indicated the right of wa~ costs have not b~sn received+ adopted the following ~esol%tiOn: whereas, Eectzon 33.3-75.1 0f tb~ Cod~ o~ Virginia stab.as that "the Stat~ Bighway'a~ Transportation Coa~iss~on shall make ane~ulvalen~ ma~o4ing allocation ~o any County for d~i~ations by the governing body of up tO 15% or $150,000, whichever is greater, of fends received by i~ during ~ current fiscal y~a= pursuant to "The State En%itl~ment Period 15 amounts to $2,054,708; and Wherea~, the Che~ter[ield County Board of Supervisors ha~ designated f~o~ its revenue sharing £und~ an amount of $260,880 to ba matched by funds f~om the State Highway an~ Transportation Commission which is to be accounted for in the Highway Department'a FY 84-85 budget year; and Wher~a~, the 9card ha~ previously appropriated and raceive~ a match of a portion o~ the~e £und~. Now/ ther%fore, be it resolved that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors designates from its revenue.sharing funds the following ~ountz to ~a matched by the State~ $51,3Q0 - Supplemental allocation to ~ke Hopkins end Beul~.h Roads intersection prop~ct $53,000 - Plant miz overlay of Win~ree Street (Route 1515}, Petersburg Street [Route t522~, Richmond ~txaet (Route 1511) and Pe~eivul S%ree~ (Route 1518) $I1,000 - Replace existing culverts under ~orman~ale Avenue $52,000 - Reconstr~czion of Qua!Ia Road [Route 653) at i~s $13,000 - Turn lane~ On Charter Colony Parkway (Rou~e 950) and rea!ignmen~ o£ Le O0rdou Drive [Rout~ 757) ~urther ba it resolved, tha~ the Board requested ~ ~xansfer of ~he remaininq balance of fund~ previously, dezlgnated for the OSbOrne and Wilton Roads intersoction project to the Normand~le Avenue culvert project. lO.F.5. R~F~R A~DM~N~ TO THE ~ASTERN AREA/C0~PR~H~SIV~ PLAN Mr. Baldsrson ~ta%ed ~ha= the proposed amendment to %be =astern A~ea Cempreh~nsiv~ Plan centers between Enon an~ the Bermuda golf COurse site. H~ further ~=ated. tbe ainen~]unt was preciplta%ed by zoning a0~ion, the zonin9 has occurred mud the plan ~oe~ not depart .significantly ~rom the original Eastern Area Plan approved las~ summsr, there is some mere finite planning that has gone on in the ar~a, staff has prellminarily reviewed the proposal wi~h ~orutin~d area of the Coonty as ~ar as plans go and co~ended staff for their pr0f~ssionalism in ha~dllng the issue. on motion of Mr. Dodd, ~ec~nded by Mrs. ~irone, the Board referred the aalendmant to th~ Ea~%ern Area/Comprehensive Plan to the Planning Commission for ~eiI review a~ reoo~endation. Vote: U~e~i~ouS 1O.F.6. ZONING ORDINANCE k~%w.~D~t~/~.k I~ELAi_Nf~ TO CONDITIONAL USE Mr. Balderso~ stated this zon.in~ erdina~ce' amendment is directed at ~leaning :up some.of the language in th~ conditional use thrust is to waive requirements, when appropriate f0s ~pecific plan submission, etc. Mr. Dodd stated he never heard where the had been situation,s with r~sDect Zo bringing a ~aste~ Plan there have been'~pzoble~/delky~ Which were 9ct prac~ical bu.t only ~a ts~i~ some 0~ the Board's prerogative away, there was no problem in the past, if there wore a tie ~otu the balance has been =hat this wan there so'that it could be worked out, otc. he had & philosophical problemlwith takin~ away this prerogative which h'as not been used4 Mrs~ Girone ~tated she felt this was j~St the oppcsit~ of what Mr, Dodd wan saying. Mr. Mrs. Girone was focusing on ~he first change which increases flexibility and Mr. Dodd is conuerned about the last portion which indicates that if there w~re a denial e~ the schematic plan approval at the Planning Commisslon~ currently the applicant appeal to the Board of SuperVisorS and the prope~a~ indicates =hat schematic pla~ approval i~ not a ]eqislatiYe decision and shOUld stay with the Planning Commission as it is a planning decision and ehould not be appealable to the lsgislaeivm body and the decision should be exclusive to the Planning Co~ission with the spp~al tn the Circuit Court and not Board of Supervisors. Mr. Dodd stated he did not wan~ the Bo=rd to llm~t itself whom its pow~s are being limited by tho State, the Courts, the Federal government, etc. and it is a philesephlcal problem, not a problem with tho issue+ Afte~ further discussion, it WaS on ~otien of Mr. Daniel, zeCend~d by ~rs. Girone, re~olv~d that the eoard refer an a~e~dment to Section 21-34 of the Zoning Ordinsnce relatlnq to Conditional Uses to the PlanningCommissicn for review and recommendation. Ayes: Mr. Appleg~te, M~. Mayes,.M~. Daniel and ~rs. Girone. N~y~: Mr. Dedd. 10.P.?. REQUEST F~R ~RAFFIC LIG}~T -COURTHOUP~.:~OAD AND ROUTE 10 On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by M~. Giro~, ~he Board hereby requests the Vi~inla Department of ~ighw~ys and · ransportaticn to condnct a st~y on the faasib~%ity of installing a traffic signal.l~ght et the intersection of ~oute 10 and Courthouse Road. Vote= U~nimous 10.F.8. 1985-86. sEcONDArY IY~ROV~NT BUDGET ~4r. Applegate disclosed to th~ Board thst he is involved ~ith de%n~lopment of property alongiOld ~ndred Read which is involved in item ~18 in the secondary Road Budget and would like tu Consider that item separately ~rom the other issues addre~sa~ as he would deul~re a conflict of interest on ~ha% i~em. On motion of Mzs. Girons! seconded by F~ Dodd, the Board adopted the followin9 ~esolution: ~erea$, khe Virginiabepartment of Highways and · ~n~portation'~ resident engineer for Chesterfield County has submitted a proposed budget for the 1985-96 Secon'dary Road Improvement Budget fbr Chesterfield Coun~y~ and ~ereas, a public hearing ha= been conducted on tkis propo=ed budge=. N~, ~l%refore, Be It Ra~e~ved that the Chesterfield County Board of Su~rv~sor9 b~eb~ app~ov~g Pro~cts 1-17 and 19 Of the filed with the papezs of this Boar~} as s~mitted by the resident engineer. ~r. Daniel stated he wOuld, vote for the resolution but would lika %0 See the distribution ~iffe~ently in future years. ~r. ~ayes stated he ~id net hsve time to review rte material prior to the meeting. Mr. Applegate indicated the information is from the work session. Mr, .MaZeS stated~so~ti~..ss what is resolved is not what i~ vote~ on. 85-342 ® Mn, MayEs moved, seconded by Mr. Dodd, that the issue of the 1985-86 Secondary Road budget be. deferred ~ntil 2:00 p.m. this Mr. ApplEgate requested that Mr. Mayas preside ov~r the 10.F+9. TUP/~ER ROA~ WIDE~IN~ PROJECT On motion of Mr, Daniel, seconded by Mrs, Girone, the Board Whereas, the widening of Turner Road from Midlothian Turnpike te ~ull Street Road i~ inct~ded in th~ current Chesterfield County Six Year SEcondary Road Imp'foremen= Plan; and Whereas, the Virginia Dupar~mea~ of Slghway~ aad T~ansportatlon has prepared plan.~ for the wideninq of Turner Road which only include Widening Of Turner Road at it~ maJo= intersectiEns~.and - Whereas, =he County's approved l&he~ urba~ erQes-sectio~ on Turne~ th~ developme~ of a four Road from Midlothian Turnpike Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chester£1~ld County Beard of Supervisors agrees with the Virginia DepartM~ent of ~iqhwaya and Tran~portation's design concept for the Turner Road pnoj~ct. ~owever, the Board strongly recommends that VD~&T proceed with the four-laning of Turner Read for ~ha entire lea=th of the project. Mr. ApptegatE excused himself from the meeting for th~ remainder of the morning ~essien, 10.G. .~T,ILiTIES DERARTtdENT ITEMS 10.G.i. REPORTS 10.G.l.a. WATER AND $~_~R FINanCIAL ~EPORTS ~4.r. Wmlcho~s presented the Buar~ ~ith the ~ewer a~d wa~r financial repor=s. Mrs. Giro~e inquired abo~ the Baliard Oak~ S~bd~vision a~d the $5/0©0 ap~ro~riated~ Mr. Wetcho~ stated wken the Board authorize~ the projeE~, ~taff requested mosey fur the design with fha fuses ~Er the actual ¢onstr~ction to be out of ~ubdivis~ons and it will DOt hold up tbs project. Mrs~ inquired abEut the $~wer connections fo- ~ive o~ s'ix connections in Brighton Green which was approved last £alland if has almost because of th~ proces~ of engineering firm~ and contrasts, it ha~ taken" th~s ~ong, but he Would qiv~ her an update later. 10.G.l.b. :DE--LOPER WATER AND SE~WER CONTRACTE Mr. welchons t~resanted the Board ~ith the devuloper water and 10.G.~. RIGMT OF WAY ITEM~ 10,G.2.a. 'C. ONDEM~TION ACROSS PROPErTy OF SO~TH~STE~N ASSOC. ~tho~i~d th~ County Attorney to institute ¢ondemnatlun mroeeedinga against the following proSerty owners if the amount mB ~et opposite their name~ ic not accepted. A~d be it ~ecolved that the County Administrator notify said property mwners by reqistered mail on Ma~ 23~ 1985 of the Conney's Lntention to ante~ Upon and take the property which is to be the ~ubjact of said condemnation p~ooeedings and pursuan~ to Section [5.1-238.1 of the Code o~ Virginia, this resolu~i0n stall be ~11 force and effect on an emergency ~eutheas~rn Associates, Inc. ~hestefficld Mall, ~oute 50/147 $150.00 %ye$~ Mr, Mayec, W-~. Daniel, Mr. Dodd an~ Mrs. Gi~one. ~kbsent: Mr. ~..~.~.b..CO~DE~L~ATI~N OF PROPERTY OF MR?.. ~? ~RS. O~ motion ef ~r. Dodd~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the County Attorney ko institute condemnation proceedings aqain~ %he foltow~ng property owners if the amount as set opp0sike %heir names is not'accepted. ~d be it further received that the COUnty Administrator notify said ownmx~ by reg~tere~ ~il on ~y 23, 1985 of the intentio~ to e~T.e~ upon and take the D~oDer~y which is =o b~ the subject of said oonde~ation proceedings and purmuant to Section t5.1-238.1 of the Cod9 of Virginia~ this ~esolution shall.be full force and effect on an emergency basis. Joan E. Ellis S~5-29CD/~ $320.00 Ay~: }~. Mayas, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd and ~rs~ Girone. 10.G22.c. LAND S~-LE$ CONTRACT FOR A~RP0~T EXPANSIO~ PROJECT On motion of ~kr. Daniel, seconded by ~Lr~. Cirone, the Board approved and authorized the Co~n%y Administfato~ to execut~ a c0~tract between Cridlen James Bard~n and Mae F. Barden, husband an~ Wife, and the County for the purchase of a 5.42 acre parcel in the amouet of $130,075.55 for th~ County Airport Expansion and ~ign the necessary deed accepting ~he .c~nveyance on behal~ of the County. It i~ note~ thi~ property !i~ within the propose~ clear zone of the Airpor~ and purchase for this ~ount has been the purchase print by ~ha F.A.~. and 5~ hy the Sta~e. Ayes: Mr. Mayas, Mr. Danie]~ g~. Dodd and F~TC. Gi~one. A~sent: ~r. ~pptegat~. ~0.G,3. CONSENT ITEM~ 1Q.G.3.a. SEWER CONTRACT POn KiNGSLA?~D WOODS, SECTIO~ ! On motion of Mrs. GJ.rOne, seconded by Mr. Denial, the ~oard apSreved ~n~ authorized the Coen~y Administr~to~ toexecute any necessary document~ for the followi~g ¢ontr~cz: Sewer Contract ~o. ~85-47CD/7(8)5472, Kingslan~ Wood~, Section I, · .On Site and Off Site Developer: P.E.V. C~netructi0n Company C~ntractor~ Shoosmith Broth~rc, 1nc. Subcontractor: I.P.K. Excavating Co., Inc. Total Contract Coct~ connection fee~ Estimated Developer Cost~ No. of Connections: 61 Absent: M~. Appl~qate. 10,G.3.b:,~ SEWER CONTRACT FOR CASTLE GLEN On motion of F~S. Girone, s~ccndsd by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and author~ze~ the C6unty Administrator tq e~cute any necessary documents ~or the following contract: Sewer Contract Ne. E85-29CD/7~)~5292, C~tle Glen - Off-site Developer: George B. Sowers, Jr. & Associa%e~, Inc. Contractor: J. Ste~en Chafin, I~c. ToSal Contract Cest~' Estimated Developer Co~t: No. of Connections: 3 25,19S.00 - R~fund through Ayes: Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel, ,~n~. Dodd and ~zs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Applegate. 1O.G.3.c. AGR~T ~OR UTILIZATION 0F WINDSOR EXECUTIVE On motion of F~rs. Girone~ ~uconded by ~r. Daniel, the approved the agreement with DO~glaSS K. Woolfelk for utilization of Windsor Executive Center private sewage pump station and a~tho~iz~d the County Administrator to execute the agresment on behalf of the Co~ty. Ayes: ~. Mayes, Mn. Daniel, ~r. Dodd an~ ~rs. Girene. Absent: Mr. Applega~e. i0,G.3.d. WATER LIN~ EXTENSIO~ T~ SERUE ~AM~AR ROAD 0n mo~ion of Mrs, Girene, ~eeond~d by Mr. Daniel, th~ Board reconsidered the eward of water.oontTact Nc. WS4-I46C/6{8}4464, water line extension to s~rve Sa~er Road, s~nce ~ayton an~ Johnson construction, I~c. has bean un~I~ %0 obtain the n~oessary performance bond and further the Board: in the amount of $10,800~00 an~ retained $45.1~, second /ow bi~, instead of ~e full amount of the nartifie~ check furnished in lime ef =he bid bond. 2. Awarded the contract tO tbs seooad bidder, M~Chanicmvil%~ Utilities, Inc., in the amount of $10,848.1~ based on pip~. Funds for this p.roj~ct have been previously eppzopriated. Ayes.: Mr. Mayes, Mr. D~n£u!t Mr. Dodd and Mrs. GirthS. Absent: ?tr. Applegate. 10.G,3.£. PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT F~NC~ ~K SPR_____~I~G DRIVE On motion of Mrs. Girone,' seconded by ~. Daniel. th~ ~oard across Rock Mpring Ramner's expense, ~ubject to th~ condltlon~ that he remove the fence during ~alntenance of ~tilitie~ and that he will remove the Absent: Mr. ADpleqate. 1O.G.3.g. P~RKiT TO CONSTRUCT PRIVATE DRIVEWAY, PJkMONA On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by ~. Daniel, the ~oard approved a ~equest from Harold ~. Duncan Jr. to con~truet a private driveway on a portion of Ramona A~enue~ Unimproved, and authorized the County Administrator to exec~t9 a agreement b~twe~n the County and Mr, Dhncan, s%%bje¢~ to ~f agree~nt a~ to form By the! County Attorney. Ayes~ Mr. Mayer, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dod~ an~ ~s. Givens. Absent: Mr. ~pptegate. 1O~G.3.h. DEEDS OF DEDICATION F~M O~ ~otion of Mrs,'Gi~one, aeco~dsd ~y Mr~ Da~iei~ the Board a~proved and authorized th~ County Administrator ~o execute any necessary documents a~cepBing, on ~ehalf of t~e County, two variable width parce!~ of land at the intersections of Wfnfrae Str~et/we~t ~undr~d Road and Winfree Street/Dodomede Street The C¢~unity Bank, Ayes: Mr. Mayas, Mr, Dahiel, Mr. Dodd and ~.Ta. Cirone. 1O.G,3.i. D~D OF D~DICATION ALONG CATTAIL ROAD On motion Of ~rs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, ~he Board upproved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary ~ocu~ents aScepting, on Behalf of th~ County, a 35-f~ot strip of land along Ca,tail Rca4. from Jal~ua D. Ganey, Jr. Ayes: M~. ~4ay~, Mr. Daniel, ~, Dodd and Mrs. Girone_ Absent: ~r. Applega%e, 1O.S.3.j. DEED O~ D~DICA?iON ALONG RIVER ROAD On motion of Mra. Girone, ~e¢ond~d by ~r. Daniel, the Board approved a~d authorized =he County Admlnistratcr to execute any n~ces~ary documents accepting, 0~ behalf of the County, a 35~f00t ~trip of land along ~ver Road from Craig ~. Stariha an~ Robin E. Sta~iha~ husband and wi~e. Mr. ~edrick ~ta~ed t~e conn~ ~ad b~en formally notified that Edgehill Townho~.aea¢ North Creek, $ectiDn F Groundhog Drive - From ~.37 mile northwest of Route 718 to a northweEt ~5-345 East Avenue - From Route 10 to ~.80 mile south of R~ete 18 to a cul-de-sac. mi. Solar I Subdivision, Section. 4 (5-6-§5) Scott~n~ham Drive - From Route 3~6~ to 0.06 mils northwsst of s~ottingham Court. 0.12 mi. Scottingham Court - From sco~t£egha~ Drive running e~s~erly to e cul-de-sac. 0.16 mi. Willuwhnrst Zubdivi~ion~ SectiOn C Summertrea Driv~ - P~om 0.03 milm sou~h of Rou~e 3290 tu 0.03 mile south of Summortree Ceu~. 8.~7 mi. Summ~r~ree Cou~t - F~Om Summe~t~ae Drive ~u~nin~ westerly 0.03 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.03 mi. Willowhurst Subdivision, Section willow~ran¢~ Drive - Prom 0.03 mile north of ~oute 3293 to Winterleaf br~ve. Wi~tcrleaf Drive - From 0.07 mile we~t of willowbranch Drive to 0.03 mile east of ~.~g Run Subdivision, Section ~ Cleverfield CirCle -Frem Route 317~ extending 0.06 mile northwesterly to o cul-de-s&s. O.0~ mi. Clev~rfield Court - From Rou~e 3175 ex~ending 0.05 mile southeasterly ~o a cul~de-sao. 0.85 mi. ~r. Hedrick presented the Board with reports on tho Gene~a! F~nd Balanc~,'the General Fund Contingency ~ea!th and the Audit of the Department of Social Services. on motloe o~ Mr. Do~d, seconded by ~rm. Girone, th~ ~0ard wont into Executive ~es~ion ~0 discuss ~he c~nditior[t acquisition or use o~ real property for public purpo~.s or tko disposition of publicly held property p~r~Ua~ ~o S~ction 2.1-344 (a) (2} of tho Code of Virglnia, 195~, as ~msnded. Ayes: ~r. Mayos, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd and N~rs. Girone. Absent: Mr_ App]eg~te. The Board r~cessed for lunch at the 3uveni]e Detention Home wher( they mst informally with the City Council of Colonial Heights an~ other ofiicial~ and briefly toured the £a¢il~ty. ~e¢onvening:. ,~r, Applegate cslled the v~.eltinT to order. 10,P.8. 1985-86 SECON'DARY IMPBOV~M~i~T RDDG~T ~. Apglegate stated that Consideration of the 19~5-~6 Secondary Improvement Budget was deferred ~ntil this time but Mr. ~=Ye~ had ~eques~ed that ~ be deferred nntil after ~zoning. On motio~ of Mr~ ~aye~, ~econd~d by Mrs.~irone~ the Board deferred consideration of the 1985-86 Secondaryi~mp~evement Sud~et until after the zoning session. 10.~. P. EQUEST$ PeR MOBILE HOME In Dale Magisterial District, Tanya Merrill requested a Mobile Eom~ Permit to park a mobile home on property belonging to and ~rs. John Overasre, parents of a friend 0£ the applicant. Property fronts 'th~ nor=hwest line of ~ill Road approxlmately 1,600 feet south of Canasta Drive. Tax ~p 65-8 (2) ~Dthill Gardens, Section 2, Lots 66 an~ ~? (Sheet 22). He st~%~d their ~jor con0ern ~ith this matter is that re~ired to mov~ beca=~ the Highway Deparhmegt was acquiring her property. H~ ~ta~d i~ moving from one location to another there were cot%alu Costs that w~re incurred that the ~ghway ha~ to pay a~ an obligation to the proc=m~ings. He ~tated they a~e Concerned abon~ the entire sit,atica because ~s. ~errill did involved in this matter. ~e stated they have spen~ =onsiderable money trying to get this approved and they are requestin~ the stared that MS. ~rritl applied for the permit in January, that be d~erre~ ~n~il ~he next me,ting, Mg. Merrill stated she did mattmr would b~ deferred until ~he next ~etlng. ~. Daniel . i~ired if th=re were a mobile home oh this properti~, i~z. cook seated there i~ a mobile hom~ on the p~operty ~hat ha~ been there a ~bile home on the property, there wa~ concurrence fro~ the a road, he ~ontacted ~he Zoning Board and r~eived a varianc~ s~ore the mobil~ home %here whi~e i~ w[as necessary, etc. Poote stated the applicant or a representative of the ~ighway with Ms. Merrill and requ~t~ pe~issioh to place a ~obil~ Dome %he Board of ~uperv~$ors was the. only ~body that could gr~nt w~uld b~ a~proved, =hay eRplained the hardship situation an~ if they wished to place the ?chile hems th~re at their own risk, staff would not seek any .court action until the ~oard heaz~ the he would n~t be ~n the County ' ~ zn.~0 days and offured a 60 day d~ferraI ~o straighten out the ~a~ter, He r~quested tha~ Staff Ms. Sandy:Cosby, an adjacent:~roperty~owner, Btat~d she ~as in favor of %his r~quest anR wo~Id not ~be' able to he ~% %he n~x~ m~etin~. ~Mr. Daniel requested than a letter ba forwardmd to hi~ indiuating her support. on motion of ~r. ~aniel, ga~onded by Mr. ~aye~ '~e Bo~rd deferred this matter. Pa'iii J~ly 24~ 1985. Ayes: Mr. A~D1~gate, Mr. Mayas, Mr, Daniel and Mrs. Girone, Mr. Daniel excused himself from the meetlnq. 10.L. P~QURSTS FOR R~ZONI~G ~5S034 In ~er~uda Magieterial District, T~E C~ESTERFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 9AHKS AND R/~CREATION ~equ~sted rezoning from Residential Townhcuse For Sale {R-Y~) to Residential (R-9) on 13.1 acre parsel frontln~ in two place~ On the south and east li~s of Drewrys Bluff ROa~ for a total 0f appx0xf~ataly 8~3 feet, b~g~nning at a point approximately 20~ feet southwest of swineford ~ad, T~ Map 67-3 (1} Parcel ~0 (Sheet 23). ~r, Pool~ state~ the applicant has r~ested a 90 ~y deferral G~rone~ SeConded by Mr. ~ayes, the Board deferred ~his matter un~il Au~t 28, 1985. Ayes: ~r. ADplegata, ~. Mayes~ b~. DO~ and Mrs. Gleans. ~sent: Mr. Daniel. S5S042 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, GREAT ATLANTIC A~b CBOVE~ HiLL BAPTIST CHURCH requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to .Residential (R-9) plu~ Conditional Planned Developmee= to pexmit USe (multifamilF an~ day care center) and bulk (set~ack an~ parking) exceptions om a 1~.3~ acre parcel fronting approxi~%bely ~80 ~eet on ~he west l~ne of Court- house Road, also frontinq the east andI we~t lines Of Old Court- house Road. Tax .Map 49-3 (1~ Par-~ of Parcel 5 and Tax MaD 49-7 (1) Parcel ~ (shee~ Mr. Paola stated th~ appli=ant had requeated a 90 day deferral this ~at%er. A gentleman was'present and stated that the Bill Baptist Church ~hould not be included a~ the applicant, only Great A%tantie Nmnage~ent. Mr. Paola staeed tha~ eh= s~aff had ~Upresent~tive at the Planning C0~is~ion m~eting and he was written requem% ~s necemsary to amend the application. Applegate s~ated ~hat i~ the re~u~mt is s~mit~e~ in wri:~ng, will not be part cf Che aDplica~iun when it is brought back rezoning ~rom Agrlcultura~ (A) to Rssi~entiai (~-9; plu~ Condikio0ul Use Planned Development to permi~ use (rocreation) ~xceptions. This request lies on two (2) t~aets of lend, totaling approximately tQP.0 acres, frentin~ a~pro×i~ately 2~360 feet on the east line of. salem Church Road morass from creek Drive. Tax ~ap 80-10 (2~ ?arcel 5 (Shee~ Mr. Pool~ stated.the a~lioan'~ hs~ requested a 30 day deferral of this mat~er, There wa~ De'opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone~ ~econded by ~tr. Mayas, ~he Board d~ferred this matter until June 26, 1985. A~e~: Mr. Applegate, Mr], Mayas, ~r. Dodd and ~rs. Ab~ent~ Mr. Mr. D~n!e! ret~rae~ to the meeting. i~ Matosca Magisterial District, JAM~ O. MARTIN, JR. requested Conditional Usu to permit a eo~vani~nce store in an A~rlcultural (A) District on a 2,12 acre parcel fronting npproximanel~ 315 feat on the east line Of Qualla ~oad, also fronting approximately 210 feet on Spring Run Road~ and located in the northeast ~n/adrant of th~ intersection of these road~. Tax ~ap 93~5 ~r. Poole stated this request was before ~he Planning cos~ission twice. ~e stated th~ first time, the Planning Commiss&on recommended denial and the Board remanded i~ back to the Planning approved the ~q~est. He stated the ~ianning Co~issio~ ~ill ~eco~nded denlal and emphasized that ~f the Board saw fit approve th~ case, that Rlt conditicn~ be imposed. Mr. Poole mtated that mtaff has received two ~if~rent site plums from the applicant today, the latest being fiu~ ~mu~es before the i~tPrest in property in the area, declared a possib].e conflict in~remt pursuant to ~he Virginia Comprei~n~ive Conflict of Interest Act and e~used himsel~ from ~he meeting. Mr. Glen A~ers, representing the applicant, was present. sits plan which would allow for two entramcms onto Qualla Road r~qutred ~o adhere to the site plan referred to in Condition 91; that the s~tb~ok addressed in Condition 4 be reduced ~o 3~ rather than 50 feet; and that th~ a~llcant cannot agDee with the ~rohlbition of gasoline sale~ addressed in condition ~7. ~tated the othur condltio~$ we=e Mr. Mayes stated the plan that th~ a~Dl~cant is talking ~out has not be~n reviewmd ~y ~aff or the Board and he ~ not fe~l it appropriate t0 con~ider it in this d~liberation because of its lateness. He stated if the applicant would like a deferral order to con~ider th~ laths% plan, tha~ could be considered. Mr. th~ $1~e plan be considered .subject to a~pxoval by the Buar~ world make the final determination after a~l speakera hsve w~re ~even adjacent property owners notified in writing. ~tated the Stm~e P~rk Was neutral and four ~f the ~ix remaining th~ intende6 u~e. hav~ paid ~pecial interest to the ~ffect th~s would have on the piec~ of property bet~ee~ ~=ir hume and th~s ~ite for a buffer area, tha~ appropriate ~re~ning w~i] isolate it ~nd will wa~er or indu:~trial poll~ion~ adds [9 th~ safety in by reducing trips neighbors would, make and wo~ld not increase a de, and for services but add~ to the tax base of the County, etc. He ~tated Mr. and Mrs. Martin Would b~ operating the store themselves, ,they have gone to great lengths to make sure there is no disruptive impact on the neighbors, there is a resistance to petition which he stated would make the total signatures in opposition to the request approximately 400. There approximately 30 people present in opposition. He thanked Mr, Mayee for attending the meetin~ with residents st which time approximately 1O0 w~re pressnt i~ eppositioD. ~e stated application is contrary to the wishes of the neiqhbo~s, it is contrary to good land use planning which ie agreed to by the PlaDning Commission ted Planning staff, it ~S .contrary to the past actions of the Board of Supervisors who has denied simi r~quests and it is COntrary bo"what the Board tried to do in an abundance of fairness tO the applicant who has exceptions to or £ive of the ~ost important conditions imposed. He stated tha~ the applicant has nuw submitted a new'plan just before the meeting began but they do not wish tO con~ider that as it is a commercial ~evelop~ent in a residential a~ea~'Be stated tha~ the residential property, it is inconsistent with existing ~0nin~ and us~ in the area and displayed a m~p indicating th~ zoning. ~e stated the case is actually worse than the 1986 case spot ~oniDg~ it would set a precedent for uoa~arciel use in a permit and the applicant does not meet the site requirements to have an access on Spring Run which is contrary to ~taff reeom~endatlons. He stated two single family dwellings on this parcel would pay $1,185 in tax~s and the store will pay ~,22~ so this is ~Ot a valid argument. ~e stated they are concerned about the'environment, about'putting gasoline Storage pumps in an area that has no p~bllc water' and sewe~ and th~ run-off. He ztated that the P]annlng CoA~iss~on denied this twice, but indlca~ed if it were approved, certain conditions be imposed. Me stated the applicant h~s %akin exception~ to the major conditions with regard tc b~ffsrs, the interior plan, etc. ~e stated the residents are not oppOSed tO change or progress but they do not want a convenience store in this area b~¢ause ~hey de~ided to live in a renidential area and ~hat is what they want i~ to be maintained as. He stated this iea bad ~e of the lend and and not upprove this complete violstioa to good land use planning. Mr. Mayea requested that staff cs~m~en~ on the condition~ to staff's Opinion thet the condltion~, in and of thomsei~sa, did not nmcesesrily mi%igate the i~pact ef th~ commercial uss which is what th~ Planning Commission wa~ t~yin~ te convey. He ~tat~d conditions. ~ stated.the'piss .submitted today~ which he briefly has ~eviewed, is very similar to tbs ~ ' bulk of the o ' ' um~,erc3.al.app~aranoe vi~ible, they a£e askin~ for an recommended, they want to sell gasoline which is against the recommendation because of tbs more intense ~e than is desirable, and the access in general is a major Concern. ~r. 2~Craoken ~t~ted, in briefly reviewing this revised plan, the e~tranoes on the ~r~ minimum and he ~o~1~ ~'ecoIm~end that they be located further away from the f~7~erz~etion th~n what is s~oW~ on the plan. Mr. Daniel ~tated thatiin 197~ a similar case came before the Board and the sa~e ar~u~ent~ ~iYen ~hs]n are beinq given today. He stated at th0 ~oar~n~eting aft%r th~ ml'aa~ing Co.~aisaion 85~351 re¢omm~nde~ denlal~ a lot of discuss/oh centered on the store and iE this land use were given a fa±r hearing. He stated it was then sent to back to the Plannihq Commi~$ion to see condition~ ~hould be associated with i% if the land use were . stated imprope~ land use is improper nb matter what conditions are placed on it. ~e stated he would ~o~e as he h~$ in the past as no new e~idence has been submitted., Mrs. Girone stated that this is a residential neighborhood and she f~lt it was spot zoning which is t%e way she has voted in the past and nothing has changed. She u~ted the opposition's points wer~ valid'. Mr, Dodd stated that :he under~tood there wa~ a st0r~ on this site and if the use had continued =here wou!O be a store there now, ~a stated the same man has Owned the property for years. On motion o~ ~r, Daniel, sucon~e~ by ~r~ Maye~ the Board ~u~=ained the Planning Co~i~sion's ~co~endation two previous case~ and denie~ the application. Ayes~ ~r. Mayas= M~. Oun~l and ~ays: Mr. Dodd. ~n Midlothian Magisterial District, ~A~P A~D MART~N, A VIRgiNIA QENERAL PARTNeRShIP requested am~nd/~e~t to a previously gza~ed Conditional use {Case 78S157) plus Conditional usa ~lanned Development to permit use (office/warehouses) and bulk (setback) e~ceptions in an Agrlcultural ia) District on fronting approximately 3] 1 feet on th~ north line of ~idlothian Turnpike, approximately ],07~ f~et ea~ Of Otterdale P~ad. Tax -~p 15-ID (1) ~rcel 2 {Sheet 7). ~eferral o~ ~his ~tter, Mr. R~dy was pre~en~ representing the until June 26, 84£190 [~ended} ~ In Bermuda MagiSterial District, ~C~[ IR@~ A~D I~TAL CO~APANY requested a Conditional ~ss to permJtl a landfill in a Genera~ Industrial ~M-2) District on a 9~07 acr~ parcel lying at the feet ~n the east iin~ of the Sea~aard k£~ ~i~e R~ilway, Tax Map 53-12 (1) Part of Parcel i (Sheet 16}. representinq the applic~tt. He s%$=~d ~hey would like to request 15 days and th~ configuration Of the lan~ ~y the railroad track ~ouqh to d~$~o~rage someon~ from trying to Sneak in the back wa~ no opposition present. Mr, Dodd inquired lbout the r~clamnt~on .of the property as he' felt it ~hould ~e ~n l~te~ yCaxs, Mr. ~dy stated tha~ ~. Peek would do that and ]1~ ~e].t that ~t wa~ 85.-352 retain tH~ ~£bflity of bui!d~ng ~ome~hing there if ~ soil~ study shows that it would snDport construction. M~. Daniel i~ulred about the buildfng..~aterials ~o be diaDosed of. Rudy stated sheet rook and' wood as described in condition acceptable. On motion of Mr. Dodd, s~oon~ed by Mxs. Girone, the Roard aDproved thiR ~equeat subject to the following ~he following conditions notwiths~andlng, the plan by Bodie, Taylor and Puryear~ Inet, dated Mar~h ~ 1985, 2. ' Within thirty (3Q} days of the approval of this request, plan for the installation of a fe~oe along tho road frontage, between the railroad and Grindal!.Creek an~ along the Seaboard Coast Line Railway, iOO feet south of the entrance road shall be ~ubmitt~d ~o the Plaanlng for approval. The fence shall be:designed to gate which shall be locked durlng:non-cper~ting ho%r~. This plan shall also show ~h~ ~e~hQ~ ~Q dellnuat~ ~he arsa where dumping is Dermitte~. Further, the plan shall show the within thirty {36) days of approval. 3. Upon completion of the fill actfv!it¥ end restabi!isat~on of the slte~ a plat mhowing the exact metes and bound~ of the fill area and the types of ~erial ~uried ~hall be submitted to the Planning Department. {SS&P) 4. Upon completion Of the fill activity, a plat of th~ property noting that fill has ba~n placed on nhe property and, therefore, may not be ~litAble for constr~ction, shall 5. NO ~acitities shall be ccnat~ctud over tl~ fill area unless ~il engineering skudies prove the suit~ility of such 6. This Conditional ~se sha],~ ba gr~n~ed for a period not to ha~ not adversely affected adjacent ~nd ~a 7. Prior to any further ~]Iing, all fill material 16cat,d within the limi~ of the ~alling Cre~k floodway ~hall b~ removed. 8. This Conditional Um~ Sha~l he granted to ~nd for Peck iron and M~tal Company an~/or their assiqa.s. (P&CDC) 9. There shall be no l£mi~ on 'the sun,bet of ~ump trucks per day. ~P&CPC) 10. Fill material ~hell consist of ged%erst du~olition debris to inclose building .materials, ~cr~p metal, dirt, stene, rock and land clearing ~aterial. (P&CPC) Vote: Unanimous In Clover Hill .~a~isterial bistrict~ THE BOAPd?, OF SUPBRVISORS (Case 815064} plus Conditional Use Planned Devetopm=nt to permit use exceptions in .a Residential (R-7) Bistrict on an $.5 acre parcel fronting along the north and south lines of Ives Lane, beginning at a poin~ aDproxlmately 4~0 feet south of Dell Drive, and also fronting th~ east and west lines ef Bowlin COurt. Tu× Map 40-1 (12) Pocoshook 5ills, Section 4, Block ~, Lots tl through 33 and Block B, Lots R through I1 (Sheet Mr. Pools state~ the request was krcught by the Board of Supervisors in response to a petition ~ecaived ~n October, 1~84. He stated the concerns were that duplexes that had been i constructed under tbeprevious use permit did not reflect the quality o~ the plans that were shown to the neighborhood prior the zoning case but this is not a violation of conditions of zoning bs¢auss they wefe nu~ sub~i%ted with the zoning application; that the dUPlexes do net comply with the proffered conditions--driveways had to be asphalted/paved and that foundations had to be brick veneer~ and that th~ n&iqhbors would prefer that no additional duplexes be built in the area, ~tuted of the total of ~7 leto in the area under the original conditional use, today there are it duplexes, 7 single famil~ dwellings and 9 vaean~ lots. He staled after three meetings by the Planning Commission and discussions with cit~zen~ and property Owners, the Planning Co~isslon forwarded two recommendations to the ~oard: 1. Imposition of a n~w condition ~hat'would modify the construction on the duplexes. He ~tated it wu~ld still requi~e that the'driveways be pa=ed and would permit the duplexes that have 0~nd~r block foundations to r~main but that they would bm lan~scaps~ for better appearance. 2. That the original use permit should be re~eindad except for one, Lot 32, Block A, and that e.~u~le~c would be permitted on that lot which has a duplex on e~ther side. He st~ted the ether Vauant lots would be fo~ ~ingle family dwell~ngs. ~rs. Yvonne Oakley, representing the neighborhood, stated they have had me,tings with the residents and the developers with very good representation. She stated =hey are requesting that the remaining undeveloped lots except for Lot 32 be single family dwellings and that there be no more in~er-~r~i~ between S~ngle ~amily and duplexes. She stated ~hat is there appear~ to be cluster development. She reviewed ti~e lots and type of construction Qn each. She stated they world kik~ to keep the integrity of the ~ingle family development, she stated they are also uoncerned about the ~iolation~ to the building code, there have been no occupancy permits is=us an~ people a~e living in the duplexes, etc. She requsste~ that the Board chang~ the conditional nsc ~o that.there cannot be any'more ~plaxes built. Mr. Bodd inquired if the residents support the ~lanninq Commission's recomm~endatiuns. ~:s. Oakley s~ated yes to alternative B. She s~a~ad they are cOnCerned with style, wi~h rental property and with the duplexes becau6~ they were not built as they were ~%~ppose~ t~ be, but mainly th~ ~n%e~-mix Of housing an~ the random manner in whi. ch t~y were ~r,'Apple~at~ stated that from reviewi~ thi~ cas~, it was the intent thaD ~here Wo~ld ha~u been one stet% d~plux~s which would being rent~4. ~rs, Girone inquired if all the existing building~ are Mrs. Oaktey stated all bke single £am~lv hom~ are occupied and most Df the~ were sold prior to any duplexes being built', stated there are empty ~uple~es and on~ is under construction. ~rs. Sirens Stated that if the' roads were brought up to standard~ an~ Well de'ycleped and landSCaping is done, ~hat woul~ make a bi difference in th~ n~ighborhood. Mrs. Oakley state~'they would like to keep the integrity of single family home~ at least to th intersection whJ.c~ would held th~ one lady who lives in the 85-354 will diminish the pr0purty value. She reviewed square footage five lots in the area. }Ia stated they are anxious to ma~e amends for the violations which were not done maliciously but through ignorance. ~e stated they submitteda plan to the County and it was approved. He stated they agree withthe recomm~ndati0ns of abe Planning Commission and staff relative to driveways and landscaping. He stated they do object2te not beinq allowed to ooutlnue to build duplexs~ in the area aS they paid duplex prices ~or the lots, and not to b~ild d~plexu~ would be fi~ncial!y Mr. Dodd inquired how Mr. Cole purchased this property, Mr. Cole stated he bought the property ~ubject t~ being able to obtain building pez~itm ~or duplexes, Mr. Dodd stated he ha~ sympathy for Mr. Cole but this is a mistake. ~r. Bondurant stated that he m~ture of dnDlexes aed single family but with different architecture. Mr. Dodd stated he Could no~ support the MS. Mary Boyle, owner uf the single family dwelling in the there were to he on~y ~ngle family d~ellings, She mta~ed there she liges next to a duplex, it is rental property~ they do not Applegate stated the Beard could not dehat~ the cost of land but had to deal with land use. ~r. Dodd s~ated he could support the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr, App~egat~ ~ated sometimes ~istake~ are m~de, and i= is aDparent one was made in. this instance to all~ the ~wo types of housing ~n the s~.n]s aras. ~e stated a d~ci~iOn %o permit that to continue ~ould also be wrong and would ~ct ba in the best interest of the rmsidents even though it may pose somewhat Of a hardship on the devel0pcz. amended Proffered C0ndi%ion 4, relative to the e~i~tlng which axe ~n violation of thc original condi~ion~ of ~ithln ~ifte~D (1~) days QI th~ ~oard's final action on this request, a deCail,~d landscaping p].an for the area around the foundation O~ all existing duple~e~ shall, be submitted to the Plunnin~ Depart~e~ fO~ spprev=l. Within twenty-cna (~l) days of the ~pprovat of th~. plans, all requi:~d scapin~ ~hall be in~ta!!ed. L~nSscao!ng shall have a suffl- =lent initial height ~nd density to ~inimi~e the view of foundations, Tb~ Board further resolved ~o rsscind~ except for Lot 32, Block A, the previously granted Conditional Dsc whi05 pe~mltted duplex construction on ~tl vacant lots. Any duplex constructed on Lot 32, ~lo=k A, sh~ll conform to the fcll0win~ condition: ~he duple~ shall have a brick fOUndation along the ~ront and elth~r hri~k or ~ainted ~lock along the rear and sides. If the rear and ~ideu of'~the foundation are of block, landscap~ lng along the foundatien skaL! he ~ccompllsh~d. Prior ~o obtainin~ a buildingpe~mit, a de~aile~ landscaping plan shall be submitted te ~¢ Planning Department ~or approval. Approved landscaping shall bt Aocompllshe~ prior to the release of any temPOrary or '!in~l occupancy permit. (NOte: All previously imposed conditions of Case 81S064 remain in force where applicable.) ~°te: Unanimous 85S029 (~ended) In Matoaca Magisterial District, ~JOHN W. AND P~YLLIS C. TAYLOR r~quested a Conditional Use to permit a day care center in an Agricultural {A) Dis~ri=t on a 1.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 240 feet on %he east !iD~ of Sandy Ford Road~ appreMi~ately 4~2 feet north of Hicko~y Road. Tax Map 173-~ Part of Parcel 8 |~heet 48). Mr, ~oole s~ated th~ Planning Co~ission had recommended approval Of the request subjeu~ te eartai~ oonditicn~. Mr. Jeif Collins was present representing the applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable. ~e stated that the ~ode~n da~ ca~e center is similar to a school and not a ~aby-si~%ing service. Se stated he did not feel this would ~recipitate commercial development as it is under c0~ditio~al use planned deve]o~ent and is a n~e that is compatible with the residential neighborhood. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayem, seconded ~y Mr. Dodd~ the Board approved this request subject to the f~llow~ng cenditionn~ 1. The following conditions notwith~tandlng,. ~he plan prepared by Charlem TOwnss and Associates, revised 2/25f85, shall b~ considered th~ plan of d~velopment. 2. The structure shall ~e as dep~ot~d in the ren&~rin~s ~uhmi~ted with the application. The facades shall be of subdued 'colors. (p} 3. Enrollment a~all be confine~ to a maximum of forty (40) children. (p) 4. Within the thirty (301 ~oot setback area alon~ Sand}- Ford ~ Road, ornamental ~rees an~ stll~bs shall be ptan~ed. A fifty (5O) ~oot huffsr shall b~ mmlntainp~ .alo.ng.%he northern, eastern and euuther~ property lines. With the ezceDticn of a septic tankldra~.nfield system and the ~riveway from Sandy Ford ROad, there ~halt be n¢~ facilities permitted within t.hes~ b~ffer$. These buffe~$ shall be planted with evergreens o~ sufficient height and density to screen this use from adjacent properties, A lan~scapin9 plan depicting this req~iramea~ shall h~ sbbmitted to th~ Planning ment ~or approval in conjunction with ~inal site plan review. 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. There shall be no Saturday or Sun,ay op~ration~. 6. A single sign, not tQ exceed four (4) -square feet in area and a height of five 15} ~eet, shall be identifying thi~ use. This sign shall be located at entrance tn Sandy ~erd RoeS. This sign shall not be lighted, The sign shall employ s%lhd%~sd colors. Prior to erection of the siqa, celored renderings shall 5e ~ubmitted to the ~lanning Department for appf0val. ~ddi~ional pavement and curb and gutter shall b~ installed a%ong ~e~dy For~ Road, as dee2ned necessary by Transportation Department, (T) Prior to release of a building permit, tkirty-five (35) of right cE way, measured from the cant~rli~e of Sandy Ford Road, shall bm dedicated tO and for =he County of Chesterfield, free an~ =nres~rioted. 855031 In Clover Mill MagiSterial District, dROEG~ B. SOW~RS~ JR. AND A~$OCIATES, IMC. ~eques~ed a Comditional Use Planned Dev~lopmen~ to permit use a~%d bulk exceptionm in ~m Agrluultural {A) District ~n a 2.22 acre parcel froDting approximately 348 feet on the east line of Branohway Road~ approximately 3~0 fret north of CourthOuse Road. Tax Map 17-1~ (i} Parcels 13 and 16 (Sheet Mr. Poole st,%ed the Planning Commission had recorm~ended apprgval of the request m~ject to certain conditions. ~. Buddy ~here was a condition to which Mr. S~r~ objmo~ed. Mr. Sowers m~ated that Condition %6 rm~ire~ curb and gu~ter alon~ the entire frontag~ of this parcel, Branchwmy ~ad im a small th~ Branchway-Courthouse Road intersection and Branchway will be Sowers state~ within fiv~ years, a nu~e~ of the pareel~ along an~ an expansion of ~he M-1 zoning. Mr. Applegatm inqulre~ b~ bi4 in June and started stated three ye~r~ does not r~a]ly give enopgh time for financing, planning~ etc. Mr, S~ers stated %hey are paying premium price for property ~.nd they are not buying th~ houses opposition present. the Board said ~t wa~ 50t~going d~n CourthUus~ Roa~ winh c~ercial an~ %0 add this on to Southport would be good any d~bts tha~h~ ~{gh~ have in regard to thi~ case. 0n motion of ~. Applegate, ~econd%d by Rr. Dodd, t~e Board 1. The f~!lowlng con~itions notwitbStaD~in~, th~ plan prepared 85-~57 ® The uses permitt@dlshall be limited to general o~flce Medical o.~flces sh~ll he prohibited. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the ~ollowing hulk e~ception.s shall be graDted: a. An e~ception to the raquiremmnh that ell driveways and parking areas be paved. Ail driveways and parking areas shall be graveled with a ~inllmum six (6) inche~ of ~21or ~lk stone. Driveways and parking ar~as shall he delineated with timber cu~rbs, r~ilroad ties, b. A ~ive (5) fo~t ~cep~ion to :ha fifteen ~15} fo.et side yard set~ack ~e~uire~ent on Parcel 13 for th~ sole purpose of alilowing the existing Screened porch to he Other than the additions shown on the MaSter Plan and maintenance, =her~ shall be no Other improvements to the existing structures. Pr~or to obta~nin~ a buildiag permit, thirty (30) feet right of wayr measlured from ~he cesterline of Bra~ohway ~oad, shall b~ dedicated to and fsi the County of Ch~sterSie!d, free and unrestricted. This Cond~.~ional Use Planned De.v~lopment shall b~ for a p~riod not to exceed five (5) yea~s from date of approval. (C~C) Two (2; freestanding signs, one for each office building, shall be permitted. These ~igns shall not be lighted. The signs shall no= exceed a ~%eight Of five (~5) feet and an area cf twenty (20) square feet each. The signs shall'employ subdued color~. ~rior to erection ~f the signs, render±nee shall be submitted ~ the Planning Department for approval. Other ~han these two {2; signs, there shall be no uther signs pez~i~tsd (P} In uonjnnction wi~h the approval of this request~ Planning Commis~ion shall grant schematic plan approval of ~ote: Unanimeus 85S043 In Clover ~ill Magisterial ~.s~rict, A~N~ K. T~OMPSON req~lested rezonlng from Agri~nlt~ral (A) to Resident±al (R-12] on a 19,65 ~¢~e parcel fronting approxlm~tsly 200 feet on the east line of [Sheet 21). ' from MS. Thompson reducing the acreage slightly, eliminating the property that frnnt~ along Newbys Bridge Road and asking that it Mr. Jim Eayes was pres%st representing, the applicant. ~e stated conditions o~ subdivision approval which does away with frontage on ~ewbys Bridg~ ~oad~il .~e stated thls would prevent double that front os ~awbys B~idge Ro~d ~ith acces~ at ~ dangerous location. ~e stated R~. Thompson has ~lat property under contract with the adjacent proper~:y Owner so it would bu incorporated wi~h a~ u'xisting home ~ud lan~. ~ stated this Js a planned subdivision w~[th an e~:ten~ion fxom Ashley Grove and w~ll Road and Copper~anny Road in Ashley Grave end all access would be inquired how many lots were involved, Mr. ~ayes stated approximately 13 depending on the soil tests. Mr, Applegate inquired how many lots would bc iacluded in the area with only one ingress. M~. aa~ee staked there would be approximately 60 a second access ~er a singl? ~ub~ivision if i% ha~ more ~han 50 building permits, and in thL$ cas~ the applicant ~ld be permanent cul-~-saa in the subdivision ~d it will 17~ aur~s for the 13 lo~s and will b~ ~imilar t.o A~hley Grove. Mr. Applegate in~i~ed about R-I~. ~. Hayes state~ there major problem with R-15, there are sliqbtly different side yard sa~acka~ %here could b~ a beki. r utilization of the l'and where Bi~eyard, meptiC tank cQn~ider~tiona, ate. and Ashley Stove Mr'. Apple~ate sta~ed he felt the ingress/egress situation could On motion of ~. ADptega~e, $econdadby Mrs. Gironar tb~ Boar~ 85S044 In Bermuda Maglsteri~l P~tric~, R~R~ A. GRZEN requested a Conditional Use t~ permit a s~cck farm in a Reaiflenkial District on a 1~0 ~e~e parcel fronting approzimately ].SQ feet on ~he north llne of Normandale Avenue~ approximately 156 feet east of Lawndale ~Ereet? ~ax~MaD 81-8 (5) Crescent Park~ BLock It, Mr. Poole state~ fihe Pla:ming Co~ission ha~ reeomm, ended denial of the request~ ~r, ~reen stated he had '~hre~ Shetland ponie~ on his property for %h~ pleasure'of his grandchildren, he has had them there fez $i~ yea~s, ha oteah~ the confined a~es~ he has four peao©ck$ which are to be removed within tko ~ext week, eta. Ma presented p£¢tu=ea of the area and the animals. Mr. ~odd inquiaud how much property was ~here. ~r. Green stated he had three acres but gave'two o~ his sons an acre ~ach. MS. l~ez Pi~le~, a neighbor, sta~ed she did no~ care what Green has On his property b~ it ~others h~r ~hat people buy property and then try to Change the uee~ Sba s~ated sba felt if Mr. Green wanted stock, tha~ he shoula buy property where this ~ae is allowed, she inquired what ~culd s~Op Mr. Green from sis limited to three ponies only. Mr. ~r~en sta~ed that he is in the process of cleaning up his property as best he can and he will be re~oving several sheds on the property. M~. William G~¢un~ ~on c~ the applican~ aud a~jacent prope/~y, s~ated he and his brother did not object to the use. Mr. Dodd stated the ponies were n0k'~he real issue ~n the neighborhoo~ and Y~. Green has indicated he will. be improving the On motion of Mr. bedd, seconded, by Mr. Mayes, the ~oard approved this reg~est subject Lo the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Herbert A. Green and his immediate family only and shall not be transferable nos run with the land. 2. This Conditional Use mhall be granted for a period not to exceed three (3) years from date of approval, This Conditional U~e may be renewed upon satisfa=tory reap- plies%ion and demonstratio~ that this use has ao'~ adversely affected adjacent and/or area property owners. The stock farm shall be limited to ~he keeping of the thrum 8~$045 In C10vsr Kill Magisterial District, PO FOLKS~ INC. requested r=zoning from ~gricultural (A} to Convenience Business (S-l) plus Conditional Use Planned D~v~lepmenr on a 2.~ acre parcel £rontin~ approximately 152 feet on the South llne ~f ~i~lothlan Turnpike~ 17-10 (~) Parcel 13 (Sheet 8). ~. Poo]~ stated the Plan~ing Commission ha~ reco~-~an~ed sub3eUt to certain eOnditiena. Re stated Over the past several days, dialogue has started between the applicant and the adjacent developer, they have resolved the issues and the applicant ~ag submitted proffers to that ~ffect. Ms. Jay Gr~enbe:g was present representing the applicant. Ke state~ they agree with,all the conditions e~eept for Conditiok %6 ~n that it requlrss~bonding prior tO obtaining the building permit. He stated %his eauseu problem and requesaed that it be bond'ed prior to occupancy permit being issued. Mr. Mi~$ indicated that Condition 6 i~ what is normally requireO by the County and Highway Department,but it could be amended. M~. Mc'Cracken stated staff did not have Objection to this request. Mr, ADpleg~te sta~ed there was an appli=ation by Mr. Bubbard on Rou~e 60 across from the hospital, he understood t~a~ there would b~ two. restaurants with one of them being Po FOlks. Mr. 9eels S=ated there was a possibility possibility has ehan~ed but there was ne requirements that two restaurants b~ there, ~r. G~ee~berg review~a Condition ~ and the proffers. ~here was no opposition On motion of ~r. Agp].eq6te, seco%~e4 by ~[r, Dodd, the BOard approv=d the request subject t~ the follcwin~ conditions: 1. The following co~di~tons no~w!thstanding, the plan prepared by BOb Clausen, dated 12/i~/84, uhsll bs considered the Master Plan. (P~ style and colors as prmse~ed i~ the ~ictures of ~b~ ~o having a pitched roof instead of a ~na~sard roof. Mechanical equlpme~t shall, be screeched f~m ¥iew bt, the roof~ colore~ renderings she,ii be ~Ubmi~%e~ t~ %he Planning Department·for approval in conjunction with final Site plan review. The b~lding-~Oun.ted siqn sh~ll be zes=z'icted to indi~ vidu~lly mounts~ letters which sFell Po F~lk~, This sign may he externa·lly l~ghted. NO Qthe~ bui/ding-mo~%n~d signs shall be permit%ed2 Except for idi~ectienal sfgus~ which shall be governed by the Zo~ing Osdinance~ a single free~tandin·~ business sign shali be ~ermitted, '~his si~n shall not exceed n h~ight o~.ten (]0) fee~ asd an area 4. 5. 6. fifty (50) square feet. The slqn may be externally lighted or internally lighted if the siqnfield is oDague a~d letter~ are translucent, (~) In conjunction with final ~its plan re~iew~ u detailed landscaping plan depicting ornamental trees that will be installed in the area between Route 68 and the parking area shall be sabmitted to thm Planning Department for approval. Kxteriur lighting shall not e~ceed a height of forty adjacent properties or Route 60. The existing crossover located in Route 6Q at'the western property llne shell be closed within one (~) year ef occupancy. In conjunction w~=h site plan review, a plan shall be submitted for approval which shows the relocation of the existing crossover to =bm eastern property line, A eest estimate for implem~,nting the approved plan shall also he submitted. Prior to dbtaihing any certificate of 0Gcup&nay~ the developer:shaLl bond for one-h'alf the cost relocating the crossover.I (T and VDt&T) (Note: VDH~? may require temporary improvements a~ the m~nts durin~ the first ye&r of operation,) Additional pavement and c~rb and gutter shal~ be installed and th~ Transportatiom D~par:ment. IT and VDt&T]. Entrance/e~i%s shall be designed to be Shared with adjacent properties. (T) Concrete curb a~d gutter shall b~ i~=a!led aro~nd th~ per~eter of all driveways and parkin~ area. Raised =oncrete i~landu shall be provided at the 6nd of parking rows. 10, Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere wi~h pedestrian access. (RE) 11. In conjunction with the approval of this ~equest, Planning Commission shall grant 5chR~tic plan approval. And further the Board accepted the ~oltowing 'proffered The restaurant wilI be located a minimum of 8 feet £rom our western proper~y lin~. The developer will erect ~n 9' hJlql~ WOOd fence alon~ their western property line. ~he fence will begin at th~ re'ar of the restaurant and continue to'the rear of the ~roperSy line. 3. The developer will plan~ & foot high shrubbery along the we~t sid~ of this restaurant, except under %he windows. shrubbery under th~ windows wilt be 3' in height. The shrubbery will ~m placed appro×imatel~ t0 feet apart. Vote~ Unanimous The ~5S046 In Bermuda Magisterial Dis~rict, B,F~ ~IL~ requested rezoning from Agricultural (A} tlc Residential IR~tS) on a 53.2 acre lying at the ~em~ern ter~inus of Cr~ssgat~ Road, a~p~oximately 450 feet w~sh of Silver Crest R~a~. Tax Map 132-2 (1} Parcel 1 / Mr. Peele st&~ed ~be Planning C~n~uission had recommended approval Conditions. Mr. Jeff Collins, representing the applfcan% stated the Planning Co,mission h~d appkeved their tentative layont, and they have met With the nazghbor~ and pro£f~red certain renditions to ,a mutual agreement. ~e stated the neighbors did a~k for a buffer between this property ana Laura Lynn Subdivision but since they are similar the app!licant did not, fe~t this buffe~ was necessary. Mr. ~. A. MOORS inquired if sewer were being /squired. ~4~. Collins s~ated that o~ly~blic water wa~ required. Mr. Moore inq.uired:~out h~ %he sewer lin~ wo~ld be ~0B~tl~loted at this ti~e, straight and the traffic moves could be installed to reduce th that the Highway OepartJaunt has s~h as this. Mr. S~drick tentative apprOVal was given la been baslcally approved. Mr.·H taking into consideration how e ~s to minimize the impact. Mr. will have cul-de-sac streets wb except through Crossga=e'Road. allow time for notification Mr, Collims indicated he'had M~ore stated that she thought who had bee~ contacted. Mr. De bee~ through the normal :licant would not like =o ha' Qirone inquired about the size he f~lt it would be best lso stated Crossgate Road is ~a~t and inquired if speed bumps ~ speed. M~. Applegate state~ denied speed bumps, etc, on ~ the internal configuration of st night, eo the road network has ~drick inquired if staff were Verytking fronts on a culls=tot MsCrackeD ~tated the road network ich wtl~ have no through traffic ~rral of ~his request in order tc ~he ~aighbor~. Mr. Dodd stated lked with the neighbors. Ms. = wee only tho neighbors adjacent ~iel 'stated %he application has of Planning Cemmi=~ion, etc. and =eh. Mr. Collins stated the ~ a deferral of the matter. ~f the houses and lots. Mr. Collies explained the s£zea whi:h are compatible to the Laura Lynn Subdivision and reviewed the proffere~ conditions, PEr. Dodd stated he felt:the rssidmnts of Laura Lynn would have been notified as peOpl~ ice,tact oth~rz if there is a p~oblem, R~ stated he did not feel a 30 day deferral woul~ provide any additional informatiOm, Fr. Ni!l has assared him this will be a quality development, sewer is at lea~t a mile away and it will be ~o~e time before sewer .wou~d. be installed· unte~ %her~ ~'$re a :2. 3. 4. 5. number of failizg septic tanks On motion Of F~. Dodd, seconds, th~s request subject to 1. Minimu~ lot size shall be A~eraqe lot size shall be A maximu~ of 50 .l~ts shall Ail dwellings s]hall ha~e h~ated area. vote; ~nanimous 8'5~047 In Clover Milt ~aglsterial Diet;riot, ,amendment to apre.vio~$ly g~ant Developmen~ (Case 748021) tO mc by Mr. Mayas, th~ Board approved ~ce o£ the fello~in9 proffers: 41,000 square ~eet. r~c~ foundations and fireplaces. be developed on thi~ parcel. minimum, cf 1~800 s~uare feet sd Co7diti0nal Use P!ann~d ~ify permitted uses in various tracts. This request lies in Residential (R-7)' and Convenience Business (B-~] .D~stri~t$ on a'541.41 acre parcel ~onting appro~imaemly 7,200 f~et on the no=th li~e of Genito Road, also frosting approximately 7,708 feat on Old ~uedred Rea4 and located apprcxi~ately 260 feet northwest of the intersection of these roads. Tax Maps' 36, 36-10, ~6-11, 36-]4, ~6-15, 36-16, 47, 47-2, 49~3, 47-4, and 47-6 {various parcels) (sheet 13). Mr. Peele shared the Pianning¢ommisslcn had recommended approval sub,eot to certain conditions, ~z. Clarke Plaxoe was present requesting the applicant. There. was no opposition On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approvsd this r~q~es% subject to the following conditions: 1. The following c~nditions ~o£wlthstandlng, the plan prepared by The ~lanning an~ Design Cellaboratiue, revised February lS, 198~, shall be ~onsidered th~ Mas~er Plan fei St. Ledger Village. Uses permitted in the Village Center ~holl be llmit~d '~o ~he folI~ing: a. R~ereation faciliti%~ ~esigned and designated primarily Day cars cente~5 d. Churches e. Libraries f. R~idential {Note: At the tim~ of sshemati~ plea r~v±ew, conditions b~ imposed which insure %hat the ~se~ will not have a detri- men=a! or adverse impact on adjacen~ r~sidents. All con- ditions r~latlve ~o requir~ment~ for specific t~acts and uses outlined in the originai Textual statement and ~b~- quan~ amendments remain ~n force.} Vote: Unanimous In ~idlothia'n Magi~teriaI District, GDOR~ W. SRADI,EY, JR. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R~9) on a ~.0 acre Darc~l fronting approximately 80 feet on the we~t lin~ of Old Bo~ A~r Road, app~oxi~tely 260 ~eet .~.outh of Cutter Mr. Pool~ ~ta~.ed t~e Pla~nlng Co~ission had race,ended approval 0f thm request s~ject' to a proffere~ condition. Mr. Br~dt~y wa~ 0n motion of Mrs. G~ron~t seconded by ~r, Do~.d, th~ scald approve~ %his r~quest =~j~ut to acceptance of the f(~, l~l~g' Drof fere~ c.onditi0n: The minim~ house s&ze $ha~[': be 1,400 square fe~t finished. Vote: Unanimous ~5SO55 In Closer ~ill Maglst~rbal District, ~DEEMER LUTHERAN CHURC~ requested renewal of e ~re~iousty granted Condi'tionml u~e lease 80SO09) to 9eI~it a ~ri~ats school in a' ReSidential Dietr~% ~n a 4.~ 'acre ~r~el ~ron~ia~.approximateiy 40~ feet on the west line of North Arch P~a~, also fronting approximately 335 feet on Redbridge Road~ .and located in the northwest quadrant of 85-363 the intersection of theme roads. Tax. Map 2~-t (1) Parcel 11 ~tr. Peele stated the Planning commission had recommended approval subject to certain conditions. Reverend Uw~aoh was p~esent representinq the appli~ant an~ ~tated the conditions were acceptable. There was no one present in opposition. On mOtioB of Mr. Applcgate, seconded, by Mr. Dodd, the Board 1. This Conditional Use shall ba gr~nted to and ~Or R~daemer Lutheran Church and shall not hS transferable nor run with the land. {p} ~nrollmeht shall not e~ceed eighty (80). (p) A'single freestanding slqn shall b~ permitted identifying thi~ u~e. The sign ~ball not exceed twenty-five {25) square feet in a~ea a~d shall not be lighted. {p) The~e shall be no addition~ er alterations to the existin~ struoturu to aaCommodate this ulse. (P) In ~idlothian Magisterial District, ~USINESS PLAN~G ASSOCIATES, INC. re~uested rezcnin~ from Agricultural ~A) to Co, unity Business (B-2) pl~ Cenditio~aI Us~ Planned De~elop~en~ to permit bulk ~x~eptionz oe 2.54 acre$~ ~nd amendment to a previoUSly gran~e~ C~ndit.ienal Use ~lanned Devslopment (Ca'~e ~$$02S} to ~odify the apRroved M~s~r ~1~. Th~ r~que~t lie~ on a 25.69 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,249 feet On the north line 5f ~idlothiao Turnpike acres~ from Sturbrldge Drive and also fronting approximately 822 feet on the southwest line of ~cad, approximately 190 feet southeast of P~rnleaf Drive. Tax ~ap 17-7 (]) Parcels !2, 13~ 14, 23z ~4, 25, 26~ 27 and 32 {Sheet ~r. Peele stated the Pla~ni~ C6~issio~ iia~ recommende~ approval )f this request subject to c~tain conditions. Mr. ~d Willey, Ir. wa~ present representing ~he applicant and ~tatad the :onditions were acceptable. The~e was no opposition present. ~pproved the request subject to the folloNinq conditions: 1. Except where stated herein, all conditions of COnditional Use Planned Development 85S028 ~hall apply not only to the · property~ but also te de~elopment of Tax ~ap 17-7 ~i) 32, 2. The following conditions nutwitast~ding, ~he plan by th~ ~irkland Gr0~D~ dat,~ ~larch 18, 198~, and the appl{cat~on shall be seesiJered.the ~aster Plan. (~ote: This cQndi~ion supersedes Condition 1 of th~ eusl~ granted COnditional Use Planned D~velopme~t 85S028~). ~, The existing dri~way on ~ne ~3.1y ~op~rty (Tax ~ap 17-7 (]) Parcel ~) shat~ be ns~d ~o crea=~ a ~am to act silt basin. The silt basin shall na~ a ·riser pipe at~ach~d Finished b]~ilding floor elevatioi%z shall be ~ufficient to provide flood protection ~ the ~vent the culvert~ under th~ Bogey line sn~/o~ Route 6Q = '~. 85-364 5. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall he constructed along the entire l~ngth of the prope~t~ abutting Midlothian ~npika and Robion~ Road. Fnrthe~nore, ad~itionaI Dare,at and ~rb and gutter shall be Constructed on Rohicua Road The~e improvem~t~iwill be constr~eted as deemed necessary by the ~ransportation Department and VDR&T~ In conjunction with the first S~hematie plan approval', the applicant may submit a phasin~ plan deptctin~ these improvements~to the (Note: This condition supersedes Condition 4 of the previ- ously granted Conditional Use Planned Developmen~ (Case 85S~28)]. 6. AIl ~t~t~res~ in~udinq those for T~RCtS A; B; C, ~nd Green, on the south line of Midl0tkian Turnpike, ac~oss from this project. 7. The Agri~ltural (A) pro~9~ty along ~obious Road shall t~ited excI~ively for ch%rob use. The previously approved ~ay care facility shell not be pe~itted. ous]y g~ante~ Conditional Usa Planned Development (Case 85S028)}. 8. Th, ~v~nty'fiu~ (75) f~oC buffer r~q~ired adjacent to A~n Park shall be ~xt~nded along tbs western boundary of the requirements of ~nditiOn 11 of Conditional U~e Pt~nned othe~ise stated h~rein, Clearing and grading within only. Should any clearing occur, additional landscaping and/o~ ~encin~ shall be re,ired. Within t~e required fifty (50) foot buffe~ betwemn ~he Co~nity Businea~ (B-~) tra~t and kqric~lturu! (A} tract, single entrance/exit shall bm permitted, as shown 0n Master Plan. ~Note: Thi~ condition is in addition to Condition~ 11 of previously grante~ Conditional U~a Planned ~evelop~ent (Case was generally s~reedi the ~oard would recess for two minutes. Reconvening: 10.F.8. 19~5-86 SEC©N~ARY IMPROVEMENT ~UDGET Mr, ~edrick stated c~n~ideratio~ ~f the t985-$6 S~condary Improvement ~udget had b~en, ~farred from Sarlier in the day at the reguest of ~r. Ray,s. M,r. Applegate requested tha~ the i~ems listed On the proposed ~Ud~e% be d~alt with ~n two metiAns~-one deallnq with ~tems 1-19~ excluding l~ s~d t~e another dealing with item 1~ as he ha~!a potentiaJ {3c~Klict of interest with item 18. l~. Mayas ~tated he did not: unde~st:and how there was approximately $3,000,00@ allocated for secondary roads with Ne%GaGe District, which is ~3% of the land ~ass and cons~q~eDtly percent of that atto~ati'0n which ~ net feel ~his was justifiable no ..~attef ho~ far back th~ plan ~5-.J65 · ta~d. ~ stated he ~elt the ~oard should commit te the district some type of compens~tio~ in any future allocati~ns. Mr, Daniel Stated that when this issue first arose, he discussed hale District receiving only $30,00~ eec of the total and it has 20% of th~ population. He stated there wa~ a wor~ session on the i~s~e on Monday, and a!theugh h~ is p~r$onally ~isapRointed for this budget ~ea~, h~ indicated he woul~ support the ~und{ng 1985-86 aS it cannot he ohanged~anyway. Mr. Mayas stated he would ~upport it but he w~nted.a cc~it~ent that th~ Board wi!! not con~ider =his type o~ inequity again, ~r. Panic! ~tated the argument given was that in September, 1985~ the B~ard wi!i reconsider the ~ Year Road Plan and could a~dress the equitable dlstribution~ road nardS, etc., at that time. par~s of the fu/ldinq OcCur each ~ar and that when you put them all toge~he~ there is an equitable share in the fundings. Mayas stated ha did notbelieve'Natoaea District had an equitable share, ~trs. Gi~one stated i~ ~as all ~Detlud out on the sheets projects for $300,O~Q for one project an~ ~400,000 on another. She ~tated it was Over a six year period and it was ~¢= ~rue that that Mrs. Girone is talking about a total over the entire six 5~. ~edrlck stated the' time to deal with that i~e~e is in September, 198~ when the ~oard corl~iders the Six Year Plan. He state~ hhie is reviewed avery two y~ars and the Boa~d establishes ~tatsd the budget that comes along after that ±8 just an ' projects now but in September when projee5~ a=e determined. Mr, stated that some of the ~rojec~s in ~Lidlothian District were shared, with Clover Hill. ~r. ~yes ~tated that ~ings wo~ld be After further discussion, F~. Applega{e ruguest~d ~hat projects lis~ed 1-17 and 19 be considered first because he ~!ll declare a conflict on proj~ct Whereas, the V{rgi~ia'Departmeo~ of aighways end submitted a proposed budget for ~he 1.985-86 Seaondary ~oad ~roposed budget. Board Of Supervisors bet,by approves P~ojeots 1-t7 and 19 of the 1985-:W6 Secondary Road Improvement Budge~ (a copy Of which is filed with the papers of this Boaru} as ~ubmitted by the ~yes: Mr. A~plegate, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Mr. Applegate disclosed to t~e Board that he is involved with development of property along Old Hundred Road, declared a Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. On motion of Mr. Da'ni=l~ seconded by Mrs. Girone~ the BOard adoptod the following .resolution: Whereas, the Vir~inla Department of ~ghways TransDortatlon's resident ~ngin~er fur Chesterfield County has sR~mittod a proposed bludget ~ot the' 1985-86 Secondary Road Improvement Budget fo~ ChestecEi~ld County; and l~horeas, a pnblio 5earing has b~n conducted On thiB proposed budget. NOW, Therefore, ~e It ReZolved that the CSesterfiel~ County Board of SupervisOrs hereby ap~rovas Project 18 of the Secondary Road Improvement Budget Ia copy of which is ~iled with the papers of thi~ ~oard} as ~ubmitted by the resident engineer, Ayes: Mr, Daniel, Mr.: Dodd and Mrs. Abstention: Mr. A~sent: ~. Applegate. M~. Applegate returned to the meetings. Mr. Daniel ~tated he f~it th~ Board should ad~re~s the engineering projects and p~iOr~ties. Mr. Applegate stated he £elt that was addressed in the first motion a~ part of priori~y on~. Mr. Daniel stats~ he fei~ all the projects ~heuld be done simultaneously as one is no more important than th~ others and this was not addressa~. Mr, ~¢drick stated this could be co--animated to the Highway Depart~nt but the~ will do as ~hey feel best, · ~r. Daniel ~de a motion that the Virginia D~partment of ~ighways and Transportation address the slx (6) preliminary engineering projects simultaneously over tho year, a ~opy of th~ lis% is filed wi~h the papers!of hhi~ Board. Th=r~ was no s~co~O to tho motion. Far. Mayas made a ~ubs~itut~ motion requesting that the Virginia D~partmeat of ~ighway~ and Tran~portatiun address the six (6) preliminary engineering projscts concurrently during fiscal year 1985-~6, a COpy ~ the li~% is filed with the papers of this Beard. The mo~o~ wa~ seconded by Mr~ Daniel. Mr. Dodd s~ate~ the 9~partmsnt may not have eDough e~'gi~eers ~o do the projects concurrently, you will bs taking money u~£ of nmmbere 4, 5 and 6 which could be used to ~0 n~/tbe~m I, 2' e.nd 3. Mr. Daniel stated he did not agre~ with the priorities and he raise~ that question at the work ~e~ion, H~ stated he ~d not want to be told that #6 was not'accomplished Because they did have tlma to do %2. He stated this woul~ protect th~ integrity of the entire list.: Mr. Applegate stated in Williamsburg the Board decided'to de wba~ was in the best i~terest of the County and he felt tho Board ~ heading t~'ard individual magisterial districts ~n~ making it more of a political issue as opFosed to trying to get uhinga done in ~he most expeditions manne~. ~5~367 stated he r~alized ~5 on ~be lint i~ Bopkins Road end the list ~he reeo~h~andation came from staff but the Board %$ ultimately ~eSponsible for the decision. Be stated ho only wanted to get message to the Highway Department that this list i~ important to stated th~ ~ighway Department will do what they feel is equitable. Mr. Applegate called for the questiun. Ayes: Mr. Appleg~te, ~. Mayas, Mr. Dan%si and Mr. Dodd. Mr. Mayas ~tated ~faff has a responsibility end if ~eft alon~ they can ~o a good job and make fair reco~en~atio~s, He stated however, i~ violation of the terms made in Williamsburg, there ara ~Ome who try %o influence staff causing ~hem to deviate from being fair and equitable, Mr. ~pDlegate atut~d that tuurthouse Road (Etraightening out of Curve south of Quells) and Quells Roa~ [r~construction of Quells at Claypoint/N~wbys Bridgu) are both i~ ~toaca Disa~ict. Mr. App]~gate stated the Bond Ref~rondum Strategy Committee has finished its work and would like to have a work session to on the pricing of the lease/purchase financing for the three buildings on wednesday. After considerable discussion, it was generally agreed the Board would meet at 4:00 p,m. iu Room 502 May 29, 198~ unless there were ~ Co'hiller with Mr. Daniel's schedule at which time a~ether date would be ~onaid~red. On motion o£ ~ir. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Dodd., the Board recessed at 4:35 p.m, uncil ~:16 p.m. at the Forest v£~w Rescue Squad for dinner, Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel and Mr, Dodd excused themselves from the remainder of the m~eting. Re¢onvaning= DINNER WIT~{ FOREST VIeW .,ESCSE ~QU~D The Board met with me'abets of the Forest View ~escue Squad and ~scussed matters of ~Ut~al con~ern~ it. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mtg. Girun~ seconded by Mr. ~ayes, the B~ard adjourne~ at 9=3~ p.m. until ~:00 p.m. on May 29~ 1~85 fn Room 502~ Ayes~ ~[r. Applegatm, ~rs. Girone and ~r. ~ayes. Absent: Mr. Daniel ~nd ~. bo~d~ County Administrafor 85-368