Loading...
07-10-85 MinutesJuly ~upervisors in Attendance: G. ~. Ap~leqate, Chairman Jesse J. ~ayes, Vice Chairman Harry ~. Daniai R. Garland Dodd Joan Girone ~r. Richard County Admlnlstr~tOr Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stant~y Batderson~ Dir., Econ~ Develop. Mr. Ed ~eck, Asst. Dir. of Utilities Legislative Coord. chief Robert Eanes, Fire Department Dir. of ¢~n. Services Asst. Co. Admin. for ~4r. Riokazd Mc=lfish. Mr. Jeffrey Mincks, Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Services Assr. Co. Admin. Col. Joseph Pittman, Dir. of Planning Mr, Applegate called th~ meeting to order at the C0uzthouse in Room 5U2 at 12:08 noon i. EXECUTIVE SE$SIO~ On motio~ of MI. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girona~ the Board w~nt consultation with leg41 counsel regarding legal matters pertain- ing to the County's governmental structure pursuant to Sections 2,1-344 (a) (i) a~d (6), respectively, of the Code of Virginia, 195u, as amended. Vote: Unanimuus R~conveni~g: ~, WOR~ ~E$SI~N ON ~APITAL I~EOVEMENT8 PROGRAM Mr. ~edrick stated th~ reason for th~ work session was to r~otv~ Program (CIP), ~speclally the portion regarding th~ proposed referendum to finance the CIP. R~ ~tate~ the Board 85-454 ~rojeut~. Re stst~d this work memmien would deal mainly with the ~eneral County projects and roads. ~r. M~zzy reviewed th.e major actions taken hy the Board with regard to the CIP, the remaining issues to be resolved regarding the CIP, the subcommittee consideratiOnSr ~ta£f recommendations for projects for ~he CIp, ether projects identified but not recommended fo~ :'~ndin9 at this time, additional projects, the recommendsd ~oad ~:~ujeots, and the potential tax rate impact of the budgut decisi~ris from 19~5/~6 through 19~9/90. There was ~ensi~erable di$cuesion regarding the right to borrow versus the ~eed t~ spend the funds approved, operational expenses VerSus :apltal expenses, the road recommendations which were based on staff*~ assessment of traffic and no~ on any priority ~stablished by the Boasd~ the estimated times of construction fo~ the road projects, the advantage8 to County staff working on some ~f the road project~ v~rsus the Highway D~partmen~, the 5rldge Dyer the Appomatto~ River from Matoaca and the Route 36 grade separation to be included rather thaR a ~tatement that projects ~ould be determined later, the impact on taxes with and without factors remaining constant, th~ need for roads versus the loss of ~oonomiu development to the County, the reduction of ~oad funding ~o the Richmond District, the continued development allowed in time, the remaining funds allocated to Bermuda and Matoaca ~istricts fo~ road projects which b~lance remains at ~olic$/fire training facility, a northern area prmc~nc~ for the ~0lice Department which might b~ in conjunction with a fir~ %~ed fur a bridge over the Ap~mattox River and the ~ou~e 36 ~rade separatiom project as wall mm fnndin~ for ~he Chemdim Park. 4r. Daniel. dimcusse~ the need for a Dale Fi~e Station. ~ ~enerally agreed that the remaining balance of the =revi0usly designaeed for the Ettrick grade sep~ratfm~ and ~roject if the referendum is successful and additional funds ~dditional c~t~ Of the Ettrick grade ~eparatlo~ w~h the ~maininq funds to be put t~ard a new bridg~ cermet%in9 Ettrick ~nd th~ City of Petersburg. I% was further agreed upon %ha~ an ~ffort to mecure federal an~ s~ate dollars for ~he bridge would )e made and any remainin~ funds from th~ $10,000,0O0 wo~ld be ~unsley would ~e included. It was also generally agreed that a ~tudy should be ~de regarding a northern precinct for the Police ~t was qenerally agreed that there would bu six topical issues on ~ohools ~ire 2ourthou~e Fire ~stion 5an~ Acquisition for ~ire Station Expansion (Midlothian and Dale) ~obious Fire Station )al~ Fire Statien Total Fire 85-455 ~000~000 1~145r400 115,000 Ir490,400 1,500,000 $ ~r2507800 Improvements to Existing Parks 8ttrick Park ~xpanslcn Point of Rocka Park (Phas~ II) ~dvanoe Land Acquisition for Ce~mnunity Purks Midlothian Sigh AthteCic Complex ~uguenot Park {Phase II~ Midlothian Middle SChool Rec. Imp. Clover Hill Complex Total Parks Central L~krary E~pansion ~hester Library E~pansion Total Libraries /ehnson's Creek Drainage District ~OTAL PROJECTS Roads Route 288 - From Ri. 360 to Rt. 10, 2 lanes, 4 lane right of way ah grade intersections Route lO - From Chippenham Parkway to Beach Ro~d - widening to 4 lanes ~ighway ~o Buckingham Straet - ~idsning to 4 lanes ~ourthouse Road - From Route 60 to Route 36~ - Widening to 4 lanes separation Bridge to ~etersburg 1~0,200 277~200 349,200 1 048,000 1,0~7,100 134,600 2,~48,900 468,300 365,000 $ 7,672,500 831,500 577~800 $ 2r300~000 $16,15~,900 $30,000,000 15,000,000 lO,OOO,O00 $79,000~000 tt was agreed that thus llst shoul~ be prepared fo= £urmal action by the Board at the July 24, 1985 meeting. 0~ motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went into Executive Session a= the Crcsswind Restauran~ to discuss personnel matters as p~mitted by S~¢tion 2.1-344 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 19~0, as a~nded. Vote; U~animous Reconvening: 4. INV.O~ATIO~ ~r. A~plegate introduced Rev. Dr. M. Ott Oavi~, Pa~to~ of Cheater United Methodist Church, who gave the invocation. 85-456 5. A~PRUVAL OF MI~ There wes considerable dZscussion and ocncera by the Hoard and staff regarding Item ]~.D.5., Ben Air Plan~ as to what the intent of the motion was regarding the timetables for 0thor community and area plebs by the Planning Department. It was on motio~ of Mrs. Gironew ~econded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that approval 0~ the minutes of June 26, 1985 be deferred until July 1~, 1985, until this matter could ~e resolved. 6. C0%FNTY ADMI~ISTRAToK'~ C(H~TS ~r. ~edrick introduced and welcomed Ms. ~age Ingram, intern wi~h Chan~el 6, who is a student at Collegiate and is working with Mr. Eric Allen. M~. ~edrick introduced Mr. Sam Hancock, who was representin~ the Chesterfield H~siness Council. Mr. Hancock stated the Hu~ine$~ Council would like to indicate and express appreciation for =h~ s~p~ort ~he Board of ~upervls0r~ ha~ ~ven to the Council. He ~tat~d ther~ have been good and positive communications w~th the Hoard. He read a le~t~r ~rcm th~ Hu~ines~ Council iDdicating appreciation to the BOard for its support of better basiness an~ government in th~ Ceuaty. He stated through an active coalition between business and local government~ a higher quality of life for all citi~enn can b~ achieved. H~ stated the H~inen~ Council looks forward to working with the Board on other quality projects. E~ introduced Ms. P~% Hegd~l, M~. Kathy Allenbaugh~ Ms. Pauline Mitchell, Ms. Nancy Smith and Mr. Elmer Hedge and publicly expressed appreciation for their assistance and cooperation. He presented the Eea~d w~th the Resource Catalog, which ha indicated would be revised every two year~, a certificate of appreciation and the let%er of appreciation. ~Lr. Daniel stated that any time th~ Hoard requested a~istance from the laed~rshi9 and memhership of the Business COUncil, it was always provided and was greatly appreciated. There were no committee reports to be made at this time. 8. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION~ F~IEBGENCY ADDITIONS OR ~Ffi~NGE~ IN T~ ORDEH OF PR~HNTATTON On me,ion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board deferred Item i~.A., Public ~earing to £en~ider Araendments to th~ 1985; aud further th~ Board approved the agenda a~ amended. Vote: ~nanimous 9. ~ESOLUTX0~ OF S~ECIALR~C0~N~T~0N Mr. ~adrlek indicated there were no resolutions of spa=iai ~eeognition scheduled ~or this date. o LEAGU~ OP WO~N VOTERS REGARDIN~ Mr. Hed~ick introduced and welooma~ Ms. Muriel smith, President, and Ms. Gall Schwelckert, First Vice Pre~ident~ of the Leagu~ o~ Women Voter~, who Were present. Ms, Smith stated tha~ the Lea9~ is nonpartisan but they work fo~ th= informed parti¢ipatie~ of 85-457 government and public policy. She ataeed the purpose of stated they do so~ only after fair end careful study, reach a fiscal policy and l~nd use. Sh~ stated it is their hods that in presenting their study and action proqrama to the Board, that the concerns. She s=ated they looked forward to hea~ing from the Board. Ths Board expreased appreciation for the offer of 11. ll.A. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION C0~T ~PROV~S On motion of Mr. Dodd, ascended by ~rs. Giron~, the Board approved the street light installation cost approvals for the following locations with Eu~d$ to be eapan~ed from the Diatrict 1. Bonnie ~rae an~ Edin~er - $285.00 ~ Dal~ ~. Bonnie Brae and PalStone - $38~.0~ - Dal~ 4, R~t~les~k~ Road and Ji~y Winters ~ad - $197.80 - Midl~thian Vote: Unanimous lt.B. STREET LIGHT R~QDESTS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd; the Board denied the requeat for the installation of a strset light between 2120 and 2201 osborne Road an~ the Bsard aBpfoved the installation of street lights ~t the following locations with f%nds to be expended from the Bermuda District Street Light Fund: 1. ~eadow~ale Townhouse Park (4 Street Li~ht~) 2. I~tersectio~ of 8ir Peyten Drive and W~lnut Drive And further the Board requested that VepCo provide a r~commendation aa to si~e ~nd light determination in the vicinit' o~ Monza Orlv~ and Edgemere Boulevard since the immediate Drs~erty owner is opposed. Mr. william Nelson, the property owner at the intersection, wan present. Mr. Daniel explained that th~ request is to bo forwarded to Vepoo for a recommendation and at t~is time no official approval has been given as it ~ill have =o Cs~e back tc the Board for consideration. I~-' SUBSTA/~TIAL ACCORD/PLANTATION PiPELIN~ Ntt. Zook stated the issue of the Substantial Accord by Planuation Pipeline was considered by the Planning Commission on Jun~ 18, 19~5 and their d~terminat~On ~a$ that tbs cons~r~ctiue of a ~4 increase ris~ to the c±cizen$. He stated the reference in the C~unty's Gensral Plan ~o the installation of additional pipeline the position the Planning Co~c~ission took and tb~t this request .~ne in the same corridor generally throughout the County. H~ ;tared the corridor length in the County is approximately 14 ~iles and the width of the easement is 38 feet, Se stated the ~roposal has been reviewed by the Firs Department, Utilities ;apartment and Environmental Engineering and %hey found ne reason :hat the 91aDDing Commission should reject it as not being in ~ubstantial accord with the ~lan. ~r. Applegats stated that thi~ i$ really not a public hearing 5ut ~ matter that was put on the agenda of the Planning Commission ~nd at the request of the property owners, the matter under state ~aw is allowed to come to the Board in the form of an appeal of ~he Planning Commission's d~cision. Be stated both sides had the Same appeal process; and even though it is not a public hearing, ~ue to the ~ensltivity 0£ tbs issue, the Board will hear a ~pokesman from each aide. He stated the applicant will be allowed to make hi~ presentation and then the epp0~ition will he given equal t~me in an effort for the Board to understand the situation fully. He stated the question concerning personal property rights and whether Plantation ~peline has ~b~ right to cross an individual's property is under the jurisdiction of the Courts and not the Board. ~e stated =he only question before the Board is whether or not it i~ in the best interest of the County under its General Plan ~o permit the construction of the new 14 inch pipeline. ~r. Walter Witt, attorney for Plantation Pipeline~ stated that the appllaation s~bmitted by the Pipeli~ Company is covered ~nder Section 15.1-456 of the Code. He stated this ~imply and ~olely requires the ~eterminatio~ that the reque$~ of a~proval o~ a new ~ipelin~ is in substantial accord with the CoUnty's General Plan. ~a stated the Co.any has done e~erything to comply with all rules and r=gulation=, they have had mee'~ings, etc, He ~tated the ma~ter pla~ indicates new lines should be lOCated ~long existing lines and thi~ line is to parallel the eMiating 8 inch line. Be stated they ara in f~ll a~reument with the recommendations of the Planninq staff and ~ianninq Commission ~hich indicates the request is in substantial accord, se stated the existing 8 inch line was installed in 1964; there has not ~een o~e incident ~nvolving any safety ~asard: Plantation ~en$~lted with the attorneys to hav~ approval ~nder Seetio~ 15.1-456; they brought the mattsr %0 the attention of the ~ocessar¥ and referred the matter to the County At~o~sey who ~et~rmined that approval would hs required; Plantation did not :on=est that determination and submitted ~ application o~ March 25, 1985; on May 21, 1985 the matter came before the Planning 2emmissio~ and it ~as deferred until Jun~ ]8~ 1985; and on Juns 18, I9~5 the Planning Cemmlss~oa approved the application. ~e stated under Suction 15.1-45~, there is an e~prsss provision that ~he Planninq Commission act within 60 days of the submission o~ the application and if they do not, the Code states the ~pplication shall he deemed ~pproved and it was 90 days later and they feel because of that time frame, the Board ha~ no uriadiction in the matter. He stated again looking a~ tha~ ~%ction of the Cod~, p~ragraph C, that where you have an ~ntar~ement or normal extension of a service rendered by a public ~rvice c0rporation~ no approval is required+ He ~tated that 9age 2 of ~he Planning staff ~eport indicates this request is for ~n expansion of an existing fuel line transm%~sion operation ~hioh has been located in the County siac~ ],964 and they contend that no approval is necessary. ~e stated he has se~t a letter to the Chairman outlining thus= arguments in detail and they are appearing with full reservations to make these arguments and will ~roceed without waiving any rlghhs. S~ introduced Mr. John ~utledge, Land Administrator for Plantation Pipeline, from %tlanta, Georgia. ~r. Rutledqe ~ated that his company is a r~sponaibl~ one. S~ ~tated Plantation Pipeline is a cemm~0n carrier ofrefinad ~etrclaum product~ including auto~obil= gasoline, diesel fuel, ~ating oil, and similar prodUCt$~ He stated the company was ~har~ered in 1940 and incorporated ~n the Sta~. of Delaware, a line was built from Louisiana ~o N0r~h Carolina and ~n'1964 they 85-4~9 inCOrporated in the Commonwealth a~d extended their system from ~orth Carolina to washingten D.C. ~e stated they nerve Dullen ~nd Washington National Airport~; the Company is owned by Exxon Pipeline Company which is a wholly-owned Subsidiary ~f Exxon 2orporation; Shell Pipeline Corporation which is a wholly-owned ~bsidiary Of Shell Oil Company and Chevron ~ipeline Company which is e wholly-owned subsidiary of Chevron ~.S.A. Re stated Plantation doen not own any of the products that are shipped throuqh its syetem~ the pro~uctn are c~ned by the major oil icompanies~ they transport it similarly to a truck line or railroad, all products ere shipped under a tariff filed with the thc ¢o~t of moving one gallon of a product from B~tOn Lonislana is 1.6¢ per gallon and it is ~he cheapest and safest ~an$ of getting products into this area. He stated demands are increasing and it will ba supplied, if it isn't supplied by pipeline, it will be hauled by trucks. He stated for 21 years !they have safely and efficiently Supplied the County with all i~ypea of.petroleum produuts w~thout disrUptiOn to traffic or Inconvenience to its residents. He eta%ed they have constructed and ow~ over 3,000 miles of pipeline in their SyStem~ it goes through many subdivisions, they have had no nriticism or iproblems and they have supplied aviatiun fuel to airports in ithe 14 inch line wlli ba constructed to the i~eq~ired by the office of Pipeline safety, Depart~ent of ,~erican Society of ~chaD~cai Engineers and other professional ~gruups. ~e stated their easement is inspected weekly by air ~det%ct construction activity i~ the vicinity of th~ pipeline ~an ~ffort to prevent nomeone from carrying on activity on the ~right of way, ~ndaDge~ing %~e system, etc. He stated they ar~ a ~me~er of the "Miss Utility" Syntem whlcb was est~li~he~ so that ~a contractor ~esiring to do work Gan make one phone call and ~dRte~inm all the utilitien that are locate~ in that area and there was mention of a pipeline accident in Dallas, T~xaS and after researching it they found Lhat the damage was done by a :ackhoe operator who did not notice or ~eed the pipelin~ ~rk~r ~nd hit ~he line, H~ stated this was .o~ an inherent nature liquid pipeline pMobl=ms ar~ the result of thi/d Darty fnvolvemen~. He stated in 3,964 there were 56 property own.rs ~nvolved with this particular easement through the ¢o~n~y~ thur= are ~1~ now and this i~dicat~s the growth of the Co~ty a~d the need for additional products. ~e 5tared at that ~ime, the value Plantation based their acreage payment On the sales of like sayn that is the amount of money that would be paid today for additional l~n~ t0 be built. ~e stated th~ ar~ to be disturbed will be returned to its original condifiun promDtly, they will limit inconvenience as m~ch as possible and take all measures to make it a safe pipeline. H~ stated ~o date they have nugu~iated with 90% of the owners on the 13 mile route and have obtained alt pe~its and license~ that a~e require~ by the various agencies, Mr. Apple~ate stated that ~. Witt indicated that ~h~ timing of ~o~ard, He ~tated for the record, tha~ the County did Mr. Witt that it disagreed with his opinion in this matter. Wilt stated that was correct, a~r0ss the entire 13 ~ile ~tretch. Mr. Rutledge stated that was and he had not heard of any activity. ~r. Dodd inquired what the tk~y were not sur~ an alternate ro~t~ would be feasible and he matter. 85-4~0 4r. Brian Gordon, resident of Lake Ganito Subdivision and 3hairman of the Concerned About Pipeline Expansion Committee, was )resent. Be introduced Mr. Hugh Thompson, attorney~ representing ~be opposition. qr. Thompson, also a resident of Clover Hill District, requested ~n overrule Qf the ~annisg Commission's finding that the ~dditional t~ inet pipeline is in substantial asgard with the ~enerel Plan. Me stated the Board's ability to do this is found tn Sectipn 15.1-456 of the Code. He Stated the majority of the ]omecwners are greatly disturbed~ not only becaus~ of this ~roject but because of the preouden~ it would set. ~e mtated the iapproval of the Planning CoT~ission i~ perceived as continuing !approval of fairly high density r~eldential subdivisions without ~dequate consideration for existing petroleum pipelines, as an ]nlimited right ~fforded to petroleum pipeline companic~ to ~xpand their lines at will within shy prior easement, as the iCounty's unalterable position that Dipelinas constitute no danger land ~hat their presence is unrelated to the publio health, ~afety, convenience and welfare. He stated that the primary )urpose of government is to enhance the safety, health and ~atfa~e Of it~ citizens. He stated that they ~eel that although ~lantstion Pip,line Company is a public ~e~vlc~ oorporatlon, is nOntroll~d by the $CC and has th~ power of eminent domain, it is 3o: absolute and must conform with the m~ndat=s of thm Virginia 3ode and the Central Plan of the County. ~e stated in 1964 when the Company acquired its easement there was no Master ~lan, the {and was undeveloped, people d~veleping the aras knew a pipeline ~as there and subdivisions were approved. He stated many of ~hose lots approped for dwellings in thQSe subdlvislon~ could not 3ave complied with both state and County laws. ~e stated both the developer~ and County should have foreseen present ~ifficulti~. ~e s~ated State law intended that there would b, ~0 feet between the easement and any dwelling and referred =o iSection 56-4~ which indi~ate~ ~hat since the pipeline was there Ifir~, no nesidentia! bu~l~ing ~i=e which could not ~onform with I~:that intent, should have been approved ~y the County. ~e 8tated lin spite of thi~ information, the Plannine Commission reoo~m~ended ~hat the pipeline is in substantial acc~r~ with the General Plan )ecause it is an expansi~n o~ an e~isting pipeline, that there is ~o increased risk to the health, safety and welfare of the :itizens, that there have b~en ne adverse incidents in the County lee to the operation of the existing line aud the new line will )e located in an existing ~asemen~. ~e sta~ed no consideration lis glv~n ~o :he zonin~ or develO~ent of th~ area to the present ~nd prospective density of dwelling units in the s~bdivisions. future and that must be tho County ragu:'dlsss of what has accept an additional easement for s i4 ~nch pipeline, COmpounding prior errors and furthe~ jeopardizing their constitu:ional and statutory rig,*ts. ~= stated the Planning Commission indicate~ there are sc increased ri~ks with the i4 inch llne bu= the Can make mistakes. He state~ there are signs along the entire line which caution the publis that there is a danger. Ne ~tated if the Planning Commission's logic is accepted, additional lines prior easement existing {er another purpose would preclude ony health, safe~y and welfare of the public. Be stated that much could be said about th~ ~xpansion on the values of p~op~rty, sales and resales, not only in the sttbdi~iuion but in the County as a whole as confidence in the protection by its government is a Boa~d'~ p£imary concern is to protect the publio heal=h, safety, 85-461 the Board overrule the Planning Commission's findings and take any action that may be necessary to protect the County's homeowners and advance the intent and purpose of the General Plan 2000. Mr, Cordon presented slides indicating the warning sig~s on the pipeline easement, a County-wide map indicating the subdivisions and areas which would be affected, homes alo~ the easement indicating the right cf way and their close proximity tO the pipeline, the location of the propomed 14 inch line, construction of patios eno privacy fences ~loee to the pipeline easement, the easement through Rockwood Park, how the p[pellne followed the flood.plain in 1964, an alternative route through th~ Falling Creek flood plain which he f~l~ wculd b~ a much safer route, etc. Ma s~atsd he ia part of the 10~ who have not signed~ he has met with people along Turner Ro~d who are very concerned about this pipeline, they do nor agree that when one pipeline is marked dangerous that ther~ is nc risk involved wiLha ~e¢ond pipeline, that it is not safe to con.tract this l~ne through subdivisions, it is up to the Board to pro,eot the citizens, that although ~hsy de have an impeccable safety record, a third party could cause an accident so why increase the risk if you do ne~ have to, he is the easement ie for one or two pipelines, ~tc. or anything dealing with personal property rights ~s that i~ a matter ~or the Courts to decide. Mr. Gor~on stated if there were no pipeline in the a~ea today and the request came through, he did not feel would be approved as surr~ntly routed. Mr. Thompson stated there are three points ho be Considered the commission which are that the Commission w~$ responsible for she Plan; the Plan un,er the law and the Plan itself is not i~utable; that public safety, health and welfare are a primary consideration and any minor features of the Plan that have been set up for conformity in the futur~ are subject to variations at the discrelicn of the body that made the Plan. ~e s=ated that the h~al~h, safe~y and welfare of the individual citizens in e~is~ing pipeline for an inexpensive a~pans~on. Mr. Mincks stated for the record that %he only issue before the Board i~ tO look at the application and determine if it is in substantial accord with the General Plan. He stated ~he Caners1 Plan should be viewed with its genera] provlsLons and its specific provisions that deal with this issue as well as the totality ct that doctL~Snt as D gu/ding tool and the determination of %he Board uhould be "is this ~articular application in Mr. Daniel ~tat~d the current pipeline i~ near Hening School, and land use, it borders M=adowbrook Sh~3p~ng Center and he has no~ th~ pip. line goes between houses wi~.~.~ the 60 foot distance from the foundation. H~ state(~ he ~ould feel very uncomfortable giving approval or sustai~%~,q the Planning based on what he has heard ~ut a 1~ inch pipeline does represent the ~Se for that us~ only, ms a related issue but not r~ally germane %o this decision, is that we are talking ab~u~ subdivisions to be platted and approved whereby houses were only 30 ft. from a pipeline bu~ so. times in a fast growth co.unity 85-462 things slip through, which he would not lika to see happen again. Mrs. Girene stated the pipeline has been on the CoLu~ty and planning map since 1964 but that do~s not place thi~ Board undex a~y obligation te approve another line and she is concerned wi~h the hcaltht safety and welfare of %he citizens and she would not vote to approve this. She stated because it exists and it is On the planning document it do~s not place this Board under any Qbligatlcn te approve an additional line. She stated the heal,h, safety and welfare issues are to~ strong. Mr. Mayas stated he agreed with M~S. Girone's comments an~ the Board's concern should be for the people it represents and not necessarily to rapre~%~t the commercial aspect to produce a profit. Mr. Dedd inquired if the ]4 inch line would be op, ra%ed ~long with the 8 inch lin~, Mr. Wit~ stated he understood the 8 inch line would not be operated. Mr. Dedd stated he had a problem with the pictures whereby houses are platted close to the pipeline and that bothers e~eryone. ~e stated if you 10ok at an alt~rnative line through the County it will have to go somewhere and these people have concern regarding the expansion of a pipeline. ~e stated the alternatives will Still co~e n~xt tO · omethin~. ~e stated he Could not see the comp~ey bypassing Chesterfield County and he could not see the difference in operating a ]4 inch line versus an 8 inch line whea ~hey have had ca=fy the product through the County which could also be dangerous. He ~tated there wer~ a let ef alternatives that he felt the Board should seriously consider. Hs stated h~ would have a prebl%m with disapproving this at On~ location and th~n placing it in another. ~e stated people knew when they purchased their property that the line w~s there and ~he petroleum is not as dangerous as other products could be. Mr+ Daniel ~tated the ~oard cannot addreas alternatives as th~s should ~o through the normal reuiew procesm. Re stated the ~oard ns~ds tO ~ddres~ only if this is in substantial accord with the General Plan for this particular extension. ~r. Applegate ~tated he has not talked wi~h staff in detail about their report nor did he ~¢ant to second guess staff or the Planning Con~ission but the pipeline is in the CoUnty and it would seem that since the easement is theret you would take it down the easement. ~ stated, however, thag it is 8 li~e marked on the map and it does nok take other issues into consideration. was pointed out, even though it wa~ a t~ird party ~istake, the Dallas incident di~ happen and heaven forhld that someone with a backhoe would hit the line at Rockwood ~ark, at the School or any other public building much less a neighborhood. He stated this instance should serve notice to the Planning staff~ Planning Commission, future Boards, etc. that when matters of xon~ng ~e under consideration, pipe/into should be considered because it is a po=eh%iai ~hreat to the health, safety, end welfare of County eitixe~. He stated h~ felt it wes inoum~en~ upon this Board to insure ~he health, saIety and welfare of the oitiz~ns, On motion o% Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr..Daniel, the Board indicated the installatioD of a 14 inch pipeline in the existing easement for Plantation Pipeline where there exists au 8 inch pipeline currently is not in substantial accord with the General Plan 2000. Ayes: Mr. Apptegate~ Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and ~rs. Girone. Nays: Mr. Dodd. 85-463 £t was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes. 13.A. VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUA~.S' REQUEST ~0R DONATION On motion o~ the Boardr $80~000 was app=opriated from the General Fund Cun~ingenoy ReCOUnt to the Fire Department budget for the purpose of a SZO~O~ O~e time dona=ion ~o each of the four volunteer rescue ~q~ad~. It is noted that since the yca~ fudd balance is not yet available, the ~oar~ will determine at a later da~e whether or not to return these funds to th= :ontingency account. ~ote: Unanimous ~r. Hedriek stated the ~otal amount o~ fun~s will be forwarded to ~he squads as soon as po$~i~Ie. The Board recognize~ the members )f the R~cue Squad who were Dres~nt. Mr. Eick Morrow, on behalf )f the Ettrick/Matoaca, ~enslsy/Bermuda, Manchester and ForeSt ;iew ~escue Squad~, expressed appreciation to the Board for ~avorable consideration of thi~ action. ~e a$$ured the Board ~hat the fund~ wo~]d be put to productive use in 3ervice~ to the County. k3.B. CONTRACT FOR REM©DZLING O¥ CO~UNICATION~ CRNTRR motion of ~s. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board: Approved the transfer from fhe Communications C~nter budge% to the CaDital Pro,sots F~nds ~or remodeling of %he Co~ununications Center in the amount of $9~,000; and Authorized the County Administrator to enter into a con~ract ~or remodeling with Waltha!t Construction Compam¥. Vote: Unanimous PROCESSING BUILDINO~ HU~AN SERVICES AND COURTS BUILDING On motion of Mrs. Girone, ~econded by N~, Do~, the Board the following resolution: REGOL~JT!ON eT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF Tt~E COUNTY OF CH~TE~IELD, VIRGINIA, APPR0V!~G T~ FOR/4 AND THE CONDITION~ AND PROVISION~ OF A DEED OF SUCH COUNTY, AS GRANTOR, CONV~YIN~ PEE SIMPLE AB$OLUT~ TITL~ TO CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OW%~SD BY SUCR COUNTY TO MUNICIPAL LEASING CORPORATION, AS GRANTE=, AN~ AUTHORIZ!N~ AND DIRECTING ~E C~I~N ~D T~E CLERK OF SUCH BOA~ TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER SUC~ DEED; APPROVING THE FO~ ~D T~S TENMS, CO~DITIONS PROVISIONS OF A REAL ~RO~RTY/L~ASE PURCHASE A~REEMENT TO DATED A5 OF J~E ]5, ~985 TO BE ENTEREO INTO ~Y AND M(~ICIPAL LEASING CORpO~TIO~, AS 5~SSOR AND T~{E COUNTY, AS LESSEE, .PROVIDING FOR THE LEASING TO THE COUNTY OF A SERviCeS ~UII~ING, A DATA PROCESSI~G BUILDING ~D A COURTS BUILDING, A~D AUTHORIZING ~D DIRECTING T~E C~AI~N AND CLER~ OF SUCa SOA~ ~0 ~X~CIIT~ ~ND D~LIV~R S~CH RE~ PROPERTY LEASE/PURCHASE AGRE~ENT; APPROVING T~E FO~ A~ CO~TY AS PURCHASER AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING TBE C~I~AN AND T~ CL~RK OF SUC~ ~OARD TO ~X~CUTE ~D DEL~R SUCH RE~ ESTATE PURCHASE OPTION AGR~EM~T~ APPROVING FO~ AND THE TE~$, CONDITIONS AND ~ROVZSIONS C~ A TRUST A~REEMENT TO BE DATED AS OF JUNE 15, 1985 TO B~ ~UTHO~IZING THE CHAIRMAN AND T~E C~RK 0¥ ~UCH BOARD TO EX~CUTE AND D~LIVER S~C~ TPUST A~REEMENT~ AUTHORIZING T~E 85-464 RESOLUTION AND THE TRANSACTIONS C©NT~MpL~T~D ~B~Y AND BY THE AFOREmeNTIONED DEED, REAL PROPERTY LEASE/P~RCHASE ~GR~R~T AND TRUST AGReemEnT; AND MAKING CERTAIN FInDInGS AND DETEP~IINATION~. WHEREAS~ the Board cf Supervisors {th~ "Board"~ of County of Chesterfield, Virginia (~he "County") has determined that it i~ advisable for the Co~ty, as grantor, to execute and deliver to Municipal Leasing Corporation, as grante= (hereinafter dePined as the "Lessor"~, a deed Ihereinafter defined as the "D~ed") conveying to the Lessor the fee simple absolute title tn certain r~aI property described therein subject to a reversion; WHEREAS, %he Board ha~ determined that it is advisable for the County to enter into a Real ~roperty/Lease Purchase A~reem~nt (hereafter defiled.as the "L~ase/Purchase Agreement") to W~REAS, in accordance with the budqet adopted by the Board June 30, 1986, there will be appropriated sufficient mooiem to provide for the payment o~ the Base Payments a~ defined in and required %o be paid by the County under th= L~ase/~urchaae WB~K~A$, the Boar~ ha~ d~termined that it is advisable for Sene 15, ~985 by and among Sovran Bank, N.A., as Trustee thereinafter defined as the ~Truste~), the Lessor and the County; Lease/Purch~ Ag~e~ht in the for~ attached h~xeto as Exhibit B o~ the Project to the County. corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth o~ Virginia. "O~tion A~reemen~" shall mean the Real Sstate Purchase dated as of Jane 15, 1985, by and between the Lessor as seller Article I of the Lease/Purchase Agreement. County. 85-465 "Trostee" shall mean Sovran Bank, ~.~., a a~s0ciat~o--~aving its principal corporate trust offioe in the City of Richmond, Virginia. SECTION 2. ~in~ing and Determinations. The Board hereby (ap The leasing of the ~roject is pre.early essential ~o ~he County and is anticipated to continue to be ~ss~ntial to the County. {b} The representations s~t forth in Section 2.1 of the Lease/Purchase Agreement are true and correct on and as cf th~ da~e of adoption of this R~solution. (c) The statements set forth in Seotion 4.5 of the ~as~/Purchas~ Agreement accurately reflect th~ ia%oPtion of the ~0ard with respect to the subject matter thereof, subject to the qualification recit.d therein that the Board is not empowered to make any ¢o,mmitment beyond the curr~nt fiscal year of the County. SECTION 3. A~roval of the Form of the Deed and the Terms, Conditions and Prsvlsions Thereof; Authorization and Direction of Execution an~ DeliP~y-'~ tbs Deed. The form of the ~r~sented to and filed with the minutes of the meeting of the ~oard at which this Resolution is being udop%ed~ a copy of the form oi whidh is attached hereto a~ Exhibit A, and the terms, condition~ and p~ovisions thereof, ere hereby approved~ ratified and confirmed~ and, subject to the holding of th~ public hearing required by Seotion 15,1~262 of the Coda of Virginia, ]950, iamended, the Chairman and the Cl~rk of the Board are hereby 'authorize~ end directed to e~ecute and deliver to the L~ssor the IDeed in such form, together with such changes as shall be approved by the Chairman and the Clerk of the Board upon advice of counsel to the County, ~uch approval to be conclusively evidenced by their exeoution =hereof. SECTION 4. A~proval Of the ¥.o~m_o£ the ~ease/Purohasm m~nt and the T~rms, Conditions and Provisions Thcreof~ Execution and D~liv~ry of th~ Lea~/Purchasa Agreement. The form o~ the ~ase/Purchase Agreement presented to an~ filed with the minutes of the meeting of 'the Board at which thi~ Resolution is b~ing adopted, a ¢opy of the form of whic~ iu attached hereto as Exhibit B, and the terms, COnditions and provisions thereof i~cluding in particular the ~ase ~ayments required to be paid under ~ection 4.3 thereof ~s set forth ~n ~×hibit C thereto), execution a~d delivery by ~h~ County of the Deed in accordance ~ith Section 3, the Chairm~n and th~ Clerk of the Board are Lessor the Lease/Purchase Apreement in such form, together with such =hanges as shall be approved and by the uhairman and the Clerk of the Board upon the advice Of coat,el to the COUnty, approval t0 b~ ¢ou¢lusiv~ly ~videnced by their executlo~ thereof. SECTION 5. ~rovel of the Form of the Option ~r~ement and the Te~s~ Conditions and Pro. sinus T~?i~7~; Ex~cuticn and Delivery oi tbs 0~tion A~reement. The i'ar~ of %h~ ~ion Aqree~nt presented to and ~iled with th~ m~nute~ of the meeting of the Board at which this R~oluti~ i$ being a4opted, a copy the fo~ of which is attached hereto a5 ~xhibit C and the termS, and confirmed, and, subject to th~ execution and d~livery by the Coun=y of the Deed in accordance with Section 3~ the Chai~an an~ the Clerk of the Board are hereby authorized and directed execute an~ ~eliver to the Lessor the Option Agreement fo~, together with such changes as shall be approved by the Chai~an and the Clerk of %he Board upon the advice ~f oou~s~l the County~ such approval to b~ conclusively evidenced by their mxecu=ion 85-466 SECTION 6. Approval of the Form of the Trust Agreement and he Terms, Conditions and Pruvi~ions Tbef~of~ E~ecuLion and .~l~%e~y of the Trust A~reement. The for~ of the Trust Agreement iresented to and filed with the minutes of the meeting of the ieerd at which this Resolution is being adopted, a copy Of the fo:mt of which is attached hereto as ~xhibit D, and the toms, ionditions and provisions thereofw are hereby approved~ ratified ~Dd confirmed, and, subject to the execution and delivery by the ~unty of the Deed in accurdanc~ with Section 3, the Chairman and !he Clerk of the Board are hereby authorizea and ~ireoted to ~xecute and deliver the Trust Agreement to the Trustee and th~ Lessor, togs%her with such changes as shall be approved by the !hairman and the Clerk of the Board upon the advice of counsel to he County, such approval to be conclusively evidence~ by their xecutlon thereof. SECTION 7. Further Action of the Board and of the Officials nd Employees cf the Count. The members'of the Board an~ the )~ficia!s and employees o~ the County are hereby authorized and )ireoted to ta~8 any and all such further action as upon advice ~ coumsel to the County they shall deem npcossary or desirabl~ ransact~uns contemplated by this Resolution a~d by the terms of he Trust Agreement and by any of the documents referred to e~in or therein or approved hereby or thereby. SECTION ~. Repeal o~ Conflicting Resolutions. Ail esolutions, Or portions thereof, heretofore adopted by the Board hieh erg im e0nf~ic~ or inconsistent with this R~snlutfen are ereby repealed to the extent cf such £neonaiatenCy. SECTION 9. Effectiveness cf Resolution. This Resolution hall he ~ff~ctiue from an~ after its adoption. ote~ Unanimous 3.D. POLICIES AMD GUIDELINES FOR ~iAGNOLIA ~RANGB tr. Hedrick introduced M=s. Mary Ellen ROWe who wa~ present. ow~ stated the Historical Society was in agreement with the u~delln~s ~$ submitted. In motion of M~. Daniel, seconded by Mr, M~ye~, th9 Board a~op~d .he policies and guidelines for the OperatiOn Of Magnolia Grange, COpy of which i~ file~ w~th the paper= of this Board. SET DAT~ FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS CONVEY PARCELS OF LAND TO MUNICIP.~L LEASING CORPORATION IN C0~$QNCTION W~T[{ L~E/PURC~SE FINANCING OF DATA PROCES~ING~ EuMAN SR~VICES AND COU~TS BUILDINGS motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr, Mayes, the Hoard set ;he data u~ July 24, 1~85 at 9~OO a.m. ~cr a public hearing to :on~ider the conveyance o~ certain parcels of land to Municipal ~asing Corporetion in conjunction with the lease/purchase !inancing of ~e Data Processing, Human Services and Courts ~uild~nge. _3.E.2. ORDINANCE CHANGES DUE TO 1985 GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION motion of MrS. Giron~ $~eoRded by Mi. Dani~lw the Board set :he date of July 24, 1985 at 9:00 a.m. for p0blic hearings to :onsider ordinances relating to carryinq a loaded firuar~ near :ublle schools or ~arks, relating to solicitations, relutlng to 85-467 persons severing oil. It is noted that public hearings have been ~eheduled for Auqus~ 14, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. relating =o the imposition of a transient occupancy tax and imposing an annual tax on passenger motor vehicles, motorcycles, trucks, trailers, Vote: Unanimous There was some discussion =egarding the qualifications of Mr. Lewis Chaffe and Mr. Gary K. Johnson as it rela~ed te appolntment~ to the Co--unity Corrections Resouree~ Board. After fur%he~ discussion, Mrs. Girone withdrew Mr. Chaffers name from consideration. On motion of Mr. Ma,'es, smconded by Mr. Dodd¢ the Board appointed Mr. Gary K. Johnson, representing the County at~largm, to the Community Corrections Resources Board whose term would be effective i~m%~diately and would expire en D~cember 31~ 1985. 13.F.2. C©ALM. rJRITY SERVICES ~OARD On motion of Mr. Dodd, s~conded by Mr, Mayes, the Boa~d appointed Mr. Stepheu Marti~ to th~ Community Services Board, representing Bermuda Dis=riot, whose be~m is effective immediately end would ~xplre in Dece~er~ 1985. 13.F.D. CAPITAL RE~ION AIEPOBT COMMISSION On motion of tho Board, ar. Melvin Sheller was appointed to the Capital Region Airport Commission whoso term is effective immediately an~ will expire un April ~0, 19~8 representing the County at-larg~. It is noted that Mr. Sheller has be~n defying in an ex-of~icio capacity sines the County joined th~ Co, lesion in 1984. Vote: Unanimons Mr. ~edrick stated the ~taf~ is currently negotiatin~ boundaries ~od ~emb~rmhip with regard tO mtate law change~ which ellis Chesterfield to join the Crater Planning District Commission and that official appointment will be brought to the ~oard i~ the near f~ture. He added M~. Mayas has been representing ~he County for the past year in an aM-officio cap&city. 13.G. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS iJ.G.1. ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR COMPLETION OF ROAD C~NSTRUCTION FOR OLD CRE~X WEST S~BDIVIS~ON, S~CT1ONS 4, 5 AND 6 Mr. Mc~lfish stated that Sections 4, 5 and.5 of Old Creek West Subdiviuion, located in Clover Hill and Dale Magisterial Distrlcte, were recorded between 19~1 and 19S3. ~e stated there are 32 lots, 30 building permits have been issued and 29 homes are occupied. ~e stated the Department has been working with tho developer ~o have the roads accepted in~o ~he State system bu~ he had not performed the necessary work and conditions had deteriorated. ~e ~ate~ ~hat ~here is $1S,229 under the bend f~r the road improvements ~hich is inadequate based oD ~he low bid received which was $52,719. ~ sta~d ~he developer, Virginia Construction Company, is no longer ~olvent and i~ involved in 85-468 1. Have thc County Attorney's officer Over a period of ti~, collect enough money to pay for the construction of the roads prior to performing the work, and rebuild the roads at a later date which would be a higher cost; or Appropriate the funds for the necessary work from the General Fund and bare the County Attorney's o££ic¢ proceed Co reimburse th¢ General Fund with whatever legal action is ~a=ed further =ha~ in =ha fu%u£e, ~avirenmen=al 5nginearing ~nd the County Attorney's office will be addressing changes in ~tate law which will allow staff to retain a higher percentage of ihe bond to help offset this type of situation and to cover ~dmini~trativ~ Oo~%s and inflation as well as recommending that ~ubdivisions coma in before being built cut. ~here was some discussion regarding th~ pmllcy for having reads lecapted into tbs State system. Mr. Daniel stated there are roads ali over the County which are not brought up to State ~ta~dards after people hays already moved in ~ch as Ki~berly %ores. He ~tated this issue will set the prscedent for the ~ireo~ion for all other such issues, Ha stated he did not iisagre~ with thi~ but he felt that the Doard should be px~pared ~at other requests will ~e coming. He stated County zonin9 laws =~ procedures uhould be enforced so that doveloper$ do bring 5heir roads to State standards. He stated if not, then the Board ~hould revise those policies fo insure tha~ th~ ta~paye~ do ~ot ~ave to pay for road improvements that should he paid for by the ]evelcpers. Mr. Dodd stated State law change~ Will ~llow US tO ~old additional money which will ~elp the situation. Mrs. Girone ~tated th~ bond addresses the problem and that is why they have aappens and this is not the first tim~. she stated ~h~ f~lt the ~taf~ gets behind the de~loper~, and somatlmas it ~akes a year ~r more b~fara the matter is resolved. Dn motion n~ ~Lr. Applegate, seconded by ~r. Daniel the Board: Appropriated from the General Fund Contingency Accoun~ $34,~97+§0 to Supplement the cash bond fur the completion of the road~ in 01d Creek West, sections 4, 5 and 6; 2. Authorized ~ho Couuty Administrator to enter i~to a co~tract with Shoosmith Br0thurs~ Inc. for the completion of the road, drainage and u~ility work in O1~ Cree~ West iD an amount not to exceed $52,719.~; and 3. A~horizsd the Counny Attorney's office to proceed with legal action to racoon the $A4,497.00 supplied from the General Fund Contingency Account and that ~id fu~d~ collecte~ be automatically transferred back into the Contingency Fund when coll~cted. 13.G.2. SOUTHLAKE BOULEVAED KEV~NUE SHARING PROJECT On motion of Mrs. Gfrona, seconded by Mr. D6dd, the Board adopted the following resolution: FPnereas, the existing intersection of Branchway ~ad an~ Courthouse Roa~ has bean the site o~ many traffic acc{dents; a~d ~ereas, the Chesterfield County Board of $~rvisers has allocated County revenue sharing funds pursuant to Section 33,1-7S.1 of the Code of ~irginia fo~ the purpose of e~ten~ng $outhlake Boulevard f~e~ Branchway Road o~er to Courthouse Road; ~U-469 Whereas, the Virginia Department of Highways nd Transportution is advertising a project to cOnStruCt $Outhlake soulevard form Branchway Road {~oute 645) to Courthouse Road Route 653); and Whereas, the extension of Southlake Boulevard between ranchway Road and Courthouse Road will more safely serve the same citizens a~ the Branehway Road intersection with Courthouse Road. NOW, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervi~or~ request the Virginia Department of Highways an6 Transportation to cloae Rranchway to through traffic by eliminating the intersection of Branchway Road at Courthouse Road. The closure ks to coincide with the opening to traffic of the extension of Sou~hlake ~oulevard between Branchway Road and COurthOuSe Road. This action is requestsd in accordance with L3.G.3, PUBLIC HEARING FOR AM~NDMRNT TO EASTERN AR~A ~LAN motio~ of Mr. Dodd, seso~ded by Mrs. Girths, the Board set the ~ate of' September il, 19~5 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to zonslder an amendment to the Eastern Area/Comprehunuive Plan. ?ets: Unanimous was generally agr~sd that a work session wce'ld be un~e~egsary ~TATEM~NT R~GARDING VDH&T TBNTATiVE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS 1985-86 T~ROU~H 1~90-91 INTERSTAT~ PRIORY and URBAN ~r. Applega~e stated the statement regarding the VD~T tentative ~llocatioD of fund~ for 19S5-8~ through 199~-91 interstate, ~r£mary add and urban six year plan would be delivered by Mr. 3odd es he had %0 attend a meeting with the Bond Rating Company ~he next morning. Mr. Mayes requested that Mr. Dodd iD~icate the arqeney for the soliciting ~f f~deral ~unds for %he eonst~otion 5f a bridge from Matoaca to Petersburg. ~r. Daniel tnq~ir~d if ~oute ~88 from Richmond-,Rutersburg Turnpike to Rout~ 360 in the ~ix year plan will take ~ix years to oomglete to Route 10 which is covered under the iunding formula for dJ,s=ribution of funds of ~he toll extension on 1-95. ~r. MeC~ack=n ~tatud the funds for ~o~e 28~ are for preliminary engineer~n~ and rl~t o~ way ~cqu~sition. ~r. Duniel ~nquired wheB the roa~ wo~ld be :onstructed. ~r. McCracken stated the portion from Route 10 to 1985; the project that wil! pick up ]ust west of ~ute 1 and go to I-~5 will be advertised in January, 1987; ~ ~h~ roads nhould ~e completed %we years after the a~vertisemen%, Mr. Daniel flame time. Mr. Mccracken ~tated that wau correct. Qn motion of ~s. Girone, seconded by Mr. Muyes, the Boafd for the urgency of federal funds to construct a bridge from ~toeea to Petersburg over the Appo~ttox River. REDUCTION OF SPEED LIMIT OM OLD CENTRALIA ROAD On ~otion of M~, Dodd~ seconded by Mr. Dahiel~ the Board adopted the following resotution~ whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of eupervi~or~ has received reques~ from citizens living along Old Can,talin Road, Route 609, to reduce the speed limit on 01d Cmn,rails Road. NOW, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors hereby requests th~ Virginia Department of Highways and iTransportation to conduct a speed study on Old Centre!ia Road to Vote: Unanimous 13,H. HIGHWAY ENQINEER Mr. TOK~y R~ynolds, Actin~ Resident Engineer with the Virginia Department of ~ighways and Transportation, was present. Re stated the plant mi~ and slurry seal overlay will be completed in th~ ne~t two wpsks and they will have laid 45 miles wi~h plant mix and 50 miles of slurry sea!. He stated bid~ have ~een ~eceived for concrete repairs which includes work at Virginia State University for curb and gutters, a~ well as gidewalks end curb and RUg, er in other locations in ~he County. Rm s~ated ~nun Church Road should be completed within three weeks~ they have jua~ oompleteO Clayville Road, old Rusdred Road is under construe,ion and Should be completed by A~u~t let, and the Route 147 projec= should be completed by ~he first af November. Mrs. Girone inquired if anything were goinq to be done to the ~urface of Robindale Road as zoning has been requested in the area. Mr. Reynolds ~tat~d he would investigate the matter. Mr. M~yes expressed appreciation =c Mr. Reynolds for his cooperation with the staff and to Mr, erich for their prompt response to his concerns. I3.I. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS 13.I.i. OROINA~CE VACATIN~ ALLEY IN CENTRAL PARK Mr. Hed~ick ~tmt~d this date and ~ime had been advertised ~or a public hearing to consider an ordinance v&cating a 16 foot alley the matter. Mr. Dodd inquired if staff were positiv~ tb~t a District, Chesterfield County, V~rg~nia, ~s shown on a Circuit Court of Cheet~r~i~l~ County in Plat Book 4, at pages 114 and 115. Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a 16 foot alley adjacent to Lo~s 9-]5, Block 5, Central Park subdivision, Bermuda Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in thu Clerk's Office of the ciroui= Court of said County in ~lat sock 4, pages 114 and 1LS~ made by J. Temple Waddillt dated January 10~ 1928. The alley petitioned to be vacated is moro fully deucribed as follows: A 16 foot alley adj~aen% to lot~ 9-15, Block 5, Central Park, the location o£ which is more f~llly ~hown~ sha~ed in red on a plat made by J. Temple Waddill, da~ed ~HEREA$~ notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-~31 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as ~ended, by advertising; and 85-471 the alley sooqht'to be vacated. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF S~EERVISOR~ CN~STERFIELD COUNTY, Tha~ pursuant to Section 15.1-482{b} of the Code o~ Virginia, 1958, as amended, the aforesaid alley be and is uaeated. Thi~ Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482{b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950~ as amended, and a certified COpy Q~ this Ordinance, together with the plat attacked hereto shall be r~¢orded no s~ner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court Of Chesterfield, virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amende~. The effect o~ this Ordinance pursuant to S~ut~on 1~.1-4~3 iS to destroy th~ foro~ and ef£e~t o£ the recording of the portion Of the plat vacated. Since the portlog of alley hereby va=ated is located On the periphery of the recorded subdivision plat~ th~s ordinance shall ~est fee simple title of the entire width of the alley hgreby vacated in the property owners of the abutting lo~s within Central Park free and clear of any rights of publio Accordingly, %h~ Ordinance sha!l bs indexed in the names of tho County of chesterfield, a~ granter~ and Joan W. Farmer, or her successors in titI~, a~ 13.I.2. CONDEMNATION ACROSS PROPERTy OF RODERICK A. CLELEJ%ND, ..DA~_IEL CLARK~ TRUSTEES FOR N. A. AND M, ~. C~LLAND FAMILY TNUST Mr. Applegate inquired i~ this condemnatfon involved property at tho Groanifl~ Board Restaurant. Mr. Beck stated that At di~. Mr. Applegate Jnguixsd what the situation wa~. 5hr. Beck stated the property owners kava no£ responded or communicated with staff and the easement Was necessary to supply additional water to the Poeono area. F~r. Hedrick staled that although condemnation is authorized, staff still sontinues to negotiate with the property cooperative with ~he County in other matters and inguired if institute condemnation p~ooee~ings agalns~ the fDllowing property said property ownere by registered mail ~n July 10~ 1985 of the County's int~naion to .enter upon ~nd raise the property whisk is 8action 15.1-238.1 of ~he Code of Vfrglni~, this resolution shat~ be i~ full force an~ effect on an emergenoyba$i~; and further be Mr. Rod~ick A. clelland, ~r. Nathel S, Clelland, for R. A. and N. S. Clella~d Family T~uet W84-47B/$; Tax Map $4,755 85-472 Vote: Unanimous 13.I.3. W~T~R AK~ On motion of Mrs. Giroee, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board ~uth0fized the modification of two contracts with Calcourt Properties with the County as fellows: 1. Extended the ti~e to ~eceive refunds on Projse~ W79-53CD to July 31, 1985. 2. Authorized the remaining amount eligible for refunds to be used to offset funds owed the County. ($15,0O0 to W79-53CD and $1200 to WS0-73CD). 3. Accepted $1374 from CalcGurt Proparties, the amount whlch will fulfill the developer's obligation for payment to ~he County water contract WS0-73CD and completes the County's obligation for ra~unds un,ar Con,racEs W79-5~CD and WS0-73CD. Vote: Unanimous 13.I.3.b. AM~KD CONTRACT WIT~ ATLANTIC BAPTIST BIB~E.,~QLLES~ On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board amended Sewer Contract number S84-89CD/7(8)4S92~ Atlantic Baptimt Bible College, to provide a cash refund of $6,018.16 subject to the ~ollowing special p~eviPion: ~pecial Provi~ions The County agrees to ~ake refunds for the cost of oversizing the sewers~ difference between an 1~ inch and an ~ inch sewer lin~ in %he amount $12,018.16. Said refund shall be made as fctlowe= A. 'Cash refund in the amount of $6,018.t6, and B. Refund from the sewer connection f~e collected from the Atlantic Bap~i$~ Bible College in the amount of $6,000.00. And further %he Board appropriated $~,018,16 from 5~ Surplus te $P-5724-489~ for this amended contract. Vote~ Unanimous M=. Dodd inquired about the Friend Avenue ~ewer project. ~r. Beck ~tated it would be advertised on July 21st ~n~ they will stiDulate a date for completion rather tkan leaving i= open. 13.I.4. DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS Mr. Beck presented the Board with a list of developer ~ater and Sewer contracts executed hy the County Administrator. lS,J. REPORTS MX. Hedriok presented the Beard wi=h a status of ~he General Fund Contingency and the General Fund Balance. Er. Hedrick stated the ~ighway Department had focally uotified the Conn'~y that the road~ in the following subdivisions hsd b~en aeoppted into the State SysteE~ effective as £n~lcated: 85-473 Farnbrookt Teylors Landing (6-21-85~ Paulhill ~ea~ - From 0.04 mile ~a~t of Route 912 to a east cul-de-sac. Fernbroek,..S.9~_t~zSn A %_g!de...Wilt±amsburq (6-21-85) ~ountry Spring Lane - From Route 763 to ernbrookI Section B & Chatham Grove 16-21285) ~hatham Grove Lane - Erom Route 763 to ].01 mile west of Wind Grove Court. ~hatham Grove Place - From Chatha~ Grov~ ~ane to a a~r~h cul-de-sac. ~ind Grove Court - From Chatham Grove La~e ~o a north Cul-de--~ac. ~lenwood, sections c ~alencia Road - From Rou=e ~859 to 0.03 mile ~ast of Valencia Place. ~unilla La~e - From Route 2855 to a southeast :ul-de-sa=. ~alencia Place - From Valencia ~orth cul-de-sac. 0.11 mi. 0.10 mi. 0.19 mi. ~.$7 mi. 0.05 mi. 0.07 mi. 0.04 mi. 0.15 mi. ~n me,iOn o~ ~c. Do,d, ~con~e~ by Mr.'~ayes, the ~oard adjo~rne~ at 9:20 p.m. until g;O0 a.m, on July 94~ 1985. ~OtO: Unanimous Administrator 85-47~