Loading...
09-11-85 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERV~S@RS MINUTES September Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. ~. ~. Applegate, Chairman Mr. Jesse J, ~teyest Vic~ Chairma~ Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. R. Garland Dodd Mrs. Jean Girone Mr. Richard L. Eedrick County Administrator Skaff in Attendance: Mr, Tom Callahan, Airport Msmager ~[rs. Doris Dellsrt, Legislative Ceord. Chief Robert Eanea, Fire Nursing Home Admin. o~ Parks & Rec. Mr. Elmer ~{odqe, Asst. Co]lEty Administrator for Development 7:05 p.m. 1. INVOCATION Mr. Appteqate ir, troduced Revere!'~d Ro'~'~c Z. C]i~yto~ Pastor of Oak Street A.M.E. Zion Cktt~?c~, who i~ve ~he; Jnvocatic, n~ 2. APPROV~ OF 3. COUNTXADMINISTRATOR'S COM~ENTs ~[r. Hedrick introduced and welcomed Cory Shields, reporter recently assigned to Chesterfield County for WXEX Television. ~e also recognized Paula SquAres who resigned from the Richmond ?imes Dispatch, and wished her much success in the future. Mr. Hedriok introduced Chief Robert Eanes who presented to the Board Firefighter Kenny Aliceburg, He stated EiIsfighter Alice- burg represented the Chesterfield C<>unty ~ire Department in the First World Police and Fire Games recently held in San Jose, California; he was sent with contributions by' his fellow fire- fighters and some members of the business community to represent the County in this special style olympic competlticn~ police and fire competitors from all over the world met in 43 sporting events over a 7 day period, etd. He stated Firefighter Aliceburg competed in his specialty, the 5,000 meter run in the track and field events, and fin%shed ~irst in the event taking the gold medal. Chief Eanes stated the County is extremely proud of his accomplishments and the honor he ha~ brought himself, the P~re Deparzment and Chesterfield County itself. ~e also recognized Mrs. Aliceburg who was present. Firefightsr Aliceburg expressed appreciation to Chief Eanes, Chief Do2~zaI and many others for their support. Be i~ldicated the= he enjoyed his trip, met a lot of people, and there were 50 states and 15 counfries represented in this competition. He also thanked the County ~dministration for allowing him to participate and represent the County as he is proud tc be a part o~ ~t. 10.A. PROPOSAL FOR PATIENT RECREATIONAL AR~A AND STUDY TO DETErmINE NURSING HOME'S ROLE IN FUTUgE LONG TERM CARE NEEDS OF COUNTY Mr, Hedrlck r~quested that the Board proceed to Item 10,A., which is the item dealing with the County Nursing Home. On motion of Mrs. ~irone, seconded by Mr. Dcdd, the Board proved'hearing Item 1O.A., Proposal for Patient Recreational Area and study to Determine Nursing Home's ~ole in Future Long Term Care I~eeds of County Reslden<s, out of sequence. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Gitlentine~ Direct©r of the Nursing Home, stated that in keeping with the tradition of the nursing home's policy end programs of excellence in patient care and as a leader in innova- tive programs to enhance the quality of ,care to the patients, meK~ers of the Nursing Home Advisory Cgmmittee have e proposal for patient recreational area and study to determine the nursing home's role in future, long term care for the elderly residents of the County. ~r. Gilientine i~troduced the members of the committee ,~fle were present: Mr. William Green, Mr. Tom Callahan, Mrs, dudy Beach, Mrs. nottie Armstrong, Dr, Louise C]ark, and Mrs. Burr Shoesmith. Mr. Gillentine introduced ~rs. Dcttie Armstrong. Mrs. Armstrong preempted he~ presentation with t~a s~atement that this project would not cost any ~cney. She stab:ad that the L~Cy Corr Home was very fortunate to have people in the County who cars so much that they are willing to donate their t~me, energy, and money to provide a better envirc~!~ent fo? the 200 ladies and gentle,eD who m~st regard tbls facility as their home. She elaborated o~ the philosophy of the Nursing Home a]~d the advisory committee to relieve the patient of the institutional eavi~onment as muck as possible so he may !'etaln his ~vn identity, and to provide alternatives so that t]~ res!der:t can still b~ ]n charge of some portion of his life. She reminded tko Board of all of the continuing efforts the Nursing Home has made toward qeali~y care, providing activities for all cf the patients and a proposal to construct a swimming pool for the handicapped and eldsrly in the County. She stated that they had ~ubmitted and were anticipating a reply %0 their application for a Federal grant by October, 1985. She further statsd that the advisory committee has now determined that a recreational area consisting of an activities picnic area, wheelchair walkways, nature trails and a handicapped swimming pool should be a part of the Nursing Home grounds. She stated the project will be financed tkrouqh contributions of citizen groups within Chesterfield County but the nursing home's improved sike boundary does not include the w~oded area so approval by the Hoard is needed so that additions can extend into ths wooded area bordering the nursing ho~e. She stated the present improved site boundaries extend out from the nursing home building to about 100 feet in the northern and western directions and the woods are almost 100 feet from the building. Sh~ requested an additional 300 feet of wood~d land b~ provided to make the proposed additions possible and to provide buffer zone. At this time Mrs. Beach continued with the presentation pointing out the benefits of these improvements sue? as encouraging special handicapped populations within fhe County to use these facilities, providing privacy for family members to visit with Nursing ~ome residents, and increasing recreational activities. Mrs. Armstron~ indicated that materials, labor and other related expenses for the project will be paid for with funds raised by and on ~ehalf of the Nursing Home through the advisory co~,ittee from the Fraternal Order of Police, $1,500.00; the Dale ~uritan Club, $1,223.00; the Chesterfield Pilots' Association, the Kiwanis Club of Central Chesterfield, $50S.00; and Nr. Jack Shoosmith, $12,501.00. She stated the total estimated cost of the project is $17,000.00. She rslat~d that Mr. Bhoosmith deserves an enormous amount of thanks as he ha~ provided the committee with the construction cost estimate and he will begin i~ediately on the project stating fihat he will assume the r~sponsibility for the $12,501.00 of %he estimated cost above contributions received. Mrs. Armstrong Stated that as contribu- ti0ns continue to be received, Mr. Shoosmith will be repaid for the work he has done. ~he stated the Nursing ~ome Advisory Co~nittee, based upon growing population of the County and the projections for u dramatically increased number of the elderly population, request~ that a study be conducted to determine what the Nursing Heme~s role should be in ,he,future, long term care needs for the elderly, the handicapped and others who may require nursing care~ day care center, or for other types of long term care which cannot be provided in a home setting. Bhe stated approval of Board is needed to authorize the ~ur=ing Home Advisory Committee to conduct this study and upon approval of t~s Board, contacts will be made with such organizations and universities to assist in this study, i.e., ~edlcal College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, Depart~,~ent of Health Services, Virginia State University, Virginia Health Care Association, Virginia Center on the Aging, etc. She stated this ~tudy is expected to be completed within a year and at ~hat time a report will be presented to the Board. Mrs. Armstrong stated we should begin planning for the increasing number of elderly citizens who need some degree of care in this County. Rt. Daniel stated he toured Ironbridge Park this date and indi- cated that in the long term development cZ this park, i~ is planned to take into consideration the handicapped and elderly people. ~e further stated that he hoped the advisory commit,se would mak~ use ef that resource in their study and meet ~;ith Mr. Hester to assuIe that Irunbridge Park can complement the ~uman Bervices faci]itie~ at the Courthouse since it is located only one-half ~ile away. He stated it is readily accesslble to the central part of the County as well as to those faci].i=ies bare 0 the Courthouse. Mrs. Armstrong stated %hat it would be taken into consideration. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Danisl, the ~osrd approved the construction of a small recreational area at the Nursing Home for use of the patient residents and other special populations as well as a study of the Nursing Home's role in future, long term care needs of the handicapped and elderly in ithe co~unity. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate congratulated the Advisory Board for their long term consideration. 4. BOAI{D COMMITTE~ RI~PORTS Mrs. Girone stated that she had dinner with the Crater Planning District Co~ission and heard Congressman Sisisky speak, tying in departments of the Federal Government with programs for the needy and economic development in the Crater Planning District. Mrs. Girone indicated that the Ben Air Historical Society con- structed and erecned a new sign in Ben Air in front of the bank at Buford and Forest ~ill co~emoratinB the historic district of Ben Air which was accompanied by a ceremony. Mrs. Girone stated she attended a meeting at the Blue Cross Building where Johnston-Willis requested permission from the Health Advisory Committee to e×pand their services for maternity care and other services in the hospitalf which they received. Mrs. Girone stated a reception was held at the Sixth Street Market Place which should be opening soon. She ~ated a public hearing was held in the Bnn Air Comm~unity Center on the Ron Air Community Plan. tt was the first meeting allowing citizsns to tell the planners what they expect to find and what some of the issues are before they begin their work. She stated there were at least 100 people in attendance. She stated that she wsnt Saturday to Route 60 between Ashby's and Cheste~fie!d Mall and cut the ribbon for the First Virginia Bank and they have opened more than 30 branches in Virginia and the best response ever was at that branch that day. She stated she met with Woodmunt and Ramsgate Civic Associations to discuss the Bond Referendum. This was discussed again at 'the first Monday meeting. She stated she attended the meeting of the Community Services Board at the Chester House yesterday to discus~ the 1986 legislation for the mental health program. Mr. Mayas indicated that he was also present at the Crater District Planning Commission and at ~he Chester Rouse. He recognized Mr. J. Ruffin Apperson, former supe~risor and recently re-elected president of the Matoaca Advisory ConT~zttee. Mr. Mayas stated that he also attended the meeting of Civic and Progressive Action Association f~r the Matoaca Magisterial District where Mr. Ramsay made a puesentation on the upcoming Bond Referendum. 5. REQUESTS TO ~0~TPONE ACTION{ ~RG~CY ~DITION~ OR CI{ANGES IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION Mr. Daniel stated in regard to th% appointments for the Youth Services Commission he would like to suspend the rules to allow nominations and appointments at the s~me meeting. Mr. Micas indicated that this would be in order at the time the item was discussed. On motion of Mr. Qodd, seconded by ~r. Mayas, the Boatd added ~tem 10.H., an Executive Session for consultation with legal counsel regarding Saylor versus Chesterfield County and K~nnedy versus Williamscn pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a} (2) of the Code of V~rginJa, ].950, ~!s amended~ and adopted the agenda as a~eaded. © © Vote: Unanimous 6, ~tESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL R~COGNITION 6.A. MIDLOTHIAN AMERICAN LEQION POST 186 Mr. Heater indieated ~hat on September 2, 1965 the American Legion District 11, Midlothian Post 186, which plays their home games in Rockwood Park, twice defeated Sacramento, California to win the American Legion World Series Tournament in Kokomo, Indiana. He stated this is the second year that Midlothian Post 186 has achieved the status of Virginia State Champion and the first time in the American Legion World Series Tournament's 60 year history that the event has been wen by a team from Virginia. He crated there were over 2,000 teams that competed in American Legion baseball during the past year and Midlothian Post 186 is %1. He introduced Mr. Maurice Beck, Athletic Officer and Managex for Midlothian Post 186. Mr. Beck introduced the coaches and players on the team indicating that some r~em~srs ef the team war( at college and could not be present. On motion of the Board, the ~o!lowing resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, American Legion District i]., Midlothian Post 186, plays its horse games at Rockwood Park, in Chesterfield County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, Midlothian Post 186, under the leadership of Coaches David George and Dennis Moody, an~ Athletic Director Maurice Beck, did earn the right to compete in the 1985 State American Legion Tournament in Fairfax, Virginia; and WHEREAS, Midlothian Post ].86 received first place honors in the State Tear,amen% for the second consecutive year, and earned the right to compete in the Mid-Atlantic Regional Tournament in Boyertown, Pennsylvania; and WHEREAS, Midlothian Post 186 placed first in the Mid- Atlantic Hegionals, and earned the right to compete in the 1985 American Legion World Series in Kokomo, Indiana; and WHEREAS, Midlothfan POSt 186 emerged from the 1985 World Series as the new ~erican Legion WORLD C~AMPIONS, bringing Virginia its first World Series title in the 6Otb playing of the event; and W~HREAS, the members and coaching staff of Mid]othlan Post 186 did throughout these tournaments conduct themselves in a mature, dignified and sportsmanlike manner. NOW ~HEREEORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Super~isors hereby expresses its congratulations, pride and gratitude to the coaches and members of Midlothian Post 186 for their constant dedication, teamwork, and good will. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors acknowledges the positive recognition that, through their own efforts~ the coaches and members of the Midlothian Post 186 have brought upon their team and upon the County of Chesterfield, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Mrs. Girone congratulated Mr. Beck and presented him with the executed resolution. 6.H. MR. TRIS LIPSCOM~, AMERICAN LEGIO'~ PLAYER O? THE YEAR Mr. Heater announced that ~Mr. Trio Lipece~b had been ua~ed p]ayeI of the year and that his nnme will be placed in the Baseball %~a].] of Fame which is another first for the County. Mr. L]pscemb wa~ unable to attend the meeting b~caus~ h~ {s back ~n school. His parents were present to receive the resolution recegnising him ~rom the Board. On motion o~ the Board, the following resolution wa~ adopted: WHEREAS, American Legion POSt 186 competed in and won the 1985 American Legion State of Virginia, Mid-Atlantis Regionals, and World Series Tournaments; and WHEREAS, Mr. Tris Lipsconlb posted three wins and a save in both the Mid-Atlantic Regional and the World Series; and W~RI~AS, Mr. Trie Lipscomb therefore played a central role in bringing Virginia its first World Series title in the history of the event; and WHEREAS, Mr. Tris Lipscomb earned recognition in the Base- ball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York as the 1995 ~erican Legion Player of the Year. NOW THEREFORE, EE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby commends Mr. Lipscomb for his dedica- tion and efforts on behalf of his team and his community. great job. ~he praised their attitude and talent and indicated that she had followed their success in the newspaper and was very American Legion Post 186, the coaching staff from other groups Newspapers and the Gazette for their great job in covering the details of the team's victory. 7. HEARINGS OP CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS Mr, Hedrick stated there were no citizens scheduled for this meat] ng. 8 · DEFERRED ITEMS 8lA. LA/~DFILL/COLLECTION STATION FEES }ir. Hedge spoke stating that. this item ~:ad been deferred £rom the August 18, 1985 meeting for clarification regarding the establishment of a $1.00 charge for non-comF, eroial vehicles emptying other than household ga~ba~e at the two disposal facilitiss~ He s~ated a report has been sent to the Board. Mr. Dodd stated if the $]..00 charge for a pzTivate persoa using th% landfill is going to cz'eats a ~rob]em, he would suggest it be deleted b~t it was an effort to hs'¢~ thc user pay a portion of the cost for th~ service. He s'tst~%d t~lat he felt ~n~ Operating hours should remain as approve~.. He stated that if the $1.00 charge is to be remeved~ that t.~e diffe?ence shnuld not be m~d.3 up by the General Fund as ~t ha~.~ been the policy of the Board to have the revenues from the lar~df'i]l ren;~n a self-sustaining operation. ~e indicated that his recommendation would be to increase the commercial tipping fee to $16.50 pe~ tcr~ ~o offset the loss o~ revenue. Mr. Mayes indicated that h~ concurred with Mr. Dodd's comments, © © ~. Daniel indicated he agreed end that the main reason for the :oncept of the $1.00 fee was because the Board did net want to ~ccept ~taff's recommendation for the maximum tippinq fees and :he $1.00 fee was instigated as a compromise, tie stated that he ~elt it would be improper to appropriate funds from the General ~und to make up the difference. Me further stated that he did ~ot faal the taxpayers should subsidize landfills. ~. Applegate mtated tho Board agreed to raise the tipping fee to 315.00 and now it has been recommended that it should be raised =O $16.50. Be stated that the private commercial operator who ~as already been notified that he can expect a new tipping fee ~hich has just been increased from $12.00 to $15.00, is going to )ass this along to the people in the County who are using his ~ervice. He stated these peopl~ will be paying for those who are ~aking their trash to the dump and he stated that he could not ~gree with that theory. Be indicated that if it were put on a pay as you go basis and nobody paid that would be one thing, but =c offset that cost at the expense of private operators who will 9e forced out of business or pass the cost along to their custom- ~rs is not equitable. Mr. Mayes stated someone will pay for picking up the trash from along the highway, etc., which will still be taxpayers' money from one source or another. ~e stated that if the $~.00 charge is instituted for non-commercial users, public money will be used to remove it from the streets and along the roads as people will ~eposit it there. Mr. Maye~ stated that the Board has asked for a comprehensive refuse plan. Mrs. Girone stated she knew six or seven firms who have gone out of business in the past year. Mr. Oaniel stated again that he would like a hard-core policy as the County cannot get out of waste d~spo~al beeaess it iea public necessity. Mrs. Girone stated that if the difference was taken from the General Fund then all of the citizens of the County would pay, some of which are taking the trash to the landfill themselves but the burden is on the individual homeowner who hires a private contractor as they are paying for this entire system in the County. She stated either the County should provide the service or not. She stated if the ta×paye~s are not going to be involved in this, then it should be turned loose, sell the landfills and let the private people use them and the County should get out of the trash business entirely. She further stated that to keep on adding the cost to the homeowner who hires the private company is ~not the right and fair way, if every citizen cannot be charged iwhen he goes across the scale, then just put it on his taxes and let this program go on as it was set up not charging the $1.00 fee. She stated the day of reckoning will come at the end of the year when the budget is balanced. She related that she thought when it was started, the policy was to charge a dollar for any- thing that crosses the scale which seemed simple and easy to do but since it can't be worked in both ].a~dfills, it is not fair to do it in one piece and not in the othnt. She euggestinq not charging the $1.00 fee and leaving the $15.00 tipping fee then taking the money out of the General Fund, approximately $60,000, to compensate when the budget is ba]s~ced at the end Of the year. She stated then if we want to get o~t of the trash business, we can do it at that time, after developing a p!.an to sell these facilities and telling the public we ~,%]I let the private collec- tors do it all. Mr. Dodd reiterated that the discussion was elimination of the $1.00 charge and add-on to the overall charge from $15.00 to $16.00 or $1,6.50 indicating that we have absorbed $300~000 to $400,000 e year o~t of the Nursing ~{ome which no cue has objected to, we have absorbed here and the~ and the payday will come and we are going to have tc raise the rate. Me stated it would be better to take the unpopula.~ ~,ositicn and move forward with the increase now. We would still be in line with l]enrico County and the City of Richmond. Mrs. Girone indicsted that we are ahead of Shoosmit~% who is charging $%~ ~00 or $~2.§0 and 'the san~ c£%i~en 85.-6S4 is charged over and over again. She stated when the tipping is raised, this affects the person who is already paying and meanwhile, the man who carries his trash to the landfill is not paying anything. She stated the way to get to the citizens who are not paying anything is through what ha pays in taxes. Mr. Daniel stated people have the choice o~ entering into a contract with a private collector. He related that he would not be happy to discover that his tax money is going into subsidizing those landfills, especially since he is paying the tax rate for recovery of the debt on a bond referendum for $3 million for developing a landfill that the County has chosen not to open. ~e stated that his next doer neighbor is not paying anything to have his trash picked up and he is not contributing to the cost to run the landfill; ha is not contributing to the leaf pickup throughout the County, etc.; and that if we are going to get into General Fund expenditures o~ landfills like we do schools, P~lioe, Fire and everything else, then we should do it but it will put the private collector out of business and make it a publio service. He stated that Mr. Mayas had argued that many times about solid waste pickup and somewhere there has got to be a happy medium. He stated the County Administration has recommended that collecting $1,00 is net feasible. A comprQmise was then introduced Of charging an individual pickup truck or some small vehicle loaded with trash $~.00 which cannQt be handled in a uniform manner. Mr. Daniel stated that he would not vote to ha?e General Fund money aubsldiza the landfill. Mr. Applegate stated his concern that some small business opera- tore will be put out of business who are paying a substantial amount of taxes to this County. Mr. Mayes indicated the Board was responsible for public safety and the removal of trash and management of refuse is the responsibility of this government. Mr. Applegate reminded Mr. Mayas that there was a dump situation in the Matoaca District at Virginia Stats College and the $40,000 was transferred to Parks and Recreation with no immediate solution to that refuse problem. He stated this is just the tip of the iceberg in an attempt by this Board to go to Countywide refuse collection which is a multi-million dollar operation. Mr. Applegate further indicated that he had no intention of voting for it. Mr. Applegate reiterated that he was not willing to face it when there was $40,000 in Ettrick and the people at Virginia State stood up and told him that they wanted the dump and the money was put in Parkm and Recreation and now you wan% the County to assume the expense of taking care of the problem at Virginia State. Mr. Mayas stated that was a dif£erent issue. He stated that he would support going up to $16.00 Or $16.50 on the tipping fee but ha would not support the $1.0~ charge. Be further stated that the Board has to come up with a plan that is fair, feasible and workable. Mr. Mayes stated that the staff was asked some time ago to coma back with a plan and a fair recommendatioe for the solution of managing the refuse, the garbage and the wastewater in this County. Mr. Applegate asked what was ~nfair about charging every citizen in the County $1,00 to go to the County landfill. Mr. Mayas replied that it was unfair to ask a person who is ~tter~ding the landfill to collect the fee under the present circumstances. 'Mr. Dodd stated it is really a matter of philosophy. }~e stated that he did not support th~ County getting into a solid waste management pickup as it will cost the County three or four million dollars to get it startm~. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Eoard raised the tipping fee to $i6.00, abolished the $1.00 non-commercial user charge, and left the hours the same, becoming effective October 1, 1985. © © Mr. Daniel asked the County Attorney if a publi0 hearing Qr public n0tics was necessary when raising these rates. Mr. Micas replied that this is an administrative rate so it does Dot require an ordinanse change, Mr. Daniel stated the question is how to raise su£ficient funds to balance the books for the solid waste management system, He stated he hoped that we agree on how we are going to carry our landfill operation for at least the n~xt five years in both principles and mechanisms SO this issue does not arise each year. Mr. ~pplegate stated he felt anyone who goes to the landfill should pay $1.00 and he does not understand why it cannot be monitored. Mrs. Girone stated that she could support that.. Mr. Dodd stated that he thought it was a good idea too but he was relying on advice from the Administration. Mr. Applegate stated that he thought we were doing a total injustice to the small business operators in the County who w~re told 60 or 90 days ago that the tipping fee would be $15.00 and now we are changing it to $16.00. There was considerable discussion regarding the attendant, the judgment decisions necessary, the relocation of gates, the dumpsters, the difference between the Northern Area Landfill and the Collection Station, etc. A vote was taken on the above stated motion. Vote: Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Mayes Nays: Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone Mr. Daniel suggested that a motion be made to instruct the County Administrator to develop a landfill management plan and that this plan define the direction we are going to take in the next five years in terms of landfill costs which are projected to be and to define what rates will be required to equalize operating costs. Re stated he f~els we need a landfill policy so that the Board does not have to keep going through this procass every year. A motion was made by Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes that a comprehensive study should be made by the staff to determine a landfill management plan for the County for the next five years which should be presented to the Board within the next six months. Vote: Unanimous 8.B.1. APPOINTMENTS YOUTH SERVICES COF~ISSION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board sus- pended the rules so that nominatlon~ and appointments could be made at the same meeting by Messrs. Daniel and Applegate for their representatives on the Youth Services Commission. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate asked Mr. Stith if the by-laws of the Youth vices Commission had been amended to allow for an e~{tra high school student to serve from each district. Mr. Stith stated that the by-laws had been approved'at the last meeting by the Youth Services Commission effective immediately, with terms expiring June 30, 19S6 and represent:lng the magisterial district as indicated: On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board pointed the following people tO the Youth Services © ~r. Yogi Berger !~s0 Phillippa Bates ~s. Nancy Hndson ~r. Howard Warren ~rs. Charlotte Gibbs ~s. April Quarles Kelly Robinses Midlothian Rob Wade Ca~ol BoisJneau Bermud~ Ms. Melissa Ball Gibbons Sloan A~POINTMENTS FOR APP0~TTOX EASIN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPO~ATION On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr, Daniel, the Board pointed the following people to the Appomattox Basin Industrial Development Corpor~tion to become effeetlve September, ].985 through September, 1956: Mr, Cecil L. Williams, Mr. Michael Dubus, Dr. Fred W. Nicholas, Mr. Jesse J. Hayes, Mr. Jeffrey B. Muz~y and Mr. C. F. Ceftin. ~ote: Unanimous PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.A. BMENDMENT TO THE EASTERN AREA/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Mr. Hedge stated that this date and time had been advertised for a Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Ras,~=ra Area/Comprehensive ~lan. Mr. Dodd stated tha'~ he had a situation that may constitute deferring this item and he had indicated to the co~unity that action would not be taken at this time. Mr. Dodd indicated that if there were some citizens in the audience from Enon who would like to speak and could not make it at a later time, the Board would hear their comments and he would make a mo~ien at a later time. Mr. Zeok stated that the study area ~n question is about two and ~ne-half square miles of land area and is in the southwestern corner of the interchange of Route 295 and Route 10. He pre- sented a map of the land use pattern in 'the area indicatinq that ithere is very sparse development, a vast amount of land is available for developm~nt, predominate zoning in the area is agricultural, flat ar~as have severe drainage problems and a portiou of the ]and is in the Je?~eso)! Creek Draiaage district. He stated two major flood plains come through the area as a tributary to the the Johnson Creek a~ t]~ staned this area is divided into medium density resident~ Jeve!opment, 10w density residential development, industrial ~!. ~pment and commercial development along Route 10 and the proposed Route 295. He stated th~s is goi~%g to be a gateway to Chesterfield County and a primary area fer economic development. ?~e stated tha~ one of the prime objectives of the plan is t[~ p~-cvide ].and for economic development arid at th~ same ~i'~,]e ~:.o ~eserve land that ~ou].d be quality land for residential development. He stated when staff met with the coa~unity in the are~ they indicated they recognized that this portion of the County is good for economic development but they did not want to be forgotten with respect to a full range of public facilities. He stated this plan does provide a large area for future population and is in an excellent area for continued residential development of low dens~ty variety in the southwest portion. The industrial development of the eastern portion with respect to the Route 295 corridor and the noise impacts that are'going to be reflected off of that particular corridor does not interfere with the residential area. He stated staff has suggested a road system in the residential area that will provide service to the land but will not cremate a shortcut through this particular area of the County. He stated that its location to the metropolitan area will make it extremely desirable for residential use as it Ks wooded and it will contri- bute to the desire to create a compact, integrated eon~nity in the eastern portion of the County. Mr. Zonk noted that since the plan went to the Planning Commission, he had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Jefferson and discuss his concerns. He stated that Mr. Jefferson owns property which is currently zoned M-l, light industrial and the plan would recommend that the property be rezoned to a residential classifica~:ion. There was no one present to speak for the plan. ¥4. Dodd stated that in eommnnicatin? with the co~nunity, he had indicated there would be a delay in hearing this item and that is the reason for nO response~ Mr, Tom Jefferson was present to speak in opposition to the plan. He stated that he was a resident of the City of Richmond and a landowner in the eastern area of Chesterfield County. Be stated there are some special considerations about the property and important points which he would like the Board to consider. He requested that the Board not downzone bis land. H~ stated that the property had been in his family a 10ng time and they were counting on the eventual use of this property for light industry. Se Stated tO change the zoning as proposed by the Plan would reduce the value of ~is property. ~e indicated his second point is that the County institute a process for downzoning should it ever be neceSSary that offers compensation to a landowner who is treated that way. Ha stated that most downzoning is a process that is not highly regarded and likely to cost the landowner in real dollars in economic terms. ~e stated 'that he felt a process of analyzing the present value and th~ new value at the new zoning is certainly possible so that if compensation is due, it could be paid to the landowner when the County downzones the land. Ee stated that he felt if that process is instituted by the County, it will ultimately help preserve the value of the County. He pointed out that there are 1200 feet o~ railroad frontage and he feels for light industry this would likely be the most valuable part of the property. He stated that he had not sold or developed the property because of the availability of water and sewer and you cannot have a proper light industry area without sewer a~d water. Ma stated that he has conten~lated the eventual sale of the property, mr.~ ~ihh Route 288 planned in the area. there would be an opportunity to make uae of the property. He reiterated the two points that he hoped the County wi]TM not downzone his land and that it woulo be good for the County t.o put in action a process that would deal with downzoning if the County ever has to do it against an owner's wishes. Mr. Dodo ask0d Mr. Jefferson when his land was zoned. Mr. Jefferson answered that ~t was his understandin~ that the had taken place in 1958. Mr. Dodd stated that he had bis prop- erty downzoned in 1972, that he ha(! B-3 property and it was downzoneO to B-2 and he bas had 'to p~y the price since go he can understand ~r. Jefferson's feel~np~:, He suggested to Jefferson that he meet with th~ staff to determine if some compromise could be worke~ out allowing some type of light business to be put in near the railroad. He indicated to Mr. Jefferson that the delay time could be used to work with the staff to come up with some other alternatives in this matter. Mr. Jefferson further stated that he felt commercial zoning should be a consideration along the railroad track. Mr. Daniel inquired as to the type of railroad that went through this property and it was indicated that it was a Coastline right of way which is not heavily used. Mr. Jefferson stated that it was not heavily used because some of the facilities that would allow heavier use are just not there yet such as sewer and water. Mr. Dodd indicated that sewer and water were definitely needed there before any industry or business can use the property. Mr. Jefferson stated that he was in favor os quality development in the area. Mr. Daniel ~tated that he apprecfated Mr. Jefferson's arguments and could sympathize with his point of view; however, he had not had the opportunity to hear the other citizens. He further stated that whenever a comprehensive land use plan is considsred, the entire tract of land and guidelines for the future are very important and sometimes comes into conflict with pre, lone zoning. Mr. Daniel sta=ed that at this time he could not commit himself and he would support e delay ali.owing more time for the decision. Mr. Jefferson stated Situations are better handled if a plan is available to allow you to deal fairly with landowners whose property is downzoned against their wishes. He stated that down- zoning is not a prevalent practice and Mr. Daniel stated that it was his understanding that dswnzoning is applied in various stages across the country as land use patterns change. He stated that the common, ordinary thing is usually enhancing the value of the property by establishing a higher classification of zoning. There was no one else present to address the matter. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconde~ by Mr. Mayes, the Board doferred the Public Hearing on an ~mendment to the Eastern Area Comnr~hen- sive Plan until November 13, 1985 et 7:00 p.m. and during this period of time requested that staff be instructed to look more closely at this situation for alternatlv~ recO~nendations. Mrs. Girone requested that the staff provide the Board with figures on the comparable worth~ how much tax has been paid on that land since the M-1 classification and how much would have been paid if had been residentially zoned and also what the change would be today in the value of the property in question. Vote: Unanimous 9.B CONVEYANCE OF LEASES OF REAL PROPERTY AT VARIOUS PARK SITES TO OPERAblE FOOD CCNCESSIONS Mr. Hedrick stated that this date and time had been advertised for a Public Searing to consider conveyancm of leases of real property at various park sites to operate food concessions and eta~f recon~ends approval. There was no one present ~o d~scuss thm matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Msyes, the Board au-tho- rized the County Administrator to execute seasonal contracts with the Chesterfield Quarterback I~ague to operate portable food concesmions at the following locations from September 1, 1985 to Decen~er i, 1985: Chesterfield Courthouse Complex~ Ettrick Park, Matuaca Park and Huguenot Park Vote: Unanimous 9.C. CONVEYANCE OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT THE CHESTER~?I~LD COUNTY AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK TO MIC~[AEL J. PAU-~IC Mr. Eedrick stated that this date and ti~e had been advertised for a public hearing to consider conveyance of a parcel of land in the Airport Industrial Park to Mr. Michael J. Pausic and approval is recommended by the staff. There was no one present to discuss the matter. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, uhe Board approved and aethorized th~ Chairman of the ~oard to execute a sales contract for the sale of a 2.0 acre parcel at $32,500 per acre in the Airport Industrial Park to Michael J, Pausic Of Cavalier Con- trols, Inc., a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board. Vote: Unanimous 9.D. CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 14.I-1 OF THE COUNTY CODE ADOPTING BY REFERENCE INTO THE COS2NTY CODE AL~ STATE MOTOR V~ICLR OPF~NS~S Mr. Hedrick stated that this dste an~ time kad been advertised for a Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Section 14.1-1 of the County Code by adopting by reference into the County Code all State motor vehicle offenses. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd~ the Hoard adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND A~TICLE I, SECTION !4.i-1 OF TBE CODE OF THE COUNTY OR CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA~ 197S, AS AMENDED RRLAgING TQADOPTIO~ OF S~TE LAW D~ALING WITH MOTOR VE~IC!.E OFFENSES RE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors o~ the County of Chesterfield, Virginia: (1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, amended, is amended by amendJng th~ following section: SeC. 14.1-1 Adoption of s*-a+~e law. Pursuant to the authorit? of s~:ction 46.1-3~8 of the Code of i the laws of the state contained Jn Tit3e 46.] a~! Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of t?~e Coda of-~/irginia, as in force on July 1, 1995, except those prcvJ..~ions and requirements the violation of which constitutes a felony, and except those pro- application to or within the co~nty, are hereby ado?tc.,~ and incorporated in this chapt'-r by reference and made applicable w~thin the county. F,e~erences t~ ~h~ghways of the state" con~ rained in such prov~si~us and r6 i~ir,~m~nts hereby adopted shall be deemed to refer to the street, s, hLqhways and other public ways within the county, Such provisions z]nd requirements are hereby adopted, mutatis mutand~s, and mace a pa~"h of this chapter as fully as though set fort]~ st l~ncf-h h~ein~ and it shall be unlawful for any person, withi~ the cod. nty~ to ~io!ate Or fail, neglect or refus~ to comp!~' with any ~rev~sion of Title 46.1 o% Article ~ o~ Chapter 7 of T:itlc ]8.2 :~f the C~de of Virginia which is adopted by this sec~ion7 pre~.'ided~ that in no event shall the penalty impgsed for' n!,e v!olat~n of ~¥¢ pro~ision o~ requirement hereby adQpted exce~]~ 'h~]e psna.l~.y imposed for a similar offense under Title 46. ] or Article ~ of Chapter ? of Title la,2 o~ the Co~e of Vote: Unanimous 9.E. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 21-24 OF TEE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO CONDITIONAL USES Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time hsd been advertised ~or a Public Hearing to consider an ordinance amending Section 21-24 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to conditional dses. There was no one present to discuss the matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following ordinance amendment: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTEP~IELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY A/~ENDING SECTION 21-341h) RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PLANNED DEV~LOPM~NTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of ~upervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 21~34(h) of the Code of the Count~ of Chesterfield, 1978, as-amended, is amended and reenacted as follows: Division 2. Sec. 21-34. Generally~ Conditional Uses. {h) Planned developments. ooo (3) The county general plan as determined by 'the board o£ ~upervis0r~ shall be a general guideline for ~he uses and characteristics of the planned development. (4) Procedural requirements; ooo b. Master p.!_a~. A master plan shall indicate at an appropriate scale, but not ]ess than one inch to six hundred feet, the general location oi streets (public or private) and ]and uses by type, function and intensity. This maste~ plan shall also include, as dee,~d necessary by the director of planning, in a map or textual form, the applicant's preliminary plans for sanitmry and storm sewage~ water service, and other necessary public u=iiities and. facil- ities. The master plan shall be reviewed by the planning com- mission for recommendations and submitted ~c th~ board of super- visors for final action. ~nendme~ts to the master plan may be made by ~he board of superuisors only after a public hearing thereon. Approval of the master plan shall o(~nsfitute approval of the planned development. c. ~fh~ematj~_j~lsns. The schematic p].ens shell be tentative subdivision plaEs ~or .]s~d within the planned development to be subdivided or be p-sl~min~ry site plans for land to be developed otherwise. Schematic Dlan$ for land not to be subdivided shell include info~ation nor;~aily 3~equirea on a site plan as reqnlred in division ~2 of this article as deemed necessary by the director of planning. Alt schematic plans shall be submitted to the planning co~.~r, ission for consideration unless determined by the director of planning to be substantially in accord with a previously approved schematic plan. A schematic plan shall ~e approved by the plashing coiomission if they ~ind such plan to be in acc0r~ance with the masker plan, as amended, and other applicable ordinances. Prier to approval of the schematic plan, the planuing con,mission may stipulate such conditions and restrictions upon the plan as are deemed by the plannin~ commission to be necessary for the protection of the public interest. The planning commission shall require such evidence and guarantees ae it may deem necessary as proof that the condition~ a~e being and will be complied with. ~f the planning commission finds that a schematic preliminary plan is not in accordance with the master plan, as amended, then the commission shall deny approval of the schematic plan. Vote: Unanimous 10. NEW BUSINESS 10.B.1. REQUESTS FOR BINGO/RA~'F~ pERMITS Mr. Applegate and Mr. Dodo inquired about the possibility of the Booster Clubs with all cf the different high schools obtaining a blanket bingo permit and stated they did not make that much money. Mr. Dodd stated it appea~s that the state laws harass the volunteer organizations from 'the rescue squads to the booster clubs and iequired why. Mr. Daniel suggested that this item could be included in the legislative package. Mr. Micas indi- cated that the reason the State law is so precise and difficult is due to abuses in other areas of the State so the General Assembly has seen fit to make it very difficult to obtain per- mits. Mr. Micas suggested also that this could be put on our legislative program. On motion of Mrs. Cirone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board ap- proved the requests for bingo/raffle permits for Saint Ann's Parish Pastoral Council and the Brandermill Jaycees, Inc. for calendar year 1985. Vote: Unanimous 10.B.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions for this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Rockyrun Road, Rockyrun Court, Glebe Point Road, Skyhird Road and Skybird Court in Glebe Point, Sections 2 and 3, Matoaca District. Upon considerat{on whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Reckyrun Road, Rockyrun Cou~t, Glebe Point Road, Skybird Road and Skybird Court in Glebe Point, Sections 2 and 3, ~atoaca District, be and they hereby are established as publio roads. And be it further resolved~ the= the Virgini~ Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Rockyrun Road, beginning at the intersection with Glebe Point Road, State Route 3015, and running northerly 0.24 mile to the intersection with Rockyrun Court, then continuing northerly 0.01 mlle to end i~ a dead end; ~cckyrun Court, beginning at the intersection with Rockyrun Road and running easterly 0.09 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Glebe Point Road, beginning at the southeasterly end of existing Glebe Point Road, State Route 3015, and runnin9 southeasterly 0.26 mile to th~ intersection with Skybird Road, then continuing southeasterly 0.01 mile to end in a dead end~ Skybird Road, beginning at the intersection with Glebe Point Road and running northeasterly 0.16 mile to end in a temporary turnaround. Again, Skybird Road, beginning at the intersection wit]~ G.lebe Point Road and running southwesterly 0.27 mile to the intersection with Skybird Court, then continuing southerly 0.11 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Skybird Court, beginning at the in=~rsesti0n with Skybird Read and running westerly 0.0~ mile to ~d in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distance easements. These roads serve 38 lots. 85-692 ~nd be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guar- antees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50' right-of-way Ifor all of the~e road~ except Glebe Point Road which has a 60' right-of-way. These sections of Glebe Point are recorded as follows; iSection 2. Plat Book 40, Pages 24 ~ 25, Nove~bs~ 30, 1981. !Section 3. Plat Book 40, Pages 67, 68, 69 & 70, February 12, 11982. Vote: Unanimous 10.B.3. PUBLIC ~EALTH NUTRITIONIST FOR C~IESTERPIELD HEALTH DEPARTMENT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board autho- rized the County Administrator to accept a grant in the amount of $25,02? and approved the establishment of e nutritionist position fo~ the Health D~partment. Vote: Unanimous 10.C. APPOINTMENTS CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDSRATION OF A CHARTER On motion of the Board, the following people were nominated to serve on the Citizens Co~ittee for Consideration of a Charter with official appointment to be made at the s~pte~er 25, 1985 meeting; Bermuda Matoaca District ~rs. Janet Alley Mr. J. Royal Robertson Mr. Steve Perkin~ Mrs. Mary Cooper Dr. ~en Copeland Dr. ~amuel A. Madden Dale District Clover ~ill District Ms. Pat Hobbs Mrs. ~un Duffer Mr. Russell Moore Mr. William M©hr Mr. A. Lee Hanbury ~idlothlan District Mrs. Elsie Elmore Mrs. Lynn Cooper Vote: Unanimous 10.D COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 10.D.1. RESOLUTION CONFI~'~ING P9OCE~OING O~' T~ INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPNE~T AUTHORI?Y On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded b? Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Industrial Deve~opment~ ~uthority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority), has cc~ ic. -'e<] the application of M & J ~ssociates (the Purchaser) for % =....~uance of the Authority's industrial develop~ant revenu~ ~o~d$ in an amount not to exceed $450,000 (the Bonds} to a~sist in the financing of the P~rchaser's acquisition, construction and equipment of a ma~- lecturing and warehouse facility (the Project) to be located on Whitebark Terrace, 300 feet zo~lt]~ of Whltepine Rood ~n Ch~ter- field County Industrial Park, Chester,{eld County~ Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon o~ August 20, ~9853 and 85-693 WHEPSEAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Super- visors (the Board) of th~ County of Chestsrfleld tthe County), to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenu~ Code of 1954, as amended (the Code); and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonde, subject tO terms to be agreed upon, a record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with respect to the Project have been filed with the Board; and BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0F T~B COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, tor the benefit of the Purchaser, to the extent required by Section 103(k), to permit the Authority to a~simt in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance ct the Bonds, as required by Section 103(k), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bond~ or the creditworthiness of the Purchaser, but, as required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia et 1950, a~ amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto e×oept from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. The Bends shall not be issued unless they shall have received an allocation of any "private activity bond limit," as provided in Section 103(n) of the Code shall b~ made to bonds from the Project. Netting in this resolution shall be Con- structed as any assurance that such allocation will be available or, if available, will be made. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous i0.D.2. FORWARD A~4ENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR RECO~EENDATION On motion cf Er. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Dodd, the Board referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending Section 18~32 Relating to Dedication of Land for Public USe, Vote: Unanimous Mr. Dodd requested that Mr. Zook report to the Board concerning the application of this ordinance. ~. Zeok indicated that when this item was brought back before ~he Board, he would have information available regardinq thi~ n~ahter. Mr. Dodd indicated that he would recommend the Homebui!ders Associations' input in this matter. 10.D.3. REQUEST TO REPEAL RESThICTSQN OF TRUCK TRAFFIC ON A SECTION OF WA~BR0 ROAD On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, a public hearing date of October 9, 198~ was set to consider the repeal of Section 14.1-21.1 of the Code oi the County o% Chesterfield relating to the restriction of trnck t~affic on a per%ion of Warbro Read. Vote: Unanimous lO.B. ~IGBWAY ~NGINB~R Mr. Hedrick introduced Mr. Dennis Morrison, the Chesterfield County Residency Engineer. Mr, Morrison began by updating the Board on the construction program in the County as follows: Branders Bridge Road (Route 625) - A contract has been awarded and construction will begin before the end of the year, The second project is underway using the State force. Route 621 - This is a sight distance improvement project which will begin this week. Route 652 at the intersection of 604 - This project is presently under construction and the surface course is ready to be applied. Bast Avenue - Construction has just begun on this project. Southlake Boulevard - Construction will begin September 23 and hopefully the job will be completed before the con,true,ion season is over. Hopkins Road - This project has been completed and a signal stud will be conducted when the traffic pattern has stabilized. Route 652, Old Hundred Road at the intersection of 667 ~ This project has been completed. Bnon Church Road - This project is 99% completed wi~h cleanup underway. Huguenot Road (Route 147) - This project should be completed by November 1, 1985 and the signal will b~ put up so that the intersection will be functional. In the maintenance area, 100 miles of surface treatment work wil be completed by the end of September, 50 miles of slurry seal work, and 40 miles of plant mix work have been completed. Some concrete r~pair work has be.gun including curb and gutter, and sidewalks and curb and gutter at Virginia State University, which has begun. A guardrail will be installed at Hopkins Road immedi- ately. Mrl Dodd indicated that he has a problem at Holly Hill Road where it "doglegs" around in Chester and also he had requested stop signs. He stated that he has discussed these items with Mr. Stith and will check with him. Mrs. Girone expressed her a?~r-eciat~on for the work on Route 147 and its co~.pletion by November 1, 1985. Mrs. Girone questioned Mr. Morrison concerning the section by BriarN00d Apartments indicating that this project seems %o have been completed for a long time an~ has ne~ been opened for use. Mr. Morrieon stated that this portion of road could not be opened until the signals were working as it would be a very unsafe area encouraging accidents. Mrs. Gircne questioned.Mr. Morrison concerning the two traffic lights on Route 147 at Bufor~ a~d Forest Hill. She indicated that if you approach one and are h,~ld up at the red light, when it turns green you get caught a~ the second one. She stated that she woul~ like %0 have the lights c00rdin=tad. She inquired about the propose~ traffic light on Buford Road at Pinetta requiring the widening of Pinetta witl~ a date of Septem- ber I as a beginning date. She requested to knew the status of this project. Mr. Morrison state~ that ~he signal plans are approaching completion and he will meet ~i'bh Mr. Isbell and hopefully it will be completed shor~iy. · Mr. Daniel stated that he had been approached CUnC~cnxng the status of closing thro~h truck traffic on Melody }{cad an~ Shoremeade between Route 10 and Ropkins Road with th~s item having been approved by the Board over a year ago. Mr. Morflson indicated that it had just been forwarded to him for a ~]ublic hearing. © © Mr. Applegate indicated his appreciation for the light at ~lkhardt and Pocoshock. Mr. Mayas asked Mr. Morrison if he and Mr. McCracken would work together on establishing priorities for road projects and Mr. Mo~rison indicated that Mr. McCracken had been working with him and had been very he].pful. 10.F. UTILITIES ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CONVEYANCE OF PARCELS OF OF LAND KNOWN AS OVERTON ROAD Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a Public Hearing to con~ider conveyance of parcels of land known as Overton Road. There was no one preeent to discues the matter. On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr, Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman of the Beard Or County Administrator to execute the necessary quit-claim deeds for the conveyance of parcels of land known as Overton Road to the original grantees. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.1.B. PUBLIC BEARING FOR ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF A 16' SEWER EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 35, BLOCK M: STONEHENGE WEST~ S~CTION 3 Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to.consider an ordinance to vacate a portion of a 16' sewer easement across Lot 35, Block M; Stonehenge West, Section 3. There was no one present to discuss the matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Hoard adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a portion of a 16 foot sewer easement across Lot 35, Block M, Stonehenqe West, Section 3, Midlothian Magisterial District, Chesterfaeld County, Virginia, as shown On a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 47, at page 52. ~FHERBAS, J. K. Timmons & Associates, Incorporated, has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a port~on of a 16 foot sewer easement across Lot 35, Block M, Stonehenge West, section 3, Midlothian Magis- terial District, Che~te~fi~]d County, Virginia more particularly shown On a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book ~7, page 52 made by Lewis & Owens, Incorporated, dated January :~, 1983. The portion of easement petitioned to be vacated i': mor~ fu~.!y described as follows: A portion of a 16 foot sewer easement ~cross Let 35, Block ~, Stonehenge We~.~ 3~,c~ion 3, the location of which is ~ere £ul~F shown, shaded i:~ red on a plat made by J. K. Timmens and Associates, Incorporated~ dated August 23, 1985, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part o~ this ordinance. WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 o~ the Code cf Virginia, 1950, aS amended, by advertiai~%g; and, WHERE,.S, ne public necessity (~x~sts for the cc~%tinuance of the portion of easement sought to be vacate~. © NOW T~R~FORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISQRS OF :~ESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.1-482{b) of the Code of ~ir~inia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid portion of easement be and is hereby vacated. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accor- dance with Section 15.1-4~2(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this 6~inan~, together with the plat attached hereto shall be reeorded no soener than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Cede ~, 1950, as amended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-4S3 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vent fee simple title of the portion of easement hereby vacated in the property owners of the lot free and clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield as grantor and Thomas E. Bradshaw and Eugenia V, Bradshaw, Or their ~uccessors in title, as grantee. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.2. WATER AND SEWER ITEMS 10.F.2.A. AWAR~ WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS FOR THE BALLARD OA~S SUBDIVISTON On motion of Mre. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board awarded contract numbers W85-55C/6($)555K and S85-30C/7(8)530E for the construction of water and sewer lines in tho Ballard Oaks Subdivision to Piedmont Construction Company, Incorporated, in the amount of $23,480.75 for the water project and $50,518.53 fer the sewer project; transferred from 5}I-5835-600R (C.I.P. Water Extensions) to 5H-5835~555E the amount of $22,828.$~ and trans- ferred from 5P-5835-900R (C.I.P. Sewer Extensions) to 5P-5835-530E the amount of $50,570.38, and authorized the County A&mini~trator to execute the necessary documents. It is noted that $3,000.00 was previously appropriated for water and $5,000.00 for the design. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.2.B CON$IDEEATION OF A EEQUEST EROM SESID~NT$ IN C~ESTNUT HILLS SUBDIVISION, SECTIONS A:g~D Bt FOR PUBLIC SEWER SERVICE On motion of Mr. Dodd, s~conded by M: Mayem, the Board has authorized the Utilities Department> 'o ~end contracts to the existinq homes im the petition area f Chestnut Hills Sub- division, Sections A & B, to ascertai, n the nus~er of homeowners who will agree to connect to public sewer. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.2.C. REQUEST FROM BUFORD COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES COMPANY TO AID THEM IN ACQUIRING A 16' SE"~4ER EASEMENT AND TWO 10' TRMPOPF~RY CONSTRUCTION EJSEMENTS ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF FRANCES APPLEMAN SHINE AND JOPIN F. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and autf~orized the Right of Way staff to assist Buford Co~T~ercial Properties Company in the acquisition of a ]6' sewer easement and two 10' temporary construction easements across the psoperty of Frances Appleman Shine and John F. Shine provided that Bufo~d © © Commercial Properties Company executa~ a contract agreeing to pay all costs. Vote: Unanimous 10.P.2.D APPROVAL OF A SEWER AGREEMENT FOE DEVEL0~ER PARTICIPATION; IRONGATE SUBDIVISION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute on behalf of the County a Sewer developer participation agreement with Irongate Aeeociate~, a copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.2.E. CONSIDER COUNTEROFFER FROM ROBERT LEE FLOYD AND DORIS J. FLOYD FOR A WATER BASEMENT On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board accepted the counteroffer in the amount of $800.00 from Robert Lee Floyd and Doris J. Floyd for a 15' wide permanent water easement and a 10' wide temporary construction easement across their property at 4824 Beulah Road. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.2.F. CONSIDERATION OF AN OFFER TO SETTLE A PENDING CONDEMNATION CASE FOR THE WILLIS AND COACH ROAD INDUSTRIAL ACCESS PROJECT On motion of Mr. Dcdd, eeconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board appro- priated $14,235.00 frem the General Fund Contingency Account to settle a pending condemnation case for the Willis and Coach Road Industrial Access Project and approved the purchase of this right of way for $22,655.00 from Robert W. Hickson and authorized the County Administrator to sign the necessary deed, and the County Attorney to have the condemnation d~smissed and the County's deposit returned. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.3, CONSENT ITEMS 10.F.3.A. WATER CONTRACT FOE INSTALLATION OF WATER LINES FOR THE PARK, SECTION 1 On motion of Mr. Do,d, seconded by Mrs. Girone the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator t~ execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: Water Contract Number W85-]45CD; The Park, Section 1 D~veloper: Salem Church Limited Partnership Contractor: IPK Excavating Company~ In¢orporate~ Total Contract Cost: $38,200.00 Total Estimated County Cost: 5,227.50 (Refund through Connections) Estimated Developer CoS~: $$2,972.50 Number of Connections: 28 Code: ~-2511-997 Vote: Unanimous © 10.F,3.B. WATER CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF WATER LINES FOR EXBURY SBBDIVI~ION, SECTION 1 On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board ap- proved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: Water Contract Number W84~141CD; E×bury Subdivision, Section 1: Developer: Winston Development Company Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Incorporated Total Contract Cost: Refund through Connections: $19,200.00 Cash Refund I1~569o50 Total Estimated County Cost: $30,769.50 Estimated Developer Cost: NuRSer of Connections: 55 $85,786.00 And, further the Board transferred $13,000 from 5H-5724-2009 (Cash Refunds) to 5H-5724-5E19. 10.F.3.C. EASEMENT ACROSS COUNTY PROPERTY AT GREENFIELD ELEMENTARY AREA PARK SITE On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board proved the conveyance of a 15' easement across County Property at Greenfield Elementary Area Park Site to Virginia Electric and Power Company and authorized the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to execute the easement agreement. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.3.D. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG WOOD~ECKHR ROAD On motion cf Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board ac- cepted conveyance of a 35' strip of land ~lonq Woodpecker Road from Mark L. and Tammy ~. Tomlin, sad authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. Vote: Unanimou~ 10.F.3,E. VACATION AND REDEDIC~TION 0F TWO SEWER EASEMENTS ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF THE CHESTER TRUST JOINT VENTURE On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the ~oard ap- proved the vacation of 20' and 16' sewer easements and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute the necessary easement agreement. Vote: Unanimou~ 10.F.3.F. AGREEMENT WITH VIRGINIA /J~'~TMENT OF HIGHWAYS A~D TRANSRORTATiO~ FOR ADJ~ ~qT OF UTILITIES PeR INTERSTATE 295, PROJECT. !:-020-101; G303 - COUNTY On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by U: ~irone, the Board autho- rized the County A~mini~trator, subject t~ the approval of tke County Attorney, to execute an agreement with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for adjustments of the water and sewer facilities for the proposed construction of Interstate 295 incl~din~ its intercha:~ge at Route 10 and appropriated $10Q,000.00 from 5D surp!~ls to 5H-5835-SETM. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.4. REPORTS Mr. Wetchons p~esented the Board with a list o~ water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. L0.G. P. EPORTS Nedrick presented a report to the Board denoting the roads ~hich had been accepted into the State S~condary System effective indicated: Length ~unnybrookr Section 4 (%R9~ 30, 1985) ~idgerun Court - From Route 3091 to a North cul-de-sac 0.03 mi. ~ounty Home Estates, Sections 2 & 3 (Aug. 30, 1985) ~ridle Path Drive - From 0.12 mile north )f Route 36 to a north cul-de-sac 0.15 mi. ~eensmill, Section D & F (Au9. 28, 1985) Lady Ashley Road, From 0.04 mile west of Kingscross Road to 0.17 mile southeast of Lauren Lane 0.31 mi. bauren Lane, From Lady Amhley road to ~.04 mile northeast of Lady Ashley Road 0.04 mi. ~tevens Hollow, Sections 2 & 3 (Auq. 29, !985) North Stevens Hollow Drive ~ From 0.13 mile northeast of Route 3052 to Sexton Drive 0.~8 mi. South Stevens HOllow Drive - From 0.07 mile sast cf Route 3055 to Sexton Drive 0.]0 mi. Sexton Drive - From 0.24 mile northeast of Route 3051 to 0.03 mile east c£ North Stevens Hollow Drive 0.05 mi. Hollow R~dge Court - from North Stevens Hollow Drive to a north cul-de-sac 0.03 mi. ~ollow Branch Court - From North Stevens ~ollow Drive to a north cul-de-sac 0.09 mi. Donegal Forest North, Section 1 (A~. 27~ 1985) 9onegal Road North - From Route 659 to ~.36 mile south of Route 659 0,36 m~. Ooae~al Forest, Section 2 (Au~, 27, 1985!_ Donegal Drive - From Route 1274 to 0.11 mile ~est of Donegal Terrace 0.36 mi. Donegal Terrace - From D~,.egal ~rive to a north cul-de-sac 0.11 mi. ~appy Hill Farmsr Sections 1 & 2 (Au~. 28, 198~} Fielding Road - F~om Route 3236 to 0.01 mile southwest of Trahern Drive 0.32 mi. Ledgewood Drive - From Fieldiug Road to Route 3236 0.06 mi. Trahern Drive - From Fielding Road to - Route 3236 0.06 mi. Sandyri~ge Parkway (Au~. 23, ].985) S5-700 Sandyrid~e Parkway, From 2928 to T~o Notch Road 0.58 mi. Brandermill - Crosstimbe:s, Section 2 {Aug 23, 1885) Crosstlmbors Road - From 0101 mile southwest of Route 2929 to a west cul-de-sac 0.18 mi. Crosstimbers Place - From Crosstimbers l~ad to a north cul-de-sac 0.07 mi. Crosstimbers Terrace - From Crosstimbers Road to a southwest cul-de-sac 0.09 mi. Brandemuuill - Arrowood {Aug. ~.! ~S~) Arrowood Lane - From Bandyridge Parkway to Arrowood Roa~ 0.03 mi. Arrowood Road - From 0.05 mile east of Arrowood Lane to a loop west of Arrowood Lane 0.21 mi. Arrowood Court - From Arrowood Road to a north cul-de-sac 0.06 mi. Brandermill - ~arrison Place (Aug. 23, 1985) Garrison Place Drive - From Sandyridge Parkway to a northeast cul-de-sac 0.20 mi. Garrison Place Terrace - ~rom Garrison Place Drive to a northwest oul-de-sac 0.05 mi. Garrison Place Court - From Garrison Place Drive to a northwest cul-de-sac 0.05 mi. Garrison Place Road - From Garrison Place Drive to a north cul-de-sac 0.08 mi. Brandermill - Tanglebrook (Aug. 23, 1985) Tan~lebrook Road - From Sandyridge Parkway to a south cul-de-sac 0.18 mi. Brandermill - Copper Hill (Au~. 23, 1905) Copper Hill Road - From Sandyridge Parkway to a northwesb cul-de-sac 0.14 mi. Copper Hill Court - From Copper Hill Road to a south cul-de-sac 0.14 mi. Copper Hill Place - From Copper Hill Court to a northeast cul-de-sac 0.06 mi. Brandermill - Two Notch (Au~ 23, 1985) Two North Road - From Sandyridge Parkway to a northeast cul-de-sac 0.18 md. Two North Place - From TWO North Road tO a southeast cul-de-sac 0.13 mi. Two Notch Court - From Two North Road to a west cul-do-sae 0.07 mi. 10.H. ~X~CUT~V~ SESSION ~ On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board 85-701 went into Executive Session for consultation with legal counsel regarding Saylor versus Chesterfield County and Kennedy versus Williamson pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a} (2) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: 11. ADJOURNMENT On motion o~ Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adjourned at 9:40 p.m. until 9:00 a.m. on September 25, 1985. Vote: Unanimous Rich,'rd L. Hedrick County Administrator ~5-702