Loading...
05-24-1989 MinutesStaff An AttenUates: Mr. G. B. Applegate, Chairman Mr. C. F, C~rrin, Jr., Vice Chairman Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. Jesse J. May~ Mr. M. B. Sullivan Mr. Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator ~r. Martin Briley, ~arksting Manager Ms. Amy Davi~, Assr. to Co. Mrs. Doris DsBart, Asst. Co. A~in,~ Legis. Svcs. and In~erqovern. Affairs Ms. Joan Dolezal, Clerk to the Board Chief Robert Mr. Bradford S. Deputy Manag~mgn~ $~rvices Mr. Wfllia~ B, Kowell, Mr. Thomas E. Jacob~en~ Dir. of Planning M~. Mary Leu Lyle, Dir. of Accounting Mr. Robert Masd~n, Deputy Co, kdmin., Mr. Jacob ~. Mast, Jr. Nursiuq Home Ad, in. Mr~ R. J. ~cC=acken, Tran~p. Director Mr. Richard McBl~ish. Di~. of Env. Eng. ~rs. M. Arline ~cGuire, Treasurer's Office Attorney Mra. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of New~/Info~ Services Col. Joseph Pit%J~n, chief of Police Social Service~ Mr. Jay Stegmaier, D£r. of Budget Mr. M. D, Stith, Jr., Dir. of Utilities Mr. ~rederick Willis, Mr. Applegate cal!~d the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. Mr. Applegate i~troduced Reverend Wayne Mancari, ~astor Of the Cornerstone Church, who gave the invocation. 89-551 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FI, AG OF T~ UN'rTED STATES OF The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. On motion of Mr, Mayes, seoonded by Mr. Currin, approved the minutes of May 10, 1989, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous the Board 4. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S CO~ENTS Mr. Ramsey stated an office paper recycling program is being implemented in the County government complex on July 10, 1989 with the Weyerhaeuser Paper Company, the revenues from the sale of said recycled paper being made available to the ~mployee~ Association. 5. BOARD COMMITT~ R~ORTS Mr. Danle'l stated he attended the Virginia Association of Counties Executive Board meeting at which there was discussion regarding the Chesapeake Bay Act and its impact on/legal ramifications of said-Act a~ it affects Chesterfield County, developers, the State, etc,, and ~ugge~ted ~taff contact Roanoke. County regardinq their successful Waste Management Collection System to determine what procedures are being followed that may be applicable to Chesterfield. Mr. Maye$ reported he attended a meetinq of the Education Committee of the Council on Information Management at which a workshop was conducted involving William and Mary, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Virginia Commonwealth University and the Richmond Regional solid Waste Task Force. Mr. Sullivan reported he attended meetings of ~he Richmond Regional Planning District Commission and the Lake Genito Committee and visited Service America, a division of a regional food service company which is located in the County, with representatives from a mental health agency to discuss the initiation of an enclave to provide meaningful work to physically and/or mentally handicapped individuals. He expressed appreciation to all those individuals for the many cards, well wishes and prayers conveyed to his wife during her recent surgery. Mr. Currin stated he attended the Richmond Regional Solid Waste Task Force meeting at which there wa~ discussion relative to the formation of an authority, with participation by all jurisdictions which he felt would be beneficial. Mr. Applegate stated he participated in the 60th Anniversary ceremony of the DuPont Spruance Plant, which organization he felt was a very successful partner of the County and to whom he expressed %he County's wishes for future prosperity; and stated he also participated in the ribbon-cutting ceremony at the Richmond International Airport for the opening of a third 35,000 square ioof cargo building which will house a new United States post office facility. P~QUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION.,.EMERGENCY ADDITIONS CHANGES IN -r~ORDEROF PRESENTATION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board added Item ll.D.3., Appropriation of Route 60/147 Drainage District 89-552 Funds; and adopted the agenda, as ai~nded. Vote~ Uaanim0us 7. RESOLUTIONS AND S~ECIAL R~CO~NITIONS 7.A. MAJOR MASON T. CHALKLEY, POLICE DEPARTMENT 0n motion of the Board, th~ ~ollowlng resolution was adopted: WH~A~, M~jor ~ason T. Chalkley will retire from Police Department~ Chesterfield County~ on June 1, 1989; and WHE~AS, ~ajor Chalkley ha~ provided thirty-three year~ of quality ~rvice to the citlz~ns of Chesterfield County; and W~E~A~, Chesterfield County a~d the Board of Supervisors will mi~ Ma~or Chalkley~$ ~iligent service; and WHE~AS, Ma~or Chalkley continued his fo~al education during his ~mplo~ent, achieving ho~h ~achelor and Master Deqree~ of Science in th~ Administration of Criminal n~erouu iuderai grunts which pa~ed the way for the Depart- meat's s~a~e of ~he art co~unlcatlon~ and ~omputerized management ~y~t~m, of which, th~ ~OftWare is now nationally marketed as a model automated, management system for law NOW, THE~FO~ BE IT ~SOLV~D, that the County Board of Supervisors publicly recognize~ Major MaCon T. Chalkley and ~xten~ on ~$h~lf of its members and the citizens 0f Chesterfield County their appreciation for his service to the County. ~D, B~ TT FURTHER ~SOLVED~ that ~ =Opy of this ~ion be presented to Major Chalkley and that this r~solution pe~anently recorded ~ong the papers of this Boar~ of Super- vi~ors o~ Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimou~ Jefferson Cup to Maids Chalkley, wished him well in MINNIE J. DUKES, LUCY CORR NURPING HOME On motion of the Bear~, the following resolution WaS adopted: WBEREAS~ M~. Minnie J. Dukes will retire from the Nuxsing ~ome, Chesterfield County, on June 1~ 1989~ and WHEREAS, Ms. Dukes has provided nineteen year~ of quality service tu the citizens of Chesterfield County; and W]qEREAS, Chesterfield County and th~ Board of ~upezvisors ~ill mis~ MS. Duke's diligent ssrvice; an~ WHEREAS, employed in Xarch of 1970, she wa~ among the first staff members employed by the n~w Chesterfield County Nur~in~ Hume. M~. Dukes, as Dietary ~upervisor, was respons- ible for the opening and organization of the Dietary Depart- ment. From this beginning to the present she has always maintained the h~ghe~t Of dietary standards and has receive~ high marks during inspections. However~ her real strength ha~ been in h~r caring attitude for the residents and in always making every ~ffort to see that the residents' needs are met. Many times this m~an~ preparing a special meal for' an 89-553 individual or preparing those special home cooked items not found in %he diet manual. She has consistently earried out her responsibilities in an Outstanding, dedicated manner. Her own high standards relating to job performance were manifested in the excellent quality of service that she provided. Honest, trustworthy and loyal to the Nursing Home, its residents and staff, she represents all the "caring" characteristics of a facility that "cares." She is an outstanding example of a person who gives fully of herself for the benefit of her fellow human beings. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Ms. Minnie J. Dukes and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for her service to the County. AND, BE IT FURTEER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolu- tion he presented to Ms. Dukes and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papere of this Hoard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Mr. AlmPlegate presented the ~xecuted resolution to Ms. Dukes and wished h~r well in her retirement endeavors. 7.C. GOVERNMENT STUDENTS OF THOMAS DALE HIGH SCHOOL REpRESENT- ING CHHST~RFI~LD AT NAT~0NAL COMP~T~T~ON ON C0~$T~TUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WEEREAS, Twenty-seven honor students of Thomas Dale High School earned the right to represent the local district in statewide competition; and WHEREAS, These students competing with students from eight regions in Virginia won the right to represent the Commonwealth in the Second Annual Final~ of the National Bicentennial Competition on ~he Constitution and ~ill of Rights in Washington, D. C.; and WHeReAS, ~his hone: represents many h0u~s of research and study. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED~ that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors commends these students for their diligence in learning of our heritage, £~r the knowledge they gained On ou~ Constitution, for the debating skills they dieplayed in these aohievement~ and for the honor they brought to Chesterfield County Schools. .~ND, B~ IT ~URT~ER RESOtVED, that the Board in coK~ending these students expresses hope for thei~ sustained interest in our Nation and extends best wishes for their ~ucce~s in future endeavors. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Currin oommended the honor government students of Thomas Dale High School for their significant achievement and presented the executed resolution to Ms. Lee Chase, who accepted the resolution on behalf of the students. 7.D. SPONSOR OF THE 1989 MAY FEST On motion of the Board, the Beard accepted a $630 donation from the Holiday Inn-Chester to the Parks and Recreation Fund for use in the 1989 ~ay Feet and adopted the following resolution: 89-554 WHeReAS, The Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department functions co Dc~itively effect the quality of life in ChestErfield County; and WHEREAS, The provision of high-quality special events represents an important means of achieving thi~ function; and WHiP, AS, The ~'1989 May F~Zt'~ was m well attended, family oriented event f~aturing a variety of wholesome recreational activities; and WHEREAS, The event provided an opportunity for involvement and fund raising by the =non Civic Association and the Encn Athletic Association; and W~EREAS, Any money raised i~ returned to the community through Civic Association support of the Bensley-Bermuda Rescue S~uad, the ~non N~ighborhood Watch and th~ Enon Fire b~p~rt- meat; and WS~R~AS, Holiday !nn-che~ter provided significant support for this co~unity-wlde euent. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT BE~O~V~D, that the chesterfield County Board nf Supervisors doe~ hereby recognize Holiday Inn-Chester for it~ contribution to the citizens of Cheater- field County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED/ that the Chesterfield County tion and gratitude to ~oliday Inn-Che~ter fo~ its generosity, goodwill and community concern. Vote~ Unanimous ~r. Currin ~e~en%sd the executed resolution to Mr. Berkley ~aCChews of ~he ~cliday Inn-Chester an~ expre~aed appreciation for their participation in the May Feet event. Qn motion of the Board, ~he Beard accepted a $20~0 donation to the Parks and Recreation Fund for use in the 19~9 ~oul~ere Family Concer~ ~rie~ aad adopted the ~ollowlng resolution: WHEREAS, Mu~iu is a cultural opportunity which ahould be availabl~ to all citizens of the County; and WHEREAS, The Boulders Family Concert ~erlee, sponsoxed by the ~arks and Keereation Department~ is an avenue co this pursuit; and WHEREAS, The financial eontrlbutiens of F. N. Thompson, Inc. and Csnlt Mortgage ~ankinq have made attendance at this concert s~ries free for the public. KeW, TH~R~FCR~ RE IT RESOLVED, tb~t the chesterfield County Board o~ Supervisors doae hereby recognize F. N. Thompson, Ins, and Cenkt Mortgage Banking ~or their generous donations toward the COncert ~eries. AND~ BE IT FURTBHR RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervinor~ does hereby express its appreciation and gratitude to these memberu of the corporate community for their interest in and contribution toward the quality of life in Chesterfield County. Vote~ Unanimous 89-555 Mr. Applegate presented the executed resolution to Mr. Mark Kittrell, representing Cenit Mortage Banking, and Mr. David Caras~ ~arks and Recreation Department etaff member, who accepted on behalf of Mr. Skip Hilderbrand of F.N. Thompson, and expressed appreciation for their participation in the 1989 Boulders Family Concert Series. 7.F. CHESTERFIELD ECONOM~C ADVlSQR¥ COU~CI~ On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County Economic Advisory Council was created in September, 1987 by the $oard of Supervisor~; and WS~R~AS, The objectives of the Economic Advisory Council included lobbying for legislation on behalf of the County's interest, acting as ambassadors to companies who are contempla- ting a location in Chesterfield County and to provide advice and recommendations on economic issues affecting the County; and WHEREAS, The Economic Advisory Council has well served the economic development program for Chesterfield County on behalf of its citizens; and WHEREAS, The members of the Economic Advisory Council have unselfishly donated and devoted their time and efforts on behalf of the County; and WHEREAS, The members of the Economic Advisory Council have displayed their strong commitment to Chesterfield County for the continued support of ~ound economic growth for the County as witnessed by the business community, the County Administra- tion and the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, It is the desire of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors to recognize the members of the Economic Advisory Council for their willingness to s~rve in the best interest of the County's economic well being. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Eoard of Super- visors publicly states its sincere appreciation to the members of the Economic Advisory Council for their exemplary volunteer services and their contributions to the County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented the executed resolution to Mr. Martin Briley, Marketing Manger for the County Economic Development Department, who was present. 8. ~AP~NGB OF CITIZENS ON UNSCNEDULED ~ATTE~S O~ (U~AiMS There were no hearings of citizens on unscheduled matters or claims. 9.A. SET A PUBLIC MEARING DATE TO CONSIDER TWO REFERENDUM QUES- TIONS TO AMEND THE COUNTY CHARTER After some discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayer, reeolved that the Board table the setting of a public hearing to eon~ider two referendum questions to amend the County Charter until April 1, 1990, to permit sufficient time for further legislative study of the details/ramifications of impact fees. Vote: Unanimous 89-556 It was noted a work session would be held to discu~ cash proffers on June 14, 1989. APPOINTMENTS - CAPITAL AREA AGENCY ON AGING on motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board appointed ~ra. Yvstte Ridley to serve on the Board of Directors of the Capital Area Agency on Aging, whose term is effective July 1, 1989 and will expire June 30, 1992. Votes Unanimous 10.A. AN ORDINAbICE TO 53~D CMA~T~R lO OF ~BE CODE OF TEE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELDt 1978, AS AM/SNDED BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE VI RELATING TO THE DiS~Q~AL OF D~BRI$ WASTE AND PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY Mr. Ham~er stated this date and time had b~en advertised for a public hearing to consider au ordinance to amend Chapter 10 ~ fhe Count~ Code relating to the disposal of debris waste and providing ~or a penalty, Mr. Dan Slosh of McGuire, Woods, ~at=le and Sooth, rspresentlng the Licensed Chesterfield Landfill Association, voiced ~uppo~t ~f %he proposed ~anifesa System but stated the Landfill to the problem which they feel i~ ~ere stringent. Mr. Mlks Bilthuis, representing the Vifginla Waste Industries Associa- tion, voiced support in principle for the position recommended by County stuff for the proposed Debris Manifest System as they felt the primary responsibility for disposal of said waste should be placed with the generator not th~ h~uler. suqgeeeed tAe establishment of a special oo~uuittee comprised of representatives of ail industries affected by tho proposal to como ~ack with a compromise solution tha~ would be acceptable to all. Mr. Tim ~e×ton, a resident of Reedy Mill Subdivision, voiced support for the proposed Manifest System as he felt it unfair for individuals to bear the financial expense for removal u~ other's deliberate, illegal d~pin9 on private property. Mr. George Beadles supported going forward with action at this time to implement this syste~n as it had been under di~ou~nion for a lengthy period of tLme and that if the matter were to be defeated to allo~ further input from concerned ~ndustrie~ that i~ only bs for ~hirty days. Mr. James Bush stated what ia needed is enforcement of existing law~, no~ new ones, to eliminate illegal dumping of debris in the County and that there should be Stringent fines on all individuals found to be in violation of these laws. Mr. Paul Robbins, operator/part owner of the Quells Landfill, expressed concerns than the builders, individuals who pay a con=rector a fair price to dispose of debris, cannot compete against developer$ who own land and dump on that land; that he has never seen a landfill substantially fined, cleaned up or moved; that legal, opened landfills are no= being utilized; that illegal dumping occurs at night on property not stated he felt the County landfill in~pectors are doinq a very good ~ob; stated he felt the Manifest System would provide the mechanism whereby enforcement of regulations San be accomplished; and that there ar~ three legal landfills in Oporatlon whose business ~s declining daily because they net being p~operly utilized. Mr. Pat Bows read a statement to the Board from the licensed landfill owner~, ~esentad u slide presentation of various sites within the County wher~ illegal dumping has occurred and voiced support ~or the proposed Manifest System. Mr. Mike Tart, representing the ~oms ~uilders Association of Richmond ~BBAR)~ stated the HBAR acknowledges that u critical problem does exist and that action needs to be E9-557 taken 2o eliminate illegal dumping, that the HBAR supports equitable methods of proper waste disposal but feels that the current Article VI does not sufficiently solve the problem and does not address the proper perpetrators of illegal dumping. He suggested the ordinance be strengthened, stated the problem of illegal d~mping is a hauling not a source generator problem, and, therefore, the regulatory methods proposed in Article VI will not solve the problem. Me state~ that it is unrealistic to expect the homebuildcrs' industry to police the problem. He r~cor~mended that a committee be appointed comprised of a Board member, a County Attorney, a member of the hauling industry and the landfill operators as well as a member of the HBAR and recommended adoption of the HBAR's modified program for proper waste disposal. Mr. Brian Bunieva voiced support for the proposed ordinance and commended staff for their efforts. Mr. $ohn Dyke, President of Endicott Construction, voiced support for the modified Manifest System as proposed for the MomeBuilders Association of Richmond, stated there are other substantial sources of waste in the County other than developers and haulers that should be regulated by such an ordinance. He stated there should be regional cooperation on management and enforcement with neighboring jurisdictions in an effort to eliminate the problem and that the matter be deferred until a more workable system can be derived. There being no further citizen comment, the public hearing was closed. Discussion, q~estions ' and comments ensued relative to out-of-County legal landfill epcratlons, documentation by affixed cramp number/quantity of loads being dumped at landfills, verification of proper documentation by State Police of load~ being hauled, enforcement of methods for eliminating illegal dumping, regulation of landfill owners who receive the debris, the type fines impesed on those individuals determined to be illegally dumping waste, recordkeaping procedures, whether or not the safe disposal of waste is a health, safety and welfare problem and who is ultimately responsible, the hiring of additional staff, the establishment of a committee to further study the proposal, etc. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the safe disposal of waste was a multifaceted problem; given the existing circumstances, the current proposal was not perfect but it was the best method available at the present time; and ~uqge~ted that the Board move forward with the recommended ordinance and establish a co~ittee that could determine if and when revision~ may be necessary. Mr. Mayas stated he felt the subject proposal was the most viable method available at this time; expressed concern that the responsibility continues to be shifted from One group to another; and stated more progress could be made toward solving the problem if it were addressed as a public health and safety problem rather than attempting to resolve it using a "band aid" approach and shifting responsibility. Be stated he hoped that in developing the document it was coordinated with surrounding oo~munities and members of the development and business co--unities; however, even though the proposal is a "band aid" approach to the problem, he felt it better than nothing and he would support it because it would so clutter up the Court System that perhaps OUt of it some direction would surface as to how to eolve the problem. Nr. Applegate re£ercnced a letter from Mr. Mike Pierce and Mr. Russ Parker that recommended the hiring of additional staff to be funded from additional fees added to the building permits as their contribution to the elimination of illegal dumping and closing down of illegal sites, establishment of a committee to continue to study the issue; stated the Board has no control of General District Court decisions in these matters but that the only solution in this instance would be to make the judges 89-558 aware of the circumstances which he would support; and request- ed clarification of the HBAE reeo~c~endation relative to builder/developer recordation criteria for hauler of waste being related to revocation of occupancy permits; etc. Hr. sullivan stated he felt the proposal was flawed, cumbersome and would not achieve its purpose; stated he £clt inspectors were needed, that program of COunty policing/enforcement needed to b~ forward more stringently, some consideration should be given te lop, luting the illegal dumping by homeowners as well as others previously cited in the testimony; and that he would ~uggeSt th~ matter be deferred in order to appoint a committee to further study the proposal with input from all concerned to ob%sin a mere equitable, reasonable, workable program. ~r. Currin stated he concurred with the concept of the proposal but expressed concerns regarding the impact this proposal wo~ld hays on County citizens while no one in neighboring jurisdictions were being re,luted. After fur%her discussion, Mr. Sullivan made a motion to defer consideration of. an ordinance to amend the County code adding a new Article VI relating to the disposal of Debris Waste until June 28, 1989, with written notification to the Chief Judges to appris9 %hem o~ the importance of the existing the action under consideration and its importance fo~ the health and safety of County citizens; that neighboring jurisdictions be apprised o~ the current action and its imminent impact, and tho establishment of a committee comprised cf representatives of all industries affected by the proposal to come back with a compromise solution that would be acceptable to all. There was no second. Mr. Applegate ~tated ~he motion failed for lack of a second. ~r. Daniel suggested the motion be amended to adopt thc proposed ordinance with t~e inclusion of written notification to the Chief Judges to apprise them of thc importance of the existing eirc~msfances~ the action under consideration and its importance for the health and salcty of County citisens; that neighboring jurisdictions be apprised of the current action and i~s imminent impact, thc establishment of a committee comprised of representatives of all industries affected to further study thc proposal and como back with a compromise solution that would be acceptabl% to all; that within 9 months that a r~port be provided ~o the Sound from staff to review the me~its/d~its Of t~he proposal with r~comn~ndatien$ for strengthening it as well as addressing the problems with the haulers and closing down illegal landfills a~d other illegal dumping sites; and co appropriate $115,000 from the revenue generated from Debris Landfill Tipping ~ee ~$$ fee/trust load) fo~ the operatlon/~dmlnimtration of said program. On motion o~ Hr. Sullivan~ seconded by Mr. Mayea, the Board directed staff to pro~ide written notlflcatien %o the Chief Judges to apprise them of the importance of the e~isting neighboring jurisdictions be apprised of the current action and of representatives of all industries affected to ~uzther s=udy would be acseptable to all; that within 9 months that a report me,its/demerits of ~he p~oposa! w~th recommendations for haulers and closing down illegal landfills and other illegal dumping sites; and appropriated $115,000 from the revenue generated from the Debris Landfill Tipping Fee ($5 fee/truck load), with funding in the amount of $26,000, Building Inspections for on~ position; $85~000~ Environmental $4,000, Fund Balance) for tho operation/administration of said program in F¥-90; and adopted the following ordinance: ~N ORDINANCE TO AMEND C~%i~R 10 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ~usSTEHEIRLD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A N~W ARTICLE ~T ~.~TING TO TRE DISPOSAL OF DEBRIS ~ASTE AND P~OVIDING FOR A pENALTY BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1} The Chapter 10 of the Code of the County of Chester- field, 1978, as amended, is hereby amended by adding a new Ar--~le VI as fellows: Article VI. Disposal of Debris Waste Sec. 10-30. Definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance the following tsrms shall be defined as follows: (a) "Approved debris waste landfill" shall mean (1) a debris waste landfill located within the county which meet the standards of the county's Sitinq and Operational Standards for Debris ~nndfills in Chesterfield County Debris Disposal St_~, or (2) a debris waste landfill located outside of the county which has been approved and which has a valid license issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia. (b) "Debris waste" shall mean (1) stumps, wood, brush and leaves from land clearing OperationS; (2) l~mber, wire, sheet- rook, brick, shinglea, glass, pipe, concrete, metal and plastics from construction operations; and (3) building debris produced from the demolition of structures and their founda- tions. (c) "Debris waste landfill" shall msan any landfill which receives debris waste. (d) "Permit holder" shall mean the holder of a valid and unrevoked debris waste disposal permit. Sec. 10-31. Debris waste disposal permit - required. (a) Land-clearin~ activity. No person shall engage in land clearing activity or remove debris waste generated from such land clearing activity un{il he shall first have obtained and shall have in force a debris waste disposal permit from the county. Any person who is required to obtain a land disturb- anee permit pursuant to Chapter 7.2 of this Code, must obtain a debris waste disposal permit before he will be issued a land disturbance permit. (b) Building and demolition activity. No person shall engage in any building or demolition activity for which a building permit is required or remove debris waste generated from such activity until he shall first have obtained and ~hall have in force a debris waste disposal permit from the county. Any person who applies for a building permit must obtain a debris waste disposal permit before he will be issued a build- ing permit. (c) A debris waste disposal permit issued to a permit holder may not be assigned or conveyed to any other person. Sec. 10-32. Debris waste disposal permit - conditions. The following conditions are imposed on every person who holds a debris waste disposal permit: 89-560 holde~ applies for a land cl~ar~n~ or building permit, or prior to removing or having removed any debris waste from a parcel Of Dr0perty, whichever oc0ure first, the permit holder shall provide to the County a good faith estimate of the vol%t~e of debris waste he expects to be removed from the parcel. Such estimate shall be made on a ~orm supplied by t_ha county. (b) Debris waste disposal. The permit holder shall bs responsible for e~'~ing that all debri~ Waste which he removes or has removed from a parcel oi property is deposited in an approved debri~ waste landfill or disposed of in accordance with a valid permit issued by ~he State Air Pollution Control Board. (c) Presentation of authenticated invoice~. Upon. comple- tion of any land clearing, building or ~molitien activity, ~e ~ermit hotd~r shall present to the county ~u~henticate~ activity was ~eposlted in an approved debris waste landfill or Sec. 10-33. Authentication of debris waste di's~osal. (a) The county shall supply authentication stamps to each approved debris waste landfill upon the request cf the owner or operator of such landfill. The owner ur operator cf such landfill shall pay the county $5.0~ for each authentication stamp supplied to the landfill by t_he county. (b) The removal of each lead of debris waste ~rom a parcel of property shall be documented by a disposal invoiTe the form of which shall be approved by the eounty~ (c) Upon disposal of a load of debris waste in an approved debris waste landfill, the landfill operator shall affix an authentication stamp to the disposal invoice. {d) Disposal invoices with ~uthentication Stamps affixed shall be kept b~ the permit holder and presented to th~ County in accordance with Section Sec. 10-34. Revocation of debris waste disposal permit. (a) Any debris waste disposal permit issued under this article ~hall b~ reVOked upon the occurrence cf one or more of the following events~ (1) the v~01atlo~ by the permit holder of the Conditions of his permit; (2} the violation by the permit holder of any provisions of this article; (3} failure of the pa~it holder to preeen~ authenticated invoices, or evidence of disposal pursuant to a valid State Air Pollution Control Board permit, documenting debris waste disposal which conform, in terms of volt~e~ with the permit holder's debris wast= disposal estimate submitted pursuant to S~ctiOn 10-~2(a)~ provide~, however, that if the authenticated invoices or other evidence document proper disposal of ~t least 7~% of the volume of debris waste estimated under Section 10-32(a), subject to revocation under ~.his subsection (b) No person whose debris waste disposal per, it has been revoked shall be issued a land clearing pe~it or m building pprmit until his d~brls waste ~isposal permit has been reissued by the county. 89-561 (c) Upon payment to the county of a reissuance fee of five hundred dollars ($500.00), the county will reissue a previously revoked debris waste diepoeal permit; provided, however, the county shall not reissue any debris waste disposal permit which has previously been revoked twice. Sec. 10-35. Stop work order, In addition to the other remedies provided in this article, the county may issue a stop work order to any person in violation of the provisions of this article. The issuance of a stop work order shall p~event the person to whom the order is issued from (a) performing, or having performed, any activity which generates debris waste; (b) removing, or having removed, any debri~ waste from property: and (c) engaging in any other activity prohibited by the terms of the order. Violation cf the terms of a stop work order shall subject the violator to the penalty provided in Section 10-36. Sec. 10-36. Appe~~. Any person aggrieved by -a decision to revoke his debris waste disposal permit or by a stop work order may appeal the revocation decision or stop work order to an appeals board of three county citizens selected by the board of supervisors. A person who desires to appeal a permit revocation decision or a stop work order must notify the county administrator of his intent to appeal such decision or order within five (5) calendar days from the date of the decision or order. All proceedings before the appeals board shall be conducted in conformance with the rule~ of pr0eedure governing hearing~ before the county's personnel appeals board. The only issue which the appeals board shall decide is whether the decision to revoke a permit or issue a stop work order was within the scope of this article. During the pendency of an appeal the decision or order being appealed shall remain in full force and effect, The decision of the appeals board shall be final and binding. Sec. 10-37. Penalty. In addition to the other remedies provided in thi~ article, it shall be unlawful to violate any of the provisions of this article, and any person who violates any of the provi- sions of this article shall also be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Vote: Unanimous It was generally agreed to recess for two (2) minutes. 10.E. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTER- FIELD~ 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AiqD REENACTING SECTIONS 21.1-44, 21.1-47, 21.1-94, 21.1-97, 21.1-102~. 21.1-105, 21.1-110~ 21.1-113, 21.1-152, 21.1-155 AND 21.1-281 RELATING TO GROUP HOMES, GROUP CARE FACILITIES AND HALFWAY HOUSES Mr. Jacobsen stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Che~terfisld, 1978, a~ amended, relating to group homes, group care facilities and halfway houses and briefly explained the applicable changes. There was brief discussion relative to the maximum of only ~ix 89~562 physically, mentally or developmentally disabtsd individuals being housed in these type homes, development of a policy that can be administermd to ensure that such homes are equitably located County-wide, the scheduling of a work session on Junm 14~ 1989 to f~rther review the proposal, etc. On motion of ~r. Coffin, seconded by Mr. M~yes, the ~eard deferred the public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Connt~ Co~e relating to group h~mes, group cars facilities and halfway houses until June 14, 1989, at 7:0Q p.m. Delegate John G. DiekP, III stated thm Departmen~ and Doard of Social Services and the Virginia Adult Homes Association have several suggested umendments to language they would lik~ tu offer for inclusion in the proposed ordinance. Due to a previous County business commitment, ~r. Applegate excused himself from the meeting. 10.c. T~R BROHI~ITION OF ANY TRUC~ OR TRUCK A~D TRAILER OR SEMI-TRAILER COMBINATION EXCEPT A PICKUP OR PANEL TRUC~ HRON USING WINTERFI~LD ROAn ~ROUTE 7141PR0~ ROUTE 60 TO SALISBURY ROAD (ROUTE 902) AND SALISBURY ROAD FROM WINTER~I~LD ROAD TO RODIOUS ROAD IROuTE Mr. McCracken state~ this date and time had been advertised fur a public hearing to consider the restriction of through truck traffic on Winter,laid Road from Route 60 to Salisbury Road and salisbury Road from Winterfield Road to Rebious. Ms. Carolyn Powers, representing the Salisbury Homeowners Association, expressed concern relative to .there being reasonable alternate routing available which is engineered to a standard sufficient for through truck travel; stated that the termiDi of the proposed restriction is identical to the alternate routing; that the alternate routing does not create an undue hardship for trucks in reaching their that an informal survey condusted by ar~a residents indicates that any conumercial truck vehicle servicing this particular commercial area should be able to use the alternate routing; that the reads requested for restriction are functionally classified as col!ec~ers; ~ha: the character and/or frequency of the truck traffic on the routes proposed for restriction are not compatible with the affected residential areas~ that the engineering of thc roadway and the accident his=cry of the intersection of west salisbury and Winterfield Roads, with traffic accidents doubling, indicate the routes proposed for restriction are not ~ultable for truck traffic; that %he curvy nature and lack of side-shouldering or soft side-shouldering on Salisbury ~oad create major safety hazards; and that area residents, in conjunction with local policing agencies, can enforce ~ueh a through truck traffic restriction. Ms. Dale sarris, a resident of Salisbury Subdivision, read into the record and submitted for the Board's perusal petitions containing signatures of approximately eighty-three residents that support th9 proposed through tru~k traffic restriction. Mr. George Beadles; a resident of the Mafoaca Magi~teria! District, ~pressed concerns relatlva to the closing of too many county roads to truck traffic. ~e stated he felt the County should study ~ke entire County road system relative tu the closing the through truck traffic instead oi closing roads in a piece-meal fashion each t/me a group requested such action from the Board and ~ugge~t~d the County ~heuld consider forming its own ~ighway Department to deal with its road problems. ~9-563 Mr. Sullivan stated he did net agree with Mr. Beadles that the County should Or would want to own its own roads and suggested that the Board should include, as part of its legislative recommendations for th~ upcoming session, a request that Chesterfield County be givsn more authority in dealing with its roads. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has received requests ~rom citizen~ to restrict through truck traffic on Winterfield Road (Route 714) from Route 60 te Salisbury Road (Route 902) and Salisbury Road from Winterfield Road to Nobious Road (Route 711) by an truck or truck and trailer or semi-trailer combination except a pickup or panel trucks; and W~9~A$, the Board has conducted a public hearing on the question. NOW, THBRBFORH~ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to restrict through truck traffic on Winterfield Road from Route 60 to Salisbury Road and Salisbury Road from Winterfield Read to Robious Road. Ayes: Mr. Coffin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. BUSINESS ll.A. COUNTY FAIR P~LOCATION FUNDS ADVANCE On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the transfer of capital project funds in the amount of $40,000 from the Space Planning, Old Courthouse CIP (3A 1BN) to County Fair Site Preparation Project (3A 4EH) to fund the work necessary on the new County Fair site located across from L.C. Bird High School prior to July 1, 1989, with the understanding the funding will bo relnstatod to the 01d Courthouse Space Planning CIB account when the FYg0 funding is officially available. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. APPOINTMENTS ii.B.I. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. C~rrin, the Board nominated Mr. James A. Spencer, representing the Dale Magisterial District, and Mr. John W. Waddill, representing the Bermuda District, to serve on the Industrial Development Authority, whose formal appointments will be made on June 14, 1989. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. ll.B.2. SOCIAL S~RVICES BOARD On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board nominated Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr. to' serve on the Chesterfield County Social Services Board, whose formal appointment will be made on June 14, 1989. 89-564 Ayes~ Mr. Currln, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. Absent~ Mr. Apple~ate~ RICHMOND TRANSIT COMPANY BOARD OF DIRECTORS After a brief discussion relative to the cempe~ition of the BOard of Directors for the Greater Richmond Transit Company, Etc., it was on motion of Mr~ Daniel, ~econded by Mr. Sullivan, resolved that the Board dsier nomination of Directors to serve on the Greater Richmond Transit Company Board of Directors ~ntil Jun~ t4, 1989. Ayes: Mr. Cu~rin, Mr. Danimi, Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Apple~ate. ll.C.~. S~ATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with direetion~ from this Board, made report in writing UpOn his examination of Sturbridge Drive, Midlothlan Upon consideration whereof, and on ~otlon of M~. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Sullivan, it is resolved that Sturbxi4ge Drive, Midlothian District, be and it hereby public road. And b~ it further resolved, that the Virginia Depart~an: of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Sturbri~ge Drive, beglnnlnq at the inters~et£on with ~idlothian Turnpike, U.S. Rohte 60, and going northeasterly 0.19 mile to the intersectiun with Eobious Road, State Route 675. Thi~ request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of ~ransportation drainage This road sarv~s a~jacent con~erclal properties. And be it further resolved, [hat the Board of ~upervlsors guarantees to th~ Virginia Department s£ Transportation a variable width 60'-?0' right-of-way for this road. Sturbridqe Drive is recorded as follows: Dedication of Sturbridge Drive. Plat Book 5~, Pag~ R~, August Ayes; Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. ~ayee and ~r. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Appleqate. This day the County Environmental Enqineer~ in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Swamp Fox Road in North Rundred, Section D, Midlotkian District. Upon consideration whereof, a~d on motion o2 Mr. Daniel, secon~ by Mr. sullivan, it i~ resolved that Swamp Fox Road in ~orth Eundred, section D~ ~idlo~hian District, ~a and it hereby ~s established as a publi~ road. And be ~t further reselved~ that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Swamp Fox Road, beginning at the end of existing Swamp Fox Road, State Route 34~1, and goinq westerly 0.44 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. 89-565 This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage This road serves 14 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for this road. This section of North Hundred is recorded as follows: Section D. Plat Book 57, Page 68, June 30, 1987. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. This day the County Environs%entel Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of King's Lynn Road in Salisbury, Section F, Midlothian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, it is resolved that King's Lynn Road in Salisbury, Section F, Midlothian District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, King's Lynn Road, beginning at existing King's Lynn Road~ State Route 1010, and going southerly 0.19 mile to end at proposed King's Lynn Road, King's Lynn subdivi- sion. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage This road serves 6 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for this road. This section of Salisbury is recorded as follows: Section F. Plat Book 16, Page 30, February 23, 1968. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. This day the County Environmental Engineer, in a¢¢erdsnee with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination Q£ Third Branch Drive and Third Stanch Court in Candlelamp, Sections A & B, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, s~conded by Mr. Sullivan, it is resolved that Third Branch Drlvc and Third Branch Court in Candletamp, Sectlcns A & B, Metoaea District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into t2ae Secondary System, Third Branch Drive, beginning at the inter- section with Spring Run Road, State Route 654, and going southerly 0.09 mile to the intersection with Third Branch Court, then continuing southerly 0.11 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Third Branch Court, beginning at the inter~ section with Third Branch Drive and going easterly 0.08 mile, 89-566 then turning and going southeasterly 0.1I mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Thi~ request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight dietanee and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage These ros~s serve 28 lo~s. And ba it further resolved, that the Seard of supervisors guaranteee to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these reade. These sections o£ Candlelamp are recorded as follows: Section A. Plat Book 47~ Paqes 53 & 54~ October 12, 1984. Section B. Plat Book 47, Pages 8~, 64 & 8~, October 2~, 1984. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. This day the County Environm~Dtal ~ngineez, in accordance with directions ~rom thi~ ~a~d, made report in w~itlng upon his examination of Ab~o~'$ sill Way, Brim~iel~ Lane and BoMford Lane in Abbot'~ Mill, Section I, Clover ~ill District. Upon consideration whereof, and On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, it i~ resolved that Abbot~ Mill Way~ Brimfield Lane and Boxfomd Lane in AbDo%'$ Mill, Section Clover Eill Di~tric~, bs and they hereby are established as public read~. And be i~ further resolved, that the Uirginia Depas~men= of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary Symtem, Abbot's Mill Way, beginning at ~he inter- seoDion wit2] ~vergremn Eas~ Parkway, State Route 3970~ and going southeasterly 0.02 mile to the intersection Brimfield Lane, then continuing southeasterly 0.03 mile to the intersection with Boxford Lane~ then continuing 0.02 mile to end at proposed Abbot's Mill Way, Abbot's Mill, Section ~I; Brimfield Lane, beginning at the intersection with Abbo~'s Mill Way an~ ~oing southwesterly 0.08 mile, th~n turning and going westerly 0.04 mile to end in a oul-~e-sao; and Soxford Lane, beginning at the intersection with Abbot's Mill Way and going northeasterly 0.14 mile ~e end in cul-de-sac. This request is inoluslve of the ad~acen~ elope, eight distance and designahed Virginia Bepar~%en% of Transportation drainage This road serves 49 lot~. And be it further resolved~ hh&b the Board Of Supervisors guarantees ~o %he Uirginia Department O% Transportation a right-of-way fey all of these roads ex~ept Abbo~'s Mill Way which has ~ 68' ~ighL-ef-way. S~etion %. Plat Book 58~ Page 95, January 14, 1987. Ay~s~ Mr. Cuzrin~ Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayas and Mr. sullivan. Absent: Mr. A~legate. This day the County Environmental Engineer, ~n accordance with directions from this Board, mad~ ropor~ in writing upon hie examination ~f ~amlin Avenue, Hamlin Drive, Walters D~ive, Glen Oaks Drive and Glen Oak~ Cou~t in Glen Oaks, Section ~, Bermuda District. 89-567 Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, it is resolved that Hamlin Avenue, Hamlin Drive, Walters Drive, Glen Oaks Drive and Glen Oaks Court in Glen Oaks, Section 3, Bermuda District, be and they hereby are eetablished as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it h~r~by is requested to take into the Secondary System, Hamlin Avenue, beginning at the intersection with Chester Road, State Route 144, and going easterly 0.06 mile to end at the intersection with Bamlin Drive; Hamlin Drive, beginning at the intersection with Hamlin Avenue and going northerly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Walters Drive, then continuing northerly 0.06 mile to the intersection with Glen Oaks Drive, then continuing northerly 0.69 mile to tie into existing Hamlin Drive, State Route 3586; Walters Drive, beginning at the intersection with Hamlin Drive and going westerly 0.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Again Walters Drive, beginning at the intersection with Hamlin Drive and going easterly 0.06 mile, then turning and going northerly 0.07 mile to end at the intersection with Glen Oaks Drive; Glen Oaks Drive, beginning at the intersection with Hamlln Drive and going easterly 0.11 mile to the intersection with Walters Drive, then continuing easterly 0.05 mile, then turning and going northerly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Glen Oaks Court, then continuing northerly 0.12 mile to tie into e×i~ting Glen Oaks Drive, State Route 3585; and Glen Oaks Court, beginning at the intersection with Glen Oaks Drive and going easterly 0.05 mile to end in a temporary turnaround. Thi~ request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. This road serves 62 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these reads except Hamlin Avenue which has a 60' right-of-way. This section of Glen Oaks is recorded as follows: Section 3. Plat Book 54, Pages 16 & 17,' August 28, 19~6. Ayes: St. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. Absent= Mr. Applegate. 11.C.2. VIRGINIA HISTORICAL HIGHWAY MARKFR FOR MATTOAX On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, tho Board appropriated $750 from the Matoaca District Three Cent Road Fund for the installation of a virginia Historical Highway Marker for Mattoax, a historical landmark located along the Appomattox River two miles upstream from Petersburg, which was the home Of several late ~ight~onth and early nineteenth century political leaders. Ayes: Mr. Currln, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Maye$ and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. 11.C.3. ACC~PTANC~ OF C~ESAPEAKE BAY YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS FUNDS FOR WORK ALONG FALLING CR~ I~ ~0CKw00D PARK On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board adopted the following resolution: W~EI~EAS, the' Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, Division of Park~ and Recreation, has established a 89-568 YCC funds include the County of Ches=erfield; and WHEREAS, Ro~kwuod Park is located along Fatlinq Creek which flows into th~ James River which empties into the Youth Conssrv~tion Grant of $19,000 to employ youth durin~ the summer of 1989 for the purpose of working to stabilize the stream banks along Failing Creek ~t Reekwood Park and to 11.C.4. REQUEST FOR BINGO/RAFFLE PERMIT On motion of Mr. Daniel, seoonde~ by Mr. sullivan, the Board approved the request from the Chester Youth Sports Rooster~, Inc. for a raffle permit fur ~h~ calendar year 1989. Aye~ Mr. Coffin, Mr. Danlel, Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. Absent~ Mr. Applegate. ll.D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS ll.D.1. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVAL On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Sullivanz th~ Board approved the cost for a street light installation at 4400 Trcely Road, with fund~ in the amount of $259.~9 =o be expende~ from the Matoaca District Three Cent Road Fnnd. Ayes: Mr. Currln, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and M~. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. It.D.2. STREET LIGHT R~QUEST On motion Oi Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved obtaining cost estimate~ for the installation O~ a street light at the intersection of Biltmore Road and Wood Dale Road in Bermuda Magisterial District. Ayea= Mr. CuF~in, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayas ~n~ ~r. Sullivan. Ab$ont~ ~r. Apple9ate. ROUTE 60/147 DRAINAGE DISTRICT FUNDS On motion of Mr. Sullivan, e~ccnded by Mr. Currin~ the Hoard eppropriat=d $2,200 from the unappropriated ROUte 60/147 D~ainage District Account to prepare additional plans and ~p~cifieation$ for a drainage improvement at the end of Bromwich Court. Ayes: ~r. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr_ Applegat~. 89-569 ll.B. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS ll.R.1. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING COMEZN~D SEWER OV~RFLOW CONTROLS On motion of Mr. Maycs, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, The localities in the Richmond Metropolitan area have sewer systems which include sewers that convey combined sanitary sewerage and stormwater and which experience combined sewer overflows of untreated sanitary sewage and sto~mwater during and immediately following precipitation evente; and WHEREAS, Combined sewer overflows are a long-standing condition of older cities; and WHEREAS, Design of combined sewer overflow contrcle cannot be generalized, but is complex and must be based on site- specific studies of sewer systems, the receiving Waters and other factors; and WHEREAS, Localities with combined sewer overflow systems, the states and the Nation will benefit from improved sewer overflow controls; and WHEREAS, The cost of implementing combined sewer overflow controls is beyond the financial capabilities of most localities that have combined overflow systems; and WHEREAS, The United States ~nvironmental Protection Agency is considering adoption of a national combined sewer over~low control policy; and WHEREAS, Some localities have virtually exhausted their local financial resources addre~slng their combined sewer overflow systems and other wastewater-related problems. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Chesterfield County Hoard of Supervisors supports Richmond City's efforts to obtain Federal funding to help 10¢allties underwrite the cost of resolving combined sewer overflow proble~ms. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. ll.E.2. RIG~T-OF-WAY ITEMS ll.E.2.a. AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE A WATER EASEMENT FOR EOPKINS ROAD WIDENING PROJECT BY EMINENT DOMAIN ACROSS PROPERTY OF AMOCO 0IL COMPANY On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board authorised the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain against the following property owner(s) if the amount as set opposite their hemes is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owner(s) by registered mail on May 25, 1989 of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said eminent domain. This action is on an emergency basis and the C~unty intends to e~ercise immediate right of entry, pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virpinia. Amoco Oil Co. Tax Map 66-08 (1) Parcel 15 $1,040 Ayes: Mr. Currln, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. 89-570 ll.E.2.b. AUTHORIZATION FOR COUNTY TO FILE AN ACTION TO DECLARF On motion cf Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved end authorized the County Attorney to initiate action for a declaratory judgment that the public ha[] a presDriptive. easement to use Thompson Avenue. Ayes: Mr. Curfin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Maye~ and Mr. Sullivan. Absent~ Mr. Applegate. ll.E.3. CONSENT ITFM~ ll.E.3,a. ACC~PTAKCF 0F DEBQ OF DEDICATION ALONG BELLW00D ROAD FROM WAKe CHEMICALS, USA; INC. On motion of Mr. Daniel~ s~conded by Mr. M&yes~ the HOard approved and authorized the County Aclmi~is~ra~or to execute the necessary deed of dedication accepting, on behalf cf the County, the conveyance of a 5' strip of land along Eellweod Read from WAKO Chemicals U~A, Inc., A Texas Corporation. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayee and Mr. Sullivan. Ab~snt~ Mr. ~pp~ega~e. ll.E.3.b, APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 3 FOR CONTRACT S$6-7~C, MA~OLE/$ANITARY 8E~ER t~HABILITATION On motion of ~r. Daniel, secondsd by Mr. ~ayes, the Hoard approved Change Or,er Number 3 fo~ contract S~-70C for replaeem~nt/rehabil£tatien u£ manholes and sanitary sewer for ~ectione of the Bailey Bridge GraVity Sanitary Sewer, the total COSt of ~aid change urger being $19,382.58; and further authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents fox said change order. (It is noted f~nds are available in the Ca~ital Improvement Budget.) Ayes: ~r. Currin, Mr, Daniel, Mr. Hayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. ll.E+3.c. APPROVAL OF QUITCLAIM DEED FOR A 16 FOOT $=W=~ EASE- MENT FOR JERRY L.CAMFBBLL AND CHESTERFIELD COURT ASSOCIATES On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Hr. ~ayes, ~hs Board authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County AdministratOr to execute a Quitclaim D~ed for a 16 foot Sewer ea[ement for Jerry L. Campbell and Chesterfield Court A~seclates~ provided th~ ~rant~e (devsloper) submits sewer plans to the County Utilities Department and provide~ public sewer service to etch building proposed on this property. Ayes: Mr. Ceftin, Mr. Daniel, ~r. Hayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Apple~ate. ll,B.~.d. AWARD CONTtq~CT EQR SLUDGE HANDLING FACILITIES AT SWIFT CRDB~ WATER PLANT On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Hayes, the Board awarded Con~ract Humber 81-'~001 for con[traction of sludge handling facilities at the Swift Cre~k Water Plant %0 the lowest bidder, $1aksmers Construction Corporation, in the amount of $63~,50~; authorized th~ County A~minist=ater to execute any necessary documents for said contract; transferred $632,500 from existing projects ~e fund project. (~.is noted funds are available in the Capital Budget due to savings on th~ Route ~O highway improvement project and the Genito Pump Station project.) 89-571 Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Apptegate. ll.E.3.e. APPROVAL TO REIMBURSE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANS- PORTATION FOR BETTERMENT WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH MOPKI~S ROAD ~IGHWAY IMPROV~MEN~ ~ROJECT On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board app~0ved and authorized the County A~ministrator to execute any necessary agreements with the Virginia Department of Transportation for the reimbursement of approximately $140,000 to the Department for the difference in oo~t between a 12" water llne and a 16" water line along Hopkins Road between Meadowdale Boulevard and Beulah Roa~ for betterment work in conjunction with the Hopkins Road Highway Improvement Project; and further transferred $140,000 from the Route 10 p~ojeot to the Capital Budget to fund said project to reflect this change in the scope of work. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. ll.E.3.f. APPROVAL OF REVISED AGREEMENT WITH VIRGINIA DEPART- MENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR ADJUSTMENT AND EXTPNSION OF UTILITIES ALONG ROUTE 10 THROUGH CHESTER On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to siqn a revised Agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation for the replacement and extension of water and wastewater lines along Route 10 through Chester, which revised agreement reflects the new prorated percentage~ which £~ for betterment cost only, and is in accordance with the latest legislation amending Section 33.1-56 of the Code of Vir~fa; and transferred funds avallable to other e×lstlng prelects to the Utility Capital Improvement Project Fund for the cost of the project. (It is noted a copy of sources and uses of funds for changes to the Utility Capital Improvement Plan are filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. ll.E.3.9. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG OLD COURTMOUSE ROAD FROM ROCKWOOD FOREST APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNER- SHIP On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to exacute the necessary deed of dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a strip of land containinq .328 acres along Old Courthouse Road from Rockwood Forest Apartments Limited Partnership. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent% Mr. Applegate. ll.E.3.h. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VACATION OF VISTAPOINT STUB ROAD On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date of July 26, 1989, at 9=00 a.m. for a public hearing to consider the vacation of a stub road located off the southern terminus of vistapoint Road and authorized the Department of Utilities to prepare an application and proceed with the process of vacation of Vistapoint Stub Road. 89-572 Ayes: Mr. C~rrin, Mr. Daniel, M~. Maye$ and Mx. Sullivan. Absent= Mr. ApDlegate. ll.~.3tl. ApPROV~L OF UTILITIE~ CONTP2%CT FOR OLD STAGE OENTER INDUSTRIAL PARK Mn. C~rr~n disclosed he the BOard that he owns property that will be served by the sewer line and will be financially contributinq to the cost of same, d~elare~ a conflict of interest pursuant ~o the Virginia Cemprehen~iv~ Conflict of Interest Act and excnssd himself from th~ meeting. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r, ~ayes, the Board approved the ,following Utillti~s contract and authorized the County Administrator to ~×ecut~ any necessary documents: 88-0300, Old Stage Center Industrial ~ark~ Developer~ Virginia L.A,D. Company Contractor: Castle Equipment Contract Cost~ Water - $ 16,865.00 Sewa~ - $1)6,321.55 Total - $153,186.55 Total ~stimate~ County Co~t: ~at~r - $ 6~7.O0 (Refund through connection fee~) Estimated Developer Cost~ Number of Connsctiuns: Future Co~a~ 55-2511-997 Ayes: Mr, Daniel, Mr. Maye~ and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr, Apple~ate en~ Nr. Curriu. Mr, Currin returned to the m~eting. ll.E.4. REPORTS Mr. Sale presented the Boa~d with a report on the developer water and ~ewer contrac~ executed by the County Administrator. ll,F. REPORTS Purchases and School Board Agenda. Mr. aamsey stated the Virginia Department of Transportation has ment of the following roads into and/or from the State Route 4251 (AEh~nberry COurt) - From Route 435~ Route 4352 (Bay ColOny Court) - From Route 4350 to southwest cul-de-sac 0.08 Mi. FIELDSTONE'- SECTION 2 Rout~ 3901 (Berrystone Road) - From 0.01 mile west Route 390Q to 0.05 mile we~t Route 5903 0.23 Mi. Route 3902 IStoneway Drive) - From Rout~ 3901 to south cul-de-sac 0.19 Mi. 89-573 ADDITIONS FIELDSTONE - SECTION 2 (continued) Route 3903 (Fall Harvest Drive) - From Route 3901 to north cul-de-sac LENGTH 0.14 Mi. G~EAT OAKS - SECTION 5 Route 3533 (Bexwood Drive) - From Route 3090 to 0.13 mile north Route 3090 0.13 Mi. HEAT~RRIDGE - SECTION 4 Route 3279 (Vickilee Court) - From Route 3276 to south cul-de-sac 0.14 Mi. HIDDEN VALLEY ESTATES - SECTION 8 Route 1671 (Sir Scott Drive) - From 0.02 mile east Route 1646 to Route 1600 Route 1600 (Sir Scott Terrace) - From 0.12 mile north Route 1671 to 0.10 mile south Route 1671 0.05 Mi. 0.22 Mi. GREAT OAKS - $~CTION 6 Route 3091 {Ridgerun Road) - From 0~03 mile west Route 3092 to 0.03 mile west Route 3094 0.16 Mi. Route 3094 (Timberun Road) - From 0.03 mile west Route 3092 to 0.04 mile south Route 3091 0.22 Mi. Route 3556 (Timberun Court) - From Route 3894 to south cul-de-sac 0.04 Mi. PENNW00D - SECTIONS 1 & 6 Route 2159 {Barkbridge Road) - From Route 2160 to 0.03 mile southwest Route 3437 0.34 Mi. Route 2855 (Valencia Road) - From 0.03 mile east Route 2860 to Route 2159 0.24 Mi. Route 3436 (Ball Cypress Road) - From Rout~ 2159 %o northwest cul-de-sac 0.15 Mi. Route 3437 (~oqswood Road) - From Route 2159 to northwest cul-de-sac 0.06 Mi. Route 3438 ITulip Oak Road) - From Route 2855 to 0.03 mile south Route 2855 0.03 Mi. Section 2 o~ new location Route 636; Project: 0636-020-203, C501 0.13 Mi. ABANDONMENT Section 1 of old location Route 636; Project: 0636-020-203, C501 LENGTH 0.15 Mi. ll.G. LUNCH The Board recessed at 12:30 p.m. to travel to the Sunset Cafe for lunch. Reconv~ning: 89-574 11.~. I%~QU~BT~ ~OR ~OBIL~ ~OME PERMITS 99SR0~18 In Bermuda Magisterial District, ~L~¥ ~. G~GOR~ rsgumsted renewal of Mobile Home Permit 84SR036 to park e mobil~ hom~ on property fronting the north llne of Willis ROad, at Par~s Avenue, and better known a~ 2402 Willis Road. Tax Map 82~5 (3) KingsLand Heights, Lot ~ (Sheet ~r. Jacobsen etate~ at its April 26, 1~89 meeting, based on complaint voiced d~ring the meeting, the Board deferred consideration of Case SeSRQ21O to permit staff to investigate ho~a but thai one accessory building would n~sd a variance, tha~ ~ere was no conclusiv~ evidence that th~ applicant operated ~ business from the home~ and that, although there an additional ps,anent-type living spans added to ~hs mobile hom~ it wa~ added in 1965 ~rior to the adoption o~ standard conditions for mobile h~es by the Board of Supervisors Oe%0ber~ 1981. He stated rather than requiring the applicant to remove the 1965 addition, staff teen--ended that Standard COnditioa 4 be amended. There was no opposition present. Mr. Currin stated he had discussed the matter with th~ th~ mobile home was located in an area designated by the Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan for general On motion of Mr. Currln, seconded Mr~ Maye$, the Soard approved Case ~9SR0218 for five {5) years, subject to 9tandard Conditions 1 through 3 and 5 through 7 an~ amended Standard Condition 4 as follows; t. The applicant ~hall be the OWner and occupant of the mobile home. 2. No lot or parcel may b~ :toted or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. 0nly one (~) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoninq district ~hall be complied with, except that no mobile home shai] be located closer than 20 fe~t to any existinq 4. No permanent-type living apaoe~ other than the existing space added in 1965, may be added on the mobile home. The mobile home shall be ~kirtad, but shall no= be placed on a permanent foundation. Use of the existing addition to the mobile home may be eontinUe~ during the renewal perlc~? however, such addition may not be enlarged, extended, recongkru~tedr ~ubstit~ted, or structurally altered. 5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted e Mobitu Bome Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official, This shall be d~ne prior to the installation or relocation of ~he mobile home. 7. Any violation of the above conditions shall be qronnds for revocation of the Mobile Bome Permit. 89-575 Vot~: Unanimous $95R0249 In Bermuda Magisterial District, HA]~NIL T/A OLD STAGE MOTOR LODGE requested renewal of Mobile Home Permit 83S134 to park a mobile home on property located approximately 320 feet off the south line of Ruffin Mill Road, from a point approximately 850 feet southeast of Woods Edge Road, and better known as 2201 Ruffin Mill Road. Tax Map 149-8 (t} Parcel 36 (Sheet 41). Mr. Jacobsen stated staff recommended approval of Case 89SN0249 subject to Standard Conditions 2 through 7 and modification of Standard Condition 1. Mr. Arish Rajada, representing the applicant, stated the recommended conditions wsru acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr, Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Soard approved Case 89SR0249 for seven (7) years, subject to Standard Conditions 2 through 7 and amended Btandard Condition 1 as follows: I. The mobile home shall be occupied by the manager or other employee of the 01d Stage Motor Lodge. 2. No lot or parcel may be rented Or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbackz, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. 4. NO additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of ths mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Bome Permit. Vote: 89SR0251 In Bermuda Magisterial District, FRANK AND RUBY MANG~M re- quested renewal of Mobile Home Permit 84SR086 to park a mobile home on property fronting the south line of Velda Road, ap- proximately 300 feet west of Jefferson Davis Highway, and better known as 2621 Velda Road. Tax Map 82-13 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 23). Mr. Jacobsen stated staff recommended approval of Case 89SR0251, subject to certain standard condition. Mr. and Mrs. Mangum stated the r~commended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. 89-576 On ~otio~ of Mr. C~rrin, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the hoard approved Casa 895R0251 i~r seven (7} years, subject to the following standard 0onditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile tome. '' Ne lot er parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home sitew nor shall a~ mcbil~ hone'be used for rental proper~y. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and otksr zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be co~plied with, except ~ha% no m©bil~ home shall be located clo~er than 20 feet to any existing 4. No additional p~rmanent-type living space may be added on=o e mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, ~hey shall be used. 6. UpOn being granted a ~obile Home P~r~i~, the applicant shall ~hen obtain the necessary permi~ from ~he Office of the Building Official. This shell b~ done prior to the ins%allatien o~ reloca~ien of the mobile hone. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation o~ ~he Mobile Home Permit. 89SK0252 In Bermuda Magisterial DiStrlct, ~X~ M. SI~IO~$ requested renewal of Mobile Bone Pmr~it 84~R087 to park a mobile home on property fronting the south line of Veldm Road, approximately 200 fee% west of ~ff~rson havis Mighway~ and bett~r known as 2~13 Velds Road. ~x Map 82-13 (11 Parcel ~5 {Sheet ~r. Jacobsen st~e~ staff recommended approval of Came 89SR0252, ~ubj~Ct to certain standard conditions. Mr. Currin ~tated th~ applicant was ill a~ could nok be prison%; however, h~ tad discussed this case with the applicant's son who indicated the recommended co,dj%ions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On ~otion oM Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. May~sw the ~oard approved Case ~9SR025~ for seven (7) years, subject to the following standard conditioner 1, The applicant shall be %he owner and occupant of the mobile hom~. 2, No lot or paro~l may be rsn~ed or lea~ed ~or use as mobile home site~ nor shall any mobile hom~ bm used for rental property. 0nly one (1) mobil~ home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and o~her zoning requirements of the applioable zonin9 dissric% shall be eo~pli~d with, except that no mobile home sh~ll be located closer ~han 20 feet to any existing $9-$77 4. NO additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Where public (County) watsr and/or sswer are available, they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobil~ Home Per, it, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous $9SR0256 In Bermuda Magisterial District, P.%LPH AND REBA JOYNER re- quested renewal of Mobile Home Permit 84SR089 to park a mobile home on property fronting the west line of Senate Street, approximately 30 feet north of Key Avenue, and better known as 7530 Senate Street. Tax Map 67-10 (3) Rayon Park, Block 7, Lots 5 through 10 (sheet 23). Mr. Jacobsen noted staff's field visit to the site revealed that additional living space had been added onto the rear of the mobile home and that research indicated the applibants received a building permit to enclose an existing deck in December, 1982. He stated that, ~vsn though the Board adopted the Standard Mobile Home Conditions in October, 1981, these conditions were first imposed on the subject mobile ho~e in 1984 when their 1979 Mobile ~oma Permit was renewed. stated staff recommended approval of Case 89SR0256, subject to certain standard conditions. Ms. Reba Joyner stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved Case 89SR0256 for seven (7) years, subject to Standard Conditions 1 through 3 and 5 through 7 and amended Standard Condition 4 as 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant o~ the mobile home. 2. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile homo be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile hems shall be permitted to be parksd on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. 4. NO additional permanent-type living space, other than the existing addition, may be added onto the mobile home. The mobile home ~hall be ~kirtsd, but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Use of the existing addition to the mobile home may be eontlnued during the renewal period; however, such addition may not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed~ substituted, or structurally altered. 5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. 89-578 Upon Being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain th~ necessary permit~ fro~ tho Office of the Buildinq Official. This shell be done prior to the installetion or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be ~rounds fo: revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. $95N0210 In Midlothian ~glsterial District, BASSE~ a CO~A~X re~u~ted rezening from Co--unity Business (B-2) to ~neral Business (~-3). A co~ercial complex is planned. ~hi~ request lies a 1.2 acre parcel fronting approx~ately 225 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, across fro~ POCO~O Drive. T~x Map 17-11 (1) Parcel 15 (Sheet 8). proffered conditions. Mr. Oliver Rudy, representing ~h~ applicant, stated the 0n motion o~ Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, ~he Board conditioa~: 1. Applicant proffers that it will not use the property for twenty f~t of any side lot line nor within g. Fa~ ~plement~ and machiD~ry sales, service, rental and repair establighments. facilities for congtruC%ion or repair, or for equi~ent. o. Utility trailer and t~uck rental. Fr~iqh~ fo~arding, packing and cratinq s. Co~ercial automobile parking. If the property is d~veloped for any use utilizing mai~ai~ed along Koutm ~O for all drivewaym servinq 89-579 fuel pumps. Within set~ack areas along Midlothian Turn- pike which are less than fifty (501 feet, a berm shall be installed. This berm shall be landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs. This landscaped berm shall not be within any sewer and/or water easements, unless approved by the Utilities Department. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. A detailed landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning De- partment for approval within thirty (30) days of rough clearing and grading. 3. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all paved areas. 4. The public wastewater system shall be used. 5. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be provided along Route 60 to provide an adequate right-turn lane. 6. Parking areas shall have at least five (5) square feet of interio~ landscaping for each space. Each landscaped area shall contain a minimum of fifty (50) square feet; shall have a min//~um dimension of at least five (5) feet; and shall include at least one (1) tree, having a clear trunk of at least five (5) feet. The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs, ground cover or other authorized landscaping material. The total nunzber of trees shall net be less than one (1) for each two hundred (200) square feet, or fraction thereof, of required interior landscaped area. Landscaped areas shall be located so as to divide and break up the expanse of paving. The area designated as required setbacks shall not be calculated as required landscape area. Conceptual plans depicting this require- ment shall be submitted to the ~lanning Department for approval ~n conjunction with site plan review. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within thirty (30) days of rough clearing and grading. 7. The architectural style of the building shall be sompati- bls with area development. 8. Signs shall comply with Emerging Growth Area standards for shopping centers and similar groups of buildings. (NOTE: Prior to obtaining a building permit, site plans must be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.) Vote: Unanimous ~98N0212 In Matoaca Magisterial District, THOMAS L. GORDON requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25). A single family residential subdivision ie planned. This request lies on a 67.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,242 feet on the south line of Beach Road, approximately 590 feet east of Buckhorn Road. Tax ~ap 110-12 (1) Parcel 16 and Part of Parcel 48 (sheets 29 and 30). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0212, subject to a singls condition and acceptance of %he applicant's proffered condition. Mr. Frank Ports, representing the recoaumended condition was acceptable. present. applicant, stated the There was no opposition $9-580 On motion o~ Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved Cass 89~0212, subject to th~ following condition: k fifty (50) foot buf~pr strip, ~xclusive ~ easements and required yards, mhall be established The area of this buffer strip shall either be left in its natural state, if sufficie:~ vegetation e~ists to provide adequats screening; or be planted and/or bermed in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Department, if muffimi~nt v~ge~a=ion does not exist to provide adequate screen- ing. Prior to approval of any final site plan or recordation of any plat, the developer mhall flag this buffer for inspection, and ~hall po~t a bond to cover ~ke implementation e~ th~ landmcepe plan, if such plan im ~quir~d. ~xcept for approved public road access(es) and an sximting sntrance alon~ ~each Road to serve existing single family residence, no access shall be pe~ittsd through this buffer strip. This building setback and buffer strip shall bm noted on any final site plans, and any final check and recordation plats. The Planning Com~immfon may ~dify. this condition at th~ ~ime of ~entative s~bdivi~ion re~iew. (P&T) And ~urther, the ~eard accepted the following condition$r 1. Minimum Iut ~iz~ ~itl be 0.75 acrss. 2. All lets will be served by publiG water. 3. Applicant agrees to abids by the requlatiens of the peptic system ~rdinanoe as finally adopted by the Deard of Vote: Unanimous ~9SN0227 In ~atoaca Maqisterial District, MIT=LHISER-F~tI~EY IJ~ND ~ENT, INC. reques=e~ Conditional Use ~o pe~it recreational facilities in a Residential (R-25) District. Thi~ toques= lies on a 19.8 aura parcel lyinq approximately 850 feet off the west lin~ of Riverway Road, ~pproxlmate~y 50 f~t north of intersection of Walke~ Quarter Road and Riverway Road. Tax t26 (lJ Part of Parcels 135 and 136 J~h~et 38). approval of Case 89SN0227, subject to sertain condition~. Mr. D~iel disclosed to the Board that the applicant i~ related ~o an employee of Philip Morris Company with whom he is %o place it at the end of the a~enda for consideration. $9SN0120 (Amended) In Dale Magisterial District, RIDG~F~AY D~V~Op~L~NT COMPAN~ requested rezoninq f~om Residential (R-15) to ~sidential Multi-family (E-~) and Co~uni~ Business (B-2) with Condi- tional U~ Planned Develo~nt tO permit use exceptions. A mixed use multi-f~ily and co~ercial developmen~ iz planned. 89-§$1 This request lies on a 43,0 acre parcel frontin~ approximately 3,050 feet on the north line of Chippenham Parkway, also fronting approxLmately 2,000 feet on the west line of Iron Bridge Road, and located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 41-13 (1) Parcel 10; Tax Map 41-14 (1) Parcels 5 and 6; and Tax Map 41-14 (5) Royal Oak, Section A, Block A, Lots 2 through 5 (Sheet 15). Mr. Jacobson presented a summary of the proposed rezoning from Residential (~-15) to Residential Multifamily (R-MF) and Community Business (B-2) with Conditional Use Planned Development; stated a mixed use development, to include a multifamily complex and shopping center, is planned with use e×~eptions requested to permit drive-in establiskments within the ~-2 tract. He stated staff recommended approval of Case 8~SN0120 based on the fact that the proposed rezoning and land uses cenform to the Central Area Land Use and Transportation ~lan which designates the request property for mixed use d~velopment; that the Master Plan, Textual Statement and conditions recommended ensure proper land use transition and compatibility between existing and future area land uses and quality development; and that the' intensity and dssiqn of the uses will be re~lated so the proposed commercial uses along the Route 10 frontage do not set a precedent for intense development on the east side of Route 10 in the vicinity of Garland Neight$; however, the Planning Commission recommended denial based on the concerns of the opposition. Mr. John Coqbill, ropresenting the applicants, summarized the proposed development; presented the Board with resumes outlining the professional background/expertise of those individuals associated with the proposed development; presented slides of various projects previously constructed by the applicants or if nat c0nstruoted by the applicants, they ~epresent~d the quality standards proposed by the applicants; stated ths applicant felt area residents' concerns had been addressed; rsferenoed a letter from Mr. Ralph Higgens, a portion of which was read into the record; stated he felt the proposed use was the highest and best use of the property and tho proposed development would meet a demand for affordable housing in the County; addressed concerns relative to compatibility, existing reservoir conditions, impact on schools, traffic volumes, road i~provenlents~ etc.; r~ferenced a letter from Mr. Stan Balderson regarding environmental protection measures; and stated he felt the propossd project represented a planned, high quality, organized development for the County and would prove economically beneficial to the County. When asked, approximately thirty people stood to indicate support for the proposed development. Mr. Robert E. Coles, Chairman of the Board of Rountrey Associates, Inc., statsd he felt the proposed uses wer~ appropriate for the subject property, that the applicants would provide a high-quality, upscaled project and that the development would not adversely impact the ~urrounding neighborhood communities. Mr. Elbert Howard voiced support for the proposed development and ~tated he felt the applicant had adequately addressed concerns r~lative to d~nsity, traffic, schools and environmental issuss, to ensure a project of superior quality. Mr. George Beadles stated he felt the property being developed by one group would be a mechanism for protection and/or preservation of the lake. Mr. Ran Figg, President of the Pocono Civic Association, voiced support for the proposed development as he felt it would be an asset t~at would erduance %he County and provide the necessary mechanism to meet a need for affordable housing. Mrs. Chip Lyttle stated the Lyttte family has always felt a strong moral responsibility to Chesterfield County, that she was very impressed with the applicant and the proposal for development of the subject site and stated based on the designation of the Central Area Land 89-582 use eno Tran~portatiom ~lan ~or the request property ~nd other growth in the azeat it wau not feasible to m~intaln the property as a low density residential development. Mr. Will Carnes voiced support for the proposed development a~ be f~lt it was thc most appropriate use for the property in the area. Prior to hearing those individuals in opposltlen to Case- 999N0120~ ~r+ Applegats stated he had been informed that the representative for Case 89SN0101, 'r~l~ PRI~ ~A~I~%UI, had r~q=~sted that tat case be withdrawn an~ the area oi¥ic associations had ne objections to the request for withdrawal. It was generally agree~ to recess for five (5) mina%es. Mr. Mark Andsrs and Ma, Virginia Macey voiced opposition to the proposed development ae they felt it would adversely impact the quality cf llfe in ~heir community by affecting schools, t~affic~ property valuta, etc. When asked, ~ppro×imately persons stood to indicate their opposition to the recfuest. Mr. Edward Walden, President of Broekbur~ Civic Association; Mr+ Ernest Ellis, rapreson~iag Rockspring Farms and Meadowbrook Fa~me; and Mr. ~erold Landis, President of th~ West/Garland ~eights Civic Association, presented petitions in opposition to th~ proposed d~velopm~nt. · ~r. Dill Packard presented a video taps of various residential area~ in the Dale District affected by ~trip ~hopping ~n~/or inves~men~ property ~evelopments. Mr. Harold Landis presented elides of various con~ercial developments d~picting the vacancy ratio versus OCCUpied units, pointed out improperly stored waste material in alleys between buildings and stated the high ~atiO Of v~canci~$ tn ~hese commercial develeDmente doe~ not warrant the ccn~true- tien of additional shopping cent~r~ in the area. Mr. David League presented ~lid~ d~pioting the llfe cycle and condition of rssidential investment propertie~ a~ compared to residential properties where th~r~ is pride of ownership; pointed out problems relative to ~eil stabilization, erosion of drainage ditohP$; ~xhlblte cf stored waste material, discarded appliances, etc.~ d~ped in and/or stored in improper locations or under unsafe conditions; ~ilt basins, erosion, Mr. Daniel advised the Board that he was net awe~e, until the present time, ~hat any of the stidos preach=Sd regarding this zoning case were filmed in his neighborhood or from his front yard. Charlotte Schaefer and Mr. ~enry Bore indicating their willing- ness to meet to discuss area concerns prior ~e their submittal of a razoning application; however, she noted that no effort was made to con=act either her or others.in her community prior to the submittal. She further referenced several m~ting$ of community groups with the developer and his representative at posed ~evelopment density, e study of the lak~ Open etc. Mr. Ru~$ Weymack, accompanied by his son Ru~ty, voiced concerns regarding boating and fishing activitie~ at the lake if the proposed development wore approved. Mr. Richard L. Cook and methods by which the lake could be restored ~o a healthy, possession relative to s0mment~ from the Regional Director of 89-583 t~e Virginia Water Control Board indicatinq the Falling Creek reservoir was not dead; referenced documented data from the Virginia Water Control Board Handbook that the major source of toxic found in surface water come from automotive traffic; etc. Mr. Michael $chleinkofer, a chemist and President of a local environmental firm, answered questions from Ms. Macey regarding whether or not the information in the report from Resource International Limited was from actual or theoretical data; whether or not the data took into account possible problems encountered during construction or on a project already developed with best management practices; what would be the result if a major storm were to occur during construction; the significance cf %he size and density of the project impacting the headwaters of the lake; the impact of gasoline stations adjacent to the lake; whether or not Falling Creek reservoir would be of any value or possibly serve as a public drinking water source in the event of a catastrophic event in some other area of the County; etc. When asked, Mr. Schleinkoffer stated when trying to put together a theoretical situation and there is no field data %0 usa, one uses whatever is the closest and best available data and he felt the consulting firm used the Aquilon Watershed ~tudy as being the best situation it Could find. He stated the consultants did indicate %o 'him, however, that even that study, in and of itself, was no% entirely comprised of field data - that there wag theoretical data included in it. Mr. William H. Beze, representing the Meadowbrook Civic Association, reiterated concerns regarding the environment and uncontrolled growth subsidized by the County. Mr. John Cogbill readdressed concerns as ~xpress~d by each of the speakers and stated he felt the developar has exhibited a commitment to the County and its residents for a high-quality, upscaled development which is in conformance with the Central Area Land U~e and Transportation Plan and will serve a need in the County. It was generally agreed to recess for three (3) minutes. Reconvening: There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. Due to previous County business commitments, Mr. Hayes excused himself from the meetinq. Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation to the many individuals who were present regarding the proposed' rezoning request; stated this particular casa had been very controversial and very difficult for him; declared that as a resident of Meadcwbrook West~ he had consulted with the County Attorney %o determine if he could participate in a decision on this case and stated that living at lea~% 1/2 mile from the subject site, he did net feel that personally his home would benefit or lose from the propos- ed zoning. When asked, Mr. Micas stated that Mr. Daniel did not have a conflict relative %o the proposed rezoning unless he was satisfied that the decision on the case would affect the property value of his home. Mr. Daniel stated that, although he is a member of the association and neighborhood watch group, he had not met with the leadership to determine or share with them any strategy, programs, presentations, or any other pertinent data regarding this case. He reiterated that he was not aware, until the zoning presentation, that his home had 89-584 been filmed or that his yard had been used to film other sites in the neighborhood. ~e addressed concerns relative to the appropriateneso of the proposed use, densities, the Biological Oxygen Demand, factors resarding the reservoir~ mnvironmental issues, continuity of zonzng, drainage, eliminating fa~t food restaurants and gasoline pu~ps, ~te., and stated a!%hough the applicant presented good arquments to sustain hi~ case he felt the opposition had also provided equally and, ih some oases, maybe even more in-depth arq~ents for denial of the case. stated he did ~ot feel the rezoni~g complied with the designation of the land use plan, that it does reflect ~pot zoning and that approval of tko request would set a dangsrous presedent for future zoning on the other sid~ of RoUte 10 on the Davi~ tract. ~r. Sullivan stated, in spite of the previous testimony, he did not feel as strongly as he ~hould about the case~ that he has major concerns regarding density, erosion and other fa0to~e associated with the request; felt that this ca~e did represent the best effort of the zonln~ process~ end re¢ommoDded that the case be remanded to th~ ~lanning Commission in an effort to find a con~0n ground to protect the rights of all of the citizens of the County and the applicant. Mr. Currin expressed concern~ relative to ezosion, sedimenta- tion, the rigidity of the reooTm~ended eonditisns, th~ use of outparcel~ for ga$olins pumps and/cz fast food etc.; stated he had resarvatinnz about the OVerall project, particularly the gasoline pumps and fast £eed restaurant. Mr. Applegate sCated~ although Mr. Ly~le hoe significantly contributed bo the betterment of ~he County, the Board not judge a zoning request based on a developer's contributien~ to the County~ indicated th~ environmental issns$ o~ this were of a major concern to him; expressed concern as to whether OZ not development of this property, if properly handled, would enhance the r~ervOir; agree~ the= moderate, a~ordable was needed in the Coon%y; expressed additiomal concerns fegardlng the topography of thm subje=t property; enforcement of Iitte~ problems, pride of owner~hlp versu~ investment properties; and s~atmd he could not support any gasoline station eh %he O~tparc~ls for this project. Mr. Daniel made a motion, seconded by ~r. Applegate, to deny Case ~9SN0120 based on the fact ~hat the Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, as developed, designates the request property for office use, an~ wSen that plan was developed in 1986 it wac clear that office and nothlu~ else was aver discussed; that tho mixed use is only a concept and the mixed use wac clearly di~f~ibuted during the Woolfolk zoning; the proposed development is spot zoning on Ro~te I0 between Walmsley Boulegard and Chlppenh~z0 Parkway; and the overuse of the land with the density far exceeding that approved on the Woolfolk tract. Nays: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin and Mr+ Sullivan. Absent: Mr. ~ayes. On motion of Mr. baniel~ seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board remanded Case 89SN0120 to the Planning Commission for further review/study of th~ following issues: 1. Review coneer~s ~elatlve to a red,orion in tho residential density to a level no greater than the Woolfolk tract; 2. Revise the mixed use for an increase in office development in order to be more consietent with the land use plan; 3. Review the traffic analysis in detail for a level no greater than the Woolfolk tract; 89-585 4. Review the environmental issues previously discussed. Mr. Daniel stated that he hoped the next time this case i~ before the Board there would be unanimity a~ong those involved with the ease. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Mayes. It was generally agreed to recess for two (2) minutem. 89SN0199 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, SOUTHGATE ASSOCIATES requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Ca$~ 85S076) relative to the maximum allowable height and gross floor area of buildings in an Office Business (O) District. This request lies on a 56.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike and fronting approximately 2,D00 feet on the west line of Powhite Parkway, and located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads; also fronting approximately 960 feet on the east line of North Arch Road, approximately 150 feet south of Knightsbridge Road. Tax Map 28-1 (1) Parcels 9 and 23 and Part of Parcel 8 (Sheet 8). Mr. Peele presented a brief summary of Ca~e 89SN0199 explaining that the current request is for amendment of Case 85S076 relative to maximum allowable height of buildings On that portion of the property south of Arboretum Parkway and to increase the gross square £ootage o~ the overall development. He ~tated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request. Mr. Charles Macfarlane and M~. Lisa Jone~ w~re Dr~sent to represent the request. Mr. ~acfarlane stated the applicant is requesting an amendment to permit two (2) three (3) story buildings adjacent to single family residences in Scottingham Subdivision and to increase the maximum square footage permitted in the Arboretum from 771,000 square feet to 871,000 square feet. When asked, Ms. Jones explained the color-coded map distributed to the Board outlining those residents in favor, opposed or undecided regarding the applicant's request. She referenced and read into the record a letter from Mr. and Mrs. George Ellington indicating their support for the proposed ~mendment. Mr. Applegate questioned why it appeared the opposition to the project was stronger across the street from the project rather than at the rear ef thc site. Ms. Jones indicated explained her opinion about the differences in neighborhood opinion. Mr. Steve Greyburg, representing Scottingham Subdivision, stated there is about a 50/50 split among area residents relative to the proposed amendment for the Arboretum, stated the residents were not voting in favor of three (3) story buildings but against the unknown, and quemtioned if the Board could predict the potential traffic impact of this project and protect the neighborhood against any negative impacts. He further requested that if the request were to bs approved, that the adjacent property owners be notified of any site plan review~ ~o they could attend the meetings. MS. Jane Chandler, representing the Shenandoah community, stated the coat, unity association and membership opposed the proposed amendment, voiced concerns relative to three (3) story 89-586 buildinqs abutting a single ~amily residential neighborhood and increased traffic, and a~k~d th.t the request b~ de~ied. in ~he ~equest A~alysis regarding the traffic impact. Mr. developed buildings was loss that originally projected, the distribution cf %raffle was different than %ha~ oriqinally ~owhi%e ~ar~way. ~r. kpplegate stated he had discussed this issue with the about i~. Ee s~a~ed when the:case was first represented to thc ~oard of Supsrvisor~, Mr. Weinberg, the applicant's quality ~velepment on the ~ite. He state~ the ~oard recently adopted an ~meuded Zonin~ Ordinance requiring a 2OO' ~etba0k developments; that he could not set a precedent thirty d~ye later by making an exception to the newly adopted Zoning residential neighborhoods. Mr. Daniel ~%ated he would sustain the Supervisor of the District's motion ~s he has in the past. ~r. Sullivan stated he did not euppor~ ~he 200~ setback requirement~ felt there was high-quality at the Arboretum; that tbere was a great d.al of m~ri~ in havinq four buildings versus six buildings adjacent to the neiqhborhcod~ and, ~inee at least After clarification of th~ 50' buffer requirement in the ~r. Applegate made a motion to den~ Ca~e 89SN0199 based on Daniel suggested, in view of the probable tie vote at thic Naye~ could be pre~en~, On motion of Mr. App!egate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, thc Board 89SN010t In Midlothian ~agtsterial District, 'r~ P~(~ ~r~ requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 81S035} Light Industrial (M-l}, with prof£ered conditions, on this tract and an adjacent 11.0 acre tract zoned General B~cin~ee (B-3). A retail complex with an automobile tire and mervice facility and eut$i~ s~orage is planned. This rmq~est lies on a total of 21.5 ecre~ fronting approxlmately 4~7 fee= on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, across from Tuxford Road. Tax Map 18-13 (1) Parcels 17, 25, 27, and Park Of 9arcet ~ Mr. Applegate stated he had been informed that the applicant desired to ~ithdraw the request. There wa~ uo opposition to the request f0= withdrawal. 89-587 On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board accepted withdrawal of Case 89SN0101. Ayes: Mr. Appl~gat~, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Mayss. 89SN0206 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, POCO~O A88OCXATE8 re- quested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-15) to Convenience Business (B-l) with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions. A shopping center is planned. This request liss on an 8.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 705 fast on the ~outh line of Midlothian Turnpike and approximately 566 feet on the west line of Pocono Drive,.· and located in the southwest quadrant of the inter- section of these roads; also fronting approximately 505 feet on the east line of Sturbridge Drive. Tax Map 17-11 (1) Parcels 21 and 22; Tax Map 17-11 (2) Pocono, Section A, Block F~ Lots 1, 2, and 3 (Sheet 8). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested use exception to permit a drive-in restaurant and approval of rezo~ing with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions, subject to certain conditions. Mr. Ed Kidd, representing the applicant, stated the recommended conditions were acceptable with the exception of Conditions 2 and 3 which he requested be approved to permit a fast food restaurant on a limited portion of the site and that access be permitted prohibited to Pocono Drive. Mr. Ron Fiqg, President cf the ~econo Civic Association, stated while there were ~ome concerns, the majority of area residents support the project as a whole with the exception of the fast food restaurant and the access onto Pocono Drive. Mr. Clarence Elliott stated area residents basically agreed to the proposed project as they felt it was the best possible use they could obtain for the subject property and added that if the request were approved area residents would like to see the development be residential in appearance, that there be heavy buffering and landscaping, minimal lighting, little noise pollution, that neither fast food restaurants nor access to Pocono Drive be permitted and that area resident~ be notified by the developers of reviews of the architectural development of the site. When asked, Mr. MeCraeken indicated staff recommended access from Sturbridge Drive to Pocono Drive to allow residents of the Pocono Subdivision to access the development without traveling on Route 60; to provide Pocono residents with a means of gaining access to the Sturbridge Drive/Route 60 signal; and to reduce congestion at the Poeono Drive/Rcu~s 60 intersectien by permitting Pocono residents desiring to travel westbound on Route 60 to make a safer left turn movement at the signalized intersection. There was further discussion relative to potential contamination of an area pond if gasoline pumps were approved, notification of area property owners of schematic plan approval, signage, access, etc. On motion o~ Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved Case 89SN0206, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre- pared by Beckstoffer and Associates, dated March 17, 1989, and the Textual Statement submitted on April 10, 1989 with Absent: the exception of references Rnd rsquiremen~s relative to drive-in restaurants ~hall be considered the Ma~t~r Plan. Drive-in restaurants shall be prohibited. An access drive shall ba provided to Sturbrldge Drive. Access shall be prohibited tO PCcono Drive. Additional pavement and Curb and gutter shall bs provided along Pocono Drive for its ~ntire property frontage, as deemed necessary by the Transportation Department. (NOTES: a. Prier to obtaining site plan approval or building permits~ schematic plans must be snbmitted for approval, b. At the time of schematic plan r~vlew, additional conditions may be imposed to ensure land us~ compatibility and tion.) Mr. Apptegate, Mr. Ceftin, Mr, Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Mayes. ~0227 In Matoaca ~agisterial District, MtLL~IS~R-]~%I~EY ~ ME~T, INC. requested Cuzditianal Use to permit recreational facilities in a Residential (R-25) District. Th~s request lies on a 19.~ acre paic=l lying apDroxJ/Nately 85D feet off the line of Biverway Road, approximately 50 feet north of the intersection of walke~ Quarter Road and Riverway Road. Tax Map 126 (1) Part of Parcels 135 and 136 (Sheet 38). Mr. Jaeob~o~ Stated th~ Planning Commission recommended approval of Ca~e $9SN0207., subject to certain conditions. to an employee of Philip Morris Company wi~ whom h~ employed as he had s=a:a4 when this case wa~ o~iginally pursuant to ~he virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act MS. Mary ~illhiser, repre=~nting the applicant, sta~e~ the ~r. Georg~ Beadles voiced concerns r~lative %o drainage for s~je~t ~ite and s~ated he fel~ the request should be re-reviewed to allow the applicant an opportunity to comply with the ~w ~epti= system policy/ozdlnance when adopted. Mr. Philip Halsey indicateO the applicant would cumply wi~ th~ new septic system polic!/ordinance. Mr, R~ey stated Mr. Mayes h~d indicated %o him, prior to hi~ departure, that he was comfortable wi~h approval of this case. On morion of ~r. Currin, secondui by Mr. S~llivan, the Board approved Case 89SN~227, subject to the following 1, 'Th~ following conditions notwlth~tanding, ~he plan and Textual S%a%~nt prapare~ by E.D. Lewi~ and P.C., dated F%brua~y I0, 1989, and revise4 March 27, 1989, shall b~ conslder~d the plan for the outdoor recreational facilities. 2. Pnblic water shall b~ used. 89-589 3. Hours of operation shall be limited to from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday; and from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. 4. Parking shall be provided on the basis of one (1) space for each ninety (90) square feet of combined swimming and wading pool areas, and four (4) spaces for each play- ing/tennis court. (P) (NOTE: The Zoning Ordinance requires that all driveways and parking areas for six (6) or more vehicles be paved. Also, the BOCA Code requires two-way driveways to be a minimum of twenty-four (24) feet in width unless local agencies grant exceptions. On a routine basis, driveways serving parking lots containing up to fifteen (15) parking spaces to be twenty (20) feet in width are permitted; and driveways serving parking lots of sixteen (16) to thirty (30) parking spaces to be twenty-two {22) feet in width.) 5. All exterior lights shall be arranged and installed So that the direct er reflected illumination does not exceed 0.5 foot candles above background measured at the lot line of any adjoining residential parcel. Light standards shall be cf a directional-type capable of shielding th~ light source from direct view from any adjoining parcel or public right of way. Further, no exterior lighting shall be higher than twenty (20) feet. (P) 6. One (11 sign, not to exceed eight (8) square feet in area, shall be permitted at the entrance to the recreation center. Lighting for this sign shall comply with Section 21.1-266 of the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance and illumination shall be permitted only during normal hours of operation. A rendering of this sign shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to erection. (~) 7. There shall be no outside public address system or speakers. (P) 8. In conjunction with final site plan review, and prior to the release of building permits, a d~tailed landscape plan for the site shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. This plan shall incorporate pedestrian and bicycle path(s), to provide the greatest possible safety and convenience from surrounding residential development. (P) 9. A thirty (30) foot building setback and buffer strip, exclusive of easements, parking areas, and recreation facilities shall be established and maintained along all property lines of the site. The area within the buffer strip shall be left in its natural state, or supplemented with berms, planting, or ornamental fences, in accordance with the landscape plan (see Condition 9}. No access shall be permitted through this buffer, except ior en- trance driveways and pedestrian and bicycle paths, as required by the landscape plan. (P) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin and Mr. sullivan. Absent: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Mr. Daniel refurned to the meeting. Mr. Applegate requested that the rules be suspended fo add an item to the agenda ior the Board to go into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters. ll.J. EXECUTIVE SESSION 89-590 On mo:ion o~ Hr. sullivan, seconded Dy Hr. Ceftin, the Board suspended its rules to add to %h~ agenda an Item Executive Session to disease personnel matters pursuant to Section 2.1~344 (a) (1) of the Code of Vircinia, 19~0, as amended. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Ceftin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Snllivan. Absent: Mr. Mayes. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Ceftin, the Board went into Executive Session tv di[]cu~ permonnel matters pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a)(1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Ayes: Mr. Applegate! Mr. Ceftin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. 1~. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, th~ Board adjourned at ~00 p,m. until 12~OO Noon on June 14, 1989. Ayes= Mr. ApDlngate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Deni~l and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Mayes. 89-591