Loading...
10-25-1989 MinutesI~INUTES OCTOBER 25, 1959 Su~ervisere in Attendan~e~ Mr. G. H. App]egate~ Chairman Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr., Vice Chairman Mr. Har~y G. Daniel Mr. Jesse J. Hayes Mr. M. B. Sullivan Mr. Lane B. Ransey S~ff in Attendan~ ASSt. to Co. Admin. Asst. Co. Admin,, Legit. Svcs. Iatergevern, Affair~ M~. Joan Dolezal, Clerk to ~he Board Chief Robert Banes, Mr. Bradford S. Deputy CO. A~in., Ms. Alice Youth Svc$, Coord. Mr. ~illi~ K. Howell, Dir,, Gen. S~rvices Dir. of ~lanning Pit. of Accounting Mr. Robert Deputy Co. Admin., Mr. R. J. ~cCracken, Transp. Director Mr. ~ichard McEl~i~h, Di~. of Env. Eng. ~r. Gaxy McLaren, Dir. ~r. ~t~ve ~icas, Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of News/Tnf~. Mr. Richard A. Nunnally, ~ension Agent Col. Joseph Pittman, Chief of Police Mr. Jay Dir. of Budget Mr~ M. ~. Stith, Dir. of Parks & Eec. Mr. David ~r. ~rederiuk WilliE, Dir. of Human Mr. App!ega=e called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at 9:25 a.m. [BDT). INVOCATION Apple~ate in%roduced Chief Robert L. Banes, J~. invocation. who gave @9-937 2. PI~DGE OF A~J~EGIANCE TO TN FLAG OF 'r~ UNITED STATES OF Mr. Robert Masden, Deputy County Administrator for Human Services, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Eeard approved the minutes of October 11, 1989, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous 4. COUN~"~ ~)~INISTRATOR'S CO~4ENTS Mr. Ramsay introduced Ms. Adrienne Bines, the Executive Director of the Arts Council of Richmond, who presented a brief summary of the Council's activities and expressed appreciation for the County's participation and financial support of the Richmond Children's ~estival. She presented the Chairman and Board members with a framed poster and T-shirts bearing the Children's Festival theme for the year. Mr. Ramsay introduced Mr. Richard Nunnally, Extension Agent, who presented a brief report on the monitoring which transpired during the Spring and Stur~er, 1989 of the Gypsy Moth movement into Chesterfield County. Be stated that, after all the data has been compiled and analyzed, staff will bring forward a report in the Spring, 1990 for an action plan for resolving the Gypsy Moth p~oblem. 5. BOAKD COMMITTEE ~EPORTS Mr. Daniel reported he attended the Chesterfield Busines~ Council forum on County issues which he felt was beneficial and hoped would continue in the future; the Richmond Metropolitan Chamber dinner at which Mr. Bryce 9owell's, outgoing Chairman, remarks were positive regarding the need for continuing to identify regional problems as well as mechanisms for re~olving such problems through a regional, cooperative effort; and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting at which there was ongoing discussion regarding 1.) the development of John Rolfa Parkway and 2.) public transportation, in particular the criteria for serving the handicapped, which issues he felt significant and of which the Boa~d should keep abreast of any future developments in these areas. Mr. Mayas reported he attended the Chesterfield Business Council's forum at which he presented a position paper on the dispute between the School Board and the Board of Supervisors; the Richmond Metropolitan Chamber dinner at which Mr. John L. McClennan, Chairman of the Board of the United States Chamber of Commerce, spoke which was very dynamic (a copy of the speech is made available in the Board Reader File); and th~ Richmond Regional Solid Waste Management Task Force meeting at which there was approval of a regional authority, which he felt was a significant move in the direction of addressing the serious problem of solid waste disposal. Mr. Sullivan reported he also attended the Chesterfield Busi- ness Council's forum at which he presented a summarization on regional cooperation; the Richmond Metropolitan Chamber dinner, whose speaker he felt was impressive; the School Board Liaison Committee meeting witch Mr. Currin at which he felt there was positive, worthwhile discussion relative to the proposed budget. 89-938 m m m Mr. Sullivan stated that, at ft~ October il, 1929 meeting, ~ Board adopted a resolution recognizing the 40th anniversaiy of the Midlothian Villag~ Volunteer ~ire Department and requested tha~, at ~his time, the executed resolution be presented to Chief Lonnie Miller, who was p~esent. He coat,ended Chief Miller far the dedicated service and commitment of those individuals servin~ the Midlo%hian S~ation. Mr. Applegate stated he felt that Mr. W. W. Enro~ghty, the ~tation's first Chief, should a~$Q ~e included in the remembrance. Mr. Mayas referenced correspondence from ~r. and Mrs. Tom ~ibbs, previous zesidents Qf Gax~en City, South Carolina, who were among the many that experienced the devastation of ~urricane Enid, conu~ending employee~ of the Chesterfield County Fire Department who assisted them during the recovery efforts in that area. ~r. Currin reported that he attended the Chesterfield Busins$~ Council's forttm at which he presented a repel% cn growth and its cost factors; the Social Serviues ~oa~d meeting; the Crater Planning District Commission's annual meeting with Mr. Mayas; and the School Board Liaison Co~ittee meeting, with Mr. Sullivan, which he felt wa~ most productive. ~r. App!egate presented Chle~ Robert L. Eanes~ J~. and Chief Dennis Turlington with a C~tlflcate of Recognition from Governor Gerald Bal~lss officially designating October 29, 1989 ae "Change Your Clock - Change Your Battery Day" in the Commonwealth to remind all Virginian~ to change the batteries in their smoke d~te~tur~ in order to llve safer lives and which event is timed to coincide with the fell ritual Of changing clock~ to ~astern Standard Time. 6. ~QUESTS TO ROSTPONE ACTION, EME~GENCYADDITION$ OR C~NGES IN ~ 0~ OF ~S~TAT~ON On ~ot~on of Mr. ~ullivun, ~uond~d by Mr. Daniel, the Board chan~ed Item 8., Mr. Willi~ A. Waist, Jr. Representing Trivon Development, ~.~., Regarding Action ~y the Chesterfield Planning Co~i~ion~ to Item a.A.; added Item 8.B., K. Smith, Citi~en~ for chesterfield Students; received u re~ised copy of Item ll.A., Expression of Supervisor Objection %0 the Hopkins Road =xtended Portion of %he Chester Village Plan and the Thoroughfare Plan; added I=em Appzov=l to R~urse Virginia D~p~r~ent of Transportation Additional Bett~rm%nt Work to the ~xi~tlng Wastewater Wi%tin the koute 10 Wi~ening Project Through Chester (~roject 987-0222); de~erred until Nove~r 22, 1989 Item 10,A., P~lic ~eazing To Consider a Lsa~e to the Che~t~rfi~Id County Fair A~ociatiOn of a Parcel of ~nd ~o~ndsd by. Cour~oume Road ~xtendud and Krauss Road Containing Approximately 17 Acres Site for the Chesterfield County Fair; and adap=ed ~e agenda, as amended. Vote; Unanimous Mr. Currin disclosed to th~ Board ~hat he owns approximately three-So=rths of an acre which may ~e within the proposed Johnson's Creek Drainage District and drain to Johnson's Creek~ ~eclered a potential conflict of inter,st pursuant to ~he Virginia Comprehen~iv~ Cun~llct of IntereBt Act and excused himself from the meeting. ' On motion of Mr. Sullivan~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, %he ~oard deferred until November 22, 19~9, consideration of Items 9.A., Approval of Financing for Johnson's Creek Drainase 9reject and Se%ting a Public Hearing Date to Impose a Drainage Service District on a Portion of the Jchn~on'~ Creek Development District) and 9.~., Johnson's Creek Drainage District. 89-939 Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Ceftin. Mr. Cnrrin returned to the meeting. 7. RESOL~TIONSAND SRECIALP~COGNITIONS 7.A. RECOGNIZING OUTSTANDING COMMITMFNT OF THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY POLICE DE~ARTK~NT TO THE SHRVICE AND PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC Chief Pittmen introduced Investigator W. F. Showalter, Investigative Division; Lieutenant 0. E. Greene, Forensic Unit; Investigator A. L. Thompson, Crime Solvers; Officer W. A. Morgan, Patrol Division; Officer R. D. Ash, K-9 Unit; Sergeant D. S. Proffit, Anti-Crime Task Force; Ns. Jody Brown, Planning and Research Division; and Dispatcher Charlotte Elliott, Communications Center; representative of their respective divisions, who were involved in the resolution of a recent tragic incident resulting in the death of Mr. Thomas Haynes. He also commanded Commonwealth's Attorney William Davenport and his staff for their invaluable assistance and cooperation in conjunction with this incident. On motion of the Board, the following resolutien was adopted: WHEREAS, At 6:44 a.m. On Monday, September 25, 1989, the Chesterfield County Emergency Communications Center received a 9-1-1 call from Tri-City ~lectric Supply Company located at 1 East Hundred Road: and WHEREAS, The first Chesterfield County Police Unit arrived on the ~cene at 6:45 a.m. where Mr. Thomas L. Haynes, owner of the company, was found unconscious and the victim of apparent gunshot wounds which later proved fatal; and W~R~AS, Officers from the Investigative Division, Forensic Unit, Crime Solvers, Patrol Division, K-9 Unit, Anti-Crime Task Force, and Planning and Research Division, were designated various assignments as a homicide investigation was initiated; contact was maintained with the Communications Center and Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, as evidence and leads were developed throughout the day; and a strategic plan to identify the murder suspects was implemented; and WHEREAS, DUe to the team work ef the various divisions and units within the Police Department, the Communications Center, and the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, two suspects were taken into custody te~ than twenty hours later. NOW, TB~R~FOR~ B~ IT RI~SOLV~D, that the Chesterfield County Eoard of Supervisors hereby commends the rapid resolution of this incident which i~ indicative of the daily commitment to public service and protection displayed by all members of the Chesterfield County Police Department. Vote: Unanimous The Board generally agreed the combined efforts of the Police Department and Commonwealth's Attorney's Office were indicative o~_ the professionalism and expertise of the Department; that such prompt and responsive action conveyed a message that crime would not be tolerated in the County; and the Board further commended those involved in the resolution of thim incident, as well as all other facets of the Police Department and the Commonwealth Attorney's Office, for their commitment to public service and the protection of its citizens. Mr. Currin presented e×ecuted resolutions to those members of the Police Department present and Mr. Davenport in recognition 89-940 of their diligent e~Sorts and cooperation in the expeditious resolution the incident. 7.B. E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO., t~C. FOR SUPPORT OF 1990 WINTER LECTURE Mr. Stith introduced Mr. Mike Wall, Manager of Realth and ~nvironmental Affair~ for DuPont~ and expressed appreciation for his organization's contribution to the 1990 Win=er Lecture Series. On motion of the Board, the Board accepted a donation in the amount of $10,000 to thc Parks and Recreation Fund for the 1990 Winter Lecture S~ries and adopted ~he following resolution: WHEREAS, The Chcsterfleld Connty Parks and Recreation Depart-meat ~unotions to positively ~ffect the quality of lif~ in Chesterfield County~ and W~EREAS, The provision of the Win~er Lect~rs Series represents an ~mportsnt means of achieving this funs%ion; and WREPS~AS, Speakers of the caliber of Mark and Della Owens from Africa, Dr. John Paling from England, Dr. A1 Manville recently from Alaska~ Ed Clark and the Natur~ Conservancy will provide Chesterfield residents with an opportunity to hear of significant adventures and environmental i~sucs of our times. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby recognize E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Inc. for it~ generous sponsorship of =he ~r. Cnrrin presented the executed resolution to Mr. Wall and commended him for his organization'S ou%~tandlng civic participation and contributions to County eVant~. Mr. Stith ~tated an autographed copy Of the book entitled, Cry o£ the Kalahri, written by authoT~ M~k and Delia Owens, participants in the ~990 Winter Lecture Board at a later 7.C. HOLIDAM INN-EOGER CENTER FOR OFPER%~G FRaE OV~R~IGET LODG- ING FOR LECTURE SERIES SPEARERS Mr. Stith introduced M~. Ann Anderson with the EO~i~y Inn-Koger Center and ~xprcsssd appreciation for her organiza- tion's ~upport of the 1990 Winter Lecture Series by providing lodging facilities for the Series speakers. On me,ion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WB~R=AS, The Chesterfield County Parks a~d Recreation Department functions to positively eff~et thc quality of life in Chesterfield County; and WHE~/~AS, The provision of the Winter Leet~r~ Seri~s- represents an important means of achieving this function; and WHEREAS, The Holiday Inn-Kegs= Center has generously donated overnight accor~moda~ion~ to thc distinguished speakers of the Winter Lecture Series. NOW, THEREFORE B~ IT P~SOLV~Q, that the Chesterfield county Board Of Supervisors do~ hereby ' recoqnize Rollday Inn-Eegcr Center fo~ its generous contribution to the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Wist~= Lecture Series. 89-941 Vote: Unanimous Mr. Currin presented the exacuted resolution to Ms. Anderson and commended her for her organization's outstanding civic participation and contributions to County events. 7.D. MRS. CAROL BOISINEAU, YOUTH SERVICES COMMISSION MS. Alice Eeffner, Youth Services Director, introduced Mrs. Carol Eoisineau, who recently resigned her position on the Youth Services Commission. She commended Mrs. Boisineau for her outstanding service and commitment to the youth of the County and stated she would be sorely missed by her friends and coworkers. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WtIEREAS, Mrs. Carol Boisineau has been a resident of Chesterfield County for seventeen years; and WE~EA$, Mrs. ~eislneau and her husband, Joseph, have five children who have attended Chesterfield County public schools and participated in other aspects of the con~munity; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Boisineau has demonstrated her co~itment to Chesterfield County through service on the Youth Services Commission, the Family Life Education Citizen Involvement Team and as a substitute teacher; and WNEREAS, Mrs. Boisineau was appointed to serve on the Youth Services Commission in 1985 and was reappointed for a second term in 1986; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Boisineau was elected to the position of Chairman of the Youth Services Commission in 1986 and was reelected as Chairman in 1987; and WHEREAS, During her tenure as Chairman of the Youth Services Commission, Mrs. Boisineau was very active in securing a Department of Correntions grant to establish the Office on Youth, planning parent-youth forums, organizing training for the Youth Services Commission and providing visible and strong leadership to the Commission; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Boisineau exhibited true concern about the needs of youth and made e×t~nsive efforts to secure their opinions and input when developing programs; and WHEREAS, Firm linkages to the community, advocacy for youth, and the development of a cohesive and effective Youth Services Commission were the hallmarks of Mrs. Boisineau's service to Chesterfield County. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors extends its sincere thanks and appreciation to Mrs. Carol ~oisineau for her exemplary service and commitment to the Youth Services Commission and the youth of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Sullivan presented the executed resolution to Mrs. Boisineau and commended her for her exemplary service and commitment to the Youth Services Commission and the youth of Chesterfield. 8.A. MR. WILLIAM A. WALSH., JR. REPRESENTINGTRIVON DEVELOPMENT, L.P., REGARDING ACTION BY THE CHESTERFIELD PLANNING COMM. ISSION 89-942 Mr. Willia~ A. Welsh, Jr., representing Trivon Developmant~ L.P., stated he wished to address the Board regarding action taken by the Planning commission relative to amending Tri~on's previously approved tentative subdivision plan, which action was not only without the consent of Trivon but contrary to its objection. ~e stated he did not wish to address specifics uf the case but would like to bring its concern~ r~garding the Commission'S action to thc attention of ~he Board. Mr. Sullivan stated ha felt the Board should not hoar this matron as he had recently been contacted regarding a cimilar subdivision case to which decision there Was objection and to which the Board had responded that the channel of recourse was nhrough the Circuit Court, non the Board, and it could set a precedent that would result in the Board's having to deliberate all Planning Commission decisions which are disputed. Whoa askod, Mr. Micas ~tato~ the matter involving Trivon Development is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and the appropriate mechanism within which to address any concerns is within the parameters of ~he Circuit Co, rt. on motion of ~r. Sullivan~ seconded by ME, Daniel, the Board suspended its rules to consider the removal from the agenda ~f Item 8,A.~ Mr. William A~ Walsh~ Jr. - Rogarding Action Taken by the Planning Commission - Trivon Development, L.P. Yore: Unanimous Mr. Sullivan made a mo~isn, seconded by ~r. Daniel, to remove Item B.A., Mr. William A. Welsh, Jr. ~ Regarding Action Taken by the ~lanning Come, lesion - Trivon Development, L.P., ~rom th~ Mr. Currin~ M~. Daniel and Mr. Applegate concurred with Mn.sullivan but felt there was a need to have the Stub Road Policy reviewed, modified, etc. Mr. Mayas state~ he had not would abstain on the vot~. Mr. Sullivan called for the vote. Ayes: Mr. Appl~qat~, M~. Currin, ~r. Daniel and Mr. gulllvan~ It was g~n~rmlly agreed to recess for five minutes. 8.B. MR. DANIEL K. SMITH~ CITIZENS OF C~ESTERFX~LD Mr. ~mith, Chairman of the Cor~ Committee for citizens of Cheeterfiold Students, stated his co,eats were focused on the relationship between the Board of Supervisors and the Board and whac the Committee perceives to be the long-term implications should the relationship continue in the dlx=ction it appears to be going. Ee stated the Core Co~mittee would like ~o see %he issue regarding non-school uso of school property r~solved without th~ threat of court action, which action it i~ felt uuuld only ho detrimental to the relationship ~se of taxpayers dollar~. Ke state~ the Committee would like important issues. ~r. Ap~logate stated hs felt there were ongoing efferts toward improving the relationship between the Board of Supervisors and 89-943 the School Board and that there is a proposed Beard Retreat under consideration at which time it is anticipated the two Boards can meet and move on to more important matters. 9. DEFEP~RED ITemS 9.C. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE T0 AMEND TEE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTEI~FIELD, 1978, AS ~24ENDED.,. BY AMENDING SECTIONS 21-10 AND 21.1-5 AND ADDING SECTIONS 21-10.1 AND 21.1-5.1 RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CONDITIONS OF ZONING~ CONDITIONAL USG PERMITS, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, VARI- ANCES, SCHEM3~TIC PLANS AND SITE PLANS Mr. Jacobsen stated this date and time had been scheduled for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the County Code relating to penalties for violations of conditions of zoning, conditional use permits, special exceptions, variances, schematic plans and site plans. He stated the proposed ordinance will restore the County's ability to enforce specific zoning conditions as approved by the Board of Supervisors or other Boards. He stated the Planninq Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance and expressed appreciation for the cooperation and assistance of the Chesterfield/Colonial Heights Bar Association in this process. When asked, Mr. Micas stated the proposed ordinance amendment is very similar to that used by other localities but does vary in that it provides for written notification by law prior to proceeding with any criminal action. He stated the proposed ordinance provides for the use of a combination of civil and criminal penaltie~ and specifically states that violations of any apecific conditions of zoning approval or any requirements of the Zoning Ordinance constitute a misdemeanor for which a fine may b~ imposed and will reinstate the enforcement mechanism used by the County in previous years. Mr. John ~os~ley, representinq his parents, voiced support for the proposed ordinances and stated he would like to see the County utilize every mechanism available to ensure compliance with conditions cf zoning relative to Rezonings, Conditional Zonings, Conditional Use Permits, Special Exceptions, Variances, Schematic and/or Site Plan Approvals. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board adopted the following ordinances: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 21-10 ~ 21.1-5, CODE OF T~E COUNTY OF C~ESTF~R~T~.~, 1978, A~ AMENDED, RELATING TO P~NALTIE$ FOR VIOLATIONS OF CONDITIONS OF · ONING, CONDITIO~;%L US~ P~ITS, SPECIAL ~CEPTIONS, AND VAP~TANCES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 21-10 and 21.1-5 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as ~e~ded, are amen--~ and reenacted as follow~: See. 21-10. Penalties fo~ Violation; Right of Entr~. (a) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter other than those set forth in Section 21-10.1 below shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than ten dollars ($10.00) and not more than one thousand dollars ($~,000.00). ~ach day such violation shall continue shall be a separate offense. o o o 89-944 (d) Any person who falls ~o comply with any of the conditions of a conditional Boning, a conditional use permit, a special exception, a variance, a schematic plan or a site plan other than those set ierth in Section 21-10.1 below shall bo deemed guilty of a ~isdemeanor and~ upon conviction thereoft shall be fined not lees then ten dollar~ ($I0.00) and net more %hen one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Each day such failure to comply shall continue shall be a separate offence, and the failnre to comply with each individual condition shall constitute a separate offense. (e) If it is determined that any person has violated the provisions of this chapter or bas felled to comply with any of the sonditicne Of a conditional zoning, a conditional use permit~ a special exception, a variance, a echematic plan or a site plan, th~ zoning administrator shall serve a notice to comply upon that person by either (1) Delivering the notice tO the person by hand! or [2) Mailing the notice by flrst class mail to the last known addre~ of the pexson. The notice shall set forth the nature of tko v~olat~en or failure to comply. Upon failure of the person to comply within 10 days of d~livery or mailing of ~he notice, ~he person shall be subject to the penalties set forth in subsection~ (a) and (d) · NO notice to Qem~ly need be served with respect to violations or ~ailurea to comply involving.portable ~igo$ O~ the parking er display of motor vehicles. Sec. 21.1-5. Enforcement. (b) Penalties £o~ Violation; Right of Entry. {1) Any person who violates any cf the pre~iOnS of thi~ Chapter other than those set forth in ~ectlon 21.1-5.1 below shall ba deema~ ~uilty o~ a misdemeanor and upon cOnVic- tion thereof, shall bs fined not less than ten (~O) dollars and not more than one thoueand (1,000) dollars. Each day such violation shall ccntinme shall be a $~parate offense, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than ten (10) dollars and not more than one thousand {t,000) dollars for each separate day on which violation occurs. (4) Any person who fail~ to Comply wi~ any of the conditions of a conditional zoning, a conditional use permlt~ a special exception, a varisnce~ a schematic plan or a site plan other than those e~t fo~ in ~ec~ion 21.1-5.t shall be deemed guilty of a miedemeane~ and~ Upon conviction thereo~, shall be fln~ not less than ten dollars ($10.00) and not more than one thousand dollars ~$1,O0O.00). Each day such failure to comply shall continue shall be a separate o~ense, and the failure to separate offense. (5) I~ it ie determined that any pefs0n has violated the provisions of this chapter or has ~iled to comply wlth any c~ the conditions of a conditional zoning~ a conditional use permit~ a special exception, a variance, a echematic plan or a site plan, the sOnin~ administrator shall serve a notice to ~omply upon that person by either hand; or Delivering the notice to the person by ~9-9A5 (ii) Mailing the notice by first class mail to the last known address of the person. The notice shall set forth the nature of the violation or failure to comply. Upon failure of the person to comply within 10 days of delivery or mailing of the notice, the person shall be subject to the penalties set forth in subsections (1) and (4). No notice to comply need be served with respect to violations or failures to comply involving portable signs Or the parking or display of motor vehicles. AN ORDINANCE TeAM END T~ CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESg~RF%ELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY ENACTING SECTIONS 21-1~.~ AND 21.1-5.1 RELATING TO '£~ IMPOSITION OF CIVIL P~NA~TI~S FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE S~ IT 0RDAI~=D by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) Chapters 21 and 21.1 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, 1978, as amended, are emended by enacting the following sections: Section 21-10.1. Civil Penalties for Certain Violations. (a) Any violation of the following provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed an infraction and shall be punishable by a civil penalty of (1) Operation of a business on a lot or parcel inside or outside of a dwelling unit or accessory building, and not a home occupation, in any residential or agricultural district, without a special exception or eonditional use. (2) Failure to enclose a swimming pool with a security type fence or wall not less than four (4) feet in height in any residential or agricultural district. (3) Violation of any condition of zoning, s condi- tional use permit or a special exception that relates to the hours of operation of the use of land or that relates to reduction or control of noise from the us~ of land. (b) Each day during which any violation of the provisions enumerated in paragraph (a) above is found to have existed shall constitute a separate offense. However, in no event shall any such violation arising from the same set of operative facts be charged more frequently than once in any ten (10) day period, nor shall a series of such violations arising from the same set cf operative facts result in civil penalties which exceed a total of $250. (e) The designation of a particular violation of this Ordinance as an infraction pursuant to paragraph (a)' above shall be in lieu of criminal sanctions, and except for any violation resulting in injury to any person or persons, suet designation shall preclude the prosecution of a violation as a criminal misdemeanor. (d) The Zoning Administrator shall cause one copy of a summons to be personally served upon persons violating the provisions of paragraph (a) of this ordinance. (e) Such ~ummen~ ~hall contain the following information: (1) The name and address of the person charged. (2) The nature of the infraction and the Ordinance provision(s) being violated. 89-946 (3) The location, date an~ time that the infraction occurred o~ was observed. (4) The amount cf the civil p~nalty assessed for the infractien. (5) The manner, location and time in which the civil penalty may b~ paid to the County. (6) The right of the recipient of t_he summons to elect to stand trial for the infraction and the date for ~uch trial. (f) The ~urm~ons shall provide that any person summoned for a violation may elect to pay the civil penalty by making ~u appearance in per,on Or in wxiting by mall to the County Treasurer at least seventy-two (72) hour~ prior to the time and date fixed for trial and, by such appearance, may enter a waives of trial, admit liability, and pay the Civil penalty established for the offense charged. Such summons shall previde 5hat a Signature to an ad~ission of liability snail Have the same fores end effsot as a judgment o~ court. How- ever, an admission shall not be deemed a criminal conviction for any purpose. (g) If a per,on charge~ with a violation does not elect to enter a ~aiver of trial and admit liability, the violation shall be tried in the General Distr~ct Court of the County in the same manner end with the sam~ right of ~ppeaI as provided by law. A finding of liability stall not be deemed a criminal (h) The remedie~ provided fox in this Section are cumula- tive and not exclusive and shall be in addition to any other remedies provided by law. Section 21.1-5.1. Civil ~enalties for C~rtaln violations. (a) Any violation of the following provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed an infraction and shall be punishabl~ by a civil penalty of $5~: (1) Operation of a business on a lo~ or parcel inside or outside of a dwellin~ unit or accessory building, and not a hom~ occupation, in any residential or aqricnlturaI district, without a special uxception or conditional ~se. {2] Failure to enclose a ~wimming pool with a security type fence or wall not tess than four (4) feet in height in any residential er a~ricultural district. {3] Violation of any condition of zonlnp, a condi- tional =se p~rmit or a special exception that relates to the hours of operation of the use of land or that retat~s to reductlon cz control of noise from ~he uae of land. (b) ~ach day durln~ whlck any violation of the provisions enumerated in paragraph (a} above i~ found to have existed shall constitute a separate offense. ~owever, in no event shall any such violation arisln~ from t~e ~ame set of epe~atlue period, nor shall a series of such viola%ions arising from the same set cf operative facts result in civil penalties which ~xceed a total of $950. (c) The designation of a particular violation of this Ordinance as an infraction Du~suant to paragraph (a) above shall be in lieu of criminal sanctions, and e~cept for any violation resulting in injury to any person or persons, such designation shall preclude the pro~esu~ion of a violation ss a criminal misdemeanor. 89-947 (d) The Zoninq Administrator shall cauee One copy of a stt~m~ons %0 be personally served upon persons violating provisions of paragraph (a) of this ordinance. (e) Such sualmons shall contain the following information: (1) The name and address of the person charged. {2) The nature of the infraction and %he Ordinance provision(s) being violated. (3) The location, date and time that the infraction (4) The amount of the civil penalty assessed for the infraction. (5) The manner, location and time in which the civil penalty may be paid ko %he County. (6) The right of the recipient of the summons elect to stand trial for the infraction and the date for such trial. (f) The sur~nons shall provide that any person su~oned for a violation may elect to pay the civil penalty by making an appearance in person or in writing by mail to the County Treasurer at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the time and date fixed for %rial and, by such appearance, may enter a waiver of trial, admit liability, and pay the civil penalty established for the offense charged. Much summons shall provide that a signature to an admisSiOn of liability shall have the same force and effect as a judgment of court. How- ever, an admimsion shall net be deemed a criminal conviction for any purpose. (g) If e person charged with a violation does not elco% to enter a waiver of trial and admit liability, the violation shall be t~ied in the General District Court of.the County in the same manner and with the same right of appeal as provided by law. A finding of liability shall not be deemed a criminal conviction for any purpose. (h) The remedies provided for in this Section are cumula- tive and not exclusive and shall be in addition to any other remedies provided by law. Vote: Unanimous PUBLIC HEAP~INGS 10.B. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTERS 8 AND 12 OF TNE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978~__A~_AMENDED, BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE XIV AND AMENDING AND REENACTING S~CTION$ 12-39 AND 12-117 RELATING TO SHORT-TERM RENTAL TAX Mr. Micas stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend Chapters 8 and 12 of the County Code relating to short-term rental tax. He stated during the 1989 session, the General Assembly enacted legislation which significantly changed the ability of localities to tax those rental businesmes which rent property primarily on a short-te~m basis. He stated pursuant to this legislation, short-term rental businesses must be licensed as retail merchants (tax rate of $.20/$100 gross receipts) rather than as personal service businesses (tax rate of $.36/$100); therefore, adoption of the proposed ordinance will bring the County into compliance. 89-948 ~o OhS came forward to speak in favor of or against the proposed ordinance, On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Coffin, ths Board adopted the following erdinanoe~ AN Oi~DXNAN~ TO ~ C2~APT~RS 8 AND 12 ~ ~ING ~ ~E~ING SECTIONS 12-39 ~ 12-117 BE IT ORDAINED by the 9oard of Supervlsor~ cf Chest~rflel4 County tha~= Virginia, i~ amended and reenacted by a~in~ a nsw Article XlV ARTICLE XIV SHORT-T~ ~NTAL T~ Sec. 8-60. Imposition; ~ount. There is hereby imposed on every pe~son engaged in %he shoat-term rental business a tax of one (1) per=~nt on the "gross pros~d~" m%ans the total ~oun~ charged to each person for the rental of daily rsntal property, excluding an~ ~tat~ and local zales tax paid pursuant to the Virginia ~etall Sat~B and Use Tax Act. Section ~-61. ~aily rental property: defin%d. For ~rpo~es o~ this article, the te~ "daily rental property" moans alt tangible personal property h~ld for rental and owned by a person engaged in the short-term rental busi- ness. Th~ t~ "daily rental property" does not include =rail~r~ or ether tangible personal property re,ired to be licensed or registered with th~ bepar~nt of ~otor Vmhlcles, Department cf G~e and Inland Fisheries, or the Depar~ent o~ Aviation. Section 8-62, short-term ren~a! business; ~efined. A p~on is engage4 in the shcrt-tsrm rental business if not less ~han eighty percent {80%) of th~ gross rental reesipt$ of suck business in any year are from transactions involving rental periods of ninety-two {921 consecutive day~ or less, including all e~ensions and r~newals to the same person or a person affiliated with the les~or. "Affiliated" for purposes of this section shall z~an any common ownership interest in excess of five percent ~5%) of any officer~ or partners in ¢o~nl. en with the lessor and lessee. For purpose~ of this test, (i) any rental to a perSOn affiliated with the lessor shall be treated as rental receipts but shall not qnali~y ~o~ purposes of the eighty percent (80%) requirement, and (ii) any rental of per~ensl property which also involves the provi~i~n of personal services £or thc operation of the p~r$¢nal property rented shall not be treate~ as uross receipts from rental. For purpeueu of this s~ction, the delivery and installation o~ tangible personal property shall not mean operation. Section ~-6~. Colloutien, r~t~rn and remittance of tax. Every person engags~ in the ~h~rt-ferm rental busines~ ~h~ll nollect the rental tax from the lessee of the daily rsntal property at the time of the rantul. The lessor of th~ daily r~ntal property shall transmit a quartsrly return to ~he oemmissionsr of revenue, indicating th~ gross proceed~ d~ived from the short-term rental business and shall remit therewith the payment of such tax as is dna for th~ quarter. The quarterly returns and payment of tax shall be filed with th% 89-949 commissioner of revenue On or before the 20th day of each of the months of April, July, October and January, representing, respectively, the gross proceeds and taxes collected during the preceding quarters ending March 31, June 30, September 30 and December $1. The return shall be upon such forms and setting forth such information as the commissioner of revenue may require, showing the amount of gross receipts and the tax required to be collected. The taxes required to be collected under this article shall be deemed to be held in trust by the person required to collect such taxes Until remitted as re- quired in this article. ' Section 8-64. Procedure upon failure to collect~ report or remit taxes. If a person fails or refuses to collect the tax imposed under this article and to make, within the time provided in this article, the returns and remittances required in this article, the commissioner of revenue shall proceed to determine and assess against such person the tax, penalty and interest provided for by this article. Section 8-65. Penalty and interest. If a person fails or refuses to remit to the co~issioner of revenue the tax required to be collected and paid under this article within the time specified in this article, there shall be added to such tax a penalty in the ..amount of ten (10) percent of the tax past due or the sum of ten (10) dollars, whichever is the greater. The assessment of such penalty shall not be deemed a defense to any criminal prosecution for failing to make any return or remittance as required in this article. Additionally, interest on late payments of all taxes due shall be added at the rate of ten (101 percent per year. Penalty and interest for failure to pay the tax assessed pursuant to this article .shall be assessed on the first day following the day such quarterly installment pa!rment is due. Section 8-66. Exclusions and exemptions. No short-term rental tax shall be collected or assessed on (i) rentals by the Commonwealth, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth or the United States or (if) any rental of durable medical equipment as defined in subdivision 22 of section 58.1-608 of the Code of virginia. ~d~itionally, all exemptions applicable in chapter 6 of title 59.1 of the Code of Virginia shall apply mutatis mutandis to the short-term rental tax. Section 8-67. Certificate of registration. (a) Every person engaging in the short-term rental business shall annually file an application for a certificate of registration with the commissioner of revenue. Such appli- cation shell be filed no later than January 1 of each year. The application shall be on a form prescribed by the commis- sioner of revenue and shell set forth the name under which the applicant intends to operate the r~ntal business~ the location and such other information as the commissioner of revenue may require. (b) An application must be signed by the Owner or owners of the rental business. If the rental business is owned by an association, partnership or corporation, the application must be signed by a member, partner, executive officer or other person specifically authorized by the association, partnership or corporation to sign on its behalf. (c) Upon approval of the application by the commissioner of revenue, a certificate of registration shall be issued. The certificate shall be conspicuously displayed at all times at the place of business for which it is issued. 89-950 (d~ The certificate is not assignable and shall be valid only far the person in whose name it is isened and the place of business designated. Sec%ion 8-68. Criminal penalties for violation of article. Any person violating or failing to comply wi~h any provi- sion of thim article shell be guilt7 of a Class 3 misdemeanor. ~rovided, however, if the amoun~ of tax due for any quarter exceeds $1,000, any person failing to remit such tax when due or failing %o file a return for suet quarter shall be quilty of (2) Chapter 12 of the Code of the County Qf Chesterfield, Virginia, is amended and reemasted ~y amending Sestion 12-39 as follows: Sec. 12-39. Enumerated; amount of license tax. (2) Thc business of addressing letters or envelopes, inmtallerm of burglar alarms, agentm finding tenants for and renting rooms, huil~nqs, houses, and aperients, ticket, transportation, travel and tour ~gents or brokers, furnishing ambulance s~rvice, operating an analytical Iabora~ory, artier' s bodies for burial, a boiler shop and machine shop, ehioken hatchery, clmaning the outside of buildings, fur~lshiug busi- correspondent establishmen~ or bureau, detective ~ervise, furnishing detective service, furnishing olean diapers, an ~mbalmer, operating an engineering laboratory, operating a frozen food locke~ plant, conducting funerals, cleaning furnaces, boarding or k~eping hor$~$ or mules, furnishing house cleaning service, furnishing janitorial service, operating a k~nnel o~ small animal ho~pltal, supplying olean linen, towels, practitioner, furnishing messenger service, except telephone Or teleqraph n~senger Service, cleaning, maintaining and repair- ing motor vehicles, repair shop, ~owing me,or vehicles, nurses' ~egistry, packing, oratin~, shipping, cutting, hauling, or moving goods or chattels for o=hars, a perk~ng lot for the storage of or parking of v~hiclee or other personal proper~y, a photographer, physician i a regis:fy, picture ~ramlng or gilding, plating metel~ or any other materials, operating a reducing salon Or health club, renting any kind of tangible per~onal Code, opera~ing a scalp treating establi~hment, furnishing statistical s~rvice, s t~vedori~g, ~urnishing domestic or clerical help, labor or employment. (~) Chapter 12 of ~h~ Code of.~he County of Chesterfield, Virginia, is amended and reenacted by ~mending Section 12-117 as follows; Sec. 12-117. Defined; license requi~ed. Every person engaged in the business of a retail merchant shall obtain ~ license for the privilege o~ doing business in the county and shall pa~ a license tax therefor. The t~r~ "retail merchant" as used in thi~ division, ~hall include every person who sell~ goods, wares and merchandise for any purpose other than resale, but not inuluding sales et wholesale to institutional, commercial and industrial u~r~ and, in addi- tion, shall include every person who is engaged in a short-term rental business ae defined in section ~-62 of this Code. 89-951 (4) Thio ordinance shall be effective on January 1, 1990. Vote: Unanimous ll.A. AMENDMENT OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 MEETING TO CHANG~ MR. JESSE J. MAYBS' VOTE ON TEE CHESTER PLAN Mr. Micas stated at its Septembar 13, 1989 meeting, the Board approved the Chester Village Plan and the portion o~ the County's Thorouqhfare Plan in Chester relating to Hopkins Road ~xtended. He stated Mr. Mayes has requested that the Board adopt a resolution recognizing that he did not intend to vote for the Hopkins Road Extended portion in conjunction with eib_her of these plans. Mr. Mayes referenced a memo he had written to the County Attorney relative to amendment of the minutes of September 13, 1989 to change his vote on the Chester Village Plan; indicated his second to the motion did not correspond to the motion that was passed; and ~hat he did not intend to support the Hopkins Road ~xtension. Mr. Applegate stated, as he understood Mr. Mayes' memo, he wished the record to reflect that because of the misunderstand- ing of the motion made by Mr. Currin, Mr. Mayes would not have seconded the motion nor supported the motion had hs understood that the motion included the approval of Hopkin~ Road Extended. Mr. Mayes stated that he wished hi~ memorandum to the County Attorney %0 be included in the motion for future reference. On motion of Mr. Mayos, seconded ~y ~r. Applsga~s, the Board as~apted Mr. Mayer' requem% for the record to reflect that thsrs was a misunderstanding on the motion made by Mr. Currin on the Chester Village Plan and the Thoroughfare Plan that he would not have seconded the motion nor supported the motion had ho understood that the motion included the approval of Hopkins Road R×tended, and further that the following memorandum be included: MEMORANDUM TO: PROM: Mr. Steven L. Micas County Attorney SUBJECT: DATE: Jesse J. Mayes Supervisor, Matoaca District Board A~anda, Item No. ll.A. for October 25, 1989. October 21, 1989 The summary of information ovsr your siqnature on Paqe 46 of the subject ~oard agenda does not represent o~ express my ~rievance; therefore, I am requesting that you take the steps necessary to obtain a second opinion from the Circuit Court for the reasons stated below. I have viewed the video and audio of the Stoner Cable tape, and I am certain that it indicates that I did not vote for the Chester Village Plan that included the development of the Hopkins Road Extension. I rec~ested that the Board review the tapes before you ruled On the motion, but you denied my request, and ~ave me no other recourse to address my grievance. The Board minutes, September 13, 1989, lines 68 thru 74, Rage 815 clearly expresses my po~ition on the motion; lines 16 89-952 thr~ 24, Pag~ ~18 Zurther clarifies my vote on the motion. The minutes on lines 36 thru 54, Page Mr. Currin moved to adopt a re~olntion ~egardinq the proposed Chester Village Plan az recc~end~d by the Planning Commiseion~ however, I seconed the motion based upon the clarification of the roads to be developed a~ o6~iined in the minutes by Mr. McCracken on lin~s 36 thru ~l,.Pa~e Pleas~ amend your summary of ~gen~a Item II,A, and add =his memorandu~ to address my grievance. cc: Mr. G. F. Applegate, Chairman Mr. Lane B. Ram~ey~ County Administrator Me. Joan S. Dolezal" ll.B. ADOPTION OF UPDATED EMERGENCY 0PE~{ATIOES PLAN There ~as brief discunsion relative ~o the mOdi£1ed and uDdated Emergency Operations Plan, dated July 7, 1987, which included th~ Hazardoun Materia~ ~mergency Plan Annex which was doveloped by the County'~ Local E~erg~ncy Planning Committee. There was Board disc~g~ion~ q//estion and ~efm~ent relative to who is legally responsible for whatever action ~$ i~plemented in the event of e disaeter~ th% l~gal requirement fha% the Board is encumbered, under their oa=h, to aDDrove this Plan; etc. Mr. Ramsey clarified that this Plan had already been adopted by th~ Board and that which is before the Board are ~endments to the Plan. When asked, Mr. Micas stated thu Doard is obligated under State and Federal law tu adopt am Emergency opera~ions Plan in some form. On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Mayes, =he ~oard adopted the following resolution= WHEP~AS, there eximt danger~ o~ many types including man-mad~ dimamterm~ natural disamtmrs and possible hostil~ actions of an unknown enemy; and WH~R=AM, ~e safety and protection of the citizen and property are of formmomt con,mm to the ~oard of Supervimorm of Chesterfield Ccunty~ and WHEREAS, the Board Of Supervi~o~ desires and %h~ Co~onwealth O~ Virginia and Federal gov~r~enn require the adoption of appropriate planned protective measurem. NOW~ T~E~FO~, BE IT ~SOLVED~ by th~ Boar~ o~ $~p~rvi~ors of the County of Chesterfield this 25th day of October, 1989 that it hereby adopt~ the Chest~cfield County plan ~or County emergency ~vices. (It is noted a copy of ~aid ~lan is flied wlth the pap~r~ of ll.C. CONSEMT ITEMS ll.C.1. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing UpOn his 8B-B53 examination of Manitoba Road and Katy Reid Court in Ashley Grove, Section F, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, it is resolved that Manitoba Road and Katy Reid Court in Ashley Grove, Section F, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Manitoba Road, beginning at existing Manitoba Road, State Route 3484, and going southwesterly 0.03 mile to the intersection with Katy Reid Court, then continuing south- westerly 0.08 mile to end in a temporary turnaround; and Raty Reid Court, beginning at the intersection with Manitoba Road and going southeasterly 0.09 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. These roads serve 18 lots. And be it further resolved, t/lat the Board of Supervisors guarantees .to the Virginia Department of 'Tranmpcrtation a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads. This section of Ashley Grove i~ recorded as follows: Section F. Plat Book 52, Page 81, April 30, 1986. Vote= Unanimous This day the County Environmental Pngineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Woodlake Village Parkway, Beechwood Point Road, Beechwood Point Circle and Beechwood Point Court in Beschwood Point, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereoi, and on motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, it is resolved that Woodlake Village Parkway, Beechwood Point Road, Beechwood Point Circle and Beechwood Point Court in Beechwood Point, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are establimhed am public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Tranmportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Woodlake Village Parkway, beginning at existing Woodleke Village Parkway, State Route 3600, and going northwesterly 0.09 mile to the intersection with B~echwood ~oint Road, then continuing northwesterly 0.02 mile to end at proposed Woodlake Village Parkway; Beechwood Point Road, beginning at the intersection with Woodlake Village Parkway and going northeasterly 0.06 mile to the intersection with Beech- wood Point Circle, then turning and going easterly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Beechwood Point Court, then continuing easterly 0.07 mile, then turning and going northeasterly 0.08 mile, then turning and going easterly 0.07 mile to the inter- section with Heechwood Point Circle, then continuing easterly 0.06 mile, then turning and going northeasterly 0.10 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Beechwood Point Circle, beginning at the intersection with Beeehwood Point Road and going southeasterly 0.10 mile, then turning and going easterly 0.16 mile, then turning and going northerly 0.06 mile to end at the inter- section with Beechwood Point Road; and Beechwood Point Court, beginning at the intersection with Reechwood Point Road and going 0.06 mile, then turning and going easterly 0.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance 89-954 and designated Virginia Department o5 ~ranspertation drainage These roads serve 65 lots. And be it further r~olv~d, that the Board of SupervlsorE guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads except Beachwood Point Road whish has a 50' to 80' variable width right-of-way, and Wood- lake Village Parkway which has a 70' right-of-way. Beechwood Point is recorded as follows: Flat Book 23, Pages 88 & 09, July 29, I986. Vote: Unanimeu~ This day ~he County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with di~etione from thi~ Board, made reporh in writing upon hi~ examination of Castle Glen Terrace, Castle Glen Circle, Castle Glen Drivo and Castl~ Glen Court in Castle Glen, Clov~r District. Upon consideration whereof, an~ on motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, it is resolved that Castle Terrace, Ca~kle ~l~n Circle, Castle Glen Drive and Ca~tle Glen Co~rt in Castl~ Glen, Clover Hill District, be a~d they hers~y are established as public roads. And be it farther resolved, that th~ Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Castle Glen Terrace, beginnin~ ab the inter- section with Adkins Road, State Route 672, and going south- westerly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Ca~tle Glen Circle, then continuing southwesterly 0.0~ mile ~o the intersection with Castle Glen Drive, then continuing southwesterly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Ca~tle Glen Court, then continuing southwesterly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Castle Glen Circle, beginning at the in~er~eetiOn with Castle Glen Terrace and ~oing northwesterly 0.05 ~ile to end in a cul-de-sac; Castle Glen Drive, b~glnnlng et ~he intersection wi~h Castle Glen Terrace end qolng northweshe~l~ 0~08 mile ~o end in temporary t~r~ar~un~; and Castle Glen Court, beginning at the inter~ction with Castle Glen Terrace and going northwesterly 0.05 mile, then turninq and going westerly 0,03 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Thi~ request ia inclusive Of the adjacent slope, ~igkt distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage These roads ~rve 50 lets. And be it further resolved, that the Eeard of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a right-of-way for all of these reads. Castle Glen is recorded as follow~: Plat Bock 49, Page 88, July 10, 1955. This day ~]e County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with d±raetfens from this Board~ mede report in writing upon hi~ examination of West Road, West TerraGe, Wes~ Cou~t and West' Cirsle in 01d Creek West, a portion of Sec%ion 9, Clover Mill District, 89-955 Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, it is resolved that West RQad, West Terrace, West Court and West Circle in Old Creek West, a portion of Section 9, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are e~tablished as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary ~ystem, West Road, beginning at the intersection with 01d Creek Road, State Route 2222, and going southweaterly 0.09 mile to the intersection with West Terrace, then continuing southwesterly 0.05 mile to the intersection with West Court, then continuing southwesterly 0.03 mile to the intersection with West Circle, then continuing southwesterly 0.01 mile to end at proposed Old Creek West, Section 10, West Terrace, beginning at the intersection with West aoad and going south- easterly 0.10 mile to end in a temporary turnaround. Again West Terrace, beginning at the intersection with West Road and going westerly 0.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; West Court, beginning at the intersection with West Road and going southerly 0.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and West Circle, beginning at the intersection with West Road and going northerly 0.03 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage These roads serve 80 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Superviecrs guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of theee roads, except West Road which has a 60' right-of-way. This section of Old Creek West is recorded as follows: A portion of Section 9. Plat Book 57, Pages 51 & 52, June 19, 1987. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Providence Forest Court in Providence Forest, Sections A and B, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion oi ~r. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, it is resolved that Providence Forest Court in Providence Forest, Sectione A and B, Clover Hill 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, Providence Forest Court, beginning at the intersection with Providence Road, State Route 678, and going easterly 0.23 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. This road serves 43 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. These sections of Providence ~orest are recorded as follows: 89-956 Section A. Plat Book 49, Page I0, April Section S. Plat Book 52~ Page 53, March This day the County Environmental Engineer, in aCCordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Ridgerun Road~ Ridgerun Place and Kidg~r~n TerraCe in Qu~lla Farms~ Section E, aa~oaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr, Currin, seconded by Mr. Snllivan, it is re~olvad that Ridgerun Road, Ridgerun Place and Kidgerun Terrace in Quells Farms, Section E; Matoaca 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 r~que~t~d to sake into the Secondary System, Rid~run Road, beginning at the intersection with Quells Road, State Route 653, and ~oing easterly 0.0~ mils to the infersection wi~h RidqeYun Place, th~n continuing ~outheasterly 0.08 mile to the int~r~ectlen with ~idgeIun Terrace, then continuing eoutherly 0.13 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Ridgerun Place~ b~ginni~g ~t ~he intersection with Ridgerun Road and goin~ northerly 0.Q5 mil~ to end in a cul-de-sac; and Ridg~run Terrace, beginning at ~he intersection with Ridgerun Road and going southw%st~rly 0.10 mile to ~nd in n cul-d~-~ao~ Again Ridgerun T~rrace, beginning at the inter- section with Ridqernn Road end going ~asterly 0.02 mil~, the~ turning an~ goiny southeasterly 0.08 mile to end in a temporary turnaround. This reqlles~ is inclusive of the ad]scent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia D~par%J~e~t of Txansportat£on drainage easements. These roads serve 59 tot~. And be it further re~olvcd, that the Board of Znpervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' ~ight-of-way for all of these roads. This section of Quells Farms is recorded a~ £0110ws: Section E. Plat Book 53, Pages 17 & 18, June 17, I986. 11.C.2. ~QU~ST FOR BINGO/RAFFLE PERMIT On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by ~r. Sullivan; the Board approved a request ~er bingofraffle permit for the Junior Women~ Club of Chester for the calendar year 1989. tl.D. CO~94UNIT¥ DEVELOPMENT TTE~ ll.D.1. STREET L!GET INSTALLATION COST ~-PPROVALS Mr. McElfish noted that homeowners at tho installation location for the light at Milbrae couY~ and Milbrae Road and the Milbrae Road and Redbrid~ Roa~ object to tho installation; however, staff would try to contact then in sn effort ~O ~pprove an alternative leoation recommended by Virginia Power. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by ~r, S~llivan, the Board ~9-957 deferred until November 22, 1959 consideration of street light installation costs for the following locations in the Clover Hill District: 1. 4401 Old Hundred Road, $299.00; 2. Intersection of Milbrae Court and Milbrae Road, and 3. Intersection of Milbrae Road and Redbridge Road, Vote: Unanimous $273.00; $419.99. ll.D.2. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved obtaining cost estimates for the installation of street lights at the following locations in the Districts aS indicated: 2. Intersection of Hampton Avenue District. Vote: Unanimous Intersection of Middle Road and Twilight Lane, Clover Hill District; and There was brief discussion relative to whether or not the County could assume the responsibility for payment of the monthly electrical costs if neighborhood con~uunities were willing to purchase and install street lights. It was noted privately installed streetlights have been taken into the County system as an individual request. Mr. McElfish stated staff was currently in the process of discussions with Salisbury residents regarding this issue and would update the Board at a future time. ll.D.3. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PROCEEDINGS OF CHESTERFIELD INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOBMENT REVENU~ BONDS FOR ALAN C. RITTER (LEASING TO CUSTOM OPTICS~ INC.) Thers was brief disaussion relative to the funding capacity for issuance of such bonds; State funding allotments~ etc. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the £oltowing resolution: On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE ROARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTEI~FIELD COUNTs, VIRGINIA APPRO%r~NG THE ISSUANCE OF ~ TO $2,600,000 INDUSTIAIALDEVELOPMENTAoTnORIT~OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, QI1ALIFI~D ~ I$SU~ E01~DS FOR x~ PURPOSE OF FINANCING T~E ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF AM ANUFACTURING FACILI~ WBEP~EAS, th~ Industrial Development Authority of Chesterfield County (the "Authority"l has considered the application of Alan C. Ritter whose principal business addrems is located c/o Facilities Management, 495 West John Street, Hicksville, New York 11801 (the "Applicant"), for the issuance of the Authority's qualified small issue revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $2,600,000 (the "Bonds") to assist the Applicant in the acquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately 50,000 square foot manufacturing facility to be owned by ~le A~plicant and l~ased to Custom optics, Ins., a Jersey corporation with its principal place of business being located at 216 Midlend Avenue, Saddle ~roek, New Jersey for operation of a manufacturing facility for apthalmic lense~ land included within a larger 340 acre parcel of unimproved land on the Bast sid~ of Ruf~in Mill Road across from the en~ran0a gale to the giorucci plant which is approximately 3/10the of one mile from the intersectlun of Rnffis Mill Road and Continental Boulevard (the "P~oject") in Chesterfield County, Virginia (the "County"}, and has held a public hearing thereon in accordance with Section 15.1-1378.1 oi the Virginia Industrial D~velopmen~ and Revenue Bend Act (the "Act'~) and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue COde ef 1986, as (the "Cede"); and WHEREAS, Section 147(f) Of the Code provides that the governmental units having jurisdiction over th~ issuer of qualified small issue revenue bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with th~ proceeds of qualified small i$$ne revenue bends is located shall approve the i~aance of such bond~; and WqIEREAS, the Anthofity issues its bonds on behalf of the County, the Project is to he looated in the County and the Board cf Supervisors of th~ County (the "Board") constitutes ~he "applicable elected representative of the County" or highest elected governmental officials of the County in accordance w~th Section 147(fl (E) Of the Code; and th~ issuance of th~ BOn~; and W~BREAS, a copy of (1) the Authority'~ res~I~tion agreed upon (25 a reasonably detailed sugary of ~xpressed at the public hearing 0n the Projec% and (3) the Authority's fis~ai ~mpact statement f~r =he Project, have been f~l~d with the Board. Ch~terfi~l~ County, Virginia: (i) The Board approves th~ issuance o~ the Bond~ by ~= Authority and t~e plan o~ financing for th~ Project, as r~qulr~d by Section 147(f) of tko Code and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Act. (2} Yhe Board hereby agr~s %o apply to ~he Allocatlun Administrator to raques= an all0Gatlon of an amount not exceed $2,600,000 of tko ~ute Ceiling to the B0~ds, pursuant to the Act, an~ ~irect9 th~ County Administrator ac p~epare and file an application therefor as promptly as practicable. section 147(S) ~ =he Code~ do~s not constitute an of ~he Bonds or the credltworthin~s of the Applicant, but required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Act/ the Bonds shall pro.ids that neither the County nor =he Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the inS=rust thereon or other costs incident thereto except fro~ the revenues and moneys pledged there{or, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing pOWer of the Co~onwgalth of Virginia, the County nor the Au=termLy ~hall be pledged thereto. (%) This re~l~tion shall tak~ ~ffect i~edia%~ly upon ire adoption. ~B-B59 ll.B. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS ll.B.1. CONSENT ITENS ll.E.l.a. APPROVA50~ ~NGTN~R FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER There was discussion relative to a review of the bidding selection process, as outlined within the Virginia Public Proourement Act, in an effort %o award contracts to local County and/or State contractors; and direction to staff to review sai~ process; etc. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents to enter into an engineering contract with Whitman, Requardt and Associates to provide engineering services for the Countywide Water and Waztewater Ma~ter Plan. (It is noted funding for this project is included in the capital budget.) Vote: Unani~ou~ APPROVAL OF WATER CONTRACT FOR CENTRE COURT, COURT- HOUSE ROAD EXTENDED On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved the following water contact and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents: Centre Court - Courthouse Road Extended: Developer: The E. U. Development Partners Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc. Contract Al~ount: Estimated Total - $29,845.00 Total Estimated County Cost: Water - Cash Refund - $12,258.00 (Additional work) Estimated Developer Cost: $17,587.00 Code: Cash 5E-57240-E98200E Vote: Unanimous ll.E.l.c. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO QUITCLAIM COUNTY'S INTEREST IN STRIP OF LA~D ADJACENT TO TWINRIBGE LANE On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board set the date of November 8, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider the Quitclaim of any County interest in a strip of land adjacent to Twinridge Lane. Vote: Unanimous ll.E.l.d. APPROVAL TO REIMBURSE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANS- PORTATION FOR ADDITIONAL BETTERMENT WORK TO THE EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM WITHIN THE ROUTE 10 WIDEN- ING PROJECT TMROUGH CHESTER (PROJECT #87-0222) On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved the reimbursement of $32,000 to the Virginia Depar~ent of Transportation for additional betterment work to the existing wastewater system along Route 10 through Chester between 01d Centralia Road and Thomas Dale High School; and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents on behalf of the County. (It is noted the County is responsible for 100% of this cost and no additional funding or transfer of money is required as the current funding is adequate. I 89-960 m ll,E.2. REP©RT~ Mr. Welchon~ presented th~ ~oard with a report on the developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. II.F, RRpORTS Mr. Ramsay preaented the Board with a stat~s report on the G~neral Fund Contingency Ao¢ount~ General Fund Dalanoe, Road Reserve Funds~ District Road and ~treet Light Fundt, Lea~e Purchases, and School Board Agenda and Mr. Ramsay stated the Virginia Department of Transportation has formally notifiud th~ County of ~he acceptance of the following roads into =he State Secondary System: BEXLE¥ - S~CTIO~ 12 (sf~aotlve 10-3-89) Routs 2541 (Cardiff Road) - Prom 0.03 mile east Rout~ ~637 ~o 0.13 mile east Route 4272 0.36 Mi. Route 4270 (Cardiff Way) - From Route 2641 to north cul-de-sac ~.16 Mi. north uul-de-sae 0.12 Mi. Route 4272 (Cardiff Place) - From Route 2641 to southwest cul-de-sac 0.04 Si. Route 2439 (Sturbridg~ Drive) - From Route 60 to Rout~ ~75 {effective 10-I1-89) 0.19 Mi. WALTON PARK - SECTION P (~ffective ROUte 624 (Wa]ton Park Roa~) - From 0.04 mile south Route 4152 to Route 1385 Route 1385 (Q~aensgat~ Road) - Prom Route ~084 to 0.01 mile ~ast Rout~ ~24 Route 3505 (Slenshade Drive) - From Route 10~ to east cu!-de-$ao Route 4152 (Coralview Road) - ~rom Route 624 to west Route 4153 (Coralvi~w Court) ~ Prom Route 4152 to So~th cul-de-sac Route 4154 {Coralvlew Terrace) - From Route 4152 to ~outh cul-de-sac Route 4160 (~adowhill court) ~ ~rom Route I385 to north o~l-d~-sac M=ADOWBROQK ~ARMS - SECTION A (effective 10-12-~9) ROute 456~ (Countr~ ~anor Lane) - From Route 10 to 0.0! mile west Route 4563 Route 4~61 (Country Manor Courtl - From Route 4560 to north cul-de-sac 0. lB Mi. 0.2B Mi. 0.04 Mi. 0.15 0.I4 Mi. 0.11 Mi. 0.10 Mi, 0.25 Mi. 0.04 ~i. 89-961 ADDITIONS (continue~) LBNGTM MEADOWBROOK FARMS ~ SECTION A (effective 10-12-89) Route 4562 (Country Manor Place) - From Route 4560 to south cul-de-sac Route 4563 (Carriageway ~ane) - From Route 4560 to west cul-de-sac Route 4564 (Carriageway Court) h From Route 4563 to south cul-de-sac 0.08 Mi. 0.12 Mi. 0.03 Mi. ll.G. EXECUTIVE SESSION When asked, Mr. Micas stated that, due to the School Board's actions on the previous evening, it would not be necessary for the Beard to consult in Executive Session with legal counsel regarding probable litigation between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board involving the use of school facilities. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board went into Executive Session for consultation with legal counsel pureuant to Section 2.1-344(a) (7) regarding probable litigation involving Wilton and Napier versus Board of Supervisors. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Sullivan stated that during previous Executive Session involving consultation with legal counsel relative to the usa of school facilities he had declared a conflict of interest, the reaeon being his employer was involved in the day care business; however, eifective October 7, 1989, he no longer was employed with that oompany. He stated, as a result of written communication with the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, he has been advised that he no longer has a conflict ~elative to that issue and, for future reference~ he wished the record to reflect his position in t_his matter so there would be no misunderstanding. It was generally agreed the Soard would recess to the County Administrator's Conference Room for the Executive Session and then to the Administration Building Conference Boom (Room 502) for the Work Session. Reconvening: Pertaining to the probable litigation between the Board of Supervisors and Wilton and Napier, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, resolved that the Board adopt the following re~elution: W~R~AS, the ~oard of Supervisors has this day adjourned into Executive Session in accordance with a formal vote of the Board, and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act effective July 1, 1989, provides for certification that such Executive Session was conducted in conformity with law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors does hereby certify that to the best of each member's knowledge, i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Freedom of Information Act were discussed in the Executive Session to which this certi£ication applies, and ii) only such public business matters ae were identified in the Motion by which the Executive Session was convened were heard, discussed or 89-962 considered by The Board. cation. The Board b~ing polled, Vote: Mr. Daniel: Mr. Mayes: Mr. Currin: Mr. Sullivan~ NO member dissents fTom this certifi- the vot~ was as follows: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye, Mr. Applegate: Aye. ll.H. WOR~ SESSION It was generally agTeed the Work Session regarding the Proposed 1990 Lsgi$1~tlve Progra~ would be moved out of sequence to be discussed after Item ll.K., R~que~ts for Rezoning. II,%. LUI~CH The Board recessed to travel to the Su~set Cate at the County Airport fur lunch. Reoonvenlng: ll.J. REQUESTS FOR MOBIL~ NOMB PEP24ITS 89SN0275 In Midlothian Magisterial District, XRV~/~G ~. D~F2~ requestsd a Mobile Moms Permit to park a mobile home On property approximately 160 feet Off the west line of Tower Light Road, from a point app~o~imetely 720 feet north of Westfi~ld Roa~, end b~ter known as 1410 Tower Light ~oad. Tax Map 15-7 Parcel 51 (~hset 7). RT. Jacobsen stated staff rose--ended approval of Case subject to Standard Conditions I through 7. He noted that this is tbs first case brought befor~ th~ Board of Supervisors wherein the applicant ~oes not have public TOad frontage; therefore, additional o~nditlons S through 10 are reco~snded which addre~n prope~ aooo~s to the property. Mrs. Gertrude Jefierson, the applicant's mother, stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. Th~r~ was no opp0si=ion present. When asked, Mrs. Jefferson ~tated she had was not tar~iliar ~it~ conditions 8 through ID. ~r. S~llivan requested that Mrs. Jefferson he permitted t~J%e to review tho~e conditions, to which the Board agreed, It was generally agseed to pToceed With Case 89S~0418 whil~ Mrs. Jefferson was reviewing the conditions of Case 89~0275. %n Bermuda ~aglsterial District, DAVID I~NS%~] S~TH r~quested a Mobile Some P~rmit to park a mobil~ home on property fronting %he noT,east line of Seminole AvenU~ approximately 350 southeast of Melba Street, an~ located in the vicinity Of 10525 seminole Avenue. Tax Map 98-2 I2) B~llmeade, Block 12, Lots 15 through 21, 47, and 4~ [Sheet 32). Mr. Jacobsen ~tated this mobile home will be located on property belonging to the epplicant; however, %he mobile home itself will be owned and oscupied hy Ms. Bsssie Davis, aunt. He ~tatsd~ therefore, ~hould ~he Board wish to approve this request, staff recommended that Standard Condition 1 be 89-963 amended and that remaining standard conditions 2 through 7 be imposed. Mr. David Smith stated the recon~ended conditions were acceptable. He submitted two letters from adjacent property Owners in favor of the request. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Cnrrin, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved Case 89SN0418 for seven (7) years~ subject to the following Standard Conditions, with amended Standard Condition 1 as noted below: The mobile home shall be owned and occupied by Bessie Davis only. 2. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be need for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home ~hall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimu~ lot size, yard setbacks, required fron~ yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall bo complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 £eet to any existing residence. 4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. Ail mobile hemee ehall 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 tho Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of tho mobile home. 7. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Eome Permit. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Jacobsen recalled Case 89SN0275. 89SN0275 In Midlothian Magisterial District, In, rING F. DRAPER requested a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile homo on property located approximately 160 feet off the west line of Tower Light Road, from a point approximately 720 fee~ north of Wostfield Road, and better known as 1410 Tower Light Road. Tax Map 15-7 (1) Parcel 51 (Sheet 7). After a brief discussion, Mrs. Jefferson noted that she was the owner of thc subject mobile home and that ~he applicant would only be the occupant but stated the recommended conditions were acceptable including additional conditions 8 through 10. When asked, Mr. Jacobsen ~tated approval of an ordinance amendment relative to street frontage requirements was applic- able to this request; therefore, Mrs. Jefferson would be eligible for a fee refund. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved Case 89SN0275, subject to Standard Conditions 2 through 7, amended Condition 1 and Conditions 8 through 10 as follows: 89-964 1. The applicant shall Be the oeeupan~ of the mobile hems. 2. ~o let or parcel may be rented o~ leased for use as a mobile home sit~, nor ahall any mmbil~ home ba used rental, property. 0n%y one (1} mobile home ~hall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zonlnq requirements of the applicable zoning district shall bm complied with, sxeep~ that no mobile home shall be lo~ated ~lmser then 20 feet to any existing ~sidence. 4. No additional permanent-type living specs may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall b~ ~ki~ted but shall no__~t be placed on a pe~manen~ foundation. 5. Where public {County) waker .and/ur sewer are available~ they shell be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Homm Pexmlt, th~ shall then obtain the necessary permit~ from the Office of the Buildin~ Official. This shall be don~ prior CO the installation or relocation of the mobile home. 7, Any violation of %he above conditions shall he grounds for revocation of the Mobile ~ome 8. When the applicant applies for a building permit, the applicant shall provide a copy of a recorded d~sd which will inelud~ the following: a) A fifty (50) foot wide private access sas~mont west, from Towerliffht Road ~c fifty (50) feet west of th~ eastern boundary llne of the subject proper~y. b) A stipulation that no ~t~ucture or fence shall be constructed within the easemsnt. c) A stipulation tha~ the owner or owners of the subject property shall be responsible for malntai~ing the private access easement, in accordance with Condition #9~ for 9. Within the fifty (50) foot wide private a~s easement, twenty ~20) foot wide roadway shall be constructed to all-weather road s[anderds with a minimum aggregate base of six (6] inches. Tbs all-weather road shall hays five {5) to six (6) foot sloping shoulders with a well-definsd ditch for adequate drainage. Number 21 or 2lA StOne shall be ladd over a compacted subbase. ~his construction shall be w~st, from Towmrlight Rca~ to fifty (50) feet west of the eastern boundary line of the subjec= property. The alt-wea~hex read shall be completed prior to occupancy of the p~oposed dwelling. 10. The house number shall be installed on the mailbox or a pole and locat~ at th~ driveway entrance. The house number shall be displayed in a~ least six {6} inch high numbers. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Snllivan noted that because of the present development and ~he potential for fukurs development of property to the north of the subject property, the applicant should b~ advised look upon this r~quest as a temporary dwellin~ end, if approved, that it may or may not necesmarily be 89-965 ll.K. REQUESTS FOR REZONING 89SN0329 In Matoaca Magisterial District, INVESTOP~ ~NAGEMENT GROUP quested ~mendment to Conditional Use Planned Developments (Cages 86S097 and 88SN061) relative to bulk exceptions (maximum number of units per building) in a Reeidential (R-7) District. This request lies on an 11.8 acre parcel lying approximately 2,000 feet off the northeast line of Iron Bridge Road, across from Lewis Road. Tax M~p 114-6 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 3i). Mr. Jacobsen preeented a brief summary of the proposed request and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0329 subject to certain conditions. Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that he is involved in a business venture with IMG in another portion of the County, declared a conflist of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Glen Moore, representing the applicant, stated Investors Management Group hag contracted to purchase the subject site from Iron Bridge Development and intends, if the request were approved, to increase from eight to ten the number of dwelling units per building and reduce the number of buildings from eleven to nine while maintaining the maximum number of eighty-eight multifamily units currently permitted on Tract D. Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that Iron Bridge Investment Corporation holds an option on property he owns in this vicinity, stated he did not have a personal financial interest in the subject request nor did he feel that his property may benefit from approval of this request but to avoid any misconception he would prefer to not vote on the item, declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act. Mr. Moore stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. Mr. Buddy Fountain, a resident of Arbor Landing Subdivision, asked that if a motion for approval were made on this request that there be wording requiring IMG to maintain a 50 foot setback from the lake. Mr. Daniel stated ther~ appeared to be discussion relative to this case and requested that it be placed in its regular sequence on the agenda. Mr. Applegate and Mr. Currin returned to the meeting. 89SN0338 ~n Matoaca Magisterial District; LOIS E. NICHOLS requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25). A single family residential subdivision is planned. This request lies on a 57.6 acre parcel fronting approximately 125 feet on the south line of Claypoint Road, approximately 2,250 feet west of Qualla Road. Tax Map 77-2 (1) Parcel 8; Tax Map 77-5 (1) Parcel 9; and Tax Map 77-6 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 21). Mr. Jacobsen presented a brief summary of the request and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case $9SN0338, subject to a single condition and acceptance of the applicant's proffered conditions. Mr, Bill Walton, representing the applicant, stated the recommended condition was acceptable. There was nO opposition present. On motion of Mr. Maye$, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board B9-966 approved Case 89SN0338, subjec= tO the following condition: A fifty (50) foot buffer scrip, exclusive of easements and required yurd~, shall be ~tablished and maintained adjacent to Claypoiut Road (Route 651}. The ar~a of this buffer strip shall either be left in its natmral state, if ~ufficient vegetation exists to provide adequate screening; or be pla~ted and/or berraed in accordance with a landscaps plan approved by tho Planning Depar~ment~ if sufficient vegetation doss no= exist to provide adsquate screening. Prior ~o approval of any final site plan or recordation of any pla~, the deTeloper shall flag this buffer strip for i~spection, and shall post a bond to cover ~he implementation of the land,cape plan, if such a plan is required. Except for approved public road accens(~$), no access shall be through this buffer strip. This buffer strip shall be noted on any flual site plans, and any final check and recordation plats. The Planning Commission Or The Director of Planning may modify this condition at the time of tentative subdivision rsview. (P & T) And further, the Board accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. Use of public water after the ~ifth building lot. Appli- cant and er assigns agree to mak~ public w~tar availab!a to the lo~ lines of ~ho five lots at the same time water is furnished to the rest of the ~ubdlvision. 2. Minimum lot a~ea of one (1) acre shall be maintained. 3. Floodplain along Swift Creek will net be disturbed and will act a~ a bu~er from adjacent landfill. uses may be permitted in floodplain area, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by Chesterfield COunty. Construction of s~w~r lines and storm water systems may be permitted where necessary. 4. Applicant agrees to revie~ of the tentative subdivision by Planning Com~isslon. (NOT~: Proffered Conditions 1 and 2 were previously referenee~ as Conditions 2 and 3 in the initial "Request Analysis and Recommendation.'~) Vote: Unanimous In ~atoaca Maqisterial District, R. 5. STAPLES, D~¥~LOPM~T CONSTRUCTION ~ANAGF/~ENT r~quasCed reao~ing from Agricultural (A] nnd General Bu~ines~ (B-3) to Co~unity Dusiness (C-3) with planned. This request lies on an S4.8 acr~ parcel fronting approximately 633.~5- feet On ~he south line of Hull Street Road across from Suncrest Drive, also fronting approx~at~ly 453 f~t on ~he nor~east lin= o~ Genito Road aefos~ from Landing Drive. Tax Map 49-1I {1) Parcels 8 through ~I (Sheet and stated the Planning Co~ission recoa~ended approval of Case ~gSNQ402, subject to a ~ingle oondition and acceptance of the applicant'~ proffered condition~. Mr. Edward Kidd, representing the applicant, stated the race--ended condition was acceptable. There wa~ no 89-967 Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that he owns stock in the County Bank of Chesterfield, which is adjacent (across the street) to the subject property, however, after consultation with the County Attorney, he has been advised that his stock did not meet the criteria to be considered a conflict of interest and stated that he intendmd to vote on the subject request. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved Case 89SN0402, subject to the following condition for the conditional use: The exceptions %O outside storage limitations and minimum acreage requirements for multi-family shall be subject to the limitations outlined in the applica- tion. (P} And further, the Board accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. Along the east line of Genito Road and north of the centerline of Hunters Landing Drive extended, for a depth of 200 feet from Genito Road, the permitted uses shall be as follows: (a) Those uses permitted in the O-1 District, subject to the requirements of the 0-2 District. (b) Banks and Savings and Loan Institutions with or without drive-in windows and public address systems (which shall not be audible from adjacent residential properties), subject to re- quirements of the C-2 District. (c) Residential multi-family and townhouses subject to the requirements of the C-3 District and the conditional use requested in this application. Along the east line of Genito Road and south of the centerline of ~unters Landing Drive extended, for a depth of 150 feet from Genito Road, the permitted uses shall be as follows: (a) Those uses permitted in the O~1 District, subject to the requirements of the 0-2 District. Residential multi-family and townhouses subject to the requirements oi the C-3 District and the conditional use ~eguested in this application. 3. Structures located within those areas fronting Genito Road as defined in the set of proffered conditions dated Sep- tember 21, 1989, shall be architecturally compatible with the residential development across Genito Road. Com- patibility may be achieved through use of building mate- rials, styla elements, building scale or other archi- tectural feature~. This does not imply however, that such structures must be constructed to resemble a dwelling unit. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, 45 feet of right-of-way measured from the centerline of Genito Road shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County ~ree and un- restricted. 5. In addition to submission of road construction plans to VDOT and Environmental Engineering, the plans shall also be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Depart- 6. Specific roadway improvements set forth in these proffers 89-968 are required by tho time of full site development and are to be constructed in accordane~ with a phasing plan proved by the WraneDortatien. Depe~tment. The developer shall provide the Transportation Department with addition- al traffic erudite upon completion of each phase if quested. Roadway improvements shall be increased Or decrcased by the developer ae required by the Transporta- tion Department if these studies demonstrate that traffic generation rates and distributions ~olety by this develop- ment are materially different as determined by the Trans- portation Uepartnant from projections sot forth in traffic study prepared by Wilbur smith & Associates, dated September, 1989; and the supplement ~ated Octobe~ ~, 1989, (the "Traffic Study"). If improvements satisfactory to the ?ransportation Department candor ~e provided, the Transportation Department may reduce the permissible density to attain acceptable levels of service, as de- termined by the Transportation Department. Decieiofis of the Transportation Department with .regard ~o permitted density and r~quired roadway improvements may be appealed to the Planning Com~i$$ion by the Developer. 7. To provide for an adequate roadway system ar ~he time of the oo[~plete development of the proposed project, [he developer will bu responsible for tho following: (a) Dedicate a minimum sixty (60) foot wide right-Df-way ~or a collector road from ROute 360 to Genito Road+ The ~xact location and design of this collector road shall b~ a~proved by th~ (b) Additional pavement on Route 360 at its inte~- ~cction with the collector r~ad t~ provide duc1 left turn lanes into the colleoto~ road. (c) Additional pavement alQag eastbound Route 360 at its intersection with the collector road provide an addi~ionaI through lane (3rd lane for the lenqf~h of the property irontage) plus a ~oparatc right turn lane at the collector ~0ad and at one additional (d) Full cost of traffic signal a= the ROute ~60/coll~etor mad ~ntersection. A minimum four lane undivided typical section shall be constructed for the collector road, exccpt at its intersection with Re, ts 360 Where the collector road shall have a six lane typical section (i.e. four out-bound and two in-bound lanes) and at its intersection with Genito Roa~, whar~ the collector road shall have a minimu~ fiv~ lane typical section (i.e. three out-bound and. two in-bound lanes). (f) Qenlto road shall have a ~inimtu~ four lane typical section through the collector road intersection at such tir~e that the traffic analysis warrant~ four lanes, as deterT~ined by the Transportation Dependent. Full cost of a traffic signal at the road/Genito RO~ interssction when traffic analysis warrants~ as d%tsrmined by the Trans- portation Department. The Developer will dedicate to the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, any additional rlgh~-of-way (or easement) required for ~he improvements identified these proffered conditions. 89-969 9. In conjunction with site plan submittal, a phasing plan for required road improvements, with supporting traffic analysis, if requested by the Transportation Department, shall be eubmitted to and approved by the Transportation Departmsnt. 10. A 60 foot wide stub road right-of-way shall be dedicated for the exteneion of Specks Drive, from the collector road to the northern property line. The location of this stub shall be approved by the Transportation Department. This proffered condition may be omitted by the Transportation Department if the right-of-way is not deemed necessary. 11. The maximum density of this development shall be in accor- dance with the trip generation calculations done in the Traffic Study including Table A-1 of th~ ~upplement dated October 5, 1989. 12. Access to Route 360 shall be limited to the collector road plus one additional entrance/exit. Access to Genito Road shall be limited to the collector road, except that an additional entrance/exit may be approved by the Transpor- tation Department. Vote: Unanimous 89SN0329 In Mateaca Magisterial Dietrict, INVESTORS ~a_NAGEMENT GROUP re- guested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Developments (Cases 86s097 and 888N061) relative to bulk exceptions (maximum number of units per building) in a Residential (R-7} District. This request lies on an 11.8 acre parcel lying approximately 2,000 feet off the northeast line of Iron Bridge Road, across from Lewis Road. Tax Map 114-6 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 311. Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that he is involved in a business venture with IMG in another portion of the County, declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that Iron Bridge Investment Corporation holds an option on property he owns in this vicinity, stated he did not have a personal financial interest in the subject request nor did he feel that his property may benefit from approval of this requeet but to avoid any misconception he would prefer to not vote on the item, declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act. Mr. Jacobsen presented a brief summary of the proposed request and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 895N0329, subject to certain conditions. ~e noted that zoning conditions require a buffer of only 35 feet along the lake; however, there is an existing covenant which requires a 50 foot buffer in that area. He added that a site plan has been filed with staff indicating that the closest building to the normal elevation of tbs lake as being 61 feet. Mr. Glen Moore, representing t/me applicant, stated this case was deferred at the Planning Commission level last month in order for the applicant to meet with Ironbridge residents to resolve concerns. Be stated, during the proceedings, he discussed Mr. Fountain's concerns with him and stated he would agree to a condition that no building will be constructed within 50 feet of the lake abutting Tract D to address the residents' concerns, a copy of which condition he submitted to Planning staff. Mr. Fountain stated Mr. Moore's suggested condition had addressed his concerns and was acceptable. 89-970 Qn motion cf ~x. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved Case ~9SN0329, subject to the followi~g conditions: The Textual Statement, comprised of ~he letter dated June 15, 1989, including Attachment 3, and tke map~ appended thereto, shall De considered the Master Plan, ~ub~ect, however, to the following conditions. 2. Tract D on the Rsvi~ed Ma~ter Plan shall be developed in accordance wi=h Article XXII, R-M? Residential Multi- family District, of th~ Chesterfield County Zoning Ordi- nance, a~bject to the following exceptions and additional req~irementp: a. Th~ tract shall be developed generally in accor- dance with, and reflecting the general spirit and intent of, the plan ~ntitled ~'$chematic Site Plan," prepared by Dewberry & Da~is, dated June 16, 1989~ and is filed as Exhibit F wi~h the No one {1) Building shall contain more than ten (10) units. 3. No building ~hall he constructed wi%him ~ifty (~0) feet of the lake abutting Tract D. (BO~) (NOTE= In addition to the recommended conditions, all previously imposed zoning conditions would apply, to ~euelcpment of Tract Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Maye~ and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Appl~gate and Hr. Currin. Mr. Applegata and Mr. Currin returned =e the meeting. 89SN0320 In clover Hill ~agisterial District, BPJ~RMi~4~ iNVESTMENT i~OCIAT~S requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 74S021) to permit a nightclub in an existing restaurant. Thi~ request lies in a Residential (R-?) District on a 9.9 acre parcel fronting in two (2) places for approximately 225 fee= on the west line of Millridge Parkway, approximately 100 fe~% south of Planters Wood Road. Tax Map 47-12 (1) Part of Parcel 7 (sheet Nr. Jacobsen prep~nted a summary of the proposed request and noted the Planning Co~mission recommended denial of Case ~PSNO~20 based on neighborhood concerns that ~he proposed use was too intense for the location. He s~a~ed sta~, however~ recommended approval, subject to certain conditions, because ~lanned Development (Case 74S021) to permit a n~ghtclub in an existing reotagrant would comply with the spirit and intent of r~pre~enting the applicant, stated Sunday Park was originally designated as a focus Of community and neighborhood activity which he felt wac accomplished with the mixture of existing 89-971 was always intended to be mixed, diversified and appealing to all age groups. He stated the purpose of the requested amendment is to clarify a technicality of the zoning to permit dancing, live entertainment and the serving of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the existing restaurant. Be stated the applicant is agreeable to all conditions with the exception of Condition 4 which he would request be modified so that the eonditlonal use shall be granted to and for Brandermill Investment Associates and/or Kevln Healy, exclusively, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. He submitted petitions with approximately 1,200 signatures of individuals supporting continuation of the use and proposed zoning a~endment, which al~o included approximately 199 letters of support; and referenced the petitions of approximately 500 signatures received by the Planning Cor~mission in support of the request. When asked, approximately 40 persons stood in support of the request. Mr. Chris Wheeler, Mr. Michael Grazianc and Mr. Dan Rucker voiced support for the proposed request as they felt Sunday Park was a family-oriented operation, an integral part of the community, and that the uonditienz of zoning were restrictive in nature and would minimize the impact of the nightclub operation on the community. Mr. James Beard; Pastor Tom Roach; Ms. Jo Owen; Ms. Sally Angus; Mrs. Chris Taylor; Mr. A1 Plummet; Ms. Marie T. Jackson; Mr. A1 Honkala; and Ms. Pat Goldherg voiced Opposition to the proposed request as they felt it inappropriate for the location and expressed concerns that the use was too intense for the area; that, if approved, it would be a nuisance, would generate noise, loitering, littering, vandalism, trespassing, etc., and asked that the Board deny the request. Copies of petitions with approximately 222 signatures of opposition and a letter from Mrs. Margaret Duke were submitted to the Board for inclusion in the record. Mr. Plaxco stated he felt there was confusion between the activity being requested by the applicant and other activities that have been occurring in Sunday Park (i.e., young people not from the area loitering and littering in parking lots, etc.). He stated Me. Ann Duffer, a resident of Litchfield Bluff, was late arriving at the meeting and requested that she be permitted to address the Board at this time to voice her support of the request. Mr. Applegate stated MS. Duffer had addressed the Board in the form a letter which would be included in the record. There was discussion relative to the origin of the signatures on the petitions; existing ongoing activities at Sunday Park; the level of advertisement used for Sunday Park; the purpose of Condition 4 being an enforcement mechanism in that it controls the operation of the facility; deletion of Condition 4 as there is sufficient enforcement/regulation of the use without restricting the length of the use; security ~urveillance of the area parking lots; etc. Mr. Kevin Healy, Sunday Park manager, ~tated advertisement is accomplished through a community flyer distributed throughout the community area on a monthly basis, the Chesterfield Gazette, and the Village Mill monthly. Mr. Daniel inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to a condition that would limi~ ~he level of advertisement to that which exists currently. Mr. Mealy stated that such a condition would be acceptable. Mr. Jacobsen stated that under current regulations there is no restriction other than the general nuisance/noise regulations that can be enforced; under the definition of a restaurant, if this request were denied, the applicant could use recorded music outside as well as other activities and there would be no mechanism for County staff to enforce that; however, if this request were approved, including 89-972 Condition 3, all entertainment activity would be confined to ineide areas. Mr. Mayes expressed concern that the requested u~e tO permit a nightclub in an existing restaurant appeared to be in conflict with a family-oriented neighborhood and he felt that permitting such a use would be an intrusion/imposition on the e~iatin~ eo[m~unity. Mr. Sullivan stated he nnder~tood the merits of the proposed request; however, he could not envision family and communify in conjunction with a niqhtciub~ that he £e!t such a combination presented a clash of values which would result in conflict and deterioration of family values; that the clash of values between nightclub and restaurant was extremely serious to him; that it appeared to him that the concern fQr family values overwhelmed his concern that there are insufficient regulations now to p~Otect the nearby citizens and that he could not eupport the request. ~r. Currin in~uired as tn what uses were permitted by the original condition~ of zoning; security/surveillance of the res%auran~ parking lots; the fact tha£ parking lots ware co~on use area~ net only for the restaurant but for other area businesses; what mechanism need to police parking lot~; a~k~d if the applicant would agree to a condition providing for additional security; etc. Mr, Plaxoo stated Sunday Restaurant and other tenants in Sunday Park provide sorority service through ~he Brandermill Co.unity Association and th~ park is patrolled not only by County polic~ on a regular basis but also by th~ security officer who circulating through Brand~rmill. Mr~ Wheeler stated the security officers circulate through ~rande~ill five to six times niqhtly and are on duty from 8:80 p.m. to 1:00 however, they have jurisdiction only on thei~ own property and dO no~ enforce County ordinances. ~e al~o nO~d that, add~tion ~o their own security, the BCA has a contract with the Chesterfield County Police Department for security serviu~ ~h~ Brande~itl area. Mr, Applegate referen== =hre= out of twenty on~ calls 5o the ~rande~ill area that appeared to be r~lated ~o the restaurant; that it appeared ~0 him that the probl~ centered around the definition of restaurant versus niqhac~ub an~ whether' or not the recently adopted ~]~nded Zoning Ordinance those zonings already ~n existence; that the probl~ loitering~ littering, etc., are one of enforcement which cannot be a~dressed in ~his for~ and tha~, ~i~en the existing ei~c~utances, h~ supports4 the request. On motion of ~r. Applegate, seconded by ~r. Currln, the Boa~d approved Case ~9SN8320, a~ject to the following conditions: Case 74~021, a nigh%club shall ~e parmltte~ in conjunction wi=h restaurant ~se. (P) 2. The nightclub shall be restricted to th~ existing restaurant structure, Qther than normal maintenance coSm~i~ improvements~ 'no additlon~ tO the existin~ r~tauran% shall be pe~itted to acco~odate the nightclub use. 3. All entertainment activities sha~l be condec%ed indoors. Ther~ shall be no · out~de p~lic addrus~ or speaker systems associated with the nightclub operation. 4. This Conditional UBe shall be gra~ted %o and for B~ander- mill Inves=ment Assoc~ats~ and/er Kevin H~aly, exclusively and shall not be transferable nor zen with the land. 89-973 5. Hours of operation for the nightclub shall be limited to between 9:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight, Monday through Thursday and b~tw~en 9:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. on F~iday and Saturday. The nightclub shall be closed on Sunday. (P) 6. The area of th~ dance floor shall not exceed 100 square feet. (P) 7. Any sign along Millridga Parkway identifying the restau- rant shall not reference any nightclub or entertainment activity. (P) 8. No advertising for the business shall utilize the termin- ology nightclub. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Currin stated they also cherish family values very deeply but were supporting the proposed request as they did not feel they had compromised any family values at all in doing Fo and they viewed approval of this request as a positive action. Ayes: Mr. gpplegate, Mr. Currin and Mr. Daniel. Nays: Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. The Board recessed to travel to the Administration Building Conference Room (Room 502) for a work session. Reconvening: ll.H. WORN SBSSION Mr. Mayas expressed concern that he had neither been included in the development of the proposed Legislative Program for 1990 nor had he had sufficient time to review the material prior to the meeting. Mr. Ramsey stated the material was only a cursory listing of items to be discussed with the Board for a determination as to whether or not they were to be included in the 1990 Legislative Package and that these items had not yet been presented to the Legislative Delegation. Mr. Micas and Mrs. DeHart presented and briefly explained each program item O~ the prOpOsed Legislative Program for the 1990 General Assembly session. After discussion, revision, deletion and addition of items, it was generally agreed these issues would be presented to the Soard for approval after which a meeting with the Legislative Delegation would be scheduled. Mr. Applegate stated, as a result of the action taken by the School Board at its October 24, 1989 meeting regarding policies and guidelines governing access and use of school facilities, he felt it would be appropriate to include the members of the School Board Liaison Committee with staff in the development and/or preview of the policies and guidelines in a mutual effort to continue to improve the work relationships on issues affecting both the school ~y~tem and the County. The Board generally agreed the School Board Liaison Committee members Should be included in this process. 89-974 On motion of 8~ 1989. Mr. Cut, in, seconded by Mr. M&yes, the Board 5:45 9.m. {EDT} until 2:00 p.m. (EST) on November VOTe; U~&~imous Lane B. Ram~ey ~ ~ County Admini~trator~ 89-975 Chairman