The URL can be used to link to this page

01-25-1989 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS January 25, 1989 Mr. G. H. Applegate, Chairman Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr., vice Chairman Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. Jesse J. Mayas Mr, M, B. Sullivan Mr. Lane B. Ramsay County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Ms. Amy Davis, Hxec. Asst. to Co. Admin. Mrs. Doris DeHart Asst. Co. Admin., Legis, Svcs. and Intergcvern. Affairs Ms. Joan Dolezal, Clerk to the Board Chief Robert Eanes, Fire Department Mr. Bradford S. Hammer, Deputy Co. Admin., Management Services Mr. Robert Hodder, Building Official Mr. William H. Howell, Dir., Gen. Services Mr. Thomas E. Jacobsen, Dir. of Planning Ms. Mary Lea Lyle~ Dir. of Acconnting Mr. Robert Masden, Deputy Co. Admin., Human Services Mr. R. J. McCracken~ Transp. Director Mr. Richard McElfish, Dir. of Env. Eng. Mr. Gary McLaren, Dir. of Economic Developmt. Mr. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of News/Info. Services Col. Joseph Pittman, Chief of Police Mr. Richard Salet Deputy Co. Admin., Development Mr. Jay Stegmaier, cir. of Budget Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Dir. of Parks & Rec. Dr. Robert Wagenknecht, Dir. of Libraries Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities Mr. Frederick Willis, Dir. of Human Resource Management Mr. Applegate called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m. (EST). 1. INVOCATION Mr. Applegate introduced Mr. John Simpson, Minister Chesterfield Church of Christ, who gave the invocation. of the 89-32 2 · PL~DG~c Ok' ~.LE~AI~(3~ ~O 'r~ FLAG OF T~U~ ONITED STATES OF Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by approved the minutes of January 1t, 1989, as amended. 4. COURTY ADMII~ISTI~ATOR'$ COUNTS Mr. Ricas introduced Hr. Steven L. ~yer~ and also noted that Rs. P~tricia C. Arrighi were recently employed aE A~i~tant County Attorneys, and outl~ed their educational and professional experiences. Mr. HcLaren introduced Mr. Martin 3, Briley and MS. Kulla F. Winslow, recently employed marketing staff for the Department of ~conemlc Develot~m~nt, and outlined their educational and professional e~pe~ience. The Board welcomed the n~w staff to the County. ~. BOA~ CO]~4ITTEE ~PORTS Sullivan reported he attended the Social Services Committee budget meeting am~ aD ~ward dinner for the Ben kit volunteer this time. ~. REQUESTS TO ~OST~ONI~ACTION, EMERGENCY~ITION$ OR ~GES IN 'x~O~ER OF Th~r~ wa~ discussion r~l~tlV~ to addinq Item ll.D.4., Clarification of the County'~ Sewer Policy, the purpose of the proposed paper: ~h~ feasibility of uo~issionlng a s~udy to ~on~ider the p~oS and cons of septic system usage and the a% its January 11, 1989 work session regarding sepeic could result if Board members vote on a matter that could use~ a~ %he ~a%ionale for approval of rezoning, etc. After fur~r {iscussiua, on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Hayes, the Board ~%~olved to ,dd Item ll.D.4., Clarifica- tion of the Coun=y's Sewer Policy, to the agenda. Vo=u: Unanimous On motion of Mr. ~ayes, seconde~ by Mr. Currin~ th~ Board added It~ 7.F., Resolution Recognizing Ch~$%er~i~ld/Colonlal ~eigh~s Crlma Solvers, Inc.; a~de~ Item ll.D.4., Clarification of the County's Sewer Policy; and adopted the agenda~ as 9. R~SOLOTIONSAND SP~CIALP~O~NITI~NS 7.A. MS. FRANCES B. GOODE, CEESTERFIELD COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM On motio~ of the Board~ tho following re~olution was adopted: WH~EAS~ MS. Frances B. Goode retired from the Chesterfield County Library System on ~anuary 1, I9~9; and 89-33 WKEREAS, Ms. Goede provided over nineteen years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, As Children's Services Supervisor for the Chesterfield County Public Library System for over nineteen years, Ms. Goode touched the lives of thousands of our citizens. Through school visits, meetings with teachers and school librarians, daily contact with parents and children, her contribution to the community is immeasurable. Providing excellent materials and creative programming for students and preschoolers will result in the enrichment of future generations. Ms. Goode continued to display the dedication and enthusiasm for which she was designated the Employee-of-the-Year in 1978; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss Ms. Goode's diligent service. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Ms. Frances B. ~oede and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for her service to the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution bo presented to Ms. Goode and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented the executed resolution to Ms. Goode and extended best wishes in her retirement. 7.B. MS. MABEL H. HOLT, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Ms. Mabel H. Holt retired from the Chesterfield County Library System on July 1, 1988; and WHEREAS, Ms. Holt provided over eighteen years Of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Since November, 1970, with books from two small community libraries and two bookmobiles, Ms. Holt supervised the development of a balanced collection for the library of over 300,000 items books, periodicals and audio-visual materials. The collection was developed to fill the needs of the Central Library and five branches. The excellent turnover rate is the measure today of the quality of the selections made under Ms. Holt's direction; and WHEREAS, In addition, Ms. Holt played an important role serving on Chesterfield's Senior Citizen Council, in the formation of the Chesterfield Historical Society, and installation of a community chapter of the Church and Synagogue Library Association. Ms. Holt's efforts will long be appreciated in this community; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss MS. Holt's diligent service. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Ms. Mabel Holt and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for her service to the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this reaolution be presented to Ms. Holt and that this resolution be 89-34 permanently recor~e~ among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented t~e ~x~uted r~solu=ion to Ms. Holt and extended b~st wishes in her retirement, ?,C, CE[STBRFIELD COUNTY EMP~OYEE-OP-TH~-X=AR FCa 19~8 ~r. Willis introduced the I95~ nominees for t~e Chesterfield C0~nty Employee-of-the-Year, who were as follows: Juanita Cersley Robert ~. ~artley Jacquelyn ~ill Joseph A. ~orbal Rebecca Linds~y Lelgh Ann ~cKelway Barbara Mnellsr Roy b. Pa%rick James D. Schiavo Gerard W. Smith Debezah Elizabeth Wilburn Debts F. Winecoff Building Inspection Department Nursing Home Mental Health/Mental Retardation Cunu, issloner of Rev~nu~ Utilities Department Parks & Recreatio~ Department Treasurer's Office Fire Department Information Systems Technology Planning Departmen~ General ~ervice~ Department ~udqet and Management Acconnting D~partment Library Ramsey congratulate~ all those nominated and announced that Roy Patrick was s~lected as the 19~8 Employee-of-~he-Year. Mr. Applegats congratulated Mr. Patrick and pr~ntad him with a framed resolution, a silver engraved Revere Bowl, a $50 savings bou~, tickets to the S~ift Creek Mill Playhouse and th~ On motion of the Board, the follow~ng resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Roy D, Ps,rick has bean nominate~ by the F~re Department es a parson possessing tho~e qualities of superior performance an~ 4edlcation to excellence in p~blic service required of a recipient of this coveted award; and W~EREAS, Daring thirteen years of service which began in 1976 ~ aD Administrative Assistant with the Chesterfield County Firs Depar+_ment until Mr. Patrick's current position as Battalion Chief over Administrative Services, his enthusiasm, knowledge and commitment to the direction and management of the Administrative Division of the Firs Department ha~ gained widespread respect frc4~ his employees, pears, superiors and citizens alike; and ~HER~AS, sr. Fatrisk's personal involvement and dedication to several projects and his publications in trade journals have led to the achievement of at least thr~e National Association of Counties Awards~ recogulzin~ ~ha Chesterfield do~n=y F~re protection~ and WHEREA~, Mr. Patrick's enthusia~m~ professional determination an~ cooperative spirit have been recognized by his p~rs in his appointment to ~ovaral co~ittees includin~ the Ceurt Service Unit Advisory Board, the ~a~ Classification Committee, the Fair Labor Standaxds Act Committee,. the Chesterfield Employees F~deral CIedit Union Loan Cemnlttee and the Fire Chief Selection Cc~littee for fha City of ~opewell. NOW, TMEREF0~E BE IT RESOL%~D, that the Chesterfield Count~ Board of Supervisors hereby resognizes the loyalty~ superior p~r~ormance and dedication of ~r. Roy D. Patrick by n~-ming him as the Chesterfield County "Employe~ of the Year'~ 89-35 Vote: Unanimous 7.D. CLASSIC ~OUCR~S, I~C. FOR SUBSTANTIAL DONATIONS FOR S~NIOR HOLIDAY SURPRISE On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, One function of the Special Populations Section of the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department is to provide therapeutic programs for senior citizens of Chesterfield County; and WB~RSAS, The Special Populations Section developed "Senior Holiday Surprise," a program which reaches isolated and indigent senior citizens and is dependent upon the support of numerous community businesses; and WHEREAS, Classic Touches, Inc. has generously donated merchandise to "Senior Holiday Surprise" for four consecutive years. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby recognize Classic Touches, Inc. for its generous contributions. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby express its sincere appreciation and gratitude to Classic Touches, Inc. for its continued con, unity concern and support for the senio~ citizens of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous In the absence of Mr. Gene Sheek and Ms. Janet Sheek of Classic Touches, Inc., Sr. Applegate presented the executed resolution tO MS. Ellen Wood of the Parks and Recreation Department. 7.E. SIGNET BANK/VIRGINIA FOR SPONSORSHIP OF THE 1988 LEGENDARY CHRIST~A$ PROGR~-~ On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, The "1988 Legendary Christmas" is a community, family-oriented program which reflects the holiday season, as well as Chesterfield County's past; and WHEREAS, The Parks and Recreation Department conducted this program in order to provide a wholesome, seasonal activity for the citizenship of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, These types of Special events contribute to the quality of life in Chesterfield County; and WEEPJ~AS, Signet Bank/Virginia through its generous financial support provided the means for conducting this event. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby recognize Signet Bank/Virginia for its generous contribution to the citizenship of Chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby express its appreciation and gratitude to Signet Bank/Virginia for its outstanding community involvement. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented the executed resolution to Ms. Brenda M, Loyd, Assistant Vice President of Signet Bank/Virginia, who 89-36 presented the Board with a $900 check as its contribution to the event. Th~ Board accepted the $900 and increase the revenues and expenditures in the amount of $900 to the Parks and Recreation Department for the 1988 Legendary Christmas Program. 7.F. CHBSTERFIELD/COLOBIAL HEIGHTS CRIME SOLVERE~ IBC. on motion of th% Board, the ~ollowing r~$olution was adopted~ W~EREAS, In March, 1984, the Che~terfleld County Bolice Department had the foraslght to recognize the potential of a new concept in the fight against crime and joined with a group cf citizens and the media to introduce the concept of Crime Solvers, Inc. into Chesterfield County; and fiqht against criminal activity that Colonial Heights joined with Chesterfield County to e~pand these efforts across jurisdictional boundarie~ and to combine e~pertise and commitment; and W~EP~A~, ~Th~ Chesterfield County and Colonial Hsight~ Poi~ce Departments coordinate the program and work closely with the eitlzens' organization and tka media to significantly impact crime in Chesterfield County end Colonial Heights; and vo%unteered their t/~e at such functions as "Law Enforcement Day at the Diamond," ths "FoUrth of July Extravaganza," "Crime Solvers Night a~ Seuthsids Speedway," the "Chesterfield County Fair" and WWBT Channel l~'s November "Crime" show to bring public awareness to the efforts of this program; and WHEREAS, The Board solicited financial contribution~ of over $11,000 through fund raising ~ctivities as well as obtaining financial a~/ur in-kind c0n~ributions from thei~ employers including ~. T. DuPont de Nemours, C' ~ P Telephone Company, Southlan~ Corporation, Storer Cable TV~ Central Dick Strauss Ford/Isuzu Inc., Bowl America and Sovran Bankl and WH~RBA~, These efforts reflect over forty ~eWards totaling $9,500 to anonymous callers; leading to the arrests of 79 indivlduals~ the solving o~ 186 cases involving residential and commercial breaking and entering, distribution Qf drugs, arson, larceny, vandalism, and fugltive~;' and with over $100,000 in seized or recovered stolen property and drugs in 1988. NOW, T~EREFORE B~ iT RESOLV=D~ that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervi~or~ hereby expre~ze~ it~ appreciation and gratitude to the Chesterfield County and Colonial Heights C. Pridemo/e and Investigator Alan Thompson with chesterfield County and S~rfeant Wilton Jenkins and Officer Tom Kifer with Colonial ~elght~ for eoordinatlng ~he ~rcgram and to the Board of Directors of Crime Solvers; in particular, the Presiden%~ Mr. ~ugh Woo~le and hie officers, Mr. Buddy Fox; ~r. Jim Brcwn~ Mr. Barbara Foster and all memb~r~ of the Chesteriield/Colonlal ~eight~ Cr~me Solvers, Inc. and to the media for their efforts toward a safer community. AND~ BE IT FURTHER ~%EBOLVED, that the Chesterfield County ~oard of Supervisors acknowle~qe~ the significant effort directly related to and contribntions toward the enhaneemen~ of the law enforcement mission' of the Police Departments by the Chesterfield County/Colonial Height~ Crime Solvers ~eard of Directors. Vote: Unanimous 89-~7 Mr. Applegate stated Mr. Sullivan would present the executed resolution at a Media Appreciation dinner to b~ held later in the evening. 8. H~d~TNG$ OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS 8.A. MR. JHTHR M. WATSON~ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND MS. HELEN BLACKWOOD, MEMBER CHESAPEAKE BAY LOCAL ASSISTANCE BOARD Mr. Ramsey introduced Ms. Helen Blackwood, a member of the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board, who presented a brief overview of the organization's progra~ and its goal for the preservation of the Chesapeake Bay. Mrs. Joan Girone, a member of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Committee Advisory Board, was also present. 8.B. MRS. M. K. NEATE, REGARDING DAMAGED TREES Mr. Micas presented a claim from Mrs. Neate againet the County for $800 with respect to compensation for the loss of two trees on her property which allegedly resulted from the construction of a water line across her property along Buford Road; the results of staff investigation regarding the los~ of both trees; and crated staff has recommended denial of the claim for $800 because it is felt that the County's original offer of $200 for the first pine tree was reasonable and that there is insufficient evidence to indicate the loss of the second tree was caused by the water line construction. Neither Mrs. Neate nor her representative were present. When asked, Mr. Willis Pope, Right-of-Way Manager for the County Utilities Department, stated the Extension Agent and Mr. Rick Butler, the Area Forester, investigated the site and, in their opinion, felt it was possible the construction of the water line could have resulted in damage fo the first tree but that the County's contractor has indicated the second tree is too far removed from the easement area to have been materially affected by the construction, On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board denied the claim of $800 by Mrs, M. K, Neate as compensation for the loss of two trees on her property which allegedly resulted from the construction of a water line easement across her property along Buford Road; however, authorized staff to extend an offer of $200 to Mrs. Neate to settle the claim. 8.C. MS. ROSEMARY FEDDO, REGARDING THE LAWLESS LANDFILL Ms, Rosemary Feddo addressed the Board relative to concerns regarding the Lawless landfill, its proximity to the landowners and its impact on her property and other area residential property, the contents of debris being dumped at the site, the potential for contamination of ground water~ no use of test wells Or monitoring systems, no fencing to keep out children and/or pets, etc. She also submitted petitions, statements from neighbors, pictures and samples of infestation to the Soard. There was discussion relative to the landfill use permit, legal ramifications relative to closing the landfill site, compliance with conditions of zoning, appropriate fencing for the sits, infestation of adjacent properties from dumping at the land- fill, etc. 89-38 Mr. Micas stated the County is currently in litigation against the Lawles~ landfill, whleh has been continued in court~ how~vert in the interim, staff is collecting other data to determine whether a health and safety hazard exist~ and anticipates additional information for the Board. Mr. Currin stated he h~d visited the aite and understood Ms. Feddow~s concerns. He stated that the County now has a policy for regulating debris la~dfills and with such a policy in place, thars should be an avmnne ~f action that can be taken to close down the landfill. He stated he is working ulcsely with the residents and will do what~Ver he could to assist. Mr. Ramsey stated he alee had visitmd the site an~ concurred with the residents' concerns and indiGated there is a number of staff working on matter. MC, Appt~gate utated him previous position relative tO de~ling with illegal landfill situations has not changed. Mr. ~ullivan ~tutsd, in addition, to those spe~iflc actions that need to be addressed, he would like to hays a report from ~he adminiatratlon aa to why it has taken two (2} years for any action to transpire relative to this matter. 9. DEFErReD ITF/~S 9.A. APPOinTMENT OF CO~ITTEE$ On motion of ~r. D~nial, seconded by Mr. Cbrrin, th~ Board suspended it~ rules to ~llow nomination/appointment simultaneously of all appointments necessary at this ~im~ for 1989. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board made the following Dominations and ~imult~n~ous appointments Capital~e~ ~r~.%~g conso~i~ Nr. C~rrin (Unmpec{fied term) ~r. Sullivan {Unsp~cifie~ term and needm Beard member] ~IDCO ~r. Maye~ (Board fep~usuntutive) (9/89) ~r. Currin (~usinessman representative) Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. ~ullivan Mr. Larry ~elchur ~Planning Co~ission), Mr. Ray (Citizen) and Mr. Dick Sale (Alternate} Tr~s~rta~ion Safet~ ~r. Maye~ (U~BDeciff~d Mr. Applegate and Mr. Curr~n (U~specified term) ~o~ ~qi~l Solid Waste Mr. Currin~ Mr. May=s, ~r. Ramsey (Unspecified term) ~ut to uarry only two Tri-Cit~ Mr. Mayem"'{On~pecified term) ~r. Sullivan (6/30/92) Richmond MPC Mr. Currin, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Daniel Mr. John McCracken (Voting), Mr. Dick Sale (Alternate) and Mr. Jim Banks (Alternate) (Unspecified tel-m) Muee~ Comlttee Mr. Mayes (Unspecified term) Crater PlannlngCom~ieeion Mr. Mayes, Mr. Currin, and Mr. Willie J. Bradley (12/31/91) Mr. Dick Sale (Alternate) Henricus Foundation Mr. Currin (Board representative) and Mr. Dodd (Citizen) (Appointed by Henricus Foundation) (Unspsclfied term) Regional Image Comittee Mr. Appleqate and Mr. Ramsey (Unspecified term) MEDC Mr. Daniel (12/31/89) MEDC Operating Committee Mr. Dodd (2/3/90) Budget and A~dit C~-~ittee Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan (Unspecified term) Study for Lake Genito Mr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan (Unspecified term) Capital ~qion Air]0ort C~ission Mr. Applegate and Mr. Daniel (4/30/92) School Board Liaison Committee - Budget Mr. Currin and Mr. Sullivan (Unspecified term) County Bpace N~eds Committee Mr. Mayee and Mr. Sullivan (Unspecified term) Jame~ River Certified Development Cor~oratlon Mr. Currin (Unspecified te~) Pa~ for Growth/Impact F~es Ce~ittee Mr. Currin and Mr. Sullivan (Unspecified term) Le~ielativeCom~ittee Mr. Applegate and Mr. Daniel (Unspecified term] Other Committee Assip~ments: ~P0 Air Oualit~Technical Co~nittee Mr. Ma~ (Unspecifi~ ~erm) Richmond Regional Water Resources Task Force Mr. Sullivan (Unspecified term) VACO Executive Board Mr. Daniel (Appointed by VACO) Virginia Hunicipal League Appoineed Co~ttees Legislative - Mr. Applegate Community and Economic Development - Mr. Currin Effective Government Policy - ~r. Daniel Transportation - Mr. Mayes To Be Assigned - Mr. Sullivan Carpenter Center Mr. Daniel '(Appointed by private group as citizen representative Rich~on~ Symphony Mr. Daniel (Appointed by private group as citizen representative) 89-40 Mr. Applegate excused himself from ~h~ meeting 9.B. APPOINTMENTS 9.B.1. CHESTERFIELD C0~UNITY SERVICES BOARD On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board appointed Ms. Brenda Johnson, representing th~ Clover Hill District, to serve on tk~ Chester£i~l~ Community Services Board, whose term is effective immediately and will expire D~cember 31, 1991, Ayes: Nr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Maye~ and ~r. sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applcgate. 9.B.2. AIR~ORT ADVISOR~ ~©ARD On motion e£ ~r. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, ~he Board appointed the following persons, representing the District as indicated, to serve on the AirDort Advisory Board, whose terms are effective February 15, 2992~ Mr. Jokn Eazza Mr. Melvin Shaffer Dr. Walter Kilbourne Mr. Philip Evans 1989 and will expire February 1~, Matoaca District Dale Di~triQt Clover H~ll Di~tr~ct Bermuda District Midlcthian Di~tr±ct AyeS: Mr. Currln, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. 9.B.3. CMESTER~IELB COUI~TY MUSEUM COMMITTEE On ~otlon a~ Mr. Nayes, ~econded by Mr. Sullivan, the Boa~ appointed Dr. G~orge Partin to ~erve cn the Museum Coau~ittee, re~res~ntinq Chesterfield County at-large, who~& term is effective i~u~ediately an~ is at th~ pleasure of the Board. Ayes: Mr. C~rrin, Mr, Daniel, Mr. Mayas and Mr. ~ulllvan. Absent: Mr, Applegate. 9.B.4, M~TROROLITAN ECONOMIC D~VELOPM~T COUNCIL OPEAATING COMMITTEE On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Sullivan, the ~oaid appointed Mr. =. C. Au~ry to serve oa =he ~etro~olitan Economic Development Council Operating Cummitte~, representing 1, 1989 and will expire January 31, 1991+ Ayes~ Mr. Gurrin~ Mr, Daniel, Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr, Applega~e. 9.C. APPROPRIATION OF BOND PROCREDS FOR COUNTY AND SC~00L CAPITAL PROJECTS Mr. Stegmaier state~ the aDproprlatlon of Bond'p~oe~d~ for county and School capital projects was deferred from the Board~s January 11, 1989 meeting so %hat a report could b~ prepared indicating 'the status of the school projects, specifically, in the ar~a$ of site acquisition and d%sign ~ont~act~ and an update on any changes in cost estimates of project for the. Board's review. He stated the requested 89-~1 material had been forwarded to the Board and additional information had been distributed during the meeting. There was discussion relative to the removal of asbestos material from certain unoccupied areas of several schools, chill unite needed for the air conditioning systems, if the indicated school sites were the same as the oriqinal designations as outlined in other information received by the Board, anticipated schedules of completion, etc. Dr. Davis stated the Board could be provided with a listing of the fourteen (14) schools requiring the removal of a~be~to~ material from certain unoccupied areas of the schools (e.g., piping, boiler insulation, etc.) and, in the spring, update the Board as to the actual schedule. Hs further ~tated it i~ anticipated to begin the air conditioning/energy conservation programs simultaneously, with an emphasis on the four (4) high schools that are not air conditioned. Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board appropriated $25,300,000 for Improvement Projects as follows= Sources: Bond Proceeds Interest Earning~ School Projects County Projects Issuance Cost County and School Capital $23,900,000 1,400,000 $25,300,000 $18,100,000 7,051,000 149,000 $25,300,000 PUBLIC TO CON~IDER AN AN~NDM~NT TO AN AGREEMENT CONVEYING REAL PROPERTY AT THE CHESTERFIELD'COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK TO SCANCENTER VIRGINIA, INC. Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an amendment to an agreement conveying real property at the Chesterfield County Industrial Park to ScanCenter Virginia, Inc. He stated counsel for ScanCenter Virginia, Inc. is unable to attend at the present time and has requested that th~ Board hear public comments but defer action until later in the day when he can be present. No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board deferred consideration of the amendment to an agreement conveying real property at the Airport Industrial Park to ScanCenter Virginia, Inc. until 2:00 p.m. and continue the public hearing at that time. Vote: Unanimous ll. ~ BUSINESS ll.A. CONSIDER REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE ESTABLISHMENT OF FOUR NEW COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD POSITION~ There was brief discussion relative to the services the four new Community Services Board positions would provide within the departmental infrastructure, the establishment of said positions earlier than anticipated due to unexpected savings in the current fiscal year budget, State funding, etc. 89-42 On motion of Mr, Mayer, seconded by Mr. ~ulllvan, the Board approved and authorized the Community service8 Board to use $15,300 fr~m a cost savings from the emergency medical area to establish four (4) new positiun~ {2 Case Managers, Accounting Technician and 1 Switchboard Operator) for Chester£ield County Depart~ent of Mental Health/Mental Retardetien/Sub~tan~e Abhse to provide relief in the critical areas of needed s~rvices earlier than originally anticipated due to e ~avings in the FY89 budget. (It is noted the State has allocated sufficient funds for Chesterfield County to fully fund all new initiative positions in ll.B. APPOINTMENTS - KEEP CHESTERFIELD CLEAN CORPORATION TheDe was discussion regardin~ special recognition of charter members o~ the Corporation, recognizing and including the "Adopt A Highway" program, ~pen$ored by the Virginia Department of Transportation, as au integral part of ~he Keep Ches~er~ie!d Clean Corporation program, On motion of Mr, Daniel, seconded by Mr. Hayes, the Board suspended ils rules ~o allow nomination/appointment simultaneously of appointments to the Keep Chesterfield County Clean Corporation. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Daniel, s~conded by Mr. Maymm, th~ Boar~ nominated/appointed the following expire January 31, 1990~ Mr. Warren Dieterich Mrs. Marilyn Kim ~r. Willian~ ~arris ~rs. Alma Smith Mrs. Ann Belsha Vote: Unanimous the Kee~ Chesterfield County Clean are effective January 31, 1989 and Midlothian District Bermuda District Matoaca District Clover Hill gi~tri=t I1.C. CONSENT ITEMS ll.C,l. ~QU~T$ FOR DINGO/RAFFLE PERMITS On motion of Mr. Hayes, seconded by Mr. Coffin, the Boarfl approved requests for raffle permit~ a~ indicated, for t~e following organizations for tho calendar year 19~9: Honing Athletic Association unity Mouth church Vote~ Unanimous TYPE Raffle EaKfle 11.C.2. SET DAT~ FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ll+C.2.a. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TEE-CODE OF THE COUNTY 0F CEESTERFIELD, 1978~ AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION '~1~'20'2 RELATING TO THE PRESERVATION COMMITTEE On motion of Mr. Hayes, seconded by Mr. Coffin, the Board set the date of February 8, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the County Code, 89-~3 relating tc appointments to the Historic Preservation Committee, Vote: Unanimous (It was noted the later in the meeting the correct date for the public hearing would be February 22, 1989, at 9:00 a.m.) 11.C.3. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon hie examination of Sunfield Drive in Great Oaks, Section 8, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, it is resolved that Sunfield Drive in Great Oaks, Section 8, Matoaca District, be and it hereby is established a~ a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia ~epartment of Transportation, be and it Hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Sunfield Drive, beginning at existing Sunfield Drive, State Route 2036, and going easterly 0.02 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 This road serves 3 And be it further re~olved~ that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for this road. This section of Great Oaks is recorded as follows: Section 8. Plat Book 61, Page 61, May 20, 1988. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board made report in writing upon his examination of Pox Chase Lane in Nuttree Executive Center, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, it is resolved that Fox Chase Lane in Nuttree Executive Center, 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, FOx Chase Lane, beginning at the intersection with Genito Road, State Road 604, and going northerly 0.05 mil~, th~n turning and going easterly 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 This road serves adjacent commercial properties. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guaran=ees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 60' right-of-way for this road. Nuttree Executive Center is recorded as follows: 89-44 Plat Book 43, Pages 19 & 20, June 2, 1983. ~3.C,~L_ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AT HOPKINS ELEMENTARY SCEOOL On motion of Mr. Mayas, ee¢onded by Mr. Currin, the Hoard transferred $3,800 from the Dsls District Three Cent Road Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department for the purchase of playground equipment and surfacing materials at Bopklne Elementary School, which funds will supplement donations in the a/~ount of $6,000 from the Hopkins Road Elementary PTA. 11.C.2.b. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANC~ TO A~4END THE GOD~ OF THE COUNTY OF CEESTBRFIELD, t978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND P~ENACTING SECTION 13-11 E/~LATING TO MASSAGE PARLORS There ~&s discussion relative to whether o~ not t~e ~hould schedule a public hasting to consider an ordinanc~ a~endment relating to massage parlor~, Mr. Applegate briefly explained that this request dealt with professional~ in healah clubs, etc., which precipitated request for th~ ordinanc~ amendment. Mr. Daniel made a motion, seconded by Mr. Mayas, that a public hearing date not be ~et to consider an ordinanc~ to amen~ the Code of t~e County of Chesterfield, t978, ~s amended, b~ amending and reenaoting ~ection 13-11 r~lating to massaqe parlors. He stated the Board ham, in the past, denies consideration o~ ordinances considered to be controversial where there ~as a feeling that it may no~ prevail. Mr. Sullivnn stated he could net Support Mr. Danie!*s motinn, not because he was ~n favor of the ordinance a~endment but b~cause he felt the Board shoul~ offer the opportunity for citizens' of the County to have %heir re~uests hsar~ through the public hearing process. Mr. Currin concurred. After further discussion, %he vote on Er. Daniel's motion was am follows~ Ayes: Mr. Daniel and Mr. ~ayes. Nays: Mr. Applega~e, Mr. Currln and Mr. Sullivan. On motion o~ Mr. Sullivan, suuonded by Mr. Currin, the Board set the date of February 22, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to con~i~er anordinance ~o amend and reenact Section 13-11 of the CounE¥ Code, relutinq ~o message parlors. Ayes: Mr. Applegatu~ Mr. Currin and Mr. Sullivan. 11.D. CO~LMLr~ITY DEVeLOPMeNT ITEMS ll.D.1. STR~T LIGHT REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, th~ Board approved the installation of street lights at ~he intersections cf $cherer Drive and Trabue Road~ Jahnke Road and Southam Drive and Jahnke Road and Springlake Road (reioea=e existing light), wi~h funds to be e~pended from the ~idlotkian District S~reet Light Fund. 89-45 ll.D.2. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROBOSED BIKEWAY PLAN On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date of February 22, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to consider a proposed Bikeway Plan for the County. ll.D.3. WHITEPINE ROAD EXTENSION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board appropriated $80,000 from the Sale of Industrial Park Land Account to an existing Whitepine Road design project account for the design and construction engineering costs for Whitepine Road Extended, the widening to four lanes with curb and gutter of existing Whitepine Road to Reycan Road and the construction of a new loop road in the Airport Industrial Park to serve an existing site and open up additional park property for development. {It is noted the total cost for these improvements is approximately $120,000, of which approximately $40,000 from a previous Whitepine design project has been designated and the remaining $80,000 is anticipated from Park property sales.) Vote: Unanimous ll.D.4. CLARIFICATION OF THE COUNTY'S SEWER POLICY Mr. Applegate distributed copies of a letter from Mr. Mayes to the Board regarding the development of new subdivisions with er without public water and sewage. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the County has reached a critical point in its policy of requiring water and sewerage for new developments and developers are confused as to what the policy is, have invested resources under what they thought the policy was, there appears to be a conflict between what the requirements for housing really are compared to the pressure to provide developments under circumstances that do not necessarily meet th~ public health and safety requirements, etc. He stated that he indicated his pesition many times before that new subdivisions should not be approved without public water and public sewer. ~e suggested the following three steps be taken: 1. Defer all zoning cases requiring water and sewer, now pending before the Board for sixty days; 2. Appoint a five person commission, one from each magisterial district with commission authority to acquire expert consulting assistance to enable the commission to recommend a policy on the approval of new subdivisions with or without public water and sewer in Chesterfield County; and 3. Charge the commission with holding public hearings and recommending a policy to thc Board within forty days. Mr. Currin questioned if the intent of Mr. Mayes' comments were based on environmental and/or grewth related issues as to whether or not there should be continued use of meptic systems, 89-46 if the conu~ission's reco~amenda~ion would ~e a final recommendation or be subject to amendment by the Board, the charge Qf the commission, etc. Mr. Currin questioned if Hr. Mayes wag stating that from an envirorm%ental standpoint there should be no further permitted use of septic systems in a subdivision and that the Board of Supervisors should accept whatever policy the proposed commission may recommend without any review 0r modification. Mr. Maye$ stated he thought the Board ought to either adopt it or come np with something better than the existing policy, which he felt is not adequate. He stated, however, the final responsibility and authority lies with the Board of Supervisor as to a decision On policy making. He stated there would most likely be di~agr~e~eDt with respect to the recommendation that may come forth; however~ he felt the only way to resolve this problem is to ~stablish a commission comprieed o~ citizens who pa~ the taxes with the authority to get independent and objective technical support to arrive at an adequate reco~ended polio~ He stated the Board is pre~ently in disagreement on the existing 'policy but where we seam to have personal intereete and that is not in the best interest of those citizens who are concerned about what is happening. Mr. Currin stated he did not agree with Mr. Mayer' ~of~ent he knew there were members on the Board who are addremming the County's existing ~ewe~ policy from two different 41reetions - one from an environmental standpoint and the other from a growth standpoint. He questioned if ~he commission'a reoonh~endation would ~e based on environmental and/or growth i~sues. He stated he was concerned with both aspects and his opinion on these matters had nothing to do with the fact that he ma~ own land in Chesterfield County that may ox may hoP, in the future, have a need ~or public utilities. He ~tated he wished the rucurd to reflect that his po~ition is tha~ he is viewing the situation £rcm a much broader perspective as ~hat is best for Chesterfield County. Mr. Daniel stated tbs Futures Committee i~ alread~ in place and, in hi~ opinion, is the body to which this ma~tar should be referred. He concurred that there i~ a muttl-faceted approach to this situation but that the study ebould begin with the Swift Creek Drainage Basin and proceed from there. He stated he did not know if ferty-fiv~ or even sixty days would be sufficient time to accomplish u thorough etudy but that regardless of who assembled the necessary date, he would llke to h~ve mup~ ordinances, reco~endatione mnd all technical data available indicating what 0an or cannot be done. He stated that he hoped that, whatever action is taken, the Board would guard closely against the perception cf the public that the Board for a policy therefore the zoning must be ~pprcved. Mr. Sullivan sUe=ed the Board has a policy dealin~ with septic mitigated =aBes and he was ready to vote on tho~e cases. He not think tko Board should defer all ea~es or appoint another Planning Co~u~ission; that ha felt that public tnvolvementaleng with the information that the Beard has previously requested 89-47 Mr. Daniel. stated he did not intend to suggest that the Board pass on its responsibilities to others; however, there is a question as to hew much time can be devoted to a particular issue on which there is a divergence of opinion. Be stated the Planning Commission wants the guidance; they want it to go somewhere through the governing body to them; in this case, think of the decision making model -- it will start with them, they will do everything, it will go to the Board add it will go right back to them. Mr. Sullivan stated, based upon what Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes had said, he felt the Board should address this matter themselves, Mr. Daniel stated that if the Board were to participate in the decision making process, it would be perceived as a backdoor approach to makinq decisions on zoning. Mr. Sullivan stated that no matter who does it, the zoning has to come back to the Board. Mr. Mayes stated that what he has tried to offer here is that the Board has just as much responsibility to developers as they have to concerned citizens and he felt they both were entitled to fair considerations on their concerns. He stated he did not intend to vote for another subdivision without public water and Mr. Applegate stated that if Mr. Mayes did not intend to vote for another subdivision unless it had public water and sewer facilities then he did not understand why the study was being commissioned. Be stated that there has been discussion relative to water failures, the cost to taxpayers to extend water lines to those subdivisions that did not have public water, failing septic tanks, and now environmenta~ issues. He stated he would like to have eomeone who ie educated in thio matter to tell him what is a fair assessment of the overall situation and if they tell him that septic tanks contaminate groundwater then he would no longer support septic tanks; however, he would not make a blanket statement that he was going to refrain from voting on zoning requests that do not have public water and sewer. Mr. Mayes stated, under the existing circumstances~ unless the Board can get a policy that solves the problem, his position would not change and that was why he requested that an independent commission be established. Mr. Applegate questioned what Mr. Mayes' position would be if the independent commission were to recommend that public water is needed but public sewer is not needed and that septic tanks are a viable alternative use. Mr. Mayes stated that, if that were the policy accepted by the Board, he would go with the majority of this Board. Be stated he had no problem with having a staff member on the commission but he felt there should be an independent commission to perform the study. Mr. Currin stated he is as concerned with the health, safety and welfare factor of the citizens of the County as Mr. Mayes; however, no one has approached him relative to septic system aud drainfield problems. 89-48 ~r. ~ayes stated the mos~ recent publication from the State Water Control Board lists about ten elementD that affect ground water with the ~irst being ~eptic tanks, followed by ~andfills, Board'~ retreat. Mr. Mayes ~tatsd he did not feel that this Board, with its present entrenchment, was really capable .of dealing with thi~ problem other than the way it has been doing and that it would have to be solved outside of this ~eard and staff. Mr. Currin stated he was in favor o~ the ~tudy provided someone could provide the informatlun =he Board needed to make a decision on this matte~ as he felt it should be re~olved. ~r. R~s~y stated that, whether th~ ~On%~issiOn does the study er sta£~ dues the study, he was confldsnt that the same would come forth but suggested that the timeframe be extended as ~he suggested one wo~ld not provide sufficient time to select experts, collect the necessary data, analyzed it, etc., and stated he also felt staff should be involved even if coca, Lesion is established to perfcr~ the study. Mr. Mayes stated staff could serve as resouroe people, but he felt the collection of data should be done by an independent commission. Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Cur~fn, tha~ thle Board accept this responsibility, that staff be charged with other people as it i~ felt, either reqnested by members of this Doard or by Mr. R~sey and his staff, as could shed light on ~hi~ issue; that the action to develop thi~ begin i~%diat~Iy; and tAat if necessary special meetings be set up =u con~ider the data that will be brought forth: and that additionally~ public hearings be held to seek input from ~he public. When asked, Mr. Mica~ indicated tha~ ~5~ BoarO ~oe~ have existing policy that is a ~unction of the Utility Ordinance and zoning d~ci~ion~, which ~ay requir~ am~n~ent to ei%h~z or both the Utility and Zoning Ordinances, dependin~ upon re¢o~ndation of th~ ~r. D~ni~l. stated ~uppo~d moving iD ~his directi~n but if, at the t~e of voting, he had any feeling tha~ the decision of any individual ~oard m~mber on voting on ~ha~ policy ha~ any impact on what a zoning result ~ill be, he will ask th~ %o leave the technical data~ r~co~endation~, etc., be brought forth; stated Swift Ct%ok Drainage Ar~a; mhd what whatever is d~cided should be ~he ground rules un,il chefs is a newly sleeted governing ~00y; eno that on that basis he could support Mr. Sullivan's ~r. R~sey reques=~ clarification a~ to staf~ id~nti~yinq the D~ce~$ary prof~$~oDal~, whether they b~ experts from within the County with g~n~r~l knowledg~ and information regarding septic systems and sewer sy~tem~ ver~u~ p~ofsSsiOnal$ from outside the County who would come in to study the 'overall Chesterfield County situation that do not know ~h~ County. ~r. Sullivan indicated he ~elt both type~ were n~eded, par{icularly r~lated to soil~ and ~oil conditions. of thi~ board ha~ a conflict and ~hould Or should not vote for a particular issue that states the ~oard members must disclose themselves item the meeting. He stated, as far as he was concerned~ it is a policy County wide and ha~ nothing to with individual zoning cases as Mr. Daniel s:a%ed. ~e he was elected by the citizens of B~rmudn District and neither 89-~9 Mr. Daniel nor any other member of this Board should have to tell him when or he should excuse himself. M~. Daniel stated he only wished to emphasize caution against generating negative perceptions of the Board. Vote: Unanimous ll.E. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITRMS ll.E.1. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS lI.E.l.a. REQUEST FROM MR. GEORGE B. SOWERS~ JR. AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR AID IN ACQUIRING A SEWER EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF MR. W. COURTNEY WELLS AND MR. JAMES V. DANIELS On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Beard autho~izsd the Hight-of-Way Manager to aid George B. Sowers, Jr. & Associates, Inc. in acquiring a 16' offsite sewer easement and a 10' temporary construction easement across the property of Mr. W. Courtney Wells, Ms. Barbara H. Wells and Mr. James V. Daniels to serve property along Harrowgate Road, p~ovided the developer executes a contract with the County agreeing to pay for all the costs. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous ll.E.l.b. REQUEST FROM REALTY V~TURES GROUP, INC. TO AID IN ACQUIRING A.SEWBR EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF MR. RICHARD L. BEAN AND MS. EVA C. BEAN On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board authorized the Right-o£-Way Manager to aid Realty Ventures property of Mr. Richard 5. Bean and Ms. Eva C. Bean, to serve Ashton Creek Apartments~ located east of South Chester Road and north of Ashton Creek, provided the developer executes a contract with the County agreeing to pay for all the costs. (It i~ noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) ll.E.l.c. AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH CONDEMNATION OF SEWER EASEMENTS FOR T~E FALLING CREEK PRESSURE SEWER ACROSS TEE PROPERTY OF MS. DOROTE¥ W. NESTER On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owner if the amount as set opposite her n~me is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owner by reqistered mail on January 26, 19~9 of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. This action is on an ~m~rg~ncy basis and the County intends to exercise in~nediate right of entry, pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia. Dorothy W. Nestor Tax Map 81-10 (1) Parcel 3 $1,325 Vote: Unanimous ll.E.l.d. AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WIT~ CONDEMNATION OF A SEWER EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF MR. STEWART L. COLE AND MS, MYRTLB I. COLE On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board authorizsd the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owne~ if the amount am set opposite their na~es is not accepted. 89-50 Stewart L. and Tax Map 114-4 (1) Parcel 4 $681 ~yrtle I. Cole ll.E~l.e. PURCMASE O? PARCEL OF L~ND ALONG PROCTORS CREER FOR THE FALLING CREEK PRESSURE SEWER FROM MR. GUY N. OWEN AND MS. LOUISE T. OWEN On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved the purchase of a 1.2 acre parcel~ more and less, land along Proctors Creek for the Falling Cruet Pressure Sewer and authorized the County Administrator to sign a deed accepting, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of 1.2 acres mor~ or ies~, from Mr. Guy N. Owen and Ms. Louise T. Owen for of granting an eazement. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) ll.E.2. CONSENT ITEMS tl.E.2.a. APPROVAL OF SEWER CONTRACT FOR BIPJfDALE ON-SITE TRUNK Mr. gpplega~e disclossd to the B~ard that he is a trustee of p~Operty adjacent to the subject site, d~clared a conflict of interest pursuant to tbs Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excuse~ himself from ~he O~ ~otio~ Of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved the following sewer contract and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents: S89-2CD, Birkdale On-Site Trunk S~wer - ~hase II: D~veloper: Spring Rnn Associates Contractor: G. L. Howard, Inc. Total Contract Cost: $246,~9~00 Total estimated County Co~t: $ 51,B2Q.06 {Refund through connection N%umber of Connections~ Code: 5N-2511-997 Aye~= Mr. Currin~ Mr. Daniel~ Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. Absent; ~r. App!egate. ll.E.2.b. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PALLING CR~K PF~SSURE SEWER~ On motion of ~r. Sullivan, seconde~ by ~r. ~ayes, th~ Board awarded Contract Number $87-76R (5P~5835-776R) for the construction of a 48" p~$$ur~ Sewer line for the Falling Creek Pressure Sewer, ~huse II, to Richard L. Crowder Construe%ion CO., Inc. in the a~ount o~ $1,678,80~.0O and authorized the County Administrator to ex,cute any necessary ~octunent~. (It is noted th~ projeut will ~e fun~e~ ky currently funded CIP and by transferring $256,532.50 from Wastewat~r Contingency which will include a 4% project contingency and ~h~ Virginia D~partment of TranSportation will be reimbursing the County an estimate~ $40,000 ! for wor~ included in this pro~ect.} Ayes~ Mr. Coffin, Mr. Dan~eI, ~r. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. Mr, Applegate returne~ to the meeting. 89-51 ll.E,3, REPORTS Mr. Sale presented the Board with a report on the developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. ll.F. REPORTS Mr. Ramsey presented the Board with a status report on the General Fund Contingency Account, General Fund Balance, Road Reserve Funds, District Road and Street Light Funds, Lease Purchases, School Board Agenda and Minutes, Committee on the Future Work Plan Report, Camp Baker Management Report and the Board Public Hearing Schedule. Mr. Ramsey stated the Virginia Department of Transportation has formally notified the County of the acceptance of the following roads into the State Secondary System: ADDITIONS LENGT~ FOXBERRY - SECTION 4 Route 3723 (Den Bark Drive) - From 0.09 mile south Route 3727 %o south cul-de-sac 0.19 Mi. Route 3737 (Den Bark Place) - From Route 3723 to we~t cul-de-sac 0.04 Mi. ROUte 3737 (Den Bark Circle) - From Route 3723 to east cul-de-sac 0.03 Mi. THE PARK - SECTION 1 Route 1913 (Huntingcreek Drive) - From 0.03 mile west Route 2832 to 0.10 mile northwest Route 3650 0.13 Mi. Route 3650 (Playground Court) - Prom Route 1913 to north cul-de-sac 0.08 Mi. Route 3650 (Playground Drive) - From Route 1913 to 0.01 mile south Route 3651 0.04 Mi. Route 3651 (Playground Circle) - From Rout~ 3650 to southeast cul-de-sac 0.10 Mi. Mr. Applegate noted that Item ll.C.2.a., set Date for Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to Amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as ~nend~d, by ~ending Section 21-202 Relating to the Preservation Coramittee, was changed by the Board to February 22, 1989, at 9:00 a.m. EXECUTIVE On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters and to consult with legal counsel regarding the County of Chesterfield versus the Lawlesm Landfill~ pursuant %o Sections 2.1-344 (a) (1) and (6), respectively, of the Code of vir~inla~ 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 89-52 ll.H, LU~CH The ~oard recessed at 12:55 p.m. to travel to the Sunset Cafe at the Chesterfield County Airport for lunch. Reeenvening: e TO CON~IDE~ AN AMenDMEnt TO AN AGREEMENT CONVEYING REAL PROPERTY AT T~B CHESTERFIELD COUNTY INDUSTRTAL PARK TO $CANCE~TER VIRGIEIA, INC. Mr. sale stated an amendment to an a~reement conveying real property at the Chesterfield County Industrial Park tO ScanCenter Virginia, Inc., had been ~dvertised for a public' bearing and ~a~ deferred from this morning's session a~ counsel for $canCen=er Virginia, Inc. was unable to attend at that time. Mr. John Cogbill, representing SoanCenter Virginia, Inc., s~ats~ his client was agreeable to the propomed ~uendments. There was no opposition pre,ont. On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~*conded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board amended various contractual obligations and s~andard restrictiv~ cov~nnnt~ applicable to an agreement conveying re~l property at the Chesterfield County Industrial Park to SeanCenter Virginia, Inc., to permit ScanCentar to locate three (3) businesses within eighteen (18) nanth~ of the conveyance (January 27, 1989} rather than twelve (12) months and require ScanCen~er to hire a full-time Resident Director for the Tncubator ~reject no later than MarCh 1~, 1989. (A copy of the amended Agreement and plat are filed with th~ papers of this Board.) On ~etion Of Mr. Currin~ seconded by Mr. ~ulllvan, the Board suspended its rules to add an additional item to the agenda for discusuion. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. ~u~llvan, the Board added Item ll.D.5., Authorization for Staff to Initiate Rezoning of the Lawless Landfill, =o the agenda. Vote: Unanimous ~l.D.5. AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO INITIATE A REZONING OF THE LAW.SS LANDFILL ~r. Micas stated, in addition to %he various lmgal actlun the County is pursuing against the Lawlor5 Landfill, staff is requesting that th~ Board ~u%hori=s staff %e ini=iate a rezoning that wo~ld establish e mer~ stringent standards for of the landfill; and define a permanent closing date. O~ ~otio~ of Mr. C~rrln, ueconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board authorized staff to prepare a r~zoning regue~t for the Lawless landfill p~0perty and directed staff to double advertise the xoning request due to u0ncerns regarding health, safety and welfare due to the existing landfill operation. 89-53 ll.I. MOBILE HOME REQUESTS 88SR0278 In Matoaca Maqisterial District, JAMES AND VIVIAN CRANE quested renewal of Mobile Home Permit 83SR196 to park a mobile home on property fronting the northwest line of Shawonodasee Road, approximately 200 feet southwest of Courthouse Road, and better known as 9006 Shawouodasee Road. Tax Map 79-14 (1) Parcel 9 (Sheet 22). The first permit was issued on November 4, 1964. Mr, Jacobsen stated, at the request of the app'iicant, the Board had deferred this case thirty (30) days tO give the applicant time to resolve concerns regarding ownership of the property, He stated, since that time, the Cranes had submitted a verbal request to withdraw this cass. Neither the applicants, nor their representative, were present. Mr. Applegate stated, through discussion with the Cranes, it was determined the Cranes are not the owner of the' property but only have a lease on the subject property, have purchased or intend to purchase a home elsewhere and suggested the request be deferred until such time as the owners and/or applicants either submit a written request to withdraw the case or can attend the Hoard meeting to discuss the matter. Mr. Mayes stated he had not been contacted by anyone with respect to the request. Mr. Jacobsen stated staff is recommending that the mobile home request be amended to indicate the name of the new future property owner or that the applicants submit a written request for withdrawal of the application. Mr. Applegate expressed concern that no one was present to represent the request and reatated his suggestion that the request be deferred for thirty days to find out what either party wishes to do with the request. On motion cf Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayss, the Board deferred consideration of Case 885R0278 until February 22, 1989. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Jacobsen stated staff would contact the applicants owner there could be appropriate disposition of the request. 89SR0131 In Bermuda Magisterial District, MAMMIE SAYLEB requested renewal of Mobile Home Permit 83SR207 to park a mobile home on property located approximately 700 feet off the southeast line of Omaha Street, measured from a point approximately 200 feet southeast of Normandale Avenue, and better known as 9101 Omaha Street. Tax Map 81-8 {1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 23). The first permit wa~ i~ued on November 8, I972. Mr. Jacobsen stated staff reco~nended approval of Case 89$R0131 subject to certain standard conditions. Mrs. Mammie Sayl~s' son stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. 89-54 Qn motion of Mr. c~rrin, seconded by Mr. Ceftin, the Board approve~ Case 895R0131 for seven 17) y~ar~, subject to tks following standard conditions: I. The applicant shall be the owner end occupant of the mobile home. Ne lot Or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobit~ home ~its, nor shall any mobile hume be used for rental property. 0nly omo (t] mobile home shall 9ermittod to bs parked on an individual lot or parcel, 3. The minimum lot size~ yard setbacks, required front yard~ and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied withr except that no home shall be locats~ closer than 20 feet to any existin~ residenc~. 4. Wu additional permanent-type living spac~ may be added onto a mobile homo. All mobile homes shall be skirted b~t shall not be placed on a p~rmanent foundation. 5. Where public (County) water and/or ~ew~r ar~ ~hey ~hall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, th~ applicant ~hall then obtain the necessary per, its from ~he Office of the Building official. Thi~ ~hall be done prior to the installation Or r~location of the mobile home. 7. Amy vlol~tlon of the stove conditions shall be grounds for revocation of th~ Mobile ~ome Permit. Vote: $9~N0126 ~n ~to~oa Magisterial District, SWmLLEX M. PA~ requested a Mobile ~ome Permit to park a mobile home on property fronting the southwest line of Msridian Avenue, at Center Street, and better known as 15902 Meridian Avenue. Tax Map 149-13 (3) Ivey Tract, Block B, Lots 10A, llA, and 12 (Shoet 41). · This i~ the a~licant's first permit. However, others have parked a mobile Mr. Jaoo~son stated staff recommended approval of Case 89SN0126, subject to certain standard condition~. Mr. Aubrey Munson, representin~ the applicant, stated the recommended conditions were a~ceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by ~r. Currin, the Board approved Case $9$N0126 for meven (v) years~ subject to the 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant Of thc mobile home. 1. ~o lot or parcel may be rented er leased ~or use as a mobil~ home $ite~ nor ~h~ll any mo~ile home be used ~or rental property~ Only One (1) mobile home shale be permitted to be parked on an individual let or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoniag requirements of th~ applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located clo~er than 20 feet to any ~xi~ting residence. 89-55 4. Ne additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall he used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Nome Permit, the applicant shall then obtain th~ necessary permits from the Office of the ~uildinq Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for r~vocation of the Mobile Home Permit. ll.J. ~QUESTS FOR P~EZ0NING In Midlothian Magisterial District, KINDER CAPE LEA~LNING CENTERS, INC. requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a child car~ center and bulk (parking) exceptions in an Office Business .(O) District. This request lies on a 1.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the west line of Branchway Road, also fronting approximately forty (40) feet on the east line of North Courthouse Road, approximately 1,000 feet south of Midlothien Turnpike. Tax Map 16-12 (1) Parcel 33 and Tax Map 17-9 (2) Avon Estates, Lot 16 (Sheet 8). Mr. Jacobsen stated the applicant has suk~mitted a request for withdrawal of Case 88SN0256. No one was present to represent the request. There was no opposition to the withdrawal. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board accepted withdrawal of Case 85SN0256. Vote: Unanimous 88SN0063 In Midlothian Magisterial District, CON~ requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a 198 foot tower plus hulk (s~tback) exceptions in a Convenience Business (B-l) District. This request lies on a 0.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 40 feet on 'the west line of Buford Road, approximately 500 feet north of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 18~15 (11 Part of Parcel 16 (Sheet 8). Mr. Jacobsen stated the applicant has requested a ~ixty (60) day deferral to allow time to resolve negotiations on an alternate site. He also stated staff ie recommending the deferral as the request is also pending before the Planning Commission and has been deferred for sixty (60) days. No one was present to represent the request. There was no opposition to the deferral. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currln, the Board deferred Case 88SN0063 until March 22, 1989. Vote: Dnanlmous 89-56 In Matoaca Maqisteriat Di~trict, ~N~T~ A¥$~ requested rezoning ~rom Agricultural [A) to Residential (R-9). A family residential subdivision is planned. This request lies on a 22.~ acre parcel frontinq approximately 700 feet on the south line of Sp~ing ~un Road, approximately 900 feet west of Bailey Sridgs Road. Tax Map 91-4 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 29}. Mr. Jaeobson stated the Planning Commission recnmmended approval of Case 88SN0203 subject to certain conditions and acceptance of proffered conditions. Mr. Applegate disclo~ed %o the Board that h~ ~erve~ as a %ru~tee for property adjacent to tko subje~ si~e, declared a conflict of in~erest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Prank Potty, representing ~he a~plisa~t, recommended conditions Were acceptable. Mr. ~eorge Beadle~ stated he was wished to address %he proposed request. Mr. C~rrin stated that, s±n¢~ Mr. ~eadles did wish =o address the proposed request, i~ would b~ heard in its regular 888N0237 In Midlothi&n Magisterial District, 9;ALTON ~/~RK C(~I~ASSO- C~ATION requested amendment to Conditional Upe~ (cases 78A0~7 and 81S129) to permit expansion of an existing indoor/outdoor recreational facility in a Residential (R-7) District. This reqnest lies on a 4.9 acre parcel fronting apprQ~imetely fast on the south llne of Walton Park Road, approKimately I27 feet ~ast of Overcliff CourB. Tax Map 26-6 (1) Parcel 1 7). Mr. Jaco~son stated the Plannin~ Commission recommended approval of Case 88SN0237, ~ubjeo~ to certain conditions, Mr. Rick Nord~nson, r~presenting the applicant, stated the recommended conditions were a~ceptabl~. There was no opposition On ~otlon of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currln, the Board approved Case SSSN0237~ subjec~ to the following conditions: 1. The plan by Balzer and A~oeistes, Inc., revi~ed October 12, 1988, shall supersede ~he previously approved plan, and be subject to the following Conditions. (NOT~; This condition supersedes Condition~ i and ~ of Case 75A087 and'Condition 1 of Cas~ 1I:00 p.m.~ Sunday through Thursday, an~ from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, Parking lots shall be b~rricaded ~ith a locked gate at all tin~s, other operating hours. (NOT~: This condition ~upersed~s Condition 4 of Case 78A087.) 3. Parking shat1 be provided on the hosi~ cf en~ {1) space for each ninety {9~) square feet of combined swint~inq and wading pool area~ ~xelumive of the lap pools, and four (4) spaces for ~ach playinq court. (P) 89-57 (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 2 of Case 75A087.) Further, the Zoning Ordinance requires that all driveways and parking areas for six (6) or more vehicles be paved. Also, th~ BOCA Code requires two-way driveways to be a minimum of twenty-four (24) feet in width unless local agencies qrant exceptions. On a routine basis, driveways serving parking lots containing up to fifteen (15) parking spaces to be twenty (20) feet in width a~e permitted; and driveways serving parking lots of sixteen (16) to thirty (30) parking spaces to be twenty-two (22) feet in width.) 4. There shall be no e×paneion of the existing public address system or speakers. In conjunction with final site plan review and prior to the release of building permits, a plan depicting the exact location of the existing public address System, including speakers, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. All exterior lights shall be arranged end installed so that the direct or reflected illumination does not exceed 0.5 foot candles above background measured at the lot line of any adjoining residential or agricultural parcel. Lightinq standards shall be of a directional-type capable of shielding the light source from direct view from any adjoininq parcel or public riqht of way, Further, no exterior lighting shall be hiqher than forty (40) feet. (P) (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 3 of Case 78A087.) In conjunction with final site plan review, and prior the release of buildinq permits, a detailed landscape plan for the site shall be submitted to the Planning Depar~ent for approval. This plan shall incorporate pedestrian and bicycle paths to provide the greatest possible safety and convenience of access to the site from surrounding res- idential development. (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 1 of Case 75A087 and Conditions 2 and 3 of Case 81S129.) 7. A thirty~five (35) foot buffer strip, pa, rking areas, recreational facilities and buildings shall be established and maintained along the southern, eastern, and western property lines of the site and a twenty-five (25) foot buffer alonq the northern property line of the site adja- cent to Walton Park Road. The area within the buffer strip shall be left in ~ts natural state, or supplemented with berms, planting, fences, or qazebos, in accordance with the landscape plan (see Condition 6). No shall be permitted through this buffer except for entrance driveways and pedestrian and bicycle paths, as shall be required by the landscape plan (see Condition 6). (P) (NOTE: 'This condition supersedes Condition 1 of 78A087 and Conditions 2 and 3 of Case 81S129.) 8. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U) 9. The proposed basketball court shall be relocated to the easternmost proposed tennis court. Additional landscaping shall be provided to screen/buffer the basketball court. A plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P&CPC) (NOTE: 0nly Conditions 6 and 7 of Case 78A087 continue in effect, and unsupereeded: 89-58 6. Only one (1) sign, not to exceed eight (8) square fast in area, shall be permlt~d. This sign shall net be illuminated nor shall it be luminons. A r~ndering of a sign shall submitted to the Division of Development Review for approval. 7_ P~ior to obtaining a building permit, applicant shall submit site plsn~ to the Division of Development Review for approval.) In Matoaca Magisterial District, M~VIN $. i%DA15$ requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (O). This request lies on a 0.7 acr~ parcel ~ronting approximately 125 feet on the south line of Hull Street Road, approximately 570 feet east of Dear Run Drlvs. Tax ~ap 75-4 (1) Parcel 5 (Sheet 20) Mr. Jacobsen ~tated the Planning Co~ission recommended approval of Case. 8~S~02~5. Mr. Melvin B. kdamu stated ~h~ recon~endation was acceptable. There was no apposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Currin, the ~osrd approved Case 88SN0255. ¥o~e: Unanlme~s 88SN0259 In Matoaca Magisterial District, ZAN~ ~. ~A¥I~ requested Conditional Use to per-mit a drive-in re~tanrant in a Co~unity Business {B-2) Digkriek, This =equest lies on a 1.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the south lin~ of Courthouse Road, ~lso fronting approximately I75 feet on ~he line of Iron Bridge Road~ and located in the southwest quadrant of the interseotlo~ of ~hese roads. Tax Map 95-3 (1} Part o~ Parcels 6 and 20 (Sheet 31). Xr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Ce~e 88~N0~9 sub~ect te certain renditions. Mr. Zone Davis stated the raco~m~ended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition ~resent. On motion of Mr. Mayer, seoonded by Mr. Daniel~ the Board approv~ Ca~ 855M02~9, ~u~ect to the following The following conditions notwithstandin~ the plan and elevations submitted with the application shall be con- sidered the Plan of Development. (P) 2. The buildlnq facades shall ~nccrperate brickwork of a style, color, and t~xture that is compatible with the and M Bank at th~ intersection of Route 10 and Deerfield Drive and the Chesterfield County Courts Complex on adja0ent property to the east. Elevations shall be submitted to %_he Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site plan review. 3, Publio sewer shall be used. ~9-59 When asked, Mr. Davis indicated a decision relative to the access to the subject site, if Courthouse Road were ultimately relocated, is pending before the Virginia Department of Transportation. 88SN8258 In Midlothian Magisterial District, ~OUGLAS R. $Oi~EP~ requested amendment to conditions of zoning (Case 85S024) relative to maximum allowable density. This request lies in a Residential (R~401 District on a 90.0 acre parcel fronting in three (3) places for a total of approximately 385 feet on the north line of Genito Road, beginning at a point approximately 160 feet west of Hunters Ridge Drive. Tax Map 35-13 (2) Weatherbury, Section ir Block A, Lots 3, 4, 5, 13, 15, 16, and 17; Tax Map 3S-14 (1) Part of Parcel 1; Tax Map 35-14 (2) Weatherbury, Sec- tion 1, Block A, Lot 9; Tek Map 46-1 (3) Weatherbu~y, Lot CA; Tax Map 46-1 (3) Weathsrbury, Section 1, Block A, Lots 2 and 18 thronqh 20; and Tax Map 46-2 (2) Weatherbury, Section 1, Block B, Lots i and 6 through 8 (Sheet 12). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case $8SN0258 and acceptance of the proffered condition. Mr. Don Ford, representing the applicant, stated the Planning Commission recommendation was acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved Case 88SN0258 and accepted th~ following proffered condition: Maximum numkber of 10ts utilizing septic tanks shall be 25 and maximum number of lots overall shall be 50. Vote: Unanimous 88SN0203 In Matoaca Magisterial District, KENNETH AYSCUE requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9). A single family residential subdivision is planned, This request lies on a 22.1 acre parcel fronting approximately 700 feet on the south line of Spring Run Road, approximately 900 feet west of Bailey Bridge Road. Tax Map 9]-4 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 29). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission reco~uended approval of Case 88SN0203 subject to certain conditions and acceptance of proffered conditions. Mr. Appleqate disclosed to the Board that he serves as a trustee for property adjacent to the subject site, declared a conflict of interes~ pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Frank Porte, representing the applicant, stated the reco~ended conditions were acceptable, Mr. George Beadles stated he had reviewed the proposed request and felt it was not the best use of the subject property and expressed concerns relative to the proposed site's location within proximity to othe~ subdivisions, appropriate screening and/or buffering, that a better use then residential develop- ment could be determined for the property, etoo There was no one else present wishing to address the p~oposed request. Mr. Mayes questioned if public sewer would be used for the proposed project. Mr. Schmelz stated that because this reql%est is for Euclidean zoning, the Utilties Department has not 89-60 on th~ ~ite; however, if a condition needed to be added to the Board could accept the applicant's intent to provid~ wate~ and sewer or defer the request until such time as the applicant requiring public water agd sewer, he would be willing to defer or deny the negueat. Mn. Poths stated he would prefer a thirty (30) day deferral_ On motio~ of Mr. M~y~s, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board deXerred Case $$$N020~ until February 22, 1989. 87S13~ {Amended) In Dale Magisterial Di~trimt, DOUGLASS ~. WOOLFOt~ requested rezoning from Agricultural (A), Residential (R-15), and Residential ~R-7) to Office Business (O) with Conditional ~lasned D~velopment. A~ office/commercial and residential complex in planned. Thi~ request lie~ on a 125.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,360 feet on the west line of Iron Bridge Road, also fronting approximately 3,176 feet on the ~oufh lfn~ of Chippenham ~arkway, ~nd located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of ~hese ~oads, also fronhing on bo~h sides of ~entOn Drive for itz entire length, on the east line of Chieora D~ive for its entire length, and approximately 32~ feet on the north line of Gravelbrsok Drive we~t of Iron B~idge Road. Tax Map ~1-13 (1) Part of Parcel 1; Tax Map 41-14 (1) Part of Parcel 6; Tax ~ap 52-2 (1) Parcel 1~ Tax Map 52-2 (3) Grauelbrook Farm, Block A, Lots 1 %brough 5; and Tax Map ~2-6 (4) GravelbroQk Farm, Block B, Lots 1 through 9 (Sheet 15). ~r. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recon~ended approval of Case 87S13~, subjeca to certain conditions and acceptance of proffered conditions and further explained the amended and new conditions as outlined in the Request Analysis.. Mr. Douglass Woolfolk presented a summary of the proposed request, providing tls Board with data relative to the existing zoning, the proposed mixed uses, density~ a project ~e~criptlon, ~ran~porta~ion, etc.~ explained general and special conditions applicable to the project~ and presented slides relative to the ~ite a~ it currently e~ists and its anticipated future development. Lieutnnant Colonel (Retired) Robert Bruce voiced opposition and began an unacceptable lin~ of questioniog ~e %he applicant and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Appteqate ~led Mr. Bruce out of order and requested ~b~t he leave the meeting. ~r. ~ruse refu~ed to leave the meeting and was escorted from %_he Board Ms. Carmenette Jervis expressed concerns relative to the proposed entranceway, traffic oengsstion, the di~traotion of students during spring/fall months by noise levels when classroom windows are open for veptiletion, ~c+; ~$. Diane Hall expressed concerns regarding this project's impact on area 89-61 schools, air conditioning schedule, traffic, drainage, the proposed use for Parcel J, etc. Mr. Elbert Howard, representing the Dale Ruritan Foundation, stated he felt concerns relative to the impact to the State's proposal to four-lane Route 10 and the Ruritan Club's inability to have convenient access to a crossover on Route 10 based on VDOT's proposal had been adequately addressed; Ms. Betty Spinnola voiced support of the proposed request and stated she felt the proposed development will be an improvement as compared to the existing situation that currently exists at the subject location. There being no one else to address the matter, Mr. Appl~gate closed the public input. Mr. Daniel stated the proposed request has been a very sensitive, complex zoning request and it had taken a considerable amount of time to resolve numerous concerns but that he felt the process had worked and each issue of concern had been addressed. He referenced letters he had received from the School Administration and Hening Elementary School endorsing the proposal relative to school safety; addressed the entrance road which he stated is a boulevard type roadway, referenced a letter and drawing from the Fire Marshal indicating support of the design of the entrance drive provided that no utilities are placed in the right-of-way; addressed concerns relative to drainage and runoff which he felt have been adequately addressed by Condition 7 and referenced material he had received from Colonel Bruce who lives on the reservoir and experiences much flooding each time the Falling Creek Reservoir rises; referenced Ms. Jervis' concerns regarding traffic congestion at Jessup Road and indicated the conditions outlined road improvements which have been addressed with the Virginia Department of Hiqhways and must be completed by the developer prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit; heights of buildings to which the developer has agreed to reduce; the concerns of the Dale Ruritan Club and the Church relative tn a crossover having been discussed with VDOT and a strong recommendation that the crossover be constructed but reiterated that if there is redevelopment for any reason on the other sid~ of Route 10 the subject crossover will be closed immediately and not be used in any way as a reason to gain access to any of the redevelopment area so the people who currently have access to their property should not be adversely impacted; requested that all the records in the public hearing process relating to the crossover be sent to VDOT for their records; stated there should be a statement of understanding that under no circumstances will stub road connections to adjacent properties be considened until after sufficient public hearings, with adjacent property owner's input, have been held (Mr. McCracken indicated there is a proffered condition $7 which retains the potential for stub roads but only after the review of and approval by the Planning Commission); locations of permitted uses such as the gasoline stations on which he stated he felt there were substantial architectural limitations and meet safety criteria; retention of the hardwood forest for screening and buffering, with thinning of only brush in the area not having hardwoods, etc.; and referenced Ms. Jervis' letter regarding the closure of access from Chippenham Parkway to Belmont Road as an alternative to the traffic congestion which he stated, based on the opinion of the County at this time, the Virginia Department of Highways would not likely support. He expressed appreciation to the many people involved in this case for their diligent efforts and cooperation and stated he felt the extra time taken to resolve concerns was worthwhile and would result in a quality project. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr, Mayas, the Board approved Case 87S133, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the Master prepared by Kiggins Associates, Inc~ revised ~ovember 1988, and the Textual Statement revised November 1S, shall he considered the M&ster Plan. 2. Public water and ~ewer shalt be used. (U) 3. Prior to the first schematic plau approval~ a conceptual layout of the overall water system, together with detailed information on anticipated water requirements, tentative meter sizes, etc. shall be submitted to the Department of Utilities for review and ~pproval. (U) 4. The owner/developer shall be re~ponsible for any i~prov~- meats to the existing public water system which are deemed necessary b~ th~ Department of Utiliti~D %O adequately serve the proposed development. 5. Unless approved ~y Environmental Engineering, there shall be no clearing of slopes having a grade of 15% or greater. Prior to the release of any bnilding permits for any site having access to a new public road, =he road plans shall be approved by VDOT~ EnVironmental Engineering and the Transportation Department, Prior to occupancy of any site having access to a new public road, the right-of-way be dedicated via subdivision plat. 7. The erosion cen~rol sad drainage p~an sha~l 'include mea- sures to minimize the impact of surface runof~ on ~alling Creek Reservoir's water quality. This plan shall be approved by Environmental Engineering prier to any ing or grading. The erosion control and drainage plans shall assure~ to th~ maximum extent possible, that ~he water quality and sedimentation problems of Falling Creek Reservoir would not b~ %~orsened. 8. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be main~aine~ along the boundary of 9_he project where adjacent ~e any adjoining single family residential use or ~ChOO1 si~e. Further, Site E shall be maintained as a buffer. 8ach buffer shall b~ landscape~ with dense evergreen plantings having a minimum initial height of six (6) Further, a minimum six [6) foot high fence shall ins=ailed within the buffer adjacent to the northern bOUndary of the Hening School property. ~urther, within the setbacks and median along Entry Drive, landscaping shall be accomplished to minimize the impact on area re~idents and the school. Other than utilities and access(e~) wt~ich run generally perpen- dicular through the buffe~, Signs, to include a sign to identify Gravelbrook Farms, ornamental walls, fence~ cr other screening device~, the~e shall be no facilities located within the buffers. A conceptual plan depict- ing these requirements, ~o includ~ cross-eeotlens shall be ~ubmitt~d to the Plan~ing Coa~is~ion far approval in conjunction with schematic plan r~view. A detailed plan depicting these requiremenb$ shall be submitted to the Planning Eepar~ent for approval within thirty days of rough clearing and grading. Installation of buffers may b= phased in conjunction with the phasing o~ the deveiepman% upon approval by the Planning Cam- mission. The Planning Cc~nmi~ion, m~y, at thm time schematic plan review, modify buffer ~equir~ments if it is determined that adequate buf£ers can be accomplished in .a lessor width or with p~eviuionm of alternative vegetation sad/or screening devices or on adjacent properties. (NOT~: This condition is in addition to Textual State- men%~ ?.4 Open Space and 89-63 9. Permitted recreational facilities shall be limited to jogging trails and/or facilities for the occupants of the multi-family tracts or tenants/employees in the office cor~mercial tracts. The Planning Commission, may at the time of schematic plan review, prohibit a recreational use which may be deemed to have a potential to adversely affect or impact area residents. Furthermore, fraternal clubs and lodges shall be prohibited. (P) (NOTE: This condition is in addition to Textual State- ment, 8.0 Special Conditions.) 10. In the Office Service Tract (OS)! showroom, sales and service areas shall be permitted provided the showroom or display area does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the gross floor area of the establishment. (P) (NOTE: Th~s condition is in addition to Textual State- ment 8.2 OS (Office Service).) 11. Uses permitted in Site J shall be restricted to theme umes permitted in the MDO traet plus a bank or savings and lean with or without drive-in windows; a restaurant with or without drive-in windows; and a gasoline station. Pur- ther, if a bank or savings and loan is developed in Site J, it shall be restricted to bhe southern portion of Site J; if a gasoline station is developed in Site J, it shall be res%rlcted to the center portion of Site J; ~nd if a restaurant is developed in Site J, it shall be restricted to the northern portion of Site J. The architectural style of any drive-in restaurant or gasoline station shall be compatible with a bank or savings and loan and have a site design which protects the residential integrity of the entrance road and achieves compatibility with Hening ~lementary School. Any canopy and gas pump islands shall be incorporated into the main ~trncture and have the appearance of being an integral part of the principal building (i.e., similar to drive-in facilities for savings and loans or banks). Any gasoline, station or drive-in restaurant shall be designed sc as not to project a typi- cal facility, but rather a unique design that would proj- ect a style similar to a bank or savings and loan. (NOTE: This ccnditlon supersedes Textual Statement, 8.5 SR (Specialty Retail) Permitted Uses for Site J, only.) 12. All structures in Site D, MFR, shall be restricted to a maximum height three (3) stories. (P) (~QT~: This condition is in addition to Textual Statement 8.6 MFR (Multi-family Residential) Site C, Maximum Height Requirements.) 13. Prior to the first schematic plan submission/the existing house located on Parcel 1, Tax Map 52-2 (1) shall he presented for consideration to the Preservation Cem~ittee and Planning Commission to determine whether the structure should be preserved and if it should be preserved, whether it should be relocated to a site within or outside of the development. 14. The developer shall be responsible for notifying all adjacent property owners surrounding the entire project of th9 time and date of any schematic plan consideration. 15. Any on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages shall he confined to a restaurant which shall not be a drive-in, carry-out, or smorgasbord-type restaurant. Any restau- rant serving alcoholic beverages shall provide, as a 89-64 principal use, the sale o~ food in a stat~ ready for con~u~ptioD within tbs establishment and shall be designed or operated to includ~ both of the following characteristics: Customers ars provided with an ~ndividual mena and are served th~i~ food by a restaurant employee at tbs sams %able or counter at which said items are The food is served on nondisposable plates or provided. Custom~r~ are not expected to clear their table or dispose of their trash. ages shall be confined to a floor area not to exceed twenty (20) percent of the gross floor ar~a of the 16. ~ign$ shall comply with =he corrider Overlay District stendard~, except that only one (1) free,tending sign identifying ~_he project shall be permitted ~long Acute and ~u~h ~fgn ~hall be limited to a maximum h~ight of five ($) feet and have a brick base. Further, there shall be no f~eeStanding ~igns permitted along Chippenham Parkway. With the exception of the freestandin~ ~ign restrictions specified herein~ the Planning Commission may modify the ~rovid~d the spirit and intent of the r~gulations are mst. (NOTE: This condition is in addition to ~he Textual Statement, 7.2 Development Standards.) 17. within the reguired fl~ty (50) foot ~etback along Chippenham Parkway, existing high story =teas shall be preserved in addition to required landscaping of the ~andscaping plan depisting this requirement shall be submitted ~o the Planning Commission for approval conjunction with the firs~ schematic plan review. Within sixty (60) days of rough clearing and gradi~q for any $it~ adjacent to the setback~ a d=tailed land- scaping plan shall be submit=ed =o the Planning D~part- meet for approval. (NOTE: This condition is in addition ~o the Textual eta=ameer, 7.2 Developmmnt Standard~.) 19.' ~rior to the issuano~ of any occupancy p~rmit, ~ rued di:ions shall be' co,plate as de~ermined by the Trane- 20. The height of any offic~ ~tfucture in a~y MDC or CR tract retail structure in a CR tract ~hall nO~ exceed o~e {~QT=: This condition supersedes Textual Statement, 8.0 Special Conditions, 8.3, MDC, Ma~im~ Buildinq Height and S.4, CH, saxim~ height requir~ent.) And further, the Beard accepted the following conditions: consid~re~ the Master Road Plan. ~pproval of the plan by 89-65 the County does not imply that the County gives final approval of any particular road alignment or section. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, 100 feet of right of way measured from the centerline of'Chippenham Parkway~ right of way along Route 10 as shown on VDOT's current Route 10 widening plans, and a minimum 90 feet of right of way for Entry Drive shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County free and unrestricted. If requested by the Trans- portation Department for the widening of Chippenham Park- way, up to an additional 50 feet of right of way along Chippenham ~hall be dedicated to Chesterfield County free and unrestricted. 3. 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 Departmsnt. 4. ~h¢ Developer will dedicate to the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, any additional right of way (or easement) required for the improvements identified above, and in the Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Chesterfield County Transportation Department dated ~eptember 16, 1988. 5. In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission, a phasing plan for required road improvements, with support~ ing traffic analysis, if requested by the Transportation Department, shall be submitted to the Transportation Department for approval. 6. Access to and from Entry Drive shall be approved by the Tranaportation Department. 7. Stub road(s) shall be provided to the adjacent property to the west. The location of this stub(s) shall be approved by the Transportation Department. This condition may be modified by the Planning Commission at the time of sche- matic plan approval. 8. The maximum density of this development shall be 200 retirement village units, 259 apartment units, 350,000 square feet of office, 100,000 square feet of research and development, and 200,000 square feet of retail or equivalent densities as approved by the Transportation Department. 9. Specific roadway improvements set forth in these Transpor- tation Proffers are required by the time of full site development and are to be constructed in accordance with the phasing plan approved by the Transportation Depart- ment. The Developer shall provide the Transportation Department with additional traffic studies upon completion of each phase if requested. Roadway improvements shall be increased or decreased by the developer as required by the Transportation Department if these studies demonstrate that traffic generation rates and distributions solely by this development are materially different as determined by the Transportation Department from projections set forth in the traffic study prepared by Chesterfield County Transportation Department dated September 16, 1988. If satisfactory improvements cannot be provided, the Planning Commission may reduce the permissible den- sities to the extent that acceptable levels of service are provided as determined by the Transportation Department. 10. To p~ovide £or an adequate ~oadway system at the time of the complete development of the proposed project, the Developer will be responsible for the following: 89-66 1) Construction o~ Entry Drive as a minimum 4 lane d~vid~d roadway. 2) Con~truetlon of two (~) additional lanes on Route lO from Chippenh~m Parkway through the J~sup Road/Route l0 intersection with adequat~ turn lanes and ~gnali~ation at the Entry Driv%/Route 10 inter- section and a channalized, fr~e flow right-turn lane o~ Route 10 from the Chippenham/Route 10 int~rchang~ through Entry Drive. (8TAFF NOTE= when combined with VDOT's proposed widening project far Route 10, these lanes will provide a six (6) lane facility from Chippenham for a minimum Of 400 feet soutk of Jessup Road in accordance with VDOT standards as determined by the Transportation Department.) 3) Reconstruction of th~ ~ening ~lementary school Fas Loop/~ntranee to provide a sate entrance with ade- quate storage for bns~s discharging/boarding students. Vote: Unanimous It was qenerally agreed ko recess for five (5) minutes. 88SN0202 In Midlothian Maqisterial District, '~ku~ WOOY~FOI/T requested rezoning from Residential (R-40}, Residentiml-Townhouse (R-TH), and Office Buslnes~ (O) to Residential Mutti-~amily (R-MF) of a 26.9 sore =root and Office Business (0) of a 33.9 acre tract, with ~endmen~ Cozditlunal Use Planned Dmvelo~ent (Case 82S031) on there parcels, on an adjacent 70.6 acr~ parcel zon~d (R-40), and on an adjacent 34.7 acre parcel zoned Officu Business (O). An office/co~ercial, indus,:ia1, and residential complex is planned. ~his request li~ on a 166.1 ~cre parcel fronting approximately ~,2~0 fe~t on the northwest line of Euguenot Road, also fronting app~ox~atel~ 1,250 feet on the north line of Robiou~ Roa~, and approximately 1~100 fast on the ~ast line of Roblous Cro~ing Drive~ an~ located at th~ intersection of these roads~ ~ also lying at the western terminus of We~tford Road and at the southern terminu~ Map 9-9 (1) Parcel 8 (Sheets 2 and Mr. ~oole stated the Planning CO, isaiah racu~ended approval of Case 88S~0102 subjec= to c~rta~n oon~ition$ and presented an declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Intmres% Act and ~xcused kimsetf from ~he meeting. Mr. Douglas Woolfclk presented an overview of th~ request with a slide presentation exhibiting the 'proposed quality of the project, layout, us~s, access, et~. ~e ~ta~e~ he has werked diligently with area residents and civic association~ protect ~eir properly, ~nmure %be most min~al impact tQ the area, to p~ovide an appropriate entranceway to th~ project and to acco~odate concerns relative to school and residential area 89-67 unexpe0ted concerns have surfaced which he has attempted to address as best as possible in a short period of time and, although there may be requests for more time to address/resolve certain concerns, he would be unable to accept a deferral due to his present contractual obligations. MS. Marty Franks; Mr. Jokn Orgain; Mr. Robert B. Miller; and Mr. Brian Wantling; voiced ~upport for the proposed request as they felt it would be developed in a c~mpatible, quality manner which would enhance the community and cemmended the developer's willingness to meet with area reeidents and address their concerns. When asked, approximately fifteen (15) people stood in support of the proposal. Ms. Eloise Baird; Mr. Bill Hastings; Mr. J. K. Timmons; Ms. Carolyn Powers; Ms. Rosemary Gabriel; Mr. Gene Cook; Mr. Oliver Rudy, representing the Salisbury Corporation; Mr. Frank Middleton; Mr. Gene Autry; and Mr. Sam Epee, who distributed a letter to the Board for their review, voiced opposition to and/Or expressed concerns relative to the proposed density of th~ apartment complex and the traffic congestion it would generate; the setting of a precedent for further commercialization along Huguenot Road; retention of the current zoning versus the requested rezoning; the impact of the proposed development on area schools and traffic patterns; insufficient notice to all those affected by the proposed development, etc. When asked, approximately eight (8) people stood to indicate their opposition to the proposed request. When asked, Mr. Epee indicated his objection to the proposal was based on an existing covenant and the impact of the proposed development on the echool system and area traffic. Mr. Peele indicated, with respect to density, the applicant's Textual Statement would permit the number of apartments to be increased from 250 to ~00 units only if the acreage of the multifamily tract were increased and that the actual density could not exceed ten (10} units per acre. It was generally agreed to recess for five (~) minutes. Reconvening: Mr. Woolfolk introduced Mr. Jim Keyes of J. K. Timmons and Associates who addressed water, sewage and drainage iseues; Mr. Bob Cole~ of Rountree Associates who addressed the approprlaten~ss of the requested use; and Mr. Jeff Williams of Harrison and Bates who addressed concerns previously raised by Mr. J. K. Timmen~ and the Salisbury community. There being no one else to address the matter, ~r. Applegate closed the public input. Mr. Sullivan expressed concerns relative to the existing zoning versus the req/lested zoning, the difference~ in the plan submitted in 1982 as compared to the current application, whether or not this project impacts property values in the northern area of Chesterfield County, the expansion of development along Robious and/or ~uquenot Roads, etc.; stated he ~elt thi~ project does not affect the property values in northern Chesterfield, that he was elected to represent the entire Midlothlan District and when those individuals most affected by this project support at, he felt he must support them inhis decision. Mr. Daniel stated he felt zoning is the most difficult decision on which a Hoard member must act, felt that what has been 89~68 placed befere :he ~oard is an extension of the zoning of 1982 and~ based on the information provided today~ ha felt comfortable this does not change the spirit of 1982 and the proposed application is probably the most appropriate at the present time. Mr. Mayss requested clarification relative to the highest and best ~se of the property and stated that unless there ie a covenant in I982 which prohibits rezoning in 1989, the highest and best use would appear to him to be th~ major factor; however, on the other hand~ with respect to the highest and best use, just because a person dislikes a situation, just because there might be too much densityt just because the County deesn't have enougk money to provide for school kids that the new deveto~ent is going to generate, according to the Supreme Court d~cieion, t~ose are ~ot necessarily sufficient reasons to d~ny someone the highest and best u~e of the property. ~e stated no one mentioned ~ke public heal~h, safety and welfare fa~tor~ ~hat would be a different situation and that is wha~ he is concerned about. Mr. Applegete stated the Request Analysis indi~ate~ thet School Staff will work with the applicant to acquire appre×imate~y 80-90 acres in =his area for a northern area hiqh ~chool site and questioned if that is what the nehoot is ~t~a]pcing to do~ ~f there were to ~e en inability of the ~hool to buy that site, would it affect his proj~ct~ ~r. Woolfolk stated ne ene has come forward to discuss any euoh matter and he would therefore assume that that partlculer acreage would be zoned end developed as residential property. He further addressed on anticipated traffic patterns/ccn~e~tion. indicate exact density and until such time as that information is available it would not be possible to determine what the exact traffic generation would b~, ~ et~te~ the mitigating would be necessary. Mr. Pools indicated, with respect to ~ensity, the current application wa~ requesting 10 units per i~su~ b~cause ~here was a dis~ort~d ~ax base an~ ple~e~, at make ~he ~ax base ratio more equitable. ~e stated, if an ~urposes, the ~uard apparently felt, in 1982, that the shall ba considered the Master Plan, (P) 2. P~lic water and sewer shall be umed. Prior to the issu- ance of any building p~rmi~, the developer shall m~bmit ~ngime~r, shall be granted ~o and for the County of 3. Either the density of th~ ~velopment mhall b~ re~=c~d to 89-69 shall perform a hydraulic analysis which verifies that the sewer line has the capacity to serve this d~velopment and any additional development of vacant property within the drainage area. (U) 4. Should the density of the proposed development exceed ten (10) persons per acre, the required hydraulic analysis shall be submitted to the Planning Section of the Util- ities Department for review and response prior to approval of any tentative subdivision er schematic plans. (U) 5. The water distribution system for this development shall include water main extensions along Huguenot Road to the southeastern property line, and along the internal road network to connect to water mains on Rohious and ~uguenot Roads. An overall layout, showing the extensions and sizes, shall be submitted to the Planning Section of the Utilities Department for review and approval prior to approval of any tentative subdivision or schematic plans. In conjunction with the overall water and sewer layout, information as tO the water demands (flow and pressure) for both domestic and fire p~oteotion for the development shall be provided. (UI 6. Prior to any tentative subdivision, schematic, or other plan approvals, an overall drainage and storm water man- agement ~tudy/plan for the entire development, in accor- dance with the discussion section of the "Request Analysis and Recommendation" and any subsequent meetings with Environmental Engineering, shall be submitted to, and approved by, Mnvironmental Enqineering and VDOT. (SE) 7. Unless approved by the Director of Environmental Engineer- ing, no land area presently located in the Falling Creek watershed shall be drained into the Powhite Creek watershed. (EE) Prior to any tentative subdivision, ~chematic, -er other plan approvals~ documentation that the development is permitted, with respect to wetlands from the U.S. Corps of Engineers shall be submitted to Environmental Engi~ neering. (EE) 9. Prior to the release of uny building permits for any non-residential use or recordation of any subdivisions adjacent to any new public roads or which have access to any new public roads, construction plans for the entire length of the loop road shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Transportation Department, En- vironmental Engineering, and VDOT. The entire right of way shall be dedicated unless otherwise permitted by Environmental Engineering and the Transportation De- partment. These plans shall be submitted separately from subdivision or schematic plans. Construction of the roads may be phased upon approval by Environmental Engineering and the Transportation Department. (EE&T) 10. Prior to State acceptance of any public roads or issuance of any occupancy permit for any ~ite which drains to any retention basin, ownership and maintenance of any lakes and/or retention basins shall be established as the re- sponsibility of private entities. An indemnification agreement shall be submitted to Environmental Engineering to save the County harmless of vectors, maintenance, and replacement responsibilities. Upon completion of the lakes and/or retention basins, the structural and hydrau- lic integrity of these facilities shall be certified by a professional engineer prior to State acceptance of any public roads or issuance 'of any occupancy permit for any site which drains to such facilities. (~) 89-70 (3) feet within ten (10} feet of the shoreline. Prior to or in conjunction with recordation of any ~ubdlvi- sion er final approval of any ~ite plan for property drainin~ to any lakes, a maint~nane~ and operations manual shall be provided to the future owners. Unless approved by Environmental Engineering, ali above giound storm water management facilities shall be re- tention {wet) pond~ ~o building {either on- or off-site} ~hall be located within the inundation limits of a dam failure occurring during a 100-year storm event. In conjunction with ~ubmf~ion cf plans fOz retention facilities, for documentation. The innndation limits shall ~hown on any cs-site affected area. Prior tO ~n~ ~etative disturbance, an overall, project- conjunction ~ith initial land clea~ing acelvity, ~hall be an~ implements~, as applicable. 15. Roads shall be designed tc Drovlde a dralnable outfai1 for teen {18) inches below the ground elevation of the homesite. {EE) 16. All ~rawl ~paces of homes shall have an elevation of a outside of the foundation. hydrographs used in the d~sign of the ~torm water re- duration ~torm~. limits On the Episcopal Church property which are heri- southern side top of bank of %h~ existing natural stream adjacent to the northeastern ~ide of the Episcopal Church building located on Tax ~ap 9-9 {~) Parcel 4. 19. The maximum permissible release rate from the project existing culvert c~pacity. lng, improvements, based on the 10-year storm, ~hall be Qreen~ield ~ubdivisions. (EE) not create 100-year floodplain limits which exceed those 22. A fifty (SO) ~OOt buffer shall be main=ains~ along the school. Furthe~ a fifty (50} foo~ buffer shall be rial land uses within tan project. This buffer ~hall 89-71 be landmcaped to provide effective year-round screening and shall be provided with a readily available source of water for irrigation purposes. Other than utilities and access(es) which run generally perpendicular through the buffer, ornamental walls, fences or other screening devices, and irrigation, there shall be no facilities locatad within the buffers. A conceptual plan depicting these requirements, to include cross sections, shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with tentative subdivision or schematic plan review. A detailed plan depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within thirty (30) days of rough clearing and grading. Installation of buffers may be phased in conjunction with the phasing of the development upon approval by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may, at the time of tentative subdivision or schematic plan review, modify buffer re- quirements if it is determined that adequate buffers can be accomplished in a lesser width, or with pro- visions of alternative vegetation and/or screening de- vices, or on adjacent properties. (P) 23. In conjunction with a first schematic plan submission, a plan for the preservation of the existing "Belgrade" structure shall be submitted to the Preservation Com- mittee and Planning Commission for approval. (PI 24. In Parcel B, the following requested uses shall be prohibited: a. Mini-warehouses and storage facilities. b. Uses allowed in the R-TH Zoning District. In Parcel D, the following requested uses shall be prohibited: b. Gasoline sales. In Parcels E, F, 5, and H, the following requested uses shall be prohibited: a. Public and private profit-making clubs and indoor recreational facilities. b. Non-profit civic, social, and fraternal clubs, and lodqes. Permitted recreational facilities in the office/commercial trasts shall be limited to jogging trails and/or facil- ities for guests/employsss. The Planning Commission may, at the time of schematic plan review, prohibit a recre- ational usc which may be deemed to have a potential to adversely affect or impact area residents. (P) (NOTE: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, Sections 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8, relative to these re- quested uses.) 25. Any hotel/motel usa shall be limited to the existing "Belgrade" structure. (P) (NOTE: This condition is in addition to the Textual Statement, Section 5.6, Parcel F, A. Permitted Uses, 2.) 25. In conjunction with any schematic plan submission, archi- tectural plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commis- sion for approval. (P) (NOTE: This condition ie in addition to the Textual Statement, Section 4.0, General Conditions, 4.2.) 89-72 a. These conditions supersede the condition~ of approval fe~ Case ~2S0~l. b. Prior to obtainin~ a building permit or final site plan approval, schematic plans, and tentative aubdlvi~ion~ must be snb~±tted to th~ Planning CcmmiEsion for approval.) Ayee: Mr. App!egate, Mr. Daniel, ~r. ~ayes and ~r. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Currin. ~r. Currin returned te the meeting. 88SN0246 In Midlothian Magisteria~ District, LERO~ 8. ~CDA~I~L requested Conditional U~ ~lann~ Development to permit prefesmional offices and bulk (setback) exceptions in a Residential District on a 1.02 acre parcel fronting approximately 175 feet on the east line Of Forest Hill Avsnue, also frontinq proximately 260 feet on the north line of Choctaw ~ead, and located ~o the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Nap 10-6 (4) Nohawk, sleek B, Lot 1 (Sheet 3). ~r. Jacobsen ~tat~d the Planning - Commissien recommended approual of Case 885N0246, ~ubject to certain ~onditions. Mr. Philip McDaniel, representing the applicant, ~tate~ the recommended conditions were acceptable but requested feet of office us~ to pe~lit 7,500 ~quare feet of space. Or. Leroy McDaniel stated the ~ubject property is currently zoned and u~ed as residential property; however, he d~sired market th~ property as ~n offlne use. He stated thc property would be compatible with o%he~ area uses, would serve as an MS. Loui$~ ~igps ~nd ~r. Don Hodgins voiced o~o~ition to the proposed ~qua~e as the~ f~lt it would adversely ~mpact character of the neighborhood, increase traffic, generate noise~ r~present~d encroachment into a ~table residential m~tbacks, screening, buffers, si~nage, lighting,' etc., the area should the requemt b~ Mc. Sullivan read a letter from Mrs. Russell T. ~ann, representative for Southampton Aerem Sub~ivison, su~itted the letter for the record. Modgi~s wQuI~ ~e addressed through the over/ay Distric~ interest of the eo~unlty woul~ be s~rved by approval of the Planning Co~ission reco~endation ~hich i~ in compliance with the Ben Air ~lau ~ which.addressm~ the cu~unitie~ c0nc~rns. on motion of ~r. Sullivan, secunde~ by Mr. Coffin, the Board approved Case 88SN0~46, subject to the following 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, %h~ plan pre- pared by ~alzer and Assooiate~, Inc., revised 19, 19S8, shall be considered the Ma~t~r ~Ian. 2. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall b~ maintained along Choctaw Read and =he .eastern property line (Ta~ ~ap 10-2 ~ohawk, Block B, Lot 2 an~ Tax M~p 10-6 (4) Mohawk A, ~ots I and 4). Ezlst~nq vegetation within the buffer 89-73 shall be retained where poBsible and shall be supplemented with landscaping, so as to provide year-round screening of the view of buildings and parking areas from the residen- tial tracts. Other than landscaping, fencing, driveways as approved by the Transportation and Planning Depart- ments, utilities that run generally perpendicular through the buffers, and signs, there shall be no facilities located in the buffers. At the time of schematic plan review, a conceptual landscaping plan for the entire buffers shall be submitted for approval. In conjunction with schematic plan approval, the Co~umission may modiiy the Choctaw Road buffer to no less than twenty-five (251 feet. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval within thirty (30) days of rough clearing and grading. The detailed landscaping plan shall include the general lo- cation of existing vegetation to be retained, the location of proposed vegetation and any fence, and sections through the buffers that depict how screening of the use will be accomplished. (P&CPC) 3. A fifty (50) foot setback shall be maintained along Forest Hill Avenue; however, if at the time of schematic plan review a detailed landscaping plan which minimizes the view of driveways and parking areas from Forest Hill Avenue, the Planning Commieeion may reduce the setback to twenty-five (25) feet. Within the setback along Forest Mill Avenue end the buffers along Choctaw Road and the eastern property boundary, all existing vegetation, eight ($} inches in caliper or greater, shall be retained. Within the buffers, cleared areas of 200 square feet or greater shall be planted with a mixture of trees and shrubs in accordance with Corridor Overlay District stan- dards. Tn conjunction with schematic plan review, a conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Ccu~nission for ap- proval. Within thirty (30) days of rough clearing and grading, detailed plans depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P) 4. Density shall not exceed 5,000 square feet per acre. All structures shall have an architectural style compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Compatibility may be achieved through the use of similar building mass- ing, materials, scale, or other architectural features. In conjunction with schematic plan review, renderings shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. (P) 5. Normal hours of operation shall be restricted to between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. (P) 6. Loading docks and drive-in loading doors shall be prohibited. (P) 7. Development shall conform to the Corridor Overlay District requirements. (P) 8. Ail runoff shall be directed to stormwater management detention end/or retention basin(s) which shall be ap- proved by the Environmental Engineering Department. At a minimum, the 100 year developed ~unoff shall be etored on-eite and released at a two (2) year pre-development rate. (ES) (NOTES: a. Prior to obtaining site plan approval or building permits, schematic plans must be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. b. At the time of schematic plan review, the Planning Commission may impose additional 89-74 conditions to in~ure land use ~ompa%ibility and ~ran$i~ion.) Votm~ Unanimous 88SN0254 ~n Matoaca Magisterial District, CHAi%LES ~. VETTEANDMF~TI~. THOM!~SO~ r~quested rezoning from A~ricultnr~l Residential (R-25). A single family residentXal s~bdivision planned. ~his request lies on a 25.0 acre parcel ~rontinq proximately 425 fe~t on the north~es~ llne of Bra~leys ~ridge Road, approximately 750 feet southwest of Apamatica Lane, and Parcel 5 am~ ~ax Map 131-14 (1) Parcel 30 {sheet acceptance of proffered conditions. ~r. Gurrin disclosed to the Board that h~ owned land in the vicinity cf but not adjacent to th~ subjec~ property, did not presently have public sewer facilities. groundwatex g~ality and the ne~d for a chang~ in County standards regarding $~ptic tank and drainfield installation. quality. Rt. Sullivan stated ha felt much of the necessary infra- this time and he would support the %he Re,est Analysis regarding ~h~ us~ of p~lic s~wer. Mr. Jac~bson stated that, even though public sewer is not available the request be to the proposed sewer s=udy, it had been agreed to defer ~en aske~, Mr. Ve~te indicated all tha surrounding area Nr. Maye$ $ta=ed he had understood the Board had decided earlier in the meeting that it would ~eek a co~ission, and on the fact that he i~ not williDg to gambls wi:h ~v~n just one well having 9roblems, based on thi~ development, ~9-75 Mr. Mayes made a motion, seconded by Mr. Daniel, to defer Case 88SN0254 until April 26, 1989, to give the Board time to develop a policy to assure existing area residents will not be adversely impacted by new subdivisions with septic systems. Mr. Applegate stated he had not understood Mr. Sullivan's motion relative to Item ll.D.4., Clarification on the County's Sewer Policy, to include the deferral of zoning requests for sixty days. Ayes: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the District Supervisor should be accorded the courtesy of one deferral on a subject request without any question. Nays: Mr. Currin and Mr. Sullivan. Abstention: Mr. Applega~e, as he had mixed emotions on the entire matter. Mr. Micas stated the motion failed for lack cf a majority vote. Mr. Vette stated he felt he should not be caught up in the policy-makinq process, that he did not agree with Mr. Mayes that the drainfields in the area would affect the wells he alluded to, did not feel the policy could be changed within thirty or sixty days and did not want a deferral. There was further discussion relative to the existing policy on the installation of septic systems and drainfields, the Board's responsibility to act in qood faith with respect to the existing policy, etc. Mr. Sullivan inquired if staff was aware of any instances in the County where septic tank/drainfield failures had occurred. Mr. gchmelz indicated such matters are monitored by the Health Department and he was unable ko provide information on that matter. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the District Supervisor should ~e afforded the courtesy of requesting a dele~al of a case without question or discussion if that supervisor felt he was uncomfortable with th~ matter and needed further time to study it. Mr. Applegate stated he had mixed emotions with the entire situation as he did not feel the existing situation was fair to all concerned. Mr. Sullivan made a mo%ion, seconded by Mr. Currin, to approve Case 88SN0254, subject to the following condition: A fifty (50) foot buffer ~trip, exclusive of easements and required yards, shall be established and maintained adjacent tO Bradleys Bridge Road (Route 631). The area of this buffer strip shall either be left in its natural state, if sufficient vegetation exists to provide adequate screening; Or be planted and/or beamed in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Department~ if sufficient vegetation does not exist to provide adequate screening. Prior to approval of any final site plan or recordation of any plat, the developer shall flag this buffer strip for inspection, and shall poet a bond to cover the implementation of the landscape plan, if such plan is required. Except for approved public road access(es) and a single entrance along Bradleys Bridge Road to serve the existing single family residence, no access shall be permitted through this buffer strip. This buffer strip ~hall be noted on any final site plans, and any final check and recordation plats. The Planning Conuuission or Director of Planning may modify this condition at the tim~ of tentative subdivision review. (P&Tt And further, to accept the following proffered conditions: 1. No stub roads shall b~ provided to any adjoining properties. 89-76 Applicant uhall d=vulop not more than 25 building lots. Applicant shall notify the Apa~atica Homeowners clarion in writing prior to making tentative subdivision application and ~hall elect to have the t~ntative subdivl- sion approved by the Planning Commission. In conjunction with the recordation of any lot~, the applicant shall record the following Restrictive a. No lot shall be used except for rssldential purposes. NO building shall bs erected, placed, altered or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached Single family dwelling not to exuse~ two and one-half {2 1/2) ~tories in height; and outbuildings oonsisten~ with residential uss, provided their plans and ~peci£i~ation$ have been approved in writing as provided in Paragraph ~2 herein. b. No building shall be erected, placed or altered on an~ lot until the construction plans a~d specifica- tione and a site plan showing the location of the structures have been approved by the archit~e[ural committee as %0 quality o~ worRmanship and materials, harmony of exteTnal design wi~h exi~tinq a~d as location with respect to topography and finish grade elevation. No fence or wall ghall be structed thereon until permission ehsll have first obtained from th~ architectural oo~ittee. c. 0nly one residence shall be ereet~ or placed on each lot~ an~ no le~ sh~ll be resubdivided. d. No noxious or offenoive activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be ~one thereon the neighborhood. has~ment, tent, shack, qaraqe bare Or other outbuild~ either temporarily or permanently. f. The architectural COmmittee shall be composed uf Charles ~. Vette and Jae~u~llne C. 0smond-Vette, either of whom may act. In %h~ event of death or ~he resignation of either member of the co~ittee, g. Th~ Co~itte~'~ approval or disapproval as i~ the covenants shall be in writing, in th~ the C0~i%t~e, ur its designated representatives, days after plans and sp~ci~icaClons have bmen submi=- construction or alteration has been co~en~9~ prior to the =ompletiQn of said construction or alteration, approval will not be required an~ th~ related cove- nan,s sh~l/ be de~d to have been full~ complied with. view on an~ lot except one professional sign of not more than one square foot, one si~n of Bet mare than five ~quare fee~ advertising the property for sale rent. All eater signs placed on any lot by a Builder or tradesman shall be of a temporary nature and ~hall b~ removed from the proper%y upon completion ~9-77 i. No lot shall be used er maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish, trash, garbage, Or other waste. No rubbish, trash, garbage er other waste shall be kept on any lot except in sanitary containers. All trash containera shall be kept in a sanitary condi- tion in rear yards and screened from view of adjacent property owners. No unlicensed motor vehicle, including trailers, campers, motorcycles, and the like shall be kept on any lot unless such vehicle is kept in a garage and out of public view. ~he placing of satellite receiving dishes on any lot shall be prohibited unless such is placed behind the dwelling and not closer than fifty (50) feet to any property line. 1. NO fence shall be placed on any lot unless such fence is constr~eted of a wood material. In the event such fence i~ painted it ~hall be painted a color in keeping with the neighborhood. Any fence constructed on any lot must be approved by the co~ittee. m, All residences must have a brick foundation on all ~ide~ of the foundation. Any residence constructed on any lot within Berkeley Place if one level ~hall consist of not less than ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY (1,650) square feet of finished heated living area and if two or more lev- els, shall consist of not less than ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY (1750) square feet of finished heated living area, provided however, that if such two level home is' constructed with an attached garage such home may consist of not less than ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDP~D FIFTY (1650) square feet of finished heated living area. Basements, attics and garages shall not be considered part of the required square footage. No above the ground swimming pool shall be placed on any lot. NO swimming pool shall be placed forward of the front building line. Each and every covenant and condition herein imposed may be enfonced by the undersigned Or by the owner of any lot by appropriate proceedings at law or in equity against any party violating these covenants to prevent or rectify and/or to recover damages therefore. q. Ail roofs must be constructed with not l~ss than a 7/12 pitch. r. Ail roofing material must be dimensional in appear- ance or other approved hard material. s. Once construction has commenced on any residence such construction shall be completed within 180 days. These Restrictive Covenants are hereby made by Charles H. Vette and Jacqueline C. Osmond-Vette, the ownen~ in whole -'of Berkeley Place Subdivision. Any person, persons, partnership, association or corporation accepting a deed to any lot within Rerkeley Place Subdivision ~hall bind himself or itself, his or its heirs or assigns and keep and observe all of the conditions set forth in these covenants for a period of fifty (50) years from this date. Ayes: Mr, Currin, Mr, Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. Nays: Mr, Mayee. 89-78 ~bs~ention: Mr. Mr. Daniel stated he may no~ a~ree with the way in which this case has been handled, that Mr. Mayes has neb bees accorded the courtesy of a follo~; District supervisor in his request for a deferral; how®Yet, he voted in favor of thi~ motion because request is for twenty-five (25) acres and twenty-five {25) homes. He stated that hi~ vote on this matter is net to De interpreted that he is ohanqing his position on any other zoning case~ that may come before tha Board and he would address those as they are brought to the Beard but %his request is for such a low density that it will not make a marginal difference; however~ he did feel approval was WrOng. 8~SN0260 In Matoaca Magisterial District, MIDL~IAN COMPANY requested rezening from Agricultural (A) to ~esideotial (R-15}, A single family residential subdivision is planned. Thi~ r~quest lie~ on a 137.0 ~¢re parcel fronting approximately 2,800 feet on the north line of Beach Road, approximately 1,300 feet west of Mash RO~d. T~x ~p 9~-6 (1) karcel 1 and Tax Map 95-10 {1) ~aroel 1 (Sheet 31). Mr. Jacob$0n stated the Planning C~mission reco~end~d approval cf Case 885N0260, subject to a single condition and acceptance of proffered conditions. Mr. Applegate stated there has been a great deal of publicity as tQ whether or nut he ccul~ vote on this particular request, he had discussed the matter with th~ County Atlorney, Commonwealth Attorney's office and subsequently, the Attorney General's Office; however, a~ of thi~ mornlng~ he was advised that the Attorney Gensral~s Office would be nnable to review clrc~stances, he would advi~e the Board that hi~ landlord a par%ncr in thi~ application, declared a potential conflict of ~nterest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict Interest Act and excused himself from the m~eting. Mr. Daniel referenced a ca~e from 1985 {Case ~5S065) of simila~ tire.stances where the Co~onwealth Attorney's office had in which his wife maintained an office in a building where Co~i~ioner for Dale District, Mr. Kelly Miller, who also from voting on all procedural matters r~Iatiug to the ~r. Bryce Powelt, r~pr~en:ing tAe Mi~lothian Company, stated he was no= aware of %h~ Attorney General Offie~'~ ruling but wished the record to reflect that, due to the publicity this ~n~r had received, he had requeste~ ~hat ~r. Appl~gate not vote on this case. ~e stated he felt ~e matter had unfortunately been mishandled~ tha~ h~ knew ~here w~zs concerns regarding the health~ maf~ty and welfare of the constituency; however, there is an existing p01icy regarding =he use of drainfieldm and until such ~ime as that policy is ch$~g~d he ~lt conjoints should be honore~. Hs referenced threat to the public health, safety and welfare of th~ citizenry, and did not want a deferral on ~is case. referenced material from the State Water Control Board and ~e coordination of groundwater; Mr. Myron Boston voiced opposition tc the proposed re.es: as he felt approval would f~rthe~ the County's trend ~oward ignoring the enU~ronmen~al hazards to citizens; Mr. J~e$ Lewi~ voiced opposition to the development of subdivision~ dependent upon Septic =anks/drainfields; and Mr. Bill ~astings e~pressed concerns relative to groundwater coordination in the area ~nd voiced supper% for Mr, Mayes' =fforts in this matter. 89-79 ·here being no one else to address the matter, the public input was closed. Mr. Daniel reference an article in the newspaper indicating that if the Supervisors approved rezoning for the Midlothian Company i~ would provide legal ammunition for the Highland Developers if their request were defeated on a 2-2 vote to challenge the vote in court and questioned the legal ramifications of the statement. Mr. Micas stated he could not respond to a newspaper reporter'$ opinion as he may have to represent one or the other of these cases in court. He stated the Coau~onwealth Attorney's office made an opinion on the Bighland's case involving Mr. Currin and that conflict opinion was based on the facts and those facts alone, and those facts are not the same as the request before the Board at this time. Mr. Cunrin stated he did seek legal advice on the Bighland's request, was advised a~d did not to vote on that issue; however~ he did not see how that case was related to this one. Be requested that the motion relative to ~tem Clarification of the County's Sewer Policy be reread for the Board and questioned the length of the timeframe in which it would take to complete the proposed study. Mr. Mayes stated he did say that Woodland Pond is a fine, quality development and he hoped to have more like it, with sewage, in his district; however~ the problem appears to be that there is no respect for those persons who are dependent upon well water and do not have the power to defend themselves, that there be assurances against the proliferation of septic tanks in areas where there are wells and that those wells not be adversely impacted. He stated he intended to do, in good conscience, what he fslt is necessary to protect these individuals. Mr. Sullivan stated he did not feel that there was a lack concern or respect for the health, safety and welfare of the constituency, referenced a letter from Mr. John Henson regarding the County's sewer policy; stated he felt there is sufficient information in the Request Analysis to indicate there will be no adverse impact on area residents by the development of this project; stated there are viable alternatives to public sewer Systems in certain areas; and stated, based upon the facts that he has assimilated, he would support the request. Mr. Mayes made a motion, seconded by Mr. Daniel based on his opinion that the Board should hono~ the request of the District Supervisor for a deferral without question at least once, to defer Case 88SN0260 until April 26, 1989, to give the Board time to collect the facts so that it could make a detez~ination on the policy for new subdivisions with septic tanks to en~ure existing area residents will not be adversely impacted by new subdivisions with septic systems. Ayes: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the District Supervisor should be accorded the courtesy of one deferral on a subject request without any question. Nays: Mr. Currin and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. Mr. Micas stated the motion failed for lack of a majority vote. Mr. Currin stated the County Attorney has advised that, without a majority vote, the request would be tabled to each subsequent meeting until such time as a majority vote can be reached. Mr. Powell stated he felt this case has become politicized and, in view of the circumstances, he preferred that the Board act on the request. Mr. Micas stated that if the Chairman determined that no motion can be adopted at this time, then the matter would be tabled t~ each subsequent meeting thereafter until such time a majority 89-80 vote~ either in favor or a~ainst, is reached. When asked, he be permitted at the next meeting unless the Chairman choog~ to again hoar comments on the matter. Mr. Currin made a motion~ Seconded by Mr. Sullivan, to approve Case 88SM026Q, subject to the following condition: A fifty (50) foot buffer strip, exclusive of easements and required yards, shall be e~tabli~hed and maintained adjacent to Beach Road (Route 655). The area of this buffer strip shall either he left in its natural state, if sufficient vegetation ~xists to provide screening; or be planted and/or termed in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Department, if sufficient vegetation docs not exist to provide adequate ~r~ening~ PriO~ to approval of any final site plan or recordation cf any plat, the developer ~hall flag ~hi$ buffer strip fox inspoction~ and sha~! post a ~ond to cover the' implementation of the landscape plan, if such plan is required. ~xcept for approved public road access(es), no access shall be permitted through this buffer strip. This buffer e~rip shall be noted on any final site plans, ~nd any final check and recordation plats. The Planning Commission or thc Director Planning may modify this condition at the time of tenta- tive subdivision review. IP&T) And further, the Board accepted the Iollowin~ proffered conditions: 1. Lots would (~hall) b~ r~e~rlcted in size to 30,000 square 2. (Applicant agrees that) under ne circumEtan~es will the number of lots in the referenced project exceed 3. All houses will contain at least 2,000 square feet of heatable area. 4. With the recordation cf the first lots at ~ateS Bluff, the attache~ r~trfctiong w~ll be recorded with chesterfield County. Ayee~ Mr. Currin and Mr. Sullivan. Nays; Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Mr, Daniel stated hs felt the District Supervisor ~hould be accorded the courtesy of one deferral on a ~ubject request without Absent: Mr. kpplegate. Mr. Micas sta~ed =he motion failed for lack of a majority vote. Mr. Currin stated it has been determined that nc ~oticn can be carried either in favor of or against the proposed request and tabled consideration of Cass 885M0260 until February 8, ~r. Appl~gate returned to the 12. ADJOUF4~4~T On motion of Mr.. Daniel, adjourned at 8:30 p.m. (EST) ~econd~d by Mr. Sullivan~ the Board until 10:~8 a.m. on February 8, 89-81