Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
02-22-1989 Minutes
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS M~'~IUTI/S FEBRUARY 22, 1989 Supervisors in Attendance= Mr. G. ~. Applegate, Chairman Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr., Vice Chairman Mr. Harry G, Daniel Mr. Jesse J. May%s Mr. M, B. Sullivan Mr. Lane B, Ramsey County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Ms. Suzan Cralk~ Extension Agent Ms. Amy Davis, E×en. Asst. to Co. Admin. Ms. Joan Dolszal, Clerk to the Board Deguty CO. Admin., Management Services Mr. Thomas E. Jacobsen, Dir. of Planning Ms. Mary Leu Lyle, Dir. of Accounting Mr. Robert Masden, Deputy Co. Admin., Human Services Mr. R. J. McCracken, Transp. Director Mr. Richard McElfish, Dir. of Env. Eng. Mr. Steve Micas, CO. Attorney Mrs...~Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of News/Info. Services Sheriff J.W. Mutispaugh, Sheriff's Department County Attorney Dr. William Nelson, Dir., ~ealth Dept. Col. Joseph Pittman, Jr. Chief of Police Mr. William D. Peele, Chief, Development Review Mr. Richard Sale, Deputy CO, Admin., Development Sr. Jay Stegmaier, Dir. of Budget Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Dir. of Parks & Rec. Mr. Prederlck Willis, Dir. of Buman Mr. Applegate called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m (~ST). 1. INVOCATION Mr. Applegate introduced Clyde G. Abell, Chaplain Chesterfield County Jail, who gave the invocation. of the 2. pT.RDGE OF i~T.T.RGIANCE ~ '£n~ FI~G OF x~u~ ~ITED STATES OF The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. 89-116 3.A. F~BgUARY 8, 1989 On metien of Mr. Mayas, secended by Mr. C~rrin~ the Board approved the minutes of February 8, 198~, as amended. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, ~r. Mayas and ~r. Sullivan. Abstention: Mr. Appleqate, as he was not present for the ~n~i~e Meeting. 3.B. FEBRUARY 14, 1989 motion of Mr. Mayas, seccnde~ by Mr. Cnrrln, th~ appxoved the minutes of February 14, 1989, as s~bmitte~. Votel Unanimous Board 4. COUNTY AD~INISTRATOR'~ COI~]~RTS There were no County Administrahor co--ants at this tim~+ ~r. Daniel reported khah ha'attended the ~etropolitan Planning 0rqaniza~ion meeting at which a co~i~e w~ ~ppointed review the work progra~ and to brin~ f~rth reco~endation~ for the repre~enhahion a~ ils next meeting; attended the ~ichmond Regional Planning District Co--lesion meeting at which ih wa~ determined no~ bo ~xarcise the a~reement ~o purchase oondomini~ office buil~in~ b~t to retain monies ~unded for this purpos~ until such time as an alb~rna~ive Reqional Conncils meeting in Washinghon, D~C~, aa which i~ was coaveyed the n~w ~e~eralism doctrine would continue du~in~ upcoming four'years which ig indicative of %he feet =hat there will ke lea~ ~nn~inq hut more requlation~ and a shift in expenses at the local government level: an~ ~e~ded the press con~erenc~ for the Virginia Institute of ~oVe~nment regarding their approach howard r~olving regional problems, on~ issu~ primary concern being ~evenue sharing funding. Mr. Mayas stated he attended th~ Board retreat in Charlott~- villa which h~ felt was mos= beneficial. Mr. Sullivan reported he attended the meetings of the ~tropolitan Planning O~anixation, the Richmond Rmgional Planning Di~tric~ Co, lesion, ~he County Budget/Audit and th~ Seho~I LiaisOn Co~ittee7 attended th~ initial m~eting of ~ newly established or~aniza%iun, =he "10O Club", e~ablished by the private sector %O rai~ leads for Police/Fire Dmpar~ent o~ic~rs killed in the line of d~ty which he felt was co~en~able and requested considerations be given to participation in this endeavor. also stated, as previously discussed by tho BOard, %h~ Line are under further study he p~mi~ ~ose concerned in~ivi~ual~ an opportunity to dateline a ~o~e suitable plan and/or l~catlon for the line. H~ ~%at~d thai Virginia Power ~idlothian District in an area d~signated for s~ch action transpired without consideration to %he Plan for the area or the input of t~ose citizens mc~t by the proposal. Re s~a%ed he felt such a~tion as this should be addressed through the County's legislative proces~ and 89-117 expressed hid appreciation for the ~oard's support in this matter. Mr. Currin reported he attended the Metropolitan Planning Organization meeting; and the Virginia Intergovernmental Inetitute Study meeting which he felt the County, as a regional participant, should consider as a regional concept because, i~ accomplished on an individual jurisdictional basis, would be of an astronomical expense to provide such services to citizens. Mr. Applegate stated, at its recent retreat, 5he Board discussed growth issues, management of growth in the County for the future, new standards for on-site waste disposal systems, and directed staff to develop the Lower Swift Creek Basin Land Use Plan and requested the Board review a summary of the action plan as distributed and as drafted by Mr. Micas to ensure its completeness. Mr. Ramsay distribnted copies of the action plan to the Beard for their perusal. There was discussion relative the action plan summary, clarifi~ cation of terminology in certain portions of the summary relative to the adoption of new standards for development using on-site waste disposal systems (i.e., terminology, that current zoning requests granted have the right to use whatever prevail- inq lot sizes, however, all building permits issued after January 1, 1991 would be applicable to minimum one (1) acre lot sizes, all septic systems being separated from the water table by a minimum of 18", etc.); the schedule and processes necessary for adoption and implementation of the Plan; etc. Mr. Currin suggested that the Planning Commission should have the benefit of the same information as the Board was provided at the retreat. Mr. Applegate stated staff could arrange the necessary meetings. Thara was further discussion relative to mandatory pumping and maintenance of all or only new septic systems in the County; conducting public hearings to develop the debate of the ordinance; the potential for maintenance/inspection programs for septic Systems every three (3) to five ~5) years ~ one, that citizens would be obligated to have their systems pumped on a scheduled basis and certified at the County, with payment of a fee to the County for inspections and repair of failed systems; or secondly, a program whereby the County would pump all private Septic systems on a scheduled basis by use of County employees or contracted s~rvices, with appropriate fees paid to the County for provided services, inspections Or County repair of failed systerRs; etc. It was generally agreed the concept of this action plan would be brought forth through the public hearing process for consideration and public input. Mr. Applegate expressed appreciation for the many cards, telephone calls and flowers that were sent to him during his recent hospitalization. 6. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION, EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR C~AN~E~ IN X~ ORDER OF PRESENTATION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. ~ayes, the Board added Item ll.J., Board Representative far South~ide Regional Jail Planning Committee, to be heard followinq Item ll.B.2.; and adopted the agenda, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 89-118 OUTSTANDING E~RVICE MRS. ANNE BELS~A On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: W~EKEAS, The Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation has been in existence since 198I with the objectiv~ of educating the public about th~ problems of littering and the benefits of recycling; and WEER~AS, The Board of Supervisors annually appoints one representative from each of the five magisterial di~trictn to serve on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation Board; and W~EREAS~ Mrs. Ann~ B¢lsha was appointed to ~rv~ on December 10, 1981 and has continued to serve as a volunteer to the Keep Chesterfield Clean program since; and W~EREAS~ Mrs_ Belsha has been very active in th~ litter prevention programs and activities which have resulted in many of the &ppe&rance~ of County businesses beinq improved an~ roadsides beinq cleaned~ and WEEP~AS, Mrs. ~Isha has been a leading advocate of the Keep Chesterfield Clean program and has invQlved hundred~ of children and adults in cleanup and litter prevention activities; and W~ER~AS, It i~ the d~sire of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors %o recognize Mrs. Be!~ha's faithful service as a Charter Member of the Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation. N~W, T~BR~FCPJ~ B~ IT RE~OSVRD, ~hat tke Boar~ o~ Supervisors publicly recognizes the long and distinguished ~olunteer service of Mrs. Anne B~lsha and her contributions to the County. Vote: Unanimo~ Mr. Applegate presented ~/q~ executed resolution to Mrs. Belsha and ¢ommen~ed hex for her distinguished ~ervice and contributions to the County. MRS. ~LARY COOPER On motion of thc Board, the following re~olntion ~as adopted: ~EREAS, The ~aep Chesterfield Clean Corperation ha~ be~n in existence since 1981 with the ebjective of educating the public about the problems of littsrin~ and the benefits of ~ecycling; and WI~EREA~, The Board of Supervi~or~ annually appoints on~ representatlv~ from each of the ~ive magisterial distriet~ to ~erv~ on the ~eep Chesterfield Clean Corporation Board; and January 14, 19~1 and has continued to ~erve as a volunteer tc the ~eep Chesterfield Clean program since; and ~revention programs and activities which have resulted in many of the County's illi=it dumps and littered eyesores being rem0ved~ and 89-119 WEEREAS, Mrs. Cooper has been a leading advocate of the Keep Chesterfield Clean proqram and has involved hundreds of citizens in cleanup and litter prevention activities; and WHEREAS, It is the desire of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors to recognize Mrs. Cooper's faithful service as a Charter Member of the Keep Chezterfield Clean Corporation. NOW, THEP~EFOR~ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes the long and distinquished volnnteer service of Mrs. Mary Cooper and her contributions to the County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented the executed resolution to Ms. Suzan Craik to forward to Mrs. Cooper who w~s unable to attend due to illness. 7.B. MONARCH DEVELOPMENT, INC. A/~D MOOR~FIELD OFFICE PARK FOR GENEROUS CONTRIBUTION On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: W~EP~EAS, Opportunities for cultural leisure activitiez zhonld be accessible to all citizens in Chesterfield County; and W~EREAS, The Moorefield Art Show represents one such opportunity; and WHEREAS, The financial contributions and zupport of Monarch Development, Inc. and Moorefield Office Park have been instrumental in the development and continuation of this important pursuit. NOW, TMEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby recognize Monarch Development, Inc. and Moorefield Office Park for their generous donation toward the Moorefield Art Show. AND, BE IT FURTMER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby express its appreciation and gratitude to these members of the corporate co~unity for their interest in and contribution toward the quality of life in Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous In the absence of representatives from Monarch Development, Inc. and Moorefield Office Park, Mr. Applegate presented the executed re~olution to Mr. Stith. The Board accepted the $3,800 and authorized staff to increase the revenues and expenditures in the amount of $3,800 to the Parks and Recreation Fund for use in the Moorefleld Art Show. 8. ~2~INGE OF CITIZENS ~N ~RSCH~Dm.~ ~A'I-I'~RS OR CLAIM~ There were no hearings of citizens on unscheduled matters or claims. 9. DEFERRED ITEMS 9.A. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING COACH HULON L. WILLIS,. ~R. FOR HIS OUTSTANDING SE~VICE TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: 89-120 W~EP~A$, Mr. Hulon L. Willis, Sr. oan%e to Chesterfield County in 1941 as a student at Virginia State College to attain his degree in Physical Education; and WEEP~AS, In 1952, Mr. willis was employed by Virginia State College as a Professor in Physical Educatiun~ and WHEREAS, Because of student interest in 1962 in karate, Mr. Willis, better known as Coach Willis, becam~ heavily involved in karate as a student and tescher; and WHEREAS, Coach Willis in 1963, as a result of his training in karate, becamo a certified weaponless control and self-defeD~o instructor for law enforcement and in the ensuing years became a motivating force throughout the State of Virginia as well a~ the Nation in teaching law enforcement officers self protection; and WHEREAS, This a~reng commitment to the ccnununlty at all levels was ~videnced by Coach Willis' involvement as a charter member of the Ettrick/Matoaea Rescue Squad, as a member of th~ Victim Witness Program, the Crime Solvers ~oard and the American Cancer Seeiety; and WHERSAM~ The zespect and admiration by community leaders, Virginia State University, s~u~ente and citizens alike, promoted a Karate Tournament in his hone~ on January 21, 1989 at the Uni~ez$1ty Campus reuniting ~ormer and present ~tud~nts which included teachers, profo~Sor$, federal judges and prQfesslonals from all walks of life ~hcwing the divorsity of the lives touched and enriched by Coach Willis' s~rcng ideals and commitment to the belief that all people are ~o be given the opportunity to attain their highest level cf accomplishments in life. NOW, TNER~FQR~ B~ IT RESOLVED, by the Chesterfield County ~oard of Supervisors that Coach ~U~On L. willis, Sr. be receg~i=e~ as one of Chesterfield County's most outstanding citizens and be congratulated on his many acco~plishment~ and whose ~ersonal life is enriched beeahs~ ~herever he go~s he.is recognized and appr~eiate~ by those whose lives he mctivate~ by his example of hard work and ~edication to life's ambitions. Vote: Unanimous In the absence cf Coach Willis, Mr. ~eyes presented the executod resolution to Mrs. Willis who was present. Mrs. Willis road a statement on behalf of her husband ~xpro~$ing his appro¢ia~ion for the honor bestowed upon him. 9.B. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ROUTE 895 Mr. Sale stated at its Pebruary 8, 1989 meeting the Board def~rre~ co~$1~erati0n cf a resolution euppcrting Route 895 for staff te provide additional documentation as to the history of the chipgenham Parkway/Laburnum Aven~e/I-295 connector to be incorporated into the resolution. Mr, Currin stated he wished the record to reflect that he owns property along 1-295 to the Meado~ville Interchange~ it is his understanding the proposed re~olutien is documentation of previous actions relative fo s~pport for the construction of Route 895 and, therefore, does DOt ~oustitute a potential cenflict o~ interest for him. ~r. Mica~ ~tated the "rosolvo clause" does r~affirm support for Route 288 and Rout~ 895? however, the record should indicate that Mr. Currin's support is for only the Route 895 portion of the resolution end that he did no= hard a c0n~llet on the 89-121 On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WI{EREAS, the extension of Route 288 from 1-95 to 1-295 and the extension of ROUte 895 from 1-95 to 1-295 are of vital importanoe to the economio development of the Richmond region; and W~ERJZAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation recommended, as part of the %-295 location decision, that Route 288 be extended from 1-95 to 1-295; and WHEREAS, during the regional discussions concerning the location of %-295 the need for and importance of Route 895 were also documented; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County adopted resolutions of support for Route 895 in January 1987 and August 1988; and WHEREAS, the Richmond Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Richmond Regional Planning DiDtrict Commission, and the Capital Regio? Airport ComJnission have also endorsed Route 895. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors rea££irms its support for the extension of Route 288 and Route 895 and enoourages others in the region to join with Chesterfield in obtaining funding for these projects so that they eau be constructed. Vote: Unanimous 9.C. ZONING AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PORTABLE SIGNS AT SCMOOLS There was brief discussion regarding alternative means of providing signage at schools rather than amending the zoning ordinance, and it was generally agreed to table indefinitely consideration of the zoning amendment to allow portable Signs at schools to explore alternative options. 9.D. REQUEST TO CLOSE SIR DINNADAN DRIVE Mr. Sale stated at its February 8, 1989 meeting the Roard deferred consideration of the request to close Sir Dinnadan Drive in order that staff meet with area homeowners to resolve certain concerns. A representative of the neighborhood was present but stated he had no comment at this time. Mr. Daniel stated, based on the input from the neighborhood and petitions requesting the closure of the road, he felt it would be in the best interest of the area citisens to clo~e Sir Dinnadan. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the elo~ure of a portion of Sir Dinnadan Drive in tbs Dale Magisterial District; directed staff to proceed with the necessary public hearing requirements; and appropriated $15,000 from the Dale District Three Cent Road Fund for tbs construction of a cul-ds-sao at the end of the remaining section of Sir Dinnadan to en~ure Virginia Department of Mr. Currin e×pre~ed concern that such action could be setting a precedent that would adversely impact the stub road policy which has been used for year~ through planning procedures to connect subdivisions to provide safe traffic patterns and reduce safety hazards. 89-122 ~r. Danisl stated the s~ub road policy was a good idea, that now such subdivision roads are ~o~etim~s used as thorOnghfexe shortcuts to circumvent the use of the properly e~d/or improperly designed coll~ctor/dlstrlbutor roads, that any action relative to Sir Dinnadan Drive should not be indicative of future actions toward other stub road~ being closed, and thaL stub reads were ne~ intended to be u~d aS a County-wid~ solut~en ~0 traffic problems. Es stated hs felt the Sir Dinaadan Drive situation is a h~alth~ safety and w~lfare concern and appropriate m~asures should be taken. ~r. Sullivan stated, be intended to support Mr. Daniel's motion; however, he di~ have concerns relative ~o closing accesses that hinder accessss by emergency vehieles to certain areas. ~.~. APPOINTMENTS - RICHMOND REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT COM~ISSION CITIZEN~ TRAN~PORTATI©N ADVIS©R¥ BOARD On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr, Daniel, the soard appointed Mr. Cecil R. Maxson~ Jr., ~r. Herbert Richwlne, Mr. J. Puffin Apperson and ~s. Pat ~zabo to serve on she Richmond Regional Planning District Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee, repreaenfing Chssterfielfl Ccnnty at-large, whose terms are effective immsdiately end will expire on D~c~mbex 31, 1990, 10.A. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING S~CTION 13-11 P~J~TI~¢ TO MASSAGE PARLORS Mr. Micas stated thi~ dat~ an~ time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the County Code relating to ma~ag~ parlors. Ms. Pauline Fuller~ owner of the Paulinm Fuller school of ~assaga Therapy; Ms. Lisa Strauss; Ms. Evelyn Hagen; Dr. Clyde Ford; and Mn. Ratty ~ayer voiced support for an amendment to thc ordinance to permit massages by ~emhers of the opposite sex therapist. current ordinance; membership associations; prescriptive treatment~ etc. Mr. Norris Hedge; M~. Amy Stewart; Mr. George Beadles, Jr. and Mr. James ~uxbano voiced opposition to the proposed amendment as they f~lt the issue was not properly advertised; the current ordinance appropriately dealt with the issue and ~u~endment of repercussions County-wide. There being no one else to address the matter, the public heurin~ was closed. Mr. Daniel stated that he originally vote~ not to con,oct a public hearing on amending the ordinance relating to mas~ag~ parlors, none of the testimony provided had changed his opinion on the subject, that efforts of the massage therapist~ to amend the law should be conducted through the State and/er medical professions and not local e~dinances, and he did not intend to support the proposal. 89-123 Mr. Mayes stated that, in the past, work sessions have been held 'when the Board has considered amending the County ordinance to discuss pertinent information and/or the ramifications of such amendments; however, in the absence of such a work session, he was not prepared to render a decision On this matter. When asked, Chief Pittman stated it was his opinion that the current ordinance works well, expressed concerns that amendmen~ to ths current ordinance will potentially cause serious problems in the future relative to unwanted operations and recommended that the proposed amendment be denied. Mr. Sullivan and ~r. Currin indicated they had voted in favor of conducting the public hearing for the purpose of hearing public input and had found it very informative; felt the matter had been adequately advertised through various media agencies; that those professionals concerned with amending the law needed to overcome obstacles through proper channels; and ~hey did net intend to support the proposal. Mr. Applegate stated he concurred that the public was entitled to the public hearing process and that he sympathized with Ms. Fuller and her associates; however, based on the information p~ovided, he saw no reason to amend the current ordinance. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board denied the request to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending and reenacting Section 13-11 relating to massage parlors. Vote: Unanimous It was generally agreed to recess for five (5) minutes. 10.B. TO CONSIDER A PLAN SHOWING PROPOSED BIKEWAY LOCATIONS THROUGROUT THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider a plan showing proposed bikeway locations throughout the County. Mr. John McCraeken presented an overview of the proposed Bikeway Plan, identified major corridors where bikeway facilities should be provided in order to have a coordinated system of bike trails/lanes/routes that connect County and State parks and other high bike traffic generators, stated that prior to the Virginia Department of Transportation's considera- tion to add the lanes, the County must have an adopted bikeway plan and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of adoption of the Bikeway Plan subject to deletion of the 01d Gun Road Corridor and the goal referencing the training program and modification to the bikeway route in the Salisbury Road/Winterfield Road area; and modification of the text referencing "safe" bicycle facilities to "less hazardous" bicycle facilities for clarification purposes. Discussion, questions and co~u~ents ensued relative to the Bikeway Plan proposal, funding, cost estimates, existing road problems and improvements, the impact on funding from VDOT if there is no Plan, the status of the Route 10 portion of the Bike Plan, etc. Mr. Mike Allen, representing residents of Salisbury~ voiced support for the proposed modifications to the portion of the 89-124 ~ikeway Plan that traverses Salisbury Subdivision to elLninate th~ bike route from Elmstea~, klb%one sn~ Banetead street~ in the snbdivision and that the mos% appropriate juncture for the bike route would be the Salisbury Road/Winterfiald Road intersection. He stated he had discussed this matter with Mr. Michael Kelly, the Zidlethian Dietrio: Planning C0~raissiener, who concur~ with the requested modification. Mr. Fred Youn~, reprezentin~ the Bicycle Organization of Southsida, voiced support for the Bikeway Plan and conmsnded the Eoar~ for its farsightedness in ~he development of plan. Es. Ellen Farnham, Legislative Commuter Coordinator for the Rich~on~ Area Bicycling A~gocia{ion, voiced support of the Chesterfield memDership ~cr the proposed Plan and requested the County and Commonwealth of Virginia comply wi~h state of the art guidelines whenever bicycle faeilitis~ are developed and that the Board require d~v~lop~rs who develop bikatrail facilities mee~ 8aid guidelines in accordance with American Association of State Bighway and Transportation Officials. Mr. Daniel stated he f~lt ~ikew~ys are the mechanism for at the time th~ proj~ot is brou9ht forth; and that ha was how money could be ~pent any more wisely than ~o ~mprove the roadways with bikeway~ and provide p~d~t~ians acce~ along suggested modifications by the Planning Commission. Mr. Ceftin stated he felt the expenditure of funds for road networkm and improvements was a higher priority expenditure than the construction cf bikeways and expressed concern relative to the brought forward ~ut did inten~ to support the proposal. modifications. Mr. MeCracken inquired i~ ~ha motion included modifications an~ the modification of wording "safe~' bicycling facilities "less hazardous" bicycling ad,pt the Chesterfield County Bikeway Plan as amended pro,ram and the modification Of wording '~saf~" blcy~ling fa~i%itie~ to "~ess hazardous" bicyc%in~ facilities. 10.c. To CONSIDER AN OP~INA~CE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CBESTERFIELD, 19~8, AS AMENDED, BY AMEND%NQ SECTION 21~202 RELATING TO TN~ PRESERVATION COMMITTEE ~r. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinanc~ to amend the County Coda relating to the ~reservation Committee. No one came forward to speak in favor cf or against the ~atter. $9-125 On motion of M~. Sullivan, secended by Mr. Currin, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDIX~%NCR TO AMEND -~.R COD~ OF ~ COU~"~ SECTION 21-202 ~G ~ ~ }~S~VATION CO~l~ ~ ~ ORDAINED by the Board of Supsrvisors of Chesterfield County: (1) Thnt ehe Code oi the Count~ of Chesterfield, 1578, ~s a~ended, is amended by emending S~otion 21-202 a~ follow~: o o o ~ee. 21-~02. Creation of prese~vetion committee. For the purposes of assisting in the administration of the provisions of this article, there i~ hereby created a preservation committee. Such committee shall be composed of seven (7) members appointed by the board of supervisors. At least one ('1) member ~ha~l be an architect or land~cape architect, One (1) member shall be a contractor; one (1) member shall be a representative of a local historical ~ociety and one (1) m~-mber shall be a person with professional expertise or trainin~ in the field of histerie preservatien and historic landmarks. Members of the preservation committee shall be appointed for three-year terms, and ne m~mber shall serve for more than two (2) consecutive terms. Vote: Unanimous 12. ~EW BUSINESS ll.A. CONSENT ITEMS ll.A.1, DESIGNATION OF ASHLEY WOODS EAST AS A BIRD SANCTUARY On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, conservation or the ~aving, protecting, preserving e~ our natural resources should claim the deep and considered concern of every patriotic citizen cf the County; and W~EREAS, some provision must be made for wildlife if it is to continue to exist. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Hoard of Supervieors of Chesterfield Ceunty, Virginia, that the entire area known as Ashley Woods East Subdivision be designated as a Hird Sanctuary. That it shall be unlawful to trap, hunt, ~hoot or attempt to shoot or molest in any manner any bird or wild fowl or to rob bird neStS or wild fowl nests. Provided, however, if starling~ or similar bird~ are found to be congregating in such numbers in a particular locality that they constitute a nuisance or menace to health or property in the opinion of the proper health authoritiem of Chesterfield County, then in such event said health authorities shall meet with representatives of the Audubon Society, Bird Club, Garden Club or Humane Society, or as many of sa~d clubs as are found to exist in the Ashley Woods East Subdivision, after having given at least three days actual notice of the time and place of said meeting to the representatives of said clubs. 89-126 If a~ a result of said meeting no setisfactury alternative is found to abate such nuisance~ then said birds may he destroyed in such nund~ers and in such manner as is deemed advisable by ~aid health authorities under the supervision of the Chief cf Police cf theCounty of Chesterfield. Permission is here~y granted to the Ashley Woods East Civic Association to place, subject to ~h~ ~egulations of the Virginia Department of Transportation, suitable plaques at the various entrances o~ Ashley Wood~ RaFt stating that Ashley Woods Bast is a Bird Sanctuary, as an appeal and reminder to tourist and native alike. ll.A.~. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the Connty Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his Clarendonz Section M, Clover Sill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mn. Ceftin, ~eoondm~ by Mr. Mayes, it is ~eselved that Col~rave Road, Iv~rson Road and Iv~rson Court in Clarendon, See~i0n N, Clever Hill District, be and they hereby are sstabli~hsd ~s public And ~e it further resolved, tha~ ~he Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Co/grave Road, beginninq at existing Colgrave Road, Stats Road 3548~ and going northerly 0.20 mile to the intersection with Iver$On RoeS, then continuing beginning at existing Ivsrson Road, State Route 3597~ and going northerly 0,05 mile to the intersection with Iverson Court, then continuing northerly 0.07 mile, then turninq and ~oi~g ~asterly 0.06 mile to ~nd at th~ intersection with colgrave Road! and Iverson Court, beginning at the intersection with Iv~rson Road and going westerly 6.04 mil~, then turning and going northwesterly 0.0~ mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of th~ a~jacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage ea~ement~. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of TranspOrtation a 50' right-of-way ~er all of these roads. This day the County Enviaonmental Enginser, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of ~unzlse ~lu~ Road and Sunrise Bluff Court in Sunrise Bluff, Clover ~ill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of ~r. Cunrin, seconded by'Mr. Mayss, it is resolved that Sunrise Blu~ Road and Sunri$~ Bluf~ Court in Sunrise Blu~, Clover Hill District, be and thsy hereby are established as public roads. 89-127 And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Sunrise Bluff Road, bsginning at the intersection with Woodlake Village Parkway, State Route Number to be- assigned, and going northeasterly 0.11 mile, then turning and going easterly 0.06 mile to the inter~eotion with Sunrise Bluif Court, then continuing easterly 0.17 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Sunrise Bluff Court, beginning at the intersection with Sunris~ Bluff Road and going northerly 0.05 mile, then turning and going northeasterly 0.11 mile, then turning and going southerly 0.08 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 easement~. These roads serve 55 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads. Sunrise Bluff is recorded as follows: Plat Book 50, Pages 30, 31 & 32, July 31, 1985. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Rothbury Drive in Stonehenge, Section J, Midlothian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Rothbury Drive in Stonehenge, Section J, Midlothian District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby ie requested to take into the Secondary System, Rothbury Drive, beginning at existing Rothbury Drive, State Route 2575, and going northeasterly 50' to end in a hammer head turnaround. This request is inclusive of the adjacent elope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. This road serves 1 lot. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 60' easement width for use as right-of-way for this road. This section of Stonehenge is recorded as follows: Section J. Plat Book 56, Page 58, March 26, 1987. Vote: Unanimous ll.A.3. RECONFIRM RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS FROM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MEETING ON FEBRUARY 8, 1989 On motion of Mr. Ceftin, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Soard reaffirmed the followinq resolutions since Mr. Applegate was absent during the February 8, 1989 meeting when they were adopted: 89-128 fi.H. MR. J. ~ARLE DU~FORD, JR..TE~ ~CR~Q~D ~IM~S-DISPATCH "On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the following resolution wa~ adopted: WHEREASt Mr. J. Earle DUnford, Jr. has recently retired as The Richmond Times-~ispatch's City Editor after almost twenty year$; and WHEP~EAS, Mr. Dunford, more than any other individual, has influenced what people know about the metropolitan area, especially including Chesterfield County; and Sunday, road his storis~, including the radio stations, helevi$ion station~ and national wire aervicea, which u~nally followed h~ lead aterie~: and WHEREAS; Mr~ Dunferd'~ illustrious career was already on an award-winning track in 19~2, when at the age of 34 he won hh~ Virginia Pro~o Association Award for a major series of articles on Chesterfield County, itc problems and its growth, titled "Thc Growing Pains in Chesterfield;" and WHEREAS, N~. Dunford was pre,eat at numerous meetings of bokh the chesterfield Board of Supervisor~ and the school Beard, which he covered regularly ua a r~porter; and WHEREAS, Mr. Dunford has exhibited professional interes= in the activities of Chesterfield County and provided a ~et service to the citizens of the County by the high atandards he sea and maintained in his presentation of events on the pages oi The Richmond Tim~s-Dispatch. NOW, TMER~FORB BE IT RESOL~/ED, that the Chesterfield County Soard of Supervisors does hereby commend Mr. J. Earle Dunford, Jr. for his out,tending $~rvlces to the County and wi~h him w~ll as he actively pursues other interests in his ll.C.E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, HAZARDOUS R~MOVAL '~On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the ~ollowing resolution wes adopted: WHEREAS; E, I. d= Pont de N~o~rs & Company, a valuable member of the Chesterfield County industrial community, has devoted time and resources to the removal of four ~-gallon drums of hazardous waste materials from 9561 Chester Road: and with Chesturfield County on mutually beneflulal projects WEEREAS, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company has continued to offer valuable expertise and advice when needed by the County. NOW~ TH~R.~FORE BE IT 'RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby recognize de Nemours ~ Company and ex,re,see its appreciation for their invaluable assistance to the County and its citiz~n~." 89-129 ll.D. S~NSL~¥ ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION FOR DONATIONS TO CONSTRUCT M~TING ROOM AT B~NSLRY PARK "On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivanr the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department functions to positively affect the quality of life in Chesterfield County; and WREP~EAS, The provision of high-quality park and recreation facilities represents an important component of the Department's services; and WHEREAS,' The recently completed Bensley Park is seen es a location for serving the recreational needs of all County citizens including those of the immediate Bensley community; and WHEREAS, The ~eneley Athletic Association serves the recreational needs of the residents of the Bensley area and has chosen to provide significant support for construction of a community meeting room building at Beneley Park. NOW, THEREFOR= BE IT R~SOLV=D, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby recognize The Bensley Athletic Association for its generous contribution to the new building and to the citizens of Chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby express its sincere appreciation and gratitude to The Bensley Athletic Association for its goodwill and community ll.B. MR. MICHAEL J. MULLEN, YOUTH SOCCER LEAGUE BOARD "On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the following resolution was adopted= W~REAS, The Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department strives to offer quality youth ~ports programs; and WHEP~EAS, The Chesterfield County ~outh Soccer League has been providing the youth of Chesterfield with a quality soccer program; and WHEP~EAS, As its President, Mr. Mullen, devoted his time and efforts to see that every child had a chance to play as well as a place to play; and W~BREAS, Mr. Mullen was a strong advocate end supporter of Parks and Recreation and two bond referendums during his tenure; and WHEREAS, Mr. Mulled continues to work hard to research end identify potential new facilities and trends in youth soccer at the Seato and National levels. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board Of Supervisors does hereby recognize ~r. Michael J. Mullen for his out,tending service to youth sports and the Chesterfield County Youth Soccer League. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby express its sincere appreciation and gratitude to Mr. Mullen for his commitment to youth sports." 89-130 iI,F. MANCBEBTRR, POREST VIeW AND BENSL~Y-B~P~UDA VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUADS, ROUTE 368 VAN INCIDENT "On motion of Mr. Sullivan, Seconded by Mr. Uanie%~ the following resolution was adopted: W~EREA$, Un the morning of November 5, 1988, a van traveling west on Route 36g lost control and overturned throwing all twenty-one passengers from the vehicta; and WK~REAS~ Remcue units were dispatched within one minut~ of receiving ~he call and upon initial assessmen~ of the accident soene and triage identified twenty p~ople with multiple life threatening injurie~ requiring advan~ llfe support services and one fatality; and WEEREAS, Under the management and leadership of key personnel fron~ the volunteer rescue scfuads the delivery of weather conditions, was aecomplishe~ in an organized, re~ponmive manner in which teamwork and cooperation resulted in the best pre-hospital patient care possible; an~ WEE~tEAD, ~he effective teamwork and communication enabled personnel to handle the volume of patient~ and rapidly WHEREAS, The area hospitals were able to accept and begin treatment of thi~ la~g~ number of patients without ~elay or interruption~ and WEEREAS, The Ch~sterfleld County Board of Supervisor~ wishus to recognize these actions to save lives and p=event further injury. ~OW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that tho Chesterfield Connty Board of $upervi~or~ on b~half of it~ citizmne commands the professionalism and dedication of the Manchester Volunteer Rescue Squad, Forest View Volunteer ~escue Squad and Bensley-Bermnda Volunteer Rescue Squad for their exemplary actions on November 5, 1~8." ll.B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS ll.B.1, STREET NAME CHANGE On motion o~ Mr. Sullivan, ~etonded by Mr. Coffin, the BQar~ approved the renaming of Framer Drive in Briarwood SubdiviEion to Pine Bark Lane. Vote: Unanimous STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST AI~PROVALS On motio~ eS ~r. Applegats, seconded by Mr. Sullivan~ the Board approved the street light installation ~t ~he intersection of Bsnmore Road and Otterdale Road, in the amount of $267.03, with f~nds to be expended f~om the Clover ~ill District Street Light Fnnd; and further approved the street ligh~ installation at the intersection of !to,bridge Road and Whitepine Road ( two lights at the e~tra~ce to Airport Industrial Park), with fund~ to be expended from the County Wide Street Light Fund. Vote: Unanimeua ll.J. BOARD REPRESENTATIVE FOR SOUTNHIDH REGIONAL JAIL PLANNING CONMITTR~ There was brief discussion relative to the study of southsid~ regional jail needs involving the Cities of Nopewell, Petersburg and the Counties of Charles City, Prince George, Surry, Suffolk and Dinwiddie; recommendations of the Virginia Department of Corrections for such concepts; cost effectiveness and advantages fo~ the Ceunty's participation in the regional jail concept; appointments to the regional jail planning committee; the submittal of a resolution to the Virginia Hoard of Corrections for support of the concept; etc. On motion of the HOard, th~ Boa~d nominated Mr. Lane B. Ramsey, County Administrator, and Sheriff James Mntispaugh (advisory capacity) to serve on the Southside Regional Jail Planning Committee, whose formal appointment will be made at the March 8, 1989 meeting. ll.C. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ll.C.1. RIGHT OF WAY ~TEM$ ll.C.l.a. AUTHORIZATION TO EXERCISE EMINENT DOFalIN FOR TEE ACQUISITION OF SEWER EASEMENT FOR PALLING CREEK PRESSURE SEWER On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Currin, the Hoard authorized the C~unty Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owners if the amount as s~t opposite their na~eS is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owners by registered mail on February 23, 1989, of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedinqs. This action is on an emergency basis and the County intends to exercise inumediats right of entry, pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia. William Sherr0d Rogers Guin and Tina M. Guin Tax Map 81-9(1)-7 $2,763 Vote: UnanimOus ll.C.l.b. AUT~0RIZAT%OW TO EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN FOR TEE ACQUIS%T%ON OF SPWER RASEMENT TO S~RVB QUHENSPARK SUBDIVISION On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board authorized the County Attorney to exercise eminent domain to acquire a sewer easement across the property of Mr. William ~. Naneke and Ms. Mary Keegan Haneke, which is for the health and safety of the public, to aid Queensmill Corporation to serve Queenspark Subdivision. .11.C.2. CONSENT ITEMS ll.c.2.a. APPROVAL OF UTILITY CONT~ACT FOR NEW ROCHELLE AT ROCHDALE HUNDRED Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that he owns property in the Rochdale Hundred Subdivision, declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. 89-132 Qn mo~ion o~ Mr. Sail±van, seconded by ~r. Meye~, the Board approved the following utility contract and authorlzod County Administrator to exesu~e any necessary documents: 89-0015, New Rochelle ~ Rochdale ~undred: Developer~ Oliver Df Rudy, Trustee Contractor: Shccs~ith Brother~ Construction Co., I~e. gub-Contracto~: ~.P.E. Excavating Co., Inc. Contract Amcunt~ Water - $ 88,747.96 Estimated County Cost - IRefund through connectional Estimated Developer Number of Comnection~: 62 and Future Sewer - $165,475.38 Total - $254,221~34 $205,2S5.67 Code: 5N-2511-997 Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mz. Currin. Mr. Currin returned to the meetln~. ll.C.2.b. APgROVAL O~ UTILITIES CONTRACT FO~ PAOVID~RCE CREEK~ SECTION A Qn motion o~ Mr. Sullivan, seconded by M~. May~s~ the Boar~ approved the following utiliti~$ contract and authorized County Administrator to e~ecute any necessary 89-0019, Prc~idsnce Creek - Section A: Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost= (Refund through connection Estimated Developer Cost: Ntrmb~r of Code~ Vo=e~ Unanimone $229,~99.25 $ 20,016.0~ $209,383.17 79 and Future 5B-2511-997 APPROVAL OF SEWER CONTACT ~OE LICKING CREEK TRUNK SEWER On motion of ~r. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the ~oard approved ~bc following sower uontract and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents: S88-288CD - Licking Creek Trunk Sewer (from Glenwcod subdivision through Rolfs'g Colony Subdivi~ionl: Developer; MLEE Planning Contractor: G. L. ~oward, Inc. Total Contract Cost: $1,010,224.~Q ~s=ima=s~ Coun=y co~t: (~) Capital $ 470,479.46 (b) Charge Recovery Cost $ 163,095.51 E~timated ~stimated Developer Cost: $ 376,649.63 Number of Connection~= Future Code: ~Refnnd from Connection F~s] 5N-2511-997 (Cash Refunds] 5P-5724-80D9 ll.C.2.d. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR V~CATION AND REDED~CkTION OF WATER AND S~W~R EASemeNTS ACROSS PROPERTY OF SLN MIDLOT~IAN ASSOCIATES On motion o~ ~r. Sullivan, seconded by ~r..N~yos, tk~ Board approved an agreement for the vacation and re-dedication of the 89-133 the water and sewer easements across the property of SLN Midlothian Associates and authorized the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to execute the easement agreement. (A copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) ll.C,2.e. APPROVAL OF AGREeMenT FOR VACATION AND R~D~DICATION SEWER EASEMENT ACROSS THE pROPERTY OF WATER POINTE DEVELOPMENT COMPASVZ On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Beard approved the vacation and re-dedication of the sewer easement across the property of Water Fointe Development Company and authorized the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to execute the easement aqreement, (A copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous ll.C.2.f. CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENT TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY WITHIN TWENTY FOOT ALLEY IN VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER SUBDIVISION On motion cf Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County A~inistrator to execute an easement agreement with Virginia Electric and Power Company to install overhead cable within a 20' alley in Village Shopping Center Subdivieion for a relocation in conjunction with the Route 10 Project through Chester. (A copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) 11.C.3. REPORTS Mr. Sale presented the Board with a report on the developer water and eewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. ll.D. P~3PORTS Mr. Ramsey presented the Board with a status report on the General Fund Contingency Account, General Fund Balance, Road Reserve Fundst District Road and Street Light Funds, Lease Purchases and the Board Public Hearing Schedule. Mr. Applegate noted that the public hearin~ for the Clover Hill District School Board Representative is scheduled for March 15, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., at Manchester High School. Mr. Ramsey sta~ed the Virginia Department of Transportation has formally notified the County of the acceptance and/or abandon- ment of the following roads into/from the State ~econdary System: ADDITIONS FOUNDRY RUN - SECTION 7 Route 1256 (Middlewood Road) - From 0.01 mile south Route 1255 to 0.01 mile south Route 4251 8.20 Mi. Route 4250 (Middlewood Circle) - From Route 1256 to east cul-de-sac 0.04 Mi. Route 4251 (Middlewood Terrace) - From Route 1256 to northeast cul-de-sac 0.0~ Mi. 89-134 ADDITIONS SU~BURY - SECTION Route 30~1 (Greatbridge Read) - From Route 3064 ko ~euth oul-de-~ac 0.07 south cul-de-sac 0.07 CP~E~W©OD - SECTION G Rout~ 2235 {Round Hill Drivd) ~ From Re~te 2238 ~o Route 3479 0.06 aouae 34?9 {Winding Creek Lane) - From 0.03 mile west Route 2235 to 0.12 mile southeast Ro~te 2235 SUNNYBROOK - SECTIONS S & 11 Route 3525 (Linegar Drive) - From Rout~ 35~7 to Route 889 0.07 Mi. Route 3526 {Alberta Terrace) - From Route 3527 to southwest c~l-de-~ac 0.0~ Route 3527 (~a~t Alberta Court) - From 0.0~ mile east Route 888 to east cul-de-~a~ 0.10 Mi. Ro~te 3527 (We~t Alberta Court) - From Route 888 to west cul-de-sac 0.20 Route ~52~ (Blo~somwood Cirole) - P~om 0.02 mile south Route 3528 to ~outh ~ul-d~sac 0.04 Mi. RILLANN~ - SECTION C Route 123~ (Fairlin~ton Lane) - From 0.~4 mile eas~ Route 1431 to east cul-de-sac ~.04 Mi. Roots R31 (Hilland~le b~ive) - From ruute 7ll to northeast cul-de-sac 0.11 Mi. SecUion 2 of new location Route 746; Project: 0095-020-101~ PE102 0.t4 Mi. ~sction 1 of old location Route 746; Pro,eot: 009~-020-10t~ PE102 LENGTH 0.14 Mi. 11.F. ~UDG~T WORK SESSION {Time Permitting) Since time did not pe~it a budget wor~ session, i% was qenerall? aqreed the remainde~ of the material would be placed On the ag~ for the ~eard's ~arch S, 19~ scheduled work ll.E. & 11. G. EXECUTIVE SESSION A~D LUNCE On motion of Mr. Danist, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, th~ Board went into ~xecutive $~s~ion at the Sunset Ca~e R~staurant f~r consultation with legal counsel regarding 1. ~ol~Ce ~ur~ui~s and 2. Litigation $~yle~ as shouse versus Chesterfield County pursuant to Section 2.1-344 la) (6} of fha Code of Vi~inia, ~950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous ~9-135 Reeonvening: ll.H. MOBILE EOME I~EQUESTS 88SR0278 In Metoaea Magisterial District, JAM~S ARD VIVIAN CP~%NE r~quested renewal of Mobile Home Permit 83SR196 to park a mobile home on property fronting the northwest line of Shawonodasee Road, approximately 200 feeC southwest of Courthouse Road, and better known as 9006 Shawonodesee Road. Tax Map 79-14 (1) Parcel 9 (Sheet 22). The first permit was issued on November 4, 1964. Mr. Jacobsen stated at its January 25, I989 meeting the Board deferred this reqaes~ as the applicant was not present. He stated subsequent to that meeting the applicant has advised staff in writing that they would like to.withdraw the request. There was no one present to represent the request. There was no opposition to the withdrawal. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board accepted withdrawal of Case 88SR0278. 895R0137 In Matoaoa Magisterial District, SARAH W. HARRISON requested renewal of Mobile Rome Permit 84SR010 to park a mobile home on property fronting the north line of River Road, approximately 70 feet east of Stuart Avenue, and better known as 6508 River Road. Tax Map 186-3 (1) Parcel 56 (Sheet 52). The first permit was issued On January 6, 1969. Mr. Jacobsen stated staff recommended approval of Case 995R0137 subject to certain standard conditions. Ms. Sarah W. Harrison stated the recommended conditions were aocsptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved Case 89SR0137 for seven (7) years, subject to the following standard conditions: 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. 2. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked On an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. 4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are'available, they shall be used. 89-136 Vote: Upon being granted a Mobile Heme Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the n~coss~ry permits from the Office of the Building 0fficial. This shall be done prior to the installation or r~location of the mobile home. Any violation of the above condition~ ~hall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Peri/it. 89ER0153 In Bermuda Magisterial Di~trlot, W.L.C.W. CORPORATION ~ID) requestsd renewal of Mobile Home Permit 842ROll to park mobile home on property fronting the east llne of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 330 feet north of Norcliff Road, and better known as 8809 Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax Map 81-4 (1) Parcel 23 (Sheet 23). Tho first permit was i~ued on January 8, ~r. Jacobsen stated staff recommended approval of Case ~9SR0153~ s~bj~ct to standards conditions 2 through 7 and a modification in standard condition 1. Mr. William Seid state~ tbs recommended condition~ were acceptable including the modification to st~uOard condition 1. There was no opposition present. On motion cf Mr. Coffin, seconded by Mr. Mayss, th% Boa~d approved Case @gsR015~ for se~on (7) years, ~uhjeo~ ~o the followin~ standard conditions 2 through 7 and modified condition 1: 1. This mobile home shall be occupied by the manager of the Ling Eing I~n Restaurant and members of his immediate family only. 2. No lot or parcel may be r~nted or leased for use as a mobile homo site, nor shall any ~obile home be used for rental property, 0nly one (1) mobile home shall be ps.mitred to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minim~ lot size, yard setbacks~ required front yard, and other zoning requirements of tho applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be looate~ closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. 4. No additional permanent-type living space may bo added onto a mobile home. All mobile home~ ~hall b~ skirted but 5. Where public {County} water and/or sewer are available, they sAall bo u~sd. installation or relocation of th~ mobile home. 7. Any violation of the abov~ conditions shall be grounds for Vote: Unanimous 89SR0171 In Bermuda Magisterial District, ~ATTIE E. BA~GHAN requested renewal of Mobile Home Permit 83eR100 t~ park a ~obile home on property fronting the north line o~ Drewry~ BI~ff Road at Old 89-137 On motion of Mr. Currin, approved Case 89SR0171, conditions: Plantation Road, and better known as 2700 .Drewrys Bluff Road. Tax Map 67-3 (1) Parcel 10 (Sheet 23). The first permit was issued on April 10, 1974. Mr. Jacobson stated staff reco~ended approval of Case 89SR0171 subject to certain standard conditions. Mr. Tom Gordon, representing the applicant, stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board subject to the following standard 1. The applicant ~hall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. 2. No lot or parcel may be ren~ed or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of %he applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existinq residence. 4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous ll.I. t~EZONING REQUESTS 88SN0203 In Matoaca Magisterial District, KENNETR AYSCUE requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to R~sidential (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 91-4 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 29). Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case ~8SN0203, subject to a single condition and acceptance of proffered conditions. Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that he serves as a trustee for property adjacent to the subject site, declared a conflict of intorest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Frank Ports, representing the applicant, stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. 89-138 on ~otion of ~r. Mayee, seconded.by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved Case 88SN~203, subject to the following condit±on: A fifty (50) foot buffer strip, ex~lu~iv~ of e~se- ment$ and require~ yards, shall be establiehed and maintained adjacent to Sprin~ Run Road (Route 652), The area of this buffer strip ehall either be left in its natural state~ if sufficient vegetation exists to provide adequate ~creening: er be planted and/or bermed in accordance with · landscape plan approved by the Planning ~epartr~ent, if ~uf£ieient vegetation does not exist to provid~ adequa:e screening. Prior to approval of any final site plan er recordation of any plat~ ~he dmvelop~r shall flag this buffer strip for inepection, and shall post a bond to cover the is required. Exe~Dt for approved public road access, Thi~ buffer strip ~h~ll be noted on any final site plans, and any final check and recc~datio~ ~lats. The Plannin9 Commission may modify this condition at the time of site plan er t~ntative s~bdivision review. And further, the Board accepted th~ ~ollowlng proffered conditions: 1. All lots abutting Spring Run Road ehall be a minimum of 15,000 square feet in eiz~. 2. Ther~ shall be no mor~ than 60 lets in this devalot~ent or approximately 2.7I units per acre. 3. Average size ef lots to be 13,200 square feet. 4. Ail lots abutting thc proposed "Birkdale" Development shall be a minimum of 12,000 $quaye f~et in area. 5. A fifty (50) foot buffer $~rlp, inclusive of any County and/or utility eaeemente, shall be established aha main- rained along the property line abutting the proposed ~*Birkdale" Development. The area of the buffer strip shall ~ither be left in its natural state, if sufficient plast~4 and/er bermed in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Department, if sufficient vege- tation does not exist to provide a~equate screening. Prier to recordation of any plat, the dev~lep~r sh~ll flag ~his buffer strip for inspection, and shall peet a bond to cover the impl~mentatlun of the land,cape plan, if such plan is required. 6. This project shall be designed for public sewer and water. 89SN0102 In Matoaca Magisterial Distr~ct, C~STERFIRT~ COUNTX DEPARTMENT OF ~ILITI~S r~qu~te~ Conditional Use to ~e~it an above-ground utility Structur~ in an Agricultural (A) District. Thi~ re,est lies on a 0.52 acre parcel fronting approximately 120 fee% on t~e east line of Winterpock Road, app~oxlma%ely ~,000 feet north of 'B~ach Roa~. T~ Map 91-13 (I) Part Of Parcel 5 (Sheet 29}. ~r. Jacobsen stated the Planning Departm~n~ reco~nded approval of Ca~ 89S~0102, subject to certain condition~. 89~139 Mr. Bill Wright, representing the applicant, stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved Case 89SN0102, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan, dated October 10, 1988, and submitted with the request shall be coneidered the Master Plan. (P) 2. The structure shall be similar to that depicted in the photographs submitted with the application. 3. The area between the security fence and the property boundaries shall be maintained as a buffer. Existing · vegetation within this buffer shall be maintained, where possible, and supplemented, where necessary, with land- scaping and/or screening devices so as to provide yeaz-round screening of the view of the pump station, pressure tanks, end parking area from adjacent property and public rights of way. Other than landscaping, fencing or other screening devices, access, and utilities as depicted on the Master Plan, there shall be no facilities located within the buffer. Clearing for any fence and/or other decorative feature within the buffer shall not exceed a width of five (5) feet. A conceptual landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval in conjunction with site plan review. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval within thirty (30) days of rough clearing end grading. The detailed plan shall include the general location of existing vege- tation to be retained, the location of proposed landscap- ing and fencing, and sections through the buffer that depict how screening of the site from adjacent properties and public rights cf way will be accomplished. (P) 4. A security-type fence, shall be installed around the proposed pump station, pressure tank, and parking area, and shall be designed =o deter trespassing. The exact height and design of the fence shall be approved by the Planning Department at th~ time of site plan review. (NOTE: Prior to obtaining a building permit, site plans must be submitted to the Planning Department for approval.) Vote: Unanimous 89SN0105 In Midlothlan Magisterial District, FRANK ~ B~L¥ ~FORD requested amendment te Conditional Use ~lanned Development (Case 87S009) to permit an automobile glass shop in a Conumunity Business (B-2) District. This request lies on a 5~2 acre parcel zoned Community Business (B-2) and Office Business (O) fronting approximately 500 feet on the east line of Courthouse Road, approximately 350 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike; also fronting approximately 300 feet on the west line of Branchway Road, approximately 270 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 17-9 (2) Avon Estate~ Lot 19 and Tax Map 16-12 (1) Part of Parcel 51 (Sheets 7 and 8). Mr. Jacobsen stated the ~ Planning Commission recommended approval Of Case 89SN0105, subject to certain conditions. Mr. Glen Moore, representing the applicants, stated the reeoK~ended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. 89-140 On motion Of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Ceftin, thc Board approved Case 89~01Q5, subjo¢~ to the following conditions: 1. Tko following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre- pared by Shank and Gray A~chiteots, and submit%ed wi~h the application, shall be considered the Ma~ter Plan. 2. All repair and ~torage activiqy 9hall be conducted ~ntir~- ly within an enclosed building. (NOTE; Except as noted herein, all previously imposed conditions of Case 87S009 shall apply.) Vote: Unanimous In Matoaoa Magisterial District, C~I~ST~ D. tICKS requazted amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Cas~ requirements. This request lies in a R~sid~ntial (R-7) Uistrict on a 0.6 acre parcel frontin~ approximately 135 feet On the north linc of Totty Street, approximately 50 feet cast of Pannil S~.reet. Tax Map 182-1~ (4) Orange Hill, Block D, Lot 5 (Sheet 54]. Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0108, subject to c~rtain conditions and a~ceptance of a single proffered Ms. Cele~tine ~ick~ stated ~he r~co~ended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition On motion of M~. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, th~ 14, 19~8, shall be considered the Ma~ter Plan. 3. The driveway and parking area ~hall be surfaced with six (6) inch~ of %21 or %21A stone. The driveway and parking area shall bs defined by durable ~aterial (i.e., timber curbing or other similar tre~ent). 4. A six (6) foot high solid boar~ fence shall be ins=ailed along the western side of the property from property line %o a point a= least parallel =o =he front area from the adjacent property to =he wes=. (CPC) (NOT,S: (a) The Zoning Ordin~ce requixes that parking areas for six {S) or more vehicle~ be property to the north, sou%h, and west. (b) Prior to obtaining a building permit, site plan~ must be submitted %o th~ Department for approval. In conjunction with the approval o~ thi~ request, the Planning Co--in,ion schematic plan approval of thu Master Plan. 89-141 (d) These conditions supersede the conditions imposed with the approval of Case 83S122.) And further, the Board accepted the following proffered condition: The proposed structure will baa two-story building just as present structure. Aluminum siding will be put on the addition and on the second story of the present structure. 89SN0109 (Amended) In Clover Hill Magisterial District, DOUGLAS R. SOWERS requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential {R-12). A single family residential subdivision is planned. This request lies on a 52.4 acre parcel lying approximately 700 feet off the south line of Lucks Lane, measured from a point approximately 600 feet west of Westoreek Drive. Tax Map 38-1 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheets 13 and 14). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission reoo~nnend~d approval of Case 89S~0109 and noted that, subsequent to the Commission's action, the applicant proffered the use of public water and sewer. Mr. Douglas Sowers stated the recommendation was acceptable. Thsre was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Appleqate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved Case 89SN0109 and accepted the following proffered condition: I hereby proffer the use of public sewer and water for this property. Vote: Unanimous ~9SN0112 In Clover ~ill Magisterial District, J.K. ?I~H~ON$ A~D A~OCTA~E~, P.O. requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Developments (Cases 83S024 and 87S002) to allow reduction of the required twenty-five (25) foot parking setback along Route 60. This request lies in a Light Industrial (M-l) District on a 10.8 acre parcel f~onting approximately 490 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, also fronting approximately 875 feet on the east line of Johnston Willis Drive, and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 17-10 (1) Parcels 12 and 13 (Sheet 8). Mr. Jacobsen stated ths Planning Commission recolnmended approval of Case 89S0112. Mr. Doug Bradbury, representing the applicant, stated the recommendation was acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of ~r. Applegate, seconded Dy Mr. Daniel, the soard approved Case 89SN0112. 88SN0260 In Matoaca Magisterial District, MIDLO~HIAN CO~4PAI~Y requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to ~esidential (B-15). A single 89-142 family residential subdivision ia planned. This re,nest lles on a 137.0 &cr~ parcel fronting approximatsiy 2,800 feet On the north linc of Beach Roadt approximately 1~300 feet west of hash Road. Tax Map 95-6 {1} Parcel 1 and Tax Map 95-10 (1} Parcel 1 (Sheet 31}. Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Cormmi~sion recommended approval cf Case 88S~02~0, subject to a single condition and acceptance of proffered condition~. Mr. Rryc~ POw~lt ~tatsd the recoa~ended condition is acceptable and that he has proffered the nun~ber of lots planned for development on this property will not e~ceed 80 on a total cf Mr. Applegate stated, as had been disclosed previckuly, he had declared a potential conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and had requested an opinion from the Attorney General~$ Office which oDinlon he had received earlier in the morning indicating, "ba~ed on the facts yo~ presented, there is no reasonably, foreseeable effect on yon or Applegste Realty by the Board's action on thc pending Midlo%hian Company rezonin~ application. application and under Section 2.1-6~9.11(A) does not restrict yo~r ability to participate in the ~oard'~ censlder~tion of this application". Es stated he, therefere, intended to vote on the ~atter. There being opposition present, it wa~ agreed to hear Case ~SN0260 which was next on thc agenda. Mr. Jacobsen presented a brief overview of the proposed request and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Cass 88SN0260, subject to a singl~ condition and acceptance of proffered conditions. Mr. George Bsadles, Jr. suggested that the subject request b~ deferred for two weeks to allow th~ applicant to proffer one {1} acre minimum lot sizes in order to be consistent with the proposed criteria of th~ Charlottesville ~eeting Action Plan and questioned if thc agreement would require ~he applicant to comply with its requirements. ~e fur%her suggested alter~atlve ~echan~sms for implementation of %h~ Action Plan through the Code of Virginia rather than the County Code. ~e voiced opposition to the ~ubpect p~Operty being developed without public ~w~r and stated he felt an alternative to that pro~ls~ would be the enhanced septic s~stem proposed in th~ ~r. Mayes inquired as to the !oct=ion of public water lines within clo~c proximity to the s~b~ect property; whether or not there ars any law suits agains~ the Health Department with respec~ to the failure of septic tanks; th~ criteria of the action plan resulting from the Charlottesville meeting, etc. ~e Atated his po~ition that, even though Mr. Powcil is credited for having outstanding, very high quality mubdivisiens which he hoped would continue in th~ Natoaca District with sewer, as a result of the meeting in Charlottesville, he was convinced that septic tanks, unless perfect, were not saf~I that his concern is that septiu system~ do not always work perfectly and tben the chemical and biological elem~nt~ that are harmful to health get into the water stream and impact those people who are on well water. He stated that being ~he case he had not changed bis position and he could not support this case. ~r. Daniel stated that, in response to Mr. Beadles' concerns, he would like to comment On the Charlottesville information. ~e stated that, as soon as the public hearing process and ordinances are completed, this request will have to meet the requirements no matter what the zoning may be~ that citizens 89-I43 would be prohibited from disposing of grease in the septic system; the technical aspects of the septic system would certainly be applicable no matter when the zoning is granted; that all septic systems must be pumped every 3-5 years with whatever system the County has in place whether it is a regulated or fee structured process; and that the only requirement that 'would not apply is the on~ (1) acr~ requirement. He inquired if there is a mechanism in place whereby the Board could secure a ccrmmitment to meet the on~ acre requirement on this particular case that resulted from the Charlottesville information. Mr. Micas stated the only way to obtain a legal commitment would be to defer the case again and accept a proffer. Mr. Daniel inquired if Mr. Powell would be willing to make a moral commitment to develop this tract with one acre minimum size lots rather than the proffered 30,000 square ieet size he had proffered and, after the public hearing process on the action plan had been completed~ if he would be willing to make a moral commitment to develop to those standards. Mr. Powell stated that would be acceptable. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan stated that they could accept Mr. Powell's verbal Commitment to develop to the subject standards and based on that, felt comfortable with the rescuing. Mr. Currin inquired if there were any cases on record in Chesterfield County of any outbreak of sickness due to failing septic fields. Dr. Nelson stated there were no such reported situations of which he was aware. Mr. Mayes stated that although Mr. Powell has verbally committed to abiding by the new requirements of the action plan, none of those criteria are outlined in the Request Analysis and expressed concern that a request be approved without written documentation of the new criteria being incorporated into the report. Mr. Micas indicated that the applicant is obligated by the conditions of zoning as well as other conditions of development that may affect him even though his rezoning may be approved now. Mr. Mayes questioned whether or not the enhanced requirements for the septic system should be included in this application. Mr. Micas stated it would be a Board decision as to whether or not they wished that requirement included in this re=cning; however, the applicant may also be bound by those conditions even if they were not included in the zoning. He stated he would like to see the action plan decided upon in Charlottes- ville included in the County codes so that the Board will know what it is working with. He stated he felt this action would be gambling with those people to the east and south of the subject tract who are on well water and he would not be a party to that. Mr. Powell stated public water would be installed across the front of this property along Beach Road an~ area residents, if they desire, will be able to connect to public water at the prevailing hookup rates. Mr. Mayes stated that without assurances the area residents would have an option to connect to public water he could not support the request; however, based on this information, he did not have a reason to object because his concerns had been satisfied. He stated his first motion would have been to defer the request until such time as all the necessary processes could be completed to put the criteria in place; however, he was willing to accept Mr. Powell's word and go ahead if area residents are goihg to have access to.public water because of the development. 89-144 on ~otio~ of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Currin~ the Board approved Case 88SN0260, ~ubjeet to th~ following condition: A fifty (50) foo~ buffer strip, exclusive of easements and required yards, shall be established and maintained buffer ~trip ~hall either be left in its natural ~tate, if sufficient vegetation exists to provide adequate ~creening~ or be planted and/er b~rm~d in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the ~lanning Depart~ ment, if sufficient vegetation do~s not exist to provide adequate screening. Prior to approval of any final site plan or recordation of any plat, th~ developer shall flag ~his buffer strip for inspection, and shall post a bond to cover the implementation of the landscape plan, if such plan ia required, gxcept for approved public road access(e~), no access ~hall be permitted through this buffer strip. This buffer strip shall be noted on any final site plans, and any final check and recordation plats. The ~lanning Commission or th~ Director of Planning may modify this condition at the tim~ of tentative subdivision review. And furthsr, the Board accepted the following conditions: i. Lots would (shall) be r~tricted in si~e to 30~000 {Applicant agrees thmt) under no circumstances will number cf lets in the referenced project excemd 10O. 3. Ail houses will contain at lsa~t 2,000 square feet of Bearable area. attached restrictions will be recorded with Chesterfield Vote: Unanimous 88SN0148 In Matoaca ~agisterial District, N~ ~O~/~K~OD~C~R TP~T requeste~ rescuing ~rom Agricultural ~A) to Co--unity Business (B-2} on for~y-two (42) acres a~d Residential on 2,44t acres, plus Conditional U~e to p~rmit an om=door single f~ily residential, co~ercial, ~nd recreational facilities is planned. Thi~ ~quest lims on a 2,483 more parcel fronting approx~ately 13,000 feet on th% north line Woodpecke~ Road, also ~ronting in two (2) places for a total of approximately llrO~o fe~t on the east line of Nash Road, and located in the northeast quadran~ of ~he intersection 0~ these roads. Tsx ~ap 112-12 (1) Parcels 1 through 11; Tax Map 112-16 (1) Parc~l~ % through i6: ~x M~p 113 (1) ~arcmls 15 Tax Map 113-9 (I) Parcels 3, 4, and 5; Tax Map 129-4 (1) Tax Map 130 (1) Paroel~ 2~ 7~ and 8; Tox Map 130~9 {1) Parcels 13O-14 (1) Parcel~ 1 through t3; and Tax Map 146-3 (1) Parcels 1 ~hro~gh 20 (Sheets ~0, ~I, 39, and 40). Mr. Jacobsen ~tated at its February 8, 1989 meeting ~e Board deferred COnsideration of Case 88SN0148 as a result of legal actions that tran~pire~. He stated that on February 22, th~ applicant's attorney ~ubmitted thr~ additiun~l proffered conditions - one ~o wi=hdraw the =u~ercial zoning from the request which, in the opinion of ~%aff, is not the method for accomplishing the withdrawal of th~ p~oposed 89-~45 Community Business (B-2) zoning and would also necessitate the deletion of related proffered conditions 7, 8,9, 10 and 13 as referenced in the Request Analysis; secondly, a proffered condition limiting the minimum lot size in the development to 30,000 square feet; and thirdly, a proffered condition 23 regarding the establishment of standards for installation and maintenance of septic tanks systems that would, in turn, be incorporated into the covenant restrictions for the project; and, in addition, the applicant's attorney submitted a letter requesting to amend proffered condition 5 relating to the internal collector roads. He stated staff has not had sufficient time to thoroughly review the content of the submissions and impact on the overall request but has concerns that the proffer dealing with septic tank installation and maintenance may conflict with the Board's policies or standards regarding the utilization of septic tank systems for residential development. Re stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 88SN0148 and acceptance of proffered conditions as outlined in the Request Analysis. Mr. Currin disclosed to the ~oard that he does not own any of the property under consideration but~ due to his close association with the individuals initiating this application, he has been advised by the Commonwealth Attorney's Office that he may have a conflict of interest; therefore, he declared a potential conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and e~cused himself from the meeting. Mr. Oliver Rudy, representing the applicants, submitted copies of information and resumes of anticipated speakers addressing this request to the Board for their perusal; presented an overview of the proposed development and o~tlined the intent of proffered conditions relative to uses, transportation, environmental issues, road improvements, right-cf-way, otc.; referenced portions of the Western Area Land Use and Transportation Plan as it related to the proposed request; stated that this application was submitted with the spirit and intent that the applicant was in keeping with what was understood to be the policy of Chesterfield County and the desire of the Planning Department, ~ven though there were other options available at the time the apglication was submitted, and because they felt they were legitimately cooperating with the County by seeking to establish the land use and planning for this property early on in the process. Mr. Mayes stated that the Western Area Land Use and Transporta- tion · Plan is a guideline and clarified his position as to his Mr. Russ Parker, President of Barker and Lancaster Corporation and Chairman of the Chesterfield County Legislative Committee of the Home Builders Association of Richmond; Mr. Kenneth A. Ford, affiliated with the National Association cf Homebuilders; Mr. W. S. Carnes, Mr. Barle Spencer; Mr. M. H. "M~i" Thomas, an Aquatic Ecology/Environmental Planner; Mr. Larry Madison, Independent Soil Consultant; Dr. Harold L. Matthews, President of Matthews Soil Consultants, Inc.; and Mr. John Henson, Professional Engineer with J. K. Timmons and Associates, P.C., addressed the position and recommendation of the Nome Builders Association on the feasibility of well and septic systems; the impact of the proposed development on growth, environmental aspects, soil studies, waste disposal, septic system failures, the volume oi water that would recharge the groundwater through the use of septic systems, etc. and presented information that this project would not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood areas. When asked, approximately fifty (50) persons stood in favor of the proposed development. 89-146 Mr. Daniel stated that, if the information submitted by Mr. Rudy were to be entered into the reeOrd~ he wished the verbatim transcript vote relative te Case 88SN0058, Millhiaer-kalsey & Company, Inc., ba corrected to reflect that he declared a potential conflict of interest and had not voted on that matter. Mr. GeOrge Beadlest Jr.; Mr. Bill Bastings; Mr. Richard Insley; Ms. Beverly Talbott; and Rt. Lester Wilson voiced opposition to the proposed request as they felt it represented an unacceptable risk to area groundwater and Swift Creek; would generate increased volumes of truffle; affect costs ci future Capital Improvement ~rograms (i.e., schools, fire and safety protectioD, otc.); create a greeter pressure on the natural environment; and is generally not in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the Matoaca citizens of Chesterfield County. MS. Beverly Talbstt submitted data documenting ~pti~ system failure on her p~op~r~y an~ stated a neighbor, who lived within close proximity to her property, also experienced the same pre,lams. $1i~es were shown depicting pertion~ of th~ affected area and petitions contalniag approximately 130-150 signatures of residents opposing th~ proposed develol3m~nt were ~I$o submitted. Mr. Rudy stated the applicant has attempted to bring forth resident~ and assure th~m that their concer~s have been adequately addressed, that no other developer has exhibited the concern for septic Systems as this developer has and he felt presenfed reta%ive bo this project. It was generally agreed to recess for five I5) minutes. Reconvaning: There being no one else to addre~ tho matter, the public hearing was closed. the proposed development; use of tho minimum water table; whether or not soils will filter out nitrates and before reaching the water table if a septic system is working properly; the impact on well water if a septic syatem is not working properly: ~_he direction of groundwater flow for the proposed development~ standards for appropriate maintenance and/or repair of septic ~yateme; dedication of a school site and an appropriate waste diapcaal system for said school; etc. ~r. Daniel stated the ~oard receive~ quite a bit el i~put from experts On sepblc systems ~n Charlottesville and the previous zoning case was approved upon that criteria an~ ell those technical sp¢clfications a~ outlined in the Charlottesville Action Plan. He stated he ~elt those criteria would be applicable in thim case us well but, since the application was the applicant would be agreeable to the one (1) acre minimum lot size criteria even i~ it were not a condition. Mr. Rudy state~ he would. Mr. Daniel expressed concern r~lative to use o~ public'sewer ~n this area, the process for making the application for public sewer in the Swi£t Creek Drainage Basin; whether er not a school weald ~unctien on a septic system available if a ~ystem system was not feasible, addressed septic criteria; s~atsd he felt the aotioa plan recommendations, if 89-1~7 implemented, would adequately address many of these concerns. Mr. Micas advised that the proffered condition would not permit the County fo accept a school site at an alternative location. Mr. Daniel suggested the proffered condition be amended to address his concerns about an alternative location for the school site necessitated by this project in the event it could not be constructed on a septic system. Mr. Sullivan expressed appreciation to all those participants who took such great interest in presenting this case and noted a concern that the Board had addressed the issue of septic systems but not other areas of major concerns, i.e., fire service capability, the addendum outlining modified proffers which staff did not feel they had had sufficient time to evaluate, etc.; expressed concern that there are unanswered questions having to do with other aspects than sewer and septic issues; stated he was generally in favor ef the proposed development but felt that because there had been so much focus On the septic and sewer issue that other major issues of concern have not been adequately addressed and suggested that the request be remanded to the Planning Commission for further review/evaluation. Mr. Applegate stated much tim~ was spent on the septic and public sewe~ issues and he felt the Board was probably well versed about th~ matter. He noted that Mr. Insley did address the school situation and, based on information staff had presented, he tended to agree regarding capacities in the elementary, middle and high schools; however, with the new high school to be constructed under the recently passed bond referendum, he felt the issue of schools had been addressed. He inquired as to the proffered transportation network and whether or not it would be adequate. Mr. McCracken stated the recommended Thoroughfare Plan for this area included the construction of two new collector type roadways - one connecting Woodpecker Road aligning with Cattail Road then generally extending northwestwardly to Nash Road, and another connecting Nash Road and running basically east/west with individual lot frontage along these collector roads being minimized, He stated the developer has proffered to construct these roads within the project and staff had conducted the usual analyses with respect to improvements on Woodpecker Road and Nash Read. Re stated the applicant has agreed to provide right-of-ways to straighten the roads, shoulders, turn-lanes, etc., normally requested of developers. He stated he felt the impact of the proposed development would be felt north of the project on the northern section of Nash Road toward Beach Road which improvements will be dealt with either through the Six Year Plan which is very unlikely or thronqh the development of the property to the north when it comes on board. Mr. Applegate asked the applicant to explain the proffered condition relative to the school site. Mr. Rudy advised that the applicant is going to dedicate 54.3 acres; if that site isn't used by the School Board, the applicant will buy that property back. In addition, he stated, another 25 acres will be reserved to be purchased if additional acreage is needed. Mr. Appleqate stated his concern was that he currently has a situation in Clover Hill District where the dedicated site ended up being in a flood plain. Mr. Rudy asked that the request not be remanded to the Planning Commission and asked for approval today but if not, to defer the request so the applicant could address the Board's concerns. 89-148 Mr. Appleqate stated he did not agree that =he request should be remanded to the Planning Conlmission an he felts, when they reviewed the request, they addressed the entire package se he would not support remanding it to the Planning Commission. Mr. Rudy suggested that the proffers submitt%d today improved the request beyond what the Planning Commission approved and makes the County's position s£~onger with these proffers. He noted that the mep~i¢ tank/ground water issue did net become ~n isse~ until after the Planning Commission bad heard the case, and therefore, he felt they had been able to review all other a~pects of the r~q~est fully. Mr. Mayas expressed his appreciation to MS. Beverly Talbott for collecting 130-150 names on the petitionn pertaining to this case; thanked Mr. Bill ~astlngs for his presentation; an~ Mr. Beadlem for his oommant~; he also thanked Mr. Rudy as he felt he had presented a mamterful easm and had ~ri~4 to ~oush all the bases. He stated the one problem he had had from th~ ~tart was for some consideration fo= the p~rsons with wells that may become contan~inated. Ee stated he has listened tO information regarding cOSts, listened to a li~any of experts on how acknowledged that a septls tank can fail and if it can fait, it can pollute the g~oUndWater. He stated, with r~spect to the previous case, the ap~lisan~ stated be was going to install public water to his property and, therefore, the people On walls would have aa option. ~r. G~erga Emerson advised that public water would be brought into the area with this project. ~r. Mayas expressed concern for other p~opl~ in the basin that sup=ets of the Charlcttes¥ille retreat should be incorporated into County policy and i~to this request. 5e stated he felt th~ applicant needed additional time to come hack with a plan to put in sewer because it may he elmoet ss cost effective as all of th~ enhancements for the septic ~ystem~ and agreed with ~r. Sullivan that tbs Board should remand the ease to the 91arming Commission. A brief dlsc~ssion followed as to th~ advantages and/or disadvantages of remanding the request to the Planning After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. MayaS, seconded by Mr. Sullivan~ resolved to remand Case 88SN0148, Nash Road/Woodpecker Road Trust, ~o the Planning Commission for futher review/evaluation. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. ~ays: Mr. Appl~gate. Absent= Mr. Cnrrin. Mr. Rudy questioned how long it wouldtake. Mr. Daniel stated he weuI~ ~iseuss it with his Planning Co~m~issioner to se~ if the case could be expedit=d. Mr. Currin returned to the me,ting. 89SN0128 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, C~STERFIR~ C0~%CE CENTER LIMITED requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development {case 85s017). to permit industrial and co~er~ial uses. and to reduce required setbacks for buildings along Branchway Road. A mixed use office~ commercial, and industrial development is planned. This request lies in a Ligh~ Industrial (M-l} District on a 1.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 290 feet on the ~ast line of Hranchway Read, approximately 1,050 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 17-9 (1) Parcel I1 (Sheet 8). Mr. Poole presented a brief overview of Case 89S0128 and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to certain conditions and acceptance of proffered conditions. Mr. Edward Willey, Jr., representing the applicant, stated the current application is requesting amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case $5S017) relative to uses and setbacks, specifically, the elimination of the requirement that uses fronting ~ranchway Road be restricted to offices and to allow commercial uses along Branchway Road, elimination of the 200 foot setback requirement from Branchway Road for commercial uses and elimination of the requirement that buildings be set back a minimum of seventy (70) feet from Branehway Road. He stated the applicant and the adjacent property owners are in litigation relative to properties in this area that are not related to this particular request. When asked, Mr. Willey stated the road would be maintained according to a. joint agreement with each indivdual's proportionate share of the cost being determined by the eize of their lot. Ms. Gail Miller, representing adjacent property owners, stated there is opposition from those property owners along International Drive (i.e., the private drive located along the northern boundary of the request cite) as they felt the requested use exceptione would generate a greater volume of traffic along International Drive than they anticipated at the time they purchased their lot~ and that they should not have to share in the increased costs for maintaining the road. requested that the Board either reject the proposal until such time as a proffer is made by the developer which will satisfy the existing owners and their concerns regarding an undue burden of road maintenance or defer action on the request until euch t/me a~ the Transportation Department and the Planning staff can analyze the impact of the burden on International Drive rather than just Branehway Road. Mr. Micas stated the maintenanee agreement is a private matter between the involved partie~ and the issue before the Board for consideration is a land use decision on this request. Mr. Applegate r~fer~nced a letter from Mr. Meachem indicating concerns that usage of the private road would escalate resulting in damage to the accees road that would ultimately result in increase maintenance costs to them. He stated it seemed to him that the higher intense use should be along Branehway Road and that the Planning Commission addressed the issue by impoeinq a condition relative to notification by the developer/owner of all property owners located along International Drive of the time and date of any schematic plan review in addition to the proffer regarding the posting of a "no outlet" sign in the vicinity of the intersection of Branchway Road and International Drive. Mr. Sullivan stated he felt it was inappropriate to modify an agreement to the detriment of someone else without their consent or to modify the original conditions of zoning and did not feel this matter should be resolved by the Board. Mr. Currin inquired as to how the agreement on International Drive was derived. Mr. Willey stated the agreement between the owners was that the parcels toward the road frontage would grant Mr. Meacham an easement to cross their land; the developer built the road to private road standards and agreed to maintain it for an 18-month period; and, under the restrictive covenants, the maintenance cost would be propor- tioned according to the number of acres owned. 89~150 Mr, ~ayes questioned if the covenant is entOrceable. Mr. Micas ~tated th~ opposition ia saying that if the zoning ia granted it will change or rearrange the relationships they thought they had in thsir restrictive covenant~ a~d they object to that. On motion cf Mr. Applagate, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved Case 89SN0128, ~ubj~c% to the following conditions~ a. Ail B~it B-2, and M-t uses b. The following uses from the ~-3 District: 1. Cocktail lounges, dining halls, night clubs 2. Contractor's Shop an~ storage yard 3. Exposition b~itding or center, stadi~ms~, arena 4. Feed, seed, fuel, and ice sales 5. Public utility service buildings, including faoili=ies for construution or repair or for the ~quipment 6. Recreational e~tablishments, indoor 7, Utility =railer and truck zental cliaics 9. F~eight forwarding, packing 9nd crating services 10. Wholesale trads 11. Wholesale greenhouses. (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 11 of Ca~e 2. The owner/developer ~hall notify all propsrty owners located along TDt~rnational Drive (i.e., the private drive which fO~lS the northern boundary cf the ~ubject ~iee and ~he northern boundary of the adjacent M-1 property to the ~ast) of =he time and date of any schematic plan review. furthsr, ~he Board accepted the follew~nq .proffered And condition: The developer shall post a "no outlet~' sign in vicinity of th~ intersection cf Branehway Road International Drive (i.e., the private drive located along the nor~bern property boundary). (C~C) the and (NOTES: (a) With the approval of thi~ ~quest, Condition 7 of Cas~ 85S017 is deleted. (b) Excep~ as noted her~in, all pr~vion~ly imposed cuadi=ions of Case 85S0t7, e~ modified by Case 85S167, remain in ~ff~ct. (c) Prior %o Obtaining a building p~rmit or final site D/an approval for any use, schematic plans must he submitted for approval. (d) At :he time of schematic plan review, the Commission may impo~e additional conditions to en~ure land use compatibility and transition.) Ayes: Mr. Applsgate, ~r. Coffin, Mr. Daniel and ~r. Mayas. Nays= ~r. sullivan. Due to a previous commie-meat, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Ramsay 89-151 88SN0244 In Bermuda Magisterial District, R~CHA~D ~. ~LL]~N requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Business (B-3). An office/warehouse facility is planned. This request lies on a 2.0 acre parcel f~onting approximately 245 feet on the south line o~ Iron Bridge Road, approximately 1,760 feet east of Branders Bridge Road. Tax Map 115-9 (1) Parcel 20 (Sheet 32). Mr. Peele presented a brief overview of Case 88SN0244 and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to a single condition and acceptance of proffered conditions. Mr. Richard Allen stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. He ~tated he met with area residents and felt a mutual agreement had been reached relative to their concernS. Mr. Franks Willis, representing area residents, stated that given the applicant's proffered condition~, the proposed development would be acceptable. There was nO opposition present. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board would approve Case 88SN0244, subject to the following condition: A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the southern property boundary and western property boundary where adjacent to Agricultural (A) zoning. Where possible, existing vegetation within the buffer shall be retained and supplemented with landscaping, so as to provide year-round screening of the view of buildings and parking areas from adjacent property to the south and west. This buffer shall be provided with a readily available source of water for irrigation purposes. Other than the existing dwelling, landscaping, fencing, irriga- tion, public roads and driveways, as approved by the Planning and Transportation Departments, and utilities that run generally perpendicular through this buffer, there shall be no facilities located in the buffer. At the time of site plan review, a conceptual landscaping plan shall be submitted for approval. A detailed land- scaping 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 location of existing vegetation to be retained, the location of proposed vegetation and fences, and sections through the buffer that depict how screening of uses from adjacent properties will be accomplished. These buffers may be modified at such time that adjacent property is zoned and/or developed for a similar use. And further, the Board accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. The u~es shall be limited to: - Office/warehouses plus a maximum of twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of any individual use may be used for display of goods and articles for sale in conjunction with office/warehouse use. Professional offices (including medical and dental). Messenger or telegraph service. Medical laboratories. Medical clinics. Optometrists sales and service. Photography studio. The architectural style, ~cale, quality, and exterior treatment of buildings shall be similar to office/ware- house development on property located along Huguenot Road, 89-152 beiag ~ax Map 8-16 Il) ~aree~ 12, and better known Lee-Huguenot Offiee/War~house. 3. There ahaI1 be no outside storage. 4. Hours of operation shall be limited to betw~sn 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 5. A six foot (6') high screening fence ~hall be installed aloug tho eastern, western, smd southern sides of the development. The fence shall not be required at ~ueh time that adjacent properties are zoned and/or ~oveloped for a similar use. 6. Landscaped areas shall be irrigated. Mr. Sullivan questioned the intended use of private septic tank an~ dralnflel~ systems with certain specific uses (i.e., ~e~ical laboratories and/Or photography studio) indlcat~d in the Request Analysis as being in conflict with the information disseminated at the Charlot%~ill~ meeting as not b~inq recommended for approval. When asked, Kr. Allen stated public sewer is not available at this time, however, he had obtained a permit from th~ Department fur uae c~ a septic system. Mr. Daniel stated he had interpreted the request to indicate public sawer was available and, based on the information disseminated at Charlottesville, he withdr~w his second to the motion. Mr. Allen stated h~ wa~ willing to withdraw the two a~es (i.e., ~edioa~ laboratories and/or photography studio} to ~hich Sullivan expressed concerns. Mr. ~oois expressed concern that the pro/fared uses could not be modified a% this time and suggested the ~ost appropriate solution would be to defer ~he request to permit =he applicant to modify hie proffered conditions. proffered condition at this time. Mr. Daniel requested legislation be introduced as part cf the legislative packet for the 1990 session tha~ 9roffer~d conditions may be modified during ~e zoning meeting provided the applicant is in agreement with 9-he modification. Nr. Myers stated the Board could close the public hearing at this time and defer the request until ~arch 8, 19S9 to allow the applicant to amend kis proffered conditions. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, th~ Board deferred Case 88SN0244 until March 8, 19S9, Mr. Mayas ~UeStioned if the surrounding adjacent propertie~ ware served by wells or public water. Mr. Allen stated properties were served by public water wioh the exception of one parcel. Ayes~ Mr. Gurrin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Apptegate. 895~0100 In Midlothian Magisterial District~ WIlLIaM C. AND NANCY C. ~u~MISTEAD requested Conditional Use to permit a two-family dwelling in a Residential {R-40) District. This request lie~ on a 0~65 acre parcel fronting approximately IPQ feet on the east line of Earlswood Road, approximately 295 Easthampton Drive. Tax Map 8-2 (~) River Oaks, Section B, Block D~ Lot 9 (Sheet 89-153 Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0100 and acceptance of the proffered conditions. Mr. Sch~elz stated th~ second water service connection and mete~ requirement is a requirement of the Utility Ordinance; however, he stated, under certain conditions, the requirement for a second meter may be e×emp%ed where conditions are such that it is unreasonable to do so. 5e further stated that, based upon the conditions being imposed on the use and the fact that it will be restricted to use by immediate family members, etc., he would be agreeable to exemption of the second water service connection and meter requirement at this time. Mr. Sullivan stated that, due to the lengthy discussion of a previous zoning case, those individuals who were present regarding this case had to leave and requested approval in the applicants' absenCe. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved Cage SSSN0100 and accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. Occupancy of the second dwelling unit shall be limited to guests or family members of the property owner. At no time shall the second dwelling unit be rented or sold as a separate use, unless and until the lot is rezoned to permit such renting or sale. 2. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction indicating the requirement in Condition 1. 3. Public water shall be used. 4. The property owner shall not request a separate address for the proposed second dwelling unit; the existing prop- erty owner's address and mailbox shall be utilized, 5. The property owner shall not request a separate driveway connection for the proposed second dwelling unit. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. 89SN0113 In Bermuda Magisterial District, BRIAN ~4UF~HY requested amendment to proffered conditions of a previous rezoning (Case 87S136) relative to exterior finish of homes. This request lies in a Residential (R-9) District on a 14.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 325 feet on the east line of Chester Road, approximately 2,000 feet north of Wood Dale Road. Tax Map 97-10 (1) Parcel 5 (Sheet 32). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0113 and aooeptanoe of an amended proffered condition. Mr. Brian Murphy stated the reeonn~endation was acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved Case 89SN0113 and accepted the following amended proffered condition: 3. The following shall be incorporated into the Declaration of Restrictions and recorded with the subdivision plat: M. Restrictive Covenants requiring' exterior finish materials to be one of the following:' 89-154 {NOTE: Beaded hardboard siding Woodsman siding Weed siding Briok venee~ Aluminum siding Vinyl siding.' This proffer i~ an addition to Proffered Condlti~n 3 (M) of Case'875136.) Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayem and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. adjourned at 7:~0 p.m. (EST} until ~:00 p.m. (~T} on ~arch 8, 1989. Ayes* Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, M~. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. kpplegat~. 89-155 G. Chairman