Loading...
03-08-1989 MinutesBOARD OF B~PERVISO~S MIN~TE-~ MARCB 8, 1989 Mr. G. H. Applegate, Chairman Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr., Vice Chairman Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. Jesse J. Mayes Mr. M. B. S~llivan Mr. Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator Mr. Apptegate called the meeting to order at 2~05 p.m. (EST) the Administration Building Conference Room (Room 502). Staff in Attendance: Mr. Ed Beck, Asst. Dir. of Utilities M~. Amy Davis, Bxec. A~st. to Co. A~in. Mrs, Doris DeBart, Asst. Co. Ac%min., Legis. Svcs. and Intergovern. Affairs MS. Joan Dolezal, Clerk to the Board Chief Robert Eanes, Fire Department Mr. Bradford S. ~ammer, Deputy Co. Ad, in., Management Services Mr. William H. Howell, Dir., Gen. Services Mr. Thomas E. Jacobsen, Dir. o£ Planning Dr. Burr Lowe, Dir., Mental Health/Retard. Ms. Mary Leu Lyle, Dir. of Accounting Mr. Robert Masd~n, Deputy Co. Admin., Human Services Mr. R. J. McCracken, Transp. Director Mr. Richard Mc~lfish, Dir. of =nv. Eng. Mr. SteVe Micas, CO. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of News/Info. Services Sheriff J.W. Mutispaugh, Sheriff's Department Mr. Richard Sale, Deputy Co. Admin., Development Mr, Jay Stegmaier, Dir. of Budget Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Dir. of Parks & Rec. Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities Mr. Frederick Willis, Dir. of Human Resource Management in 16. ACCEPTANCE OF BID ON GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS On motion of Mr. C~rrin, ~econded by Mr. Daniel, the Board suspended the rules to add Item 16 to the agenda regarding adoption of a resolution accepting the low bid of Banker~ Trnst Securities for the purchase of $23,900,000 in General Obligation Bonds. 89-156 Mr. Daniel di$closedto the Board tkat hs has investments with Banker~ Trust S~curi%ies; howev~r~ the amount is not etantial enough to re~ult in a conflict of interest relative to this particular mat%er and therefore he dj6 not feel a conflict exieted. On motion of the Board, the following resolution wac adopted~ A R~SOL~TION ACCEPTING A P~O~)SAL FOR TN~ ~UR(~ASE OF ~INIA; ~P~ING T~ DETAILS OF ~UC~ BO~S ~ DI~B~TION ~O~; ~TIFYING ~N A~TS ~ P~- SU~ ~O~S OF CH~ST~IELD, SECTION 1. ~ind~nq~ and Dete~inations. Pursuant to a re~olueion a~opted by ~i~ Board on December ]4, 1988, entitled "A ~SOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND PKOVIDING FOR THE ISSU~CE, 8ALE AND DELIVERY 0F T~NTY-TH~E MILLION NI~ M~D THOUSAND DOLORS ($23,900,000) PRINCIPAL ~0U~T 0F ~USLIC IMPRO~ENT BONDS QF THE COUNTY OF CHESTE~IELD, VIRGINIA, AND PROVIDING WITH ~S~ECT TO T~E ISSUANCE A~D SALE 0F A LIRE PRINCIPAL ~O~T OF PUBLIC IMPROVE~EN~ BUND ~TICIPATION ~OTES ANTICIPATIO~ OF T~E i$SUANCE A~D SAL~ OF SUCH ~ONDS" [the ~'Authorizing Re~olution"), a S~ary Notice of ~ale {the "s~ary Notice of Sale") of Twenty-Thr~e Million Nine Thousand Dollars ($23,9~0,00b) principal ~OUm~ of Public Improvement Bonds, Serie~ of 1989A (the "~onds")~ was duly published on February 22, 19~9, in The Bond Bnyer, a financial journal published ~n the City of New York, New York, and a Detailed Notice of Sale of the Bonds, da~ed February 22, 1989, {the ~'Detail~d ~otlc~ cf Sale"), was prepared and distributed to prospective purchasers of the Bonds. would be received by or on behalf of the County, a~ Ch~s~erfi~!4 County Administration Building, 9981 Loci Road, Room 504, Chesterfield, Virginia, 23~32~ Ustll I1:00 A.M., Virginia Time, on W~nes~ay, March 8, 1989, a% which time and place all proposals would b~ publicly opened. proposals for the purcha~ of the Bond~ w~re ~eceived, each accompanied by a certified or bank treasurer's or cashier*s good faith check payable to the order of ~s County of Chesterfield, Virginia, in the ~oun= of $239,000. The of th~ bidders s~mittin~ eaoh such proposal, th~ price for tbs Bond~ specified in each suoh proposal and the "True" or "Canadian" interest co~ %o the County resulting from each such proposal are a~ follows: Na~e of Bidder Citicorp Securities First Chicago Northern Truut Chemical Securities Prudential Bache' ~err~i1 Lynch Effective Pu~chas~ Price inter,et $23,900,071.70 7.1413 ~3,900,000.00 7.2127 23,900,442.15 7.2183 23~900,227.00 7.2361 23,900,179.25 7.2389 23~981,171.10 7.2574 23,908,143.40 7.3113 89-157 After due consideration of all such proposals, this Board finds that (a) BT Securities (the "Purchaser") is a responsible bidder, (b) of the proposals received, the proposal of the Purchaser (the "Proposal") is the proposal to purchase the Sends at the lowest "True" or "Canadian" interest cost to the County, determined by doubling the semiannual interest rate (compounded semiannually) necessary to discount the principal and interest payments, excluding interest accrued to the delivery date, on the Bonds from the dates of payment thereof to the date of the Bonds and to ~he price bid, and (c) the Proposal is the bes~ proposal received, is in accordance with the provisions of the Detailed Notice of Sale, and should be accepted. SECTION 2. Acceptance of Proposal. The Proposal, being a proposal to purchase the Bonds at the price of Twenty-{hree million nine hundred thousand seventy-one dollars and seventy cents ($23,900,071.70), plus accrued interest from the date of the Bonds to the date of delivery thereof to and payment therefor by the Purchaser, with the Bonds to bear interest at the rates per annum specified in Section 4 hereof, is hereby accepted and the Bonds are hereby awarded to the Purchaser. SECTION 3. Good Faith Checks. ~he good faith checks of the unsuccessful bidders shall be returned forthwith. The good faith check of the Purchaser will be deposited by the County and the proceeds thereof credited against the purchase price due for the Bonds upon their delivery or retained as and for liquidated damages in the case the Purchaser fails to accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds in accordance with the Proposal. SECTION 4. Approval of the Details of the Bonds. The details of the Bonds set forth in the Detailed Notice of Sale are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. In accordance with the provisions of the Authorizing Resolution, the Detailed Notice of Sale and the Proposal, the Bonds shall be designated and known as "Public Improvement Bonds, Series of 1989A". The Bonds shall be dated March 1, 1989; shall be numbered from No. R-1 upwards in order of issuance; shall be issued in fully registered form in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof; and shall mature serially on March 1 in each of the years and in the amounts set forth below, with the Bonds maturing in each of the years specified below bearing interest payable on September 1, 19~9 and semiannually on each March 1 and September 1 thereafter at the rate per annu/a set forth opposite such year, as follows: Principal Interest Principal Interest Year Amount Rate Year Amount Rate 1990 $1,195,000 7.10% 2000 $1,195,000 7.10% 1991 1,195,000 7.10 2001 1,195,000 7.10 1992 1,195,000 7.10 2002 1,195,000 7.10 1993 1,195,000 7.10 2003 1,195,000 7.10 1994 1,195,000 7,10 2004 1,195,000 7.125 1995 1,195,000 7.10 2085 1,195,000 7.125 1996 1,195,000 7.10 2996 1,195,000 7.20 1997 1,195t000 7.10 2007 1,195,000 7.20 1998 1,195,000 7.10 2008 1,195,000 7.25 1999 1,195,000 7.10 2009 1~195,000 7.25 The Bonds shall he issued only in fully registered form without coupons. One Bond representing each maturity will be issued to and registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"), as registered owner of the Bonds and each such Bond shall be immobilized in the custody of DTC. DTC will act as securities depository for the Bonds. Individual purchases will be made in book-entry form only, in the principal amount of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof. Purchasers will not receive 89-158 phyeical delivery Of certificates ~¢presenting their interest in the Bond~ purchased. Principal, premium, if any, and interest payments on the Bonds will be made by the County by wire transfer to DTC or its nominee, Cede & Co., as registered owner of the Bends, which will in turn remit such payment~ to the DTC pa=ticipants for subsequen= disbursal to the beneficial owners of the Bonds. Transfer ef principal, premium, if any, ~nd interest palnnents to bTU participants will be the reBpnnsibilfty of DTC. Transfers of such payments to beneficial owners of the Bonds by DTC ~articipants will be the responsibility of sash ~a~ticipant~ and other nominees ei such beneficial owners. Transfers of ownership interests in the Bonds will be accomplished by book entries made by DTC and, i~ turn, by the DTC partisipants who act on behalf of the indirect participants of DTC and the beneficial owners of the Bonds. Th~ COUnty will not be rsspon$ible or liable for ~nding transaction statements or for maintaining, s~pervising er reviewing records maintained by D~C, its participants er persons acting through such participants or for transmitting payments to, communicating wit~, notifying, or otherwise dealing with any beneficial owner of the Bonds. So long as the Bonds ar~ iu beck-entry only form, the county Treasurer will serve as Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds. Th~ County reserves the right ~o designate a successor Registrar and Paying Agent £er the Bond~ if the Bonds at any time c~a~e to be in book-entry 0nly form. The ~ends maturing on and before March 1, 1999 shall not be sub,eot to redemption prior to their state~ maturities. The ~onds maturing an and after March 1, 2000 (or portions thereof in installments of $5,000) ~hall be subject %o redemption a~ the option of the County prier to their stated maturities on or after March 1, 1999, in whole at any time or in part on any interest payment date, in such order as may be determined by the County (except that if at any time less:than ell of the Bonds of a given maturity are called for redemption, the particular Bond or portions thereof ~hall be selected by let), upon payment of the following redemption priee~ leXpressed as a p~rcentag~ of principal amount of BOn~$ to be redeemed), together with the interest accrued on the principal amoun% ~o be redeemed to ~he date fixe~ fe~ the redemption thereof: Redemption Dates Redemption ~ri~es Mar~h 1, I999 to February 29, 2000 102% March 1, 200~ to February 28, 2001 i~1 ~arch 1, 2001 and tSereafter la0 If any Bond (er any portion of the principal ~moun~ thereof in installments sf $5,000) shall be called for redemption, notice of the redemption thereof, specifying the date, number and maturity of ~uch Bond, the date and pla~e or places fixed for its redemption, the premium, if any, payable ~pen such redemption, and if lees ~han the entire principal amount of s~ch Bon~ is to be redeemed, that ~u~h Bond must be surrendered in exchange for the principal ~ount thereof to be redeemed an~ a new Bond or Bonds issued equalling in principal amount that portion of the principal amount thereof not to be redeemed, shall be mailed net less than %hirt~ (30) days prier to the date fixed for redemption by first class mail, postage prepaid, te the raglstered holder of such ~end at his address as it appears on the becks of registry kept by ~he Registrar for the Bonds as of the slese of buoiness on the forty-fifth (45th) day preceding the da~e fixed for redemption. If ~otice ef the redemption of any Bond shall hav~ been given am aforesaid~ and payment e~ the principal amount of such Bond (or the portion of the principal amount thereof to be redeemed) and of the accrued interest and premium, if any, payable upon such redemption shall have been duly made er provided for, imterest 89-159 on such Bond shall cease to accrue from and after the date so specified for redemption thereof. So long as the Bonds are in book-entry only form, any notice of redemption will be given only to ~TC or its nominee. The County shall not he responsible for providing any beneficial owner of the Bonds with notice of redemption. SECTION 5. Execution and Delivery of the Bonds. The Chairman and Clerk of this Board, the County Administrator, the County Treasurer and other appropriate officers, employees and agents of the County are authorized and directed to take all such action and to execute such instruments as shall be deemed by them to be necessary or appropriate to effect the printing, execution and issuance of the Bonds and the delivery of the Bonds to the Purchaser in accordance with the terms of the Proposal, the Detailed Notice of Sale, and this resolution, upon receipt of the purchase price therefor as set forth in Section 2 hereof, and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of such sale. SECTION 6. Preliminary Official Statement; official Statement; Certification Concernin~ Official Statement. The Chairman of this Board and the County Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the Purchaser copies of an Official Statement of the County relating to Bonds, in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement of the County relating to the sends, dated February 22, 1989 (the "Preliminary Official Statement"l, after the same has been completed by the insertion of the interest rates to be borne by the Bonds and by making such other insertions, changes or corrections as the County Administrator, based on the advice of the County's financial advisors and legal counsel, deems necessary or appropriate; and this Board hereby authorizes ~uch Official Statement and the information contained therein to be used by the Purchaser in connection with the sale of the Bonds. The County Administrator and the Director of Accounting are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the County and deliver to the Purchaser the certificate referred to in the Official Statement under the caption "Certificate Concerning Official Statement". SECTION 7. Ratification. The action of the County Administrator in causing the Summary Notice of Sale to be published as described in Section 1 hereof, and in causing the Detailed Notice of Sale, a Proposal for Purchase of Twenty-Three Million Nine Mundred Thousand Dollars ($23,900,000) General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series of 1989A, and the Preliminary Official Statement to be distributed, and the form and contents of the Summary Notice of Sale, the Detailed Notic~ of Sale such Proposal and the Preliminary Official Statement, and all actfon~ and proceedings heretofore taken by this Board, th~ County Administrator and the other officers, employees, agents and attorneys of the County in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds, are hereby ratified and confirmed. SECTIO~ 8. Filing of This Resolution. The County Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of his resolution, certified by the Clerk of this Board to be a true and correct copy hereof, with the Circuit Court of the County of Chesterfield. SECTION 9. Invalidity of Sections, Paragraphs~ Clauses or Provisions. If any section, paragraph, clause or provisisn of this resolution shall be held invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability oi such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 10. Headings of Sections. The headings of the sections of this resolution shall be solely for convenience of reference and shall not aifect the meaning, construction, 89-160 interpretation or effect of such section~ or Of this S~GTIO~ 11. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous Nr. Applegate expressed appreciation to all these involved in the successful achievement of this endeavor. 1.B. F~90 BUDGET meet with the Board of Supervisors to discuss the revised system and address critical needs. Dr. Davis presented an overview of th~ Capital %mprovements Program which included information relative to growth in the school system, enrollment projections! school prioritiem, needed sshool ~aeilities, tentative ~chedulem, energy conservation and air conditioning, purchase of.future school sites, etc. Mr. Ralph Westbay, Director cf Finance, presented an Overview of staff's proposal for the operating ~udget for F~90, high~ lighting estimated revenues and expendi%n~e~ for addressing i~sue~ of increased teacher salaries, increased salaries for State funding target, student growbh projections, maintaining It was generally noted that anticip~tod r~venue projected by for identified After further di$¢u$$1on, the ~oard toques=ed Chat info,marion be provided regarding a list to indicate hew the School Adminintratlon would ~educe its budget by $2.6 million even though it may receive $1.9 million from the State~ information On ~he expense of the ~amily Life E~aeatien Program ~or 1989 ae compared to 1188: what is beinq done through th~ budge% process to focus on accompliski~g total randomization of school test secret to average levele in all schools; that School Administration members ha present at the Board's work sea,ion q~estions the ~oard may have as several me~er~ of the Board had not had an opportunity to r~view all of the School material; that th~ public bm provided in~o~ation and made mor= aware of the F~deral $~ State mandates confron=ing the C0~n~y funded at the Federal and State l~v~l$; info,marion ~rtinent to how other less funded school systems are dealing with m~m types o~ problems as tho~ coafronting th~ school system; and ingormation relative to the long-term acquisition of a high EChoO1 site. There was further dimcummion ~$ ~o when the School ~o~rd ~would E9-161 1.A. COUNTY PRIORITYLIST WOK HIGHWAY PROJECTS Mr. McCracken presented a summary of the recommended priority list for highway projects for the County. Discussion, questions and comments ensued relative to amendment of the listing to move forward sight and sound barriers along the Powhite Parkway as a commitment had been made to protect area residents from noise pollution in that area, proffered legislation assisting with right-of-way acquisition, funding, distribution of funds, etc. It was generally agreed that the priority list would be rewritten to incorporate the suggested amendment and brought back to t_he Board for action during the evening session of the meeting. 1. WOrK SESSIONS (continued} Compensation Recommendations It was generally agreed discussion of Compensation Recommenda- tions and the Constitutional Officers' Budget would he scheduled for dlscussloa at the Board's next work session. Budget and Tax Rate Public ~earin~ Schedule It was generally agreed the Budget and Tax Rate Public Hearing Schedule would be discussed during the regular session of the meeting later in the evening'as scheduled on the agenda. Utility Budget and CIP Mr. Sale introduced Mr. Ed Deck, Assistant Director of Utilities, and Mr. John Bragg, Assistant Director of Finance and Administration, who presented summarizations of the proposed Utilities Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which contained changes from the previous CIP; the new water projects which included i~provements associated with highway projects: new sower projects which included the Middle Swift Cre~k Trunk System, Falling Creek Treatment Plant Upgrade and the Upper Swift Creek Collection System; and others. DisCUSSiOn, questions and comments ensued relative to increased usage, changes in usage patterns, State mandates, new customer service areas, project listings, equitability of the Water Control Board Wastewater allocation process, wastewater contracts with other jurisdictions, proposed expenditures, projected cost savings, maintenance of existing system, etc. 2. EXecuTIVE SESSION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board went into Executive Session for 1. Consultation with Legal Counsel Regarding Litigation Styled as Shouse versus Chesterfield County; 2. Discussion of the Condition, Acquisition or Use of Real Property for Public Purposes; and 3. Discussion Concerning a Prospective Dusiness Where Ne Previous Announcement has been made of the Business' Interest in Locating in the Community pursuant to Sections 2.1-344 (a)(6), (2) and {5), respectively, of the Code of virginia, 1950, as amended. 89-162 Chesterfield County Airport for a dinner meeting with the Community Services scard. Reconvening: Mr. Applegate called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. (EST). He introduced Reveren~ Malcolm Hutton who gave the invocation. Introductions were made of the members of the Community Mr. Peter Ward, Chairman of the Community Services Board, preeented a brief history of the Community Services soarS, outlining its tasks and responsibilities. Discussion ensued relative to Drograms and ~eTvic~e, policie~ and finances and id~nt±fied major issues which impact the ~r. Applegate expressed appreciation for the opportunity to meet with the Community Servlcos ~oard and staff to dieCueS proposed budget requirement~ and thanked those present for the dedicated, diligent efforee o~ all those involved in providing these services to the citizen~ cf the County. The Board recessed to travel to th~ Courthous~ for its regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Applog~te introduced Mr. ~rad Hammer, Deputy county Administrator for Management Se~vice~, who gave the invocation, .~_._ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO 'r~ Fr-AG OF a-~ UNI-r~ STATES OF AMERICA The Pledge of Allegiance tO the Flag of the United S~ates of America was recited. Mr. Ramsey announced that, for the fifth consecutive yea~, Chesterfield County bas received the ~ov~rnm~nt Finance Officers A~sociation Award for Distinguished Budget 89-I63 Mr. Ramsey introduced Mr. Paul Cox, Chairman of the Chesterfield County Committee on the Future, who presented a brief summary of the eorm~ittee's On-gOing activities, its future goals and objsctives, levels of Service, projected budget funding needs, etc. Mr. Daniel requested that committee members be provided with copie~ of "The Future of the Capital Area", which he felt may be beneficial and serve as a foundation On which the committee could base its action plan and stated he was very please with the progress being achieved. Mr. Daniel and Rayes stated they were very pleased with the progress thus far and. Mr. Sullivan expressed appreciation to the Committee for the invaluable service it is providing the County and stated he anticipated supporting adequate funding to achieve its purpose. Mr. Currin stated he had spoken to hi.s two members and felt they feel as though it has been very informative, they have indicated much interest and like Mr. Sullivan he expressed appreciation to Mr. Cox for a job well done. Mr. Ramsey stated he wished to commend the Committee as he had seen first hand the long hours spent and the enthusiasm and dedication displayed. Mr. Ramsey stated he wished to take the opportunity, on behalf of the Administration, to commend the Board of Supervisors for their foresight, planning and commitment to the strong financial management of Chesterfield County which he felt was acknowledged in the upgrade to a triple-A (b-AA) bond rating from Moody's Investment Service. Mr. Applegate expressed appreciation to the Administration ior their dedicated, diligent efforts in the endeavor to achieve such a rating which he felt contributed to the culmination of the successful conclusion of the $23.9 million bond sale. Mr. Ramsey stated the County's finanoial consultants indicated the successful sale of the bond~ with a true interest co~t of 7.14% interest rate reflected the triple-A (AAA) bond rating and a savings of approximately $180,000. 8. HOA~DCO~4ITTEE REPORTS There were no Board Committee Reports at this time. 9. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION, EMERG~NC~ ADDITIONS OR CHANGES IN 'r~ORDER OF PRESENTATION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayea, the Board added Item 14.D.3., Request to Aid Developers in Acquiring a Waterline Basement Along Bermuda Orchard Lane; added Item 14.F.l., Set a Public Hearing to Amend Section 12-128 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as Amended, Relating to BuSiness License T~xes for Wholesale Merchants; Item 14.E.2., Authorization to Advertise a Public Hearing on Issuance of $408,836 in Virginia Public School Authority Bonds for the Governor's Bducational Technology Initiative Program; and a revised listing of participants was distributed to the Board regarding Item 10.A., Introduction of the Winners of the 1989 Utilities Department Poster Contest; and adopted the agenda, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 10. ~SOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL ~ECOGNITIONS 10.A. INTRODUCTION OF T~B WINNBR$ OF TK~ 1989 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT POSTER CONTEST Mr. David Welchons, Director of Utilities, stated the Utilities Department poster contest is a major educational and public relations event sponsored by the Department each year in an effort to aid students and their parents in realizing what is involved in producing clean water. He stated forty-three (43) 89-164 posters were ~ubnitted from Six of the County's middl~ schools utilizi~ '{he ~eme "Clean Drinking Water - What Would We DO Without It?" and presentER the following winners and henerabls men=lone: Student winners Michael Raybould Shana Hawkins Fanya Eng~er UnaiYun Leslie Skiba Diskriet/School ~idlothian/Midlothi~n Ratoaoa/Carvsr Clover Hill/Swift CrEek Clover ~ill/$wif~ creek Clover alii/swift Creek clover Hill/swift Creek ~atoaca/Carvsr TeachEr Mrs. Lamson The ~oard congratulated %he s%udsnt~ end Mrs. Valantin Mrs. Valentin Mrs. Valentin Mrs. Valentin recognized teachers On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopte~: W~EREAS, On March 18,' 19~9, the University of Richmond inaugurates its a~venth President in a ceremony befitting premiere institution of higher education; and W~EREAS, The University, since its founding in 1~30, has served ~he Region, State and Nation through oututanding instruction, research and public ~ervice; and W~AD, The Unlver~ity, throughou: i~s history, kas a significant m~et to the local co~nities in the central region of the State~ and W~AS, The University, through =he inslghtf~l leadership of it~ Board of Trustees and the dyn~ic President~ of past, ha~ achieved a position of nm=ional pro~i~ence in the higher education co.unity. NOW, THE~FOR~ BE IT ~SOLVED, that the ~oard of Supervisors of Ch~$terfield county co--ends the Board Trustees on their selection of Dr. Richard ~orrill a~ sevmn~h President of the univer¢ity o~ Richmond. ~b, ~E IT FU~T~=~ RESOLVED, =ha= the ~oard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County wishes Dr. Richard Morrill every in his en~uavors to lead this Unlver~ity to further greatnes~ into the twenty-first century. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate stated the executed renol~tion would be ~o ur. ~orril! upon his inauguration. ~9-165 11. ~F~a~INGS OF CITIZENS ON There were no hearings of citizens on unscheduled matters or claims. 12. D~RRED ITEMS 88SN0244 In Bermuda Magisterial District, RICHARD M. ALLEN requested rezoning from Ag~ieultural (A) to General Business (B-3). An office/warehouse facility is planned. This request lies on a 2.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 245 feet on the south line of Iron Bridge Road, approximately 1,760 feet east of Branders Bridge Road. Tax Map 115-9 (1) Parcel 20 {Sheet 32). Mr. Jacobsen stated at its February 22, 1989 meeting the Board deferred Case 88SN0244 to allow the applicant the opportunity to amend Proffered Condition 1 to delete the uses deemed to be unacceptable with the use of septic tanks. Be stated the applicant has amended Proffered Condition 1 as reflected in the Request Analysis to comply with the uses that are considered acceptable with the use of septic tanks, has submitted an additional Proffered Condition 7 which requests that if public sewer were available that the original us~s be reinstated and indicated that the public hearing had been closed at the previou~ meeting. Mr. Applegate stated, although the public input was closed at the February 22 meeting, there ar~ individuals present who are interested in the case and asked that the rules be suspended to permit further Comment. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board suspended its rules to reopen the public hearing and hear public comment regarding Case 88SN0244, RICHARD ~. ~.~I4~R. Vote: Unanimous Mr. James Willis, an adjacent property owner to the subject site, stated he did not have a major objection to the proposed development if he could be assured that the use of septic systems would not contaminate area well water. There being no one else to address the matter, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Currin stated he felt the applicant had acted in good faith by withdrawing certain uses that had caused the Board concern a~ a result of their Charlottesville meeting, that sewer would most likely b~ available to the proposed site at a future date and the applicant would connect to those facilities, and that with the limited uses as proffered by the applicant he did not see that the use of septic systems would present a hazard or be detrimental to the area groundwater. When asked, Mr. Willis indicated there is approximately a one-half mile area between Carver School and Lloyd'e Small Engine Shop that is not currently served by public water. Mr. Mayes stated, although this request was not in hie District, he felt no provision had been made for test wells around the site %o determine if area wells were becoming contaminated. ~e ~tated that if, in the future, the septic system were to malfunction and resulted in contamination of the area well water, the families a£fected would seek assistance fr~m the County, not the developer, to resolve the problmm and he could not support the request as he felt it inappropriate. 89-166 Mr. Daniel noted the u~$ currently available to xr. Allen under the existing zoninq and stated he felt the warehouse use weU~d not present any greater risk uf well contamination than development of some of the uses currently permitted. On motion of Mr. Coffin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, th~ Beard approved Case 88SN0244, subject to the following condition: A fifty (50) foo~ buffer shall be maintained alcnq the southern property boundary and a thirty (30) foot buffer along the western property boundary where adjacent to Agricultural (~) zoning. Where possible, existing vegetation within the buffer shall be retained and ~upplemeDt~d with landscaping, so as to provide year-round ~ereening of ~he view of building~ and parking areas from adjacent property to the sou=h and we~t. This buffer shall be provided with a readily availabl~ source Of water for irriga- tion purposes. Other than the existing dwelling, landscaping, fencing, irrigation, pBblic roads and driveways, as-approved by the Planning and Transporta- tion Departa~ents, and utili%±e$ tha~ run generally perpendicular through thi~ buffer, Chore shall be no facilities located in th~ buffer. At the time uf site plan review, a conceptual landssaping ~lan shall b~ submitted for apprevel, k detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Plenninq Department fen review and approval within thirty (30) days of rough clearing and grading~ The detailed land~caping plan sh~ll include the general location ~f existing vegeta- tion to be retained, the location of proposed vegeta- tion and £enca~, and sections through the buffer chat depict how screening of uses from adjacent properties will bu accomplished. These buffers may be modified at such time that adjacent property i~ zoned and/or developed for a similar use. (P) further, the Soard accepted the following proffered · 1. The uses shall be limited to: Offic~fwarehouses plus a maximum of twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of any individual uss may be used for display of goods and ar=ic~ss for sale in conjunction with office/warehouse use. Professional offi=e$ (excluding medical and aental). Messenger cr telegraph service. 2. The architectural sty]e~ scale, quality, and exterior treatment of buildings shall be similar to of- f,ce/warehouse development on property located along Huguenot Road, being Tax Map S-16 (1) Parcel' 12, and 3. There shall he no outside storage~ 4. Hours of operation shall be limited to h~tween 6:00 a.m. and 10:~0 p.m. A al× foot (6') high screening fence shall be installed ~evelcpment. The fence shall not ~a required at such time that adjacent properties are zoned and/or developed for a similar use. 6. Landscaped areas shall be irrigated. 7. In addition, the following uses will be allowed when ~eWer $9-167 Ayes: Nays: Medical and dental offices. Medical laboratories, medical clinics. Optometrists sales and service. Photography studio. Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Mayas. 12.B. CLAIM OF SOUTHWOOD BUILDERS, INC. ARISING OUT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FALLING CREEK SEWERAGE PUMP STATION Mr. Micas stated a dispute has arisen between the contracted builder of the Falling Creek Sewerage Pump Station and the County relating to the construction of said pump station as the project was completed with a significant delay in the construction ~chedule and the County is withholding funds from final paymeRt due to that delay. He stated staff and the claimant concur that it would be appropriate to defer a decision on the claim to permit a more thorough review. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board deferred consideration of the claim of Southwood Builders, Inc. until April 12, 1989. Vote: Unanimous 12.C. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PLAN FOR LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER Mr. Jacobsen ~tated the Board held a public hearing on February 8, 1989 to consider a plan for land use and transportation improvements for the Chesterfield County Government Center at which concerns were expressed regarding insufficient notification to adjacent p~operty owners, civic associations, etc., and, ~ubseg~ently, the Board deferred a decision on the matter to allow time for those individuals to be notified of the public hearing. Be stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Plan subject to certain conditions. Mr. Roy Vaughan voiced objections to the proposed design for road construction near Osterbine Sane, stated several remidents on 'this road were not notified of the proposal, indicated the proposed design would destroy existing athletic fields, submitted copies of maps representing various designs, and stated the area residents would not object to the plan provided the proposed road improvements come through County property. Mr. Henry Myers voiced objections to the cul-de-sacing of 5orf Road on the proposed plan as it would adversely impact property he and his mother own along Lori Road and stated he did not see any benefit to closing the road. He stated he has worked with the County on many occasions with respect to right-of-way dedication and felt he should be given consideration regarding the impact of this proposal on his property. Mr. Earle Spencert an adjacent property owner, voiced concerns that if the proposed plan were adopted and the proposed road connection to ~oute 288 were not constructed, his property would be landlocked and gneetioned if he would be permitted access across County property from Courthouse Road Extended. Mr. Daniel stated adoption of the proposed plan deee not pre-empt Mr. Spencer, his heirs or anyone else from requesting access across County property. Mr. Daniel stated there has been much concern regarding the Courthouse Master Plan and agreed that a master plan should be adopted. 89-168 Ee stated! based OD thc available data, thmre is no guarantee the Virginia Departmsnt ox Transportation wo~ld approve build a direct access from Route 288 to Courthouse Road Extended and that matter would have to be determined on its own merits and most likely not be constructed unless there was a firm development plan which would encompass both the combined development of Mr. Spencer's and the County's tract on northw=stern portion of the plan. He ~xpras~ed concern regarding the proposed design for Lori Road, inquired as to the Virginia Department of Transportaticn'$ plans for the intersection of Lori Road et Route 10; expressed concerns regarding safety at '%h~ existing intersection of Lori Road and Route 10; and expressed con,ems flaring to future road construction near Osterbine Lane to ensure that the road be kept on County property and that existing athletic fields not be harmed. Mr. Daniel asked if the proposed plan were modified to require County property with detailed location and design details being finalized after future public hearings are h~ld, would ~hat ~atisfy Mr. Vaughau. Mr. Vauqhan ~tated %ha£ he and other residents of Osferbine Lane have agreed that if the road were oonstruceed in the existing Co~ty easement that they had no objection~ to th~ proposal b~t they did not want the existing road half paved. Mr. Currin o~pxess=d concern that if the plan were adopted how would Mr. Myers' access problem be addressed Qr if any action would come back to the Board for a d~ci~ion. Mr. Jacobsen stated that any action involving ~r. Myers~ property regarding vacation of right-of-way and/ct financing of roads would have to come before ~he Bo~rd for a final decision. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Ceftin, resolved to adopt the Courthouse Complex Plan, subject to the following 1. The County ~hell hold public hearings for road alignment changes, deletions or other improvements. The Master Plan ~hall be reviewed and updated and public Co~nt$ obtained every five (5) years. Virginia Department of Transportation as s~on as possible regarding the Route 10 widening project as it relates to the Lori Road;Deerfield Drive intersection; schedule the meetings with VDOT to obtain firm recommendations and to conduct public hearings on this matter ~s soon as possible resolYe concerns relative =o ~r. Myers~ property; that Lo~i Road ba left as currently exists and staff come back to Board with a recommendation for a major acca~ to the Courthouse Complex from Route I0 at De~rfield Drive; and that i~prove~en~s ~e 0sCerbine Lane be made within the $0' easement, all of the right-of-way acq~i~iCion and/or planning be accomplished within County property, and residents be kept abreuut of the developments of the project. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel stated he would meet with Mr. Mygr~ ~o discuss tho ]2.D. MAP~OUR EAST VILLAGE CROS~0V~R ~QUEST On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr, adopted the following resolution: 89-169 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County has received a request from citizens to have a new crossover constructed on Route 10 at the Harbour East Village entrance; and WHEREAS, a new crossover at this location is in conformance with the County's crossover plan for the area; and WHeReas, a new crossover will reduce U-turns and provide safer access for Barbour East Village and the surrounding area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to construct a neW crossover at Harbour East Village. BE IT FURTHER ~ESOLVED, that the Board concurs with the closing of the crossovers immediately east and immediately west of the Harbour East Village crossover. Vote: Unanimous When asked, Mr. McCracken indicated Mr. Johnson's property would have access to Route 10 at another new crossover. 12.E. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS On motion of ~r. ~ayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, the denied the following street light requests: 1. Intersection of Chestnut Hill Drive and West Hundred Road, Bermuda District; 2. 4605 Hero Court, cul-de-sac, Matoaca District; and 3. 4611 Helena Circle, cul-de-sac, Matoaca District. Vote: Unanimous Board 12.F. ETREET LIGHT COST APPROVAL INCREASE On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved an additional appropriation of $236.93 from the Bermuda District Street Light Fund, which is an increase from $817, co~t approved June 22, 1988, to $1,053.93 for the street light cost approval for Heatherstone Drive in the cul-de-sac, Bermuda District, which increase was due to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 affecting the tax effect recovery factor of 1.29 on payments by Virginia Power effective July 1, 1988. Vote: Unanimous 12.G. APPOINTMENTS - SOUTHSIDE REGIONAL JAIL PLANNING COMMITTEE On motion o~ Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr~ Mayes, the Board appointed Mr. Lane B. Ramsey, County Administrator, and Sheriff James W. Mutispaugh (Advisory Co~ittee Member) to serve on the Southside Regional Jail Planning Committee, whose appointments are effective immediately and shall be for the duration of the project. Vote: Unanimous 12.H. PAY FOR GROWTH COM~4ITTEE REPORT There was brief discussion as to the ramifications of actions implemented by the General Assembly having either a direct or indirect relationship to the recommendations contained in the Pay-For-Growth Committee Report, such as Transportation Districts, Conditional Zoning changes, etc., the need to defer 89-170 consideratien of this matter until such time a~ the Oovernor has ~ispenssd the applicable ~eneral Assembly items and to preside staff an opportunity to asses~ any potsntial i/epcot. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded hy ~r. Coffin, the Board deferred coAsi~eration of the Pay-For-~rowth Committee Report until June 14, 1929. Vote: Unanimous 13. PUBAIC It~,AI~NGS In Bermuda Magisterial Bistrict, ~HR CHESTERFIelD COUli~y ~ COnditional Use (Case 83S2Q3) for a landfill be reconsidered. Thi~ rmqu~k li~ in ~n Agricultural (A) District on a 7.2 acre parcel which li~m app~oxlmately 300 f~e% off the we~t line of Jefferson Davis Mighway, approximately 20~ feet ~outh o~ Old Be~a Hundred Road. Tax ~ap 133-3 {2) Mid-City Fa~s, Block A, Part of Lots 3 and 4 (Skee~ 4t}. conditional use for Case ~35203~ presented an overview of Case ~endmun% of the Conditional Use (83s203) to require of landfill ectivity, correction of the vlolations and closure of the operation subjsct to certain conditions~ ba~ed on the facts ~at the owner/operator of the landfill has failed to comply with zonin~ uondition~ and State raqulaeions, that applicable regulations, the landfill operation has continued with the manner and method of ~peration being of apparent detriment %o those residing in th~ area~ tha~ tbs conditions, if imposed, would require that the owner/operator close the landfill and correct ~ny violations which exist; and further, that the condition~ address both i~dla~e and h~alth, safety and welfare of %he public. expre~e~ conc~rn~ a~ to the adverse impact of and health hazard created by ~e existing Lawle~ landfill operation, proximity =o the landowners and its impact on their properties being dumped a~ the sit~, th~ potential for contamination of fencing to keep out children and/or psts, etc.; also submitted ~ere s~ples of ihfestatlon and a ~opographical map which revealed ~ke condition of the subject property as of 1I-4-83; the lack of a 200 foot b~ffer on the southern boundary and a ~oiced support for the Plan~in9 Coa~ission's r~=o~endation. Ms. Betty Williams, Mr. G~orge Beadles, Ms. F~Dny Stra~ey, Harold Payne, Mr. S~eve Lawless, and Mr. Rajhem Abshally, voiced opposition to the ~lanning Co~i$$ion reco~ndation diligently to clean up hi~ ~ie~; that others besite~ Lawless ar~ at ~ault in the administration of issuing him operational permits and the Conditional Use permit~ that professional staf~ needed addiaional training to monitor nuch Sites; that there is no dumping at the $i=e during the night, that children do not play On the landfill; and ~tated eher~ illegal dumping ou the site. hr. Brian Buniva, attorney for ~r. Lawless, presented a su~arization of Mr. Lawless' ~ituation; ~ta[~d his client attempting to comply with conditions of zoning and State regulations but only has enough money to hire an engineer to perform initial cost estimates and preparation of a closure plan; stated the recommended timeframes are unrealistic and insufficient for the applicant to meet; stated there is no evidence to indicate any of the materials located on the site are hazardous or present any danger to area water; reviewed the conditions as outlined in the Request Analysis; and asked that some flexibility and understanding be given to his client's predicament. He stated that the facility must be closed in compliance with very stringent requirements and the only solution for Mr. Lawless is to go out of business in the most economical means possible. He stated, however, approval of the Planning Commission's recommendation will result in Mr. Lawless going bankrupt. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the Board had to make its decision regarding this case based on the conditions of zoning regulating the landfill, expressed concern that Mr. Lawless bas historically been in non-compliance with his conditions of zoning and State regulations and has ignored correspondence requesting his compliance with those regulations/conditions; and that he is concerned that Mr. Buniva is asking the Board to be lenient in its decision regarding this matter regardless cf the evidence. Mr. Daniel asked a series of questions regarding Mr. Lawless' representation at previous meetings, wh~ther or not Mr. Lawless was in violation of the permit issued by the County, or whether or not Mr. Lawless was in concert with his zoning and trying to determine the best method out of the situation. Mr. Currin stated he had visited the site and was appalled at the conditions he observed; expressed concern regarding the operations of the facility, the taking of material other than that permit by zoning, potential excavation of the site, as well as other matters; and stated he felt Mr. Lawless had not intended to comply with required regulations and had a total disregard for his neighbors. Mr. Currin made a motion to approve amendment of the Cenditienal Use (Case S35203) to require cessation of landfill activity, correction of violations and closure of the operation subject to the following conditions: 1. All landfilling activity shall cease. Other than as permitted herein for closure and post-closure, plus resto- ration and installation of buffers, there shall be no further landfill activity. (P) 2. Within thirty (30) days of the Board's action on this application, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval: a. A plan for accomplishing the removal of illegal fill materials, as outlined herein; b. A plan fo~ the restoration of the 200 foot buffer along the southern property boundary; A closure and p0$t-el0sure plan which shall comply with the design standards and operating procedures of the Siting and 0~erational Stan- dards for Debris Landfills in Chesterfield County b~br~ Disposal Study and the Solid Waste ~anagement Regulations VR672-20-10, adopted by the Solid Waste Management Board of the Common- wealth of Virginia on December 21, 1988; (~OT~: In addition to other requirements for a closure and post-closure plan, gas and 89-172 groundwatsr monitoring syst~m~ r~quire~ by County and ~ts=e regulations must be installed.} d. A bond er other surety in an amount and acceptable.,tO :.the. C~unty~.,sufficient to 9caren- tee compliance with the corrective conditions stated h~in, 3. Within ~ixty {~0) days of the Virginia Department of Wast~ Management's and Planning Department's approval of th~ closure and post-closure plan, the following shall be accomplished: a. With the exception of stumps, brush, dirt other inert natural materials, all other mate- rial~ ~hall be removed from th~ landfill; {NOTE: Conditions of zoning approval for Cass g3S203 limit £ill material to stumps, brush, dirt, and other inert natural materials.) b. With tbs ~xceptlon of inert natural ~%erials, all materials which have been deposited within the required 200 foot buffer along the southern 83s203 prohibited l~ndfi~ling within %he 200 foot buffer.} rials, which have bsen deposited on property a~jacent to the landfill ~ite (i.e., Tax Map 1)2-2 (3) retest Lake, Section A, Lots 5B and 6D) shall be removed; {NOTE: Ca~e 83S2~3 limited the landfill ~ratiens to portions o~ Tax Map 133-3 approved waste disposal facility; and post-closure plan. 4. If at any time in the future, it is det,rmine~ that use has r~sulted in a hazard to the public'm health, responsible for abating the situation. ~. Within seven (7) days of approval of the closure and lmn~th of time acceptahle to ~he County shall ba submitted situations. censed engineer, acceptabl~ eo the County, and having a specialty in landfill operations of the contents of tbs landfil5 and buffer ar~a. This certification shall be supported by soil borings. The location and number of borings shall be approved by the Planning Department. 7. Within seven (7) days 0f the Scarf's actien 0n this appli- the required plans. (~) 89-173 There was further discussion relative to finances, bonds, sureties, cost of closure and post closure processes, etc. Mr. Micas stated Condition 2d could be modified to stated that staff could approve the bond so Mr. Lawless would not have to provide double bonds. Mr. Applegate stated the Board has previously stated it would not permit any illegal landfill, stump dump operations, etc. and would take any course of action tO correct those situations. He stated he is committed to that statement, he feels what has occurred is illegal and must be dealt with. Mr. Daniel seconded Mr. Currin's motion. Mr. Sullivan stated he had asked the Administration to furnish him with information, which he has not yet received, relative to how this situation hae existed from 1984 to 1988 without adherence to the appropriate regulations/conditions of zoning and without action to close it down. He stated he was angry with all those involved in this situation as it has resulted in the present situation. ~M~stated: ~bose points made do make sense if there is good faith, however, in this instance, he does not see any evidence of good faith and in the absence of any substantive reason to provide for a longer range timeframe for closure, he could see no other alternative but that of the Planning Commission. Mr. Bineva stated Mr. Lawless has sufficient funds to obtain and submit a ~uality closure plan on file; however, he does not have sufficient funds to ensure the implementation of that Mr. Daniel stated he sympathized with all those individuals involved in this matter and that the situation has been made more complicated than necessary; however, he felt he must stand by the zoning permitted use and could not make any other decision but to vote to close thc £acility. Mr. Mayes stated that since he has been on the Board he has stated many times that one of the most serious problems confronting the 'County, State and Nation is the safe disposal of solid and hazardous waste; that he sympathized with Mr. Lawless and others involved but this case has to be addressed based on the documentation before the Board, that he felt the same as Mr. Sullivan regardin~ good faith compliance and that there do~s not appear to be any evidence of such outlined in the history of the case, and supported the Planning Com- mission's and staff's re~om~en'datio~. 'B~ stated he felt this was only the tip of the iceberg in so far as the County's responsibility for the safe disposal of solid and hazardous waste. Mr. Currin restated his motion, seconded by M~. Daniel, to approve amendment of the Conditional Use (Caee 83S203) to require cessation of landfill activity, correction of violations and closure of the operation subject to the following conditions: 1. All landfilling activity shall cease. Other than as permitted herein for closure and post-closure, plus resto- ration and installation of buffers, there shall be no further landfill activity. (P) 2. Within thirty (30) days Of the Board's action on this application, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval: a. A plan for accomplishing the removal of illegal fill materials, as outlined herein; 89-174 b. A plan for the restoration Of the 200 ~oet buffer along the southern property boundary; c. A closure and pest-closure plan which shall Comply with the design standards and operating procedures of the Sitin~ and Operational Stan- dards fox Debris Landfills in Chesterfield County Debris Disposal Study and the Solid Waste ~anaqement Regulations VR672-20-1~, adopted by the Solid Waste Management Board of ~he Common- wealth of Virginia on December 21, I988; (NOT~ In addition to other requirements for a closure and post-cl~sur~ plan, gas and groundwater monitoring eystem~ required by County and State regulations must be installed.) d. A bond or obhez surety in an amount and for~ acceptable to the County~ Sufficient to guaran- stated herein. 3. Within sixty (60] days e~ the Virginia Department of Waste accomplished= a. With the exception of stumps, brush, d~rt and rials shall be removed from the landfill; (NO~E~ Conditions of zoning approval for Ca~e 83S203 limit fill material to .~turaps, brush, dirt, and other ~nert natural materials.) b. With the exception of inert natural ma~erials, all materials which have been deposited within th~ required 200 foot buffer along the Southern INOTE: Conditions of zoning approval for Case 83S203 prohibited landfillin~ within the 200 foot buffer.) rials, which have been deposited on property adjacent to the l~ndfill site (i.e., Tax 132-2 (3) Forest Lake, Section A, Lots 5~ and 6D) shall b~ removed; (NOTE= Case 85S~0~ limited the landfill op- erations tc portiOnS of Tax -Map 133-3 (2~ d. Ail illegal materials shall be transf=rred to an approved waste disposal facility; and po~t-eloSu~e plan. 4. If at any tame in the future, it As determined that the use has re~utted in a hazard to the public's health, responsible f0~ abating the situatiun. length oi time acceptable to the County ~h~ll be submitted situations. 89-I75 6. Upon completion of the corrective action outlined herein, the owner/operator shall provide the Planning Department with certification, in the form of a report from a li- censed engineer, acceptable to the County, and having a specialty in landfill operations of the contents of the landfill and buffer area. This certification shall be supported by soil borings. The location and number of borings shall be approved by the Planning Department. (P) Within seven (7) days of the Board's action on this appli- cation, the property owner shall sub, it to the Planning Department documentation that the services of a qualified engineer has been enlisted for the purpose of preparing the required plsn~. (P) There was brief diseus$i~n_~$-to~pr~vlslons icr buffering the western boundary of the subject site as had been requested during previous discussion. Mr. Currin amended his motion, s~conded by Mr. Sullivan, to approve amendment of the Conditional Use (Case 83S203} to require cessation of landfill activity, correction of violations and closure of the operation subject to the following conditions: 1. Ail landfillinq activity shall cease. Other than as permitted herein for closure and post-closure, plus resto- ration and installation of buffers, there shall be ne further landfill activity. (P) 2. Within thirty (30) days of the Board's action on this application, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval= a. A plan for accomplishing the removal of illegal fill materials, as outlined herein; b. A plan for the 'restoration of the 200 foot buffer along the southsrn preperty boundary; c. A closure and post-closure plan which shall comply with the design standards and operating procedures of the Sitin~v-and 0~Dera~0nal Stan- dards for Debris Landfills in Chesterfield County Debris Disposal Study and the Solid Waste Manaqement Requlations VR672-20-10, adopted by the Solid Waste Management Board of the Com~on- wealth of Virqinia on December 21, 1988; (NOTE: In addition to other requirements for a closure and post-closure plan, gas and qroundwater monitoring systems required by County and State regulations must be installed.) d. A bond or other surety in an amount and form acceptable to the County, sufficient to guaran- tee compliance with the corrective eondltlons stated herein. e. The Closure Plan shall address the appropriate method to buffer the use from adjacent residential uses to the west. (BOS) Within sixty (60) days of the virginia Department of Waste Management's and Planning Department's approval of the closure and post-closure plan, the folIowing shall be accomplished: a. with the exception of stumps, brush, dirt and other inert natural materials, all other mate- rials shall be removed from the landfill; 89-176 (NOTE: CondiL~on8 Of zoning approval for Case 83S203 limit ~ill material to stumps, brush, ..... dirt, and ethe~ inert natural materials.) With the exception of inert natural ma%erial~, all materials which have been deposited within the required 200 foot buffer along the property boundary shall ba removed; {NOTE: Conditions of zoning approval for 83S203 p%0hibited landfilling within the 200 foot buffer.) e. A%~ material~ other than inert natural mate- rials, which have been deposited on property adjacent to the landfill site (i.e.~ Tax Map 132-2 (3) Forest Lake, Section A, Lets 5B 6D} shall be removed; (NOTE~ Came 83S203 limited the landfill op- erations t~..portloms .of Tax Map 133-3 Mid-C~ty Far, e, Block Ac Part of Lots 3 and 4.) d. All illegal materi~l$ ~kall be transferred to an approved waste disposal facility; and e. Implementa%i0n of the approved closure and post-cloeure plan. {P) 4. If at any time in %he future, .it i~ determined ~hat the usa has resulted in a hazard to the public's health, safety~ or welfare, t~e owner of the property shall bm responsible for abating the situation. within seven (7) days of a~proval of the closure and post- clOSure plan, a bond or surety in' an amount, form and length of time aeeeptabl~ to ~he county shall be submitted to the County to gnarante~ the abatement of any eituatlons. 6. Upon completion of the corrective action outlined herein, the owner/operator ~hatl provide the ~lanning Department with oerti~icatlen, in the form of ~ report from a li- censed engineer, acceptable to the County, an~ having a specialty in landfill operaLions of the contents of landfill and buffer ~rea. This certification shall be supported by soil borings. The location and number of borings ghall be approved by the Planning Department. 7. Within Seven (7) ~ay~ o~ the Board's action on this aDpli~ cation, the property owner shall submiL Lo the Plannin~ Department documentation that the services of a ~ualified engineer ha~ been enlisted for the purpose of preparing the required plans. It was generally agaeed ~c re~ss ~or five {5) minutes. 14.A. AUTEOR!ZATION TQ ~DVERTISE TAX RATES, FEE CHA~GES AND T~ BUDGET Mr. Stegmaier presented a brief sugary of '~he proposed tax rates, fee change~ and the FY-90 ~udge% and Capital ImprOVement 89~177.. Program which have been scheduled for April 5, 1989. There was discussion relative to recommendation of the Budget Committee that the charge for vehicle decal tax for trucks be increased to the maximum provided by State 5aw; that tipping fees be equitable to that of neighboring localities, etc. Mr. Currin proposed an increase in real estate tax to $1.11 from the anticipated $1.09 and that monies from the increase be set aside as part of a Future Capital Projects Reserve Fund; etc. Mr. Applegate stated that he c~uld no~ support an increase on the real estate tax rate to fund Capital ~mprovements being driven by growth. Mr. Currin stated he agreed with the fact that the only thing that new growth, from the report the Committee came up with, was that new growth did pay for its way as far as the operational portion but did not pay for Capital Improvements. Ee stated however, they did in fact push for J_~pact fees very strongly and that the Board should take that commitment from that Committee. He stated the Board needs to start somewhere to pay as you go because three or fours year from now we will be back with a tremendously large Capital Improvement facing us and we will have to pay for it. Ee stated we will have to pay for it at that time through raising the real estate rates unless we can continue to work with our delegation and he did think they can help us again. Mr. Daniel stated if there is a 2 cent set aside for Capital Improvements that is equivalent of a 3 cent %ax right there and he felt the moral commitments had been met. He stated the Growth Committee and the fins job they did was void of public input; all the polls, in the pre-screening work in support of the Bond referendum suggested a total public outcry that it had to cease using the real estate tax rate to pay for growth; etc. He stated to even advertise a higher tax rate to support growth runs against the messages from the public. Ha stated that the Board went to the public'and'said-if-'they voted for this bond referendum taxes would not he raised more than five (5) cents. He stated he would live up to that commitment. He stated if the public representatives from all over, representing the demographic mix of the County, come back and offer the ides to us that that is the way'to go to the future then fine, we could move in that direction. He stated he also commended the work cf the legislators but we have certain commitments we have to live up to and another 2 cent tax increase to fund growth is not one of those commitments. Mr. Mayes stated that Mr. Daniel had expressed his opinion precisely. Ee stated the Board stated they were going to raise the taxes 5 cents and as far as he was concerned that i~ all he is supporting. Mr. Sullivan stated he could support Mr. Currin and the advertisement of a 2 cent increase based on the facts such as the School A~inistration wants $2.6 million more than what is in the County Administrator's proposal and that we allow the people the option at the public hearing to voice their opinion and how they want the money spent. Ee stated that while he agreed with Mr. Currin that the increase should be sdvertised, he also agreed with other members of the Board that he would be very reluctant to vote for that increase. He stated he objected to this process last year and this year in that the Board sets the rate and the public discusses it and nothing can be done and there is no latitude to respond and change the decision of the ii, it. Be stated he felt th~ advertisement should be $1.11 to allow flexibility and influence by the citizens. There was discussion regarding the Utility Tax Rate Options I and 2, the rationale for reducing the rates, increased billing 89-178 exp~na~s for businessss whlsh prompted the reduction, an Mr+ Applegate ~xpressed concern regarding modification of the Utility rate~. Mr. C~rrin stated he felt the items should b~ advertised to allow discussion as te whether er not there should be changes. Mr. Daniel ~tated he would like all information and considerations on the items at the same time ~c a decision can be made and they can dispose of the budget early if possible. He suggested that each item be discussed individually and taken as separate motions. Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. ~ayes stated they did not want to add the two (2) cents increase to the proposed five (5) cents increase us they preferred to maintain the five (5) cents increase as committed tc in'the.'bond referendum. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Currin voiced support for the proposed advertising of a proposed $I.11 real e~tate tax but indicated since they did not have support from the other memh~r~ of %h~ ~oaxd, they would ge with the majority. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr_ Sullivan the Board authorized advertisement of April 5, 1989, at 7~00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to adopt the existing annual tax levy on various classes of property for the County of Chesterfield aa Real Estate ............................. $1.09 ~ersonal Property ....................... $3,60 Machinery and Tools ..................... $1.00 Consumer Utility Tax..~ ....... Options 1 and 2 Fee Changes (Zoning, Utility, Dog Licens. and Kennel) FYP0General County and School an~ Appropriation ordinance Capital Improvement PrOgram (General County, Utilities and Schools) $1,900,925 in Additional State Funds for Education Debate on Budge% OS $387,281,700 Vo~e: Unanimous ~r. Currin s~ated he woul~ like to have information rsgardin~ ravening fees relative to the number of hours and staff members utilized on comparabl~ cases of Conditional Use Planned D&velo~m~nt, Euclidean Zoning with proffered conditions, 14,B.1. P~QUEST FOR ~INGO/RAFFLE PERMIT On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved a request for a bingo p~rmlt for the. Cavalier A~hle~is BUSINESS R=CRUITMENT AGREEMENT There was brief discussion relative the severing of the relationship between Chesterfield County ~n~ Contrade International of America, Inc. by deleting Scandinavian countries from the list of Europea~ coun~ries far whioh serviuas ar~ ~o be ~roviders; the removal of any p~rception of a possible conflict that Contrad~ may have be%ween servinq Chesterfield County in Scandinavian countries as part of the County's foreign business recruitment program; etc. 89-179 On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currln, thc ~oard deferred consideration of an amendment to the foreign business recruitment agreement with Contrade International of America, Inc. until March 22, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., and authorized staff to take the necessary steps~ to-_advertise a public hearing to consider said amendment. 14.C. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 14.C.1. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OR TRANSPORTATION 1989-90 PRIMARy ALLOCATION HEARING On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board amended the proposed Virginia Department of Transportation 1989-90 Primary Allocation Statement and Priority List for Bighway Projects by movinq up Item 9, Sight and Sound Barriers to Item 6 in the sequence of priorities, which list will be included with the statement to be presented at a Virginia Department of Transportation public hearing on April 7, 1989, with the exception of Item 7, Meado~ville Road Interchange. (A copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board .that hs owns property in the vicinity of the Meadowville Road Interchanqe, declared a conflict pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act relative to Item 7, Meadowville Road Interchange, as listed on the Prlerit~.~Lis~nd ..excused himself from the meeting. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved inclusion of Item 7, Meadowville Road Interchange, in the amended proposed Virginia Department of Transportation 1989-90 Primary Allocation Statement and Priority List for Eighw~y Projects, which list will be included with the statement to be presented at a Virginia Department of Transportation public h~aring'on April 7, 1989. (A copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: ~r. Applegate, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Currin. Mr. Currin returned to the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH C~IPPEM~AM PARTNERS FOR ALTERNATE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 10 FROM C~IPPENHAM PARKWAY THROUGN SESSUP ROAD Mr. Daniel requested that staff prepare a letter to the Virginia Department of Transportation appealing the Department's decision rejecting a crossover at Cascade Street and Route On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute two (2) agreements, on behalf of the County, with Chippenham Partners for alternate design and~construoticn of Route 10 from Chippenham Parkway through Jessup Road. (It is noted copies of said agreements are filed with thc papers of this ~oard.) Vote: Unanimous 14.C.3. NAMING OP EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD OFF OF CLAEPOINT ROAD On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved the naming of e gravel road off Claypoint Road as 89-180 Cedar Springs Road and authorized the Environmental Engineering 14,C.4, AGREEMENTS FOR STOR~ WATER ~iANAGE~NT SYSTEM 14.C.4.a. BREEZ-IN CONVENIENCE STOIk~ AND F~ETAIL SEEPS On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board appzoved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an agreement for a Storm Water ~anagemsnt System with the develoDer of the Breeze-ln Convenience Store and Retail Shops, with the County's only involvement being bo assure that tho maintenance agreement is followed by the owner. I4.C.4.b. CENTEEPOINTE On motion of Mz. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Coffin, the ~oard approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an agreement for a Storm Weber Management System with the developer of ce~terpointe~ wi~h the County's only involvement being to assure that the maintenance agreement is followed by the owner, Vote: Unanimous ~4..C.5. S~T DATe FOR PUBLIC E~ARINGS I4.C.5.a. TO CONSIDER A~ AMENDMERT TO THE NORTHERN AREA LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND TEE POW~ITE/ROUTE D~VELOPMENT LAND USE A~P T~2%~SPORTATION PLA~ WHICH AMiENDMENT WOULD ADDRESS MIDLOTMIAN AREA On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin~ the ~carfl ~et the date cf April 12, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Northern ~rea ~and Use and Transportation ~lan an~ the Powhite/Reute 288 Development Land Use and Transportation .Plan which ~m~ndment would address the future ~evelo~ent of the Midlothlan area CO~unit~. 14.C.5.b. TO CONSIDER A~ ORDINANC~ TO A/4~ND THE CODE 0P T~ COU~TY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICL~ III, SECTIONS 21-63.1 AND 21-~7.12 AND ADDING SECTIONS 21-67.25 TNROUG~ 21-67.4~ TO CREATE A OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT FO~ MIDLOTMIAN VILLAGE, On motion of Mr. ~ulllvan, seconded by ~r. Coffin, the Board eat the data ef April 12, 1989, at 7:00 p.m.~ for a public amending Article III; S=ctions 21-63.1 and 21-67.12 and adding ~ectiens 21-67.25 ~hrough 21,67-40 :o create a new Overlay Zoning District for Midlothian Village. Vote: U~animcu~ t4.C.6, RESOLUTXON TO R~P=R TO PLANNING COMMISSION~ REVISIONS TO T~E SUBDIVISION O~DINANCE RELATING TO MINIMUM LOT ~IZE$ FOR ON-SITE WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS: REVISION TO DEVELOPMENT A~D MAINTENANCE STAI~DARDS PeR ON-$~ WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS AND MANDATORY CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS There was discussion ~ha~ modifications be made to the proposed 89-181 action plan to include test wells to ensure that septic systems comply with standards insuring septic systems not contaminate surrounding well waker and that every safeguard that can be, ia written into the ordinance prior to its being remanded to the Planning Commission for public hearing; policing of the citizen use of "crossover" valve systems and the requirement to alternate flow within the septic tank annually~ concerns regarding the enforcement of connection to public lines no later than January l, 1990, for any lot for which public water or sewer service is available; etc. Mr. Mayas stated the Board took action earlier in the evening that had a severe financial impact on a businessman in the County because of the manne~ in which matters of the super- vision of landfills are handled. He stated the same was being applied to the handling oi septic tanks, ignoring the respons~bility that the Board has to people who are serviced by wells. He suggested that as part of the modifications being sent to the Planning Commission that subdivisions constructed with septic systems must have test wells to monitor groundwater on an annual basis. After further discussion, Mr. Sullivan made a motion to remand to the Planning Commission for the revisions to.the Subdivision Ordinance relating to minimum lot sizes for on-site waste disposal systems, revisions to development and maintanance standards for on-site wasta disp0aal systems and mandatory connection requirements for the necessary public hearings. Mr. Applegate requested that Mr. Sullivan amend his motion to include an additional item %9 that subdivisions constructed with septic systems must have test wells to monitor groundwater on an annual basis. Mr. Sullivan did not favor the suggestion. Mr. Daniel stated that one issue which resulted from the Charlottesville meeting was the land use plan and requested that the land use plan in accordance with the adopted Charlottesville Action Plan be ~nclnded in the motion. Mr. Sullivan stated he would accept that inclusion. Mr. Mayas offered a substitute motion that the Board remand to the Planning Commission for public hearing the revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance relating to minimum lot Sizeg for on-site waste disposal systems, revisions to development and maintenance standards for on-site waste disposal systems and mandatory connection requirements, to include the land nsc plan as in accordance with the adopted Charlottesville Action Plan and that subdivisions constructed with septic systems m~st have test wells to monitor groundwater on an annual basis. There was no second to the substitute motion and Mr. Applegatc stated the motion failed. Mr. Mayas stated he felt consideration was not given by this Board to protect the people ~h~'s~p~ic tanks fail. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board remanded to the Planning Commission for public hearing the revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance relating to minimum lot sizes for on-site waste disposal systems, revieions to development and maintenance standards for on-site waste disposal systems and mandatory connection requirements and the inclusion of the land use plan as in accordance with the adopted Charlottesville Action Plan. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. Nays: Mr. Mayer. Mr. Sullivan stated he did not feel that the Board has taken any action duriSg the meeting which had resulted in a severe financial impact om a businessman in the County had that individual adhered to the rules and regulations set forth in the permitting process. 89-182 Mr, Daniel stated he felt he had attempted to foster good healthy discussions to develop a senn~ of direction to follow in all actions taken today. in an area where people utilize well wat%f is handling th~ situation in a cavalier manner. ~e stated when the issue is being remanded to the Planning CoK~%i~sien for public h~aring without adding to it a mechanism for te~ting water before p~ople On welt water find out th%ir wells may be polluted is ignoring the situation and ~he problems will =0me back tn be ~aced by the Board. 14.C.7. ROUTE PeR PROPOSED VIRGINIA POWER HIGH VOLTAGE T~A~$~ISSION LINE IN T~E BERMUDA DISTRICT Mr. Currin disclosed, for the record, that the proposed transmission line doe~ not cro~ any of his property hue the western route is adjacent to 1-295 on the Meadowville side; therefore, did not hav~ a conflict of interest. ~THEREAS~ Virqinia Rower is proposing to build an overhead transmls~ion line between .Chesterfield ~ower Chesterfield County and Chickahominy s~bstation in Charlo= City County; and WHEREAS, Virginia Power is in tlqe 9recess Of completing line and i~ considering two primary altsrnativea; WHERF~AS~ the Chesterfield County Planning Department has rev~ewe~ the alternative routes and has concluded that the BAST more ¢onsietent with the County's comprehensive plan. Supervi~ore of ehe County of Chesterfield, Virginia, that the Board, on behalf of the citizens ef the connty~ support~ the Ch~sterfisld-Chlokahcminy 230kv Transmission Line. 14.D. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT I4.D.1. CONSENT ITBMS 14.D.l.a. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR UPPER SWIFT CP~K FORCH On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the ~eard awar~e4 Contract ~umber S~5-98C Part C for ~he construction of the Upper Swift Creek Force Main to the lowest bi~er sryant Electric Cc. in the amount of $3,640,725.00. It i~ noted fUndin~ for this project has been previougly appr©priate~. Vote: Unanimous 89-183 14.D.l.b. A~PROVAL OF QUITCLAIM DEED FOR PORTIONS OF STORM SEWER SASEMENTS REQUESTED BY CHESTERFIELD MALL ASSOCIATES On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currln, the Eoard approved a request from Chesterfield Mall Associates to vacate portions of storm sewer easements and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute a Quitclaim Deed to vacate portions of storm sewer easements and authorized the Chairman of tbs Board and the County Administrator to execute a Quitclaim Deed to vacate portions of the storm sewer. (A copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENT AT DUPUY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute an easement aqreement with Virginia Electric and Power Company to install one guy stub and anchor on property at Dupuy Elementary School for the Ettrick overpass road project. Vote: Unanimous 14.D.l.d. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG PROVIDENCE ROAD FROM WILLI~/~ B. DUVAL AND GENE H. DUVAL, CO-TRUST~ES OF DUVAL DEVELOPMENT DEFINED BENEFIT On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, Board accepted, On behalf of the County, the conveyance of two portions of land containing 0.0382 acres along Providence Road £rcm Mr. William R. DuVal and Mr. Gene H. DuVal, Co-Trustees of Dural Development Defined Benefit, A Defined Benefit Trust, and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (A copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) 14.D.2. R~PORTS Mr. Sale presented the Board with a report on the developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. 14.D.3. REQUEST TO AID DEVELOPERS IN ACQUIRING A WATERLINE EASEMENT ALONG EE~4UDA ORCHARD ~ANB Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that acquisition of the waterline easement along Bermuda Orchard Lane will provide service to a subdivision with which he has no affiliation; however, the easement will ultimately benefit property he owns further along this road, declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Mayes expressed concern regarding the use of eminent domain to assist developers in the acquisition of easements. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the Right-of-Way Manager to aid the developer, ~arrlson Burt of Danbur Properties, in the acquisition of an off-site waterline easement along Bermuda Orchard Lane across the property of Mr. Carlton A. and Ms. Renzel M. Palmer, 89-184 provided the developers sign ~ contrast with the County agreeing to pay for all costs involved. Ayes: M~, A~plegatu, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. ~ays: Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Currin. Mr. Currin returned to th~ m~eting. 14.E. REPORTS Mr. Ra~sey presented the Doard with a ~t=tus report on the General Fund contingency Account, G~neral Fund Balance, Road Reserve Funds, Dimtrimt ROad ~nd Strset Light Fun~s and Leasm Purchases and the Board Public ~earing Schedule; Mr. Ramsey s~ated the V~rgin£a Department of Transportation ha~ formally nctifled the County of the aeceDtance of =he followin~ roads into the State Secondary System: ADDITIONE OLD CREEK WEST - S~CTIONS 4e 5~ 6 Route 2222 (01d Creek Road) ~ From 0.03 mile southeas~ Route 3058 to 0.Q3 mils northeast Route 3007 Route 3005 (Laughton Drive) - From RoU%~ ~2~2 to 0.04 mile southwest Route 3006 Eou~e 3006 (Laughton Court) - Fxom Route 3005 to southe&~t CUl-de-sac T.~WG~H 0.15 Mi. 0.10 Mi. 0.05 mi. 0.03 Mi. HEDGELA~N Route 2072 [Varlin~a Drive] - From 0.02 mile east Route 2092 to Route Route 4240 (Col~ Mill ROad) - From 0,08 mile north Route 2072 to 0,09 mile south Route 4241 ROUte 4241 [ViSta Ridge Lane) - From Route 4240 to Route 4242 Route 42~2 (01d Cannon Road) - From Route 637 to southwest cul-de-sac 0.04 Mi. 0.32 Mi. O.Og Mi+ 0.22 ~i. COTTA~ Route 3760 {Cottage Mill Road) - ~rom Kou~e 3750 to northwest cut-de-sac acute 3761 {Co=tags Mill Terrace) - From Route 3760 to northwest cul-de-sac Route 3762 {Cottage Mill Circle) - From Route 3760 tO auut-h cul-de-sac kuute ~763 (Cottage Mill Place) - Fro~ 0+05 mile northeaft ROute 3760 to 0.03 mile west Route 3764 Route 3764 (Cottage Mill Way) - From Route 3763 to south cul-de-sac 0.32 Mi. 0.10 ~£. 0.04 Mi. 0.13 Mi. 0.04 Mi. ~9-185 Route 1921 (Brandermill Parkway) - From 0.05 mile north Route 2970 to 0.06 mile north Route 3870 Route 3870 (Birnam Woods Drive} - From Route 1921 to northwest ~ul-de-~ac Route 3871 Birnam Woods Court) - From Route 3870 to north cul-de-sac Route 3872 Birnam Woods Place} - From Route 3870 to north cul-de-sac · ~ ~. Route 3873 Birnam Woods Road) - From Route 3870 to northwest cul-de-sac Route 3874 Birnam Woods Terrace) ~ From Route 3873 to south cul-de-sac Route 3875 (Deer Meadow Road) - From Route 3870 to 0'.04 mite northeast Route 3870 L~NGT~ 0.11 Mi. 0.29 Mi. 0.05 Mi. 0.05 Mi. 0.13 Mi. 0.06 Mi. 0.04 Mi. WORS~AM GR~N Route 3750 (Walton Bluff Parkway) - From 0.03 mile west Route 3756 to 0.10 mile west Route 3765 0.13 Mi. Route 3765 (Worsham Green Terrace} - From Route 3750 to north cul-de-sac 0.20 Mi. Route 3766 (Worsham Green Place) - From Route 3765 to west cul-de-sac 0.04 Mi. Route 3767 (Worsham Green Court) - From Route 3765 to west cul-de-sac 0.05 Mi. SET A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND SECTION 12-128 COD~ OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDEDm tt~LATING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES FOR WHOLESALE M~RCHA~TS On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the set the date of April 12, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearinq to amend the County Code relating to business license for wholesale merchants, Vote: Unanimous 14.F.2. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE A PUBLIC H=ARING ON ISSUANCE OF $408~836 IN V~RGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY BONDS FOR THE GOVERNOR~DUCATIOWAL TECHNOLOGY INITIATIV~ PROGRAM On motion of Mr. Sullivan, eeconded by Mr. Coffin, the Board set the date of April 12, 1988, at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing to authorize advertisement to conduct a public hearing on issuance of $408,836 in Virginia Public School Authority Bonds for the Governor's ~ducational Technology Initiative Proqram. Vote: Unanimous ' 89-186 On motion of Mr. Curr£n, seconded by Mr. Mayes, thm Board adjourne~ a~ 12~45 a.m. (EST} March 8, 1989, un%il 7:00 p.m. on March 15, 1989. Vote: Unanimous La~e B, Ramsey ~ County Administrator 89-187