Loading...
06-28-1989 MinutesMr. G. N. Ap~l~gate, Chairman Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr,, Vice ChalzTaaa Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. Jesse J. Mayas ~r. M. H. Sullivan County Administrator Asst. GO Co. Admin. Asat. Co. Admin., Leqim. Svcs. and Imtergovern. Affairs Mr. B~dford $. H~mu~er, Deputy CO. Admln., Dir., Gen. Services Dir. of 91annlng MS. Mary LO~ Lyte, Dir. o~ Accounting ~r. Kobmrt Masden, Deputy Co. M~an Servic~m Transp. Mr. Richard ~cElfish, Dir. of Env. Eng. Mrs. M. Arline McGuir~, Mr. Steve Micas, Attorney Dir. of Pit., ~ea!th Dept. Deputy Co. Development ~r. Jay Dir. of Mr, M. D. Stith, ~r. David welchons, Mr. Frederick W~llis, Dir. of Mr. Applegate called ~he meeting to order at ~he Courthouse. (EDT) 1. I~OCATI(~ In thc absenc~ of a minister, M~. ApPleg~te gave the invocation. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TH~ F~G OF r'~ ~NI~D -~TA~ OF The Pledgs of Allegiance to the Flaq Of the United States of A~e~ica was recited. 89-63] 3. APPROVAL OF~L~NUT~S On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved the minutes of June 14, 1989, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 4. COUNT~ADMINISTHATOR'S ~$ Mr. Ramsey announced that Mr. steve Waldman, who has been reporting County news for the Petersburg Progress-Index, has been reassigned to cover sports news for the Plus editions published by the Richmond newspapers. He also stated that Ms. Renee' Ridley of WRVA radie has been reassigned to cover Richmond City Hall news. Mr. Hammer introduced Mr. Peter Iris-williams, Project Manager of the Rational Park Service, who presented a summary of the criteria and historic overview cf a comprehensive study designed to conserve the setting and Specific historic resources of the Civil War battlefields located throughout the region and in particular Chesterfield County and reported on the project's activities to-date and future plan~. Re stated the County's support and involvement in the project are invaluable and critical for the project's success and azked for the Board's concurrence that this resource overview and objectives represent the best collective judgment at this time. The Board expressed its appreciation to Mr. Iris-williams for the overview of the study. 5. BOARD COMMITT~F. Mr. Daniel stated he attended committee meetings of the Richmond Regional Planning District Co~m~iSSiOn (RRPDC), at which the by-laws were discussed and it was unanimously determined that the representation, based on population, was to be reduced fram 200,000 to 175,000 which would permit Chester- field County to have equal representation with both the City of Richmond and Henrico County; and reported that at the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPC) there were discussions relative to the membership and criteria for representation from which a formal report would be forthcoming and that he was also pleased to announce that the draft and recommendations from the coI~mittee were unanimous that Chesterfield County would have equal representation with both the City of Richmond and Henrico County. He reported that Mr. Applegate, who has served as Chairman of the Capital Region Airport Commission for the past three consecutive years, was recognized for his achievements at the moat recent Commission meeting. He added the Airport continues to suffer from a decline in enplanements, a great portion of which can be attributed to an on-going major airline strike. Mr. Mayas reported he attended the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission Solid Waste Task Force meeting at which there was a presentation on recycling and attended the Education Advisory Committee tc the Council on Information Management meeting. Mr. Sullivan reported he attended the Lake Genito Study Committee meeting (PACC) at which there were continued discussions regarding the Lake Genito Project and at which it was anticipated that an agreement would be forthcoming during the summer for the Board's consideration; reported on the Water Resource Task Force meeting at which there were discussions regarding the development of a regional water resource plan and at which it was agreed to bring forth a request to the Richmond 89-632 Regional Planning District Commission in attempting to obtain an agreement, endorsement and/or motivation to compile a plan to serve the region for the future. Mr. Sullivan reierenced a recent news article regarding the death of a Midlothian District resident who had been recognized as a hero throughout most of his adult life in his service An the military, with Virginia POwer and most recently his effort to save the llve~ of otters at a North Carolina Beach which resulted in his untimely demise and asked that there be a moment of silent prayer in memory of Mr. Willia~ C+ Sin~letary, Jr., who had brought Such great dignity to the County. The ~r. Applegate reported that new officers were elected for the Capital Region Airport Co--lesion at which Mr. John Mazda of the Matoaca District was elected Treasurer to serve for the upcoming year. ~. I~QU~STS TO POSTPONE ACTION, EMERG~NCYADDITIONS OR CHANGES IN ~ ORDER OF }I~SENTATXON On motion cf Mr. ~ullivan, seconded, by Mr. Mayas, the Board deferred Item 8, Claim fo~ COmpensation for P~rsonal Injuries R~ceiv~d by Gle~ L. Turner, Richard k. Powers, L~a ~tta Powers, Lee Ellen Powers~ Dianne L. Powers and Dennis W. Powers Against Chesterfield County, Wands I. Prazlor and John Doe until after Item ll.J.~ Executive Session and prior to Item ll.K., Lunah; change~ tAe order of presentation of the candidates in the Agenda Packet on pa~a 21 for the James River Certified Development Corporation~ deleted the name of Mr. Carol Youngkin in the Agenda Packet on page 22 and changed the order of preseneation of the candidateE for the Metropolitan Richmond Convention and Vi~iter~ Bureau; distributed revised Items ll.A.3,, Award cf Engineering D~sign Contract for Revised Road and Par~ing Network on Cour~ouse Complex and 11.~.2.~ Appropriation, contract Award an~ Set Public Eearing Date for supplemental Appropriation for Whitepine Road Extension, 9h~sE 3; added Item ll.G.8., Set a Public Hearing Date to Conside~ an Amendment to the Airport Industrial Park Restrictive Covenants; added Item ll.H.3.f., Acceptance o~ Deed cf Dedication at the Terminus of King's Lynn Road from Salisbury Corporation, a Virginia P~rtnership; deferred Items ll.D.1, ?¥90 Adopted School Financial Plan; ll.D.2,, FY89 ~Ehool Appropriation Reallocation; and ll.D.3., School Board Grant Appropriations and Adjns~nts until after !tom i1.~., Requests for Rc~e~ing; and adcDted the agenda, as amended. Voee: Unanlmou~ AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS On motion of the Board, the following resolution was a~opted: WHEREAS, Ms. Ruby I. worley will re,ire from the Commissioner of Revenue's Offi¢=, Ch=sterfield County, on July 1, 19~9; and W~E~EAS, ~e. Wor!ey has provi~e~ twenty-four year~ of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County~ and ~THEPAEAS, Chesterfield COunty and the Board e~ Supervisors will miss Ns. Worley'$ diligent service; and WHiP, AB, Since beginning her career with Chesterfield County on June 1, 1965, M~. Worley has utilized her various ~alents in every area of the Office of the Cont~i~siOner of the Revenue, namely, the Regular P~r~onal Property, ~usineas 89-633 Personal Property, Income and Bu$inese License Sections. Upon gaining knowledge in each of these SectiOns, she received an appointment in 1980 of Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue. At the time of Me. Worley's retirement, the County will lose a most diligent worker along with the store of knowledge that she will take with her. NOW, T~REFO~ SE IT Pd~SOLV~D, that .the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Ms. Ruby I. Worley and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for her service to the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Ms. Worley and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Hoard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Mr. Applegate presented the executed resolution to Ms. Worley, commended her for her many years of diligent service and wished her well in her retirement. 7.B. MS. TONIA JANEEN SANBORN~ U.S. PRESIDENTIAL SCHOLAR On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Being designated a U.S. Presidential Scholar is the Nation's highest honor bestowed upon a graduating senior; and WHEREAS, tn 1989 there were approximately three million graduating high school seniors in the country; and WHEREAS, The U.S. Presidential Scholar is based on outstanding accomplishments in such areas as academic success, demonstrated leadership ability, involvement in school and community and achievement in the arts, sciences and fields of interest; and WHEREAS, The final selection is t-he independent judgment of the members of the White House Commission on Presidential Scholars and the concurrence of the President of the United States; and WHEREAS, Miss Tonia Janeen Sanborn, a graduating senior from Midlothian High School, has been designated as one of the One hundred and f0~ty-0ne U.S. Presidential Scholars. NOW, TE~R~FOR~ E= IT ~SOLV=D, by the Chesterfield County Hoard of Supervisors that Miss Tonia Janeen Sanborn is hereby congratulated on this academic achievement bringing credit not only to her family, friends, school and country but the County as well. A~D, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Miss Tonia Janeen Sanborn as a citizen of Chesterfield of whom we can all be proud and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an outstanding young woman as one of its citizens. Mr. Sullivan presented the executed resolution to Ms. Sanborn, commended her for her outstanding achievement and recognized her family who was present. 89-634 ~D VISITORS BUll~AU ~p~p OF DIRECTORS On motion cf the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Robert E. Brittle was duly appointed to ~ha Metropolitan Richmond C~nvention and Ui~i~ors Bureau Board of Directors on January 1~ 19S3 and has s~rv~d IOr six and half WS~R~AS, Mr. Brittle has displayed a stron~ c0~i~ent to responsibilitie~ incumbent upon a member of ~he Methane!iran his %im~ and efforts on behalf of the County. County ~ard of Supervisors publicly 9tares it~ ~incere appreciation and 9rotit~de to Mr. Robert E. Brittle for his contributions of wisdom, talent and t~ durin~ hi~ tenure as a me, er of the Metropolitan Richmond Convention and visitors ~ureau Boaxd 0f Directors. ~D, BE IT FURTM~R ~SOLVED, that Mr~ Brittle im wished th~ b~t in all of his future ~ndeavor~. ~r. Daniel pr~ent~d tke executed r~solution to Mr. Brittle, th~ Metropolitan Richmond Convention and visitors B~ard of ~ir~otor$ and stated hi~ Bervices would be ~o~aly missed. 7.D. R~COGNIZI~G.., CONTRIBUTIONS O~ W~ID~U~LE~ i~C. On motion of th~ Board, the following resolution was ad0pt~d: W~R~g, Wei~muller, Inc. began as an indep~udent family textile company founded and headquartered in Detraol~, West WEE~Ag, In 1947, Weidmuller entered the' electrical engineering business with a revolntlonary d~sign for plastic-insulated terminal blocks; and W~R~AS, Weidmuller~s unique design led to many utility and cost ~avings benefitm for the customer; and W~E~A8, wei~uller expanded into the United Sta~es in 1975 and buiIt a manufac=uring famili~y in Chesterfield County in 1979; and W~EREAS, Rapid market growth required manufacturing capacity, the Chesterfield Industrial A~thority granted Wei~utler, Thc. $~.) million in In~=~trial R~enue ~onds to finance the expansion of their Chesterfield facility from 20,000 square f~t ~o 49~000 square ~t; and ~S, ~his expannicn will continue to facilitate better customer ~ervice by makin~ W~idmuller, Inc. more responsiv~ the market needs of Chesterfield NOW~ T~E~FORE BE IT ~SOLVgD, the= the chesterfield County ~oard of Supervisor~ recognizes th~ manag~ent and of wei~uller, Inc. ~or ~eir innovative leadership in the ~o~unity and theiT major contributions to th~ labor market and the financial growth in Chesterfield County. 89-635 Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate stated the executed resolution would be presented at Weidmuller's ribbon cutting ceremony On July 25, 1989. 9. DkUf~D ITEMS 9.A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION IN- PROV~NENTS ENTITLED "TBOROUGHFARE PLAN" Mr. Sale stated the public hearing to consider a plan for transportation improvements entitled the "Thoroughfare Plan" is a continuation from the June 14, 1989 meeting. Mr. Applegate stated that the previous public hearing on the Thoroughfare Plan was scheduled at a date and time that had conflicted with many County graduation ceremonies and, as a result, the Board determined to continue the public hearing to permit the input of those individuals who were attending graduation exercises so that their opinions, concerns, support and/or opposition to the Plan could be voiced at this time~ Ne stated the minutes of the June 14 meeting were reflective of the previous speakers and, therefore, at this meeting only those individual who were unable to attend the previous public hearing would be permitted the opportunity to speak. Mr. Walter George, who owns property in the vicinity of River Road, Riverway Road, expressed concerns relative to the date of the latest revisions to the Plan, questioned what would happen if his property were divided~-~--the proposed road n,twork and a part of it were landlocked and asked if area property owners could be notified if additional changes were to occur to the Plan. Mr. Ramsay stated that staff is addressing the potential for setting up a system for notifying all property owners adjacent to the roadways in the system. Mr. Jack McHale, Mr. Dan Walters, Mr. Ralph Jones, and Mr. Larry Coon requested deferral of action on that portion of the proposed Thoroughfare Plan applicable to the north-south freeway northward to the Hopkins Road Extension in order to permit input from the Cheater Area Advisory Committee on the Chester Village Plan as it relates to the proposed Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Applegate stated he had received written correspondence requesting deferral of that s~me portion of the Plan se additional input could be permitted. Mr. OlivEr Rudy, On behalf of his clients, submitted a letter from David G. Lestar of Letter, Barber and Associates, Inc. to the Board for their consideration and indicated support of the proposed east-west freeway as proposed in the Plan. Ms. Dorothy Armstrong, representing the Chester Area Advisory committee, addressed concerns regarding the concept of transportation in regard to its impact on communities; the impact of a four-lane highway on the ability of the residents in the Village of Chester to circulate in end around their community; ~teted she had not voted for the implementation of a lout-lane highway through Chester but for alternative routes of transportation around the Village; asked that consideration be given to the preservation of an Oak tree located across from the Signet Bank in Chester; and stated she felt more considera- tion should be given to the citizens in the community with respect to the preservation of their community. Mr. Roy Bryant, Mr. Wayne Dooley and NS. Sue Gettman voiced support for approval of the east-west corridor of the proposed Thoroughfare Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. 89-636 ~r. Bill ~astings expressed coneenns relative to minimizing the impact of the proposed Plan on the r~ident$ Qn existing road~ in the County. ~s. Mina Eve expressed concern relative to the impact of traffic existing within such close proximity of Chester if the abandoned railroad bed were to be used as an alternativ~ means of routing transportation and the nni~s pollution such action would generate for the Bruce Fa~ Subdivision. There being no one else fo address =he matter, the public hearin~ was closed. Mr. Daniel stated the concept of this Plan wa~ initiated in an effort to define overall road network needa in the County so as not to b~come entangled in ~uture controversies such as that experienced with the identification of the Route 288 corridor and has evolved into that Plan which i~ before the Board for consideration at this time; that the testimony presented far indicated that the public gsne~a!ly 9uppOrted V_he east-west freeway, with the e~ception of a few property owners that have specific concerns regardin~ %hei~ property at the time the design of the road network is considered; that h~ was prepared fo vote in favor of approval of ~he east-west corridor, however, f~lt there were several aspects relative to the north-so,th corridor that still needed review/study and was prepared to vote for a deferral of that portion oS the Plan the citizens in Chester and others ~hat hay% COncerns may continue to voice their concerD~ and provide input. He further referenced concerns of several citizens that the widening of certain roads to 90 fcQt rights-of-way would destroy reei- dentia~ property, stated there had been ~imilar concern~ in his District when ~uch planning was initia:ed but that such road networks and improvements must be identified- now for planning purposes for the future even though it may bs years before nonies are available to bring tho~e reads up ~o the propoae~ plan criteria. ~r. Sullivan ~on¢~rre~ with Mr. Denis! and slue commended Mr, McCracken and his Bteff On their diligent efforts and their accessibility to the public in providing information and answering questiou~ regarding the Plan; stated the proposed Plan ie at its concept phase and unt-~--such time as plans more definitive and design phases underway, he fel~ some of th~ SOuce~n$ e~presead were premature; and indicated he ~upported the approval of the east-west corridor but felt there were several aspects rstatlve to the north-south corridor %]~at still needed review/study and was prepared to vote for a ~eferral that portion of the Plan so the citlzen~ in Che~ter and ether~ that have ccncern~ may continue to voice their concerns and provide input. Mr. Applegate stated h~ intended fo support approval o~ the east-west f~eeway as pre~ented but asked that staff consider the ramifications ~f the proposed Plan's impact on Mr. Phillips~ property as the hone located there is a historical landmark and the hardship that it ~y place on the George property and indicated he was prepared to vote for approval of relative to the north-~euth corridor that still needed review/study and was prepared to vote for a deferral of that portion ~f the Plan so the cltlzena in Chester and others that input. Mr. Cnrrin expressed concerns relative to the impact of the proposed Plan on those residents living along ROute 10; stated the Chester Area Advisory ~oard was appointed to. addres~ the problems of the Village of Chester including the transportation network and felt that input should b~ considered relative to 89-63? this iseue; indicated the reason that he felt so strongly about deferring the Plan was because the Chester Area Advisory Committee had held several public hearings relative to the Chester Villaq~ Plan and it was his understanding from citizens in the area that they had either not known about or were unable to attend those meetings to express grave concerns they have about the proposed Plan and h~ wanted them to have the opportunity to do so. He expressed concerns relative to the entire Plan concept as he felt since there is insufficient funding for the construction of and/or improvement to roads and stated that if the road issue were not addressed at this time through growth and development, the sa~e problems would exist ten years from now and roads would be even more substandard then than they are now. He ~uggested that the entire north-south corridor from the intcr~ection of the east-west/north-south freeway interchange north to Route 10 and from Hopkins Road Extension from Route 10 to Old Lane including the railroad bed to Chester Road and the entire area affected by the chester Area Advisory Committee's report be deferred. Mr. Mayes stated Mr. Currin's suggestion for deferral of that portion of the Plan was acceptable. There was further discussion relative to the area map indicatin9 the portion of the Plan for which Mr. Currin had requested a deferral; the amendment suggested by Mr. Steve Perkins regarding Allied Road to be included in the Plan; approval of the east-west freeway of the Plan; the impact of the Chester Village Plan recommendations on the north-south corridor; etc. Mr. Mayes expressed appreciation to all those involved for their diligent efforts and participation in the proposed Thoroughfare Plan, particularly Mr. McCracken whose assistance and informat~h ~as invaluable to the citizens who attended the many meetings relative to this matter. After further discussion, it was On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board resolved to approve the proposed Thoroughfare Plan as presented, to include a major arterial realignment of Allied Road to Route 10 at its intersection with Point of Rocks Road, with the exception of the north-south freeway corridor between th~ proposed north-south/east-west freeway interchange north to Route 10 and the Hopkins Road Extension from Route 10 to Old Lan~; and further, the Board deferred its consideration of the north-south freeway corridor between the proposed north-south/east-west freeway interchange north to Route 10 and the Hopkins Road Extension f~om Route 10 to Old Lane of the proposed Thoroughfare Plan and remanded said portion of the Plan to the Planning Commission for their reconsidera- tion/review and to permit public input regarding the proposed Chester Village Plan as it relates to this portion of the proposed Thoroughfare Plan; and with the understanding that consideration be given to the Phillips and George properties at the time of design. Vote: Unanimous It was generally agreed to recess for five minutes. Reconvening: Mr. Currin requested that tho agenda be amended to include an item regarding a procedure for deferral of all zoning oases affected by the north-sou%_h freeway portion of the Thor~hfare Plan until said Plan is finalized. 89-638 On motion of Nr. Sullivan, Se¢o~ded by Mr. Mayes~ the Board suspended its rules to add an item regardlng adoption 0£ a policy for the deferral of all soning cases affected by the north-south freeway portion of the Thoroughfare Plan. On motion of Mr. Ceftin# ~econded by N~. Sullivan, the Board adopted a policy to defer all zoning cases affected by the north-south freeway portion of the ThOroughfare Plan ~Dtil such time as said Plan is finalized. Vote: APPOINTMENTS 9.B.1. GREATER RICFtMOND TRANSIT COMPANY BOARD OF DIP~CTOR$ Mr. Micas explained that at its June 14, 19~9 m~eting, the Board nominated candidates to serve on the Greater Richmond Transit C©~any's Board of Directors and that, ~T this tir0e, the Board should vo~e on each nominee sequentially until thre~ members are approved who each r~eeive three votes for appointment. Mr, Currln ~tatnd that, because of his vote on the Richmond Transit Company contrast h~ felt he should withdraw his nomination of Mr. Nelson Bennett to ~erve ~n that agency's Board of Directors. ~e stated h~ had discussed the ma~ter with Mr. ~ennett and would consider hi~ for oth~r appointment~ in the future. The Board being polled, the vote On ~r. Daniel K. Smith's appointment to serve on the Greater Richmond Transit Company Board of Directors, who~ term i~ effective July 5, 1989 and who will serve until the 1990 shareholders' meeting, was as follows: Mr. Daniel: Mr. App!~gate= Mr. Currin: Aye. Mr. Sullivan= Aye. The Board being polled, Lhe vo~ on Mr. David W. Matthews appointment to serVe on the Greater Richmond Tra~$1t Company Boerd of DireQtors, whose term is effectlvs July 5~ 1989 and who will serve until [he 1990 shareholders' meeting, was as follows= Mr. Daniel: Aye. Mr. Mayes~ Aye. ~r. Applegate: Aye. Mr. Currin: Aye. ~r. sullivan: Aye. The ~oard being polled, the vote on Mr. Kerry I. Schutte, Jr.,s appointment to s~rve on the ~re&t~r Richmond Transit Company Board of Directors, whose term is effe~%iTo July 5, 1989 and who will serve until the 1990 shareholders' m~ting, was as follows: ~r. Danisl: Aye. Mr. Mayes: Abstention. Mr. Applegate: ~r. Ceftin: Aye. Mr. Sultivan~ Aye. ~9-639 9.B.2. JAM~S RIVER C~RTTFT~D D~V~LOPM~NT CORPORATION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board appointed Mr. C. F. Curtis, Jr., representing the Board of Supervisors, to serve on the James River Certified Development Corporation, whose term is effective July 1, 1989 and expires June 30, 1990. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Daniel, SECOnded by Mr. Mayea, the Board appointed Mr. Gary R. McLaren, Director of Economic Development, to serve on the James River Certified Development Corporation, whose term is effective July 1, 1989 and expires June 30, 1990. Vote: Unanimous It was noted that Mr. Peter B. Cleal, Vice President of Signet Bank, who was nominated at the June 14, 1989 meeting preferred not to serve on the James River Certified Development Corporation and there were no other nominees at this time. Mr. Currin requested that the rules be suspended to simultaneously nominate/appoint Mr. Thomas B. Caffrey, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the County Bank of Chesterfield, as he had expressed a willingness to serve on the committee. On motion of Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board suspended its rules to simultaneously nominate/appoint Mr. Thomas H. Caffrey, Jr,, President and Chief Executive Officer of the County Bank of Chesterfield, to serve on the James River Certified Development Corporation. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board simultaneously nominated/appointed Mr. Thomas B. Caffrey, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the County Bank of Chesterfield, to serve on the James River Certified Development Corporation, whose term is effective July 1, 1989 and expires June 30, 1990. Vote; Unanimous After a brief discussion relative to the definition of a "private sector lending institution", it was generally agreed that the nomination of a ~econd candidate from the private sector lending institution category would be taken up at the next meeting. Mr. Sale noted that individuals appeinted to this committee must be willing to serve on beth the board and the loan committee. The Board being polled, the vote on Mr. Carol W. Youngkin's appointment to serve on the James River Certified Development Corporation, whose term is effective July 1, 1989 and expires June 30, 1990, was as follows: Mr. Daniel: Aye. Mr. Mayes: Aye. Mr. Applegate: Aye. Mr. Currin: Aye. Mr. Sullivan: Aye. It was noted that Ms. Ann Anderson preferred not to serve on the James River Certified Development Corporation and it was generally agreed to withdraw her name from nomination. 89-640 The Board bein~ polled, the vote cn Mr, 8~muel ~. West's appointment to serve on tko James River Certified Development Co~poration, whmme t~rm is effecbiv~ 3%1y 1, 1949 and axpirem Juno 30, 1990, was as follows: Mr. Daniel: Pass. Mr. Ap~l~ats: Pass. M~. Curtis: Pass. Mr. Sullivan: Pass. Thc Board bmin9 polled, the vote on Dr. clinton W. Pettum' appointment to s~zve on the James River Certified D~velopmen~ Corporation, who~e berm is effective July l, t~89 and expires June 30, 199D, was as ~ollowa: Mr. Daniel; Pas~. Mr. Mayas: Pass. ~r. Applegate; Paem, Mr. Currln: Pass. ~r. Sullivan~ Pa~s. Since staff was unable to reach Me. Panee~ E. Jackson to determine if she was willing tc serve on the James River Certified Development C~rporation, it was generally agreed to withdraw her name fr~ cOnSideration. The Board bsln~ polled, thm vote on Dr. Edward W. Whitlow's appoinbmen% %o ierv~ on ~he James River Certified Development Cor~Qraticn~ whoee term is effective July I, 1989 ~nd expires Mr. O~niel: Aye. ~r. Mayee: Aye. Mr. ~pplegate: Aye. Mr. Ceftin: Aye. Mr. Sullivan~ ~y~. METROPOLITAN RICHMOND CONVENTION ~ND VISITORS The Board bein~ appointment to serve on %he ~etrepoli~mn Richmond ConVention and Vieitore Bureau, whose t~rm is effective July 1, 1989 and e×pi:es June 90, 1991, wa~ as follows: Mr. Daniel: Aye. Mr. Mayas: Aye. Mr. ADplega%~: Mr. Currin~ Aye. Mr. Sullivan: Aye. It was noted Mr. Zane Davis declined tO the ~etropoli~an Richmond Convention and Visitors Bureau and~ therefore, it wam generally agreed to withdraw him name fro~ consideration. ~he ~oar~ ~eing Dolled, the vot~ on Mr. Richard L. Young*m ~ppointment to serve on the Metropolitan Richmond Convention an~ Visitors Bureau, whose harm is effective July 1, 1989 and expires June 30, 1990, was as foltowe~ Mr. Daniel: Aye. Mr, Mayos: Aye. Mr. Apple~ate: Aye. Mr. Currin: Aye, Mr, S~Ilivan: Aye. 89-641 9.B.4. METROPOLITAN ECONOMIC D~V~LO~M~NT COUNCIL BOARD OF DIRECTORS The Board beinq polled, the vote on Mr. Daniel W. Burger's appointment to serve on the Metropolitan Rconomic Development Council Board of Directors Directors, whose term is effective immediately and is at the pleasure of the Board, was as follows: Mr. Daniel: Nay. Mr. Mayes: Nay. Mr. Applegate~ Aye, Mr. Currin: Nay. Mr. Sullivan: Aye, The Board being polled, the vote on Mr. Eerbert T. Sink's appointment to serve on the Metropolitan Economic Development Council Board of Directors, whose term is effective immediately and is at the pleasure of the Board, was as follows: Mr. Daniel: Nay. Mr. Mayes: Aye. Mr. Applegate: Nay. Mr. Currin: Aye. Mr. Sullivan: Ays. 9.~.5. BUILDING CODE APPEALS EOARD On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Soard appointed the following persons to serve on the Building Code Appeals Board, whose terms are effective July 1, 1989 and expire June 30, 1992: Mr. William G. Brandt, Jr., Electrical Engineer Mr. John A. Sanderson, Plumbing Contractor lO. PUBLIC ~EARINGS 10.A.~ 10.R. ~/gD 10.C. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18.1, CODE 0P THE COUNTY OF CEESTERFIELD, 1978, Ak A~t~NDED, BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 18.1-55 AND AMENDING SECTION 18.1-54(b) P~LATING TO SIZE OF LOTS SERVED BY SEPTIC SYSTEMS; AND AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF TEE COUNTY OF 1~ AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE XI CHESTERFIELD ~ RELATING TO SEPTIC SYSTEMS AMD AMENDING SECTIONS 20-42 AND 20-63 RELATING TO FA%NDATORY CO~r~CTIO~ TO THE PUBLIC SEWER AND WATER SYSTHM~ AND AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 11-9~ CODE OF TEE COUNTY OF CHESTER~IELD, 1978, AS A~ENDED, RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION OF SEPTIC S~STF~M$. Mr. Micas stated this date and time had been advertised for public hearings to consider ordinances relating to the size of lots served by septic systems, mandatory connection to public sewer and water systems, and construction of septic systems. He stated Dr. Nelson was present to answer any questions the Board may havs, Mr. Daniel inquired whether Class A or Class B contractor qualification required the most training, certification~ etc. 89-642 and curtiiication. ~r. Applegate reference~ info~ation regarding %he $140,000 annual cast for pumping septic tanks and asked who paid for that, as well a& the inspection of such this proposal homeowners pay~ for it, adopted today and amended, i£ ne=es~ary, at some time in the d~v~lopm~nt oommuDity strengthened the proposal; supports the Mr. Philip ~al~ey ~tated he felt the proposed ordinance was basically sound but recommended deletion of th~ recommended minJJ~u~, lot frontage of 120 feet or a modification of ir to state that it would be 120 feet at the building line in ~hat this erdinane~ shall not preclude non-conventional systems approved by th~ Stat~ Board of Health; and r~q~ested that there be grandfathering of the depths similar to that ef the lot ~ize only on parcels of land wher~ zoning and ten~ativss have been approved. soils, no= only look at the peptic tank drainfield site but ~lannlng Commission; Ms. Fays ~almer requested clarification with respect to a media report regarding requirements for ~andato~y pumping and the evening session of the meeting. ~r. R~sey explained ordinance which i~cluded $10.00 billed to each of the 17,000 users annually, $140.00 lump s~ paid at the time o~ th~ original pe~i~, and $40.00 inspection and certification fe~ every five years excluding the cost the citizen would incur to systems and inquired as to what p~oc~ux~ would bs used Mr. Harold Matthews referenced copies of material that had been "grandfath~ring'~ cla=~ which he felt was important to protect those individuals and/or parcels o~ land which had already b~n general public relative ~o the importance sf maintenance of 89-643 septic systems; and in general voiced support for the proposed ordiance as he felt it would improve the long-term sewer situation in the County. Mr. Tim Sexton stated he concurred with the re¢o~endation of 40,000 square foot lots in an area where wells and septic systems are used but felt there are certain situations where there should be exceptions for the requirement of lot size to be 30,000 in subdivisions where there is access to public water but not sewer; expressed concerns regarding the recommendation for prohibited uses; and stated he felt there needed to be more coordination between the Health and Building Inspections Departments as to how house are constructed, the exact loca- tions of the house in relation to the size of the lot, etc. Mr. Bill Hastings commended the Board for their efforts to achieve stronger septic system regulations in the County; voiced support the recommended proposals thus far; expressed concerns relative to reducing the 40,000 square foot lot requirement, Capital Improvement Program costs, Chesapeake Bay criteria, the depth to seasonal water table level~ the use of dual septic tanks systems in conjunction with the building inspection process, mandatory connections; etc.; stated if the proposed ordinance were adopted that there be sufficient numbers of County staff to enforce the regulations; and stated he hoped the Board would consider the installation of monitoring wells as precautionary measures to ensure that drainfielda are not affecting water consumption. Mr. George Emerson expressed concern that imposition of regulations such as those recommended in the proposed ordinance would affect the ability of the first-time homebuyer's purchase of a home in the County and stated he was not aware of any recent septic' system/well failures and/or the expense of correcting such failure having to be borne by the County, Mr. Walter House inquired as to whether or not the Board would render its decision at today's meeting or at a later time. Mr. Applegate indicated that any one of a number of actions could occur and would be voted on by the Board. Mr. ~ouse stated he has been on a septic system for approximately 20 years, hsd never had any problem with it and felt being charged for inspections was unjustified. Ms. Bambi Barnett requested clarlfication of language in Section 18.1-55 of the proposed ordinance relative to lot size as she understood th~ terminology of "tentative subdivision approval" and "residential lots" in that sentence was to be deleted and replaced with the terminology of "residential zoning only". Mr. Jacobsen stated the revised language as recommended by the Planning Commission did address/strike that verbiage and replaced it accordingly as per Ms. Barnette's statement. Ms. Barnette stated said corrected language was acceptable. Mr. Oliver Rudy stated that a substantial portion of the County's land mass has soils suitable for use of septic systems, requested the Board adopt an ordinance which takes advantage of.a geological benefit that the County has with such soils, and urged the Board to consider the amount of capital expenditures to be saved in the future by being able to take advantage of the good soils in the County. Mr. Bill Walton stated he felt it Was unfair to change the rules in mid-stream on those individuals who already have an approved zoning on land prior to February 23, 1989. MS. Sandy Gentry expressed concerns relative to the necessity for a Class A contractors license and its adverse financial impact on small contractors, requested the Board retain the requirement for only a Class B license, expressed concerns as to what would happen to a homeowner or system that is failing, 89-644 questioned what. weald ~he criteria De to determine who will perform maintenance on septic systems, questlon~d who would be performing inspections of pumping septic systems, etc. Mr. Don Vance, President cf the So~thside Homebnilders Association! stated meet developers prefer to utilize public sewer where possibl~ but there are many sites in the County that have good soils for development of sites with septic systems; that it is ne= economically feasihle for the small develope~ to extend public water/sewer to s~ch sites when they develop th~n; and that for that reasonw they endorse the 30,000 ~quare fcct lots and the 12" separation. Sr. James $chnell addressed concerns relative to the lot size issue as he felt there were some misconceptions. H~ ~ated he wished to point out that they were asking for the 30,000 ~qua~e foot lots i~ there ~ere good soils available for development but overall anyone d~veloping on seFtlc aystems would average over an acre ~ize lot in his development. There being ne one else to address the matter, the public hearing was closed. Th9 Beard addressed each item as recommended by the ~oard at its Chaflottes~ille meeting, the Planning Connmi~icn and with each Bea~d member indicating his po~iaion on same. Lenqthy discussion, questions and eO~ents ensued relative to lot sizes, ~epth to seasonal water table~ installation (soil surface to trench hotter), cross-over valve to split field, grading requirement (storm drains prohibited), disposal nnits, contractor qualifications, malnPenanoe (repair/pumping and maintenance), material prohibite~ nzea prohibited, effective date for lot size, ~ffective date for standards w~th emphasis that the Boasd may wish to consider grandfathering those individuals ~ho had applied for septic permits prior to 2-28-90, records, ~asements, and policy of creation cf water and sewer Assessment Districts, to which issue~ there modificatiom$ regarding lot size, deletion of crosSOVer valve to split fields, r~quirement for Class P license, the d~lation of the wording "store" in the category of Prohibited Uses~ the effective ~ate ~or standards, After further d~scus$ion, =he ~oard generally agreed, with the exception of Mr. Mayes~ that ~h~ proposed ordinance, with the modifioatiens ag indicated, was au:eptable. ~r. Maye~ expressed concern that there Was no residential citizenry input, expressed concerns ~lative to tho impact of the proposed ordinance On the Matoace District where the majority of ~epti¢ systems are currently Ioca~ed and stated the pozition he was taking on this matter, an behalf of the majority of the citizens of the Me,ceca District was as follows: "i. T~ FACTS BEARINQ ON T~Z a. "Ground wa~er contamination from septic tanks is a syutems as the primary polluter of individual drinking water wells; and ~esearch completed the early 1980 (Cream, 1981) Ifrom 1971-1978)' to overflow or seepage of ~e~e from septic tanks'~. (ethan Water Action) with the ~ollowing p~blio health and safety factors which and that such standards will prevent the following from polluting ground water; B9-5~5 ii (1} Manmade chemical ~ubstanoez. (2) Naturally occurring chemical nutrients concentrated in human waste, and (3) Biological pathogens. c. Naturally occurring nitrates are concentrated in septic effluent. The presence of nitrates in drinking water at concentrations above 45 parts per million can cause a condition called "blue baby" (methmoglobinemia), a health condition that can result in infant death. d. It is estimated that over 10,000 households in Chesterfield County rely on ground water as their drinking water sourcei the majority of these citizens live in the Matoaca District. e. Minimum safe standards for the construction of septic systems were developed at a workshop in Charlottesville: (1) One-acre lots as a minimum. (2) No garbage disposals in septic system. (3) Minimum pumping every five years. (4) Eighteen (18) inchee minimum eeparation between drain field trench and water table. (5) Two drain fields with crossover valve. 2. ACTION REQUESTED: a. The Supervisor and the majority of the citizens of the Matoaca Magisterial District request the following Board considerations: (i) Defer any further action on this case until the hearing can be held in the evening where more citizens can express their concerns to the Board. (.2) Maintain as a minimum the standards listed in Paragraphs 1.e(1) through (5), above." Mr. Applegate he felt this issued had been thorouqhly reviewed and that it would be appropriate for the ~oard tak~ action at this time. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. adopted the following ordinances, with portion relating to mandatory connections: Sullivan, the Board the deletion of the AN O~{DiNANC~ TO AMEND SECTION 11-9, CODE OF TH~ COUNTY OF.C~ESTERFIELD, 1978, AS A~4ENDED, P~LATING TO CONSTRUCTION OF S~T~C ~YSTF~MS B~ IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County that Section 11-9 of the Code of the County of Chester- field, as amended, is amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 11-9. Same--Construction standards. The septic tank system shall be constructed in accordance with speoifioatione set forth in the state department of health 89-646 septic tank regulations, a copy of which ie filed with the county administrator, and with the construction standards previded in Article XI oi Chapter 20 of this Code. AN O~DINAN(i~ TO AH~D CHAPTER 18.1, CODE OF T~ COU~ OF C~S~I~, 197~, AS ~, BX A~ SECTI~ 18.~L~ ~ING SE~ION 18.1-54(b) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield Countyz {1} That Chapter 18.t of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, a~ amended, is amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 18.1-54. Generally. o o o (b) Resld~ntial lots to be served by conventional, 9rivets or individual sewerage disposal facilities shall comply with the rules of the state health department and the provisions of section 18.1-55 and Chapter 28, Article VI of thiz Cod~. Sec. I8.1-$~ __.Size of lots s~rved b~ conventional ~ptic In any subdivision utilizing COnventional septic eye=em~ the average lot si~e shall be no lees than 4O,0O0 square feet! at least 90% of all lots in the subdi~ision shall be at lea~t 40,000 square feet i~ si=e, and no lot shall be less than 30~000 square feet in size. In addition, ali lots in the subdivision shall have a minimum lot width cf 120 feet measured at the building line. Thi~ section shall apply to any property for which residential zoning is obtained after February 23, 1989; provided, however, that this section shall apply to avery residential lot which.is recorde~ sfter January 1, 1991. AN O~DINANCETO~%I~DARTICL~ 20 OF xU~CODE(~FT~ ~O]~"f OF ~S~Iw~.n, 1978, AS ~, BY ~DING BE IT O~AINED by the ~oard cf Sup~rvi~or~ of Chesterfield ~=nded, is amended and reenacted by adding ~h~ following in this article shall mean a conventional septi= tank and dralnfield ~ymtem with a septic tank and with gravity ~eed dralnfields 1~ inch~$ to 96 inches deep ox a p~p syst~ with a Sec. 20-19~. Re~%rlctiuns on use o~ ~ptic system~. lot which utilize~ a septic system and 1) for which zoning obtained after February 23, 19~9 or 2) which is recorded size dud shall have a minim~ loc width of 120 f~t a% building line. Except as otherwise provided herein, all 89-647 industrial and eormuercial uses for which a building permit is issued after the effective date of this ordinance shall be prohibited from utilizinq septic systems. b) An industrial or commercial use may utilize a septic system if the following conditions are satisfied to the saticfaction of the Director of the Health Department: 1) the use utilizes no more than 3,000 gallons of water per day, 2) the septic tank is uced for sanitary and food service waste disposal only, 3) the use does not utilize Or produce any of the substances listed in s~ctions 20-93, -94 and -95 of this chapter, and 4) the use does not utilise or produce any of the substances listed in section 20-197(a) through (h) of thi~ article. sec. 20-196. Construction of septic systems. The following standards shall govern the construction of any septic system e) for which a permit is applied for after February 28, 1990 or b) constructed on property subject to a condition of zoning or proffered condition requiring compliance with this ordinance: (a) All septic systems must be separated from the seasonal water table by a minimum of eighteen (18) inches. In addition, all septic systems must be installed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches and a maximum depth of nlncty-$ix (96) inches. (b) Ail lots shall be graded or engineered in ~uch a manner that prevents water £rom draining toward a septic field. (c) No storm drain conneotion~ to a ~eptic ~y~tem shall be permitted. (d) All septic systems serving a residential dwelling unit, shall be designed and constructed to accommodate the disposal of waste from a garbage disposal unit. Disposal units shall be connected to a $spti¢ system by a separate 1250 gallon septic tank in,tailed between the disposal unit and the primary septic tank. Such 1250 gallon tank shall be pumped every two and one-half years after the disposal unit is installed. {e) No portion of a septic system serving a lot or parcel of property shall be located on another lot or parcel of property, unless such portion is located within a recorded easement. (f) Any person who con~tructs a ~epti~ ~yctem mu~t have a Class B contractors license and be approved by the sealth Department. (g) Any person who constructs a septic system on a lot or parcel of property shall prepare an a~-built drawing of the system showing 1) the size, orientation and location of each component of the system, 2) the distances between the system and all structures on the property and 3) the distances between the system and all property lines. The as-built drawing shall be filed with the Health Department within 30 days after construction of the system has been completed. Sec. 20-197. Prohibited materials in septic systems. No person shall dispose of the following materials septic system: in a 89-648 a} hazardous Chemicals as defined by the BOCA National Pire Prevention Code {~eventh Edition) b) petroleum products c) herbicide~ d) insecticides e) fungicides f) embalming fluids g) photography developing fluids h) medical wastes i) septic tank cleaning compounds j} drain cleaners k) disposable diapers and sanitary napkins 1) coffee grounds Sec. 20-198. Maintenance and repair of ~eptic {a) Except as provided in ~ection 2Q-196(d), all septic systems shall be pumped and maintained once every five years. Such pumping and maintenance shall be performed in a manner approved by the chesterfield County Health Deparemsnt. The owner of a septic system ~hali, immediately upon having septic system pumped and maintained, certify in a form approved by the ~ealth Department that such pumping and maintenance was perfoYmed. The p~mping and maintenance required by thi~ section must be performed b~ an i~dividnal or entity approved by the ~ealth Department. (b) Every septic system ~hall he kept in good repaiz so tha~ the gy~t~m functions as oxiginally designed. {e) If the county administrator, or the official designated by him, de~ermina~ that th~ e~er of a septic systum has failed to comply with the requirements of subsection9 or (b) of this ~eetion, he shall notify the owner of such determination by =ertlfied mail, return receipt requested, ~ent to the address Ii,ted in the real e~tate tax re¢or~e. Such netio~ shall also notify ~he owner that he ~ required to correct the violation of subsections (a) or (b), as applicable. If the violation is not csrrauted within thirty (~O) da~s of receipt of such notice, the county administrator, or his private contractor. Th~ cost of such correction, together with an administrative handling charge of one hundr~O fifty dollars ($150.00), shall be hilled to the owner and if not paid wi=tin thirty (SO) ~ays, thc cost of correction and handling eh&~qe shall be added to, and collected in the same manner ~s ~he real ~etatc t~ on ~uch property. In addition, the COUnty admini~trater, or his designee ~hall Oer%i£y to the clerk of the circuit court of the county that the Cost and charge unpaid and the eterk shall record a~ch nnpaid cost and charge in the judgment lien docket book. (~) Nc person shall connect a storm drain to a septic system. (~) No per,on ~hall connect a disposal unit ~o a ssptlc system except as provided in section 20-196(d). (f) No irrigation system shall be installed within twenty And further~ the Eo~zd adopted the following polioy~ adop~s ~he following policy which ~hall govern all deci~ion~ to 89-649 extend public water or sewer lines to developed areas of Chesterfield County: It is the policy of the Board of Supervisors that the extension of public water or sewer lines to serve developed areas of the County shall be financed by the creation of assessment or development districts. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. Nays: Mr. Mayes. ll.K. LUNCH The Board recessed at 1:20 p.m. to travel to the Sunset Cafe for lunch. Reconvening: After a brief discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, re~olved that the Board would amend the agenda to consider the remainder of the items in order after Items ll.L., Requests for Mobile Homes and ll.M., Requests for Rezoning. Vote: Unanimous ll.L. REQUESTS FOR MOBILE HOMES 89SR0276 In Midlothian Magisterial District, CLIFTON L. AND GLORIA J. AP~4STEAD requested renewal of Mobile ~ome Permit ~4SR090 to park a mobile home on property fronting the south line of Westfield Read, approximately 790 feet east of Winterfield Road, and better known as 14011 Westfield Road. Tax Map 15-7 (1) Parcel 30 (Sheet 7). Mr. Jacobsen stated that an incorrect legal description woe used with the application for Case 89SR0276 and some affected adjacent property owners were not notified of the publio hearing; therefore, staff recommends a thirty day deferral to per,it proper notification of those affected property owners. There was no opposition to the deferral. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board deferred Case 89SR0276 until July 26, 1989. Vote: Unanimous @9SR02$0 In Bermuda Magisterial District, CORA M. S~OOK requested renewal of Mobile Home Permit 84SR121 to park a mobile home on property fronting the west line of Brightwood Avenue, approximately 250 feet south of Treadwood Street, and better known as 10220 Brightwood Avenue. Tax Map 97-4 (2) Central Park, Block 15, Lots 31 and 32 (Sheet 32). Mr. Jacobsen stated staff recon~ends approval o~ Case 89SR0280 as the request appears to be in character with the neighborhood at the present time. 89-650 MS. Cora Shook ~tated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no oppo~itlon present. On motion of Mr. Ceftin, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved Case 89SR0280 for seven {7) years, subject to the following standard 1. The applicant shall be %he owner and occupant of mobile home, 2. No lot or parcel may be rented or l~ased fox use as mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be need for rental property. Only one (1} mobile home eAall be parmltted to be parked on an individual lot or pa~eel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, Deq~ired front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable soninq distrlut shall b~ complied with~ except that no mobile home shall be located ~Ioser than 20 feet to any existing residence. 4. NO additional De/mlanent-type livinq space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall no_~t be placed on a p~manent foundation. 5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used~ 6. Upon h~ing granted a Mobile acme Permit, the shall then obtain the nec%zeSty permits from the Office of the Duilding Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. 7. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile ~ome ~srmlt. Vote: 89SR0292 In Dale Maqisteriel District, CHAI~LES ~ JOX ~F~K~ requested renewal of ~obile Ho~e Bermi~ 84SR091 to park a mobile home ~n property fronting the south tine of Cogbill Read, approximately 800 feet northeast of Old Z~on ~ill Road~ and better known as 5733 Cogbill Road. Tax Map 66-1 (2) Ampthill G~urdens, Section Mr. Jacobso; stated staff's field investigation reveals the applicants nra constructing a utility room a~tached =o the rear of the mnbile home, which i~ appr0~imately 70% complete and building permit. 5e stated a "s~ep work o~der" has b~en i~ued for this construction as it is in violation of Standard Condition 4. ~e noted f~rther that the applicants' property contains a con~iderab!e amount of junk that should be removed and disposed of properly; therefore, staff recomlaends the request be deferred for thirty days te allow ~he applicants time to remove the junk from the property and to remove the addition. Mr. Charle~ Me~k$ s~ated the recor~mand~d deferral was acceptable and that he intended to comply with County regulations, There was ne opposition On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayse, the Board deferred Case 89SR0292 until July 26, 19B9. Vote: Unanimous 89-651 89SR0306 In Bermuda Magisterial District, CHi%-D2L~S ~. $Ou'£~ requested renewal of Mobile Home Permit 84SR120 to park a mobile home on property fronting the southeast line of School Street at Harrowgate Road, and better known as 4335 School Street. Tax Map 115-11 (4) McLean Tract, Lot 13 (Sheet 32). Mr. Jacobsen stated staff recommended approval of Case 89~R0306 subject to certain standard conditions, with an amendment to Condition 2 which stipulates that the lot may be rented for use as a mobile home site by Mr. Charles R. South only. MS. Ann Whipp, agent for the applicant, stated the recommended conditions were acceptable including the amendment to Condition 2. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved Case 89SR0306 for seven (7) years, subject to Standard Conditions 1 and 3 through 7 and Condition 2, as amended, as follows: 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. No mobile home shall be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The lot may be rented for use as a mobile home site by Mr. Charles R. South only. 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. 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 cf the mobil~ home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: 89SN0297 In Bermuda Magisterial District, EUGEN~ AND PAMELA MASSMY requested a Mobile Bome Permit to park a mobile home on property fronting the north line of Drewryz Bluff Road, approximately 170 feet east of Old Plantation Road, and better knows as 2668 Drewrya Bluff Road. Tax Map 67-3 (1) Parcel 41 (Shset 23). Mr. Jacobsen ~tated steff'~ field visit revealed that additional living space has been added onto the rear of the subject mobile home by a previous owner. He stated research indicated that the previous owner received a building permit to add a room to the mobile home in January 1983 and, even though the Board adopted the Standard Mobile Home Conditions in October 1981, these conditions were first imposed on the subject property in October 1983 when the 1978 Mobile Home Permit was renewed. He stated that, rather than making the 89-652 applicant remove the addition, s~aff reeoI~lle~d8 that the request bs apDroved with an amendment to Standard Condition 4. Mr. Eugene ~assey stated the recommended condltion~, inclu~e~ the amended Standard Condition 4, were acceptable. There was no opposition. On motion of Mr. Coffin, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the ~oard approved Case 89S~0297 for seven {7) years, subject to Standard Conditions 1 threugh 3 and 5 through 7, and amendment to Standard Condition 4 as fellows: 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 homo site~ nor shall any mobile home be used rental property. Only on~ (1) moDile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, Yeqnired front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home ~hall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. 4. Ho additional permanent~type living space, other than the existing addition, may be added onto the mobile home. The mobile home shall be skirted, but shall not be plac~4 on pe~aneDt foundation. Use of the existing addition to mobile home may be continued during the r~n~wal p~:iod; however, suck addition may no~ ~e enlarged, ext~nde~, reconstructed, substituted, or structurally 5. Where pt~blfo (County) water and/or s~wer 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 dena prior to installation or relocation of th~ mobil~ home. Any violation of the above conditions shall ~e qrounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. ll.M. REQUESTS FOR REZONING SPSNO213 In Clov~r Hill Magisterial Dishrict, AMOCO OIL C~MPANY request- ad amendment to Conditional Ue~ Planned Development {Case 84S016) to permit a ~eto~ vehicle wash in a Community Business ~B-2} District. This request lies on a 1.~4 acre parcel fronting approximately 145 feet on the. north line of Hall Street Read, also fronting approximately 344 feet on the line of Genito Road, and located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of the~e roads. T~x Map 49-9 (1) Parodi (Sheet 14). Mr. Jae0b$on sta~ed the Plan~ing commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0213, subject to certain conditions. Mr. charles Tiller~ agent for the applicant, stated recommended conditions were acceptable. Ther~ was no opposition pr~nt. On motion of Mr. Appl=gate, seconded by ~r. Currin, ~he Board approved Case 89SN0213, subject to the ~ollowing condition~= 89-653 1. The £cllowing conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre- pared by Bodie, Taylor and Puryear, Inc., revised March 8, 1989, shall be considered the Master Plan for the motor vehicle wash. (P) 2. Unless modified at the time of site plan review, a minimum of seven (7) on-site vehicle stacking spaces shall be provided for the motor vehicle wash. Each specs shall have a minimum length of eighteen {18) feet; shall be designed so as not to impede on- and off-site traffic movements and movements into and out of required parking spaces; and shall be separated from other internal drive- ways with raised medians, as deemed necessary for traffic movement and safety, by the Director of Planning. (P) 3. The proposed structurs shall bs compatible with the exist- ing structures located on the property. ~levations shall be submitted for approval in conjunction with site plan review. (NOT~S: a. These conditions are in addition to the previously imposed conditions for Case 84S016. b. The Zoning Ordinance requires the provision of a minimum of five (5} on-site parking spaces for the existing attendant's booth. c. Prior to obtaininq a b~ilding permit, site plans must be submitted for approval.) 89SN0241 In Clovsr Hill Magisterial District, DOUG SOWERS requested rszcning from Agricultural (A) to ~esidential (R-9). A single family residential subdivision is planned. This request lies on a 17.3 acre parcel lying off the eastern terminus of Porter~ Mill Road, also lying approximately 950 feet north of Pcwhite Parkway. Tax Map 37-8 (1) Parcels 1 and 3 (Sheet 13). Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0241. Mr. Doug Sowers stated the recommendation was acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved Case 89SN0241. 89SN0242 In Midlothian Magisterial District, C~STEP, FIELD COUIF~Y DEPAI~T- ME~T OF ~TILI?IES requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit an above-ground water tank and bulk (height and setback) exceptions in an Agricultural (A} District. This request lies on a 2.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 30 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 850 feet west of Huguenot Spring Road. Tax Map 14 (1) Part of Parcel 5 (Sheets 5 and 6). Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case $95N0242, subject to certain conditions. Mr. David A. Knapp, representing the applicant, stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. 89-654 On motion of Mr. ~lllvan, seconded by Mr. Coffin, ~le ~oerd approved Case $95~0242, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan s~bmit- ted with th~ applic~tlon shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. At e minimum, dri~way~ and parking areas shall be gravellPd and maintained to provide ease of ingress and egre~. 3. The ~ite shall be secured with a fence, set back a minimum of twenty (20) fsst from property b0~ndaries, so as tc preclude trespassinq. The area between the sa~uri~y fence and the property boundaries shall be maintained as a b~ffer. Further, u minia~um 100 foot boiler shall b~ ~ain~ained along the eastern property boundary. Existing high story trees within these buffers shall be maintained so as to minimize the view cf the water tower fromarea properties. Other than existing high story trees~ fencing; access and util- ities, which run generally perpendicular through the buffer; and security d~vicp~, there shall be no facititie$ ~ocatsd within the buffer~. Clearing for fences shall not exceed a width Of fiv~ (5) feet. At the %ime of ~ito plan revlsw, a conueptual landscapin~ plan fo~ the buffer ~hall be submitted for approval. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval within thirty (~0) days of rough clearing and gra~ing. ?h~ detailed plan shall include th~ general location Of existing vege- tation tO be retained, and the location of fencing. {P} (NOTE: Pzior to obtaining a building p~rmit, site plans must be submitte~ for approval.l S7S106 In Midlothian Magisterial District, ~RN~ST L. B~L~IN requested re~oning from Agricultural (A) an~ Community Business (B-2! to Light Industrial (M-l) with Conditional U$~ ~lanned Devslop- men~. A commercial/in,us=rial complex is planned. This request lies on a 70.7 acre parcel fronting on the south llne of Mid!otkiaa Turnpike in four (4) place~ for a total of approximately 895 feet, also fronting approximately 253 fee= on the eas~ line of County Line Road. Tax Map 13 41) Parcels 23, 24, and 105 (8h~ts 5 and 6), Mr. Jacobsen stated the ~lanning Commission recommended denial of Case ~7fi106 ae the propcse~ land u~e~ of the request do conform to the light commercial uses along' the Route frontage with agrionltural/forestal uses on the remainder of the property as designated in th~ adQpted Pewhite/Route 288 p~ff~le~ment Area Land Use and Transportation Plan; that there ar~ no public utiliti~ l¢Cated in proximity to the parcel; end that approval of the request would be premature until such time a~ publlc water and sewer and other public facilities are extended to ~erve the property and ~urro~nding area. H~ stated, however, should the 1card wish to allow limited u~ed of the property prior to public water and sewer being available and prior %0 any decisions on the location of ~oute 288~ staff Would recommend that the property remain zoned Agricultural (k) and Community Business (R-2} and that a Conditional Use Planned Development b~ gr~nt~ to allow an outdoor recreational faoili~y, with conditions imposed to ensure qualify development. 89-655 Mr. Ernest Belvin briefly explained the background history of the subject ~equest~ stated th~ request had been deferred on several occasions to permit study for the Upper Swift Creek area which evolved into the Upper Swift Creek Growth Management ~lan and also for a water quality study to be completed; indicated the subject request has been both a mental and physical hardship to him; referenced a memo and petition in favor of the request he had presented the Board; and requested the Board give favorable consideration to his request. Mr. Walker Smith, an adjacent property owner, voiced opposition to the proposed request and support for the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial. He voiced concerns relative to soil conditions in the area, inadequate facilities and/or utilities to support the project, that there is insufficient need for a project of the proposed size in the area; the impact of noise, traffic, underground water runoff if septic systems were permitted, and air quality; and submitted petitions to the Board containing signatures of those in opposition to the request. Mr. Sullivan stated the subject request has been under consideration for quite some time; indicated he felt the subject property would be very important to the citizens of the County in the future but that development at this time would be premature; and, although he had attempted to work with Mr. Belvin to resolve certain issues concerning the case he had had little success and therefore concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial. Mr. sullivan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Daniel, to deny Case 87S106. Discussion, questions and comments ensued relative to whether or not there were any specific uses planned and/or clients anticipated for the site; whether or not there had been discussions regarding architectural design, utilities, soil types, etc.; the fact that public water and sewer are not within .a 'reasonable distance so that it could be extended to the site; a comparison of the subject request with that of Case 87S105; etc. Mr. Schmelz, Principal Utilities Engineer, explained the differences in the circumstances of the rezoning for Case 87S105 versus the subject request and indicated public utilities were projected to be extended in the in,mediate area of Case 87S105 in the foreseeable future whereas utilities to serve the request site in the near future are not present. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that staff and the Planning Commission had attempted to work with the spplicant on several occasions to resolve concerns and differences but the applicant had indicated the suggested alternatives were not acceptable. Me reiterated concerns that the proposed request was not in conformance with the area Plan and was premature at this time as there are no public utilities located in proximity to the request parcel. Mr. Appleqate called for the question. Ayes: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. Nays: Mr. Applegate and Mr. Currin. Abstention: Mr. Mayas. Mr. Micas stated the motion failed but the Board would have to dispose of the case. Mr. Daniel asked if the applicant would agree to have the request remanded to the Planning Commission for reevaluation and to work with staff regarding mere definitive uses, architectural style and design elements, etc. Mr. Belvin 89-656 stated he would go along with a~y suggestions that were reasonable and economically feasible. When auked, Nr. $chmel~ stated public water would have to bo brought to this site from the Huguenot Springs ~ater tank when that facility becomes available which in the latter ~ort~on of 1989 and when that facility ia available the applicant ~ould have tO extend water a mile ~rom the tank =o his site.. Mr. Belkin stated he would agree to eonnec~ to public water and sewer if it were availabla~ ~r. Sullivan stated he could not ~upport approval of the current request bu~ concurred.with Mr. Daniel's suggestion to r~mand it to the Planning Commisaion tO see if differences/concerns could be r~solved. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Currin~ the ~oard remanded Case 87S106 to the Planning Co~mi~ion for reevaluation and to resolve difference~concerns to come up with the moat feasible development plan for the subject ~itp. Vote: Unanimous Tn Matoaca Magisterial Dis~riot, I~ONB~ID~E PROPERTIES, II, L.F,~ A VIRGINIA LImITeD PARTNERSHIP r~quested re~oning from Agricultural (A) ~o Residential Multi-f~ily {R-NF) of {M-l) 0f 40 acres, and to General Business (B-3) of ~2.5 acre~. A mixed u~ development, to in=lade multi-f~ily res~dentiaI, office, light ind~strlal, ~nd co~ercial uses, is planned. This ~eq~eut lies on a total of 112,5 acres fronting approxl- mately 2,48~ fee~ On ~he south line of Iron B~idge Road~ across the north line of Carver aeights Drive, approx~aiely 185 feet we~t of West Booker Boulevard. Tax Map 114-~0 (1} Parcel 9 and Tax Map I14-11 (1) ~arcel 1 {Sheet 31}. Mr, Jacobsen stated the Planning Co--lesion recommended approval of Case 89SN0110~ subje=~ =o certain conditions and aCc~ptanc~ of ~e applicant'~ proffered conditions. June 27, 1989 staff received un ~nded set of COnditions which reduce the potential number of fast ~ood from three to t~o; doe~ not allow amendment for th~ mul~if~ily reatrictive =ovenan%s until January l, 2804; and l~its the sit-down restaurants in the S-3 ar~a. ~r. Currin stated tha~ he, in conjunction wi~ o~h~ individuals, ownm property adjacen~ to the subjec~ declared a =o~flic~ of in~ere~ purmuan= %o ~he Virginia Comprehensive conflict of Interest Act and excuss~ him~!f from th~ ~e~ting. Mr. Charles L. cabal, r~presenting the applicant~, presented a sugary of the proposed r~quest and addressed issues ~o proposed us~s, buffer~, land~capin~ density, etc.; ex~tai~=d the ~ende~ proffered COnditions; and stated he felt the subju== request conformed to th~ req~ir=d conditions. dealing ~ith the north-south ~reeway extendinq nor~wardly to Route 10. When asked, Mr, MoCraoken ststed the d~f~ed poreion Of the Thofouqhfara Plan could impacted this request in that the 89-657 alignment of the proposed north~south freeway a~ outlined in the Plan could possibly affect the subject property. Mr. Appleqate stated that based on that information he felt the request should be deferred pending the Planning Commission's recommendation on that portion of the Thorouqhfare Plan that was remanded to them for further review and consideration. On motion of Mr. ~ayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferred Case 89SN0110 until July 26, 1989. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. ~aniel, Hr. Hayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Coffin. It was generally agreed thm Board would ~ecess for five minu~es. Reconvening: Mr. Currin returned to the meeting. After a brief discussion, it was generally agreed to hear Case 89SN0182, G. E. MIT.F-S AND W, COURTNE¥ JELLS, out of sequenoe. 89SN0182 In Bermuda MagistErial District, G.E. MILES AND W. COURTNE¥ JELLS requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25). A single family residential subdivision is planned. This request lies on a 235.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,420 feet on the south line of Chalkley Road, approximately 800 feet south of Inge Wood Circle. Tax Map 96-12 (1) Parcel 10; Tax Map 96-16 (1) Parcels 7, 8, and 9; Tax Map 97-9 (1) Parcels 4, 5, and 20; and Tax Map 97-13 (1) Parcels 1, 2, and 3 (Sheets 31 and 32), Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0182 subject to a single condition; however, it appears this request could be impacted by a decision to remand a portion of the Thoroughfare Plan dealing with the north-south freeway to the Planning Commission for further review and consideration. Mr. Currin stated he had discussed this request with Mr. Dicks and he was agreeable to a thirty day deferral. Mr. Dicks ~tated thi~ was acceptable. There was no opposition to the deferral. On motion of Mr. Cnrrin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board deferred Case $9SN0152 until July 26, 1989. Mr. Applegate stated that Mr. Sullivan had requested that Case 89SN0245, ~IGM~ C.J. ASSOCIAT~$/PETULA ASSOCIATES LIMITED, be heard out of sequence as it was necessary for Mr. McCracken to leave the meeting due to a previous commitment. $9SN0245 In Midlothian Magisterial District, SIGMA C.J. ASSOCI- ATES/PETULA ASSOCIATES, LT~. requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Developments (Cases 83S09t, 85s138, and 87S033) to 89-658 permi~ use and D~lk exceptions, plus amendment to sondition~ relative to building h~ight, transportation /mp~Ovements, and overall development density. This request lies in Office Business (0) and Residential (R-7) ~istric~s on a 198.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 4,300 feet on the west line of Chippenham Parkway, also frontinq approximately 20 feet on south line of Jahnke Road, and located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Nap 19-1 Parcel 16; Tax Map 19-5 (1} Parcels 3, ~ and ~ and Ta~ Map 19-9 (1) Parcels 8 and 10 (Sheet Mr. Currin disclQse~ te the ~oard that he is involved in negotiations with ~igma C. J. Associates in a contract~ ~eclared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from tho me,ting. and stated tho Planning CGmmission recommended approval of Ca~e sgsN0245, subject to certain conditien$ a~d acceptance of apDlieant?s proffered conditions. Mr. Edward Willey, Jr.~ representing the applicant, stated proposed request is an amendment to Conditional ~se Planned Developments (Cases S3S091, 85S138, and 87S033) to p~rmit u$~ and bulk (parking) exceptions, plus amendment to conditions relative ta b~ilding height, transportation improvements and overall development density. He stated the applicant desires to permit office uses and limited eo~mercial u~es on a portion of the property currently restricted to m~ltifsmily increase overall development density (office and coru~erciaI) from 1,220,000 square feet to 2,100,080 sqnare feat af floor area; amend all building height limitations~ delete the rlght-e~-way dedication requirement for Carnation Dri~ Extended; r~dnce parking space size from ten feet by twenty fee~ to nine feet by eighteen feet; and permit modification the required number of parking Epaca$. ~ no~d The requested mis of office and limited commercial ase~ would provide an appropriate land use tranEition h~fwe~p the existing autc~aebila dealership and the existing Boulders Sp~ings and adjacent apartments, north and w~nt of tho proposed commercial tract. Ms. Meg Donovan, President of Cres~wood Farms ~ssidents Association, voiced opposition to approval of the request addressed iss~e~ relative to the continued speeding on Ben View Drive by vehicles cutting through from Jahnke Road to get to Buford Road which effaces the neighborhoo~ safety and peace of mind; a 76% increase in square footage producing a 12% inerea~ in traffic through the Boulders complex and thus the neighborhood; th~ adjacent project of HMK which is penOing development and its impact on their neighborhood. She road, Community Af£aira Representative for the Crestwood Farms Residents A~so~iation~ expressing concerns regarding trellis and the increasing of denaity ~er =he ~o~ldsr$ complex and Mr. Bill Sarnett, Vice President of the Crestwood Farms Residents Association, regarding the limitation of further commercial development on Jahnke Rood. ~he referenced an article regarding the Boulders in the Richmond Times Dispa=ch Newspaper on June 24, 1989 relative to density and asked that ~oCraeken, ~er purposes of clarification, explain Proffered Condition 2. Mr. McCracken explained, with re,peet to Proffered Condition that staff will interpret the word "phaBe" a~ a request for approval to construct any huilding or group of buildings; that staff will raqnlre that the traffic ~tRdy consider local, site an~ other approved development traffic as raquire~ by Chesterfield Transportation Department traffic impact study requirements; and that additional roadway improvements as 89-659 between the Powhite Parkway interchange and the Chippenh~um Parkway interchange. Ms. Donoven questioned if a traffic study would be automatically requested prior to each phase of development. Mr. McCraoken stated the next =raffic study that would be required would be if the Boulders were to request the development ~c exceed the density that they have permitted at the present time. M~. Denovan questioned if the general condition of traffic on Jahnke Road would be monitored in regard to statistics relative to roadway capacity, grade level of intersections and peak traffic counts. Mr. McCracken stated that type of information was typically what his department would collect. MS. Donovan questioned if the traffic generated solely by the Boulders exceeds the original daily trips permitted would the new density being proffered decrease. Mr. McCracken stated the condition requires that if the Boulders were to request for a density above 1.2 million square feet, as originally approved, that decision would be made by the Planning Commission and staff's recommendation would most likely be that if the traffic level of service is not satisfactory that it not be approved. Ms. Donovan questioned if staff would be able to produce a standard of acceptable levels of services on Jahnke Road, to define in numbers what is an acceptable level of traffic would be On Jahnke Road. Mr. ~cCracken stated that with respect to this development, staff anticipates a 'ID" level of service in the morning, and an "~" level of s~rvice in the afternoon. She requested that Cres~wood Farms Residents Association be mailed a copy of staff's traffic impact study. Ms. Denovan questioned if an important client such as Time Life or any other very large corporation expressed interest in locating in the Boulders and that extra office space traffic study put the Boulders above the original trips permitted, what would happen - would Crestwood Farms interest be protected or would the tax base interest of Chesterfield County be viewed f~rst. Mr. MeCracken stated he could not answer that question. She questioned if certain conditions of zoning could be waived if a large corporation were to request that such action be taken. Mr. Daniel stated staff could not waive conditions, that requests would be reviewed through the public hearing process and no decision would be made in private. Ms. Donovan stated that was acceptable. She stated the compromise, as it stands at the presen~ ~im~, was satisfactory and their efforts had been well spent; indicated she was satisfied that their concerns were on the record and the transpcrta=ion situation had been clearly e×plained and that the intent of Proffered Condition 2 was clear. She stated it appeared that the agreement is apparently a standard proffered condi=ion and she found it very difficult to deal with and suggested that in the future that it be changed to be a more workable form. Mr. Dan Carrell, Vice President of the Southampton Civic Association, expressed concerns relative to increasing the density of the proposed request, traffic studies, the project, which is on the edge of the City of Richmond, adversely impacting t~eir neighborhood, etc.; and stated they believe that responsible planning requires that this rezoning proposal be rejected because of the potential serious adverse traific impact it will have On the other affected areas in Chesterfield, in the City, and in Henrico County, and because there has been no effort to analyses the overall regional planning and traffic, results. When asked, Mr. McCracken stated he felt the proposed request was appropriate, that while there were no proffered conditions for any additional road improvements other than that agreed to 89-660 in ~he original conditions of zoning snob requirements would be addressed through future traffic analyses, and that all previously required road improvements, including Jahnk~ and Buford Roads, had been completed. There being no further que~tion~ cf Mr. McCrackenr he excused himself from the meetln$. Mr. Carroll submitted a copy of a written statement from the President Q~ his area civic association to the Board for the record. Discussion~ questions and comments ensued relative to the increase in th~ height cf buildings, increased square footage, open space, landscaping, the number of addibtoDsl buildings in th~ r~vise~ plan, if the additional square footage i~ primarily in increased height for the buildings Or if there are additiQnal buildings, etc. ~:. Willey stated the sams amount of open ~paoe as in the original Master Plan is contemplated 'for two reasons - One ~einq that there is now the availability of parking decks and fh~ Other is the increase in height. ~r. Sullivan stated ~very effort wo~ld be made tO keep the %raf£1c situation under control; pointed cut that the reason Sigma is requesting thi~ amendment is because the projsute~ traffic generation was misjudged at the time of eri~inal application; that he f~lt the proposed request appropriate; and that the efforts of all those involved have come up with a plan to protect th~ County sow and in the future. On motion of Mr, Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the ~oard approved Cass 895~Q245, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan submitted with the application ~hall be considered the Master Plan for the commercial tra~t. {~OTE: Except as amended by conditions of previous zoning and ccnditi0n~ ~tated herein, ~h9 approvsd Textual Statements and Master Plans for Eoulders I and I! remain in effect for those developmen=s.) 2. Uses within hh~ commercial tract, us depicted on the Master Plan, shall be limited to the following= a. All Offic~ Business (O} b. Nursery ~chools, child and adult day care centers, and kindergartens. c. Offics warehouses. d. Mini-warehouses. Development within the commercial tract shall conform to the development requiremmnt$ of ~he Zoning Ordinance, Sections 21.l-238 through 21.1-2~3~ 21.1-251, 21.1-253 through 21.1-255, ~1.1-256 through 21.1-266, 21.1-258, and 21.l~270. (NOTE: This condition supersed~ all previously imposed conditions of zoning approval applicable to =he property included in the Drope~ed commercial tract.) 3. A minim~tm fifty (50) foot buffer shall be provided b~tween the commercial trao~ and ' other ~esldentially zoned property. This buffer cheil conform to the ~uffer and 89~661 And further, conditions: Screening requirements of the zoning Ordinance, Sections 21.1-226 through 21.1-228. (P) Building heights and the heights of other structures shall conform to the height requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Sections 21.1-212 and 21.1-243. However, for the purposes of calculating height limitations, any property currently zoned residentially with a Conditional Use for multi-family shall be considered zoned R-MF. (P) (NOTE: This condition supersedes the condition for Case 87S033.) Parking areas shall conform to the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Sections 21.1-213 through 21.1-221 and Section 21.1-225. (P) Prior to submittal of any schematic plans for the undeveloped sites within Boulders I and II, a report on the effects of the proposed additional 880,000 square feet of building area on the on-site and adjacent off-site public water and wastewater system~ shall be submitted to the Department of Utilities, Planning Section for review and approval. This report shall include projections of water demand requirements (flow/pressure for fire flow, and wastewater flows). If deemed necessary, a revised hydraulic analysis of the wastewater lines, aS well as a water system analysis, shall he provided. (U) (NOTES: (a) Except as noted herein, all conditions of zoning approval for Boulders I and TI remain in effect. (b) Prior to obtaining any building permits, site plans must be submitted for approval.) the Board accepted the following proffered The maximum density of this development shall be 2,100,000 square feet of office, 285 multi-family units, and 300 hotel rooms, or equivalent densities, as determined by the Chesterfield Transportation Department. (CTD) For any development beyond the density already approved for this p~operty (1,220,000 square feet of office, 285 multi-family units, and 300 hotel rooms) the developer ~hall provide CTD with additional traffic studies upon completion of each phase of the development if requested. I~ these studies demonstrate that traffic generation rates and distributions solely by this development are materially different, as determined by CTD, from the projections set forth in the traffic study prepared by CTD dated June 9, 1989, CTD may require the developer to provide additional roadway improvements. If satisfactory improvements cannot be provided, the Planning Commission may reduce the permissible densities to the extent that acceptable levels of service are provided, as determined by CTD. NOTE: Staff will interpret the word "phase" as used in this proffer as a request for approval to construct any building or group of buildings. Staff will require that the traffic study rsfsrred to in this proffer consider local~ site, and other approved development traffic as required by Chesterfield Transportation Depart- ment traffic impact study requirements. Additional roadway improvements referred to in this proffer as related to Jahnke Road are expected to be located generally between the 89-662 Powhlte Parkway interchange and ~he Chippenha~ Parkway interchange. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, ~. Mayus and Br. Sullivan. ~ays: Mr. Applegate, aa he had cencsrns relative to the b~ffers, cost of read improvements and who would pay fQr them, and th~ development of ~M~ and other projects. Absent: Mr. Ceftin. It wac generally agreed to recess for five minute~.' Mr. Currin r~turn~d to the meeting. ~PSNOl4~ In Matoaca Magisterial District, WInT.IAM B. D~VAL ~ ~ENE DU%r~ requested rezoning fr~ Agricultural (A) to (R-25], A uin~lu f~ily r~sidential subdivision i~ planned. This request lies on a 3~9.0 acre parcel ~ront~nq 550 feet on ~e south l~ne of River Road, approximately 1,710 fee~ wes~ of Saddlubrook Eoad. Tax Map 1~8-11 (1) Parcel Tax Map 158-15 (1) PaTcel 4; and Tax Map 170 (1) Parcels 2 and ~r. Jacobsen saa~ed the Plannin~ Co~i~sion approval of Case 89SN0142, subject to certain conditions and acceptance of the applicants~ proffer~d condition~. Ke noted the request ia in conformanc~ wi~ the Western Ar~a Land Use and Transportatio~.~an and compatible with the ~urrounding urea. He s~ated staff's reco~endation for ~pproval is based, in large m~asure, ~Don ~e 'applicant~' proffered condition ordinance and, in addition, proffere~ conditions regarding the implementation of "b~t ~aD~g~ment practlc~s" nsce~ary to contro~ the run-o~f and n~trien% loa~ings into the various %rlbutarles that flow in~o L~k~ Chesdin (Appomat=ox River} as a result of the proposed development. Mr. Edward WilIey, Jr., representing th~ applicants, stated the applicant~ are requesting rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (E-25} for the development of a single f~ily residential sub~ivisio~ and plan fur i= to be served by public t~ic~l density (.84 unite/acre) could yield 2~4 lotm with a the applicants have wurka~ closely and met with the a~jacen~ neighbor~, met with memb~r~ of Union Branch Church and agreed etc., and feel they ha~e reach an ~CTQr~ with %hm co--unity an~, in a~di~ion have agreed with ~o~e resident~ who li~e i~ediately across %he street from the proposed project that any roadway cons=rue=ed from the proper=y onto River Road would aisc be located ~o that h=adlight~ would not reflect ~irectly into any of %heir homes. H~ polated out that the appticant~ have proffered conditions that would limit the lo% area to a County septic sys%~ ordinance as finally adopte~ by the Board of Supemvluuru, =hat no septic lines ~hatl be installed wi~in ~h~ buff~5 adjacent to th~ tributaries, tad that, in conjunction w~th final subdivieion approval, a drainage plan shall be submitted to ~nviro~en%al ~ngine~ring for review and management and shall include ~e instie~tion of "b~% management practices" that are consistent with the reco~enda=ions included in the final r~port prepared by 89-663 Michie and Litte River Reservoir Watersheds, and further the "best management practices" shall also include, but not be limited to, the use of wet detention basins/permanent pool(s) for the control of nutrient loads on the watersheds for Lake Chesdin and the Appomattox River. Mr. Mayas questioned the applicants' proffered condition 1 ef 30,000 square foot lot size, itz compliance with the approved septic system ordinance, the fact that proffered condition 2 would suffice and require the applicants to abide by the adopted septic system ordinance, etc. Mr. Willey stated he could agreed to delete proffered condition 1. He further questioned how many lotz would be developed as R-40 and/er R-30; whether or not this request would be in compliance with the standards of the adopted septio system ordinance with respect to protecting the Lake Chesdin watershed;, how many surrounding residences within the vicinity of the proposed project are currently provided with public water; if there were a requirement that the applicant extend water to the surrounding area; etc. Mr. Willey stated that, to be in compliance with the septic system ordinance, there would be 90% of the lots sizes 40,000 square fset and 10% Of the lots sizes under 40,000 square feet but none under 30,000 square feet. He stated the developer intends to bring public water the 1,200 feet to the subdivision that is specified by staff and to have this subdivision, in its entirety, served by that public water and in addition anyone in that vicinity who desires to connect to public water, the applicant would ensure that they are notified in a timely manner so they may conveniently connect to the water and as a part of his project so that those along the roadway that currently do not have water available may have it made available. Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff, without performing a specific water quality study of the Lake Chezdin Basin, used the best available information to prepare the proffered conditions, specifically proffered condition 6 which states no septic lines shall be installed within the buffers adjacent to the tributaries and those buffer dimensions were worked out in consultation with water quality engineers. Mr. Schmalz stated the nearest water line is located in Bright Oak Estates and that there is no water line along River Road in that area and no water line along Exter Mill Road; he stated that by ordinance if any lot in a subdivision is less than one acre in size the entire subdivision must utilize public water. Mr. Daniel questioned how did the applioant intend to extend water to his site. Mr. Schmalz stated staif has suggested that the applicant extend the 16" water line from Saddle Brook Road and River Road to their zite. Mr. Mayas expressed concern that adjacent property owners currently on well water have no protection from the development of projects with septic systems and the potential for failure of some of those septic systems adversely impacting those residents; stated he felt the County should not be a party to licensing approval of this request. There was further discussion relative to the applicants extending water to his project and making it available to the surrounding residential areas; not placing those rural residents currently on well water at risk with the installation of septio systems; etc. Mr. Willey stated the applicants intend to oomply with not only the ~eptic ~ystem ordinance as adopted at the morning session of the meeting but also what is ultimately going to be the re~ult of the water management ztudy that is currently being developed. He stated the applicants would make the water 89-664 available %c everybody along the way that they possibly could. Mr. Mayas asked if the applicants would make the water available to a family that complains that since this project has been devslope~ that their well is affected er contaminated - would the applicant make water available to that family. Mr. Willey stated tha~ would depend on whether that complaint is valid and if the person who is affected by a contaminated or failed septic system brought to Mr. Mayas' attention data indicating that sines this ~ubdivision was developed which convinced Mr. Mayas the situations were related~ then Mr. BuVat would take care of the m~ttsr. Mr. Mayas stated that he would like to h~ve a statement in form of a proffered condition as a safeguard for those ~amilies whose wells may become contaminated and mugg~t~d that request b~ ~e~erred for the purpose of considerinq additional proffers. When asked~ Mr. Schmalz stated the only subdivision in the immediate vicinity that has public water i~ Bright Oak Estates. Mr. George Beadles voiced support for the project and suggested that consideration be given to the ~act that there are other prejoc~s ~nder consideration which could connect to this project that wou~d enh~moe the potential for improvinq th~ public water network through the area. H~ stated that if this case were deferre4 for ~hirty day and the applicant ware to proffer that he would develop th~ eastern portion of prejec~ first ac that the wa%er would extend through ~ne of the other projects that is ~nder consideration, that would provid~ water %o the residents to the east and when the applicants develop to the west, that would provide water to the w~$t. further stated that if the County were to extend water from Union Branch Church where Mr. Willey's project terminates, to the abandoned Union ~ranoh Elemen=ary school, which could possibly be ~sed a~ = fire station because of its location or other aDpro~riaee u~sS, water facilities could be provided for the residents to thc north. Mr. Mayas stated h~ felt Mr. Beadles' stat~m~nt~ had m~rit and a compromise could possibly he worked out that would enhan~ the applicants' project and allay any fears of ~hose in the surrounding subdivisions. ~hsre was no opposition Mr. ~ayes stated he felt the project could be salvaged if certain issues could be re~olved aD~ made a motion, seconded by Mr. cu~rin, to defter ~ase 895N~142 until July 26, 1989. Vote: Unanimous There was brief discussion relative to the withdrawal of the 2.~ acre parcel that has been dedicated by the applicants to the Union ~ranch Church. On' motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by ~r. .currin, the Board accepted withdrawal of a 2.6 acre parcel which th~ applicants d~dicat~d to Union Branch Church. 89MN0215 In Clover Hill Meqi~terial District, requested Cundltienal Use Planned multiple family dwellings Thi~ request lies on a 2.5 THO~A~ AND SHA.~0N STONE Development to permit in an Agricultural (A) District. sore parcel f~0nting approximately ~9-665 200 feet on the west line of Turner Road, acrose from Cloverleaf Drive. Tax Map 29-1 (1) Parcel 10 (Sheet 9). Mr. Jacobsen presented a background history of this request; stated the current application resulted from a zoning complaint which subsequently prompted a staff field visit, at .which it was revealed the applicant was in the process of converting a structure for three multifamily unit~; and exhibited slides indicating the progress of the conversion of the structure. ~e stated the Planning commission recommended approval of the request, subject to certain conditions. Mr. Patrick Crowley was preeent to represent the applicants, did not make a'presentation but asked to be heard in support of the application. Mr. Glen E. White voiced support for the project; stated he had been requested to complete s study of the area which he had done and concurred with staff's conclusion relative to the changes Occurring in the area. He stated adjacent area properties to the north and south of the subject site are beinq marketed and all sales prices indicated office and commercial uses are appropriate. He stated he felt the proposed use was appropriate and beneficial to the area. MS. Prances Marlowe and Mr. E. B, Cranor voiced opposition to the proposed request and expressed concern~ reqarding the history of the applicants constructing on the property and using the property for uses prior to obtaining the proper permits; the appearance of the structure being detrimental to the enhancement of the neiqhborhood (i.e., trash~ junk vehicles, etc.); the depreciation of the value cf their properties as a result of the applicants' actions; cited business operations in the area that they felt were possibly illeqal; etc. Mr. Jacobsen stated that, at the Chairman's reguest, staff conducted a zoning inspection survey of the entire corridor and found a number of businesses Operated from homes legally as home occupations; he stated there were also a nu~er of special permits that were granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals for slightly more intense Commercial operations; the survey revealed three zoning violations that are currently being puneued with the property owners and Staff has taken action to eliminate ~v~rything that is illegally commercial in that corridor. Mr~ Applegate stated it appeared there have been many potential zoning violations and questioned to what extent staff investi- gated alleged zoning violatione. Mr. Jacobsen stated staff hae experienced a long history of zoning violations with respect to this particular property, that staff has visited the site on over ten occasion~ during the last two years, that there have been a ~umber of past violations that have been worked on. He crated ~nbsequent to the Planhing Commission meeting, a zoning inspector was sent to the property and at the time of that inspection there were no zoninq violations. He stated at this time all current permits are legal; however, historically the applicants have begun work prior to obtaining necessary permits and, after the fact, permits are requested. Mr. Applegate stated it was his understanding that under the current request the multifamily structures are under construction without approval of the Board of Supervisors or the Building Official. Mr. Jacobsen stated that was correct. There was discussion relative to the alignment of Cloverleaf Drive extending to the west, possibly through the subject property, to connect to Ruthers Road; uses designated in the Turner Road Corridor Plan for the ~ubject property and adjacent properties to the north, east and west for office use to provide a transition between commercial development along the Route 60 Corridor to the north and exfstfng and anticipated 89-666 a medical office and commercial kennel on the subject property issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Denial referenced previo~s experiences wherein individuals comment that would, on a land usa basis, justify the request and yielded to the District Supervieoz. Mr. Sullivan expressed concern relative to the applioants'.disregard for adharinq to th~ proper procedures for development in the County, the history of continued violations over a substantial number of years, the subjection of the neighbors to violations as previously stated by Ms. Harlowe and stated he felt the request testimony regarding this request, th~ continued violations, to decide to become involved in obtaining a suppl~ental income would b~ much difficulty to be dealt with. ~r. the applicants' failure to obtain proper permits %nntil after the fact. He indicated th~ fact that the applicant~ desire te (two of which would be rental property and one would be occupied and used as a doctor's office and the applicant's Vete: Unanlmou~ It was generally agreed =o recess fez two minutes. In Midlethian Magisterial District, CASA ]~AR CO~PORATIO~ requested amendment to Conditional Use ~lanned Development (Case 87s010} to per, it office wareh0ue~s and an ~tec~ri~ substation in un Office Business (0) District 0n a I~.3 acre parcel l~ing approximately 310 feet off the south line cf 01d Buckingham Roadt approximately 750 feet east of Unison Drive. Tax Map 16-S (t} PaTcel 7 (Sheet 7}. Nr. Ja~ob~o~ stated th~ applicants are requesting am~nOmen~ to a Con~itionaI Use Planned Development (Case 87S010) to permit nsc ~aeeption~ (office/warehouses and an electric iD an Q£fice Business (0) District, with additional amendments felativ~ to buffers, on- and off-site drainage, road plan approval, and access to adjacent properties for the electric sub,teflon u~e only. H~ ~tated there has ~en much controversy and study involved with respect to the location of a new high voltage line to be nsed in conjunction With ~his substation in this central part of'the ~idlothlan District. Ee stated the Planning Commission recommended approval Of %he request, subject to certain conditions. 89-667 Mr. Edward Willey, Jr., representing the applicants, stated the reco~ended conditions were acceptable and agreed to the addendum for the expansion of the roadway from sixteen to twenty feet. He brle£1y addressed a contract dispute between bis clients and adjacent property owners relative to the construction of a iccp'road. Mr. Joe Boiseneau and Mr. Carol Ycungkin voiced support for the proposed request and endorsed the location of the proposed substation. Mr. Jack Pearsall, representing Whitten Brothers, voiced opposition to the proposed request; stated approval of the applicants' request to be relieved of a condition requiring that he provide access via a public road would adversely impact his clients' proposed $7 million development; stated the installation of power lines to the proposed substation will destroy the potential for development of any of the adjacent and/or surrounding properties; addressed the development of the subject property in accordance with the original conditions of zoning reiterating that those conditions stipulated access would be a public road and it would be constructed by the first party to develop in that area; and requested that the original conditions of zoning be enforced. There was Board discussion relative to the original conditions of zoning; reference to Case 87S010 and the original zoning for ~onarco, Cline and Sal~monsky properties; who would pay for the loop road when constructed; whether or not the road for the substation was proposed to be paved or gravelled; whether or not it was necessary to change and/or relieve the original conditions of zoning; etc. when asked, Mr. Jacobsen indicated that, the proposed would generate a minimal amount of traffic and~ therefore, a gravel road could adequately handle the anticipated traffic. Mr. Sullivan stated he did not feel thc Beard needed to be involved with the aspects of a contractual dispute that has arisen relative to this request as that matter is a private concern which would be resolved in court. Mr. Wilkenson voiced opposition to the proposed request and expressed concern that approval of the substation would result in the location of the substation and, subsequently the trans- mission lines, within very close proximity to two homes which he owns; that such action establishes the ability of the State Corporation Commission to decide where the power lines will be installed and the adverse impact and potential hazard of such action to his property; etc. Mr. Sullivan stated he and Mr. Jacobsen had walked the subject property and determined the distance of the location of the substation to Mr. Wilkenson's home was approximately 270 feet. Mr. Wilkenson reiterated his concern as to where the State Corporation Commission would locate the transmission lines and the impact th0me lines would have on his property and stated he was uneasy as to where those lines may be located when the location of the substation as requested is approved. Mr. Duke, with Virginia Power, stated they would be proposing to the Etat~ Corporation Conmmission that the edge of the right-of-way be located approximately 200 feet away from Mr. Wilkenson's home in effort to keep the transmission lines as far away as possible. Mr. Wesley Stigall submitted maps to the Board showing the location of property owned by his family; stated he was not opposed to the proposed use but was concerned that the proposal violated the intent of all the involved landowners when the request was originally zoned; stated that he would like to see 89-668 the power station located on the site but with the Moral nbl~stion met to provide access to surrounding properties~ suggested there be a 60 foot access for all properties to Route 60 versus 01d Buckingham Road~ and stated that there i~ no guarantee that the substation will ever be constructed. There being no one else to address the matter, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Willey stated there is an agreement to dedicate the loop road~ however, Mr. Sal~monsky is net a party to such an agreement~ that %h~e i~ an agreement to build the road 1,200 feet between the ~-2 property to the so~th and that agreement i~ between Mr. Cline and the Whittens; that Mr. Salamonsky is not obliged to build any part of that road but ha~ a contract right, which has be~n assigned te Casa Mar, to access his property via the read. ~e stated Mr. Salamonsky is not a party to either the dedication or the four-party ~greemont to build the road and all that is being requested is that~ if the power company gets approval from the State Corporation Cer~missiOn ~o construct a substation tn which there is no opposition, not to be required to build a p~blic road to be used by one truck per day. Mr. Sullivan stated the citizens oi the Midlothian Dis~rict took a very strong position regarding the original siting of the power station: residents of Stonehenge, Olde COaCh add other subdivisions joined together to ~aek alternate site~ and the subject application i~ the alternative ~ite; but stated he felt concerns had bee~ addressed/resolved. He stated he did not feel ~he Board should be concerned with prluste contract disputes end that the problem with the loop road mhould be resolved among the proper individual~. ~e e~pressed concern relative to Mr. wilkenson'D eitu=tion and stated he ~elt Mr. Duke's proposal to locate the transmission tin~s as far away as possible from Mr. ~ilkenscn's homes is appropriate. Mr. Sullivan made a motion, 9esonde~ ~y ~r. Daniel, to approve Case 89SN0259~ subject to the recon~n~nded conditions including the addendum: 1. Uses shall be limited to the ~ollowing: a, All Offi¢~ ~usiness (O) uses. b. Office/warehouses, provid~ thc warehouse area does no~ exsaed twenty-five (25~ percent of the space and all warehouse ~pace(s) within office building{s) are served by a single loading door or dook. c. Electric substations. (P} (NOTE: Approval e~ Case ~7S01O limited uses within the Offiss Business (0) tract te 0 use~ exclusively. Thi~ condition amends this requirement, as noted harein.~ 2. The following conditions n~twithstanding, the plan submitted to the ~lanning Department on ~ay 11, I989, ehall be considered the Master Plan for the electric ~ubgtmtien. 3. Except as noted herein, with the exception of Conditions 5; 9~ 1~ 11~ 13, and 18, which shall be deleted for the electric suhstati0a, all previously impe~ed conditions of Case eTS010, ~hall apply to the electric substation use. All previously imposed conditions of Case 875010 shall apply to development for office and office/warehouse uses. (~) 4. A security-type fence shall be installed around the propus=d substation and shall be designed to preclude 89-669 trespassing. The exact height and design of the fence shall be approved by the Planning Conm%ission at the time of site plan review. (P) 5. A minimum 100 foot buffer shall be maintained a~ound the perimeter of the electric eubstatien except where adjacent to commercially zoned property. With the exception of transmission lines, as generally depicted on the Master Plan, and any distribution lines, which shall be permitted, provided they are generally located so as to run perpendicular through the buffer, this buffer shall comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Sections 21.1-226 through 21.1-228. Further, the electric substation shall be located and/or oriented such that existing on-site vegetation screens the view of the facilities, except the transmission lines and backbone etructure, from adjacent aqriculturally and residentially zoned properties. (P) (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 5 of Case 875010 for the electric substation use only.) 6. A minimum twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained between the substation security fence and adjacent co~ercially zoned property or any portion of the request property devoted to any use other than an electric substation. This setback shall be maintained as a buffer. With th~ exception of one (1) entrance/exit, the trane- mission lines, as generally depicted on the Master Plan,. and any distribution lines which shall be permitted,. provided they are located so as tc run generally perpendicular through the buffer, there shall be no facil- ities or other improvements permitted within this buffer. This buffer shall comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Sections 21.1-226 through 21.1-228. (P) 7. The horizontal alignment of access to the electric sub- station shall be located within the Whitten Park- way/Wagoneer Way right of way. This access shall be depicted in its entirety on the site plan. Clearing within the Whitten Parkway/Wagoneer Way right of way, to accommodate access to the electric substation, shall be limited to that necessary to construct a maximum twenty (20) foot wide stone driveway, as deemed necessary by Environmental Engineering. There shall be no vertical alignment change~ to acco~odate thi~ driveway~ except as necessary to cross creeks and other drainage ways. Where temporary culverts are required, these culverte shall be designed to accommodate the ten (10) year existing up~ stream conditions or shall be sized so that the fill over the culverts is such that the ten (10) year storm is less than one (11 foot below ~he center cf the access driveway. (NOTES: a. Conditions 5 and 6 supersede Condition 5 of Case 87S010 for the electric substation Condition 5 of Case 87s010 requires a minimum seventy-five (75) foot buffer around the perimeter of the request property for the office/warehouse use and all other permitted Co With the approval of this request, Conditions 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 18 are deleted for the electric ~ubstatlon use only. These conditions, as well as all other conditions of approval for Cass 89-670 87501~, reJ~ain in effect for the o~fice/warebouse use and all othe~ uses. Prior to release o~ any building permits~ site plan~ mu~t be submitted to %he Planning Commission for approval.) Mr. Applegate referenced the original conditions of zoning from Case 87S010~ particularly c0ndition~ 5, 9, 10, 11, I3 and 18; stated he did not iee! those conditions should be waived and Rs could not support the motion. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayem soncurred. ~r~ Currin expre$$e~ concerns relative to the number of cars per day using the road~ the basis for staff'~ recommendation, ~quare footage, e~c.; and stated he also had reservations regardinq approval at this time. Mr. Sullivan st~ed the Reques~ Analysis states ~hat Surthe~ amendments to reCuiremente t~ buffer~, on- and off-site drainage, road plan approval and access to adjacent properties are addressed and pein%ed out %hat he felt the exceptions are sensible and th~ request appropriate. There was brief dissuasion relative to Ca~e 87S010; the waiving of any original conditions cf zoning settinq a dangerous precedent~ explanation of who wa~ involve~ in ~onareo Assuclate~ group and their involvement in th~ o~iginal application; sec. Nr. Applegats offered a substitute ~etion to defer 89SN0259 so the ramifications of the case could be furthe~ and the problem regarding the loop road could resolved. ~r. Sullivan seconded the motion, as he £alt tbs decision relative ts the substation was very important and warranted every consideration. Vote: Unanimous il. ~ B~SI~SS ll.A. AWARD OF CONTRACTS ll.A.1. ABOHITECTURAL CONTRACT FOR NEW MENTAL HEALT~ C~TER On motion of Mr, Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board awarded au ~rshitectural contract in %he amount of $358,000 ta Washington Design Group for the design of the new ~ealth/Menta! Retardation Center, which project was approved in the 1~88 referendum and funds for th~ d~sig~ werk of said project ars available from the 1989 bond sale. ll.A.2. ARCHITECTURAL CONTRACT FOR CO594UNITy DEVELOPMENT on motion o~ ~r. Currin, seconded by Mr. Danial~ the Boar~ awarded an architectural contract in the ~/nount O~ $660,000 to the M0~eley Group for the design of the new Community Development Building, which building will house the Planning, Transpcrta=ion, Building Official, Environmental Engineering and Utilities departments and which project will be funded through the Utilities Department Capital Fund. Vote: Unanimous 89-671 ll.A.3. ENGINEERING DESICN CONTRACT FOR R~VISED ROAD A~D AND PARKING NETWORK ON COURTHOUSE COMPLEX On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currln, the Hoard awarded the engineering design contract for the ~evised road and parking network on the Courthouse Complex in an amount not to exceed $365,000 for the design of the road network, parking lots, pedestrian access and landscaping in accordance with the Master Plan to Buckart Horn, Inc. of Williamsburg, with funding for said design available from the Community Development, Mental Health/Mental Retardation and annual operating Capital Improvement Program ($45,000 is included in the FYP0 Operating Capital Improvement Program) respective budgets. Vote: Unanimous ll.B. ADOPTION OF POLICY THAT THE COUNTY AND AGENCIES RECEIVING COUNTY FUNDS MUST REQUIP~E THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF ALL OWNERS OF FEE SIMPLE REAL PROPERTY PRIOR TO AGREEING TO PURCHASE SUCH PROPERTY Discussion, questions and comments ensued relative to the adoption of a policy that the County and agencies receiving County funds must require public disclosure of all o~ners of fee simple real property as a condition to the purchase of said property; a change in State law, effective July 1, 1989, which would permit the County to require the disclosure of all owners of p~operty applying for zoning amendments; etc. Mr. Daniel made a motion, seconded by Mr. Mayee, to adopt a policy that the County and agencies receiving County funds must require the public disclosure of all owners of fee simple real property prior to agreeing to purchase such property. After further discussion, Mr. Sullivan offered an alternative policy statement that stated "any seller of property to the County or School Board must certify to the County or School Board that no present, appointed or elected Chesterfield County official or any County Department Head is an owner of the property being conveyed. If a present County official or Department Head is an owner, the seller must disclose that official's name". Mr. Daniel stated he would accept the amendment to his motion. There was ~urther discussion relative to the fact that Mr. Sullivan's suggested amendment would limit the policy to disclosure of only the School Board, Board of Supervisors members and/or County staff. When asked, Mr. Sullivan reread his amendment. After reconsideration, Mr. Daniel stated he could not accept that amendment to his motion unless its intent was to disclose the names of all those individuals involved. Mr. Sullivan expressed concern that there are instances wherein it is not considered feasible or appropriate to discloss such information when dealing with potential economic development clientele. Mr. Daniel indicated he felt the local government and public were entitled to have such information as defined by the General Assembly. Mr. Mayes concurred and stated he saw nothing wrong with the County knowing with whom it is dealing. Mr. Currin and Mr. Applegmte indicated they had nO problem with elected, appointed and/or present officials being required to disclose ownership in property being conveyed to the County but expressed concern that if full disclosures of the names of those persons involved in real estate trusts were required, then he felt the State law should be changed to reflect that requirement. Mr. Daniel stated he could not accept Mr. Sullivan's suggested amendment. Mr. Applegate suggested the matter be deferred for 89-672 thirty days. Mr. Daniel called for the question on thc motion. Ayezz Mr, Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Nays: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin and Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Applegate stated the Motion was defeated. ll.C. FY89 YEAR END BUDGET ADJUSTMENT8 FOR THE GENERAL COUNTY GOV~9/~ME~T On motion of ~r. Sullivan, seuon~ed by ~r. Mayas, the Board approved the FY-89 year-end budget ad]ustments in the total amount of $6@7,500 fox the General County Government as follows: SOURCES OF FUNDS Reduced Expenditures Police - vekicle operation expanses and uniforms and equipment were less than anticipated; dispatcher vacancies also created a surplus $ 350,000 Sani%atlon - contract expenses for landfill operations were less than budgeted du~ to competitive bid process. 100,000 Social Eervices - vacancies created a s~rpl~s 115~700 Subtotal 565,700 He,rices - To offset project expenditures the ~enrlcus Foundation donated $25,000 {the County's FY89 donation to the Foundation) back to th~ County, This must be recorde~ ~alari%n from compsn~a=ion ~oard Rark~ & Recreation - ~ee revenue was hlghsr than anticipated Assessor - The on-line computer system (CALIAS) main%sins electronically ~he parcel record ownership cards which the Assessor's office tO ~he public. Also, a real ~stats company purcha~e~ the January land book tape. General Services Support Center - addition~l billings to departments £ur materials and supplies Subtotal TOTAL ADDITIONAL FUNDS 25,000 10,000 28,~00 ~,200 ~9,800 121,800 687,500 ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED: Accountin~ Overtim~ e~penditures~ personnel expenses related to departmental reorganization 51,700 89-673 General Services Administration Lack of turnover, temporary servlcss, telephone network expenses Budget and Management - Part-time expenses, printing, lack of vacancy County Attorney - Lack of vacancy Cost of l~gal services and printing expenses Human Resource Management Advertising, printing and temporary services Purchasing Lack of turnover, temporary services, and computer equipment rental Assessor Lack of turnover, copying charges. (This is partially offset by revenue.) Management Services Administration Lack of turnovsr, printing annual report, temporary salaries, and financial advisors contract. Registrar Expenses associated with gubernatorial primary Commonwealth's Attorney - Lack of turnover, upgrade of positions, ~ducation expenses (partially offset by rsvenue) Fire - Lack of turnover Parks and Recreation - telephone, fleet charges, emergency repairs, and other administrative costs. (This is partially offset by revenue) Community Development Administration ~ Lack of turnover General ~ervices Support Center - Expenditures for materials and supplies (which are sold to County departments and offset by revenue) caused this overage. Henricus Project - The County donated $25,000 to the ~enric~s Foundation in FYR9. TO offset project expenditures, the Foundation gave these funds back to the County and this action must be recorded as a revenue and an expenditure. (offset by revenue) TOTAL 0T~R ADJUSTmeNTS Utilities - This department requests that $530,000 of budgeted F¥~9 funds be carried over into FY90 to purchase the following: an automatic call distributor, ($100,000) a new billing ~ystem ($190,000) and electronic scanning equipment ($175,000), and a disk drive ($65,008). These were delayed due to the time required to research the availabls technology. 89-674 53,000 35,000 60,000 37,400 25,700 35,100 42,600 51~100 35,500 71,300 97,600 22,000 44,500 25,000 $ 687,500 530,000 Economic Development - Funds totalling $37,600 need %0 be carried over into PYS0 to hire a marketing agency to produce quality brochures and advertisements. 37,600 ll,D, $C~OOb ISSUES ~.~.t. FYSO ADOPTED SCHOOL FInAnCIAL PLAN Mr. Eamsey noted that Hrs. Kerfteie and Dr. Davis had been preeent~ however, due to previous commitments and the length of the meeting, it was necessary for the~ to leave. He stated Mr. Westbay was present to answer any question~ the Board may have. M~. Sullivan noted that the Budget and Audit Committee had reviewed thio item and found it to be in ord~r. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Eaard adopted the FY-90 adopted School Financial ~lan in the =oral amount of $191,455,100 as follows: Local Food Services Federal Qrants State & Federal General Fund Total Revenue FYS0 County Appropriation Chan~es 2,438,25Q 7,786,900 1,407,$0~ 75,58$,35~ (441,000) 106,415,000 - $191,636,000 (180,900) PY9O School poard Adopted 2,698,$5~ 7,786,900 1,487,500 7~,147,3~ $111,455,100 FYS0 County ~xpenditures ~opriation Classroom Instr. 104~943~984 Instr. Student S~pport 6,15S~676 Instr. Staff Support 7,796,177 School Admin. 10,7~1,261 Tot=I Instruction 129,680,89~ 2,933,512 301,370) 252,479) ~32,560) 2,~47,~3 FY90 School 107,877,496 7,543,698 131,727,20! Federal Crant~ 1,407,~00 (1,407t500) Administration 3,~30,570 A~endauoe and ~ealth 1,966,082 Total Adm. ~ A&H 5,796,652 184,352) 142,442) 3,646,218 2,007,992 Pupil Transpor. O & M 20tS73t899 Debt S~rviee 17,992,Q~0 Total Expenditures $191,~636,000 80,000) 598,06t} ($ 8,2tfl~911 17,992,040 7,786,900 $191~455,100 89-675 (It is noted the General Fund Transfer Revenue of $106,415,000 and the total instruction appropriation of $131,727,201 reflect the usual withholding of $1,000,000.) Vote: Unanimous ll.D.2. FY89 SCHOOL APPROPRIATION REALLOCATION There was discussion relative to the reasons for requested changes to the FY89 School appropriation categories; roofing for the Matoaca Middls School; increased operation and maintenance coats; overrun coat~ in instructional and cleaning supplies categories; clerical overruns which it was felt could have been absorbed in the School Administration budget; etc. Mr. Daniel stated he could support approval of the roofing for Matoa~a Middle School but he was disturbed with the overruns, was not comfortable with voting on the r~mainder of the request as presented and would like to have more detailed information explaining the overruns. When asked, Mr. Ramsey stated that if the Board were not inclined to approve the requested appropriation reallocations, it would result in the accounting records not being closed out by June 30, 1989, the School System to would be closing out its records in the red and the County would have no choice but to reduce any encumbrances or outstanding orders that were encumbered at the end cf the year in order to make the budqet balance. He further noted failure to comply with the June 30, 1989 deadline would place the County in violation of Stato law, the Audit Report would reflect the School Administration accounts be closed in the red and it was possible the County's bond rating could be affected. Mr. Applegate suggested the Board consider approval of the requested appropriation reallocations and if the Board were not satisfied with the School Administration's explanations as to the overruns, the allocations in next year's budget could be reduced by $1,000,000. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved to approve EX89 school appropriation reallocation adjustments by increasing the School Operating Budget in the amount of $550,000 ($375,000 for Fixed Charges, $110,000 for Transportation, and $75,000 for Administration) and by increasing the School Capital Improvement Progra~ in the amount of $450,000 for a total increased appropriation of $1,OOO,OOO but withheld appropriation reallocation in the amount of +$80,000 for operation and maintenance and ~$80,000 for instruction pending more detailed information from the School Administration to be reviewed by the School Board Liaison Committee. Vote: Unanimous ll.D.3. SCHOOL BOARD GRANT APPROPRIATIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved School Board grant appropriations and adjustments and increased School revenues by a total amount of $266,377.17 as indicated in the following categories and amounts: G~ANT FY87 Chapter II FY88 Chapter II FYi9 Chapter II AMOUNT 29,549.00 26,057.00 19,616.00 89-676 FYS~ Chapter I 2,260.90 Regular FYS8 Chapter I ( 70,869.5~ Summer FYS9 Chapte~ I 130~566.25 Regular FYS7 Headetart ( FYg~ Headstart ( 879.41 FY89 Headstart ( 1,i25.00 Handicapped F~89 Headstart 40,880.00 Regular F¥89 Headstart 1,619.00 Training FYi9 T~tle II 29,269.00 BESA Training PY88 Preschool 20,608.00 Handicapped FY89 Preschool 18,810.00 Handi=apped FY89 Special Ed 17,315.00 Inservice FY89 Chapter I Handicapped TOTAL $ 2~8,377.17 {It iS noted the~e are categorical revenu~; therefore, reductio~ o£ General Fund appropriation i~ realized.) Vote: Uaanimeue Mr. Daniel eRe~S~d himself from the meeting. TIOE On motion of Mr. Ceftin, seconded by ~x. Sullivan, the Board ~us~endad i~s rules to simultaneously ~o~inate/appoint Mr. Bruce L. Pow~ll to Serve on thm James RAver cer~ifie~ Development Corporation. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, ~r, Currin, Mr. Hayes and Mr. Sullivan, Absent: Mr. Daniel. On motion of Mr. Currin~ seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board ~imultan~0us1y neminated/aDDointe~ Hr. ~ruce L. PowelI to ee~ve on t_he James River Certified Development Corporation, whose term is effective July 1, 1989 and e~plres June 30, 1990. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Curr~n, Mr. Mayee and M~. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Daniel. 89-677 ll.F. CONSENT ITF245 ll.E.1. WRITE OFF UNCOLL~CTIBL~ ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved a request to write-off uncollectible accounts receivable in the amount of $113,800.87, with the understanding that collection efforts will continue. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Daniel. tl.F.2. REQUEST FOR FIREWORKS PERMIT FROM PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT~ 12TN ANNUAL 4TE OF JULY EXTRAVAGANZA On motion cf Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved a request for a fireworks permit from the Parks and Recreation Department for permission to conduct a fireworks display at the 12th annual 4th of July Extravaganza to be held on Tuesday, July 4, 1989, at the County Courthouse Complex, subject to all County policies and regulations governing same. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Daniel. ll.F.3. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with the directions from this Board made report in writing upon his examination of Chestnut Hill Road in Bermuda District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion o~ Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, it is resolved that Chestnut Bill Road in Bermuda District be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Chestnut Hill Road, beginning at the inter- section with West ~undred Road, Stat~ Route 10 and going northerly 0,12 mile to end in a temporary turnaround. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage This road serves as access to adjacent commercial properties. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarant~es tc the Virginia Department of Transportation a 90' right-of-way for this road. This road is recorded in deed Book 1928. Pages 254, 255, 256, 257 and 258. Recorded February 12, 1988. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Danisl. This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board made report in writing upon his examination of County Manor Lane, County Manor Court, Country Manor Place, Carriageway Lane, Carriageway Court in Meadowbrook Farm Section A, Dale District. Upon consideration whereof, end on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, it is resolved that Country Manor Lane, Country Manor Court, Country Manor Place, Carriageway Lane, Carriaqeway Court in Meadowbrook Farm Section A, Dale DiStrict, be and they hereby are established as public roads. S9-678 And be it further resolved that %hm Virginia Departme,% of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into ~he Secondary System, Country Manor Lane, beginning at tko in,er- section with ironbridge Read, state Route 10, and going easterly 0.12 mile and then turninq and going 0.05 mile to the intersection with Country Manor Court; then continuing Southwesterly 0.03 mile to the intersection with Country Manor Place, then continuing ~outhwesterly 0.04 mile to tho intersection with Carrlegeway Lane, the~ Gontinuing south- westerly 0.01 mile to end at proposed Country Manor Lane, Meadewbroek Farm Sec. B; Country Manor Court, beginning at the intersection with Country Manor Lane and going northwesterly 0.~4 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Country ~anor Place, ning at the intersection with Country ManOr Lane and going southeasterly 0.03 mil~ th~n turning and going southerly mile ~o end in e cul-de-sac; Carriageway Lane, beginning at th~ intersection with Country Manor Lane and going nerthwesterly 8.03 mile, then turning and going westerly 0.09 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Carriagsway Court beginning at the with Carriageway Lane and go±ns sentherly 0.03 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive cf the adjacent slope, eight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainag~ easements. These roads serve 30 lots. And be it further reuulved, that ths Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a right-of-way for all of these roads except Country Manor Lane which has e variable width 60' to 100' right-of-way. This section Of MeadowbrooR Farm is recorded as follows= Section A. Plat Bcuk 55, Page 24. Nov. I8, 19~6. A~es: Mr. Appl~gate, Mr. Currin, Mr. May~ and ~r. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Daniel. ll.F.4. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR PURC~LRS~ OF PLAYGROUND ~QUIP- VENT AT PLARROWGATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ~n motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board transferred $1,15~ to the Parks and Recreation Department fro~ the Matoaca District Three Cent Road Fund for ths purchase of playground equit~ment and surfacing maturlal for ~arrowgate Elementary School effective July 1, 19S9, the total cost of which project is $7,750 and which funds will supplement $6,600 donated by e_h~ Harrowgate Elementary School PTA. Ayes: Mr. Applsgata~ Mr, Cufrin, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. ll.F.5. AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EX~CUTE A JOINT kViATION A~=~T ~TW~EN CHEST~/~I~LD COUNTY,. HENRICO COUNTY AND THE CITY OF RICHMOND On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, tho ~oard authorized the County Adminis=rator to e~ecute a Joint Aviation Agreement between Chesterfield County, H~nri¢o County and the City Of Richmond as a joint cooperative effort in the furnishing of police services, whi=h agreement is effec=ive July 1, 19~9 for the period Of one {1) ~ear. (A copy of said agreement is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes= Mr. Appl~gat~, Mr. Currin, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Daniel. 89-679 ll.G. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS ii.G.i. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUEENSPARK SUB- DIVISION Mr. Sullivan requested that, although the Storm Water Manage- ment Aqreement for Queenspark Subdivision has been ongoing for approximately two years, there is continued controversy surroundinq the issue and he requested an additional thirty day deferral. Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting. Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Mayas, to defer the request for a Storm Water Manaqement Agreement for Queenspark Subdivision until July 26, 1989. There was further discussion relative to the length of tim~ thi~ matter had been under consideration, whether or net the concerns could be resolved within an additional thirty days, Mr. Appl~gmte offered a substitute motion, seconded by Mr. Curtis, that the Board approve the request authorizing the County Administrator to execute a Storm Water Manaqement Agreement with the developer of Queenspark Subdivision, with the County's 0nly involvement being to assure that the agree- ment is followed by the owner. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Nays: Mr. Sullivan. ll.G.2. APPROPRIATION, CONTRACT AWARD AND SET PUBLIC NEARING DATE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION ~OR W~ITE~IN~ ROAD EXTENSION, P~L~SE 3 On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board appropriated $500,000 from the Airport Industrial Park Reserve Fund for the Whitepine Road Extension; authorized the conditional award of the construction contract to J. N. Martin and Sons Contractors, Inc., which contract provides that if the additional $1,150,000 is not appropriated the County can terminate the contract with no financial obligation beyond the $500,000; approved the location and installation of street lights at the mail box drop area included in the Whitepine Extension project, with funding being provided from the overall project budget; authorized staff to take all necessary steps to complete the construction of Whitepine Extended and loop road; and set the date of July 26, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to consider a supplemental.appropriation of $1,150,000 for Whitepine Road Extension - Phase 3. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel requested that the process be initiated for renaming that portion Of Reycan Road divided by construction of Route 288 which is located f~om Courthouse Road to Route 288. ll.G.3. REFER ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 21.1 OF TNE CODE OF T~E COUNTY 0F CNESTER~I~LD, 1978, AS ~MENDBD, BY AMENDING SECTION 21.1-230 RELATING TO STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND Pd~C0~ENDATION There was brief discussion for clarification that the suggested a~endment pertain to only renewal requests. On motion o~ Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board referred to the Planning Commission for review and 89-680 recommendation an ordinance to amend Chapter 21.1. u~ the Code of the Connty of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, to delete the requirement £cr public road frontage for ~emporary uses (mobile ll.G.4. ZONING ORDINANCE A~ENDMENT RELATING TO CASS PROFFERS There was brief discussion relative to a Zoning Ordinance ~mendment relating to cash proffers; t~e specific amount of such proffers and the basis for the recommendation; General Assembly legislation which allow~ the County to accept cash proffers for zoning applications filed after July 1, 1989; the fact that a Zoning Ordinance amendment ix required to implement cash proffers and such an amendment may require considerable time to develop and adopt; d~f~al of re~oning requests with proffers until such time as a poli~y is establish%d; the recommended time fra~e in which ~he cash proffer payment Should be made; whether or not other localities are implementing such a program; gtc. Mr. Apptegate and ~r. Currin stated they were uncomfortable with accepting cash proffers until such time as a policy were established to guide ~he equitable administration of s~ch a program. Mr. Daniel stated that staff, effective July 1, 1989~ could tell applicants that a cash proffer program is being developed, that negotiations may be initiated and that informa- tion will be made available through the public hsarlng process. Mr. ADplagate stated he would prefer to see a ~y~tema~c mechanism established to the point that the Ordiuance is in effect for the Board to require cash pro~ers and dnring that time develop criteria which will identify the economies of residential growth in the CoRnty identifying both the costs and benefits of s~ch growth, r~commend a specific amount to be proffered and the basis ~or the recommendation, recon%mend the tin~u frame in which the cash proffer payment mheul~ h~ made~ and retain an independent consultant with experience in the field of fiscal impact analysis which weuld~ a% that point, place ~he Beard in a better negotiating po~itlon. Mr. Sullivan skated h~ f~l~ the Beard is sln]ply notifying th~ pub%lc ~hat it is the intent of the Scard to apply the proffer myst~ to all residential resoning applicatlonm aftmr July 1, 1989 and accept cash proffers. Mr. Micas stated the Planning Commission could not accept cash proffurs but could continue ~o advance reaching requests ~ith cash proffers to the ~oard for consideration; ho~-~v~r, the Board could not asr to accept sash proffers until such time as an ordinance is adopted. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board referred to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation a Zoning Ordinance amendment relating to the development of a cash proffer program which would include recommended policy for ~he equitable administration of cash Ayes~ Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. ll.G.5. AWARD ENGINEERING CONTRACT FOR SOUTH PROVIDENCE- ELKHARD? ROAD On motion of Mn. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Coffin, the Board authorized the County Admfnistrato~ to enter into a ~ngineering contract for the South ~rovidenoe Elkhardt ~oad Drainage Project with J. K. T~en~ end Associates in an amount not to exceed $11,200 for the design of construction plans and plats, 89-681 with funding available from the County's Miscellaneous Drainage Center Account. ll.G.6. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC REARING TO CONSIDER CONVEYANCE OF A PARCEL IN THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK TO WNITEPINE ASSOCIATES, INC. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board get the date of July 26, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to consider conveyance of a 4 + acre parcel in the Airport Industrial Park, along Whitepine--Road adjacent to Reynolds, to Mr. William g. Fields. Vote: Unanimous ll.G.7. SET PUBLIC NEARING DATE TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICDEUELOPMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN VIRGINIA SHELL ~UILDI~G INITIATIVE AND CONSIDER CONVEYANCE OF PARCEL AND IMPROVEMENTS IN TNE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK Mr. Currin stated he felt the issue of the shell building initiative was a private sector function and that he felt local governments should not be involved. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date of July 26, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to authorize the County Administrator to submit an application to the Virginia Department of Economic Development to participate in the "Virginia Shell Building Initiative" and consider the conveyance of a parcel and improvements in the Airport Industrial Park. Vote: Unanimous ll.G.8. SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK ~ESTRICTIVE COVENANTS On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board set the date of July 26, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to consider amendments to the Airport Industrial Park Restrictive Covenants. ll.H. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS ll.M.1. PUBLIC REARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A 20 FOOT PERMANENT SEWER EASEMENT AND TWO 10 FOOT CONSTRUC- TION EASEMENTS IN GLEN WOOD SUBDIVISION, SECTION F Mr. Ssle stated this date end ti~e had been advertised iora public hearing to ¢cnside~ an o~dlnance to vacate a 20' permanent sewer easement and two 10' ~on~truction easements across ~ots 58 and 59, Glen Wood Subdivision, Section F. No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a 20' permanent sewer easement and two 10' construction easements across Lots 58 and 59, Glen Wood Subdivision, Section F, Clover Hill District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof 89-682 duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 53, at Pages 9 and I0. WEEI~EAS, Stanley B. Britt, Jr., petitioned the Hoard of Supervisors cf Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a 20' permanent sewer easement and two 10' construction easements across Lots 58 and 59, Glen Wood Bubdivision, Section F, Clover Hill District, Chesterfield COunty, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the C£rcu~t Court of said County in Plat ~ook 53, Pages 9 and lO, made by =. D. Lewis & Associates, P.C., dated ~ay 11~ 1986. The easements petitioned to b~ vacated ar~ more fully described as follows= A 28' permanent sewer easement an~ two ~9, Glen wood Subdivision, ~cnlon F, the location c~ which is more fully shown, hatched un a plat by E. D. Lewis & Associa=ee, P.C., dated March 11, 19S6, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance. 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by edverti~img; and WI~REAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of th~ ~a~ements sought to he vacated. NOW THEREFOF~, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE 5CARD OF SUPERVISORS C~T~FIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant b~ Section 15.1-482(b} of tke Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, %ha aforesai~ easements be and are hereby vacated. COUNTY doe~ hereby reserve all of its right~ title and interest in certain sewer easements f~om Lonnie L. Johnson, ~r. and Robin F. Johnson, (husband and wife)~ recorded May 22, 1989, in Duud Book 2020, Page 740, and from =rio A. Eaag, (sole, s~parate, equitable estate}~ recorded May 22, 1989, in De~d Book 2020, Page 745, This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-48~(~) cf the Cede of Virginia, 1950~ as nmended~ and a certified cepy of this Ordinance, together with th~ plat attaehsd hereto shall b~ recorded no sooner thsn thirty days hereafter in th= Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, virginia pure,an= to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The affect O~ ~his Ordinance pursuant to Section 1~.1v483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This 0=dinance shall vest fee simple title of the easement~ hereby ~acated in the property ewnsr of tke lots wi~kin Glen Wood Subdivision, free and clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the COUNTY OF CHESTBP~FI~LD, as grantor, and LONNI~ L. B9-68~ JOHNSON, JR., ROBIN F. JOHNSON and ERIC A. BAAG, or their successors in title, as grantee. Vote: Unanimous ll.H.2. RIGHT-OF-WAY ITEMS' ll.H.2.a. REQUEST FROM MR. WADE N. WOMACE FOR PERMISSION TO IN- STALL A PRIVATE WATER SERVICE IN AM EXISTING 25 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved a request from Mr. and Mrs. Wade N. Womack for permission to install a private water service within an existing 25' right of way off Otterdale Road, to serve their residence at 4804 0tterdale Road, subject to the execution of a license agreement and with the understanding that they be required to relocate the service at their expense if it interferes with County utilities or future road construction. (A copy of said plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous ll.H.2.b. REQUEST FROM CAMDEN HOMES, INC. FOR PERMISSION TO EN- CROACH ON AN EXISTING 16 FOOT SEWER BASEMENT On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the ~oard approved a request from Camden Homes, Inc., for the corner of a house and fire place to encroach on an existing 16' sewer casement on Lot 14, Block E, Section C-2, Shenandoah Hills Subdivision, subject to execution of a license agreement and with the understanding that they be responsible for any damage done to the structure if it interferes with County maintenance of the sewer line. (A copy of said plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimou~ ll.H.3. CONSENT ITEMS ll.H.3.a. APPROVAL OF SEWER CONTRACT FOR CHRIS W~.I~. OFF~SITE SEWER LINE On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved the following sewer contract and authorized the County Administrator to executs any necessary documents: Project ~89-0619, Chris White Off-Site Sewer Line: Developer: Clintwood Associates L.P. Contractor: Lyttle Utilltics Contract Amount: $25,667.60 ~stimated County Cost: $10,938.65 (Refund through connections) ~stimated Developer Cost: $14,727.95 Number of Connections: Future Code: 5N-2511-997 Vote: Unanimous ll.H.3.b. APPROVAL OF UTILITIES CONTBACT FOR ASHTON CREBK APARTMENTS On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved the following utilities contract and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents: Project ~89-0046 - Amhton Creek Apartments, Developer: Ashton Creek Associates Contractor: J. Steven Chafin, Inc. 89-684 Sewer - $156,084.70 Total - $262,093.17 Estimated County Cost: Sawer - (Refund through conneotion~) Estimated Developsr Cost: ~umber of Cenneetlcns: 26 for 231 Apart~ent Units Code ~N-2511-997 Vote: Unanimou~ ~i.R.~.¢. ACC~PTARCE OF D~ED OF DEDICATION ALONG CHALKLEY ROAD FRO~ MR. AA~D MRS. LAV~R~E C. COLE On motion of Mr. Currfn, ~conde~ by Mr. ~uliivan, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed of dedication a~c~ptiug, On behalf of the County, the conveyance o~ a 20' strip of land along Chalkley Road from Mr. Laverns C. Cola and Ms. ~ary W. Cole. (A copy of said plat is filed w~th the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous APPROVAL OF QUITCLAIM DEED ~0R A 16 FOOT WA~ER LINE EASEMENT FROM SQUIRE HIlL RICHMOND II ASSOCIATE~ On motion o~ Mr. Ceftin, Seconded by Mr. Ceftin, the ~eard authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrato~ to e~ecute a Quitclaim D~ed to vacate the 16' waterline easemsnt across the property ~f squire Bill Richmond II Associates. (A copy of ahe plat is filed with the papers of ~his Board.) ll.H.3.e. ACCEPTANCE OF D~ED OF DEDICATION A~©WG $0UTR CR~T~R ROAD FROM ASRTON CREEK ASSOCIATES On motion cf Mr. Currln, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute the necesaary deed of dedication &coepting~ On behalf of the County, the conveyance of a 20' ~trip Of land along South Che~ter Road from Ashton Creek Associates. (A copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: UnanimoD$ ACCEPTANCE OF DEED OF DEDICATION AT T~E TRP~ZI~R3S OF KING'S LYN~ ROAD PROM TEE SALISEURY CORPORATION, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION Mr. Sullivan stated he not was familiar with the issue retatlve to th~ acceptance of a dee~ of dedication u~ the terminus of King's Lynn Road to the land of Mr. J. ~. Sowers from the Salisbury Corpora=ion, a Virginia Corporation, and requested the ~atter be deferred for thirty days. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Boar~ deferred un,il July 26, 1989, a% 9:06 a.m., consideration of the conveyance of a 72 foot strip on land at the te&q~inus of existing Ring's Lynn Road to the land of Mr. J. M. S0wer~ from the Salisbury Co~po~ation, a Virginia Corporation. (A sopy of the plat is filed with th~ papsrs of ~his Eoard.) Vote: Unanimous 89-685 ll.I. R~PORTS Mr. Ramsay presented the Board with a Status rspert on General Fund Contingency Account, General Fund Balance, Road Reserve Fund, District Road and Street Light Funds, Lease Purchases, School Board Agenda, Report on Allocation of School Capital Project Funds, Report on Setting a Date for Board Work Session for August to di~ou~ the Emergency Medical Services System (EMS) and cash proffers, Board Public Bearing Schedule and the Report of the Pay-For-Growth Committee. After a brief discussion, it was generally agreed ~o set date of August 9, 1989, at 1:00 p.m. for a work session to discuss the County Administrator's recommendations for the Emergency Medical Services System (EMS). And. further, it was generally agreed %o forward the Report of the Pay-For-Growth Committee to the Future's Committee (Long Range Planning Conmmittee} for study and review and for a recommendation to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Mr. Ramsay stated the Virginia Department of Transportation has formally notified the County of the acceptance of the following roads into the State Secondary Road System: ADDITIONS I~I~GTH DUC~ COVE Route 3605 (Duck Cove Road). ~ From Route 3600 to Route 3607 0.13 Mi. Route 3606 (Duck Cove Court) - From Route 3605 to east cul-de-sac 0.06 Mi. Route 3607 (Duck Cove Place) - From 0.04 mile southwest Route 3605 to 0.04 mile northeast Route 3606 0.08 Mi. KINGSLAND WOODS - SECTIONS 1 & 2 ' Route 4010 (Sir Sagamore Drive) - From Route 642 to 0.12 mile ea~ Route 4014 0.37 Mi. Route 4011 (Excaliber Place) - From Route 4010 to 0.13 mile north Route 4010 0.13 Mi. Route 4012 (Sir Sagamore Court) to northeast cul-de-sac 0.10 Mi. Route 4013 (Sir Dinnadan Court) to northeast cul-de-sac 0.09 Mi. Route 4014 (Sir Lionel Place) to Route 611 0.35 Mi. Route 4015 (sir Lionel Court) east cul-de-sac 0.05 Mi. - From Route 4010 ~ From Route 4010 - From Routs 4010 - From Ruute 4014 to GP. EAT OAKS - SECTION 8 Route 2036 (Sunfield Drive) - From 0.03 mile east Route 919 to east cul-de-sac 0.02 Mi. SUNRISE BLUFF Route 3648 (Sunrise Bluff Road) - From Route 3600 to east cul-de-sac 0.34 Mi. Route 3649 (Sunrise Bluff Court) - From Route 3648 to east cul-de-sac 0.24 Mi. $9-686 ~ou~e 4169 (carbon Hill Place} - From Eou%~ 1227 to southeast cul-de-sac 0.05 Mi, ll.J. EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL RE- GARDiNG MARTHA GRIMSLEY CLODFELTEH V. DOROTHY WEST AMD PROBABLE LITIC~ATION RELATING TO A~ AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT INVOLVING A COUNTY EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.1-344 (a) (6) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, 1950, AS AF~NDED It wau generally agreed that the ~xecutive ~esaien for consultation with legal counsel regarding Bertha Grimsley Clodfelt~r v~rs~s Dorothy West and probable litigation relating to an automobile aociden~ involving a County employee pursuant to Section 2.1~344 (a)(6} of the Cod~ of Vir~inla, t950, as e CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES P~CEIV~D BY GLEN L. TURNER, ~IOHARD A. PGWERS~ LEE ETTA POWERSr LEE ELLEN ~OWERS, DIAN~E L, POW-ERS AND DONN~E W. ~OW~ES AGAINST ~HESTE~FIELD COU~TY~ WAHDA I. FRAZIER AND JOHN DOE ~r. Micas briefly explained a claim for compensation for personal injuries received by Mr. Glen L. Turner, Mr. Richard A. Powers, Ms. Lee Etta Powers, Me. Lee Ellen Powers, Me. Dianne L. Po~ers and Mr. boanlu W. Powers against Chesterfield County, Ms. Wanda I. Frazier and Mr. John Do~. He ~ate4 since non~ of the o~aimants has submitted a deSinite estimate as compensation for their in~urie~ and since the ~ounty is protected by soverei~n i~u~ity, staff recommends denial of the claims against the county. There was no o~e present to represent the r~quest. On motion Of Mr. Daniel, secende~ by Mr. Currin~ the ~oard denied cta~ms for compensation for DersonaI injurie~ allegedly sustained by Mr. Glen L. Turner, Mr. Richard k. ~owers, ~s. Les Ehta Pourers, ~s. Lee Ellen ~owers, Ms. Dianne L. Powers and Mr. Dennis W. Powers, which injuries were allegedly ~ustainsd by the above named claimants in a multiple vehicle cottiuion that occurred on June 2, 1989 on Central Road east of Telstar Drive near Spencer~s ~tore in Chesterfield Count~. 12. ADJO~{~%FT On motion of Mr. Daniel~ second~ by Mr. Currin, the ~oard adjourned at 9:25 p.m. until 9tO0 a.m. on July 26, 1988. Vote: Unanimous Lane B. Ramsey ~ ~/ County Administrator 89-687 'G. B J Ap~a~gate Chairman