Loading...
07-26-1989 MinutesBOARD OF ~Ui~Ei~VT$OI~ ~ Ui.,{ 26., Supervisors in Attendance: ~, G. H. Applegate~ chairman Mr. C. P. Coffin, Jr., Vice Chairman Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. Jee~e J. Maye~ Mr. M. B. Sullivan Mr. Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Ms. Amy Davis, Exec. Asst. to Co. Admin. Mrs. Dori~ DeSart, Asst. Co. Admln., Legis. Svcs. and Intergovern. Affairs Ms. Joan Dolezal, Clerk to the Board Mr. Bradford S. Ha~mmer, Deputy Co. Admin., Management Services Mr. William H. Howell, DIE+, Gen. Services Mr. Thomas E. Jacobson, Dir. of Planning Dr. Burr Lowe, Dir., Mental Health/Retard. Ms. Mary Lou Lyle, Dir. of Accounting Mr. Robert Masden, Deputy Co. Admin., Human Services Mr. R. J. McCraeken, Transp. Direotor Mr. Richard ~cElfish, Dir. of Env. Mr. ~teve Micas, Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitohell, Dir. of News/Info. Services Dr. William Nelson, Dir., Health Dept. Mr. Richard Sale, Deputy Co. Admin., Development mr. Jay Stegmaier, Dir. of Budget mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Dir. of Parks & Rec. Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utititiee Mr. ~rederick Willis, Dir. of Human Mr. Applegate oalled the meeting to order at 9:20 a.m. (EDT) at the Courthouse. A moment of ~ilent prayer was observed in memory of Ms. Donna Capehart, a teacher at Watkins Elementary School and a member o~ the Forest View Rescue Squad, who recently passed away. 1. INVOCATION Mr. Applegate introduced Reverend Rod Rasler, Pastor of Chippenham Church of Christ, who gave the invocation. 89-688 2. P~-,ED~E OF AF.~E~F. ANCE 5'O '~'~ P~A/~ OF ~'~ UNTTEB :~'~E$ OF Members of Boy SCO~t Troop 880 led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United Stat~ Of ~erica. 3. APPRO%rkL OF ~TNU'r~S On motion of Mr. Sultivan~ seconded by Mr. C~rrin, approved the minutes of June 20, 19S9, as amended. ¥ote~ Unanimous 4. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S Mr. Ramsay introduced mr. David Breidenbach with the Progress-Index who has been assigned to oover the county news ~5~- Mr. B~i-ll ~ordou with WRVA who was also present. Mr. H~zan%er introduced Mr. Charles G. "Buck" Dopp, recently emDIoyed as General Manager for Storer ca~le, who briefly outlined him goals/co~itment to providing the b~5 ~ervi=e possibl= =o the citizens of the County and stated he intended to be a very high profile manager aeae$$1bl~ tQ ~h= Hoard and Dublic. Mr. Masden introduced Ms. Mary Payne, Exec~tiv~ Director of the Capital Ar~a Agency on Aging, ~o presen=ed a sugary of the Agsncy*s Biennial Service Plan for I989-90 and outlined the Mr. Peter Ward, Chairman of the C~unity Services presented to ~he ~oard the Long Range Plan for ~ealth/Mental Retardation ~ervice~ for 1990-9~ which mental health, mental retardation and n~an~e abuse service need~ in the County through 1996 ~n~ included details relating to needs for services, a ~ime frame for developing the services and the co~t implication~ Of implementing ~ose services. The Board co, ended staff for i%~ diligent efforts in the developmen~ of the Plan an~ accepted ~he Long ~ange Plan for Mental Health/Mental Retardation Services for 1990-96, a copy of which i$ filed wi~b ~ papers of the Beard. 5. BOARD COM~IITTEE REPORTS Mr. Daniel reported he attended the Virginia Planning District Commission Auaouiatio~ annual meeting at which there was discussion Tegardin~ privatization of toll roads and iSSUeS of the Graysoa Commission for which formulas are being developed to assess funding at the local te~eI based on th~ localities' participation at the regional level, ~e requested that the County Attorney review all the County's regional agreements to ensure that they are ~ontracted and ~ooumanted so ~he Connty may take advantage of those projects in which the County is engaged. ~. Maye~ reported he and Mr. John ~cCracken attended the Petersburg Kiwanis Club to update them on the statu~/progr~ of the Route 36 Grade Separation ~n Ettrlck and commended Mr. McCracken for his presentation to the group. Mr. Sullivan stated he attended the Metropolitan Planninq Organization meeting at which there ~as concern regarding an announcement that the Virginia Department of Transportation was considering an extension of the John Rolfe Parkway across the J~mes River to Robious Road and ~tated he anticipated that ~his Board would take its very strong position, as in the past, that 89-6~9 this route is unacceptable insofar as Chesterfield County ie concerned. Mr. Currfn reported he attended meetings of the Capital Area Training Consortium, the Richmond ~egional Solid Waste Task Force on Recycling, the School Board Liaison Committee and participated in the "Take Prid~ in ~merica" presentation in Washington, D.C. at which the Henricus Foundation received an award, which he felt was very noteworthy for the County. Mr. Applegate commended staff for their diligent efforts in coordinating transportation for the Board during the "Take Pride in America" event and noted that local officials had an opportunity to meet with Senators Warner and Robb and Congress- men Si~isky and Bliley at which there were discussions regard- ing varlcus issues of interest to the County. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION, E~4ERGENCY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES IN x~ ORDER OF PRESENTATION On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~eoonded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deleted Item ll.C., Request to Appropriate Funding for One and One-Half Assistant Commonwealth's Attorneys Positions for ?¥89-90; moved up Item ll.G., Adoption of a Resolution Requesting the Commission on Game and Inland Fisheries to Ban Trapping Foxes and Racoons in Chesterfield from November 1 Through January 20 of Bach Year, to be considered after Item 9.B., Acceptance of Deed of Dedication at the Terminus of King's Lynn Road from the Salisbury Corporation, A Virginia Corporation; and adopted the agenda, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 7. RESOLUTIONS AND S~EC~a.~ R~COGNITION~ 7.A. MR. JACK S~OOSMITH, EXEMPLARY CITIZENSHIP AND BRAVERY Mr. William Davenport, Commonwealth's Attorney, introduced Mr. Jack Shoosmith, the victim of an extortion attempt, who voluntarily participated with local and State law enforcement officials in the apprehension and conviction o~ the criminals. On motion of the Beard, the following resolution was adopted: WH~=AS, Mr. Jack Shcosmith is a lifelong resident of Chesterfield County and bueine~man providing a necessary service to his community; and WHEREAS, The Crime Solvers Program in Chesterfield County has benefitted from Mr. Shoosmith's generosity; and WHEREAS, Mr. Shoosmith, as the victim of an extortion attempt, voluntarily participated with local law enforcement c££icer$ and Virginia State Police in the apprehension and conviction of the criminals, risking his own life; and WHEREAS, Mr. Shoosmith~s bravery and willingness to aid law eniorcement authorities to apprehend the extortionists has helped to protect our community by not allowing these criminals to inflict the eame hardship on others. NOW, TE~REFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Mr. Jack Shoosmith for his exemplary citizenship, bravery and extraordinary efforts. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented the executed resolution to Mr. Shoosmith and commended him for his outstanding courage and bravery. 89-690 7.B. PAST AND PP~$~NT MEMBERSHIP OF T~ CHeSTErFIELD COUNTY AII~POHT ADVISORY BOAPJ) Hr. Hammer introduced Mr. John Mezza who presented a brief synopsis cf the origination of the Airport A~visory Board and expressed appreciation for the vision and support of the Board. The De,rd recognized ~cssrs. John Mazza, Msl $chaffer, Roger Burns, Marshall Cole, end Colonel Herbert 0glesby, past amd present me,bars, who w~re present. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, The i~pertance of highly qualified individuals to ghide the d~velopment of Chesterfiel~ County Airport wms resognizeO by the formation of the Airport Advisory Board in 197I~ and WR~R~Ag, Persons who served On %his Eoard had to meet the highest standards of expertise in th~ aviation field and have a personal dedication to the growth and success Of CheBterfield County; and W~BREAS, The Board of S~pervisors wishes to expre~ its appreciation to these individuals who have ~srved on the Airport Advisory ~oard for their d~dice%ion to public sprvice and their contribution to the success of the Chesterfield Connty Airport. NOW, T~EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED~ that the Chesterfield County Doard of ~upervisors hereby reccgniz~ the volunteer services o~ the following individuals who have served on the Airport Advisory Board in order ~e insure the success of the Marshall W. Cole Melvin C. Staffer Philip W. Evanu William R. Shelton John V, Mazza William F. Whi%ak~z placed in the Airport Terminal Building expressing the same. 7.C. WASTE ~ANAGE~LENT OF RICHMOND, INC,~ RECYCLING PROGRAM ~s. Susan Craik intreduca~ Mr. Mike Belfis of Waste Management of Richmond, Inc. and e~pressed appr~clatlon for their generous suppor~ and participation in the recycling of aluminum an~ newspaper program in the County. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Th~ ~eep Chesterfield County Clean Corporation initiated a pilot study to recycle aluminum and new~pap~r ~t thirteen County ~l~mentary schools; and WNE~S, School children an~ community groups Were encouraged =o brinq their aluminu~% end newspaper to the schools to be reeycted with the money from the r~oyolables b=ing returned to the individual schools; and W~BP~ZAS, The pilot project was implemented for a period of foe= months during which time, Waste Management of Rithmond, Inc. provided two boxes per school for the collection of 89-691 aluminum and newspaper and weekly collection at no cost to the County or the schools; and WHEREAS, The project resulted in two tons of aluminum and forty-two tons oi newspaper being r~cycled and thus diver%ed from the County landfill; and WHEREAS, $3,552.79 was returned to the participating school~ from the recyclables for use at the individual school's discretion. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County $oar~ of Supervisors gratefully acknowledges the support of Waste Management of Richmond, Inc. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County recognizes the continual corporate support vital to providing this worth- while service to Chesterfield County residents. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented the executed resolution to Mr. Mike Belfis of Waste Management, Inc. and expressed appreciation for Waste Management's support in providing this vital service to the County. 7.D. CORPOiLATE SPONSORS OF THE 1989 FOURTH OF JULY EXTRAVAGANZA Mr. Stith introduced Mr. Kevin Schrum of Storer Cable Conumunications, Ms. Linda Bender of Pizza Hut of Richmond, Mr. Rusty Miller of Leggett Chesterfield Towne Center, and Mr. Edward E. Willey, Jr., who was not present, in recognition of their organizations' generous corporate contributions to the Fourth of July Extravaganza. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Chesterfield County celebrates our Country's Independence Day with a Special event; and WHEREAS, A fireworks display is an intricate part of this special event; and WHEREAS, The financial contributions made by thes~ organizations provided the vehicle for hosting this fireworks display. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby recognize Storer Cable Communications, Pizza ~ut of Richmond, Inc., Edward E. Willey, Jr., and Leggett Chesterfield Towne-Center for their generous donations toward the 1989 Fourth of J~ly Extravaganza. AND, BE IT FURT~E~ RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby express its appreciation and gratitude to these members of the corporate con~munity for their interest in and contribution toward the quality of life in Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented the executed resolution to Mr. Kevin Schrum, MS. Linda Bender and Mr. Rusty Miller and e×pre~ed appreciation for their support and contributions to the 1989 Fourth of July Extravaganza. 7.E. MR. JACK OWENS~ METROPOLITAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL BOARD OF DIRECTORS ~r. Sale introduced Mr. Jack Owens and co,ended him for his strong commitment, continued support and effortE toward sound 89-692 economic growth for Chesta~fleld County. WHEREAS, Mr. Sack G. Owens wa~ duly appointed to the Metropolitan Economic Development Council Board of Directors on December 3~, 1977 and has served for eleven and one-half years; and WHEREAS, Mr. Owens has displayed a ~trong commitment ta Chesterfield County for the continued support of sound economic growth by faithfully performing the duties and responsibilities incumbent upon a member of the Metropolitan Economic Develop- ment Council Board of Directors; WHEREAS, Mr. Owens has unselfishly donated and devoted his ~i~e and efforts on behalf of the County. ~OW, T~R~FOR~ BE IT ~SOLVED, that the Bc~d of Euper~ visors publicly states its sincere appreciation and gratitud~ to Ms. Jack G. Owens ~or his oontr±bution~ of wisdom, talent and time during his tenure as a member of the Metropolitan ~conomi~ Development Council Board of AND, BE IT PURT~EB F~EOLVED~ that Mr. Jack G. Owens wished the be~t in al% O~ his future Hr, Applegate presented the ~x~cnted resolution to ~r. Jack and support cf Chesterfield County's economi~ efforts during hi~ tenure as a member of the Metropolitan 7..F. MR. L. ~, ERETT~ JR.~ VIRGINIA EEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA- TION Mr. Me~racken introduced Mr. Brett, Mr. Dennis ~orrison, Resident Engineer, and Mr. Everett Ccving~on~ District ~nginee~ for the ~ichmnn~ District, who were also present. He stated Mr. Brett's long-standlng r~ationehip with the COUnty has been one of mut~aI respect and pride, one in which there have been significant change~ in the road networks over the years ann one who~ friendship and diligent efforts in the fntur~ would b~ sorely mis~ed. on motion Of the Board, th~ following resolution was adopted: WHEREAE, Mr. L. E. Brett, Jr. has faithfully served Co~onwen!~h of virginia for ~orty years as an employee o~ the Virginia D=partment of Transportation; and WHEREAS, During his employmen~ with the Depart~ent, Mr. ~rett served as Richmond District Engineer from 1975 to and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County has enjoyed an excellent wosking relationship with the Department under Mr. Brett's leadership; and WHEREAS, During Mr, Brett's tenure as District ~ngineer, major transportation improvement~ hav~ been completed in Chesterfimld including the wideni~ of Chlppenha~ Parkway, the ~ich~ond-Fotersburg Turnpike, Midlothian Turnpike, ~ull Street Road, Bugu~uot Road, Route I0 thrsugh Chekter, ~he construction o~ the Route 36 Grade Separation in Ettrick, the Powhite WHEP~AS, ~r. Srett has been especially innovative in eseistinq the County in its ~¢onomi¢ development efforts ~9-~93 through the Department's Industrial Access Program. NOW, T~REFOE~ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors expresses its deepest appreciation to Mr. Brett for his service to Chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board extends ~o Mr. Brett its best wishes upon his retirement. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented the executed resolution to Mr. Brett, expressed appreciation for his service to Chesterfield County and wished him well in his retirement. 7.Q. MR. W. S. CAR~S, SU~PORT AND ASSISTANCE TO TEE COUNTY Mr. Daniel requested a Board motion to approve the resolution honoring Mr. W. S. Carnes for his support and assistance ho the County, which resolution would be presented at a later date. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. W. S. Carnes has been a lon~ time friend and supporter of Chesterfield County and the Chesterfield County Fire Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Carnes has demonstrated his commitment to the County and its well being by assisting the Fire Department with the development and construction of the Department's air utility unit; by financially supporting the Chesterfield Crime Solver's Program; by serving on the County Board of ~qualiza- tion as well as contributing donations of time and monsy for other projects and acfivities; and W~EREAS, Mr. Carnes generously donated land on Iron Bridge Road at a strategic location to the County for the construction of the new Dale Fire Station which was necessary to provide efficient and effective response time for emergency vehicles to assist the citizens of the County. NOW, THEP~EFOP~E BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervieer~ publicly recognizes the contribu~ tions of Mr. W. S. Carnes for his support and assistance to Chesterfield County and the Chesterfield County Fire Department and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, their appreciation for his contributions to Chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a plaque inscribed as follows be permanently displayed in Dale Fire Station calling attention to all the contributions of Mr. W. S. Carnes: IN RECOGNITION OF W. S. CARNES WHO GENEROUSLY DEDICATED THE LAND NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DALE FIRE STATION~ COMPANY #11 Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel stated th~ executed resolution and a plaque would be presented to Mr. Carnes at the Dale District Fire Station Dedication Ceremony at a later date. 8. NF~INGS OF CITIZENS ON UN-~c~u~mOLED ~ATTENS OR CLAIMS There were no hearings of citizens on unscheduled matters or claims. 89-694 DBFE]~RED ITEMS APPROPRIATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO AN ALLEY ~AS~M~NT IN On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board tabled indefinitely consideration of an appropziation for improvements to an alloy easoment in Che~ter Until such time as the citizens and an adjoining landowner have resolved certsin concerns with the County. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED OF DEDICATIO~ AT TNE TRR/~I~US OP K~G'~ LYNN ROAD FROM THE SALiSbURY CORPQPuATIOM, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION Mr. Sale ~tated at its June 2S, 19~9 m~eting the Board deferred until July 26, 19~9, t~e acceptance of a deed of dedic~tio~ from Salisbury Corporation for a 72' wide rlgh= of way from the end of ~ing's Lynn Road to the property of J. M. Sow=rs so the District Supervisor could fa~illari~ himself mere with the matter. Mr. Sullivan stated he had Obtained the information Un motion of Mr. Sulli=an, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board de~d of ~edieation accepting, on behalf of ~he county, the existing KiBg'~ Lynn Road to the la~d uf ~r J. ~. Sowers from the Salisbury Oorporatioa~ A Virginia Corporation. (A copy of the plat is filed with the papor~ of t~his Board.) ADOPTION OF ~ESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COMMISSION ON GAM~ AND ~NLA~D FISHEBIE$ TO BAN TRA~ING ~QX~S AND RACCOONS IN CHESTBP~IELD COUNTY FROM NOVEMBRR 1 T~ROUGH J~NU~R¥ ~r. Micas stated several residents o~ ~ateaca have requested that the Bea~d adopt a resolution a~king the State Conn~is~io~ on Came and Inland Fisheries to ban the ~ra~plng of fox and raccoons in the County from Nov~mbex 1 through January ~O of each year as many dog~ used in deer hunting season are inadvertently injured during that tim= by tr~p$ ~et for fox, raccoon and other animal~. ~r. Robert ~urton stated he ~id net oppose the trapping of and raccoon but that th~ intent Of the petition was to ban the use of all trapu ~uring d~r hunting season in order to preVEnt unnecessary injury/death to dogs. There was a brief discussion relativ~ ~o whether or ne~ such a ban would requi:E an ordinance amendment, the banning of fox and raccoon trapping or all trapping in ~hE County during deer hunting season, po~ble al~ernativeb~ etc. On motion of Mr. Meyes, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board hereby respectfully requests ~he Virginia Co~mis~ion on Game and Inland Fisherleo~ the Department having exclusive r~pon~ibility ~or the se~ting and mc~i~oat~on of hunting sea~on~, to ban all trappinq in Chesterfield County during d~r hunting season each ypar ~ue to the inadvertent and maiming of domestic animals. Vote: Unan~ous $9=695 10. PUBLIC ~EARINGS 10 .A. AMenDMenTS TO TEE P~STRICTIVE COV~ANTS. OF T~R AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK LOCATED GENERALLY IN THE NORTHWEST QUAD- RANT OF THE INTERSECTION 0F IRONBRIDGB ROAD A-ND PROPOSED STATE ROUTE 288 Mr. ~icas stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider amendments to the Restrictive Covenants of the Airport Industrial Park located generally in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Ironbridge Road and proposed State Route 288. He presented a brief summary of the proposed amendments which included elimination of the maximum front yard setback, requirement for minimum setback and greenspace along Route 288, establishment of minimum paving specifioation~, e~tabli~hment of minimum building sizes correlating directly to lot size, etc. Mr. Kirk Turner of the Planning Department w~ present to answer any questions the Board may have. Mr. Marshall Cole requested an amendment tO the Restrictive Covenants regarding the resale price of land. Ee explained in detail that he helped originate the Industrial Park, promoted the sale of property, etc. There was discussion relative to the scope of the modification of the Restrictive Covenants, the legality of grandfathering the Cole property from Covenant Sections R2 and E3 regarding the resale of property, the purpose of the modifications of the covenants, property appreciation versus property depreciation, etc. Mr. Daniel made a. motion to adopt the amended Airport Industrial Park Restrictive Covenants and to set a date for a public hearing to consider waiving said Restrictive Covenants on the Cole property. There was further discussion that perhaps the restrictive covenants should not have been applicable to the Cole property, whether or not an amendment should be considered for Mr. Cole's request and that Mr. Cole was aware of and understood the Restriotive Covenants when he purchased his property, etc. Mr. Daniel amended his motion, seconded by Mr. Mayes, to adopt the amended Airport Industrial Park Restrictive Covenants, a copy of which is filed with tho papers of this Board; and further set the date of Angus% 23, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to consider amending Restrictive Covenants E2 and E3 on the Cole property. Vote: Unanimous 10.B. AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1989-90 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $1,150,000 IN FUNDE ANTICIEATED FROM T~E SALE OF LAND AT THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PAR/K FOR TH~ WHIP,PINE ROAD EXTENSION, PHASE $ Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for e public hearing to con~ider an amendment to the 1989-90 budget to appropriate $1,150,000 in funds anticipated from the sale of land at the Airport Industrial Park for the Whitepine Road Extension, Phase 3. NO one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Coffin, the Board appropriated $1,150,000 from the Airport Industrial Park Reserve Fund to complete the Whitepine Extension, Phase III project. 89-696 10.C. TO AUTHORIZE TH~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO SUBMIT AN APPEII CATION TO TH~ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOP- MENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE VIRGINIA SHELL BUILDIN~ INITIATIVE, TaR CONVEYANCE OF ALL TEAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 14+ ACRES AND BOCATED IN TH~ DALE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF CEESTEP~FIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA~ AT THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK WHICH PARCEL FHONTS APPROXIMATELY 565 FEET ALONG TEE NORTHWEST LINE OF EEYCAN ROAD APPROXIMATELY ~,290 FEET FROM iTS INTERSECTION WITH W~ITEPI~E ROAD AND BETWEEN REYNOLDS METALS CON~AN¥ AND STATE ROUTE 2~§ AND ADOPT RESOLUTI0~ 0~ CQ~ITNENT Mr. Sale crated ~2qis da~e and time had been advertised for a public hearing to authorized the County Admini~trato~ to ~ubmit an a~l~cation to the Virginia Department of Economic Development to participate in the Virginia Shell ~uilding Initiative, the conveyance of a parcel containing 14+ acres which adjoins Route 288 and the property owned by ~ynolds Metal Company and the adoption of a Resolution of Commitment. No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter. There was brief discussion as to t~e sise of the proposed building to be constructed on the subject parcel, whether or Not the State had been approached as to financinq, etc. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ the Board authorized the County Administrator to submit an application to the Virginia Department of Economic Development for th~ County to participate in the "virginia shell Building Initiative" to finance the construction of a 80,000 1o0,000 square foot "shell~ building at the Airport Industrial Park; authorized the Co~ty Ad~ini~t~a~0r to execute the necessary documents for the conveyance of a 14~ acre parcel at the Airport Industrial Park which adjoius ROute 2S8 and th~ property owned by Reynold'~ Metals to be used for the location of the proposed "shell" building; and adopted the following Resolution of Commitmenh~ WHE~AS, the Board of Supervisors of the County o~ Chesterfield, Virginia is intereste~ in the economic well-beinq of its citizenry and the co--unity at-large; and WHEREAB~ ~h~ ~avernlng body is prepared to support appropriate efforts within the community to promote economic development; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Economic Development is of~erlng a pro,ram which is ~pecificell~ desiqned to build narketable industrial shell buildings; and WEEREA~, this program is entitled the Virginia Shell Suilding Initistive. NOW, T~EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors, that our COmmunity, =he County of ChPsterSield, Virginia, wishes to participate in th~ Virginia Shell Building Initiative, ~nd that the leadership o~ this community fully realizes this program requires financial support; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a public h~aring has been held on July 26, I989 conserning the appllcaT~on and di~po~at of the proposed sh~ll building and r~lated real estat$; and BE IT FURTHER R~SOLVED, that we understand that both the principal amount of any funds provided to the Connty of Chesterfield pursuant to this program, plus interest, is to bs repaid at the time of sale or lease of the shell building. We underedand furtheF that the County of Chesterfield may b~ required to convey the building and related real estate to the State if the building has not been sold er leased at the end of five years; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board designates the Department of Economic Development as the local marketing agent for this shell building; and BE IT FURTHER R~SOLVED~ that this Board designates Bradford S. ~auuuer, Deputy County Administrator, as the local contact for financial aspects of this program. This resolution is in full effect upon its adoption this 26th day of July, 1989. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel commented that at the Virginia Planning District Commission meeting the topic of "shell buildings" was discussed and it appears that the state will be giving preferential treatment to the economically depressed areas of the State regarding this matter rather than the urban areas. 10.D, TBE CONVEYANCE OF ALL ~HAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF ZAND CONTAINING 5+ ACRES AND LOCATED IN THE DALE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF CEES~EP~FIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA.,. AT THE CHESTERFIELD AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK WHICH PARCEL FRONTS APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET ALONG THE NORTH- W~ST LINE OF WHITEPINE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 990 FEET PROM ETS INT~RSECTION WITH REYCAN ROAD AND ADJACENT TO R/~¥NOLDS ME~ALS COMPANY Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of a parcel of land in the Airport Industrial Park to Whitepine Associates, Inc. No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the conveyance of a 5+ acr~ parcel of land in th~ Chesterfield County Airport Industrial Park, which parcel fronts approximately 300 feet along the northwest line of Whitepine Road approximately 990 feet from its intersection with Reycan Road and is adjacent to the Reynolds Metals Company, Can Division, to Whitepine Associates, Inc, (W. Fields), subject to the revised restrictive covenants effective July 26, 1989, for the original cost per acre sale price of $38,000. Vote: Unanimous 10.E. THE PROHIBITION OF ANY THROUGH TRUCK OR TRUCK AWD TRAILER OR SEMI-TRAILER COMBINATION EXCEPT A PICKUP OR PAWEL TRUCK FROM USING LOCKSHIRE DRIVE, ROUTE 2347~ FROM NULL STREET ROAD, ROUTE 360, TO NEWQUAY ROAD, ROUTE 2636, AND ON NEWQUAY ROAD FROM LOCKSHIRE DRIVE TO WALEALA DRIVE, ROUTE 2637, AND ON WALHALA DRIVE FROM NEWQUAY ROAD TO RAMSGATE LAN~, ROUTE 2638, AND ON RA/4SGATE FROM WALHALA DRIVE TO PROVIDENCE ROAD~ ROUTE 678~ AND ON BROADSTONE ROAD, ROUTE 2682¢ FROM HULL STREET ROAD TO WALEALA DRIVE Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the prohibition of any through truck traffic except a pickup or panel truck from using Lockshire Drive from Hull Street Road to Newquay Road and on N~wquay Road from Lockshire Drive to Walhata Drive and on Walhala Drive from Newquay Road to Ramsgate Lane and on Ramsgate Lane from Walhala Drive to Providence Road and on Hroadstone Road from Hull Street Road to Walhala Drive. 89-698 NO One ca~e forward to ~peak in favor of or against the There was brief discussion relativ~ modification of the criteria as set forth by the Virginia Department Of Tran~pertatien, etc. Mr. McCracken ~tated the ~ighway Dsgart~ent did change some of its criteria relative to imposing the restrictions. He noted, in addition, the Hoard asked through the Legislative Package that the General Assembly look at this issue as well but that was not done last year. Mr, Applegate requested that the Board's f0rthooming Legislative Package include consideration for modification of the required criteria. On motion of Mr. ~pplegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following resolution: W~E~AS, the ChesterfiEld County Board of Supervlsor~ received requests from citizens to restric= through truck traffic on Lockshire Driv~ (Route 234?) from ~ull Street Road (Route 3~0) to ~ewquay Road (Route 2636) and On New,uny Road from Lock,hire Drive to Walhala Drive (Route 2637) and on Walhala Drive from Newquay Road to kamsgate Lane (Route 2638] and on R~ms~ut~ Lane from Walhala Drive to Providenc~ Road (Rou~e 678) and on Br0adstune Road (Route 2682) from Hull Street Road to Walhala Drive by any truck or truck and trailer or semi-trailer combination except pickup or panel trucks; and W~EREAS, the Board has conducted a public hearing on the question. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 9ES0LVED, ~het ~he Board of Supervisors requests ~hc Virginia Department c~ Transportation to restrict through truck traffic on Lockshire Drive, Newq~ay Road, Walhala Drive, Ramsgate Lane~ and Broadstone Road. Vote: Unanimous ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 21-10 AND 21.1-~, COD~ O~ THE COUNTY OF CHESTEgFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED~ P~LATING TO PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CO~ITIO~S OF ZONING, CONDI- TIONAL USE PERMITS, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES Mr. Sale stated the Planning Commission did not consider an ordinance to amend the County Code relating to penalties for violations of conditions Of zoning, conditional u~e permits, special exceptions and variances at it~ July meeting but is scheduled to de so at its August 1S, ]989 m~ting; therefore, it would be appropriate for the Board to defer consideration cf said matter until August 23, 1989. NO one came for~ard to speak in favor of Or against the matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, s~conded by M~. ~ayes~ the Doerd deferred consideration o~ aa ordinance to amend the Count~ Code relating to penalties for violations of ccndltion~ of zoning, conditional use permits, special e~ceptions and variances until August 23, 1989. Vot~: Unan~ou~ 10.G. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TRB CODE OF THE COUNTY 0E CHESTER- FIELD, 1978, AS A~ENDEDr TO ADD SECTION 20-199 IMPOSING FEES ON TME OWNERS AND/OR INSTALLERS OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS. SUC~ FEES MAY BE UP TO $i0.00 PER YEAR OR UP TO $140.00 PER SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLED AND/OR F~B OF $~5' AT THE TIME OF EACH INSPECTION OF A SEPTIC SYSTEM MiCaS stated this d~te and time had been advertised for a ~9-699 public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend ths County ~ode relative to imposing fees on the owners and/or installers of septic systems. He presented a brief summary of options available for i~plerdenting such fees and stated staff recommended adoption of Option A, an'annual fee of $10.00 per septic system. Discussion, questions and comments ensued relative to what services would be provided for the $10.00 fee if imposed; when the inspections would be required; whether or not the fees would have to be paid if existing septic system users could document to the County that they have pumped their systems; qualifications oi vendors that can be used for pumping services; the County's liability for the safe operations of such systems if it collects an inspection fee; the purpose of issuing a permit being only to authorize the operation of a septic system; the similarity of an inspection fee to that of being issued a building permit or license decal for a vehicle; the cleaning of drainfield lines; etc. Mr. George Beadles voiced support fox the annual fee of $10 per septic system and suggested the Assessment of Real Estate Department have in their database system information relative to what type waste systems exist, what tank and water resource is used on parcels of land, the date on which pumping of tanks is to occur, the date the system was installed, if known; which information he felt would have an impact on the assessment of the property. He also suggested the County Code ehould be amended to require that all single tank septic systems be required to be pumped every three years if a garbage dieposal is installed and those systems without garbage disposals be pumped every five years; and in the interest of public awareness that all real estate tax assessment billing, effective in 1990, should include information relative to the date the septic system will be pumped and the date such eystems were pumped; that the approved system be in place within two years; that a group be appointed to initiate a public awareness program of the issues relative to septic systems and their maintenance; and that those individuals who inspect/pump septic systems be licensed by the County. Messrs. Daniel, Sullivan, Currin and Applegate stated they felt Option A was the most appropriate and equitable mechanism to implement the fees for the administration of the coptic system program. Mr. Hayes stated he felt the proposal limits the standards in the Oonetruction of septic systems, that such limited standards would contribute to the number of failures, and that the burden of expense would be borne by the After further diseueeion, it was on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, resolved that the Board appropriate $170,000 in revenues and expenditures which will be generated by the $10.00 septic system fee to the Health Department budget to implement the septic system program; authorized the establishment of four new positions in the Health Department to administer the program; and adopted the following ordinance: CODE OF T~E COUNTXOF CHESTERFIELD., 1978, A~A~I~DED, BY ADDING ANEW SECTION 20-199 I~E~ATING TO FEES FOR THEADMINISTRATION OF T~ SEPTIC SYSTE~4PROGRAM B~ IT ORDAIE~D, by the Board of Supervieors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, that the Code of the County cf Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is hereby amended by adding the following section: Sec. 20-199. Fees. In addition to any other fees required by law, every person who owns a septic system shall pay to the Health 89-700 Department cz the county an annual fee of $1Q.O0 for each septic system owned. ~uch fee shall be due and payable on June 5 of each calendar year. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. Abstention: Mr. Mayer. 11. NE~ BUSINESS ll.A. AMENDMENT OF GREATER RICB~0ND TRANSIT COMPANY UMBRELLA AGREEMENT AND UEA~IMOUS CONSENT AGR~SM~NT Er. Micas stat=d thc County of chesterfield and the City of Richmond ere the sole shareholders in the Greater Richmond Transit Company each with three members on the ~oard Directors. He stated staff has been advised that two of the three Directors appointed by the City are ~et residents o~ the City and t~hu City has requested that the Umbrella Agreement be amended to ~ermit each looality to appoin= uir~ocors who are not residents of the locality bu~ hays a principal place business in the locali=y. Mr. Daniel stated he had no probl~ with the amen~ent pe~it each locality to appoint Directors who are or are not residents of ~e locali=y; however, he was not amenable rewriting the Umbrella Agreement a~ h~ fel~ it inappropriate at ~i~ time. Mr. Micas stated an ~endment could be drafted that would grandfather the e~i$%ing the appointments. Mr. Applegate suggested ~e i~ue b~ deferred There wa~ further discussion r~l~tive to th~ fact tha~ th~ City appointed from the jurisdictions in which they re~ide and that approved the folI~ing resolution ratifying the action taken b~ W5E~AS, th~ ~oaxd uf Directors cf 2he ~RTC wa~ elec=a~ on Con~ent Agreement dated July 5, 19~9; selma=ed by ~he City of Ric~ond no serve on ~e Board of 5, 1989, h~l~ i=s Sirs= mee=ing on J~ly 25, 1989. confirmed. the GRTC Board of Directors on July 25, 1989; what type action wa~ taken and if go wa~ ia aehieve~ in conjunction with co~itt~e at the July 25, 1989 meeting; kew could ~ Board the Dir~=tors must reside in %he locality from which %hey are appointed; etc. ~en~en~ of the GRTC U~rella Agreement and the Unanimous 99-701 Con~ent Agreement until Auqust 23, 1989 in order to resolve the Board's concerns as %o what action the ~RTC Board of Directors did take at their July 25, 1989. Mr. Daniel withdrew his motion and Mr. Mayes his second. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, it was resolved that the amendment of the Greater Richmond Transit Company Umbrella Agreement, the Unanimous Consent Agreement and the Confirming Resolution be deferred until Auqust 23, 1989. Mr. Currin seconded the motion. 7.N. RESOLUTION REC0CNIZING MS. RENEE' RIDLE¥ FOR NEWS COVERAGE OF CHESTERPIELD COUNTY Mr. Rameey recognized Ms. Renee' Ridley of WRVA radio, who had been reassigned to cover Richmen~ City Hall news, was present visiting the Board meeting. Mr. Daniel suggested that a resolution be drafted recognizing Ms. Ridley for her years of service in covering tho County governmsnt news and requested the rules be Suspended to add an item to the agenda for said purpose. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board Suspended its rules to add an item to the agenda recognizinq M~. Renee' Ridlsy of WRVA radio news for her service to the County. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board added Item 7.M., R~cognizinq M~. Renee' Ridley for News Coveraqe of ~hest~rfield County, to the agenda. Vote: Unanimous On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEP~EAS, Renee' Ridley, the senior msmber of the Chester- field Press Corps, has been transferred by WRVA ~adio to cover the activities of another local municipal government; and WHEREAS, MS. Ridley has covered Chesterfield County news since September 27, 1983 with a friendly fairness which endeared her to countless County employees; and WHEREAS, She reported on the activities of two County administrators, two school superintendents, three planning directors and more board and co~issions than ~ven her own sharp memory can recall; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does thank MS. Renee' Ridley for her balanced and accurate coverage of Chesterfield County news for almost six years and wish her similar success in her new beat in Richmond. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate co~uuended Ms. Ridley for her diligent efforts in providing balanced, equltabl¢ coverage of the County news and stated the executed resolution would be formally presented to her at a future meeting. 89-702 ll.B. ADOPTIO~ CE A COUNTY RISK MAlqAG~MENT PLAN Mr. Micas presented a brief summary of data relativ~ to the adoption of a County Ri~k Management Plan, s~atsd the Plan's purpose is to explain the type of losses for which the County will provide financial indemnification and to minimize the long term cost of accidental losses while providing sufficient financial protection to attract and re=ain employees. He ~tated the Plan is a management guide and is not a contract between the County and any person, employee Or entity, that the Plan expressly intends not to create any third par~y benefici- aries under the ~lan, ~hat it creates no ve~ted right cr property interests in anyone except az required ~y Statute and may be amended at any time by the Board. When asked, Mr. Micas state~ the ~oerd i~ covered by statutory immunity and the Pfd~lit~ Bond, signed by all Board members when they assua%ed office, im currently effective. Qn ~ot£o~ cf ~r. ~llivan, seconded by Mr. Coffin, the Beard adopted a County Risk Management Plan which more fully oommunica=es guidelines that will be used in payfnq claims or losses, is dealgnsd to maintain flexibility in meeting the need~ of any claim while also informing Canary employee~ and citizens of the limit~ of the County's Risk Management Program, and defines the authority o~ the Ri~k ~&nagement Department in adjusting elaim$~ (A copy of said Plan is filed with the papers of th~s Board.) ll,D. ACCEPT N~W STAT~ A~D F~D~RAL FUWD$ A~D AUTHORIZE ONE NEW COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD POSITION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, th~ Board accepted Stat~ Departmen~ Of ~ntal ~eaI~h, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse f~ndn in the amount of $11~,700 and Federal Alcohol, Drug ~bu~e and ~he a~oaut Of $56,300, for a total fundln~ of $I69,000; increased revenues and expenditures in the amount of $169,000 to the Community Services Beard which will be used to ~stablish one full-rims position, one par=-=ime position and ~pgrade one other position, accelerate hiring of three clinical services positions, purchase an additional l~-passenger van and othe~ equipment, and purchase p~ychlatry $~rvieee for intravenous ~rug users; and authorized the a~tabliahmen% of one new Community S~rviees Board position. (It is ne=ed no local funding is inuelved.} Vote: Unanimous ll.E. APPROPRIATION TO VIRGINIA UNION UNIVERSITY On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. ~ayes, the Board appropriated $I~,000 from ~he General FUnd Contingency Account to ~stabllsh an interim student ~e~ern ~rogram between Chesterfield County and Virginia Union University for the purpos~ of providing assi~tanc~ to County residents pursuing courses of study in Information Technology at that University. Ayes: M~. Coffin, Mr. Dan~el~ Mr. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Applegata, as he was not against the eenc~pt but ~elt the matter ~hould hav~ been addresse~ during budget meetings. ll.F. E~PANSION OF THE BON AIR LIBRARY There was discussion retativa to the increased usage of the existing Don Air Library; =he ex~anslon being included in 89-703 Bond Referendum approved in November, 1989; the fact that the expansion was not intended to generate increased usage of the facility but provide better library services to the citizens in that area; an existing reciprocal agreement with the City of Richmond; the importance of addressing area residents' concerns relative to 'traffic, parking, etc., whether it be through the District Supervlsor's First Monday meetings or a staff member meeting with individuals per their inquiries; etc. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board adopted a proposal concerning the expansion of the Ben Air Library, a copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board; appropriated a $75,000 contribution from the City of Richmond as its share for the expansion of the Ben Air Library. (It is noted the County share of funds were authorized in the 1988 Bond Referendum, design funds were appropriated from the 1989 Bond Sale and construction funds will be appropriated in the 1990 Bond Sale; and also that the City of Richmond will contribute funds toward operating expenses on an annual basis.) Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel stated he felt, since Chesterfield was involved in many City events, it would be appropriate to investigate the ramifications of opportunities that may be available in which County staff could participate when off-duty, such as ~vents at the Diamond, Coliseum, etc. ll.H. SET DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER COUNTY ORDINAnCeS AUTBORI~ED BY THE 1989 GENERAL On motion of Mr. sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board set the date of October 11, 1989, at 7=00 p.m., for public hearings to consider County ordinances authorized by the General Assembly regarding tho following: 1. Environment - require that all solid waste facilities obtain siting approval from the Board of Supervisors in addition to the normal zoning approval by the Board of Supervisors and obtain a permit from the State Department of Waste Management; 2. Motor Vehicles - require that persons riding mopeds on public streets wear helmets and either (i) wear face shields, safety glasses or goggles or (ii) have their mopeds equipped with safety glass or windshields; 3. Taxation - proration of real estate tax relief for the elderly or handicapped if a taxpayer is disqualified from the program due to a change in circumstance; 4. Taxation - creation of a partial real estate tax exemption on residential or commercial structures at lease 25 years of age that have been aubstantially rehabilitated. And further, the Board remanded to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation the following items: 1. Requirement that development near airports within County must comply with County height restrictions in order to comply with FAA requirements; 2. Civil penalties for violations of the County Zoning Ordinance; 3. Prohibition of any inoperative vehicle outside an enclosed structure or screened Or shielded from view; 4. Requirement that subdivision plats and site plans identify any grave, object er structure a burial place or cemetery; 89-704 ship interest in ~he affected real estate; and 6. Requirement that substentially the same application the Board of 5oning Appeals within a one year time period from the initial eonsideraClon. And further, the Board de~rred until Pall, 19~ oonsideratien efa required classification of daily rental property (tangibl~ p~rsoaal property held for rental and owned by a person engaged with a~oDtion of a rental tax of I% on the ~ross proceeds r~cla~ifi~ahion of dail~ ~en~al businesses into the retail sale category for business license purposes~ and deferred until Spring, 1990 ¢on$1deratlen of adoption of a stermwater manage- ment pro, ram eon~ietent with State standards. ll.i.1. PR~S~RVATION COMMITTEE On moLie~ of Mr. Daniel, ~econded by Mr. sullivan, the Board nominated Mr. Steve Bryant to complete th~ unexpired term Qf Mr. Hampton Davis on the chesterfield County Preservation Committee, whose formal appointment will be made at the August 23, 1989 meeting. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel requested ~hat a letter of appreciation be forwarded to Mr. ~npton Davis for his service on the ~r~servation 1I.I.2. R~D~FI~DER9 BOARD On motion of Mr. Sulllvan~ s~cond~ by ~r. Currin, the Board nominated Mr. Jim Banks, En~ineerin~ Supervisor in Tran~porhation D~pa~tment, ~o repr~sen~ Chesterfield Ceunty ~n the Rideflnders Board, whose foL~mal appointment w~ll be made at Vote; Unanimous 1I.I.3. RICENOND P~EGIONAL METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGA~ZATI©N On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board ~omiaated Mr. Mark Biblett, Enplane: in :he Transportation ~egional Metropolitan Planning Organiz:tion, who~e formal appoin+-ment will b~ mude on August 23, 1989. VOte: Uaanimous 1I .J.' C0~k~U~IT¥ DEVELOPMENT ITEMS ll.J.l. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS On motion of Mr. Appleqate, ~ec0ndud by Mr. Na~es, the cost for street, light installation at the locations in the amount as indicated below: the Board following 1. Interseotion of old Hundred Road and Tall Hickory Drive 99-705 (Nuttree Subdivision) in the amount of $1,559.00, Clover Hill District; and 4606 Red Chestnut Court, rear of lot facing Old Eundred Road (Nuttree Subdivision) in the amount of $694.00, Clover Hill District. Vote: Unanimous STREET LIGHT REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Coffin, s~conded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferred consideration of a street light request for 2719 Parkdele Road until August 23, 1989. ll.K. CONSENT ITEMS ll.K.1. CHANGES IN STATE SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM, OTTERDALE ROAD On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, %he Board adopted the following resolution: WEEREAS, reconstruction of Route 667, Project Number 0667-020-240,C501,B665 has been completed and approved by the State Highway Commissioner; and WHEREAS, the construction has necessitated changes in the Secondary System as the roads so altered. NOW, T~RR~pORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that portion of old location of Route 667, i.e., S~¢tion 1 shown in blue on the sketch titled, "Changes in the Secondary System Due to Releoation and Construction of Route 667, Project 0667-020-240,C501,B668", dated at Richmond, Virginia, May 5, 1989, a total distance of 0.16 miles, does not serve a public need and i~ to be abandoned from the Secondary System of State Highway pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, amended; AND PURTRER, that portion of Secondary Route 667, i.e., Section 2 as shown in red on the sketch titled, "Changes in the Secondary System due to Relocation and Construction on Route 667, Project 0667-020-240,C501,B668", dated at Riekmond, Virginia, May 5, 1989, a total distance of 0.16 mile~, be and hereby is added to the Secondary System of State Highway pursuant to Section 33.1-299 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, a~ended. Vote: Unanimous 11.K.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Hoard made report in writing upon his examination of Sunset Hills Drive and Sunset Hills Terrace in Brandon Section A, Clover Hill District. UpOn consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Sunset Hills Drive and Sunset Mills Terraoe in Brandon Seceion A, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Sunset Hills Drive, beginning at existing Sunset Hills Drive, State Route 2331, and going southwesterly 0.16 mile to the intersection with Sunset Hills Court, Brandon 89-706 sOuthwesterLy 0.06 mile to %he intersection with ~unset cul-de-sac; ~unset Hill~ T~rrae~ begianing at the intersecticn with Sun,et Bills Drive and going southeasterly 0.04 mile th~n turning and going ~outhwesterly 0.07 mils ~o end in and designate~ Virginia Department of ~ra~sportation drainage guaran~$ ~o the Virginia Department o~ Transportation a riqht-of-way for all of these road~. This ~eetio~ ~f Brandon is recorded as iollow~z Se<klan A. Plat Book 51, Pages 1~ and 18, October ~, This day the County Environmental Engineer, in acoerdance with directiens from this Board made report in writing upon his ax~%ination of Sunset Hills Court in Brandon Section B, Clever ~ill District. Upon consideration wh~r~o~, and on motion of ~r. ~ullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, it i~ resolved that Sung~t Hills Court in Br~ndOn Section B, Clover ~ilI District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be i~ f~rther resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby i~ requested to take into the Secondary System, Sunset Hills Ceurt~ beginning at the inter- section with ~un~t ~iI15 Drive, ~ran~on Section A, $~ate route number to be assigned, and going southeasterly 0+OD mile, then turning and gains $oo~herly 0.04 mile to en~ ia a cul-de-sac. This request i~ inclusive Of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virqinia Department of Transportation drainage This road serves 14 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board cf Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transport~glon a ~0' right-cf-way fur =his road. This sactloa of Srandon is rscorded as follows~ Section B. Plat Book 57, Page ~1, July 20~ 1987. Vote~ Unanimous This duy the Cennty ~nvironmental Engineer, in accordancm with directions from this ~eard made report in writing upon his examination of Gates Mill Road~ Gates Mill Court an~ Gates ~i!1 Place in Gates Mill, Clover Bill District. Upon consideration whereef, and on motion of Mr. Sullivan, ~onded by ~r. Mayas, it is resolved that Gates Mil1 Road, Gate~ Mil~ Ceurt and Gates Mill Place in Gates Mill, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as public roadz. And he i~ further resolved, that the Virginia Department of TranspertatiOn, be ~nd i~ hereby is rsquasted to take inte the 89-707 Secondary' System, Gates Mill Road, beginning at the inter- section with Woodlake village Parkway, State Route 3600, and going westerly 0.03 mile to the intersection with Gates Mill Court, then continuing westerly 0.09 mile to the intersection with Gates Mill Place, then continuing westerly 0.05 mile, then turning and going northwesterly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Gates Mill Court, beginning at the intersection with Gates Mill Road and going northerly 0.07 mile then turning and going northeasterly 0.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Gates Mill Place, beginning at the intersection with Gates Mill Road and going northerly 0.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Again Gates Mill Place, beginning at the intersection with Gates Mill Road and goinq southerly 0.08 mile to end in'a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Departmsnt of Transportation drainage easements. These roads serve 52 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads e×cspt Gates Mill Road which has a 50' to 70' variable width right-of-way. This section of Gates Mill is recorded as follows: Plat Book 55, Page 37, December 2, 1986. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board made report in writing upon.his examination of Glendower Road and Glendower Circle in Powderham section D, Midlothian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Sullivan, s~condcd by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Glendower Road and ~lendower Circle in Powderham Section D, Midlothian District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Gleadower Road, beginning at the intersectiQn with existing Glendower Road, State Route 1068, and Glendower Circle, Powderham Section D, and going northwesterly 0.11 mile to end at proposed Glsndower Road, Powderham Section ~; Glen- dower Circle, beginning at the intersection with existing Glendower Road, State Route 1068, and Glendower Road, Powderham Section D, and going easterly 0.12 mile to end in a ertl-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. These roads serve 16 lots. And be it further resolved, tha~ the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Depar~ent of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads. This section of Powderham is recorded as fellows: Section D. Plat Book 43, Page 66, August 1, 1983. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordanc~ with directions from this Board made report in writing upon his 89-708 Upon consideration whereof, and On motion of Mr. Sullivan, Drakewood Road in Powderham S~etioD B, ~idlothian District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. be assigned, and going northerly 0.12 mile to end at the intersection with brakowood Koad; Drakewood Road, beginning at the intersection with Glendower Road and going WeSterly 0.03 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Again Drakewnnd Road, beginning These roads serve 12 lots. And bc it further ra~nlved, that the Board of SUpervisors guarantees ~e the Virginia Department of Transportation a 90' right-of-way for all of these road~. This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board made report in Writing upon his examination of Golden L~af ROad in Autumn oaks Section =, and a portion of Section C, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof~ and on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, it is resolved ~ha~ Golden Leaf Road in Autumn Oaks SectiOn E, and a portion of Section C~ Matoaca Distrlot bc and it hereby ia cstablishe~ as a public road. And be it iur~her resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transpcrtation~ be and it hereby is r~q~ested to take into thc $~condary System, Golden Leaf Road, beginning at the inter- section with Deep Forest Road, State Route 2~1~ and going southeasterly 0.15 mile then turning and going mouthwesterly ~.10 mile to end in a temporary turnaround. Thim ~eqne~t is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight dis=sacs and designated Virginia Department of Transportation d~ainag~ This road s~rvem 12 lots. And be it further r~solved, that th~ Board of Supervisors guaranteec to the Virqinia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for this road. Th~se sections of Autumn Oak~ arc ~eor~cd as follows: Section E. Plat Bock 56, Pages 15 and 1~, Pebruary 6, 1987. section c. Plat ~ook 44~ page 45, November 2, 1983. Vote~ Unanimous 89-709 This day the County Enviroranental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board mad~ report in writing upon his examination of Evslyn Drive, Maplevale Road and Maplevale Place in Craddock Point, Bermuda District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Hayes, it is resolved that ~velyn Drive, Maplevale Road and Maplevale Place in Craddock Point, Bermuda District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Evelyn Drive, beginning at the intersection with Sand Hills Drive, State Route 3570, and going northerly 0.06 mile to end in a temporary turnaround; Maplevale Road, bsginning at the intersection with Sand Hills Drive, State Route 3570, and going northwesterly 0.05 mile, then turning and going westerly 0.12 mile to the intersection with Maplevale Place, then continuing westerly 0.03 mile, then turning and going ~outhwesterly 0.07 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Maplevale Place, beginning at the intersection with Sand Hills Drive, State Route 3570, and going northerly 0.07 mile to end at the intersection with Maplevale Road. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage These roads serve 39 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Soard of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' riqht-of-way for all of these roads. This section of Craddock Point is recorded as follows: Section 5. Plat Book 55, Page 98~ January 16, 1987. ll.K.3. ALLOCATIOR OF FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF IRRIGATION EQUIP- MENT FOR MATOACA HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY FOOTBALL FIELD On motion cf Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Hayes, the Board transferred $4,600 from the Matoaca Three Cent Road Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department budget to assist the Mateaca Boosters Club in the purchase and installation of an irrigation system for the Matoaca High School varsity football field; and accepted and appropriated a $3,000 donation from the Matoaca Boosters Club to the Parks and Recreation Department budget for completion of said project, the total cost, including $600 administrative costs, being approximately $7,600. Vote: Unanimous ll.E.4. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR AN ENTERTAINMENT/MUSICAL FESTIVAL PERMIT AND FIREWOPJfS PERMIT FOR TEE CNESTE~IELD COUNTY FAIR AMSOCIATTON On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Hayes, the Board approved a reguest for an Entertainment/Musical Festival Permit and a Fireworks Permit from the Chesterfield County Fair Association for permission to conduct the annual County Fair at the Chesterfield County Fairgrounds September 11 -16, 1989, subject to all County policies and regulations governing same. Vote: Unanimous 89-710 PROJECT DESIGN SERVICES On motion of ~r. Sullivan, s~conded by ~r. Nayes, the awarded contracts to Austin Brockenbrough and Associates, in thc amount of $51,594, end Resource Planners, Ins., in the amount of $76,350, to perform a variety of design services for Parks Improvement~ BOnd Projects, which projects include lronbridge Park, Chalkley Elementary School, Goyne Park, HUguenOt Park, M~adowbrook ~igh School and ~rovidencs Middle School; and farther authorized the County Administrator to execute all necessary dooumenta te award said contracts. Vote: Unanimous APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WIT~ THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA PROVIDIN~ FOR A STUDENT W0~df-$TUD¥ PKQG~%~4 On motion of Mr. Sullivan, s~conded by ~r. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any neCeSsary doeu~enta to enter into an agreement with the Co~monwealth Of Virginia, ~ubject to revisions approved by County Attorney, to participate in a student Work-Study Program, in which thc County con%facts with Virqinia wealth University, Virginia ~tate Un~versity and John Tyler Community College to anploy students on a part-tim~ basic, with d~slaions aa to hiring and firing being made by the County; and further, appropriated $26,500 in revenue and expenditures ~o the Parks an~ Recreation Department b~d~et, which funds will be used to provide additional supervision of playground and athletic facilities and to expand programs for mpecial popula- tions such as senior citizenm and the mentally or physically challenged and these a~ditional services can be provided at no c0ut to the County. (A copy of said agreement is filed with the papers of this Board.} Vote: Unanimous ll.K.7. SET DATES FOR PUBLIC ll.K.7.a. TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO T~ CO~V~¥ANCE OF BRQPERT¥ AT THE AIP~PORT INDUSTRIAL PAPJ{ TO SCANCENTER VIRGINIA, I~C. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, th~ ~oar~ set the dace of August 23, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to con~ider an amendmen~ to the c0nvsyance of property at the Airport Industrial Park ~o ScanCen~er Virginia, Inc.. Vote: Unanimous II.K.7.b. TO CONSIDER CNESTER VILLAGE PLAN On motion of Mr. Sullivan, s~conded by ~r. Mayee, the Board set the date of September 13, t989, at 7:~0 p.m., f~r a publiQ hearing ~o consider the Chester V~lla~e Plan. I1.K.7.c. TO CONSIDER A/~NDI~G C~APTER ~1 OF T~E C~$T~FIELD On motion o~ Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. May=s, thc ~oard set the date of September 13, I9S9, at 7:00 p.m., for a publio hearin~ to consider an amendment to Chapter 21 of the Chesterfield COunty Zoning Ordinance. Vote: Unanimous 89-711 ll.K.7.d. TO CONSIDER AY-ENDING CHAPTER 21.1 OF THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE On motion of Mr. Sullivan, Seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board eet the date of September 13, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing to consider an amendment to Chapter 21.1 of the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance. Vote: Unanimous ll.K.7.e. TO CONSIDER THE PORTION OF THE COUNTY THOROUGHFARE PLAN DEALING WITH THE NORT~-SOUTE FR~WA~ AND BOPKINS ROAD EXTENSION On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date of September 13, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing to consider the portion of the County Thoroughfare Plan dealing with the north-south freeway and Hopkins Road Exten- sion. ll.K.7.f. TO CONSIDER LEASING THE COUNTY MUSEUM BUILDING TO THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY MUSEUM, INC. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date of August 23, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to consider the leaeing of the County Museum Building to the Chesterfield County Museum, Inc. Vote: Unanimous ll.K.8. RENEWAL OF DEED OF LEASE EOR THE WINT~RPOCK DUMPSTER SITE On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute the n~cessary documents to renew the deed of lease for the Winterpeok Dumpster Site for a period of three years beginning July 1, 1989, at a rate of $1,400 per year. (It is noted funds are included in the current year budget for this purpose.) Vote: Unanimous 11.K.9. STORM WATER ~L%NAGEMENT SYSTEM AGREEMENT FOR CHESTER- FIELD MEADOWS SHOPPING CENTER On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute a Storm Water Management System Agreement with the developer of Chesterfield Meadows Shopping Center, with the County's only involvement b~ing tO assure that the 'owner complies with said agreement. Vote: Unanimous ll.K.10. APPLICATION FOR A VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING GRANT On motion of Mr. sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved application for, acceptance and appropriation of $25,000, if approved, for a FY1989-90 Virginia Community Development Planning Grant for a Dtudy of the Ettrisk/Matoaca area of the County, which study would be limited to identifying housing and community development needs of low and moderate income residents in the Ettrick/Matoaca community. 89-712 Vote~ Unani~ons ll.N.ll. ACCEPTANCE 0~ FUNDS FROM CAPITAL ~ AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT On motion of Mr. Sullivan~ aeeonded by Mr. Hayes, the Board accepted $6,000 in funds from the Capital Area Agency on A~inq for the period of October ir 1989 through September 30, !99~, and appropriated and increased revenues and expenditnre~ by $6w000 for the Department of Social Services to aeei~t with the prevision cf Companion Services ~o the elderly. Voto~ Unanimous ll.L. UTILITI~ DEPARTMENT ITEMS ~I.L.1. FINANCING ~OR THE ROUTE 1/30~ ASSESS~i~NT DISTRICT On motion of Mr. Coffin, seconded by ~r. Sullivan, the soard appropriated $653~00 from the wastewater fund balance to the Route 1/301 Tax or AssemsmeBt Sower District, Project 88-0S51, to extend ~he Red%~ater Creek Se~or Trunk to Route 1/301 and th~n Southerly toward Route 10. (It is noted the cost of the project plus 8 percent interest will be repaid from the Vote: Unanimous ll.L.2. AUTHORIZATION TO EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN ll.L.2.a, ACROSS PROPERTY OF MS. GENEVA B. ROSS FOR COALFIELD ROAD TO EUGUEN©T SPRINGS TANK WAT~LINE ALONG ROUTE There Was a brief dis=ussion regarding whether or not a public hearing was neoessar~ to Consider requests ~or authorization to exercise eminent domain; concern that both th~ landowner and developer be permitted to present their Dosition on the matter; the manner in which current agenda papers ar~ Mr. Ramsay stated that eminent domain action is necaseary to provide water and sewer for the h~alth, safety an~ welfare of the Dublic. Mr. Ma~am requested and it was generally agreed wording. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, ~econded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the Connty Attorney to proceed with eminent domain apalnst the following property owner if the amOUnt as set opposite her name is ~ot accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Adminiserator notify said prope~ey o~ner by enter upon and take the property whioh is to be the subject of said eminent domain. This action is on an emergency basi~ and the County intends to eaeroise i~unediate right of entry, pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of ~he code of Virpi~ia. M~. Geneva B. ROSS Tax Hap 18-11 (1) $3,917. Vote~ UnaDimous ll.L.2.b. ACROSS PROPERTY OF MR, A3~D MRS. STEV~N M. RICE FOR WATER =AS=~i~NT FOR WINDSOR PARK SUBDIVISION On motion of Hr. Hayes, seconded by Mr. sullivan, tho Board authorized the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain agalns~ the following pr0per~y owner~ if the amount as set opposite their name is not acc~pte~. 89-713 Mr. Steven M. and Mrs. Nancy H. Rice Vote: Unanimous Tax ~ap 126-3 (1) Parcel 2 $578. 11.L.2.¢. ACROSS PROPERTY OF MR. AND MRS. ALBERT AERAMSON, ET AL FOR WATER EASEMENT TO SERVE DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY DEPOT On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board authorized the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain against the following property owners if the amount as set opposite their name is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator aotiiy said property owners by registered mail on July 27, 1989 of the County'~ intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said eminent domain. This action is On an emergency basis and the County intend~ to exercise immediate riqht of entry, pursuant tO Section 15.1-235.1 of the Code of virginia. Mr. Albert and Mrs. Ruth Abramson, ~t A1 Tax Map 67-7 $250. Vote: Unanimous ll.L.2.d. ACROSS BROBERTY OF MR. AND MRS. ELWOOD M. CONYERS FOR THE PLANTATION ESTATES WATERLINE On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board authorized the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain against the following property owners if the amount as set opposite their name is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owners by registered mail on July 27, 1989 of the County'~ intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said eminent domain. This action is on an emergency basis and the County intend~ to ~x~roise immediate right of entry, pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of tha Code of Virginia. Mr. Elwood M. and Mrs. Audrey R. Conyers Tax Map 92-6 (2) A-A-1 $1,102. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate and Mr. Daniel submitted letters from Mr. and Mrs. Conyers regarding this issue. ll.L.2.e. ACROSS PROPERTY OF MR. AND MRS. CARL L. LEAKE FOR THE PLANTATION ESTATES WATERLINE On motion of Mr. Mayer, ~econded by Mr. Currin, the Board authorized the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain against the following property owner~ if the amount as set opposite their name is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrato~ notify said property owners by r~gi~tered mail on July 27, 1989 of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said eminent domain. This action is on an emergency basis and the County intends to exercise im/aediate right of entry, pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code Of virginia. Mr. Carl L. and Mrs. Diane C. Leake Tax Map 92-6 (2) A-B-1 $1,443. Vote: Unanimous 89-714 ll.L.2.f. ACROSS PROPERTY OF MS. MELANIE L. W. PIALL A/K/A M~. ~LANIE L. W. D~V~$ A~D MR. DONALD G. WOLCOTT FOR PLANTATION ESTATES WATERLINE On motion of Mr. Mayes~ seconded by Mr. Currin, th@ Board authorized the County Attorney to proceod with eminent domain against the following property owners if the ~mOUnt as s~t opposite their name is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owners by registered mail on July 27, 1989 of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said eminent domain. This action is on an emergency basis and the County intends tc ex~roiSe immediate right of entry, pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia. ~r. Melanie L. W. Ball, A/K/A ~s. Melenie L. w. Davis and ~r. Donald G. Wolcott TaX Ma~ 92~5 (lJ Parcel 9 $743. CONSENT ITEMS ll.n.3.a. CONSIDERATION OF ~ILROAD AGREEMENTS FOR FALLING CREEK PRESS~P~ SEWER, Pfl~SE II On motion of ~r. Sullivan~ ~econded by Mr. Mayes, the Board acsspted thre~ agreements with CSX Transportation Railroad for ?allinq Creek Pressure Sewer~ Phase II, to install and maintain wastewater llu~ crossings of th~ CSX Transportation Railroad's right-of-way an~ tracks at three different locations located at 2,6~0 feet south of ~ilepest S-10; 2,~1t feet south o£ milepost S-10; and 1,450 feet south of milepost A~10 in Chesterfield County; and authorized the County Administrator to .execute shy necessary documents for maid agreements. Vote: Unanimous ll.L.3.b. AWARD OF ENGINEERING CONTRACT FO~ IMPROVEMENTS TO THE On motion of Nr. Sullivan, ~eoonded by Mr. May~s, the Board (Project Numbsr EP0553R) to Bla~k and Veatch; authorized the enter into said contract; and transferred $180,000 from Project Number 000671E (Proetor~ Creek $~oond Outfall) to Project ll.L.3.c. A~PROVA5 OF WATER CO~TRACT E0~ PLANTATION ESTATES WATER LINE EXTENSION On motion of Mr. Sullivan, $~oonded by Mr. Mayms, the Board ~war~ed CQD~a¢% Number 87-6171 for thm construction of a water tine along Spring Run Road and through Clover Hill Farms area from Triple Crown Drive to P!anta%ion =states subdivision to H. Ro/~ncr Gay & Company in the ~ount of $1,082,53~ and authe~i~ed the County Administrator fo exeou=e an~ necessary documents. {It is norad the propect will be funded by curr~nt appropria- tions.) Votu: Unanimous 89-715 ll.L.3.d. APPROVAL OF WATER CONTRACT EOR ROUTE 60 WATER LINE EXTENSION On motion of Mr. Sullivan, SeCOnded by Mr. Mayas, the Board awarded Contract Nu~uber 88-0100 for tha construction of a 24" water line along Midlothian Turnpike (Route 60) from Coalfield Road to Huguenot Springs Road to M. Mamnar Gay & Company in the amount of $938,714 and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necassary documents. (It is noted the project will funded by currant appropriations.) Vote: Unanimous ll.L.3.e. AWARD OF CONTRACT AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR LICKING CREEK TRUNK SEWER On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board awarded Contract Number 88-0131 for the construction of a sewer line along Licking Creek from Rolfe's Colony to Belmont Road to the lowest bidder G. L. Howard, Inc. in the amount of $439,918; authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents~ and transferred $470,479.46 from 5F-58350-8801~lE to 5~-58350-0228E to complete said project. (It is noted funds for the project ware appropriated in th~ Capital Projects Budget process, however, sinc~ part of the project is being constructed by a developer, a transfer of $470,479.46 is required in order to refund the developer for the ovarsisa line costs.) Vote: Unanimous ACCEPTANCE 0E DEED OF DEDICATION ll.L.3.f.1. ALONG U.S. ROUTE 360 FROM INVESTORS WOODLAKE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed of dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, ihs conveyance of a 20' strip of land along U. S. Route 360 from Investors Woodlake Development Corporation. (A copy of said plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous ll.L.3.f.2. A~ONG' 0SD BUCKINGBAM ROAD FROM FIDELITY SAVINGS BANK On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed of dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a 0.027 acre parcel of land along Old Buckingham Road £rom Fidelity Fadaral Savi~g~ B~nk. (A o0py of said plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous ALONG OLD BUCKINGHAM ROAN AND HUGUENOT ROAD FROM MR. AND MRS. GEORGE W. CLARKE, JR. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute the naoassary deed of dedication acoeptin9, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a 0.027 acre parcel of land along Old Buckingham Road and a 0.055 acre parcel of land along Huguenot Road from Mr. George W. Clarke, Jr. and Ms. Barbara B. Clarke. (A copy 89-716 Of said plat is iile~ with ~he papersof ~his Board.) Vote~ Unanimou~ ll,L.3+f.4. FOR POWDER~AM SEWAGE ~UMPI~G STATION FROM MR. V. CASSELL ADAKSON, JR.! ET tLS On Notion of Mr, Sullivan, seconded by MT. Mayes, the BOard authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed of dedication accepting, on behalf of th% County, the conveyance of Lot 46, Block E, of Powderham, Section F, to be nsad for the Powderham Pumping Station from Hr. V. Casual Adamson e~ al. (A copy of said ~a~ is filed with the paper~ of this Board.) TION OF A STUB ROAD OFF VISTAPOINT ROAD On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayem, tho Board reset the date of August 23, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to consider the vacation of a ~tub road off Vistapoint Roa~. Vote: Unanimous ll.L.3.h. DECLARE ~ARCEL OF LAND ADJACEET TO STU~E~DGE DR~VE AS SURPLUS AND SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITS SALE On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~z. Mayes, the Soard declared a narrow strip of land containing .U95 acre adjacent to Sturbridqe Drive at i%$ i~ter~ectlon with Midlothian Turnpike as surplus property; set th~ date of August 23, 1989~ at 9~00 a.m.~ for a public hearing to consider the sale of said parcel to Pocono A~seeiate~; and authorized the Chairman of the ~oard and ~he County A~inietrator to execute a l~sense agreement allowing POtOnO A~ociat~s to use the land for access end landscaping until the sale is completed. Vote= Unanimous ll.L.3.i. REQUEST FRO~ MK. AND MRS. ALAN D. BRDORE FOR PERM/S- SION TO ENCROACH O~ ~XISTI~G 16 FOOT SEWER EASEMENT, SUMMERFIELD SUBDIVISION On motion of Mr. Sullivan, s~conded by Mr. Mayes! ~h~ approved a request from Mr. and Mrs. Alan D. Brooke for permission for portions of a house addition to encroach on an existing 16' sewer easement on LC=~9# Block K~ Section B and Lot %0, Block E~ ~e~t~QD C, Su/~enfield Subdivision, subjec= eeecution cf a license a~reement and with ~h~ understanding that they be responsible for any damag~ don~ to tile i~ it interferes with County maintenance of the ~ewer llne. copy of said plat i~ filed with the pap~r~ of this Soard.) vote: Unanimous ll.M. REPORTS Mr. Ram~ey presented the Board with a status report on the General Fun~ Contingency Account, General Fund salan0e, Road Reserve Funds, District Road and Street Light Fund~ and Lea~ ~urchases, 89-917 Mr. Ramsey stated the Virginia Department of Transportation has formally notified the County of the acceptance of the following roads into the State Secondary System: ADDITIONS LENGTH ROXSHI~ - SECTION 3 Route 4230 (Auger Lane) - From 0.03 mile west Route 4231 to 0,03 mile east Route 4232 0.15 Mi. Route 4231 (Welrose Court) - From Route 4230 to north cul-de-sac 0.06 Mi. ROUte 4232 (Linville Court) - Prom Route 4230 to north cul-de-sac 0.85 Mi. NORT~ ~U~DRED - SECTION D Route 3451 {Swamp Fox Road) - From 0,38 mile eouthwest Route 3450 to southwest cul-de-sac 0.44 Mi. Route 678 (West Providence Road) - From 0.15 mile west Route 2722 to 0,39 mile west Route 2722 0.24 Mi. GLENWOOD - SECTIONS C & F Route 4400 (Ventura Road) - From Route 2855 to southeast cul-de-sac Route 2857 (Wilconna Road) - From Route 2855 to southeast cul-de-sac Route 4401 (Srightridge Road) - From Route 2857 to Southeast cul-de-sac Route 4402 (~rightrldge Way) - From Route 4401 to southwest cul-de-sac Route 4403 (Brightridge C0uft) - F~om Route 4401 to ~outheast cul-de-sac Route 4404 (Brightridge Lane) - From Route 4401 to 0.05 mile northwest Route 4401 0.08 Mi. 0.18 Mi. 0.37 Mi. 0.04 Mi. 0.03 Mi. 0.05 Mi. CROSS CREEE - SECTION B Route 3773 (Crossing Way) - From 0.01 mile northeast Route 3775 to 0.02 mile east Route 3776 0.10 Mi. Route 3776 (Crossinq Way Circle) - From Route 3773 to north cul-de-sac 0.05 Mi. Rout~ 945 (Old Son Air Place) - From Rout~ 718 to northwest cul-de-sac 0.18 Mi. SUMMIT ACRES Route 870 (Summit Acres Drive) southwest cul-de-sac - From Route 678 to 0,18 Mi. REEDY MILL - SECTION A Route 1250 (Millhouee Drive) - From 0.08 mile north Route 1251 to Route 3498 0.16 Mi. Route 3498 (Springhouse Drive) - From 0.01 mile west Route 1250 to northeast cul-de-sac 0.27 Route 3499 (Springhouse Court) - From Route 3498 to southeast cul-de-sac 0.05 Mi. 89-718 1I.~. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion' of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Sullivant seconded by Mr. Hayes, the BOard moved Item i1.~., ~xecutlve Session, Consultation with legal couns&l pursuant to Section 2.I-344 (a) (6) of the Code of Vi~inia, 1950r az amended, regarding t) Sartha Grimslsy C10dfelter versus Dorothy West, 2) probable litigation relating to an automobile accident invQ!vlng a County employee and 3) specific legal matters reletin~ to ScanCenter, subsequent to Item ll.Q., R~qu~$t$ for R~onlag. Vote: U~anlmous 1t.©. LUNCH The Board recessed at 12:30 p.m, Cafe for lunch. ~eoonvening: ll.P. MOBILE HOM~ 895R0276 In ~idlothian Na~isterial District, CLIFTO~ L. ~ ~ORIA ~ST~-D requested r~newal of Mobil~ Home Permi~ ~4$RQPQ Dark a mobile home on property fronting the south lin~ of ROad, and better kno~ a~ 14011 Weatfield Road. Tax Map 15-7 {1) Parcel 30 (sheee 7). The flrs~ pe~it was issued on zarch 4, I970. ~r. Jacobsen stated at its June 28, 1989 meeting %h~ Board be properly notified and that action ha~ ba~n completed. ~tate~ st~ff race,ended approval of Case 89SR0276, subject standard conditions. Ms. Gloria A~tead ~tated the recommended conditions wexe acu~pt=ble. There was no opposition prssenT. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes~ the Board approved Case 89SR02~6 for aev~n years subject to the following Standard Conditions: 1. Th~ app!iGan~ shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. 2. No lot or parcel may be rented O~ 1~=~ for use as mobil~ home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one {1) mobile hems shall be permitts~ to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The ~i~i~ lot ~ize~ yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements 0f ~e applicable zoning distriGt shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer ~an 20 feet t0 any axlstinq residence. 89-719 4. ~o additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Where public (County) water and/or sower 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 tho Suildinq Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: 89SH0292 In Dale Magisterial District, CHARLES AND JOY M~KB requested renewal of Mobile Bome Permit 848091 to park a mobile home on property fronting the south line of Cogbill Road, approximately 800 feet northeast of Old Zion Hill Road, and better known as 5733 Cogbill Road. Tax Map 66-1 (2) Ampthill Gardens, Section I, Lot 25 (Sheet 22). The first permit was issued on dune 27, 1984. Mr. Jacobsen stated at its June 28, 1989 meeting the Board deferred Case 895R0292 to permit the applicants sufficient time to remove an addition which was under construction at that time. He stated the addition has been removed and therefore staff recommends approval of the request. Mr. Charles Meeks stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. Mr. Daniel stated because of the existing and potential for future development in the area and to bo consistent with other recommendations for mobile homo approvals in tho area ho would recommend approval for five years. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayos, the Board approved Case 89SR0292 for five years, subject to the following Standard conditions: 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. 2. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard metbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of tho applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall bo located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. 4. ~e additional permanent-typo living space may be added onto a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted but shall no___~t be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Where public {County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. 89-720 Any violation of the above coed±tides shall Be grounds for revocat~en Of the Mobile Home Permit, ll.Q. REQUESTS FOR R~ZO~INC ¢85~0204 In Matoaca Magisterial District, KENNET~ A¥Suu~ requested rez0ni~g from Agricultural (A) ko Residsntial {R-15). A single family residential s~bdivision is planned. This request lies on a 92.~ acre p~rcel fronting ~pproximately 962 feet on the west line of Baldwin Creek Road, approximately 1,6O~ feet north of Beach Road. Tax Map 89 (1) ~arcels 36 and 37 (~hee~ 28). Mr. Jacobsen stated the applicant ha~ r~qne$~ed a thirty day deferral of Case 88SNQ204. Nr. Frank Ports, reprssentlng the applicanf, stated a thirty day deferral is desired by the applicant. There was no opposition to the deferral. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by ~r. Currin, the Board deferred Case 88SN0204 un~il August 23, 1989. Vote~ Unanimous 88SN0257 ~Amended) In Midlothian Magisterial District, JAY RO~ requested a~end- meat to Conditional use Planned Development (Case 83S115) relative to master plan approval, road improvements, access, buffers, lighting, setbacks, landscaping~ signs, uses, and building heights in an Office Business (O) Dimtric%. This request lies on a 6.0 acrs parcel ~ronting approximately 510 feet on the north line of North ~rovidence Road, alee freDtiug approximately 200 Sect on ~hc west line Of Buferd Road, and located in the northwest quadrant of the intermection of roads. Tax Map 18-15 {1) Parcels 18, 46, 48, 49, and 53 and Tax Map 18-16 (1) Parcml 3 (Rhest 8). Mr. Jacobsen stated the applicanP r~qu~ted ~ si~ty day deferral cf Case ~e one came forward to represent the request. Mr. Jacobsen stated staff contacted the applisan~ and he informed staff he had a conflict and could not appear at th% meeting. There w~S no oppositien to the request for = deferral. Mr. Sullivan stated he had discussed the case with the applicant and concurred with the reguemt for ~ deferral. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, s~conded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferred Ca~ ~N0~$7 ~utll September 27, Vote: Unanimous 89SNQ239 In Dale Magisterial District, %~ON E. LAP~E, JR. requested Condi%i0nal Use to ~ermit a recreation facility in a Residential (R-121 District. This requsst lies on a 6.0 acre parcel fronting in two (2) places for a total of approximately 143 f~t On the east line of Ironga~e Drive, across from ~riaroak Road. Tax Map 66-2 (1) Part of Parcel 25 (Sheet 22). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commis~i0n recommendsd denial ~f Case 89SN~239. He state~ tke applicant submitted a revised 89-721 plan on July 25, 1989; however staff has not had an opportunity to thoroughly review that plan. H~ stated staff recommends that the case be deferred for thirty days to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the plan to the area residents and tc allow staff sufficient time to thoroughly analyze the revimed plan for a formal recommendation. Mr. Frank Ports, representing the applicant, stated the staff recommendation for a deferral was acceptable. Ms. Artis Hall, a resident of Mason Woods, stated area residents do not want the proposed reereati0n facility in the planned location on the subject site and would not object to the deferral if the applicant has revised his plan to relocate that facility. Mr. Mark Kramer stated the Planning Commimsion recommended denial 'of this case because of the location of the recreational facility and voiced his opposition to the proposed request on that basis. When asked, approximately nine citizens stood in opposition to the proposed request and one stood in support. Mr. Daniel mtated he felt the proposed request was complex and could not be resolved at this time and requested a thirty day deferral so that staff could arrange a meeting with the applicant, residents of the neighboring subdivisions and himself tp see of a compromise could be reached. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred Case 89SN0239 until August 23, 1989. Vote: Unanimous 89SN0237 In Dale Magisterial District, T~OMAS M. CULLATHER requested Conditional Use Planned Development %o permit professional offices, contraetor'm offices, contractor's storage facility, and exception to paving requirements in an Agricultural (A) District. This request lies on a 1.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the east line of Iron Bridge Road, approximately 300 feet south of Willowbranch Drive. Tax Map 66-13 (1) Parcel 25 (Sheet 22). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Plannin~ Commission recommended approval of Case 89SND237, subject to certain conditions. Mr. Thomam Cnllather stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved Case 89SN0237, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan submit- ted with the application shall be considered the Master Plan. Further, this Conditional Use Planned Development shall be exempt from the requirement to comply with the Corridor Overlay District standards, except as speci£1ed herein. (P) 2. This Conditional Use Planned Developmen= shall be limited to uae of the existing structure for contractor's and other professional offices and construction of a garage for storage. There shall be no medical offices. Garage storage shall be limited to building materials, appli- ances, and similar small household items. Outside storage shall not be permitted. (P) 3. The exception to paving and parking requirements shall expire at the end of three (3) years from date of approval if at that time either of the adjacent properties to the north or south have been gonad to an o, C, or I classi- 89-722 fication7 provided, however, that if at the end of three (3) years from date of approval the adjacent properties to the nerth or south have not been se zoned, the exception to Daring and parking requirements shall continu~ until such time as the adjacent properties to the north or south have bean zoned to an O, C, or I classification. Other than normal mainhenance~ cosmetic improvements and thc proposed garage, no additions shall be permitted to a~ecm~odate this use. The residential appearance ef the structure shall be maintained. In addition~ the garage shall have a residential appearance a~d shall be located as close to the proposed parking area as the existing septic tank ~nd drainfield system will allsw. The driveway and parking cream Shall b~ graveled with a minimum of six (6) inches of ~21 or %21A stone. All eated by permanent means (i,e+ concrete bumper blocks, timbers, etc.) {P) Driveway and parking areas shall be screened from view of ~jecent p~oper%~ tO the north and east. Screening may consist of a solid board fence, vegetation, and/or other moans. The exact method of screening shall he determined at ~hc time cf alta plan review. (P) Signs shall be as regulated by chapter 21.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for Office Business (O) zoning in Emerging Growth Areas. (P) {NOTES: a. Pilot to any site improvements or occupancy of the ~hrueture, site plans m~$t mltte~ ~or approval. Site plan fees have b~n submitted in conjunction with the zoning application. b. This application was submitted prior to April 11, 1989, and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of Chapter 21 of the her~in.) 89SN0240 In Midlothian Magisterial District, WIL~IA~ A. IG~L Conditional Use Planned Development to permit an office and b~lk {paving and number of parking spaces) exceptions in an Agricultural (A) District on a 9.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 271 feet on the north llne of ~ull Street Road, approximately 1,D00 feet west o~ Otterdale Road. Tax Map 74 (1) Parcel I22 (Sheet Mr. J~eob~en ~tsted the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case $9SN0240, ~ubj~et tO Certain Mr. Cary Ralston, representing the appllcant~ s~ahed th~ recommended condition~ were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion oS ~=. Sullivan, seconded by approved Case 89SN0240, subject to the following conditieu~: 1. The following conditions notwithstmnding, the plan submit- ted with the application shall be considered the Master Plan. Thi~ Conditional U~e Planned Development shall be limited to u~ of the existing structure £or manufacturers' rep- ~9-723 resentatives and other pre£essienal offices. Medical office use and/or outside storage shall not bs permitted. (P) The exception to paving and parking requirements shall expire at the end of three (3) years from date ef approval if at that time either of the adjacent properties to the east or west have been zoned to an O, C, or I classlfica- tion; provided, however, that if at the end of three (3} years from date of approval the adjacent properties to the east or west have not been so zoned, the sxcsptlon to paving and parking requirements shall continue until such time as the adjacent properties to the east or west have been zoned to an O, C, or I classification. 4. Other than normal maintenance or cosmetic improvementS, no additions or exterior alterations shall be permitted to accommodate this use. The residential appearance of the structure shall be maintained. 5. Other than sample products, there shall be no storage of materials on this property. (P) 6. The driveway and parking areas shall be gravelled with a minimum of six (6) inches of 921 or $21A stone. Ail gravelled parking areas and driveway areas shall be delin~ sated by permanent means (i.e. concrete bumper blocks, timbers, etc.) (P) 7. Signs shall be as regulated by Chapter 21.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for Office Business (0) zoning in ~merging Growth Areas. {P) 8. The exception to the required number of parking spaces shall be granted to William A. Igel only and shall not be transferable unless approved by the Planning Department. (P) 9. In ~enjunotion with site plan submission, an access plan in accordance with Chapter 21.1, Article 7, shall be submitted to the Transportation Department for approval. (T) (NOTES: a. Prior to any site improvements or occupancy of the structure, site plans must be sub- mitted for approval. b. This application was submitted prior te April 12, 1989, and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of chapter 21 of ths Zoning Ordinance, except as specified herein.) 89SN0110 (Amended] In Matoaca Magisterial District, IRONBPJ/)GE PROPERTIES, II, L.P., A VIRGINIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential Multi-family (R-MF) of 31 acres, to Office Business (O} of 9 acres, to Light Industrial (M-l) of 40 acres, and to General Business (B-3) of 32.5 acres. A mixed use development, to include multi-family residential, office, light industrial, and commercial uses, is planned. This r~qu~st lies on a total of 112.5 acres fronting approximately 2,485 feet on the south line of Iron Bridge Road, across from Chalkley Road; also fronting approximately 2,750 feet on the north line of Carver aeights Drive, approximately 185 feet west of West Booker Boulevard. Tax Map 114-10 (1) Parcel 9 and Tax Map 114-I1 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 31). 89-724 Mr. Jacobsen stated at its Juno 28t 1~89 meeting, tho .Board deferred Case 89SN011Q pending the Planning Commission's further review and consideration of the Thoroughfare Plan as it relates to ~his project. H~ Stated, subsequent to that action, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the deferred portion Of the Thoroughfare Plan and rscommended that said Plan designate a north-south freeway east of the request site; therefore, the recommended Plan would not impact the request site. He stated the Planning Commission approval of Case 89S~011O, subject fo certain conditions and acceptance of proffered conditions. Mr. Cnrrin advised the Board that he, in conjunction with other individuals, owns property adjacent to the subject site, declared a conflict of interest p~rsuant to the virginia comprehensive con£1ict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. When asked, ~r. Micas he was not of the opinion that subject request was effected by the re~olution approved at the June 28, 1989 meeting adopting a pelioy to defer all zonin~ cases affected by the north-south freeway portion of the Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Charles L. Cabal, representing the applicant, 9resented a s~mmary of the proposed requ~et and addressed issues relative to propo~d uses, buffers, landscaping, density, etc.; explained the amended proffered conditions; and stated he felt the gubjeut request conformed to the required conditions. stated the applicant has agreed to provide two acce~ to IrcDbrldge Road, dedicate a 90 foot right-of-way through the site, that the site will be ~erv~d by public water and Sewer, re~uce the number of fast-food restaurants and limit the hour~ of operation. When asked, Mr. McCracken addressed transportation concerns indlca~ing that one of the applicant's proffered conditions provides for an increase in the right-of-way d~dication from feet to 200 ~eet if needed acsording to the adopted Thoroughfare Plan, and Mr. ~chmelz addressed utili=y concerns indicating t~at the front 58 acres of the subject site can sewered directly from the Ironbrldge d~v~lopment to the north~ however, development of the remainder of the site would require additional facilities and the applicant would be obligating himself to provide those fas~lities. he felt multifamily development Was inappropriate for this site and expressed concern relative to such a development being located within close proximity of the Shoosmith landfill, ~ncreased traffic along Carver Beiqhts Boulevard and suggested the subject parcel be incorporated in~o a sewsr Assessment District to provide the necessary facilities to the Mr. Phil Cunninghs~, a resident of Chalklay Road, ~xpre~sed concerns tha~ those residents living within one mile of the subjeo~ site should be notified of any activity regarding thio project a~ they wi~h to ~e involve~ in any development that is going to a~fect their neighborhoods. There was further diecu~eion relative to continued community involvement in the development of this project to assure that no adverse impact would affect, area homes; the highest and best use of land~ and ~r. Cunninqham'a desire to be notified of schematic plan approval; etc. Mr. Zan~ Davis stated he preferred not {O have any project developed on tko adjacent property; however~ he voiced support for the propoeed development a~ he f~lt it wa~ the best use he could hope =o get on the subject property. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved Case 89~N0110, subject to the following condition: Buffers shall be provided within each zoning district in accordance with the following criteria: a. Buffers shall be provided in conformance with the matrix set forth herein. b. Buffers shall be designed to provide a horizontal distance and open space between uses; preserve vegetation; provide transition and separation; reduce noise and glare; and/er maintain privacy. Buffers shall provide inter- mittent visual separation between ueee. Where unrelated activities are located adjacent to one another, buffers shall be used to insure compatibility between adjacent uses. c. Existing mature vegetation located within required buffers shall be maintained unless removal is approved through site plan review. Purther, preserved vegetation may be substituted for required landeeaping materials upon approval through site plan review. d. Buffers shall be inclusive of required yards. e. The only uses permitted by right in buffers shall be landscaping and screening as permitted herein; however, the Director of Planning may permit signs; security fencing; utilities which run generally perpendicular through the buffer; pedestrian walkways; or ~imilar ueea provided the ~pirit and intent of the requirement is maintained. f. The requirements for buffers may be waived and/or modified during site plan review and approval under any of %he following condi- tions: (1) If the strict provisions of this Division reduces ~he usable area of a lot, due to lot configuration or size to a point which would preclude a reasonable use of the lot, buffer and/or screening requirements may be waived or modified provided the side or rear of a building, a barrier, and/or the land between that building and the property line, has been specifically designed tO minimize adverse impact through a combination of architectural and landscaping teehniquee. (2) Where the building, a barrier and/or the land between that building and the property line has been specifically designed to minimize adverse impact through a combination of architectural and landscaping techniques. Where the adjoining land is designated in the General Plan for 89-726 a use which would not require the provision of buffers. ~4) whmre the a~jeining Droperty is u~ed for any public purpose and/or developed for a compatible W~en th~ adjoining l~nd is a residential district and iz used for non-residential purposes. Where the topography is such condition would net be e~ctive. (9) Ratween uses that are to be Landscaping ~hell b~ accomplished with required {1) A fifty (501 foot buffer shall consist cf an unbroken ~tr~p of open space and shall b~ ptante~ at 1.5 =imes the d~n$ity cf Corridor Overlay District landscaping require- (2) A seventy-five {75) foot buffer ~.!, ~ ~hall consist of an unbroken strip of open space and shall be planted .~atl2.O,times theidensit~ o~¢errider Overlay D~trict landscaping require- The required width of buffers shall property on which =he buffnr must site. Th~ interior numbers in the of the required buffer: ~NOTE: R-TH/R-MF + ~-7/85 R-T~/R-MF 50** ~0 75 Buffers ~djucent to vacant agricultural zoning ~hall the designation of the agricultural property on ~9-727 (NOTES: And further, the conditions: Where R-7 through R-88 is adjacent to R-MF, a buffer shall be required on the R-MF District. (a) ~rior to release of any building permits within the O, B-3, and M-1 tracts, site plans must be submitted for review and approval. (b) Prior to release of any building permits within the R-MF tract, a plan of development and site plans must be submitted for review and approval.) Board accepted the following proffered The entire tract of land comprising the Property shall be subject to the terms~ conditions and restriction of the Chesterfield County Corridor Overlay District. The recom- mended buffer condition ~et forth in the County Request Analysis and Recommendation, first dated January 17, 1989, last revised May 16, 1989, are hereby proffered by this reference. The Property shall be serviced by public water and sewer. Within the areas of the Property to be zoned B-3, the uses permitted will be limited to those uses permitted in the B-3 General Business District except the following uses shall not be permitted: (a) Auction sales business or salvage barns. (b) ~eat dealerships. (c) Wholesale building material sales yards, not associated with a retail house and garden center. (d) Cocktail lounges, dining halls and nightclube, but not including sit-down restaurants or cafe- terias. (e) Contractor's shop and storage yard. (f) Display houses or "shell" houses. (g) Drive-in establishments, but not retail estab- lishments with drive-up windows associated with restaurants which have interior dining facil- ities, financial institutions, dry cleaners, and laundries. (h) Exposition building or center, stadium or arena. (i) Stand alone feed, seed, wholesale fuel, or ice sales not incidental to other retail sales. (j) Dealerships whose primary product line is the sale, service or r~ntal of farm implements and machinery. (k) Motels, motor courts or tourist homes. No hotel shall be permitted on the Property unless the north/south freeway referred to in proffer 4 {b) hereof is constructed through the Property. (1) Office-warehouses when the warehouse area does not exceed twenty-five thousand feet. (m) Mobile home, modular home, motor home and travel trailer sales, new and used. (n) Motor vehicle sales, service, and repair establishments. (o) Public garages. (p) Indoor recreational establishments such as pool halls and video parlors, but not health clubs or fitness centers. (q) Tire recapping and vulcanizing (r) Truck terminals 89-728 Utility trai{er and truck rental Mass. t~en~portatiou terminals. -F~ei~ht' for~a~dinq and packing service stores which o~eupy more than 5~000 square feat. (v) MOtor vehicle wash. · he Devsloper hereby proffers tke~foltowing t~anspcrtation improvements: (a) The ~aster Plan submitted with the application as al~ended ~hall b~ consid,r~d the Master Road Plan. Approval of the plan by tbs County deem not imply that the CoUnty gives final approval of any particular read alignmen~ or section. It) Prier to isseance of a buildin~ permit or as otherwise directed by th~ Transportation Bepart- ment, 100 feet Of ri~ht-of-way measured from the centerllne of Route 10, 30 fee~ from the center- right-of-way from Route 10 to Carver Heights shall be ~edi0ated to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted. Th~ location of the 90 foot riqht-of-way dedication ~hall ba approved by th~ Transportation Department. The Developer shall rese/-v-s an additional 55 feet of right-of-way ~aeh side Of the proposed 90 foot right-of-way · ~totalling- 110 fee% of ri~ht-Of-way) for the north/south,,,frseway. Ugcn adcpti0n of Thoroughfare Plan by the Board of Supervisors, the. Devel0par shall dsdioat~ to Chesterfield County free and Unrestricted upon request by the Transportation, Departmsnt ~he additional faet..of right-of-way, provided however, if Thoroughfare Plan for the north/south freeway location is not approved by the Board of Super- vi~or~ by DecaYer 31, 1910 or i~ locat~ ou~- ~ide of this property, the 110 foot of rlght-~f-way dedi~ation requir~n~n~ shall be deleted. (c) In addition to submission of roa~ construction plan~ =o VDOT an~ Enwiro~ental Enginuurlng, the plans sha~l al~o be ~mi~=ed to and approved ~y th~ Transportation Specific roadway improv~en% set forth in [hess transportation proffers are requirmd by ~h~ of full site development and are to be con- phasing plan as described in p~0ffer n~er 4 (g) hereo~ ~pproved by :he Transportation De- partment. The develoD%r ~hall provide Transportation Department wi~ addi=ionaI tra~- these studie~ demonstrate that traffic gen- eration ra~es and distrlbu~iuns solely by this development '~are ~m~terially difierent a~ %h~ developmen~ prepared by Frank Coleman and A~soeiate$ dated February 2, 1989. ~f such satisfac%o~ ~provements cannot be provided, thu Planning Co~ission may llmi~ the Future Develo~e~t densities to the extent that accept- ~e=e~ined by the Transportation Department. 8~-729 (e) TO provide for an adequate roadway syetem at the time of the complete development of the proposed project, the Developer will be responsible for the following: (i) Additional pavement along eastbound Route 10 to provide a third through- lane for the entire property frontage and a separate right-turn lane at each (ii) Additional pavement along westbound Route 10 to provide dual left-turn lanes at its intersection with Road B. (iii) Full coet of traffic siqnalization of 'the~ Road ' h/Route 10, the Road B~Chalkley Road/Route 10~ and the Road ~A/Road B intersectione. (iv) Road A shall be constructed ae a ~m~nimum. fou~' lane facility. Road A shaI1 have a six lane typical ~ectien at its intersection with Route 10 (i.e., two inbound and four outbound lanes). Road A shall intersect Road B at a minimum distance of 1,000 feet south of Route 10 or es approved by the Transportation Department. (v) Road B shall be constructed as a minimum four lane divided facility from Route 10 to its intersection with Road A, and a minimum two lane facili- ty from Road A intersection to Carver Heights Drive. Road B shall have a seven lane typical eection at its intersection with Route 10 (i.e., two inbound and five outbound lanes), and a five lane typical eection at its intersection with Road A (i.e., one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane at both .approachee)~ (f) The Developer will dedicate to the County of Ch~eterf~eld7~ free and unrestricted, any additional right of way (or easement) ~ ' 'reqRired~':"~or~ "the',~%ransportation improve- mente identified~ above, and in the Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Prank Coleman and Associates dated February 2, 1989. (g) In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission, a phasing plan for required road /mprovements, with supporting traffic anslysis, if requested by the Transportation Department, shall be submitted to ~he Transportation Department for approval. (h) A sixty foot wide right-of-way shall be provided to the west (Tax Map 114-10 (1) Parcel 12). The location of this right-of-way shall be between the office tract and the R-MF tract and shall be approved by the Transportation Department. This conditions may be deleted by the Transportation Department, if alternative adequate access is provided to the adjacent parcel (Tax Map 114-10 (1) Parcel 12). 89-730 (i) The maximum ~enslty .o~. ~Ais development shall be 240 units of apart~ents~ 105,000 square feet of general offics, 350,000 square feat of light industrial, 25Q,000 square feet of ~hopping center, six (6) external pad ~ites which may include (i~ not more than two (2) 6,000 ~quare fOO~ fast food rea~auranEs which shell have main entrances that do not face Route lQ; (iii an 8,0Q0 ~qaare foot financial institution and (iii) thr~e (3) ethan external pad sites of equivalent traffic density as approved by the Transportation Department. An additional 25,000 square feet of light industrial may be permitted if an acceptable level of ~ervice Gan be provided. Access to Ro~te 10, Road A, Road B, and Carver Seights Drive ~hall b~ approved by t~e · ransportation Department~ There shall ~e a maxi~ of two (2) fa~t foo~ pad sites on the Property. within the~ area. of t~qe Property to bs zoned Multi- family Residential (R-NF), th~ following minimum square foot limitations shall apply: Size ........ Minimum Square Feet i Bedroom-1 Bath 650 1 Bedroom-1 Bath-1 Den 815 2 Bedroom-2 ~ath 950 2 Bedroom-2 Bath-1 Den 1,115 (b) Prior to t~e issuance oE m building permit for the construction of any apartment unit within the area of th~ PrOperty t~ b~ zoned Nultifamily R~$1dentlal {RIMFI, there shall ~e duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Courf of the County of chesterfield, restrictive covenants (th~ "CoVenants") running with the portion of the ~roperty to be zoned RM~. ~he Covenants shall.exist for a period not less than twenty-five (25) y~ars and shall provide, among other thinqs that each apartment shall have the following amenities~ {i) Each kitchen shall includ~ a miorowave frost-free refriqerato~ end disposal. · . · (ii) ..~ach Unit shall have a laundry area with ..... washed, and dryer. .... {iii) Each bathroom ~hall have a cer~u£c tab and/oI shower stalls. (iv) ~ach unit shall have wall-to-wall carpet- ing~ window blind~, sound proofing, private ex:crier storage, and a deak or patio. (v) Each end unit will have a fireplace. The Covenan%~ shail he subject to modification, property; provi~e~, however that no modification thereof which limits the above des=ribed amenities shall be permitted before January 1, 2004. (c) Within the areas of the Property to be zoned Multi- famil~ Residential (RMF), the following amenities shall be provided prior to the issuano% of a final 89-731 Ayes: Absent: Certificate of Occupancy for any dwelling unit locat- ed therein: (i) The recreational facilities shall include a swimming pool, children's pool, tennis court, volleyball court and clubhouse with whirlpool, sauna, weight room, and aerobics/exercise room. (ii) ~ach unit shall have a minimum of two .... . .parking,.spaces. __ · Within .the. areas 'of'..the ~roperty to be zoned Multi-family Residential (R-MF)_, the maximum number of bedrooms per apartment unit shall be two (2) and the maximum number of apartment units shall be 240. Within the area~ of tha Property to be zoned Light Indus- trial (M-l) the uses will be limited to those uses permit- ted in the M-1 Light Industrial district except the fol- lowing uses shall not be permitted: (a) Coating, engraving and allied ~ervice~. (Not to include engraving, pickling, anodizing or other metal surface treatment). (b) Cold storage. (c) Converting paper to paperbound products and paperhoard eontainer~ and boxe~--manufacturing. (d) Manufacturing sheet metal products, except assembly not involving raw materials. (e) Fur dressing and dyeing. (f) Jewelry, silverware, plated ware--manufacturing except assembly not involving raw materials. (g) Linoleum, asphalt-felt-base and other hard surface floor and cover--manufacturing. (h) The use of any mobile home as a residence. (i) Paper recycling by the compaction method. .(j) Printing, publishinq_.and allied industries, but ~ not a print,~hop or copy center. (k) Rectifying·and blending liquors. (1) Roastfng ~cOffee and coffee products and tea-- manufa~turlng. . (m,) ~Spices, £1avor extracts .and flavar syrups-- manufacturing., (n)Wine, brandy and brandy, spirits--manufacturing. (o)Truck terminal. Within the Property, the following development- standards will be followed: (a) The development of the Property shall be in accordance with all local, state, and federal laws, regulations and permits applicable to wetlands at the time of such development. (b) There shall be no external speaker system locat- ed on the Property which is loud enough to be heard by residents in residential areas adjacent to the Property. (c) The retail business hours applicable to the portions of the Property zoned B-3 General Business District and M-1 Light Industrial shall be between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. exc=pt any · non fast food sit down restaurant that doe~ not have a drive-in window may have retail business hours between 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Mr.. Currin. . 89-732 And further, ~he Board instructed staff to notify Mr. Phll Cunningham at 10909 Chalkl~y ROad and the last known President of tho Buxton civic Association of schematic and/or site plan approvals~ It was generally agreed ko rece~ faf twa minute~. Mr. Currin returned to the meeting. Zn Bermuda ~a~isterlal District, G.~. H~I~S AND W. COORT~ ~W~LL~ requested rezoninq ~rom Agricultural (A) to Besidentlal (R-25). A Single f~ily residential subdivision is planned. This request lies on a 23~.7 acr~ parcel fron~inq 1,4Z0 fee~ on the s0~th :line o~ -C~alkle~ Road, SOO feet south of Inge Woo~ Cirole~: Tax ~ap 96-12 (1) 10; Tax ~ap 96-16 (1) Parc~l~ 7, 8, and 9; Ta~ Map 97-9 (1) Parcel~ 4, 5, and ~0; aD~ ~ax ~ap 97~13 (1) ~arcel~ 1, 2, and (Sheets 31 and 32). Mr. Jacob~on ~tated a~ it~ June 28, 1989 meeting the Board fur~er review and consideration of the Thoroughfare ~lan at relate~ to the proposed project. Ha stated, subsequent to that action, aha Planning Co--lesion conducted a public hearing on the deferred pun=ion of th~ Thoroughfare Plan dealing with the proposed e~tension of Hopkins Road and reco~ended ~a~ said Plan d~signa=e a southerly ex=ension of ~opkins Road Centralia Road and Route 10. This extension of Hopkins Read could pass ~hrougk this parcel and ~ould impac~ the development of ~e request sits~ ~e stated the Planning Co~ission condition; however, sCalE r~co~ended the applicants request def~rraI for a su~ilclent length of time to allow faf adoption of ~e Chester Village Mr. Currin ~mea~ed he had': discussed. ~is mat=er with applican= as it related tm the Chester Village and Thoroughfare Plans and he felt the request ~hould be ~eferred to allow for action on those Plan~. M~. John G. Dicks~ II!, representing ~e applicant, stated a thirty day d~ferral acceptable. There ~as no oppoEiticn to ~e deferral., On motion of Mr. Cu~in~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board 899N0t32 In Matoaca Maqi~teriaI District, JACK H~OOS~IT~ requested Condltio~l US~ to parA, it a landfill. This rsq~leSt lies in an Agricultural (A) District on a 31.0 acre parcel lying appro×i- merely lQ0 feet off the wes=em terminus of Carver Height~ D~iv~, approximately 600 fee% we~t cf the int~r~ection Of Wes% ~ooker Soulevard and Carver Heigh=s Drive. Tar Map 114-15 (t) Part of Parcel 9 and Tax Map 131-1 (1} Part of Parcel 1~ (Sheet 31). Mr. ~acobso~ pre,anted a brief summary of Case 89SN0132 and stated the Planning Commission race,eDged app/oval of %he r~uest, subjeo~ to certain conditions. ~9-733 Mr. Oliver Rudy, representing the applicant, stated the request i~ for a Conditional U~e to permit an existing landfill plus expansion in an Agricultural (A) District, specifically, for a construction-demolition-debris landfill. He stated the applicant is requesting amendment to conditions relative to buffers, operating standards, contents of the existing landfill cell, elevation 'of~the 'fil~l and elimination of condition relative to access to the expanded landfill. There was discussion relative to whether or not the violations cited by the State had been corrected; the height restriction on the existing landfill; the topography of the property; the maximum height permitted for a landfill; whether or not the landfill was in violation of any County regulations; etc. Mr. Zana Davis stated the proposed use docs not disturb him in any way, that it provides a good buffer between his property and th~ old County landfill and he was in support of the proposed request. Mr. George seadles voiced opposition to the proposed request and presented the Board with information relative to the operation of the Shoosmith Landfill relative to the validity of his operation permit, whether or not the landfill has polluted area water, the need for a 50 foot separation between the two landfills, the use of lined cells, traffic ingress/egress to the site, etc. Mr. Phil Cunningham referenced the use of Road "B", expressed concern that additional use of that road not be encouraged especially by dump trucks and debris and asked that the give consideration to that factor when making their decision. Discussion a~dcomment ensued relative to unlined cells; whether or, not there was a reason why traffic could not utilize a new north-south road"d~rec'tly to Route 10; the elevation thc landfill; requirements £or a 50 foot buffer to be provided between the ,~xistihg tandf~l,~ and'the ~xpans~i'o~ landfill; whether or not the landfill:was in violation of any financial assurance currently in effect; documentation from the U. S. Corp of Engineers regarding wetlands prior to any land disturbing activity occurring; etc. Mr. Mayas made a motion to approve Case 89SN0132 subject to the following recommended conditions. There was no second to the motion. 1. Except as stated herein, the following conditions notwith- standing, the plan prepared by J.K. ~immons and Associ- ates, P.C., revised January 27, 1989, the Textual State- ~cnt submitted with the application (with the exception of the reference to Route 360 in Section 22 (d) Litter Con- trol, which shall be substituted with reference to Carver 5eights Drive), and thc letter dated January 26, 1986, from J.R. Tinunons and Associates, P.C., ~hall be con- sidered the Master Plan. (P) 2. Buffers shall be as depicted on the ~a~ter Plan. Within the required buffers, existing vegetation and/or topogra- phy shall'be supplemented as necessary to provide year- · round' screeni~g.~ 'Other than utilities and aooe~ which ru~ generally perpendicular through these buffers, and a fence, ther~ shall' be no other facilities located within these buffers. Landscaping, including existing vege- tation, sha'll have an~initial h~ight;~density:, and be of a species which will provide year-round screening when installed. Within thirty (30) days of the date of ap- proval of thi~ request, the buffers shall be flagged and the Planning Department contacted for an inspection. The limits of buffers shall be defined to preclude dumping and grading within the buffers. Also, there shall be no filling or grading permitted in buffers except that neces- 89-734 sary to aeCOl~O~ate ~tilitie~, access and/or landscaping and to relocate drainage facilities outside the buffer. A fifty {50) foot ~eDaraticn shall be provided between th~ existing landfill area and the expansion area. A detailed plan depicting these requirements shall be ~ubmitt~d to the Planning and ~nvixoumental Engineering Departments in conjunction with final ptsn review. (P&CPC) (NOTEs This condition will prohibit l~achat~ collection facilities and fire lanes within the buffer~ as depicted on Fi~Rre t of the Textual Statement.) Dxcep~ as stated her=in, the site plan and cpsrati~n shall, at a min4~ltu~, comply with the r~q~iue~ments of the ~itln~ and O~sraticnal Standards ~or Debris Landfills in Chesterfield Connt¥~ and all appendices. The site plan shall be submitted to, and ~appreved by~ the Plannin~ Department and the State Department of Waste ~anagement. At the time of site plan review, additional conditions be imposed to insure proper operation and minimize impact on ~he area. Upon final approval, the document shall serve as the plan and operational program for the land- that are more restrictive an~ apprupriate to this faciliey program. If subsequent regulations adopt%d by ~he State the approved plan an~ operational p~0gram, then ~e mor~ restrictive regulations shall remain ~n effect. Prior or in conjunction with, any r~est to ~e Stain Depart- ment of Waste Manag~m~n~ for ~en~ents to ~e approved plan and operational progr~a, such request ~hall submitted =O th~ Planning Depar~ent fur review and proval. Prior to i~pl~entation of any ~endm~nt, th~ compliance with the approved ~lan and operational proart. ~io~ ~O'Op~Ding of the expansion area ~or filling ~tivi- ty, the existing landfill area shall be closed within and a closure plan fur the existing fill ar~a shall hav~ been approved an~ unde~ ~plementa~ion. {EE, P, & CPC; Tko existing landfill cell', as delineated on the Plan, may remain unlined only if fill materials h~ve limited %o stumps, brush, bark~ concrete, brick~, di~e, other ine~t natural material~ and any matcrlals which the Director of ~lanning dete~insd po~e no threat to public health, groundwater and/or s~rf~ce water. Within sixty (60) days of approval of thi~ request~ ~e in the fo~ of a report from a licensed engineer, able to the County and having a special~y in landfill h~atth, g~oun~water and/or snrfa~e wate~ ha~¢ beem i%ed within the existing c~lI, landfitling operations shall cease and all such materials shall be removed from the cell. Should th~ r~port indicate that ~ill materials are limited to ~t~ps~ brush, bark, concrete, bricks, dirt other ine=~ natural mat~rial~ an~ material~ which the Director of Planning determines pose no threat a~ afore- said, filling wi~h ~hesm mat~rial~ ~ay continue. The Di~et%Or'~ d~cision to allow materials other than brush, bark, concre~ bricks, dirt and other inert natural materials may b~ reviewed by the Planning Co~i$~ion the request of any in%eros=ed party. {P&CPC) (~OTES~ (a) This condition supersedes th~ Te~ual Accnpt~. and i~ in addition to 89-735 " ~ ~re-Operational Certification and Inspection, for the existing landfill (b) This condition will allow the existing ~ ' landfill c~ll to remain' unlined only if existing and future fill material is limited to stumps, brush, bark, concrete, bricks, dirt and other inert natural materials, and if all other conditions of zoning approval ars met.) 5. Disposal operations within th~ existing landfill c~ll, as depicted on the Waster Plan, shall be limited to a maximum elevation of 225 feet. Disposal operations within the proposed expansion area shall be limited to a maximum height equivalent to that permitted within the existing sell. Within fourteen (14) days of approval of this request, the owner/operator shall provide the Planning Department with certification, in the form of a survey, of the elevations of the existing landfill cell. (P&CPC) (NOTR: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, 11. Operational Plan, and 19. Depth and Height of pperation, relative to final elevations of landfill cells.) 6. 'The landfill owner/operator shall be responsible for the removal"Of any materials dumped along the access road and any materials, along Carver Heights Drive that are permit- ted in this landfill. Further, the landfill owner/opera- tot shall be responsible for removing dirt and ~ebris from Carver Heights Drive resulting from the operation of the land£ill. A procedure for controlling dust shall be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Department for approval and shall be implemented in conjunction with landfilllng activity. Measures to correct dust control problems shall be taken within twenty-four (24) hours of notification by the County. (EE, P, & CPC) (NOTE: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, 22. Environmental Controls, D. Litter Control, with the exception of references of a wire fence to contain litter, which shall remain in effect.) 7. This Conditional Use shall be granted for a period of time not to exceed ten (10) years from date of approval and may be renewed by the Board of Supervisors upon demonstration that the operation has been of no detriment to adjacent and area properties. (P) Prior to any land ~isturblng activity, deeumentation f~om the U.S. Corp of Engineers, that the development i~ per- mitted with respect to wetlands; shall be submitted to Ehvironmental Engineering. 9. ~ublic water shall be used for any structures requiring water. (U) 10. Access to the expansion landfill shall be confined to Carver Heights Drive Extended, west to Lewis Roa~. (CPC) (NOTE: Site plans must be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Department for each phase of the fill activity.) Further discussion and comment ensued relative to the elevation of the fill; the Planning Commission's recoa~endation of only 225 feet being to encourage movement to the new expanded landfill with liners and compliance with the new regulations; 89-736 amendin~ the languag~ of Condition 2 regarding the 50 foot smparatiQn ~o include "if required by State regUlationu"; amendment of the height restriction from 2~5 feet to 544 feet; On motion of Mr. Mayes, seson~ed by Hr. Sullivan, the ~oa~d appreva~ Case SgS~0132, subject to the ~ollowin~ condition~: 1. except as stated herein, the following conditions notwith- standing, the plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and ates, P.C,~ revised January 27, 19~9, %h~ Textual State- ment submitted with the application (with the exception the ~efe~ence %0 Route 360 in Section ~2 (d) Litter Con- trot, which shall be substituted with reference to Carver Heights Drive}, and the letter dated January 2~, 1986, from J.K. Ti~ons an~ A~sociate~, P.C., shall be con- sidered the ~aster Plan+ 2. Buffers shall be a~ depicted on the Master Plan. Within tko required ~u£fcrs, existing vegetation and/or topogra- phy ~hall b~ Supplemented as necessary to provide year- ~ouad screening. Other than utilitie~ and access which run generally perpendicular through these Duffers, and a fence, there shall be no other facilities located within the~e buffers. Landscaping, includin~ existing vege- tation, shall have an initial height, density, and be of a species which will provide year-round s~reening when installed. Within thirty (30) day~ of the date of ap- proval o~ this request, the buffers shall be flagged and the Planning Department contacted for an inspection. The limits of buffers shall h~ defined to preclude d%aUplng end grading within th~ buffers. AI~o, th=re shall be no filtimg or grading pe~mltted in buffers except that sary to aooommodate utititie9~ aeoes~ and/or landscaping and to relocat~ drainage.facilities outside %he but%er. A fifty (50) feet separation shall bm provided between the existing landfill area and the expansion area, if required by state regulations. A d=tailed plan depicting these requirements shall be submitte~ to the Planning and En- vironmental Engineering Departments in conjunction wi~h final plan review. (MOTE~ This rendition will p~ohibi~ leachers collection facilitie~ and fir~ lanes within the buffer, as depiote~ 3. ~xcep~ as s~ated her~in, the site plan and operation shall, at a minim~, comply wi~h the requirements of the Sitin~ and 0pe~ational Standard~ for Debris Landfills Chesterfield County, and ell appendices. The si~e plan be ~posed to in~ure proper Operation and ~inimiz~ impact progr~. If s~sequent regulations adopted by the State restrictive regulations shall remain in effect. Prior plan and operational p~0gr~s, such request shall submitted to the Planning Department for review and proval. P~ior to implementatXon of any ~endment, 89-737 ~lannin~ Department shall.verify that the amendment is in compliance with the approved plan and operational program. ~rior to opening of the expansion area for filling activi- ty, the existing landfill area shall be closed within eighteen (18) months of date of approval to fill activity and a closure plan for the existing fill area shall have been approved and under implementation. (~, P, & CPC) 4. The existing landfill cell, as delineated on the Master Plan, may remain unlined only if fill materials have been limited to stumps, brush, bark, concrete, bricks, dirt, other inert natural materials and any materials which the Director of Planning determined pose no threat to public health, groundwater and/or surface water. Within sixty (60) days Of approval Of this request, the owner/operator shall provide the Planning Department with certification, in the form of a report from a licensed engineer, accept- able to the County and having a specialty in landfill operations, of the contents of the existing cell. Should the report indicate that materials which pose a threat to health, groundwater and/or surface water have been depos- ited within the existing cell, landfilling operations .shall cease and all such materials shall be removed from the cell. Should the report indicate that fill materials are limited to stumps~ brush, bark, concrete, bricks, dirt other inert natural materials and materials which the Director of Planning determines pose no threat ~as afore~ said, filling with these materials may continue. The Director's decision to allow materials other than stumps, brush, bark, concrete bricks, dirt and other inert natural materials may be reviewed by the Planning Co--lesion at the request of any interested party. (P&CPC) (NOTES: (a) This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, 3 (a). Typ~s of Waste Accepted and is in addition to 10. Pre-Operational Certification and Inspection, for the existing landfill cell. (b) This condition will allow the existinq landfill cell to remain unlined only if existing and future fill material is limit- ed to stumps, brush, bark, concrete, bricks, dirt and other inert natural mate- rials, and if all other conditions of zoning approval are met.) 5. Disposal operations within the existing landfill cell, as depicted on the Master Plan, shall be limited to a maxim%Lm elevation of 244 feet above mean sea level. Disposal op- erations within the proposed expansion area shall be limited to a .maximum height equivalent to tha~ permitted within the existing cell. Within fourteen (14) days of approval~ of this request, the owner/operator shall provide the Planning Department with certification, in the form of a survey, of the elevations of the existing landfill cell. (P,CPC&BOS) (NOTE: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, 11. Operational Plan, and 19. Depth and Height of O~era- tion, relative to final elevations of landfill cells.) 6. The landfill owner/operator shall be responsible for the removal of any materials dumped along the access road and any materials along Carver Heights Drive that are permit- ted in this landfill. Further, the landfill owner/opera- tor shall be responsible for removing dirt and debris from Carver Heights Drive resulting from the operation cf the landfill. A procedure for controlling dust shall bs submitted to the Environmental Engineering Department for approval and shall be implemented in conjunction with landfilling activity. Measures to correct dust control 89-738 problems ~alt be taken within twenty-four ~24) hours of notification by th~ County. (EE, P, & C~) (NOTR: This condition ~uporsede$ the Textual Statsment, 22. Environmental Controls, D. Litter Control~ with the which shall remain in offset.) 7. This Conditional Use shall be granted for a period of time not to axcaed ten [tO) y0ars from date of approval and may be renewed by the Board of Supervisors upon demouetra~ion =hat the opera=ion has been of no detriment to adjacent and area properties. (P) 8. Prior to any land disturbing activity, documentation from tko U.S. Corp o~ Engineers, =hat the development is per- mitted with respect to wetlands, shall be submitted to Envirorunentel Engineering. (P&~E) 9. Public wa~er shall be used for any structures requiring water. (U) (NOTE: Site plans must be submitte~ to, and approved by, the Planning Department fo~ ~ach phase o~ the ~ill activity.) 89SN01~2 {Amsnded) In Mateaca Magisterial District, WILLLAM B. DUVAL A~D ~E ~. DUVAL r~quested rezoning from Agrlcultural (A} to Residential {R-25). A single family residential subdivision is planne~ This request lies on a 336.41 acre parcel fronting approxi- mately 550 feat on the south line e~ River Road, approximately 1,710 fpe~ west of Sadd!ubreok Road. Tax Map 158-11 {1) Part of Parcel 26; Tax Map 158-15 (1) Parcel ~; and Tax Map 170 (1) ~r. Jacobsen stated at its June 28, 1989 meeting the Beard deferred Casa 89BN0142 for the applicant tc amend the proffere~ conditions. He S~a=ed =here are gignifioant water quality conditions included in the Request ~esigned %o protect Lake dOwn~r~ water qua!i~y. He st:ted th~ Planning Cotillion condltion~ and acceptance of proffere~ condlt~on~. ~r. ~dward Willey, Jr., representing the applicants, presented a sugary of the proposed request~ a~dressed the addend~, and stated the race--ended conditi~nB were acceptable. He further noted ~s applicant has agreed to develop =he proDerty with sion~ of the Coun%~ Coa~ if they desire to do so. the finanoial f~asibili%y of ~he aDDlicant obtaining off-site property tbs applican~ would no% ~ ~llgible for uff-sl%~ 89-739 provide the extension would be ~o commit County funds. Mr. Appleqate suggested that extending water to the school site may be a topic the Board would desire to consider~ particularly since this applicant would be extending water within a close proximity of the school. Mr. George Beadles voiced support for the request as hs felt the applicant had modified his request sufficiently in order to meet the needs of the community and suggested consideration be given to committing Connty funds to the extension of water tc the vacant Union Branch School site to further serve the area. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved Case'$PS~0142, subject to the following condition: A fifty (50) foot buffer strip, exclusive of ease- ments and required yards; shall be e'stablished and maintained adjacent to River Road (Route 602). The area of this buffer strip shall either be left in its natural state, if suffici&nt vegetation exists to provide adequate screening; or be planted and/or bermed in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Department, if sufficient vegetation does not exist to provide adequate screening. Prior to approval of any final site plan or recordation of any plat, the developer shall flag this buffsr strip for inspection, and shall post a bond to cover the implementation of the landscape plan, if such plan is required. Except for approved public road access(es), no access shall be permitted through this buffer etr±p. This buffer ~trip shall be noted on any final site plan~, and any final cheek and rec0rdati~n plats. The Planning Commission or the Director cf Planning may modify this condition at the time of tentative subdivision review. (P&T) And further, the Board accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. The applicants will abide by the County septic system ordinance as finally adopted by the Chesterfield county ~Eoard of Supervisors. 2. The road and drainage plans shall show the location of home sites and septic tank drainfield sites for all lots adjacent ko th6 tributarles of Lake Chesdin. An erosion control design must be submitted on the road and drainage plans for these lots and must encompass the primary drainfield. 3. A 100 foot wade buffer strip(s) shall be provided adjacent to any main tributary which drain(s) directly into Lake Chesdin. The width of the buffer(s) shall be measured from the centerline of the main channel. No trees six (6) inches 0~ greater in diameter shall be removed unless the tree is diseased or dead. This shall not be from same buffer to prevent the clearing of underbrush nor the sowing of seed within the buffer area. Prior to approval of any final site plan or recordation of any plat, the developer shall flag this buffer strip(s) for inspection and approval. This buffer strip(s) ~hall be noted on any final site plans and any final check and recordation plats. 4. A fifty (50) foot wide buffer strip(s) Shall be centered on the channels of all other tributaries draining into the main tributaries. Drainage improvement shall be allowed in · this buffer(e), as approved by Environmental Engineering. Prior 'to approval of any final site plan or 89-740 recordation of any plat, the d~veloper shall flag this buffer strip for inspection 'and approval. This buffer strip{~) ~hall be noted on any final site plans and any final check and recordation plats. 5. No septic lines shall be installed within the buffer~ mdjacen% tO the tributaries. 6. No homesite shall b~ e~tablished on slopes steeper than 1S% without prior written approval of Environmental =ngi- nearing. 7. Any development that uses fertilization on a continuous tilixatio~ plan that includes application rates and nix- Bxtsnsion personnel. The typical rea~ cross-section shall be ~uch ~hat the hard surface will be at the minimum.allowable width with the shoulders being grass with a minimum width of six (6) 9. tn COnjunction with subdivision review, an erosion control plan mhall be $~bmitted ~o Mnvironmental Engineering for apprOVal and mhall include m~as~res ~o minimize the impact of outrage runoff on the Appomattox River Water Authority (Lake Chesdin) water quality. Tkis plan shail be approved by Environmental Engineering prior to any clearing or grading. The erosion control an~ drainage plan shall assune, tn the ~aximum extend possible, that the development of the site will not contribute to any water quality and sedimentation problems in the Appomattox River or Lake Ch~sdin watersheds. 10. In conjunction with final subdivision approval~ a drainage plan shall be submitted to En¥ironm~ntal ~ngineerlng for review and approval and ~hall include the institution of "best ~a~&~ement practice~" that are consistent with the recgmmendations included in the final report prepared by Camp Drssser & McK~e, titled Watershed Managemmnt Study~ Lake Michie and Little River keservoir Watersheds, dated ~ovember 1988. Further, the "best management practices" shall include, but shall not be limited to, the u~e of wet ~etention nutrient loadings on =he watersheds 9or Lake Cheadin and the Appomattox 11. The prOp=try shall be developed with public water, and the applicants Shall construct a water line from its location at the intersection of sa~dlebrook Road and River ~cad to the property, and, in cooperation with the Department of Utilities, will notify homeowners on both sides of River Road o~ the t~ma of construction so that they may hook up to public water under the then prevailing provisions of the Chesterfield County Code, Where wa~ further discussion regarding the size of ~he parcel and the number of lots; the proximity of the project to Lake Cheedin and protestion of the lake resources; the probability of ~ewer being extended ~o ~he Bite; etc. ~hen asked, applo~imatuly 10-15 yours before sewer f~ ex%pn4e~ to this area. 89SN0259 In Midlothian Magisterial Distrist, 89~741 requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 87S010} to permit office warehouses and an electric substation in an Office Business (o) District on a 14.3 acre parcel lying approximately 310 feet off the south line of Old Buckingham Road, approximately 750 feet east of Unison Drive. Tax Map 16-6 (1) Parcel 7 (Sheet 7). Mr. Jacobsen stated at its June 28, 1989 meeting the Board deferred Case 89S~0259 to permit further consideration regarding the loop road design and the type conditions that should be required if an electric substation should be constructed. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request, s~bject to certain conditions. Mr. Edward Willey, Jr., representing the applicant, presented a summary of the proposed r~quest; updated the status of the loop road and advised that concerne relative to that issue had been resolved; stated he had been authorized to inform the Board that concerns of Mr. Wilkens0n, Whitten Brothers and sonarco were satisfied and they now were in support of the request; and stated that Whitten Realty, Casa. Mar and Mr. Salamonsky had entered into an agreement defining the responsibility for building the second half of the eastern portion of the loop road. Discussion ensued relative to whether er not the agreement entered into by the three parties would permit the construction of said loop road; that private agreements are unrelated to amended conditions under consideration and such agreements have no bearing on land use decisions; etc. Mr. Jack Pearsall, representing Whitten Realty, confirmed that objections expressed at the previous meeting have been answered by the agreement and they no longer have further objections to the request. Mr. Axselle was no longer present but Mr. Willey indicated he had been authorized to speak for Mr. Axeelle to inform the Board that his clients were in support of the case. Mr. Wesley Stlgall submitted information to the Board for their perusal; voiced opposition to the proposed request as he felt the reques't if approved as submitted would be detrimental to the County and community; addressed the original conditions of ~oning and the impact of voiding those conditions; expressed concerns relative to increased traffic, access to Route 60 for property owners to the rear of the subject site, buffers; etc. ~r. Currin expressed concern for small landowners/developers who, through no fault of their own, could be required to pay for a disproportionate share of mitigating the impact of larger, adjacent projects. He suggested the Board be very cautious in dealing with changes of conditions of zoning previously approved. Mr. Applegate expressed concern that'he was led to believe by the attorney who represented the previous major zoning request that they were going to protect the Stlgall property and referenced a letter indicating that access to the Stigall property would be made available through the project. He stated it now appears that said access will not be required even though the previous private agreement required it. He state, in addition to the private agreement to provide access to the Stigall property, he was concerned that there needed to be assurances that the loop road would be built and indicated that Mr. Willey and others have addressed that issue. He asked, if the road were to be built, if there were any need to waive conditions 9, 10, 11 and'13 and 19. Mr. Jacobsen indicated that the Commission's recommendation was to waive those conditions for the substation use only due to the limited amount of traffic associated with it and that if they were to build office warehouse uses, these conditions would remain in effect. 89-742 Mr. ~¢Cracken stated that when this zoning was approved the property owners to the north between this site and 01d Buckingham Road requested that they have ecces~ through ~his property end that was part 0f the condition - that staff.would review the need for a stub road. 5s stated the lo¢~tlon for the ~tub road was through tbs subject parcel. He stated that the land use plan reconlmend~d the northern property for residential uses and that access could be provided off of 01d Buckingham Road thus eli~inating the need for the stub. Mr. ADDle¢ate expressed further concern ~egardlng Condition 18. Mr. M~UraSken ~ated that the only exception to Condition 18 is the substation, any Other future development in that corridor requires compliance with Condition 18 - the road would Still have to bo built. He stated a review of the ~u~ject site indicated %hat the amount of traffic generated by a substation would be minimal and that was the reason construction of a paved road was not required. Mr. Apples&to stated ho still had serious reservation~ ~regarding %he case. Mr. Carrie stated that if this parcel were being developed by one property owner that property owner would be expected to construct the entire read; however, b~cause the land is owned by multiple owners, consideration is being given to waiving certain conditions and he did not agree with thee. Mr. Sullivan stated h~ iS unalterably o~pesad tc commercial devel0p~ent along 01d Buckingham Road as well es an ~ccess from Old Buckingham Road ~o RouLe 60. Ba sta~ed the primary in this matter is construction ef a road to the which use requires ~hat only a gravel road be provided, and not the construction of the loop road. He mtated he felt all the protections n~o~ssary were in place and that the case should be approved; that there are still questions relative to this case that need to be resolved but that they would be resolved either by the State Corporation Co~ission or by the ~lanning mtaff at a later dates that this case is very important to the Midlothian District residents, that a solution has been r~ach~d and th~ matter should net be delayed any further, and he asked that the Board give favorable consideration to approval. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ th~ approved Casa 89SN0259, subject to the following conditions: 1. Uses shall be limited to ~he following~ a. All Office Business (0] uses, b. -Office/waruhcuses, provided the warehouse does nc% excesd~ twenty-five (25] percent of the gross floor area o~ the individual tenant office space a~d all warehouse space(s) within office building(s) are served by a singl~ leading door er dock. (~OTE: Approval of Case 87S010 limited uses within the Office Business (O} tract to O use~ exclusively. This condition amends this requirement, as noted herein.) !. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan submit- ted to the Planning Department on ~ay 11, 19~9, sh~ll he considered ~he ~aster Plan for the electric sub~tatien. 3. Except as noted herein, with the exception e~ Conditions 5, 9, 10, 11, 1~, and 18, which shall be deleted for the electric sub,cation, all previously imposed conditions of Case 87S010, shall apply tO the electric substation use. All previously imposed conditions of Case ~75010 shall apply to development for office and office/warehouse uses. (p) 89-743 4. A security-type fence shall be installed around the proposed substation and shall be designed tc preclude trespassing. The exact height and design of the fence shall be approved by the Planning Commission at the time of site plan review. 5. A minimum 100 foot buffer shall be maintained around the perimeter of the electric substation except where adjaeent to commercially zoned property. With the exception of tranemisei0n lines, as generally depicted on the Master Plan, and any distribution lines, which shall be permit- ted, provided they are generally located so as to run perpendicular through the buffer, this buffer shall comply with the requirements c~ the Zoning Ordinance, Sections 21.1-226 through 21.1-228. Further, the electric sub- station shall be located and/or oriented such that exist- ing on-site vegetation screens the view of the facilltles, except the transmission lines and backbone structure, from adjacent agriculturally and residentially zoned prop- erties. (P) (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 5 of Case 87S010 for the electric substation use only.) 6. A minimum twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained between the substation security fence and adjacent commer- cially zoned property or any portion of the request prop- erty devoted to any use other than an &lectric substation. This setback shall be maintained as a buffer. With the exception of one (1) entrance/exit, the transmission lines, as generally depicted on the Master Plan, and any distribution lines which shall be permitted, provided they are located so as to run generally perpendicular through the buffer, there shall be no facilities or other improve- ments permitted within this buffer. This buffer shall comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance,' Sections.21.1~226 through 21.1-228. (P) The horizontal alignment of access to the electric sub- station shall be located within the Whitten Park- way/Wagoneer Way right o£ 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 changes to accoramodate this driveway, except as necessary to cro~s creeks and other drainage ways. Where temporary culverts are required, thss~ culverts 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 (1) foot below the center of the access driveway. (~) (NOTES: a. Conditions 5 and 6 supersede Condition 5 of Case 87S010 for the electric sub~tation b.. Condition 5 o~ Case 87S010 requires a minimum Seventy-five (75) foot buffer around the perimeter of the request property ~or the office/warehouse use and all other permitted uses. c. With the approval of this request, Conditions 5, 9/ 10, 11, 13, and 18 are deleted for the electric substation use only. These conditions, as well as all other conditions of approval for Case 89-744 875010, re~ain in effect for the of- fice/warehouse us~ and all ofh~r uses. Prior to release of any buil~iug permits~ site plans must be submitted to the Planning Cotillion for approval.) There was further discussion relative to the condition requiring the construction oi the loop road; who was responsible for what portion of the construction and who pays for it; ~ s~qq~tion that gonsiderati0n be given to require the road to De 0%~ at ire t~me of closing for ~he Virginia Power Drope~ty ra~her than escrowing the meney~ that closing on the ~rope~ty by Virginia ~ower would most likely ~ccur within T4h~ nex~ sixty days~ the fact that clearing of the road and site for the substation would be So m~kimal that a paved road would nut be required; whether or not Virginia Power would be ~e~uired to abide by the conditions of zoning regarding an accurate account of the drainage situation indicating existing drainage and the impact the project would have On the said sits; whether or not office warehouse uses are permitted in the subject area; etc. Vo~e: Unanimous It was generally agreed to recess for five minutes. 88SN0186 (Amended) In Bermuda Magisterial Dietr£ct, ~I%~i~tONT A~SOC~ATES requested rescuing from Agricultural (A) and Community Business {B-2) Co General Business (B-~) on 43.~ acres and to Light IndUstrial (M-I) On 40.0 acres with Conditional Use to p~rmi~ con~meroial USe~ on the Ligh~ Industrial (M-l) tract and proffered conditions on an adjacmnt 25.3 acre tract zono~ Residential IR-7), Contmunity Business (~-2), and General Business (B-3}. A mixed use development with office, =ommercial, and light industrial uses is planned, This request lies on a total of 103.4 acre~ fronting, in four [4] places for a total Of approximately 3,000 feet on the east line of Route 295 right of way~ also fronting approximately 2,100 fee~ O~ the south line of ~sMt Hundred Reed, and located southeast of the intersection Of these roads, Tax Map 1]~-3 (1) Parcel 6; Tax Map 135-4 aiverm0nt Rills~ Lots 5~ 6, and 77 Tax Map 135-4 (41 Five ~oint Acres, Lot 17; TaM Map 135-7 (1) ~arcels 1, 4, 5, 8, 11~ 12~ 15, 16, and Part of Parcel 2~ Tax Map 135-7 {3) Rivermont ~ills, Lots ~ and 3; Tax Map 135-7 (5} Division of B.A. Davis~ Lot 14 and Part of Lot 1; Tax Map 135-8 (~} Five Point Acres, Lots IS and 16; Tax Map 1~5-$ (7) River~cnt ~flls, LOts 4 and 4A; and Tax Map 135-11 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheet 42). Mr, Peele presented a bmief history of Case 88SN018~ and staff had originally recommended a deferral ef this request to allow an opportunity to resolve access i~nu~$ associated with th~ request; however, subsequent to the Planning Commission mee%ing~ those concerns have teen resolved with CSX Railroa~ an~ staff now co,curs with the Plannin~ Commission recommendation for approval. Mr. Currin advised the Board that he ow~s property across from the subject si=e, declared a conflict of interemt pursuant to the virginia Comp~eh=nuive Conflict o~ interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. 89-745 Mr. Jeff Collins, representing the applicant, stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. There was a brief discussion relative to the proffered conditions, Specifically details that no ~raves on this parcel shall be removed or relocated without the Planning Com/aission's approval; that if the graves remain on site that conditions may be imposed to.insure access and compatibility; conoerns that an overall water and sewer plan for the entire development be submitted prior to the first site plan review; etc. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved Case 88SN0186 and accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. The Applicants proffer that the criteria for the overall project shall be governed by the overlay district with variation in yard requirements as set forth in Section 21.67.18 of'the Zoning Ordinance. 2. At the time of site plan review for any development, the location of any graves on Tax Map 135-7-(1)-4 shall be d0eumented. NO graves On this parcel shall be removed or relocated without the Planning Co~nnisslon's approval. If the graves are to remain on the site, the Planning CeE~is- sion may impose conditions to insure access and compatibility. 3. Initial access may be provided by a single entrance to the west of the CSX Railroad. 4. The property located within 660 feet of the Route 10 right-of-way may be developed with sole access to Route 10, west of the CSX Railroad if approved by the Transpor- tation Department. Unless modified by the Planning Commission through site plan review, prior to the release of the first building permit for any property located beyond 660 feet from the Route 10 riqht of way, the access road from Enen Church Road shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free end unrestristed through subdivision plat. Rrior to dedication, construction plans shall be submitted to the County Transportation Department showing the manner in which the primary access road crosses the CSX Railroad, the manner in which the State Avenue railroad crossing will be closed and an access plan for the residential properties located on the parcels identified as Tax Map ~135-7~{1)-6 and Tax Map 13S-7-(1}-3. 5. k fifty (50) foot buffer shall be provided between the right-of-way of the access road from Enon Church Road and Route 10 and any adjacent residential lot. This buffer shall be developed in accordance with Section 21.1-228 (2), unless modified by the Planning Commission in accor- dance with Section 21.1-227 (i). No commercial er indu~trlal access shall be allowed to this development by way of State Avenue, or any other residential subdivision street. 7. The public water system shall be used. 8. The public wastewater system shall be usedl 9. Prior to the first site plan submittal, an overall water and sewer plan for the entire development shall be submit- ted to the Utilities Department, Planninq Section, for review and approval. The plans shall be accompanied by anticipated water and/or wastewater flows for this devel- opment. At the time the existing water Or wastewater facilities are determined by the Utilities Department to 89-746 be inadequate to acoeuTao~a=e flow~/demands generated by development, th~ developer shall make whatever improve- ments that are deemed necessary by the Utilities Depart- m~nt to achieve the requlr~d capacities for ~his dsvalop- men~ within the water and/er westewater systems. 10. At the time of submittals of pla'ns for the access road to Enon Church Road, a copy shall be sent to the ~non Civic A~ociation. 11. R~noff from the 3.$ acre~ which drains through Point of Rocks Estates shall be re~ained on site so that the exist- ing an~ designed capacity o~ the downstream drainage facilities i~ ~uint of ~ocks Estates are not exceeded. The ~nnoff from the remaining portion of the ~-1 tract shalt be retained in conjunction with ~oint of Rocks EStates so that the combined release rates dc not exceed the downstream culverts on a pcst-d~veloped ten year storm and/or ditches that can contain the ten y~ar stor~, and/or the 100 year flso~plain comes ac closer than twenty (20} feet horizontally to any homes. Otherwise, the eDtire runoff from chis area shall bm re-routed along %he western boundary of the CSX Transportation (Seaboard Coast Line) railroad directly into Johnson~ Cr~k. Prior to any ~imberlng, clearing, grubbing or land dis- turbing activity, documentation shall be provided by the applicants from the Corp~ of Engineers that the propo~d ~xisting height of the John~on~ Cr%~k 100 y~a~ floo~- plain/backwater and, if possible, xoad(s) sha~l be con- structed so as to lower the height of ~he flo~plain aton~ Route 10. 55. Tbs following usus shall be delm~d ur res~ricte~ within the B-3~ 63.8 acr~ tract closest to U.S. Routs 10. a. Milk ~istrlbuting stations Radio and %~luvision towers c. Freight forwarding, packing and crating servi~, d. Outdoor advertising signs e. ~ight club, as a 9r~a~ use f. Display houses cr shell houses g. Bulk fusI and ice sHles h. Motor vehicle Sal~ ~hall be allowed, but no outdoor paging systems may be u~ed; any motor vehicle zale~ use adjacent to ~ residential zone shall have a 1O0 i. Tire r~c~ppi~g and vulcanizing k. Adult movie theatrem and bouk$~oX~ 1. Occult sciences such as palm reade~s~ astrologers~ fortune tel%~r~, k~a l~f readers, ~zophmts, etc. Utility trailer and t~uck ~ental, ~ a primary us~ o. Building material mal~m with out~ide storage Pubti~ garage Truck terminal pe~itted. 16, The following uses shall not be pe~itted within the 4S 89-747 a. Wine, brandy, and brandy spirits manufacturing b. Fur dressing and dying e. Converting paper to paper board products and paper board containers and boxes--manufacturing d. Fabricating sheet metal products, as a primary use e. Paper recycling by the compaction method. 17. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, 100 feet of right-of-way, measured from the eenterline of Route 10 for the entire length of the B-3 tract which is the subject of this rezoning, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Currin. Mr. Currin returned to the meeting. 89SN0233 In Midlothian Magisterial District, C~ESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING CO~4ISSION requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 84S174) to permit amendment to a previously imposed condition relative to a stub road. This request lies in a Residential (R-40) District on a 113.3 acre parcel located at the southern terminus of Corner Rock Road, and lying approx~/uately 220 feet off the east line of Salisbury Road. Tax Map 8-14 (1) Parcels 6, 7, and 8 (Sheet 2). Mr. Peele stated the applicant, the Chesterfield County Planning Commission, is requesting amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 84S174) to relieve a previously imposed condition requiring the extension of Framer Drive in Roxshire Subdivision to existing Salisbury Road in Salisbury Subdivision. Hs stated this request was prompted by citizens of the Salisbury area concerned with the impact of the proposed connection on the heavily travelled section of Salisbury Road from Robious Road south to Winterfield Road. He stated the Planning Commission ~eeommended approval of the request; however, Planning staff recormmended denial based on the fact that amendment to the condition relative to the provi~i0n of a stub road to connect Roxshire Subdivision with Salisbury Road would eliminate an important component of the area's transportation network. He further noted that the Transportation Department was opposed to the extension of Framer Drive because of their concerns that it would increase traffic through Roxshire Subdivision. Ms. Faye Palmer, Vice President of the Salisbury Homeowners Association, read a prepared statement in support of the elimination o~ the connection of Framer Drive to Salisbury Road. Mr. Steve Langhorn, President of Roxehire Civic Association, Ms. Judy Spiller and Mr. Dip~pill voiced support the Planning Commission's recommendation to eliminate the connection of Framer Drive to Salisbury Road. Mr. George Beadles, ~. JeAnne ~uckley, Mr, Sonny Ragland, Mr. Donald Wynn, Mr. Bill ~andley, and Mr, Larry Durbin voiced support for the stub road connection from Framer Drive to Salisbury Road as 'they felt it would provide an important feature of the area's overall road and transportation network that would ~acilitate the safe movement of vehicular traffic through the affected residential subdivisions and that it would not adversely impact Salisbury Road either by increased traffic or the generation of cut-through traffic. Mr. LeRoy Vaughan, the developer of Roxshire, stated he was neither in favor of nor against the extension of Framer Drive to Salisbury Road and that he would do whatever the Board desired regarding Framer Drive. 89-748 DiscusSiOn~ questions and comments engu~d relative ~Q whether or not closing Pramar Drive would improve the traffic ~ituation in the area; that it app~are~ many of the coacsrn~ being conveyed by the testimony were those related to health, safety and welfare is~u~ whether it came from those in favor of or against the elimination of the ~tn5 road; the necessity ~c= keeping as many access points as possible open in subdivisions, particularly if an emergency were to occur and ther~ were only a limited number of access points available; the ~lew of traffic if Framar Drive were Closed/opened~ the increased traffic that would utilize Framar Drive if connected to Salisbury,Eoad; etc. ~r. Sullivan stated those involved had made the best effort possible to resolve concerns ~xpra~ed regarding the closing and/er opening of Framar Drive; however, they had been unable to ar~ive at a satisiaetury solution for all the neighborhoods to be considered and that the safest and best way to handle this situation would be to connect FTamar hrive wi~h salisbury Road; that Transportation staff and th~ V~rginia Department of Yranspcrtation could work out appropriate speed limits to address/control traffic am best a~ p~sible; he f~l% %ha% Thornleigh Drive should be opened an~ concurred wlt~ staff's recommendation for ~sn~al. On me,ion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board denied th~ request to amend Conditional Usa Planned Development (Case 84S174) to sliminate the extension of Framar Drive Ro~shlre Subdivision ~o Salisbury Road in salisbury subdivision. Vote: Unanimous 89~N0~46 In Matoaca Magisterial ~istrict, ~RY L. W~LTONAI~) C. RICHAND NAPIER reqnestsd xesening from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) on 2~1.2 acres, plus Conditional Ute Planned Development to permit u~e (reCreational facility) and bulk (lo~ area and width an~ buil~ing setbacks) mxcep~ion~ on this tract and an adjacent 70.2 acre tract zoned Residential (R-12). A single f~%ily rusidential s~dlvislun with recreational faeiliti=~ is planned. This ru~st lie~ on a total of ~11.4 acres fronting approximately 170 fee= on ~e northeast line of ~py Hill Road, apprcximat~Iy 900 feet north of Riparian Read, also fronting approximately 6,800 feet on the mouthwest Iin% of t~e S~aboard Coast Line Railroad and lying at the eastern ~e~inu~ of saldwin Road. Tax Map 133-1 (1) Parcel 1; Tax Map 133-5 (1} Parcel I; Tax Map 13~-9 (1) P~rcel 1; Tax ~ap 133-10 (1) Par0el ~ and Part of Paroel 1; and Ta~ Map 133-13 (2) Forast Height~, Lots 12A and 13 (Shes% 41). approval of Case 89SN0246~ s~bjec~ to Certain c~nditions and acceptance of preffered conditions 1 ~rough 7, with rejection of pro~re~ condition S. ~e stated mtaff concurred wi~ the reco~enda%ion of the PlanD~ng Co~issiun, excep~ thmt pro~ered conditions 6 and 8 ~hould not be accepted and that staff condition 7 ~hould be imposed instead. histor~ of the pnop0sed request, stated the applicant proff~re~ that the stub road from ~idden valley Estates into the proposed develo~en% would r~ain unopened so that all lots in th~ developmen= would exit a% Happy Hill Road. He ~%ated the race.ended conditions were acceptable with th~ ~x=eption of condition 22 which he requested be mudizied and ~ubmitted a t~e-written copy of ~ai~ modification to ~ ~oard~ h~ also s~a~ed that nO~ having c~plsted a boundary survey on the 89-749 subject property, the applicant is requesting that the density be increased from 625 to 650 lots to allow fo~ flexibility in the design/layout of the project. Discussion, questions and cerements ensued as to whether or not the property to the east of the subject site extended to Jefferson Davis Highway; the rationale for dedicating 16 acres for a school site; if the applicant determined through the Plan process whether or not a school site would be needed as a result of this development; the rationale for increasing the number of lots from 625 to 650; if water and sewer facilities were required; improvements to Eappy Hill Road as a result of this development; the impact of increased traffic and the level of service on Happy Hill Road if this development were approved; the verbiage of staff condition 22 versus the amended condition 22 verbiage submitted by the applicant; etc. Mr. George Beadles, Mr. Dean Connolly and Mr. Jim Colanier expressed concerns relative to the size and location of the acreage to be donated for a school site, increased traiiic generation if the stub road is opened, density, etc. Mr. Joel Platt expressed concerns regarding lot sizes and square footage of proposed dwellinqs; stated area residents desire to have compatible sized homes constructed adjacent to their property; submitted photographs of existing residential structures in the area and petitions containinq signatures of 74 residents in opposition to the proposed request. Mr. Re~ie Arnold voiced concerns regarding the extension of the stub road from Mistwood Forest generating increased cut-through traffic and that the 16 acres to be donated for a proposed school site was not suitable nor accessible for such a purpose. Mr. Daniel stated he felt there should not b~ a stub road extended to the neighboring subdivision; that the original condition 7 dealing with the school site was more appropriate than the applicant's current proffered condition; that 10,000 square foot let sizes were not acceptable, and that if Mr. ~cCracken could revise Condition 22 as it relates to the traffic situation on Happy Hill Road, he might be able to accept a maximum si 650 lots. When asked, Mr. McCracken read an amended Condition 22, "The applicant shall provide adequate roadway improvements as determined by the Transportation Department On Happy Hill/Barrowgate Road intersection southwardly to the northern property line of the Mistwood Pores% Subdivision so that a minimum "D" level of service as determined by the Transportation Department is maintained. These improvements shall be installed in accordance with the phasing plans as approved by the Transportation Department". Mr. Daniel stated if these modification could be incorporated into the request he would feel mere comfortable in supporting it; however, if that were not acceptable, he could not support the request on the basis of the general health, safety and welfare of the public. Mr. Sullivan stated he could not support condition 6 requesting a 2,000 square foot exception to the required 12,000 s~nare foot minimttm lot area; he had a major problem with the location of the proposed 18 acres to be donated for a school site; he was not satisfied with a "D" level of service on Happy Hill Road; and that he could not support the request at this time. Mr. Currin expressed concerns regarding average lot size for the proposed development; inquired as to what would be the largest and smallest size lot developed and what criteria was utilized in deterraininq the acreaqe for the proposed school site; asked clarification o~ the "D" level of service on Happy Hill Road; inquired es to what road improvements in addition to right and left turn lanes would be provided; etc. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the residents in Hidden Valley Estates and Mistwood Forest Subdivisions should be given equitable consideration relative to the elimination of the stub 89-750 in the square ~otage of lots; and stated he was not comfortable with several asp~ct~ of this request. Mr. Mares exprousad con=urns as to how residents in Hidden Valley Estates t~avel north and Bast from their subdivision; how Cres~hiI1 Road impacts Nappy Hill Road; funding resources for i~provement~ to Happy Hill Road; and ~ated that after hearing ali the testimony and observation~ he felt the primary issue involved was one of safety and ha felt there was too mush information missing. On motion of Mr. ~ayes, seconded by Mr, Daaiel~ ~he Soard denied Case 89SN0246. There was further discussion regarding whether or not the concerns expressed could be resolved by d~f~rral of the cass; that the questions rai~ed were legitimate concerns and should be addressed for the health~ ~afety add welfare of the public; etc. Mr. Currin eta=ad he felt a deferral would give the applicant an opportunity to negotiate/resolve the concerns ~r. Mayas restated his motion, seconded by Mr. Daniel, to deny Case 89SN024~. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayas, and Mr. Sullivan. Nays: Mr. Applegate and Mr. Currin. Tn Matoaca Magisterial District, ~/LLIAM B. AND ~ H. D~n~.~ requested amendment to a proffered condition (Case 87E075) to permit a reduction in the minimum floor area for single family ~well~ngs ~n a Residential (9-12) District. A single f~mily residential subdivision is planned. ~his request lies on a 223.0 acre parcel fronting .aPProximatelY 5,649 feet on the north lin~ of ~ail~y Bridge Road, app=uxima%~ly 86Q feet ~ast of North Spring Run Road. Tax Map 76-9 (1) Parcel ]; Tax Map 76-13 (1} Parcel 1; and Tax MaD 91-4 (1) ~art of ~arcel 1 (sheets 20 and 29). RT. Jacobsen ~tated the Planning Cotillion race--ended approval of Case ~9SN026~, Er. De.onto Lewis, repres~ntlng ~he applicant, stated s~sequent to the zoning, Virginia POwer ha~ purchased and {¢a$~ 87~07~) to permi~ a reduction in the minim~ floor area for single f~ily dwellingu in a Residential (R-12) District. R~, George B=adleu voiced support for %h~ proposed development. There was no opposition ~re~ent. requirements were not being maintained and that ~pproval of developmen~ b~eoming ran%al property versus ~ingle family On motion of ~r. ~ayes, seconded by Mr. Sullivam~ the Board approved CaSe 89SND268 and accepted the following proffered conditions= 89-751 We submit the following revised proffered conditions for Triple Crown, ~hase II to change the minimum floor area for a single family dwelling to: One Story = 1,400 Cape = 1,500 $.F. Two Story = 1,600 Vote: Unanimous EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred Item ll.N., Executive Session, Consultation with legal counmel pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (6) of the Cod~ of Virginia, 1950, a~ amended, regarding 1) Martha Grimmley Clodfelter verm~m Dorothy West, 2) probable litiqation relating to an automobile accident involving a County employee and 3) specific legal matters relating to ScanCenter, until August 9, 1989, at 1:00 p.m. Vote: Unanimous 12. ADJOU~4~NT On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the ~oard adjourned at 9:00 p.m. (EDT) until 1:00 p.m. (EDT) on August 9, 1989. Vote: Unanimous County Aclmini~tratorf 'G. H. ApPle~ate Chairman 89-752