Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
08-23-1989 Minutes
AUGUST 23, 1989 Supervisors in Atten~oe= Mr. G. ~. Applegate, Chairman Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr., Vice Chairmen Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. Jesse J..Mayes Mr. M. B. Sullivan Mr. Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator Staf£ i~ Atten~e: Ms. Amy Davis, Exec. A~t. to Co. Admin, Mrs. Doris DeHart, Asst. Ce. Aclmin., Legit. Svcs. and Intergovern. Af£airs M~. Joan Dolezal, Clerk to the Board Chief Robert Eanes, Fire Department Mr. Bradford $. Hammer, Deputy Co. Admin., Management Services' Mr. William S. Howell, Dir., Gen. Services Mr. Thomas E. Jacobsen, Dir. of Planning MS. Mary Leu Lyle, Dir. of Accounting Mr. Robert Masden, Deputy Co. Admin., Human Services Mr. R. J. McCracken, Transp. Director Mr. Richard MeElfish, Dir. o~ Env. Eng. Mr. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of N~ws/Info. Col. Joseph Pittman, Chief of Police Mr. Richard Sale, Deputy CO. Admin., Development Mr. Jay Stegmaier, Dir. of Budget Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Dir. of Parks & Rec~ Dr. Robert Wagenknecht, Dir. of Libraries Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilitiss Mr. Applegate called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m. (EDT) at the Courthouse. 1. INVOCATION Mr. Applegate introduced R~varend Gregory Jones, Chester Presbyterian Church, who gave the invocation. 2. ~L~G~ OZ' A?-T.RGTANC~ TO T~ FLAG OF ~£-~ UNITED STATES OF The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. 89-758 3.A. $~LY 26, 19B9 On ~otion ef Mr. Bulllvan~ seconded approved Lhe minutes of July 26, 1989, am amended. Vote: Unanimous 3.E. AUGUST 9~ 1989 On motion of Mr. Sullivan, secondedI by Mr. Currin, approved the minutes Of August 9, 1989, as submitted. Vote; Unanimous the Beard "PETE" Mr. Millard D. "Pete" gti~-h, Jr.. ~ho was elected first Vice congratulated them on Lhoir accomplishments. OPERATIONS TO MR. WALTER C. LINE Nr. Hammer introduced Mr. Walter C. Link who recently attained certification aa a Manager of Landfill Operations and Mrs. Link who was also p=esent. Mr. Appleqate presented him with a fra~ad certification from Governmeht Refug~ Coll~tlon add Disposal Asso$iation ~or his accompl{shment. 4.A. R~SOLUTION R~COGNIZING MS. REN~E' RTDL~Y Mr. Ramsay stated Ms. Ridley was not pre,eDt at ~hls tir~e and requested the resolution be presented to her u~on her arrival aL Lbs meeting, ' '' ~:. ; %~ C~%NGES IN Tm:; ORDER OF PRESE~T~TIO~ There being no changes, it wa~ ~n motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Mayas, reaolved tha~ the agenda be adopted as submitted. Vote: Mr. Daniel reported he attended tlhe Lake Genito Committee meeting at whic~ the ~articipating localities (Powhatan, Ameliar Chesterfield and Cumberl~nd Counties} adopted a ¢ontrac~ which will he submitted !to each jurimddction for approval in the near future; th~ Richmond R~glonal ~ianning District Commission meetings th~ Metropol£~an Economic Development Council meeting at which there was a presentation which focused on puhl~city?o~ the RiChmond area as a center fur manufacturing opportunities, partic61arly targeting the food industry, a copy of which program he]placed in the Board Reader File for the Board's perusal; and the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) meeting at which there was a report on the Graysom Cor~mi$$ion en~ primary health uara in virginia, a copy 99-759 of which health care information he placed in the Board Reader File also for the Board's perusal. Mr. Applegate suggested it would be beneficial if Delegate Watkins were able to attend a Board work session for a briefing of the Grayson Commiesion Report. Mr. Hayes reported he was invited to Dew Orleans by the National Science Foundation for a presentation on ~ducational Computing in Minority Institutions; and stated he also attended the Educational Advisory Committee to the Council on Informa- tion Management meeting. Mr. Sullivan reported that, in addition to the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission and the Water Resources Task Force meetings, he attended Mr. Leland Anderson's 100th birthday party who is the last known surviving individual who worked in the County coal mines. Re stated Mr. Anderson was presented with a County pin, flag, miner's cup and resolution honoring him upon his attaining such a prestigious age. Mr. Currin reported he attended the Appomattox Basin Industrial Development Corporation meeting at which the resignation of Mr. Sean Vargai was announced; and also attended the Social Services Hoard meeting which he felt was most beneficial. 7. REEOLUTIONEAND SPECIAL P. ECO6~TTIONS o THALHIMERS AND FIDELITY ~ED~RAL SAVINGS BANK FOR THEIR FINANCIAL SPONSORS~P OF TEE.~989 RAINBOW OF ARTS Mr. stith introduced Mr. Pat McDermott of the Jaycoes, co-sponsor of the Rainbow~..of Arts~..Festival; Mr. Kimball Price, Vice President and Manager Of Thalhimers Stores Division at Cloverleaf Mall, and Ms. Missy Murdock; and Mr, Richard Hollander, Chai.rman..of the Advisory. Board.,.£or .Chesterfield Fidelity Savings ~ank, Mrs. Bernadette Stewart, Branch Manager, and Ms. Helen Stewart. Mr. Hollander presented the Board with a check, in the amount of $1,000 as his organization's contri- butions to the Rainbow of Arts Festival. Mr. Stith stated the donation of $750 from Fidelity Federal Savings Bank had already been received. On motion of the Board, the Board accepted donations in the amount of $1,750 to the Parks and Recreation Fund for use in the 1989 Rainbow of Arts Festival and adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department functions to positively affect the quality of life in Chesterfield County; and WHeReAS, High quality special events for the pleasure of County citizens is a department priority; and WE~P~AS, The 1989 Rainbow of Arts provides citizens with an exposure to the arts, as well as an example of the impact art has on the community; and WHEREAS, Thalhimers ~nd Fide~ity..Foderal Savings Bank have provided generous support for this ann~al event, thereby showing its concern for County citizens. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Thalhimers and Fidelity Federal Savings Bank for their generous contributions to this event. AND, BE IT FURTEER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors expresses its sincere appreciation and gratitude to Thalhimers 89-760 and Fidelity Federal Savings ~an~ for their community involve- ment and support. Uo%e: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented ~xeeu%ed resolutions to Mr. Pslce and Ms. Murdock o~ Thalhim~r~ Stores and Mr. Hollander and Mrs. Stewart of Fidelity Federal Savings Sank and o0~mended ~hem for their organization~' outstanding civic participation and contributions to County events. Mr. Price expressed appreciation for the Opportunity to participate in events that enhance the quallty of life in the County. 4.A. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING MS. RENEE' RIDL~¥ Ms. Mitchell introduced Ns. Renee' Ridley of ~RVA radio who was present for the presentation cS a reeolution recognizing her new~ coverage of the County, which had been adopted at the July 26, 1989 mae=inc. ~r. Applegate presented MS, Ridley with the executed resolution and commended her for her diligent effort~ in providing balanced, equitable ooverage~of the coun,ty news. 8. ~%RINGS O~ CITIZEN~ ~N UNSCWR~.~ ~A'l-r~ OH (~.m?MS o CLIIM OF SOUT~WOOD BUISD~R~, INC. RSLATING TO THE CONSTRUC- TION OF THE FALLING CREEK PUMPING STATION Mr. Stylian: Parth~mos~ Assistant Count~.,Ab~e~nsy, .ex~la~ne~ that in August, 198~, th~ County contracted with Southwoed ~uilders, Inc. for the construction of the Falling Creek Pumping Station. ~e stated the nontract was to have been completed in January~ 1987 but was not completed until more than One year behind schedule and UpOn completion of said contract, the County withheld $58,5~ from the c~ntract price by means of liquidated damages representative of the County's out-off-peeker expenses arising from the delay. He s~ated Southwood Builders, Thc. is contending that the ~irm is due $58,500 on the contract~ that the ~elays in completion of the pumping ~ta~ion were justified and disputes the date Of completion ~ed by the County for assessing liquidated damages. Me state~ ~taff has reviewed Southwocd ~uilders' contentions with the engineer and h~liev¢s that their contentions are without meri=. Mr. Tom Evans, President of Southwood Builders, Inc., submitted copies of the Original claim to th~ Board and reviewed aspmctm of that claim retati~g~:{o~tha ~zoj~ch bid date, award of completion da%~ of Jamuary"2,h;.1987 or 450 working and/or calendar days thereafter allowed for completion of the projeot, inlti~ted by the County some of whioh had definite COntract obtain per~zanent power~ to the pumpin~ .statiom;~oblems. encountered by the County with a lomal !~ndownerf ~he lack of permanent power until May 15, 1987, with which to operate the pumps at the pumping mtation to te$~ ~he equip~ant~ and the inability of the pumping station to ptu~p ~ewag¢ through the station because the Falling Cre~k Sewer Plant which thi~ station pumped to could not handle the capacity of flow; adjustment to the variable irequency drives on the punD~ so that only limited amount of seward could be pumped from tko pu~ping station to the Falling Creek Sewer Plant at scheduled times; and the replacement of ~teel piping for chlori~e ejection with the PVC piping, which ~he contractor ~elt should have originally been installed. He ~tat~d he felt the contractor provided ~ufflciun~ notice and juatifiable reason~ 89-761 for delays and asked that the Board consider a favorable decision in this claim. Discussion, questions and comments ensued relative to the specifications for the inetallation of steel piping; the subsequent replacement of the steel piping with PVC piping; whether or not the contract defined the 450 days as calendar days or working days; who authorized change orders; who was responsible for providing the power; whether or not it was known that the Falling Creek Sewer Plant did not have the capacity for the flow from the pumping station; the number of weather delay days requested; the time variation between th~ date the contract was awarded and the date the contractor received the notice to proceed; etc. Mr. Daniel stated he did not feel he could arrive at a conclusion on the argumentative merits on the n%unber of days required to complete the:project; stated that the change orders could be documented and asked that staff compare the contractor's list with those changes orders to ensure that they coincide; asked that the County respond to the details of the agreement with virginia Power regarding the provision of power to the project; and expressed concerns relative to the flow and piping and whether or not thoee were determined by design and constructed to such design specifications. He stated if the flow and piping were designed and constructed by engineering design criteria and were improperly engineered, then he felt the contractor's claim had some merit with respect to the flow and piping. Mr. Sullivan expressed concerns regarding the number of delays, change orders, etc., and stated it appeared the major dispute centered around the dispute between the time variations of the date the contract was awarded and the date the contractor received the notice to proceed and if agreement could be reached regarding that issue, the matter could be resolved. When asked, Mr. Parthe~os stated staff was of the opinion that the contract completion date should have been January 2, 1987; that the claim that the' co~tract~completion date should have been in June or Jnly, 1987 was an issue that did net arise until after the assessment 'of liquidated damages had already been made by the County; that there is one provision in the contract, which is several hundred pages, that references working days as opposed.'~to calendar days but that in other portions of the contract and all of the correspondence between the involved parties, it was clear that the contract completion date was to have been January 2, 1987; and he further addressed concerns relative to extensions due to weather and other types of delays, permanent power to the project, design issues regarding flow capacity and installation of piping, etc. There was further discussion relative to who the engineers were that deeiqned the flow capacity; credentials oi the engineers; the amount of money paid out as a result of delays; who determined the need for greater flow capacity from the system; who determined the use of iron pipe during original construction;who determined and authorized replacement of the iron piping with PVC piping; whether or not the contractor was notified as to what the changes were; documentation as to problems with the flow capacity; etc. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board denied the claim of Southwood Builder~, Inc. based on the contention that said firm is due $58,500, which amount was withheld from payment by the County, On the contract relating to the construction ef',th~ F~!,t'-ing Creek Pumping Station; and further, ths Board instructed the County Attorney and Utilities Department staff to review the technical aspects of the issues regarding the plpln~ installation and flow capacity claims. Vote: Unanimous 89-762 9.A. ~UBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDI~ANC~ TO AMENb $~CTIONS 21-10 AND 21.1-5, CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD~ 1978, AS A~ENDED, RELATING TO PE~ALTI~ ~0~ VIOLATIONS OF CONDITIONS OF ZONING~ CONDITIONAL USE PBPJ4ITSc SPECIAL EX- CePTIOnS AND VARIANCES Mr. Micas stated the proposed amendment relating to penaltie~ for violations of e0ndition~ of zoning, conditional use permits, special exceptions and varianoes was re~erred te the Planning Commission for consideration a% its August 15, 1989 meeting; however, the matter was ~eferred until the Planning Conm%ission's September 19, 1989 meeting. Re stated it would be appropriate for the Board to defer the public hearing to consider said ordinanc~ amendment until the September meeting. On motion o~ Mr. Danie~,--:~co~ded by--Mr. Mayes, the Board ~sferred ~ntll September ~7, 1989, a public heaxlng to consider an amen~L~nt tn the Zoning Ordinance providing for criminal penalties for ~iolations of conditions of zoning, eondltlonal uss permits, ~pecial exceptions and variances. ~.D. eTA=ET LIGHT On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Beard approved obtaining a cost estimate for the installation of a street light at 2719 Parkdale Read in the Sermuda Magisterial District. 9.C. 9.C.1. P~ESSRVATION COMMITTEE On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board appointed Mr. Steve Bryan% to serve on the Eistoriu Sites Preservakien Commieeee to fill =he unexpired =erm of Mr. Hampton Davis, whose term is effective immediately and will expire ~arch tt, 1990. Vote: Unanimous 9.C.2. RIDEFINDERS BOARD On motion ~ Mr. Coffin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board appointed Mr.' ~im .Banks, Engineering ~.s~pervisur~;. in the Transports%ion Department~ ~o r~pre~en~ Chesterfield County oe the Ridefinders Board, whose term is effective S~ptember 1, Vote: Unanimous RICHMOND ~EGIONAL METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Banjo1, the Board appointed Mr. Ma~k Riblet=, Engineer in the Transportation Department, tO serve e~ an alternate, member for the Richmond Regional Metropolitan Planning Organization, whose term is effective i~mediafely end is at the pleasure of the Board. ~9-763 9.D. AMENDMENT OF Gt~EATER RICHMOND TRANSIT COMPANy UMBRELLA A~R~M~NT AND UNANIMOUS CONSENT Mr. Micas stated at its July 26, 1989 meeting the Board deferred action on the amendment of the G~eater Richmond Transit Company Umbrella Agreement and Unanimous Consent Agreement to resolve Board concerns as to what action the GRTC Board of Directors took at their July 25, 1989 meeting. Nc stated the CRTC Board of Directors formally met and the only substantive business conducted' by the Board of Directors was to receive a briefing on GRTC' s operation although no formal action transpired. He stated it is his understanding that City of Richmond is aware~ of .the subject amendment and will consider it at their first September meeting. On moti0~ 'of Mr.~'~Daniel, seconded by- Mr...~Maye~, the~ BoaT<%' authorized the Chairman of the Board to execute any necessary documents amending the Greater Richmond Transit Company Agreements to grandfather two GRTC Board Of Directors members for the duration of their current term and approved the following resolution ratifying the action taken the GRTC Board of Directors at its July 25, 1989 meeting: WEEREAS, the Board of Dinectors of the GRTC was elected on July 5, 1989, which election was confirmed by a Unanimous Consent Agreement dated July 5, 1989; and WHEP~EAS, it beeame necessary to amend the Umbrella Agreement dated July 5, 1989 to ~nable two of the Directors selected by the City of ~ichmond to serve on the Board cf Director~; and WBEREAS, the Board of Directors which was elected on July 5, 1989, held its first meeting on July 25, 1989. NOW THEREFORE~ BE IT P~ESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, that the action taken by the GRTC Board of Directors On July 25, 1989 is hereby ratified and confirmed. Vote: Unanimous The Board~ '~qu6sted that staff convey ~ the .City. of Richmond,. the action which had herein transpired regarding the adoption of the resolution ratifying the GRTC Board of Director's action at its July 25, 1989 meeting and amendment to the GRTC Agree- ments. PUBLIC ~FJ~tTNGS 10.A. TO CONSIDER A LEASE BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE CEESTER- FIELD COUNTY MUSEUM, INC. FOR THE COUNTY MUSEUM BUILDING LOCATED AT THE CBESTERFIELD COUNTY COURTHOUSE Mr. ~icas stated this date and time had been advertieed for a public hearing to consider a lease between the County and the Chesterfield County Museum, Inc. for the County Muee~ Building located at the Courthouse Complex. There was no one present to ~peak in favor of or against the On motion of Mr. Sullivan, 's~onded by Mr. Currin, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary custodial lease and use agreement between the County of Chesterfield and the Chesterfield Cou.nty Museum, Inc., for the County Museum Building located within the Chesterfield County Government Complex grounds for a period of ten (10) years providing for the use of the Museum Building' a's' a ~County~ Museum. (A copy of said lease agreement ie filed with the papers of this Board.) 89-764 Vd%e: Unanimous 1D.B. TO COESZDER AN ORDINANCE TO ~ND TR~ CODE OF TH[ COUNTY OF C~ESTERFIELD,,, t978, AS AMENDED¢ BY ANLENDZNG AND RE- ENACTING SECTION 21.1-8(b) P~LATI~G TO COND~T~0~ A~ PART OF REZONING OR AMENDMENT TO ZONING Mr. Sale stated thim date and time had b~n advertised ~or public hearing to consider an ordinanoe to amend the County Code relating to conditions as part o,f rezoning or amendment to a zoning map. He stated this o~dinanoe amendmmnt is primarily a technical amendment to the ..g~nin~ Ordinance to permit the County to accept cash pr0ff~re from developers dt~rlng the No one came forward to speak in favor cf or against the matter. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currln, th~ Board adopted the following ordinance¢ BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of (1) That the Code o~ the County ~f Chesterfield, 1978, as S~c. 21.1-8. Conditional Zonin~ (b) Conditions as Part of R~zoning or ~]endmcnt to Zoning reasonable conditions, prior to a pobllo hearing before the Board of Supervisors, in addition to the regulations provided r~zoning itself giv~ rise ~o the need for such {ii) such conditions have a reasonabl~ relation to the re~oning; and (iii) all ~uch condiaion~ are in conformity with The Plan for Chesterfield which is the comprehensive plan as defined in Section 15.1-446.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as dedication of real property or ths payment of cash, such be made uatil th= facilities for which such property conditions relating to matters whluh ara not normally included include the dedication o~ rsaI property or the payment of cash, th¢ prcff:r~d conditions shall provide for the disposition of payment is not used for the purpose for which (2) The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to any application {er rezoning filed after June 30~ 1989, on which date of adoption of this Ordinance. Vote: Unanimous 89-765 10.C. TO CONSIDFR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND T~ CQDE OF THE COUNTY QF CE~STERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED., RELATING TO FEES FOR ~ARINGS Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the County Code relating to fees for"h~ari~gs';' No one came forward tc.$~eak in favor of or against the matter. There wa~ brief discussion as to whether or not adoption of this ordinance would have any bearing on a zoning case to be heard at the a£t~rnoon session of the meeting, clarification a~ to the difference between cash proffers versus square footage, architectural style, etc., the impact on staff time by implementing cash proffers, etc. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, the following ordinance wee adopted: AN ORI{3)I~C~ ~'()AI~iEN]) T~nu~ CODE OF '£~u~ COUNTY OF C~ST~RFIELD, 1978, AS AHENDED, BX A~IE~)iNG SECTION 21.1-17 RELATING TOFFS FOR HEAI~ING$ BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That the Code.of the County. cf..Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended to read as follows: Amending and reenacting Section 21.I-17 relating to fees associated with cash proffers. Sec. 21.1-17. Fees for H~arin~s. The cost of each hearing requested pursuant to the provi- sions of this Chapter, including advertisement when required, shall be as follows and shall be deposited simultaneously with the filing of thc application or petition: (a) zoning: (1) Agricultural (A) with conditional zoning (2) Residential (R-88, R-40, R-25~ R-15, R-12, R-9, R-7, R-TH, R-MF, MH-1, MH-2) with conditional zoning excluding proffers of cash and/or dedication of land or personal property... with conditional zoning including proffers.of cash and/or dedication of land or personal property. (3) Commercial, Office,' Industrial with"conditionaT zoning excluding proffer~ of cash and/ur dedication of land or personal property with conditional zoning including proffers of cash and/or dedication of land or personal property. $370.00 plus $10.00 per &ere. $740.00 plu~ $65.00 per $645.00 plus $20.00 per acre. $I290.00 plus $65.00 per acre. $645.00 plus $20.00 per acre. $645.00 plus $50.00 per $12~0.00 plus $65;00 $645.00 plus $50.00 per acre. 89-766 (4) Cenditional ~se$ and Special Exceptions: ~wo family ~ b. R~n~wal ,. (3) Planned bevelupmen~ Amend condition of zoning Amen4 condition of Planned Development (4) All Others (d) Appeal to Board of zoning Appeals relative to decision of Director of Planning Base f%e for district in which located. $1,070.00 plus $20.00 per unit for each unit after the first two unit~ $545.00 $24~.00. . .;,, ~ $3,070.00 plus $65.00 per ~¢re or $20.00 per multi-family or duDlez dwelling unit after the first two 12) unit~. $745.00 each $470.00 plus $55.00 $570.00 $770.Q~ 10.D. TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT ANCE 0Y P~OPERTY AT TBE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK TO SCAN- CENTPR V~RGINIA, INC. , ,., : . · ~r. Micas stated this date and ti~e h~d been advertised for a ~ub~ie h~arlng %o oonslder an amendment to the conditions of the the conveyance of property at the Airporf Industrial ~erk to ScanCenter Virginia, Inc. He stated the purpose of the requested a~nd~ent i~ to e~tand ~he period of tim= from July, 1989 to January, 1990 for locating six businass~ and is Gond~tione~ upon greater financial disclosur~ as ~ell as a mere precise definition of what constitutes "eenducting business" at the $¢anCentar. No one ca3a~ forward to speak in favor of or against the matter. On motion Qf ~r. Ceftin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved an amendment to the conditiun~ of the conveyance of property at the Airport Industrial Park %o $oanGenter Virginia, I~e. to g~ant an additional six months for the period of July, 1989 to January, 1990 to lo,ate six companies to begin opera- tions at the ScanCent~r f~cility~, ~with ~aid conditioned to require a~itional financial r~garding ScanC~nt~r Virginia, Inc. an~ to defi~e more precisely what constitutes l'conductlng business" at th~ S~ancentef. (A copy of said amended real estate agreement is file~ with the paDsr~ of this Board.) Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayas and Mr. $~llivan. Nays: Mr. Applegate. 89-767 It was generally agreed staff would notify the Virginia Department of Economic Development' of the Board's approval of the amendmsnt to the conveyance of property at the Airport Industrial Park for an additional six months to ScanCenter Virginia, Inc .... ~ '. ,' . ~ NEW BUBIN]~SS ll.A. APPROVAL OF POLICE DEPARTMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS AND ADOPTION OF A REGULATION PERMITTING TBE CHIEF OF POLICE TO PROMULGATE AND ENFORCE RULES AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING TEE MANAGEMENT OF T~E POLICE DEPARTMENT Mr. Micas stated the County Charter provides that the Chlei of Police shall recommend rules and regulationz governing the management of the Police Department and that "The Board shall adopt such rules and regulations as it may determine." Ee stated the Chief of Police had a Policy Manual which constitutes his rulss and regulations which have been in place for many years; however, these rules and regulations are constantly being revised, therefore, the Chief needs the flexibility to enforce changes in the regulations without having to first obtain ~approval of every change by the Board of Supervisors, provided such revisions are provided to the Board at its annual organizational meeting. There was discussion relative to whsther or not to authorize the Chief of Police to enforce changes in the Police Department rules and regulations without such amendments being brought before the Board or authorizing the Chief to enforce changes in the regulations but bring those changes to the Board. prior to implementation; a suggestion that the Charter be amended to reflect the appropriate verbiage for the Police Chief to have the authority tO repeal, add, amend and enforce revised rules and regulations without Board approval; etc. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currln, the Board, pursuant to the County Charter, adopted the current Police Department Rules and Regulations, a copy of which iz filed with the papers of this Board. In addition, the Board requested that the ~oard's legislative program include a request that the Cha~ter be amended to treat the Police regulations in the same manner as other personnel regulations. Vote: Unanimous ll.B. STATE D~PARTMENT OF REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (DR$) G~J%NT On motion of Mr. SuL1T~an';: se¢on~ed~by';Mr. Mayas, the Board authorized the County Administrator to submit an application to the Virginia Department of Rehabilitative Services (DRS) Grant in the amount of $55,500 to develop and implement the gradual conversion of the current Skills Development Program at chesterfield Vocational Services (CVS) to allow for more employment opportunities in a community setting for individuals with severe and profound multiple disabilities, which grant, if approved, would :fund a full-time pos~tionl for twelve (12) months to coordinate the program conversion and also provide funds to purchase an aight~passenger mini-van. (It is noted the grant-funded position's duties would be assumed by current CVS staff at the end of the twelve month peripd.) Vote: Unanimous 89-768 ~F~ERG~N~Y M~DICAL SERVI~BS TASN PORC~ RECOM~E~DATIONS: BUDGET PHASING SCHEDULE A~D FUNDING PROPOSAL Ms. Davis presented a brief overview of tbs Emergenoy Medlsal Services status in Chesterfield Count~, the findings Of said study, the appoin%msnt of an Emergency ~edical Task Force and ifs ehar~ to d~v41op r~eommandafions to enhance the quality of patient care, perservation and enhancement of the volunteer rescue squad system, and to effectively/efficiently utilize County fisu&I and manpower resources, the EMS TaLk Forte recommendations, and the Budget and Audit Committee recem~endatiemE for a budget phasing schedule and funding Discussion, questions and co~unents ensued relative appropriate staff exploring the possibLlity of the Volunteer R~seu~ Squads partially fun~ing R~crui~men~/Re%en~ion Coordinator position; that provision~ for e~i~ent and ad~qua%~ EMS r~pon~ from th~ ~hillip~ Fire Station be considered, ~unding sources over a three year period, that funding appropriat~d from th~ ~en~ral F~nd for %he sale s~v~n sprinq~ Marina be reapprop~iat~d ~o funding of the EMS On motion of Mr. Sullivan, ~econdad by Mr. C~rrin, ~h~ Board tiOn~ a~ li~ted below: ' 1. I~ i~ r~eo~nd~d %hah '%h~ CheSterfield County EMS system se~ as a goal response time for bami~ life support providers at 6 minutes allowing an additional 4 ~inutes fur advan=ed life ~uppor~ (ALS) providers to arrive on the It is race--ended that ~e resources of rescue a~- fire cabined manpower and equipment to ~upport achievement of the BLS and ALS minute response tim~ ~oal at th~ followlng ~en~ley-~erm~da Rescue Squad station Jefferson Davis ~ighway Eetr~ck-Matoaca Rescue Squad Rescue Squad Station, Ri~er Road Forest V~ew Midlo~ian Rescu~ S~ad Station Route 60 and ~rov~ Road Manchester Rsscue Sqnad Station Route ~60 and Court~ou~ Cloverhill Fire Station Dale Fire Station Route 10 and Rock Spring Drive Fire Station 15 Chesterfield County 3. It is race, ended that the response time goals and the what uni~ is ~ispatch~ on Priority I calls. An ~bulanc~ enly will be dispatchmd on Priority II and III. IZ there are no available rescue squad crews, the closest fire engine will b~ dispatched a~ ~he first 4. It is reoo~ended :ha= ~e Chesterfield EMS system provide the following manpower: a. Monday - Friday 6 a.m. - 6 3 Volunteer Crews 5 Salaried Cr~w~ 89-769 b. Monday - Sunday Remaining time periods 6 Volunteer Crews 2 Salaried Crews 5. It is recommended that the Volunteer Rescue Squad Operations Office will notify the Fire Department 24 hours prior to each shift as to the number of volunteer orews available. 6. It is recommended that the Volunteer Rescue Squads will provide ambulances at'the identified strategic locations. 7. It is recommended that an EMS Training Coordinator position be funded for the sole purpose of coordinating training efforts on all levels for the members of the volunteer rescue squads in conjunction with all other EMS providers. 8. It is reco~mended that a~'~MS Fluid ~Supervi$or position be funded to ensure maintenance of ~kill profioiency; to supervise application of skills; to identify potential or existing problems; to make recommendations for improvements based On field observations~ and to coordinate and maintain communicatien with the volunteers and career staff. 9. It is recommended that semi-automatic defibrillator~ be provided at the following locations: Company 8 Mat0aca Company 12 ~ttrick Company 14 Dutch Gap Company 15 Courthouse Spare Training/Replacement of broken defibrillators 10.. It is recommended that a Chesterfield County Emergency Medical Service~ Advisory Council be established to replace the current Chesterfield Volunteer Rescue Squad Aesociation to p~ovide the EMS system a structure for support, guidance and accountability for a quality pre-hospital patient care. 11. It is recommended that an EMS Recruitment and Retention Coordinator be funded for the development of an agressive recruitment and retention program for Volunteer Rescue Squad members and Volunteer Pirefighters. 12. It is recon~ended that 'an EMS Systems Analyst position be funded for the development of an ~MS database with attention to quality assurance, budgeting, research, audit activities and medical'legal consideration. 13. It is recommended that the Incident Command System be adopted by all: ~MS providers as- the comprehensive multi-agency management system for all resources at every emergency incident. And further, the Board adopted the following Budget and Audit Committee recommendations for phasing and funding to be implemented over a three year period, beginning in October, 19S9 and ending in June, 1992= 1. It is imperative that the focus and activity of the program be to re,tore the Volunteer Rescue Squads as the primary EMS service delivery system in Chesterfield County. 2. While it is recognized that the recommendations enhance Countywide coverage of EMS services, there should be careful future strategic planning in order to reduce BLS and ALS response time. 89-77~~ Consider the $3QO,00Q from thc General Fund which is appropriated for the sale of Seven Springs Marina be reaDpropriated to the fnndlng of the EMS expenditure~ in Th~ VolunLeer Recruitment and Retention Coordinator position is requested to be given top p~iority for funding. The Fire Depart. men% and sudget staff is asked tc further analyze the possibilities of combining tanks and reducing the number of remaining administrative staff po~itien$. In Attachment III, the total administrative costs identified for FYgl and FY92 contain e~imates for: Computerization Contingency Fund ~791 FY92 $29,800 $70,500 $50,000 $50,000 ?. I~ is recommended that these estimaten b~ removed from =he current projected cost and readdressed during th~ budget cycles for FY9t and FYg~ for mor~ a~euracy in identifying actual needs and actual costs. 8. Appropriate staff explore further the possibility of Volunteer Re~eue Sqnad~' partially funding ~he Recruitment and Retention Ccordinatcr'~ position. Medical ~upplies and equi~ent will be provided by th~ four Volunteer Squads on ~u~bulanoes maenad hy ~he County. vote: Unanimous ll.D. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION OF EPPINCTON PIJ%NTATION HOME AND Mr. ~asden presented a brief history of the EpDington Plantation ~om~ si~e/prop~rty and introduced Mr. Parker Cherry, r~presentatlve for the heirs and a partial owner of the p~Operty, who stated his family wishe~ to donate the hom~ and a~jaoen~ property to the County as a potential historical park site. Ms. Nary Ellen Hc~e, Chairman of the Preservation Committee, stated the donation of ~ppington, with its tremendous hi~toricaI eignifieance~ would be the "crowd jewel" of the Coun~y's historical sites~. Mr, ~asden commended Nr. Millerd "Pete" Stith, Mr. Mike Golden and Ms. ~=ie Coon for their diligent efforts reward bringing the project to the County. relative to maintenance, progr~t~ing, planning activities, security~ proposed uses Of the facility; the assurance that renovate/maintain th~ fa¢i%ity~ assistance from the Chesapeake Corporation and other organizetiOn~: etc. Mr. Maye~ e~pre~ed appreciation to the Cherry family for their donation of the historic site and commended staff for their diligent efforts in this endeavor. He stated h~ f~l% th~ acquisition of the property would be wise investment and that On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the ~oard accepted the donation of ~he historic Epplngton Plantation 89-771 house and 43.8 acres of land surrounding the site from Mr. Parker Cherry and the Hinds family to be used as a potential historical park site; and further authorized the County Administrator to execute a Deed of Dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of said structure and property. (A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding concerning the conveyance of Eppington Plantation is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel requested that staff provide the Board with a detailed, structured plan regarding the use, financial data, etc., as soon as possible for review. Mr. Applegate requested the rules be suspended to take an item out of sequence for consideration at this time. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board suspended the rules to take out of sequence Item ll.I.l.a., Public ~earinq to Consider an Ordinance to Vacate a Stub Road off vistapoint Road. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board took out of sequence Item ll.H.l.a., Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to Vacate a Stub Road off Vistapoint Road. Vote: Unanimous ll.I.l.a. PUBLIC H~ARI~G TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A STUB ROAD OFF VISTAPOINT ROAD Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to eongider an ordinance to vacate a stub road off Vistapoint Road in salisbury Subdivision. Mr. Micas stated that if this property were to be vacated there is a potential for landlocking certain properties that could result in potentially some compensation being paid by the governing body. Ms. Carolyn Powers, President. of the Salisbury Homeowners Association and Midlothian District Community Association Panel; Ms. Lorraine Stokes; Mr. Mike McKeever; Ms. Marcie Begley; MS. Judy Chvala; and Ms. Joan Cesan. voiced support for the vacation of the stub road off Vistapoint~Road as they felt it technically does not provide good road connections due to limited sight distances, that there ar~ other available, more prudent accesses to Rebieus and Winterfield Roads, the construction of a ~tub road would destroy the circles in the neighborhoods which are considered aesthetic and a good location for conducting neighborhood activities. Mr. Oliver Rudy, representing Mr. Lawrence Ashinoff, the adjacent property owner at the end of the stub road, voiced opposition to the proposed vacation because of possible adverse effects on future development of the property and stated that in doing so, approval of the vacation may be setting an unfavorable precedent. Ms. Marcie Begley stated she felt that the closure of stub roads should be evaluated and analyzed on an individual basis, that such action does not necessarily set a precedent, all alternatives should be reviewed, and that in certain instances it would be more appropriate to vacate a stub road prior to development rather than wait until traffic problems are generated. 89-772 There being no eno else te address the mat~er, ~he public hearing was olo~ed. Mr. Micas reiterated hi~ statements relative to the potential £or la~dtocking o~ certain properties and the legal ramifica- tions that may arise if tbs vacation were approved. Hr. Sullivan stated he had been assured by Mr. McCracken that adequate access was available via Robieus Road; that if adjacent properties are developed, it could result in the generation of mere traffic in the area then Vi~tapoint Road could accommodate which could possibly result in the closure of Vietapoint Road at a later time anlrway; and that it appears to be more appropriate to approve this vacation ih order that all concerned may better plan h~v accesses can be developed from ether alternatives. Mr. Daniel stated he intended to support a motion for approval; however, he felt it should bonneted that the Kingland Road ~tub road matter was coueidered to be a health, safety and welfare ~ssne and one o~ terror of the general community ~eeaus~ of cut-through traffic. ~e stated that when the health, safety and welfare of the general public is at risk it is the r~eponsibility of the Board to act an~ as more of these type sit~ations oscur~ more citizens will be lobbying for the closur~ of stub roads. ~e stated he hoped ~hat as the County continues'- its '-transportation planning, '-particularly &n the areas where t_here is opportunity, tha~ appropriaae collector/distributor roads are designed and constructed to avoid this ~ype of situation in the future. On motion of Mr. SulLiva~, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following o~dinanee: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a Stub Road off Vistapoint Drive in Salisbury Subdivision, Eillcrest Section, Midlothian District, chesterfield, virginia, ae shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of +-he circuit Court o~ Chesterfield County in Plat Book 24, Pages 20 and 21. W~EREAS, Bobby J. and Marcella R. Begley and Bill and Judy Chvala, p~titicne~ the Soard o~ Supervisors o~ Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a Stub Road off Vistapoint Road in salisbury subdivision, Hillcreet Seotion~ ~idlothian District~ Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly ~hewn on a plat of reoord in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court ef said County in Plat Book 24, ~ages ~O and 21, made by J. K. Ti~0ns & Associates! Inc.~ dated May 9, 1975. The stub read petitione~ ~e be vacated is more fully described ae fellows: A 50' ~tnb Road adjacent to lets 15 and .... 16 and a portion of tbs reserved area in Salisbury Subdivision, ~illcrest Section ~he location of which ie more fully ehcwn~ on a plat by J. K. Timmona ~ Associates, Inc., dated May 9, 1975, a copy of which is attacAed hereto and made a part of this WHEREAS, noSice baa been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Coda of Virginia, ~950, as amended, by advertising; and WHEREAS, no public ~eeeeslty exists for the continuance of the stub read sought to be vacated. NOW THEREFORE~ BE IT OPJ~AINBD BY THE BOA/rD OF SUP~RVI~0R$ OF CHESTeRfieLD COUNTY, VIRGINIA= $~772 That pursuant to Section t5.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid stub road hereby vacated. The Grantees hereby convey onto the County and the County hereby reserves a 50 foot waterline easement as shown on the attached plat. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1~482(b) cf the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as emended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance skall vest fee simple title to the centerline of the stub road hereby vacated in the owners of the abutting lots within the Salisbury Subdivision, Hillcrest Section free and ~lear of any rights of public use. Accordingly~ this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield, as g~antor, and Bobby J. ~egley and Marcella R. Begley, Bill Chvala and Judy Chvala and MOUnt Hill Commons Association, or their successors in title, as grantee. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegatc excused himself from the meeting. ll.E. HOME INCARCERATION PROGRAM Mr. Hammer presented a brief outline of the proposed Home Incarceration Program and stated Major Minton was available to answer any questions the Board may have. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ the Board accepted $34,470 in funds from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Service (DCJS), which is ior only one year (~-89 through 6-90) with no guarantee of continuation; increased revenues and expenditures by $34,470 to the Sheriff's Department for use in the Eome Incarceration Program for operating equipment, which program would displace inmatee that would be incarcerated in the County Jail and place them in their homes under the supervision of the Sheriff's Office staff, with strict conditions. Ayes: Mr. Cnrrin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: ~r. Applegate. Mr. Appl~gate returned to the meeting. CONSENT ITHMS ll.P.1. STAT~ ROAD ACC~RTANC~ This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from thi~ Board made report in writing upon his examination of Tracker Drive, Tracker Court, Decoy Lane, Blind Trap Lan0 and Poachers Run in Hunters ~anding, Section Four, Matoaoa Districf. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, it is resolved 'that Tracker Drive, Tracker Court, Decoy Lane, Blind Trap Lane and Poachers Run in 89-774 Hunters Landing, Section Four, Natoaca District, be and they hereby ute established as publi= rou~s. And be it ~urther resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Tracker Dr~ve, beginning at the intersection with Genitc Road, State Route 604, and going southwesterly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Tracker Court, then continuing southwesterly 0.04 mile to tho intersection with Decoy Luna, then continuing southwesterly 0.11 mile to end at the inter- section with Poachers Run; Tracker Court, beginning at the intersection with Trucker Drive and going southeasterly 0.06 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Decoy Lane, beginning at the intsrsectlon with Tracksr Drive and going zouthea~te~ly 0.10 mile tO the inter~ectiun with Blind Trap Lane, then continuing ~outhea~terly 0.07 mile to end at the intersection with ~unters Landing Drive, State Route 4130. Again Decoy Lane, beginning at the intersection with Tra0k=r Driv~ and going ~outhwest~rly 0.~7 mile to ~he intersection with Poashers Run, ~hen snntinu- ing eouthwesterly Q.84 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Blind Trap Lane, beginning ~ the intersection with Decoy ~une end going eouthwe~terly Q.09 mile to end at the intersection with ~eashers Run~ ~oacher~ fun, beginnin~ at the intersection with Tracker D~ive and going southeasterly 0.12 ~ile to the inter- section with Blind Trap Lane, then continuing snutheasterl~ 0.08 mile to the intersection with Hunt,rS Lan~ing Drive, State Route 4130. Again Poachers Run, beginning at the ~nt~rsection with Tracker Drive and going no~ehwesterly 0.08 mile to the intersection with Decoy Luna, then continuing northwesterly 0.03 mil~, then turning and going northerly 0.~6 mile, then turning and going nor=heasterly 0.O5 mile, then turning end going easterly Q.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. These roads serve 42 lots. And be it further rssolve~, that the. Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 58~ right-of-way for all oi these road~. This section of ~u~ters Landing is recorded as follows: Section 4~ ~lat Book 54, Page 68, September 30, 1986. ll.H.2. STREET NA~E CHANGE On motion of Mr. ~ullivan, ~eeOnded by Mr. Mayer, the Boar~ renamed Reysan Read from Courthouse Eoad east to Route 288 from Reycan Road to Double C~eek Court. ll.F.3. TRANSFER $500 FROM M~DLOTHIA~ DISTRICT 3 C~T ROAD FUNDS TO T~ SCHOOL BOARD TO ~AINTAIR A ROBIOUS ELEMEN- TARY SCEOOL LkNDMARK On motion of. Mr. Sullivan, seconded by.~r. ~%yes, the Board transferred $~00 from the Midlothian District 3 Cent Road Fund to the School Board to be used fo~ eupport and maintenance of u Southern Railway caboose relocated to the ReLines Elementary School site and which caboose is u land~ark recognizing transportation methods in the County as well a~ p~nviding special recognition f~ studeDts cf academic excellence. 89-775 Vote: Unanimous ll.P.4. RESOLUTION CONFIRM~N~ PROC~BINGS OF CHESTERFIELD IN- DUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUThORITy FOR ISSUANCE OF INDUS- TRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS ll.F.4.a. MICHAEL M. ROBINSON (LEASING TO WAV~RLY ~EXT~LE PRO- CESSING'~ INC.) On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted ths following resolution: WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia {the "Authority"), has considered the application of Michael M. Robinson, 1317 Everett Place, Hewlett Harbor, New York 11557 (the "Applicant"), requesting the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist the Applicant in financing the acquisition, construction and equipping of an industrial facility for the processing and manufacturing of textiles of approximately 60,000 square feet (the "Facility") at 8401 Fort Darling Road, Richmond (Chesterfield County), Virginia, in Chesterfield County, Virginia, to be leased to Waverly Textile Processing, Inc., and has held a public hearing thereon on August 8, 1989; and WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("the Internal Revenue Code"l provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of industrial development bonds is located must approve the issuance of the Bonds; and WUEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County oi Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"), the Facility is to be located in the County and the Bo~rd'of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Board of Supervisors") constitutes the highest elected governmsntal officials of the County; and WBEREAS, the Authority recommends that the Board of ~upervisors approve the issuance of the Bond~; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, and a certificate of the public hearing has been filed with the Board of Supervisors. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0E THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board of Supervisors approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Applicant, as required by Section 147(~), of the Internal Revenue Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Facility. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Cede, does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Facility or the Applicant, and, as required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Bonds shall provide that 'neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and 'monsy~ pledged therefor and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 89-776 3. The Board directs the County Administrator to request an allocation e£ not moro %hen $3~0~0,000 of the "state Ceiling" to the Bends, pursuant to Section 15.1-1399.%0 et. seq. of tho Code cf Virginia of 1950, as amended, aa--d applicable r~ulatione adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Develot;ment. 4. This aesolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. ll.?.4.b. SENIOR LIVING CH©ICES, INC, On motion.of Mr. Sullivan~ seconded by Mr. ~ayes, the Board adopted the fei%owing reselution~ ~g$, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield .{"Authority"), has considered the applicatic~ o~ Senior Living Choices, Ins. ("Company") requesting th~ issuance of the Authority'~ revenue bonds in amount not to exceed $~,000,000 ("Bonds") to assist in the financing of the Ccmpany~ ec~nisition~ construction a~d equipping of a life care center for &dultm over 62 years of age, consisting of a 60-bed nursing facility, 60 assisted living units an~ approximately 200 independent living located at 14311 Bxandermiil Woods Trail, Midlothian, Virginia 2~llg ('~Propect") in the County of Chesterfieldz Virginia, and ha~ b~ld a public hearing thereon on August 8, 1989; and WHEREAS, Section 147(f) Of the Igternal Revenue Code of 1986, a~ amended, provides ~ha~ the qovemn~ental unit haviuq jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over %ho area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bends is located must approve th~ issuance of the bends; and W~BREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behaii o£ the County of Chesterfield, Virginia ("County"); the Project is located in the County and the BOard of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia ("Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of th~ County; and W~EREA$, the Authority has reconun~nded that the Board ~pprovo the issuance of the Bonds; and WHOOPLAS, a copy of tko Au%hority's resolution approving ~he issuance of the Bonds, ~ubjec% to tho terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of ~e public hearing and a Fiscal Impact statement have been filed with ~u Board. NOW~ THE~FO~, BE IT ~SOLVED BY THE BO~D OF OF THE CQU~T~ OF C~$T~IELD, VIrGINiA: Authority for the benefit of the C~pany, a~ ~qulr~d Section 147(ff) and Section 15.1-1378.1 Of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as ~ended ("Virginia Code") ~o permit the to amulet in ~he financin~ of ~e 2. ~he approval of the ismuan~e of the Bonds~ en~cr~nt ~o a ~ro~p~otiv~ purchaser of the Bonds of creditworthiness of %he Project or the Company, ~%~ required by section 15.1-1~S0 o~ th~ Virginia Code the Bonds shall provide that n~i~h~r th~ County nor ~e Authority sAali b~ obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest %hereon o~ Other pledge therefor, and n~ither the faith nor credit nor the taxing power of the Co~onw~alth, the County or the AuBhori%y shall be pledged there~o. 89-777 3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Ta× Regulations Section 5f.~03-2(f) (1), this resolution shall remain in effeot for a period of one year from the date of its adoption. 4. This resolution shall take effect i~ediately upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous ll.F.5. REQUEST FOR BINGO/RAPFLE PERMIT On motion of Mr. Sullivan, secended hy Mr. Mayes, the Board approved a request for a raffle permit from the Chester Jayoees for the ealendar year 1989. Vote: Unanimous ll.F,~, AMENDMENT OF MINUTES OF APRIL 12;_~.9.8..9 BOARD OF SUPER- VISORS MEETING RELATING TO SECTION 21.1 OF THE CHESTER- FIELD COUNTY CODE On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Beard amended the minutes of April 12, 1989 Board of Supervisors meeting relating to Section 21.1. of the Chesterfield County Code, as ~ollows, a copy of which co~rectlons are filed with the papers of this Board: 1. Corrections to paqe numbers listed in Article I. IN GENERAL~ are to be made as shown on pages 89-306 through 89-308 Of the minutes. 2. Page 89-349, See. 21.1-100(b} (5} g., line 2, "(10) ten" should be "ten (10)" 3. Page 89-349, sec. 21.1-100(b) (5} i., lines 11-12, "Code of Virginia'* should be "Code of Virginia". 4. Page 89-364, See. 21.1-132(h) (1), line 1, "uses" should be 5. Page 89-364, Sec. 21.1-133(d}, line 2, "ineidential" should be "incidental". 6. Page 89-364, Sec. 21.1-134, "Conditions Uses" should be "Conditional Uses". 7. Page 89-368, Sec. 21.1-144(c), line 7, "General Plan" should be "General Plan". $. Page 89-374, Sec. 21.1-158(a), lines 6-7, "encourages" should be "encouraged". 9. Page 89-374 Sec. 21.1-159{p), line 1, "establishements" should be "establishments". 10. Page 89-374, Sec. 21.1-159(q), line 1, "exclusing" should be "excluding". 11. Page 89-395, Sec. 21.1-217{b) (3), line 4, "(6)" should be "six (6)" 12. Page 89-408, Sec. 21.1-234, line 7, "6" ~hould be "(6)". 13. Page 89-410, Sec. 21.1-237(a) (3), line 6, "10)" should be "(10)". 14. Page 89-410, Se~. 21.1-237.1(b) (2), line 7, "commons" 89-778 15. Page 89-412~ ~ee, ]1.1-255.6(a) (1.) a., paragraph 2, line 4, "adjoining and~ ~hould be "adjoining lot~ and". 16. Page 89-419, Sec. 21.1-255.6{a} {2) a., paragraph 2, line 4, "these lots" should be "these adjoining lot~". 17. Page 89-424, Sec. 21.1-266(a) (4) a., line 11, "foot- candle~" should b~ "footcandles". 18. Page 89-432, S~c. 21.1-270.1(b)(1), line 15, "used compute" should be "used te compute". 19. Page E9-432, See. 21.1-270.1.(b} {2), lines 9-10, '~General Plan" should b~ "General Plan". 20. Page 89-435, Sec. 21.1-273(c) (28}, lines 1-2, "detailed submit=ed" should be "detailed plans are submitted". 21. Page 89-438, Sec. 2t.1-27~1a) , line 3, "dsvelep." should Vote: Unanimous ll.F.7. RICHMOND S~MPHONY REQUEST FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved a request for a fireworks dlsplay Der~it to the Richmond Symphony for a fireworks display to be held in conjunction with a concert at the soulder~ on september 14, 1989, subjec~ to all County policies and regulation= governing Vote~ bnanimeu$ ll.F.8. SET DATES P0R PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER: ll.F.8.a. THE LEASE OF O~FIC~ AND ~HOP SPACE T~ T~ DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE On motion o~ Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board set the date of September 1~ 1989, at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing to ocn~ider the lease of offlc~ and shop ~pace attached to th~ existing Hangar/Office Building at the Airport Industrial Park to the Virginia Depart2nsnt of State Police. Vote: Unanimous ll.F.8.b.E.I. DUPONT D~ NEMOU~' APPLICATION ~OR ~IT TO OPERATE A PRIVATE RESCUE SQUAD on motion of Mr. Sullivan~ s~¢onded by Mr, Mayas, thc Board set hearing to consider an applie&tien for permit to. opmrate a private rescue squad from E. I. DU~Qnt De ~emours~ and to appoint an advisory committee tn repo~t back to the Board prior to th~ public hearing~ ll.F.8.c. WAIVING A PORTION OF THE "PROTECTIVE COVENANT~, CONDIT!0N$ AND RESTRICTIONS FOR CHESTERFIELD INDUSTRIAL PAPJ{TM FOR A 3.36 ACP~ PARCEL OWNED BY ~E. MARSH~b J. COLE, JR, On mo=ion of Mr. sullivan, eecended by Mr. Mayas, the Board the date of September 13, 1989, a% 7:O0 p.m., for a public hearing to consider waiving a portion of the "PrOtective 89-779 Covenants, Condition~ and Restrictions for the Chesterfield Industrial Park" for a 3.36 acre parcel owned by Mr. Marshall J. Cole, Jr. Vote: Unanimous ll.F.8.d. THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES TO 1. PRORATE MOTOR VE~ICL~ LICENSE TAX REFUNDS, 2. INCREASE DOG LIC~N$~ F~S AI~D 3. ESTABLISH A MINIMUM PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date of October 11, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., for public hearinqs to consider the following ordinance amendments: 1. An ordinance to amend Section 14.1-25 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, relating to motor vehicle license refunds; 2. An ordinance to amend Section 5-22 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, relating to taxes for dog licenses; and 3. An ordinance to amend Chapter 8 of the Code of the Count~ of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by adding a new Section 8-13.04 relating to minimum personal property tax ll.G. APPOINTMENTS - APPOM3~TTOX BASIN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board nominated Mr. Jesse J. Mayes, representing the Board of Supervisors, and Mr. C. P. Currin, Jr., representing the business eonu~unity, to serve on the Appomattox Basin Industrial Development Corporation (ABIDCO), whose formal appointments will be made on September 13, 1989. ll.H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS ll.H.1. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVAL On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferred until September 27, 1989, coneideration of the costs for street light installation for the following locations in the District as indicated: 1. Intersection of Red chestnut Drive and Red Chestnut Court, $5,870., Clover Hill District; 2. 12900 Red Chestnut D~ive, $3,989., Clover Rill District; 3. Intersection of Pecan Terrace and Tall Hickory Drive, $3,002., Clover Nill District; 4. Intersection of Acorn Hill Court and Tall Hickory Drive, $3,007., Clover Mill District; 5. 12906 Red Chestnut Drive, $2,062., Clover Hill District; 6. Intersection of Tall Hickory Court and Tail Hickory Drive, $4,592., Clover Nill District; 89-780 subdivision, $1,559., Clover SIll Dis%riot; 4604 R~d CheStnut Court, illuminating old Hundred Road south of the snbdivision entrancer $694., Clov~r Hill District; and 9. Intersection of Creasman Driv~ and ~ara Kay Drive, $1,050., Dale District. ll.H.2. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Applegate, th~ Board approved obtaining cost eetLmate$ £or the installation cf street lights at the following locations in the District as indicated: 1. Intersection of ~ilbrae court and Milbrae Read, Clover Hill District; 2. Inter,sc=ion of ~ilbrae Aced and Redbridge Road, Clovsr Hill District; and Intersection Of Chinook Drive and H±cko~y R~ad, Matoaca District. ll.H+3+ SUPPLEMENTAL FY-89 AND FY-90 REV~UE SHARING PROGRAM On motion of Mr. Coffin, seconded b~ Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following resolution: W~R~kS, Section 33.1-75.t of the Code of Virginia permits the State Highway end Transportation Commission to make an =quivalen~ ma~ching allocation to any County ~or designaticn~ by the governing body of up to 25% or $500,000 whichever is greater of funds received by it during the car:eat fiscal year use by the State Transportation Boar~ te construct, maintain, or improve ~rimary and secondary highway systems w~thin ~uch County~ and W~ER~AS, the Chesterfield Ceunty Board of Supervisors appropriated $500,000 for hh~ Ee~enue ~haring Progr~ with the adeption of th~ FY$9-90 Appropriation Ordinance; and W~=REAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has notified the County that $1~,400 iS the maximum amount of chesterfield County ~unds that will be matched by the State as a Supplemental FY-89 allocation; and W~EPd~AS, VDOT has notified the County that $293,400 i$ maxim~ ~ount o~ Chesterfield COUnty funds ~hat will be County Board of Supervisors appropriates $134,400 to be matched by th~ State for th~ ~Y-~9 ~upplem~nt=l rev~nu~ sharing allecation and has apprepriated $293,400 to be matched by the State ~0r the FY-PO ~ev~nue sharing presto. A~, ~ IT FURTheR ~SOLVED, that th~ Board ha~ appropriated ~206,600 in unmatched funds for the FY-90 revenue sharing presto. BE IT PURTE~R ~SOL~D, ~hat ~he FY-89 supplemental FY-90 funds be allocated to th~ followin~ projects: $570,000 North Bailey Bridge Road fr~ Rou~e 360 sa~l~y sridgs ~oad (Preliminary engineering and construction} 89~781 $232,200 ~opkins Road from Beulah Road to Inca Drive (Preliminary Engineering) $260,000 Csntre Street Extension from Route 10 to Chester Road (Preliminary Engineering) The Board also appropriated $68,700 from the balance of the Route 10 project to the Centre Street project; approved the proposed Project Development Schedule; and authorized Staff to take all steps necessary to carry out the construction of the projects. Vote: Unanimous ll.H,4. AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH CRATER PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents for a contract betwesn Chesterfield County and the Crater Planning Distriet Commission for the development of a transportation planning process in accordance with "A Memorandum of Understanding for a Continuing, Cooperative and Comprehensive Transportation Planning and Programming Process for the Tri-Cities Urbanized Area", whereby the Crater Planning District Commission will pay a lump sum of $1,000 to Chesterfield County in exchange for the Planning Department's annual estimates of population, dwelling units and students for small geographical areas of the County. (A copy of said agreement is filed with the papers of this Board.) APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR A MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION STUDY On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. C~rrin, the Board appropriated $22,500 {$2,500 from the State and $20,000 from federal funds which is included in the Richmond Area Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization's FY-89 Unified Work Program) for a Public Transportation Study from Midlothian Turnpike from Chippenham Parkway to Euguenot Road, the purpose of which study is to evaluate the demand, cost, benefits and feasibility of public transportation services on Midlothian Turnpike. Vote: Unanimous ll.R06. APPROVAL OF FINANCING FOR JOHNSON'S CREEK DRAINAGE PROJECT AND SET A PUBLIC NEARING DATE TO IMPOSE A DRAINAGE SERVICE DISTRICT ON A PORTION OF THE JOHNSON'S CREEK DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Mr. Micas presented a brief overview of the proposed financing for Johnson's Creek Drainage project and stated the Board is requested to set a public hearing date to impose a Drainage Service District on a portion of the Johnson's Creek Development District. Mr. Currin disclose~ to the Hoard that he owns approximately three-fourths of an acre which may be within the proposed Drainage District and drain to Johnson's Creek which could be considered as a potential, conflict of interest; however, prior to voting on this issue, he wished to defer the matter for thirty days to obtain a decision from the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office as to whether or not an actual conflict of interest exists. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferred until September 27, 1989, a recfuest for approval of financing for the Johnson's Creek Drainage Project and the setting of a public hearing date to impose a Drainage Service District On a portion of the Johnson's Creek Development District; and further requested that staff provide Board members with more detailed information req&~ding the financial aspects of this project prior to ~hat meeting. iI.H.?. JOHNSON CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT Mr. Currin disclosed to the Bosrd that he owns approximately three*founths of an acre which may be within the proposed Drainage District and drain to Johnson's Creek which e0uld be considered as a potential conflict of interest, declared a potential conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest A~t a~d excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Daniel requeeted that consideration of the Johnson Creek Drainage District be deferred ~ur thirty day~ in e0ncert with previously deferred Item ll.H.6.' Mr. Appleg~te questioned the. necessity for deferral of thi~ matter. Mr. Daniel $~ated he felt since this item and the prewiously deferred item regarding the Johnson Creek Drainag~ Project were related con~ider them at the same meeting. On motion o~ Mr. Daniel, ~econded by. Mr. Hayes, the Board deferred consideration of the Johnson Creek Drainage Dis~riet until September 27, Ay~: Mr. Daniel, Mr. ~ayes, end ~r. Sullivan. Nays: Mr. Appleqate. Absent: Mr. Ceftin. Mr. Currin returned to the meetinq. ROUTE 10 WIDENING FROM ROUTE 288 TO T~E COURTHOUSE On motion o~ Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board set the date of September 1~, 195~, at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider a $1~00~080 appropriation for the widening of Rout~ 10 from ROUte 255 to the Chesterfield County Courthouse. 11.I. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT !TE~$ 11.I.1. PUBLIC ll.I.I.b. TO CQ~I~=~ TH= SAL~ OF SURPLUS COUNTY PROPERTY ALONG STURBRIDGE DRIVE AT ITS.INTERSECTION WIT~ HIDLOT~IAN TURNPIKE Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the sale of surplus County property along sturbridge Drive at its intersection with Midtothian Turnpike. No one came forward to speak in favor of or against ~he matter. On motion of Mr. Applegate, n~ecnd~d by ~r. Su!liv~, the Board accegted the hid o~ $2,00~ for the purchase of a surplus Count~ parcel containing approxLmately .095 acre on the east side of St~rbridge Drive at its intersection with Midlothian Turnpike to Pocono Associates, a~d authorized the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to sign the necessary deed upon approval by the CountyAtterney. (A copy of said plat is filed with the papers of this Board. I 89-789 Vote: Unanimous ll.I.l.o. TO CO,SIDeR AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A 16 FOOT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT IN REED'S HILL SUBDIVISION, SECTION B Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the vacation of a 16' sanitary sewer easement across Lot 30, Reed's Hill Subdivision, Section B. NO one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the ~oard adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a 16 foot sanitary sewer easement and two 10 foot construction easements across Lot 30, Reed's Hill Snbdivision, Section B, ~idlothian District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County i~ Plat Rook 65, Pages 94 and 95. WHeReAS, Mr. John A. Davis, President, Thornington Con- st~uction Company, Incorporated has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a 16 foot sanitary sewer easement and two 10 foot construction ~asem~nts across Lot 30, Reed's Bill Subdivision, Section B, Sidlothian District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on e plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 65, Pages 94 and 95, made by Youngblood Tyler & Associates, dated February 28, 1989. The easements petitioned to be vacated are more fully described as follows: A 16 foot sanitary sewer easement and two 10 loot construction easements across Lot 30, Reed's Bill Subdivision, Section B, ths location of which is more fully shown on a plat made by Yeungblood Tyler & Associates, P.C., dated February 28, 1989, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part cf this Ordinance. WH=R~AS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and W~R~A$, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the easements sought to be vacated. NOW TBEREFORE~ BE IT ORDAINED RY TBE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CEBSTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of ~, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid easements be and are acated. The County and/or the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion hereby reserves all of its right, title, and interest in the 15 foot VDOT drainage and slope easement that runs parallel to Summerhurst Drive and crosses the 16 foot sanitary sewer easement and two 10 foot temporary construction easemenes hereby vacated. This Ordinance shall be in full force and e~fect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be r~corded no sooner than thirty days herea£ter in the Clerk's Office of the 89-784 Circuit court of chesterfipld, Virginia pursuant to Section I5.1-485 of the Coda of Virginia, 1950, a~ ar~ended. Th~ affect of t/~is Ordinance purnuaDt to Section 15.1-~S3 is to destroy the force and effect cf the ~ecording 'of ~th~' portion of the plat vacated. Thi~ Ordinance shall vest lmm almpla title of the easemsnts hereby vacated in the property owner~ Of the lot witAin Reed's Hill ~ubdiv~s-ion-Pree and clear of uny rights of public use .except as herein abo~e mentioned. Accordingly, this Ordinance ~hall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and'$6hn william Hnmmerville and Banna Elizabeth Johnson, or their succes~or~ in title, az ~ran~ee. , 11.I.2. ADOPTION OF A POLICY FOR UTILIZATIOW OF PACKAGED WASTE- WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS Mr. Applegate stated Ae had received a uopy of a letter from Mr. George Beadlez relativ~ to adoption of a policy for utili- zation of packaged waztewater treatment ~ystem~. Several members of the ~oar~ suggested the policy for utilization of packaged wastewater treatment ~ys~ems either bm r~manded to the Planning Commission for public hearing or that an informational work ~e~ion be conducted for %he Bcar~, as they were not ready to uote on thim issue at thiz tim~. Mr."Ramsey stated~staff'~b~Td~ ~a~e"a· p're~e~atibn'~ the B~oard at its ~cheduled ~eptenfo~ ~3, 19.89. work ~ession .... On motion of Mr. Mayas;- seconded by Mr....Curri.n, the ~ourd deferred consideration .of..the....adoption,. o.f.a., policy fo~ utilization cf packaged wast~water ~reatmoD~ systems until thm September 13, 1989 work session. STUDY PROM BLACK ~/gD VEATCM, INC. TO BL~CK AND %rEATCB KMGI~RR$-$RCHIT~CTS On motion o~ Mr. Sullivan, ~e~onded by Mr. Mayes~ the Board authorized the County Administrator to e~ecute an a~ignment O~ the L~k~ Genito ~hase II Contra=t from Slack 'and Veatch, Inc. to Black and Veatch Engineers-Architects. Vote: Unanimous ..... ~ON~TRU~TIOM EASE~NT FO~ T~E CO~tLPIELD ,ROAD TO , ~UGU~NOT ~PRIN~S TANK~WAT~R LIR~ ALONG.ROUTE 68 On motion of ~r. ~ullivan, ~econdod by Mrs' Cuzmi~, the ~oard uuthorlze~ the County Attorney ~to proceed ~Lth ~minment domain against the following property owner if the ~mount as zet oppczite their name is not accepted. And b~ it further. resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owner by registered mail on A~gUSt 24, 1989 of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said e~inent"~om~in. This action i~ On an emergency basis and the County intends to exeruise immediate right of entry, pursuant to Section 15.1-238+1 of ~he Code of 89-785 Salisbury Corporation, A Virginia Corporation T~x Map 7-9(1)Parcel 1 $3,592. Vote: Unanimous ll.I.4.b. ACROSS PROPERTY OF TARMAC VIRGINIA, INC. F0R ACQUtSI- TION OF A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AND A PERMANENT SEWER EASEMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER LINE On motion of Mr. Currfn, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board authorized the County Attorney to proceed with eminment 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 Administrator notify said property owner by registered mail on August 24, 1989 of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said eminent domain. Th~s'~acti'on 'is' on an emergency basis and the County intends ~ ~6is~ immediate right of entry, pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Tarmac Virginia, Inc. Tax Map 68-15 (1) Parcel 1 $200. 11.I.5. CONSENT ITEMS ll.I.5.a. APPROVAL OF WASTEWATER CONTRACT FOR WAKO SITE - BELL- WOOD ROAD 0FF-SITE WASTEWATER EXTENSION On motion of Mr. Sullivan, s~cond~d by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved the following wastewater contract: WA-KO Site - Bellwecd Road 0ffsite Wastewater Extension (Project $89-0415): Developer: WAKe Chemicals, U.S.A., Inc. Contractor: Castle Equipment Corporation Contract Amount: Estimated Total - $293,896.59 Total Estimated County Cost: Wastewater (Oversizing) $ 54,012.06 (Refund through connection fees) Wastewater (Offsite) ~$161'1:636.39 ~ ~ Development Utility Inducement Estimated Developer Cost: $ 78,248.14 Code: Refunds (Over$izing Wastewater Lines) - 5P-58350-890730 Utility Inducement Program (Offsite Wastewater Lines) - 5P-583'50=898'903E And £urther, the Soard authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for said contract, and to revise the original allocations under the Economic Development Utility Inducement Program as follows: Original New Allocation Allocation Code Water - $ 72,000.00 $ 42,636.25 5H-58350-898701E Sewer - $100,008.00 $161,636.39 5P-58350~898903E Total - $172,000.00 $204,272.64 Vote: Unanimous 89~7~6.!' ll.t.5.b, kPPRQVAL OF WASTEWAT~R CONTRACT FOR STONEWOOB MANOR, SECTIO~ 1 approved the following wastewater contract and authorized th~ 89-031~, Stonewood Manor - S~Gtion 1: Devel0per~ William ~. and G~ne H. DUral Total Contract C~s%: $118,370.00 (Refund thru connection ~ees) Code: 59-58350-890730 Vote: Unanimous ll.I.5.c. APPROVAL OF COnTaC%CT FOR TIMSBEP~R¥ CREEK TRUNK SEWER On motion of Mr. Sullivan, $~oen~ed by Mr. Mayss, the ~oard Administrator to execute ~ny neceSSary documents: Project ~ 89-0539 - Timsberry Creek TIunk Sawer ~x=ension to Hill spring Subdlvi~ion: ContraCtOr: R.M,C. Construction Company Contract Amount: Estimated Total - $37,022'60 Total ~stimated County Cost: Wastewater (Over~izing) - $ 5,034.34 {Refund thr~ ¢onn~¢ticms) Wastewater (Offsite) $17,865.28 {Refund ~hru oonnectia~s) Estimated Developer Co~t: Co~e: (Oversizin~) 5~-583~0-89~730 (0ffsite) 5P-58350-89Q733 APPROVAL OF WATER CONTkACT FOR RIVER RIDGE - OFF-SITE WATER LI~E EXTENSION PHASE I On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Nay~$, the approved ~hu following water contract and authorized the County 89-0748, ~i~er Kidge - Offsite Water Line Ext~nsio~ ~hase I=' Developer: Charles ~. and Jacqualine C. Total Contract Cost:~ .! Water (Over$1~i~g) $ 42,O&O Q~ Water (O~£site) $ 11,~59.75 (Refund thru Code~ (O~rsizing) 5H-583§0-890732 (Offaita) 5H-58550-890731 Vote: Unanimous 89-787 ll.I.5.e. APPROVAL OF WATER CONTRACT FOR WINDSOR PARK WATER LINE EXTENSION On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the following water contract and authorized the County Administrator to execut~ any necessary documents: 89-0062, Windsor Park - 0ffsite Water Line Extension: Developer: Millhiser Halsey Land Development Company Contractor: Bookman Construction Company Total Contract Cost: $108,931.00 Total Pstimated County Cost: Water.(Oversi~ing~ ,$ 247971.90 '(Refund thru e0nneotions) ~, ~-~,'-~'~-'.- Water (off$ite) $ 39,310.50 (Refund thru connections) Estimated Developer COSt: $ 44~645.60 Code: (Ovsrsizing) 5H-58350-890732 (Offsite) 5H-58350-890731 Vote: Unanimous ll.I,5.f. APPROVAJ~ OF UTILiTIeS CONTRACT FOR ROCKWQOD PAP.K APARTMENTS On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the following utilities contract and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents: Project % 89-~117 - Rockwood Park Apartments - Courthouse Road: Developer: Rockwood Forest Apartments Contractor: Couch Construction Company Contract Amount: Water - $ 62,099.00 Sewer - $ 89,805.00 Total - $151,904.00 Total Estimated County Cost: c~'.~--',~-Water (Offsite) · - $ 4,620.13 (Refund thru connections) Sewer (Offsite) - $,~0~406.07 (Refund f-btu connections) Estimated Developer Cost: $136,877,60 Code: Water (Offsite) 5H-58350~890731 Wastewater (Offsite) 5P-58350-890733 vote: Unanimous 11.I.5.~. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY PROM RONALD W. STAPLES On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board authorized the County Admlni~t~ator to execute the necessary deed of dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a 25 ' strip of land along Jefferson Davis Highway, (Route 1), from Mr. Ronald W. Staples. (A copy of said plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous ll.~.5.h. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG U.S. ROUTE 360 FROM SOVRAN 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 89-78~ conveyance of a 10' str~D of land along U.S. Route '360 from Sovran Bank, N.A. {A copy of ~aid plat is filed with the papers of this Board.} Vote: Unanimous l!.I.5.i. APPROVAL OF A CORP~CT~D DEED OF DEDICATION NORTH OF DRIVE FROM WOODLANDS On motion of ~r. Sullivan, Seconded by Mr, Mayg$, the Board authorized ~h~ County Administrator to execute the nesessary deed o~ dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, ~he conveyance of a variable width strip ef land sontainin~ 1.20~ acres, north of ~all Drive from Woodlands Associates, a~d authorize th~ County Administrator to ex,cute the necessary deed of correction. papers oS this ~oard.) 11.Ji REPORTS (A copy cf said plat is filed with the General Fund Contingency Acoc~nt~ Gene~a~ Fund.Balancm~ .Road Reserve Pund~, District Read a~d S~roe~ Light Funds an~ ~ease Purchases and a list of th~ public hearing~ ~oheduled. Mr. Rameey ~tated the Virqinia Department of Transportation has formally notified the County of the acceptance of the following roads into the State Secondary System: Ront~ 4466 (Mich~el~ Ridg~ ~Qad) - From ROUte 714 SEABOARD SMALL FARMS Route 4445 {Parkers kven~e) - From Route ~17 to 0.10 mile we~t Rout~ 617 ~%LL8%D~ - SECTION 2 RoUte 3391 (Swift Bluff Drive) - From 0.01 mile ROUte 3394 ~ile ~euth 3393 to southeast, cul-de-sac ...... (Circlestone Conrt) - From 0.02 mile 3393 to Route 3391 (South ~wlf~ ~1~f£ Court) - ~rom 0.01 0.07 EREVARD - SECTION 1 Route 4500 (Brevard Drive) - F~om Route 625 to 0.02 mile ~outhwest ~oute 4501 Route 4501 (Brevard Court) - From Route 4500 to ~ast col-dc-sac D.OB Mi. 0.08 ~i. Route 927 - Prom Reu=e 926 to east cul-de-sac; Project: 0927-020-264, MS01 0.~1 Mi. ll.K. LUNCH - SUNSET CAPE The Board recessed to travel to the Sunset Cafe for lunch. ll.L. MOBILE NOME REQUESTS 89SR0319 In Bermuda Magisterial D~trict;~BKTTY I~RWI$ requested -renewall of Mobile Home Permit 84SR126 to park a mobile home on property fronting the southeast line of Shop Street, approximately 6'40. feet southwest of Windsor Road, and better known as 4839 Shop Street. Tax Map 115-10 (3) Werth's Addition, Lots 69, 69A, 70, 71, and 7lA (Sheet 32). The first permit was issued on June 2, 1971. Mr. Jacobsen stated staff reco~u~ended approval of Case 89SN0319, subject to certain standard conditions. Ms. Betty Lewis stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Currint seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved Case 89SR0319 for seven (7) years, subject to the ~ollcwlng 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 mobile home".~ite~, her';shall ~any mobile~home be used rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot er parcel. 3. The'minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that ne mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to ~'exist~ng ' residence. 4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Wher~ public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Nome 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. 7. Any violation of the above conditione shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous 89SR0360 In Bermuda Magisterial ~istrict, ~c~J% ~TLL~ requested renewal of Mobile Home Permit 84SR127 to park a mobile home on property fronting the northwest line of Shop Stree~/~"approximately 270 feet west of Windsor Road, and better known as 4816 Shop Street. Tax Map 115-10 (5) Marquis Property, Lot 7 (Sheet 32). The mobile home has been parked on the property since 1961. 89-790 89SR0360, subject tO Certain standard conditions. ~s. ~ula Mills stated tho recommended conditions were approved Ca~e SPSA0360 for seven (7) years, subject to the 1. The applicant ~hall be the owner and e~¢upa~t of the mobile home. ~o ~o~ior 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 (I) mobile home. shall be permifted to b~ parked QD aa individual lot or parcel. end other zonlnq requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be oomplied with, excep~ that no..mobile ~0 additional permanent-~¥pe living space may bs added onto a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted hut shall no__~ b~ placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Wher~ ipublio (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be u~ed. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile ~om~ Permit, the applicant the Building Official. This shall b~ done prior ho the installation or relocation Of the mobile home. 7. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for Vote: Unanimous $9Dk05~3 · ,. · n ~ermu~a Ms~sterisl D~%rict, ~%DE AND KAMEN DA~I~ r~qu~te~ renewal of Mobile ~ome ~ermit ~45R164 to park a mobile hom~ on. propert? fronting the ~outh line of Dwight Avenue, approximately 400 feet east of Jefferson bavi~ ~ighway, and better known as 2523 Dwight Avenue. Tax Map 67-]2 (4) Bellwood Addition, Blook B, LOtS 24 and 2~ ISheet 23). The first permit was issued on August 22, 1979. . ~r. Jacobsen stated staf~ recc~mend~d approval of Case 89SR0363, subject to certain standard ~ondi~ions. Ms. Karma Davi~ ~tat~d the reconunended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. approve~ Case 89~A0363 for seven (?) years, subject to the following standard conditions: 1. Th= applicant shall bs the owner and ocoupant of t~h~ mobile home. mobil~ hom~ site, nor shall any ~obile hone be used for rental property. .Only one~ (1) m~bite' home shall, b~ pe~itted to be purk=d on an individual lot or paroel. ~9-791 3. The minimum let size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. 4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. ' 'AI~ mobi. le homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation, 5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the a30ove conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: ll.M. R~QUESTS FOR REZONING 89SN0296 In Matoaca Magisterial District, J.E. Bq~4PHI~IES, SR. requested Conditional Use to permit commercial automobile parking in a Convenience Business (B-l) District. This .requeSt lie~ on a 0.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 40 feet on the east line of Ch~s,terfield Avenue, approximately 200 feet .south of Lee Street. Tax ~ap 182-14 (1) Parcel 13 (Sheet 53/54)2 ' ' Mr. Jacobsen stated the app.licant has requested.a-thirty (30) day deferral of Case 89SN0296. Mr. Humphries stated he had requested a deferral mo that he may contact additional area residents to gather support for his request. There was no opposition to the request for s deferral. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board deferred Case 89SN0296 until September 27, 1989. Vote: Unanimous 89SN0291 In Matoaca Magisterial District, DOUGLAS R. SOWEP~ requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15). A single family residential subdivision is planned. This request lies on a 9.3 acr~ parcel lying approximately 1,000 feet off the east line of ~scada Drive, measured from a point approximately 2,700 feet north Of Raven Wing Drive. Tax Map 76 (1) Parcel 24 (Sheet 20). . Mr. Jacohson~ stated staff reco~cnended a thirty day d~f~rral of Case 89SN0291 in order to 'determine the' l~gal' status of the applicant's option to acquire the property and to'file a zoning application. Mr. Don Ford, representing the applicant, stated the deferral was acceptable. There was ne opposition to the deferral. On motion of Mr. Hayes, ~econded~ by Mr. Currin, the Board deferred Case 89SN0291 until September 27, 1989. 89-792 89S~02~4 (Amended) ~n Be~q~uda ~gisterial District, GEO~.4~ p. ~ON, JR. re- guested rezonin~ from Agricultural (A) and Community Business (B-~) to Residential (R-15) with Conditional Use Planned Development of 2.3 acre~, plus amendment to Conditional Qse Planned Development (Ca~ 875089) relative fo the use of public sewer and water on an adjacent 532 acre .parcel currently zoned Agricultural (A) and residential (K=lt] ~ wit~.Eonditional Use Plannad D~velopment. This request li~s On ~hree (~) parcels on a tot~l.'ef ~34.8' acres f~ont{ng'.approximately tO~ feet on north line of Cast Hundred ROad, appreximately 1,160 feet east of ~he intersection of M~adowvilte Road and East Hundred Road, al~o fronting appreximately 100 feet on ~ south line of Sunset ~oulevard, approz~a~ely 840 fee% east of ~eado~ill~ Road, aisc fronting approxlmat~ly 2,I00 feet on the n0r=h line of Meado~ille Road and approximately 3,1~ f~t on the ~uadrant o~ the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 118 (sheet declared a conflict of interest pursuant ~o =he Virqinia Comprehensive Conflict of In~er~s% Act and ,xcu~d himself from th~ meeting~ approval of Ca~e 899N0264, ~ubj%ct %o certain conditions and acceptance of proffered condi=ions. opposition present. On ~O~iOD of ~r; Sullivan, seconded ~y Mr. D~nieI~ the Board approved Ca~e SgSN0264, u~ject to the following conditions: 1. The foll~;ing conditions no%wi~hstanding, all conditions, bo~ impo~ed and proffered, o~ zoning approval for Condi- tional Use Planned Development (Ca~e 87~S03,9) shall apply to thm 2.3 acre parcel (Tax Map 118-9 (2} Westovur Farms, Lots 27 and 9~). Further, the 2.3 acre parcel Shall b~ in Con~ition~ 18 and 20 of Ca~e S7S039. [P) 2. The following conditions notwithstandinq, the plan pre- pared by J.K. Tigons and Assoclat~s, P.C., revise~ April 17, 1989, an~ th~ letter dated April 17, 1989, shall be considermd the ~ter Plan for the 2.3 acre parcel. Further, the latter dated April 17, 1989, shall be con- sid~red an amendment Co the Riv~rsbend Textual Statement 3. A u~ility ~$eme~t shall be dedica~e~ ~lon~ Route lO The specific location and width of th~ eas~ent ~hall be dete~ined by the Utilities Depar~nt at %h~ time of site plan review. (U} 4. With the exceptio~ o~ the clubhouse and as~ooiated'facil- :~ for a. p~riod not to~ exceed ten (10') ye'ars~ from date of approval or until the publi~ wa$%ewater system is avail- able, whichever occurs-first, public sewer shall ba used. The t~mpo~ary use cf a ~e~ic ~ystem shati b~ subject t0 :he approval of the Heal~ Depar~ent and any Conditions imposed by that agency, R~lative to ~he =~ of the public 89-798 waetewater system, the following improvements shall be provided: a. The developer shall extend.'.pubtic sewer from the Meadowville trunk sewer line to serve the prop- erty. The developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of this extension, from the existing terminus of the Meadowville trunk sewer line to the western side of the Route 10/Route 295 interchange, to include an additional sewer line under the interchange, if necessary, to provide sufficient sewer capacity to serve the entire development. b. ~he developer shall be responsible for acquiring any off-site easements necessary to extend public sawer to the site. (U&CPC) (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 6 of Case 87S039 and allows the uae of temporary septic tank and drainfield ~ystams for the club house, maintenance building, and shelter associated with the development of a golf course. ) 5. -~ With~:.th~ :exception .of '%he 'clubhouse and'associated fa¢il-~ ities which may use a well as a temporary meaeure for a period not to exceed ten (10) years from date of approval or until the public water system is available, whichever occurs first, the public water system shall be used. The temporary use of a well.and eventual abandonment of same shall be subject to the approval of the Health Department and any conditions imposed by that agency. In'conjunction with first schematic plan submission, an overall water and sewer plan for the entire development shall be submitted to the Utilities Department for review and approval. This plan shall depict the routing, sizing, and tie-in points for all mains and shall provide all data as deemed neces- sary by the Utilities Department. (U&CPC) (NOTE: ThUs condition supersedes Condition 5 of Case 87S039 and allows usc of temporary well for the club house, maintenance building, and shelter associated with the development of the golf oOurse. ) (NOTR: ~xcept as noted herein, all previously imposed conditions of zoning approval for Case 87S039 remain in effect.) And further, the Board accepted the following proffered condition: Installation of a temporary septic system will '~!adhere~.to :the County"s~new septic eyetemcpolicy. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Currin. Mr. Currin returned to the meeting. 89SN0298 In Bermuda Magisterial District, JO~N S. ~ requested rezoning from Community Businas$ (B-2) and General Industrial (M-2) to Come, unity Business (C-3) of 4.3 acres and to Heavy Industrial (I-3) of 5.2 acres. A commercial/industrial comple~ is planned. This request lies On a total of 9.5 acres fronting in two (2) places for a total of approximately 1,152 feat on the west line of Jefferson Davis Highway, also fronting on the north and south lines of Perrymont Road, and located in the 89-794 northwest and southwest quadra~s of ~he intersection of these roads. Tax Map 8I-4 (1) Percale t and 45 [Sheet 23). Mr. Ja¢obso~ stated the Planning Commission rocemmended approval' of Case 89SN0295 and ~coeptance o~ thc proffered condition. Mr. John Markham stated the recommendation was acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Coffin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, th~ Beard approved Case 89SN0298 and accepted the following proffered condition: Uses on that portion of the request to be rezon~d to ~eavy Industrial (I-~) shal~ be limited to those uses pe~itted in the Ligh~ Industrial (I-l) District and the following nde from the ~eavy Industrial {I-3) District: - Concrete, gyp~tlm and plaster products manufacturing. 89SN0299 In Clover ~ill Magisterial District! D. $4%M ~E~R~, JR. requested rezening from aesidsntial (R-7) to Corporate Office (0-2}. An office park is planned. This request lies on a 2.3 acr~ parcel fronting approximately 444 feat on'the west line of Statview Lane, appro×imataly 242 ~eet .north of Cloverleaf Drive. Tax Map 29-2 (1) Parcel 6 (Sheet 9'). : ~r. Jacobsen sta~ed the. Planning Commission reco~mmended approval of Casa On motion of ~r. Applegate, seconded by M~. Currin, the Board approved Case 89~N0299. Vote: Unanimous 89SN0300 In Midlcthian Magisterial District, J~NS~}N-~iMr r~qne$~ed rexoDing ~rom Agricultural (A) to Corporate Office (0-2). An office park is planned. This re~ues% lie~ on a acre parcel fronting approximately 308 feet on the north line of Midlcthian Turnpike, approximately 335 feet east of Johnston-Willi~ Drive. Tax Map 17-6 {1) ~arcels 4 and 5 (Sheet 8). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission approval Of Case ~9~N0300. Mr. ¢ary Pa~%erson, representing the appl±csnt, "stated the reco~endation was acceptabt~. There wa~ no oppositioa present. On motion of ~r. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. CuPric, the Board approved Cas~ @PSNO300. 89-795 89SN0301 In Bermuda Magisterial District, EDNA MAE CLAIBORNE requested amendment to Conditional Use (Cas~ 84S177) to permit expansion of a child care center. This request lies in an Agricultural (A) District On a 1.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 135 feet on the east line of Woods ~dge Road, approximately 4,100 feet south of Lawing Drive.' Tax Map 134-13 (1) Parcel 10 (Sheet 42). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0301, subject to certain conditions. Ms. ~dna Mae Claiborne stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved Case 89SN0301, subject to the followinq conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre- pared by J'~K~" Timmons and Associates, ~.C., dated Hay 12, 1989, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 1 of Case 84S177.) 2. Enrollment shall not exceed eighty {80) children. (P) (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 4 of Case 84S177.) 3. Prior to occupancy of the'expansion, additional pavement shall be constructed along Woods Edge Road to provide left- and right-turn lanes. (T) (NOTES: a. Except as noted herein, all previously imposed conditions oi approval remain in effect. b. Parking must be provided in accordance with Chapter 21.1, Section 21.1-217 (b) (3) of the zoning Ordinance. c. Prior to releas~ of any building permits, site plans must be submitted for review and approval. 89SN0313 In Matoaca Magisterial District, JOHN AND PEGGY HADCLIFF requested Conditional Use to permit construction of a second dwelling unit separated from the principal dwelling~ This request lies in an Agricultural (A) District on a 36.1 acre parcel lying approximately 1,000 feet off the ~outhern terminus of Penmar Drive. Tax Map 185-8 (1} Parcel 2 (Sheet 52). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0313, subject to certain conditions. Mr. John Radcliff stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved Case 89SN0313, subject to the following conditions: 1. Occupancy of the second dwelling unit shall be limited to guests or family members of the property owner. At no time shall the second dwelling unit be rented or sold as a 89-796 pzrmit such ranting or ~al~. (P) 2. Prior to issuance oi .an occupanay permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction indicating the requirement in Condition 1. (P) · 3. This use shall rum with the land. (~) 89SN0330 In Midlothian Magisterial District, VILLA~ ASSOCIATES request- ed amendment to Conditional Use ~lanne~ Development 83S142) to permit commercial access through residentially zoned propsrty. This request lies in Resi~entlal (R-7) and C0nt~unit~ Busines~ [B-2} Districts on a 54.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,145 feet on the east line of Mt. Pisgah Drive, approximately 620 fe~t north of Midlothian Turnpike, fronting approximately 755 feet on the north line of Old Buckingham Road, approximately 415 feet northeast of MidlotlliaA Turnpike. Tax Map 16-9 (1) Pere~l 44 and 58 (Sheet 7). ~r. Jocobsun stated the Plannin~ Cor~/~is~ion recommended approval of Case 89SN0330, subject to a mingle condition. Mr. Edward E. Willey, Jr., representing the applicant, ~he recommended conditions was acceptable. There wa~ no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Sntli~an, eeuonded by M~. Coffin, the Board app~ovo~ Cas~ 8~SNO3~O, s~bject to the following condition: Acces~ shall be as depleted?on the plan s~bmitted with th~ application. (~) (NOTES: a. This condition modifies Condition 5 ~. o~ Case 83S142, to permit a co~unercial ac~ through a r~quirod thirty foot buffer. : b. Except a~ ~oted h~reln, all previously impose~ conditions of Casa S3S142, as modified by subsequent amendments, remain in 88~N02~4 In Matoaca Maqisterial ' ' ' rezoning from Agricul=ural (A) to Residential (R-15~, A single family residential subdivision iS planned. This r~quest lies contrary to the ~owhlte/Route 288 Development Area Land Use and Transportation Plan which ~e$ignates ~hs request sate ahd ~ surrounding area a~ low density residential (I.5 unit,/acre or less); that residential development in this rural D0rti0n of not be supported by existing or planned pttblie facilities; and residential dsv~lopment An the County beyond the established 89-797 expansion of utility services and public facilities in undeveloped areas. Mr. Oliver Rudy, representing the applicant, stated he just recently became involved in this request, referenced a letter he had prevfou~ly written to the Board relative to this case and requested an additional thirty day deferral in order to meet with staff to resolve concerns and determine what options may be available to his client. Mr. George Beadles voiced opposition to the request for a deferral. Mr. Mayes stated the applicant's had just recently submitted proffered, conditions regarding this case which had not been revieWed~by the Planning Conuuissi6n as Of this date~ and he felt ~he...request should either be denied or. remanded to.fha Planning Commission to permit an opportunity for their review of those proffered conditions. 'Mr. Rudy stated his clien% was agreeable to having the case. remanded to the Planning Commission for further review. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board remanded Case 855N0204 to the Planning Commission for further study and review of the applicant's proffered conditions. Vote: Unanimous 89SN0182 Ia Bermuda Magisterial District, G.E. MI~EB AND W. W~I~S requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25]. A single family residential subdivision is planned. This request lies on a 235.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,420 feet on the south line of Chalklsy Road, approximately 800 feet south of Inge Wood Circle. Tax Map 96-12 (1) Parcel 10; Tax Map 96-16 {1] Parcels 7, 8, and 9; Tax Map 97-9 (1) Parcels 4, 5, and 20; and Tax Map 97-13 (1) Parcels 1, 2, and 3 (Sheets 31 and 32). Mr. Jacobsen pre,eared a brief history of Case 89SN0182 and stated the Planning Co~missien~ reoenL~ended approval of the case, subject to a sinqle condition, and distributed copies of proffers submitted by the .applicant which addressed minimum square footage, buffers and design of property adjacent to Chalkley Road along th~ northwest property line. Me stated at its June 28, 1989 meeting t_he Board adopted a policy to defer all zoning oases affected by the north-south freeway and Hopkins Road portion of the Thorou hfare Plan until such time as said Plan is adopted. He stated the Planning Commission had recommended that the Board adopt the ~horoughfare P!~n with an extension of Hopkins Road coming through this request site and that the Board had scheduled their public hearing for this Plan for September 13, 1989. Mr. Applegate stated that there is a Board policy in effect by which prohibits the Board from hearing any zoning cases affected by the north-south freeway and Hopkins Road portion of the Thoroughfare Plan until such time aB ~aid Plan is finalized and stated it would be necessary for the Board, prior to hearing Case 89SN0182, to suspend the rules to waive said policy. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes; the Board voted to suspend its rules to take up the matter of waiving a policy which prohibits the Board from hearing any zoning cases affected by the north-south freeway and Hopkins Road portion of the Thoroughfare Plan until such time as said Plan is fina~tized. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Nays: Mr. Sullivan. 89-798 Mr. Micas statmd the vote to suspend the rules was not unamimous and, therefore, the policy remained in effect and it would be necessary to d~f~r Caae 89~0182 until the · horou~hfere Plan is adopted. Mr. John G. D~oks, III, repreeenting the applicant, stated that at its June 28, 1989 meeting the Board deferred Casea 895N0110, Cas~ 89~0182, G. E. ~S ~ W. CO~ ~, because they ware both potentially impacte~ by th~ proposed Chester Vi!la~e and Thoroughfare 9lane, ~s we!l as the ~oar~ policy w~ich Was in effect which prohibited the Board from hearing any ~oning Ga~es affected by the north-uuu~h freeway and ~opkins Road portion of the Thoroughfare Plan until such time a~ sai~ Plan wa~ finalized. ~e stated ~hat at its July 26, 1989 meeting, '~ did not recall that when Case 89SN8110~ I~ that the rules were suspended to hear that par~i¢~lar case, he felt it only equitable ~o Cake the 's~e action with Ca~e 89SN0182.a~ was taken with Case 89.~N011~. Mr. Dani~I stated he understood that when Cas~ 89~NO]10 was heard b~ the Board it was outside the puTvlew o~ the area c~ th~ proposed Plans. ~r. Applegate r~a~ from the July 26, 1989 minute~ r~Iative to Case 89SN0110, which ~tated, Jacobsen ~tated at its June 28, 1989 m~eting~ the Board ~urtheT review and consideration of tho Thoroughfare Plan as relates to this project. ~s stated, ~b~equent to that the Planning Co~i$$~ou conducte~ a p~blic hearing on the deferred portion of the Thoroughfare Plan and ~ecO~ended that ~aid Plan d~ignate ~ north-south freeway east of the request ~ite; therefore~ the reco~ended Plan would not impact r~quest site. ~e stated the 91arming Co~ission reco~ended approval cf case 89SNQl10, subject to certain condition~ an~ acceptance of proffered conditions." ~r. ~icas stated it was datelined that Case 89SN01IO was not affecte~ by resolution approved at ~e Sene 28, I989 meeting adop=in~ a policy to de,er all zoning ca~ affected b~ ~ north,south freeway and Kopkins Ro~d portion of the Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Dick~ r~i~er~d his concerns regarding e~itable consideration of both casus~ stated %hat, with respect to f~eeway may v~ry ~ell ~rectly ~pact 'that property; r~fe~enc~d cna 'of the proffers from Ca~e SgSN0110 ~which indicated appropriate action would be taken to acco~odaTe the north~outh ~oad if it were determined by Boar4 action on Thoroughfare Plan that ~s nor~-~outh freeway would through that property; and stated that, even though ~h~ ~lanning co~i~sion recommendation with regard to Thorouqhfar~ Plan does not currently indicate a road corridor directly through ~at ~ruper=y on ~he present plan~ this Board has the authority to a~ju~t ~nd p!ac~ that noz~-scu=h freeway whe=ev~r it determines. ~. Currin stated he had been working with M~. Dicks with all zoning cases affected by th~ nora-south freeway portion the Thoroughfare Plan until ~uch time as said Plan is fin'alized would enable th~ Board to OOn$1~er Case 89S~0182; :hat the only issues he had discussed with Mr. Dicks had been in Case 89SN01S2; and he had ~orgotten that a 'unanimous vote was requlr~d to obtain a ~uspen~i0n oi the rules %o waive a resolution on any mat=er. ~en asked, Mr. Micas ~tated, in his opinion, case 89SNOI~2 is directly affected by the Chester Village Plan and would within the purview of tho effective Board bblicy. 89~799 Mr. Dicks stated the Chester Village Plan shows no impact to th~ subject property; however, the Planning Commission recoatmendation does indicate an impact to this property. Re stated the Chester Village Plan and the Planning Commission recommendation are not the same with respect to the potential impact on Case 89SN0182 and this case is being delayed by the Board policy and that ultimately there will be no impact, potentially, because the Board has not yet decided whether or. not~ithere~w~ll,be.a ~opkins, Road Extension. ~e stated that if~ there were to be no impact on the subject property then theoretically the nerth-south corkidor could be established to impact the Ironbridge Properties case and therefore it would seem to be an awkward position with regard to proceeding~ of the two cases, . . It was generally agreed that Case 89SN0182 be automatically deferred until September 13, 1989, in conformance with action of the Board regarding its policy to defer all zoning cases affected by the north-south freeway and Hopkins Road portion of the Thoroughfare Plan ~ntil such time as said Plan is finalized. 89SN0239 ~Amended) In Dale Magisterial District, ~Ei~NON E. LAPP,~D~, JR. requested Conditional Use to permit a recreation facility in a Residential (R-12) District. This request lies on a 6.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 123 feet on th~ ~ast lin~ of Irongate Drive, across from Briaroak Road, and also fronting approximately 130 feet on the south line of the future extension of Bryanbell Drive. ~ax Map 66~2 (1) Part of Parcel 25 (Sheet 22). Mr. Jacobsen stated at its July 26, 1989 meeting the ~oard deferred .Case 89SN0239 at the request of the Dale District Supervisor so that s~aff could arrange a meeting with the applicant and area residents to attempt to reach a. compromise regarding certain concerns. He stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of the subject request as they ~elt the proposed development was an incompatible use for the area and that other areas within the Ironbridge development would be more suited for the recreational facility. He stated subsequent to the meeting of staff/area residents, staff drafted additional conditions relating to screening/landscap- ing, noise reduction, hours of Operation, etc., and recommends approval of the request, subject to tho~e conditions, He noted Condition 15 should be corrected to require a 100 foot buffer along the "eastern" rather than the "~outhern" property line. Mr. Vernon LaPrade stated the recommended conditions were acceptable, with the exception of conditions 15, 18 and 20 which he requested be modified. He requested clarification with respect to condition 15 as to what constitutes viewing into the proposed recreational facility; stated he had no objection to the requirement for the fence, berm and vegetation but stated it would be very difficult to Construct screening of sufficient height to totally eliminate viewing the recreational building; addressed condition 18 with respect to the notification of the Planning Director a minimum of thirty days prior to a scheduled event and requested that portion of the condition be striken; and requested that the t~rm "bull horns" be deleted .from'cendition'20~with the ~tipulation that any when such type equipment is utilized during events at the facility that the use be directed away from the adjacent ~asen Woods property owners. Re further noted offers have been made to th~ Mason Woods residents giving an opportunity to join the subject recreational facility at the same fee charged Irongate and Stonebridge residents, which offer is effective until October 1, 1989. 89-800 Mr. Jacobsen stated the purpose for the berm, which is propoSEd ~inlmu~ of ~ix feet that could bo raise~, is noise reduction and the elimination of the view of g~ound level facilities for one particular homo which is the one most impacted by %his development and stated %he facilities to which he is referring would be specifically the surface of the tennis court and ~he surface of the swimming pool but not rather than the pond, etc. Mr. Stove Nelson, President of the Ircngate Civic Association, voiced ~upport for the proposed development as be felt it would be beneficial to the entire area, that the recreational facility would be on~ of quality and would not create ances, and stated, if this case were approved, they would continue to work with Meson Woods residents to resolve any issues/concerns that Nay arise. Mr. LaPrads noted that tho proposed recreational facility has been shown on every tentative plan and renewal for the subdivision since it was originally submitted in 1979. Ms.'Ardie Hall, MS.' AUgust Kramer, Ms. Pat ~offman and Mr. Jim ~all voiced oppozitfon to ~he proposed location of thc recreational facility as ~ey felt it inappropriate, that th~r~ w~r~ other ar~a$ within the development where ~ho rocroatlonal facility could be located, and that the proposed use was iDappropriate and would generate noise pollution and the tran~ility of their neighborhood. been planned since 1979 wi=h :en=a~ive planm, d~i~ns, roads, at~., already laid out; ~h~ ~ject site i~ the location ~hm recreational area wam originally planned; it would not be economically feasible %o ~tocate the facility at %his stage o~ developmen~ that he did not believe this develo~ent would r~ult in d~preciation and/or monetary lo~e~ for any of be~n desi~n~dand engineered for home sites but not recorded. Discussion, questions, cements ensued relative to a chronol~ u~ =h~ devalopmen= of Mason Wood~ S~Oivision as oompared to development of Irongate; relocation of the recreational ~acilit~; the impact of non-residential deveto~en% in u residential nelghborhood~ whether or no~ information wa~ avaitabl~ to Mason Woods resident~ regarding th~ proposed development plans when they purckased th~iI adjacent properties: the n~ber o~ racreetional facilities approved proposed request could be denied; that it was no= practical to ~equire r~%oc~tion 0% th~ recreational facility =o another location within the ~bject subdivision; that he could not recall any residential development in =he County which was n~ga~ively impacted Dy ~e development of a recreational re~ident~ of Macon Woods Subdivision; and reaffi~ed implementation of certai~ conditions and addressed the applicant's reque~t~ for modifica~ion~ to certain conditions, whi=h included the a44i~ion of a conaition regarding the nge of ~e propoged r~creahional facility being limited to me,ers of the rental of leasing cf any portion of the facility. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Cnrrin, the approved Case 89S~0239, s~bject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre- pared by Ports and Minter, ~rofe$$io~al Land Surveyors, dated February 24, 1989, shall be considered the plan for the indoor/outdoor recreational facilities. 89-801 2. Public water and sewer shall be used. 3. Hours of operation shall be limited from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Sunday through Saturday. 4. Parking shall be provided on the basis of one (1) space · for each ninety (90) square feet of combined swimming and wading pool areas, and four (4) spaces for each play- ing/tennis court. The design standards for off-street parking shall comply with Section 21.1-219 of the Chester- field County Zoning Ordinance. In addition, landscaping shall be provided for surface parking areas in accordance with Section 21.1-225. (P) (NOTE: The Zoning Ordinance requires that all driveways and parking areas for six (6) or more vehicles be paved. Also, the BOCA Code requires two-way driveways to be a minimum of twenty-feur (24) feet in width unless local agencies grant exceptions. On a routine basis, driveways serving parking lots containing up to fifteen (15) parking mpaces to be twenty (20} feet in width are permitted; and driveways serving parking lots of sixteen (16) to thirty (30) parking spaces to be twenty-two (22) feet in width.) 5. All exterior lights shall be arranged and installed so that the direct or reflected illumination does not exceed 0.5 foot candles above background measured at the lot line of any adjoining residential parcel. Light mtandardm shall be of a directional-type capable of shielding the light source from direct view from any adjoining parcel or public right of way. Further, no exterior lighting shall be,higher than twenty:(20) feet. (~) 6. One (1)- $ign~ not to exceed eight (8) square feet in area, shall be permitted at the entrance to the recreational area. Lighting for the sign shall comply with Section 21.1-266 of the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance and illumination shall be permitted only during normal hours of operation. A rendering of this sign shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to erection. (P) 7. There shall be no outside public address system or speakers. 8. In conjunction with site plan approval, a plan for the dam showing the primary and emergency spillway shall be sub- mitted for review and approval by the ~nvircnmental Engi- neering Department. 9. In conjunction with mite plan approval, dam failure analy- sis shall be performed on the mtruckure to determine if there are any negative e£fects downstream through Road. Any 100 year floodplains recorded in the area cannot be aggravated. 10. Prior to release of any c~rtificates of occupancy for the recreational facility; ownership and maintenance of the pond shall be established as the responsibility of private entities. (EE) 11. The pond shall have. a minimum of three (3) feet depth throughout the lake at least ten (10) feet from the edge. (EE) 12. The lake's spillway should be designed using concrete at grade design. I~ a stand pipe is demired to be utilized, it shall be no closer than thirty (30) feet to any shoreline measured at the normal water ~urfaee. (EE) 13. In conjunction with final site plan review and prior to the release of building permits, a detailed landscape plan 89-802 14. 16, 17. 19. for the site shell ~e Suk~mitted to the ~lanning Department for approval in accordance with edition ~1.~-228 (a) (2) of the Chesterfield County zoning Ordinance. This plan the ~reateat possible 'safety and ccnvenien~ from rounding residential develepmen~. A fifty (50) foot ~uffer ~hall be established and main- tained along the northern and SoUthern property Iin~s :the 'si~e. The area within the buffer strip shall be ieft in its natnral state or s~ppIemented in accordan¢~ with the landscape plan (see Condition 13). No access ~hall be permitted through this buffer, excep~ for th~ entrance driveways and bicycle paths, as required by the land,cape plan. In addition, those areas of th~ si~e along the western boun4ary of the existing puad, and adjacent to the proposed access drive, shall be landscaped in accordance with Section 21.1-228 (a) (1) cf the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance. A 100 foot buffer shall be provided along the eastern property line adjacent ~o Macon Wood~. The area within the buffer strip shall bs left in it~ nat~ra~ sta~e er supplemented in accordance with the landscaping plan (see Condition 13). ~o access ~hall be permitted through this buffer. Further, generally within the center of this buffer, a berm having a miulmu~ top elevation of 192 the northern property line and a minimum top elevatien ef 1~0 at th~ ~outhern property line, shall be provided. The berm shall have a minimum ten foot wide crest accommodate landscaping and/or a fence. ~elid screening, tn include a fence and landscaping, shall be provided along th~ top of the ~e~ of sufficient height to preclude views of ground level facilities such as tennis courts and the swimming pool from the firs~ story of the house on Lot 132, Section D of Macon Woods. Acros~ the remaining top of the ber~ evergreen tr~ss and shru~s keying a mini~ initial height of five (5) fe~t shall be planted. The rumaining buffer area shall be planted at 2 times density of landscapln~ C. Detailed plans depicting retirement shall be submi=~e~ ~o the Planning Department for a~roval prior to any clearing or grading of Dhe recreational facility, "pedestrian crossing" ~igns shall rmndering, including a location ~k~teh of the signs, shall bu submitted to ~OT and the Planning Depar~ent for a~proval prior to erection. Sidewalks shall be provided along the entire frontage o~ the r~quest site adjacent Irongate Drive including "future lot's" 1 through 6 depicted on the applicants proposed site plan. A~i=ional pavement shall be provided along Irongate Drive at it~ int~r~ectiun with the si~e access drive-to provide a le~t-t~rn lan~. In con]unction with approval of this request, th~ tlonal facility ~hall b~ p~itCe~ a max~ o~ fiZteen (iS} special ev~nt~ within any one ~1) year perlcd provided, that written notification is r~ceived by the Director of Plannin~ of the scheduled event~. Spic,al ~vent~ shall include but shall aoX. be limited' to pool partie~ tennis m~ts or other similar outdoor activities. Further, in no case shall special events be permitted ~o Operation of the proposed club hou~ f~c~tity beyond thm no~al closing time of 9;00 P.m. shall be limited to one activity or avant during any ~ev~n (7) day provided, howe~er, that in no ca~e shall sack activity Or 89-803 · e~ent be permitted to continue beyond the hour of twelve (12) midnight. Further, any activity conducted within the clubhouse facility which also includes the use of any outdoor facilities such ~as the swimming pool, tennis courts or appurtenances thereto shall be deemed a "special event" subject to the limitations stated in Condition 18. (BOS) 20. No ~wi~ meets, tennis meets or similar activities requiring the use of any outside speakers, public address systems or any similar communication equipment shall he permitted in conjunction with the proposed recreational facility. Hand-held public address systems shall be permitted only if the speaker is directed away from Mason Woods Subdivison. (B0$) 21. Use of the proposed recreational, facility shall be limited to members of the recreation association and their gueEt~ and approval of this Conditional Use shall not permit the rental or leasing of any portion of the facility. (BOS) 22. Site plans for this project shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Conunission. ~n conjunction with the s~bmittal of the site plan, the applicant shall notify the adjacent property owners in Mason Woods Subdivision of .. the date and time of the Planning Coramission's meeting to consider the site plan. (~0S) Vote: Unanimous $95N0271 In Midlothian Magisterial District, $~u~GARD OF ~_IDI~Y/~IA~ TI~RN~XKE requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 83S060) relative to signs. This request lies in a Light Industrial (M-I) District on a 2.9 acre parcel fronting approximately 97 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike across from Pooono Drive, also fronting approximately 230 feet on the south line of Robious. Road, approximately 70 feet east of Sturbridqe Drive. Tax Map 17-7 (1) Parcels 19 and 33 (Sheet 8). Mr. Poole stated the current request is for amendment to Condition 9 of Case 83S060 relative to signs. He stated, specifically, condition 9 of Case 83S060 limited the development to one freestanding sign, twenty-eight (28) square feet in area and approximately two (2) feet in height. He stated the applicant requests amendment to Condition 9 to erect a seventy-nine (79) square foot freestanding sign, approximately eleven (11) feet in height. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of a freestanding sign consistent with the East Coast Gas Station which was erected several months prior to the April Zoning Ordinance amendments. He stated this recommendation permits a maximum of one freestanding sign up to 100 square feet in area. He stated staff recommended denial of the applicant's requested sign and approval of the freestandin~ sign subject fo requirements of the new Zoning Ordinance which would restrict the freestanding sign to an area of 48.5 square feet. Mr. Harold Beck, representing the applicant, stated the Planning Commission recommendation was acceptable. There was no opposition present. There was brief discussion relative to whether or not the subject site was within the Overlay District; the reasoning for %he Planning Commission's reco~endation being based upon the East Coast sign located adjacent to the subject property; complaints from private citizens and adjacent businesses along commercial corridors regarding signage; the equitable enforce- ment of the Zoning Ordinance; etc. Mr. Sullivan stated ther~ is continuing on-going s~forts regarding signage and landscaping along Midlothian Turnpike; that one of the major r~pon~e~/oemplaints received, from citizens in the ROUte 58 corridor has been that th~ Ordinance is not being enforced on an ~quitable basis; and that he felt it was time that all businesses comply with the development standards. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Cut,in, the Board approved Ca~e 895N0271r subject to ets following condition: Signs shall comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinan=e, Sec~ions 21.1-265, 21.1-268, and 21.1-270. Zr. Applega~e requested the rules be suspended to add an E~ec~tive Session to the agenda. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin~ the Board amended the agenda to add %o the agenda an E~ecutive for consultation with legal counsel pu=suant to Section 2.1-Z44 la)(7) of ~he Code cf Vlrg~n~a, 1950, as amend,d~ regarding probable litigation with ~he School Board relating to after-school day ears and the con~rol and u~e Of County property u~ed for ~l.N. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. Sullivan advised the Board that ke has a financial interest in a corporation involved in day care program~, declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused hlmsel£ fro~ the meeting. On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Cnrrin, the Board went into Executive Session for consultation with l~qal counsel pursuant ~o Seotlon 2.1-344 (a)(7) of the Code · . . of Vir inia~ 1~50, as amended, regarding ~rohable l~e%gatzon with the School Roar~ rgl~ting ~o after-school day care and the control and of County property used for ~cheols. Ayes= Mr. Applegate, Mr. Cnrrin, Mr. Daniel and Mr, Absent~ Mr. Sullivan. On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~accnded by Mr. Currin~ the Board adopted the following re~oluTion: W~EREAS, th~ Board of Supervisors ha~ %his day adjourned into E~scu=iv~ Session in accordance with e formal vote of the Board, and in accordance with the provisions of tAe Virginia Freedom of Information Act~ and W~EREAS, the Virginia F~eedom of Information Act effective July 1, 1~9, provides for certi£icaticn that Such Executive Session was conducted in conformity with law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County ~upervisors does hereby certify that to the best of each member's knowledge, i! only public business ma~tsrs lawfully ~x~mpted from open meeting requirements under the Freedo~ of Information Ac= were disoussed in th~ ~×ecutivs Session to which this c~rtificatien aD, lies, and ii) only such public 89-~05 business matters as were identified in the Motion by which the Executive Session was convene~ were heard, discussed or considered by'the B6ard. No member dissents from this certifi- cation. The Board being polled, the vote wae a~ follow~: Mr. Daniel - Aye. Mr. Mayes - Aye. Mr, Currin - Aye, Mr. Applegate - Aye. Mr. Sullivan - Absent. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board adjourned at 4;10 p.m. (EDT) until 2:00 p.m. on September 13, 1989. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. 89-806