The URL can be used to link to this page

09-13-1989 Minutes1989 Supervisors in Attendance= Mr. O. H. Applegake? Chairman Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr., Vinn Chairman Mr. ~arry G. Daniel Mr. Jesse J. Mayes Mr, Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator ~uperviaori%bsent: (dus tn illness) Staff in Attendance: Ms. Amy Davis, Exec. Assr. to Co. Admin. Mrs. Doris DeEart, Asst. Co. Ad, in., Intergovern. Affairs ~s. Joan Delezal, Clerk to the Beard Chie~ Robert Fire Department Mr. Bradford ~. Deputy Co. Management Services Mr. William H. ~owell, Dir., Gen. Services Mr. Thomas E. Jacobson, Dir. of Planning Ms. Mary Leu L~le, Dir. of Acnountlng Mr. Robert Maeden, Deputy Ce. Human Mr. R. J. McCracken, Mr. Richard McElfish, D~r. Of Env. Eng. Mrs. M. Arline MeGuire~ Treasurer's Office Mr. Htevs Micas, Ce. Attorney ~rs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of Services Mr. Richard Deputy Co. Admiu., DQv~lopm~n~ MS. Jean Smihh~ Dir. of M~. Jay Stegmaier, Dir. of Budget Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Dir. of Parks & Dr. Rob~xt Wagenknecht, Dir. of Libraries Mr. David Welchou~, Dir. of Utilities M~. Richard Chief, Planning Mr. F=~rlck Willis, Dir. of ~uman Resource Management The Board mo% a~ the Cour~hnuse A~ministratien Building at p.m. (EDT~ end then traveled to the Half Way House for dinner with moaners of the Rstait Merchants Association of Greater Rishmend. 89-B07 Mr. Applegate called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (EDT). INVOCATION Mr. Applegate introduced Mr. Millard D. "Pete" Stith, Jr., Director of the Parks and Recreation Department, who gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF Tm ~Nl'r~D STATES OF Scout Hayes Wyngarden, Troop 894, lead the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. 4. APP~OVALOF~[INO.r~S On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Hoard approved the minutes of August 23, 1989, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous 5. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S ceremENTS Mr. Ramsay introduced Ms. Ellen Reinhardt of WRVA Radio who will be covering Chesterfield County news. Mr. Daniel introduced Mr. Willis Blackwood, Chairman of the Chesterfield Business COuncil, who presented a report relative to a feasibility study for the funding of Route 288 from the terminus of Powhite Parkway to ~idlothisn TurnpiKe. Mr. Willis related the findings of the committee established to perform the study indicating the approximate cost for this construction to be approximately $70,000~000 with no federal funds available at this time. He stated approximately $1,000,000 has been allocated for the right-of-way determination and some preliminary engineering; however, the project is listed as Priority #5 on the County's transportation plan. He stated the right-of-way acquisition is 40% of the total cost of the project or approximately $28,000,000 and after reviewing the various alternatives regarding the funding of the project, the Business Council felt that none of the funding methods were acceptable; that such funding methods would be detrimental to the County's economic welfare, future economic development, quality of life and would place an unnecessary strain on the finances of the County and its citizens. He stated with the portion of Route 288 from the terminus of Powhite Parkway to Midlothian Turnpike built solely by itself, in addition to the existing Route 288 sections currently reedy for use, the traffic volumes just would not justify the expense. He stated the committee recommends that a mechanism be developed whereby there could be sufficient influence at the State level to provide funding for this project and all of Route 288 crossing the river and intersecting with 1-64. He stated this should best be handled by a transportation plan which should be considered on a regional basis and not just within t/ua boundaries of Chesterfield County. He stated the Committee does not feel this section sheuld be a priority for the County but did want to emphasize that they solely support the construction of Route 288 from th~ Powhite Parkway across the James River to 1-64. Ar. Daniel expressed appreciation to those involved for their diligent efforts in this endeavor. 89-808 There ware no Board Comnittea Reports at this time. ?. P~EOUE$~.g T~ POSTPONE ACTION, F24ERGENCY ADDItIOnS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board added to exit%lng Item t2.F.4., Request for Bingo/Raffle ~ermit, a request from tha VeLerans of Foreign Wars, Post 2239 for a bingo/raffle permit; was provided with revised Co~si~eration of a Request from sr. Glen Pars0ns of CreenhiI1 ~ociates for ~ermission to Ins~ali Roadway Improv~n%~ Existing 50 FOOt Right-of-Way; de~errad un%il October 11, 1989 Item 10.B., A~op~ion of a Policy fo~ 0%ili~a~ion Wastewater ~rea~ent Systems; deferred un~il October 11, Item ll.G.i,, Approval of Cooperative Agreement ~ong Chesterfield, Po~hatan, ~elia and C~b~rland Counties and Appomattox River Watar Authority Jurisdictions for Planning of Lake Genito Water Impoundment; moved Item 10.A., Case 89S~0182 - ~. E. Miles ~d W. ~tney Wells, ~ermuda District, OUr of s~qu~n~ t~ be heard ~edia~ely following Item ll.B., ~ublic Hearing for Reconsidaration of the Portion of the Thoroughfare Plan Dealing with the PrO~osed North-South Freeway Corridor Between ~he Prog0sed No~%h-~0uth/=as=-Wes= ~r~eway Interchange and Route 18 and th~ Prcpo~d ~opkins Road Extension from Route l0 to old Lane; and adopted ~he agenda, as amended. Ayes: ~r. Applega~e, ~r. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Absent: Mr. ~ullivan. Mr. Applegate ~=ated that Mr. Sullivan wan absent due to recent illness and wishad him a speedy r~covery. 8. ~E$OLUTIONS ~ ~PEC/-%L I{~COGRIT~O~S ~.A. ~R. ~AY~S WYINGARD~, UPON ATTAINING RANK 0P EAGLE scenT On motion af Mr. Applagate, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ the Boa~d adopted the following resolution~ WHEREAS, The Boy Scout~ o~ America wa~ incorporated by Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, I910; and WHEREAS, The Roy Scout8 of America was founded to promote citizenship ~raining, per~onal development and fitness of indi- viduals; and WHEREAS; After earning at laast twenty-one merit badges in a wi~e variety of fields, serving in = laadarship position in a troop, carrying out a ~ervica project beneficial to his ~pirit and living up to the Scout Oath and Law; and WHEREAS~ Eayeu Wyngard~n, Troop ~94, has accomplished Chose high s~andarda of commitment and has reached the long-sOught goal of Eagle Scout which is racei~ed by less than ~wo percent of those individuals entering the Scouting move- WHEREAS, Growing through his experlence~ in Scouting, learning the las~ons o~ responsible citizenship and priding himself on the ~reat acccmplishmants of his County, ~ayes Wyngarden is indead a member cf a new generation of prep&f=d young citizens of whom we can all be very proud. ~OW, TEEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby e~tenda its congratutahion~ to ~ayes WyngardeD and acknowledges the good fortune of the 89-809 County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its citizens. Ayes: Mr. Applegat~, Mr. Cnrrin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent= Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Cut,in presented th~ ex,outed resolution to Mr. Wyngarden and commended him for his outstanding achievement. 8.B. ALLIED TECRNICAL CENTER FOR ASSISTANCE TO CRESTERFIELD COUNTY AND LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, The Allied Technical Center has assisted Chester- field County by performing chemical analys~s on a nunuber of occasions; and Wt~EREAS, The Allied Technical Center has assisted in the mitigation of hazardous materials situations through these analyses; and WHEREAS, The Allied Technical Center has provided the valuable service at no cost to Chesterfield County; and WBEREAS, The Allied Technical Center has consistently supported the Chesterfield County Local Emergency Planning Committee through their consultant efforts. NOW, T~EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes the outstanding contributions of the Allied Technical Center and expresses On behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, appreciation for this invaluable assistance to the County and its citizens. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Currin presented the executed resolution to Ms. Debra Turner, Supervisor of Safety at Allied Technical Center and a member of the Chesteriield County Local Emergency Planning Committee and Mr. Mike Burnett, Manager of Snvironmental and Safety Divisions for Allied Technical Center and expressed appreciation for the valuable services provided by the Center to the County. 8.C. CHESTERfielD C~ILD D~V~L0PMENT C~NTERS, INC. FOR PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TOWARD THE SUMMER CAMP FOR EMOTIONALLY CHALLENGED YOUTH On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution= WHEREAS, One iunctlon of the Special Populations Section of the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department is to provid~ therapeutic programs for emotionally challenged youth of Chesterfield County; and WH=B=AS, The Special ~opulations Section developed Camp Chesterfield Challenge, a summer day camp program specifically for youth with behavior disorders; and W~RRA~, The Chesterfield Child Development Centers, Inc. has generously donated financial support enabling the imple- mentation of this three week program. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Super- viso~s does hereby recognize Chesterfield Child Development 89-810 centers, Inc. for its generous contributions. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board Of Supervisors dee~ hereby ~xpres~ it~ sincere ~ppreciation an~ qrati~u~ to Chesterfield Child Development Genters, Inc. for its community concern and support fox the emotionally challenged youth of chesterfield County. Ayes: Mr. Applegafe, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. A~sent: Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Currin presented the executed resolution to Mrs. Jean Copeland o~ Chesterfield Child Develepmenh Centers, Inc., and expressed appreciation for the flnancial support provided by this organization for Camp Chesterfield Challenge. 9. ~%RING$ OF CITIzeNS O~ U~SC~I~DU~ZD I~AT~RS 'OR CLAIMS 10. DEFERRED ITEMS 10.C. APPOINTmeNTS - A~O~ATTOX BASIN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION On motion of Mr. Dani~I, ~econd~d by Mr. Applegate, the ~oard appointed ~r. Jesse J. ~ayes, representing the Board of Supervisors, and Mr. C. F. Currln, Jr., representing the business commnnlty, to serve on the Appomattox Basin Industrial Development Corporation (ABIDe0), whose terms are effective October 1, 1989 and e~pire September 30, 1990. Ayes: ~r. Applega=e, Mr. Carrie, Mr. Daniel and ~r. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. 11. PUBLIC BEA/kTNG~ ll.A. TO CONSIDER THE CHESTER VILLAGE PLAN Mr. Sale stated this date and time ha~ been scheduled for a public hearing ~o consider adoption of ~ha Chester Vi!la~e Plan. Mr. Rick Wilhelm~ Chief of Comprehensive Planning, presented an overview of the proposed Plan, including major components addressing the area's hi~tory; e description o~ the area koday~ planning constraints and opportuniCies~ dissussion of how such a Plan may bs implemented; ~lan r~commendations addressing land use a~d transportation; deYe~pmsnt and design (for certain areas); historic resources; and public facilities, whish included: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. single-family residential uses ~or the greater share Of the community; expansion of a mixed us~ village center fo~ the intersection e~ West Hundred Road with Barrowgate Road/Cee%er Street; natural or artificial buffers for divisions b~weea most lan~ uses; transitional land use categories between high-intensity land use categories and low-intensity categories; a mixture of single family residences an~ limited office u~es for the Ro~te 10 corridor east of th~ village center; improved screening and buffering~ underground lees%isa of future utilities, shared access, improvement to Curtim 89-811 Street railroad crossing and pedestrian improvements for the entire study area; 7. closer study of Centralia and Jefferson Davis Highway corridor; 8. special standards within~ the village center develoument and design aimed at promoting the village appearance and scale, pedestrian amenities, architectural cohesiveness and street activity to include a central village square or plaza, augmented landscaping including street trees end landscaped gateways, street furniture including benches and lighting, ~ontinuous street facades, sidewalks, no portable signs or billboards; 9. special standards for Route 10 corridor development and design aimed at maintaining the residential appearance and scale; parking on sides or, if nece$$ary~ at rear of buildings for non-residential conversions; careful screening of parking facilities from view; and 10. a program of preservation for the area's historic resources and looation of public £aeilities within the village center. He stated the three major proposed roads aa recommended by the Planning Cor~mission were 5opkins Road Extension, the old abandoned railroad bed corridor on t_he northwest proposed to be converted to a road and Centre street ~xtended. Mr. Hugh Cline, member of the Chester Village Advisory Committee, presented a brief history of the formulation of the Advisory Committee; articulated concerns of the affected communities as conveyed to the Advisory Committee; outlined the proposed Chester Village Advisory Committee's recommendations for land use and transportation needs as they directly affected the Chester area; stated the Chester Village Advisory Committee feels that the proposed staff transportation recommendation permits arterial development in a checker-board fashion which separates a major portion of the Chester Village; could possibly result in strip development along arterial roads that could destroy the character of Che~ter which the Village Plan is intended to preserve and foster; and urged the Board to accept and approve the Chester Village Advisory Committee's recommendations to ensure a proud and prosperou~ Che~ter Village. When asked, approximately eight members of the Chester Village Advisory Committee stood to be recognized. Mr. Applegate stated that, since the public hearing items relating to the Chester Village Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and amendments to the Zoning Ordinance addressing the Chester Village Overlay District were so closely associated, public comment would be heard regarding each individual item prior to any Hoard action. Ms. Dorothy Armstrong commended staff for their diligent efforts in this endeavor; stated she felt the consultant's report did not provide sufficient information from which to make a decision regarding streetscapem for Chester; stated the Committee was so pressed for time that there was no time to review in detail the Second Draft Of the Plan; that the Committee was called upon to make road decisions without appropriate data at hand: addressed issues relative to road plans for Route 10/~undred Road development, primarily between Osborne Road and Route 1 corridor; that the aim of the Advisory group include the beautification of Chester in its goals; stated there was a lack of sufficient detailed criteria to protect the residents of the Chester Village area; protection of historic buildings; street light, walkway and signalization design; maximum heights of buildings along the Route 10 corridor; requested that there be an official designation as to where Eundred Road ends and Ironbridge Road begins; that 89-812 abstract copies of the Chester Village Plan be provided for af£aeted area citizens or others interested in the Plan, and that action be taken to ~liminate the construction dust infiltrating homes in the area~ .and voiced support for the Chester Village Advisory Committee's recommendations. Mr, Kenneth Nikolaisen, representing Chesterbrook Farms Subdivision, requested the Board consider incorporating into the Plan a requirement for site and sound barriers along the abandoned railroad bed right-of-way if that area were to be developed into a road. There being ne one else to address the proposed Chester Villagp Plant the public hearing was closed. ll.B. RECONSIDERATION OF TEE ~ORTION OF THE THQKQHGHRAR~ P~AN DEALING WITH THE PROPOSED NORTE-SOUT~ FREEWAY CORRIDOR SETW~EN THE ~ROPO$~D ~ORTH-SOUTH/EAST~WEST FREEWAY INTER- C~ANGE AND ROUTE 10 ~ND T~E PRO~OHED HOPKINS ROAD EXTEN- SIO~ FROM ROUT= l0 TO OLD LANE Mr. Sale stated this ~ate and time had been advertised for a public hearing to reconsider the portion of the Thoroughfare Plan ~oaling with th~ proposed north-south freeway corridor b~tween the proposed north-south/east-west freeway interchange and Route 10 and the proposed Hopkins Road Extension from Route l0 to Old Lane, Mr. M~Cracken presented an overview of the ~lanning Co,mission's reco~ndation for the portion of the Thoronqhfare ~lan ~ealing with the proposed north-south freeway corridor between the proposed north-sough/east-wast freeway interchange and Route l0 and th~ propo~d. Eopkins Road ~×%ension from Route 10 to 01d Lane. There was brief discussion relative to the defimitiun of a 90 foot right-of-way: who=her or not a 90 foot riqht-of~way would be suffici=nt for fOUr lan=s Of pavement; th~ location of the 200 foot1 section from Route 10 northwardly as applicable to thi~ portion of t~= Thoroughfare Plan; dmfinition of controlled access roadway; ets. Dr. Wayne Vires, representing residents of the comz~unities of Euxton, Lakewood Farms, Antumn Oaks~ Chalkley Road~ Centralia, Ecoff Road, Chesterbroek Farms, Carver ~aigh=s an~ ~rand~r~ Bridq~ Read ad~acen~ ~o ~h~ propoesd ~Opkins Road Extension, VOiCed opposition to the Hopkins Read Extension as a major thoroughfare through rebidential COmmunities from 01d Lan~ to Route l0 and the continuance of Bnpkine Road south of Route us ~ither a 200 foot limit=d ucce~ road or a 90 foot ~rterial road, Be urged the Board to adept the Che~ter Village Advisory Committee's recommendutions that !) the northern end of the Seaboard Coastline railroad bed and be no more than four lanes ~rom the propose~ eas=-w~st freeway to State Route lO with more than 9Q feet of required right-of-way; 2) th~ cont~nna[ion of the propose north-south road north of S~ate Route continue along ehe former Seaboard Coastline railroad bed and Road be constructed to screen %he ex~ting $~b~ivisions~ ~) r~id~ntial, m~an~erinq two-lane road be constructed in appropriate ¢orri~0r t0 aocess $ta~e Route 10 from Ecoff Avenue only if it is proven %hat thio road is needed for ~ proposed elementary school on Ecoff Avenue and %hat :ho righ=~o~-way for railroad b~d b~ a residential, meandering two-lane road limited =u a 50 iuut ac~ired right-of-way with no through ~ruck ~fa~fie and that p~ovisions be m~de to correct the already severe and dangerous traffic problems existing at the inturuection 0f Centrulia and Chester Roads; 5) Chalkley 89-813 not be widened; and 6) no new arterial and/or limited access roads entering State Route 10 from the south, west of the railroad bed to Chalkley Road extension be created. When asked, approximately 200 people stood in opposition to the proposed Hopkins Road Extension. Dr. George Partin, Chairman of the Matoaca District Advisory Council; Ms. Barbara McHale of Lakewood Farms; Mr. Miles Waugh, a member of the Chester Village Advisory Committee; Mr. Tom Tennille Of Centralia Road; Ms. Ann Tennille of Centralla Road; Ms. Sharon Gregory of Chester; Mr. Jerry Harwell, of Hopkins Road; Mr. Larry Koon~ of Chalkley Road in the Matoaca District; Mr. Phil Cunningham, a resident of Chalkley Road in the Bermuda District; Mr. Tom Miller; Mr. Jack McHale, a resident of the Buxton/Lakewood Farms Subdivision; Ms. Pat Hubbard, a resident of Chesterbrook Farms; Mr. Horace Sims, a resident of Carver Heights; Mr. Ralph Jone~ of Lakewood Farms; and Mr. Oliver Rudy, representing Continental Land Sales, voiced support for the Chester village Advisory Committee's recommendations as they felt approval of the Planning Commission's recommendation would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of their community; depreciate property values and in some instances split the neighborhood; that such a road goes nowhere and would direct traffic from Route 10 into an area wherein a bottleneck already exists; the road would have to be constructed over environmentally protected wetland and would be astronomically expensive to construct which expense would most likely be borne by the public; the proposed road would adversely affect any historical and/or archaeological significance the. area may have; the proposed road would have a direct negative impact on the safety and welfare of children who would attend the proposed Ecoff Elementary School, if constructed; that there is no apparent justification for Bopkins Road Extended to serve as a major artery since two major north-south networks already exist in the eastern end of the County; etc. Copies of position statements were submitted to the Board to be entered into the record. Dr. Harry Weinstook, 'Ms. Zula Weinstook, a member of the Chester Village Advisory Committee and Mr. Rozier L. Thornton, a member of the Chester Village Advisory Committee, voiced support for the proposed Thoroughfare Plan es recommended by the Planning Commission as they felt it would alleviate traffic congestion in the area and would be beneficial to the entire County. There being no one else to address the proposed Thoroughfare Plan, the public hearing was closed. It was generally agreed to recess for five minutes. Reconvening: ll.C. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TNE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD{ 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING CHAPTER ~, THE ZONING ORDINANCE~ ARTICLES I, III AMD III.A Mr. Jacobsen stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to con~id~r an ordinance to amend the County Code by amending Chapter 21 of the Zoning Ordinance, Articles I, III and III.A, which amendment will establish a Village Overlay District with special development standards for the Chester commercial district and Route 10 corridor east of Chester and will also amend existing standards for the Village Overlay District generally. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance. 89-814 ·here ~einq no one to ~peak in favor of or against the proposed ordinance, the public hearing was closed. ll.D. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TNB CODE OF TNE COUNTY OF CEES?ERFIBLD~ 197~, AS ~ND~D, BY ~2~ENDING CHAPTER 21.1., THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLES 4, 5~ 6~ ~ ~ND l0 M~. JRcobso~ ~%ated this date and tim~ had b~en advertised for a public hearing to censider an ordinance to amend the County Code by amending Chapter 21.1, th~ Zoning Ordinance, Axticles 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10, which amendm%ent will e~tablish a Villaq~ Diskri~t with ~p~cial d~velopment standards for the Chester commercial district and Route 10 corridor east of Ch~st~T, and will a~$O ~e~d ~×istlng standards for village Districts generally. Ha ntat~d the Planning Commission ~eCOmmended approval of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Bedford Woodard, J~., owner/eperatox 0~ Truly Motor Company, expressed concern %hat approval of ~be propose~ ordfnanc~ would change his ~oning and requested the Board ~iva consideration to his concern~ when making their decision. heiqht~ of building~ in the proposed ordinanc~ not being consistent with the pxoposed Chester Village Plan recommenda- tions; the coding of property, etc. There being ne one else to address th~ matter, the public After a brief discussion, it ~as generally agreed Item 10.A., Case ~95~0182, G. E. MIL~S ~ W. CO~_~NEY ~ALB, Bermuda District, would be considered after action on Items ll.A., ll.~., ll.c. and ll.D., respeu=ivel~, since all the items were infer-r~lated. Mr. Applegate stated the Chair would n~w hear Board connnents and/or recommendations en ea=h item ran9eotively: intended to ~uppor~ the pr0po~ed Zoning Ordinance amendments discussed the right-of-way width for %h~ north-sou~h freeway ~tate, "Except as specifically shown on %his Plan, it is the Chalkley Road, Centralia. Road, ~ha Csx railroad line and abandoned railroad line shall n~ver be rescued to commercial rezoning in ~hls area. Commercial re~oning in this az~a would violate both tbs suSstanc~ and ~pirit of this ~lan had not had the ~enefit o~ reapendin~ ~c-rit and should hav~ an opportunity to addre~ th~ amendment. ~e stated he it is not very enforceable unless the acquisition of ~ight-of-wuy is possible and, at this point, there are no funds available to acquire said right-of-way; addressed concerns relative to the wetlands issue relating to the extension of Hopkins Road; discussed the difference between the staff road plan and the Advisory Group plan; the increased traffic volumes and patterns of traffic in the affected area as related to future development; etc. Mr, Currin addressed Mr. Harwell's concerns relative to the extension of Hopkins Road impacting the development of his property; etc. Mr. McCracken stated there was virtually no way staff could indicate to Mr. Harwell the exact corridor for that roadway until either the County or the State obtained fUndS tO design the road, conducted public hearings and acquired the right-of-way. Mr. Applegate stated that, until the right-of-way was acquired, Mr. Harw~ll was at liberty to do whatever he wished with his property. There was further discussion relative to the widening of Chalkley Road with respect to reserving the 70 foot right-of-way to prevent road stripping and locating structures within the setback distance of said right-of-way; that roads are not defined until funding sources have been identified; that Hopkins Road ~xtended is expected to be constructed by developers as they develop their pnoperty; the suggestion that the School System would have to widen Hooff Road; no billing of the School System for the extension of Hopkins Road; etc. Mr. Daniel suqgested an amendment to the proposed Thoroughfare Plan to state, "It is intended that the extension of Hopkins Road as shown on this Plan will be built with private funds as part of an overall development plan. Any development in the area of the Sopkins Road Extension will be expected to construct its proportionate share cf' the extension". Mr. Daniel asked staff to again explain the difference between the staff road plan and the Advisory Group plan. mr. Currin expressed appreciation to the members of the Chester Village Advisory Co~u~ittee for their diligent efforts relating to the Chester Villag~ Plan and commended them for their many hours toward the project; presented a brief history as to the inception of the proposed Chester Village Plan and subsequently the formation of the Chester Village Advisory Committee; stated he disagreed with the CVAC recommendation regarding Hopkins Road Extended and preferred to see it remain as designated on the existing Central Area Land Use Plan because 1) it was adopted in 1986 by the previous Planning Commission and Hoard of Supervisors after hiring consultants to study the area and provide recolm~endations and conducting public hearings, 2) the fact that there are no State funde to constrnct roads drastically needed by Chesterfield County and this Board has requested that all subdivisions built within areas that have propoeed roads dictated by land use plans, that were approved by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, be built by developers, 3) the Hopkins Road Extension goes through virgin land and will affect no more or less people than the proposed abandoned railroad bed route, 4) without the aopkins Road Extension, Chalkley, Ecoff and Centralia Roads will be taxed by more traffic and it cannot be guaranteed that State maintained roads will not be widened, 5) the proposed subdivision off Chalkley Road cannot legally offer cash proffers because the County was not permitted to accept cash proffers on cases filed prior to July 1, 1989, 6) concerns regarding having to condemn property for roads because existing landowners have stated no inclination to develop property and it only adds to the potential cost to the taxpayers in the County if in fact property has to be condemned. Mr. Currin proposed three 90 foot roads starting at the Lewis Road/north-south freeway interchange instead of one road. These roads would have hypothetical destination points of Lewis Road with possibly the Courthouse area being the final poin't of destination, the Hopkins Road Extension with Chippenham Parkway 89-816 being the fine{ point of destination and the abandoned railroad bed with Route 28~ being the ~inal destination point. Mr, CurriD stated a certified engineer had estimated the cost to cross the creek on Hopkins E~ten~don to be approximately $106,000 vmrsue approximately $3-4 million others had suggested. He stated the creek would have to be crossed with in the affected corridor. Mr. Currin stated that ~eund barrier~ would be appropriate along the abandoned railroad bed where %here are ~ubdivi~ione involved including both sides cf Route 10 a~ well as any other section where there are groups e£ homes. He stated he understood the WoOdards' concer~s and would suggest the ~oard undertake a re~on~ng ef their property and concurred with Mr. Daniel's suggested amendments to the land use plan and the Thoroughfare Plan. Mr.. Currin move4 to initiate a rszoning o~ the Waodard property and to adopt the followin~ resolution regarding the Chester Villa~ Plea as recen~nded ~y the Planning Commission: WHEREAS, Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 4, of the Code Vdt inia 1950, a~ a~e.d~d, requires the preparation ~nd adop- ~ a conprehenmive plan for all lecal governments, and allows adoption and amendment o~ this plan in parts; and ~RF31S, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County adopted a comprehensive plan on June 22, I977, originally called ~he General ~lan ~00., and now referred to as the Plan ~or Chesterf±eld~ which pl&n? aL amended# includes ~he fallow- inq parts, as amended: the Northern Area Lan~ Use and Trans- portation P~an? ~he Southern Area Land Use and ~ransportation Plan, the ~aetern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, the Western Area Land Use and Tranmportaticn Plan, the Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan, the Plan Tar Public Facilities, the wa~er S~stem Master Plan, the Was~ewater System Ma~ter Plan, at, the Capital ~EREAS~ ~e Board of Supervisors requested that Planning Co~i~sion review ~he e~isting Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, a ~art o~ th~ Plan for Chesterfield, be needed; and of the Che~ter Village ~lan ms an ~n~ent to ~a~d Dart, NOW, TRE~FO~, BE IT ~SOLVED, ~ha~ the BOard of Super- ~isors of Chesterfield County deem hereby adopt the Ch~ter Village Plan as an ~encment ~o ~he Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, a part of th~ ~la~ fo~ Chpster~i~ld, amended, to guide and accomplish a coordinated, adjusted and include the followinq Under certain circ~stanc~ it ~ay be appropriate ~o~ rezone property to permit uses which were permltt~d on the property prior to County-wide rezoninq in 1971 Woo~ard property)~ tion as sugqested by M~. Daniel, whi0h ~tate~ "EXcept au speGifi~ally shown on %his ~lan, it is =he intention of Centr~li~ Road, the CSX railzoad line and tk~ abandoned uses. Chesterfield County recognizes nQ circ~stances which could fore~eeably ari~ ~hat would justify cu~rcial rezoning in this area. Co~ercial re~onin~ 89-817 this plan" and "It is intended that the extension of Hopkins Road as shown on this Plan will be built with private funds as part of an overall development plan. Any development in the area of the Hopkins Road Extension will be expected to construct its proportionate share of fha extension"; 3. inclusion of Hopkins Road Extension, the use of the abandoned railroad bed, Centre Street Extension, the proposed road crossing of the Womack property. Mr. Mayas requested a clarification on this discussion and a trace of the road network by staff on the map beginning at Lewis Road. He stated the road would go from the intersection with Lewis Road along the railroad bed to Iron Bridge Road and proceed along the railroad bed to Chester Road and Chester Road to Route 288. He asked Mr. Currin if that was the road he was talking about. Mr. Currin stated that was one portion of it. Mr. ~ayes stated he could support that portion. Mr. Currin addressed and explained further road issues dealing with the portion of the old railroad bed where a gentleman lives in Bruce Farms and requested that staff adjust the location of the road along the railroad right-of-way and keep it as far away from his home as possible. Mr. Currin stated his other reco~endation was to have another 90 foot road from the north-south/Lewis Read interchange to connect to Hopkins Road Extension. Mr. Currin stated he supported an Extension to Lewis Road. Mr. McCracken stated he understood the network to be 1) from the Lewis Road interchange at the north-south freeway there would be a road extending to existing Lewis Road; 2) there would be a road extending fr~ the north-south freeway/Lewis Road interchange east to Branders Bridqe Road to align with the road that has been approved for development; 3) there would be a corridor going from the north-south freeway/Lewis Road interchange to Route 10 that would be downgraded as per the Planning Commission's recommendation to a 90 foot right-of-way to follow the abandoned railroad bed right-of-way with an adjustment in the Bruce Farme area to move the corridor toward the undeveloped property; 4) there would be a 90 foot road tying from the Hopkins Road Extension at Route 10 over to the abandoned railroad corridor; and 5) there would be an extension across the Womack property to ~opkins Road from aopkins Road Extenmion to the abandoned railroad corridor. Mr. Mayas stated he weuld support that concep~ and seconded the motion. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. uaniel and Mr. Mayas. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. RECONSIDERATION OF THE PORTION OF THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN DEALING WITE THE PROPOSED NORTH-SOUTH FREEWAY CORRIDOR BETWEEN TEE PROPOSED NORTH-$OUTM/~AST-WEST FREEWAY INTERCHANGE AND ROUTE 10 AND T~E PROPOSED ~OPKINS ROAD ~XT~NSION FROM ROUTE 10 TO OLD LANE There was brief discussion relative to the Lewis Road/north-south corridor intersection being an at-grade intersection; discussion relative to access being controlled in the zoning process for property alonq the north-south corridor with the possibility that access may not be allowed if the proper design cannot be achieved. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board adopted the portion of the Thoroughfare Plan dealing with the proposed north-south freeway corridor between the proposed north-south freeway corridor between the propceed 89-818 north-south/east west freeway interchange end Route 10 and the proposed ~opkins Road Extension from Route 10 to 01d Lane, to inoludez a downgrading of the north-south freeway from the north-~ou~h/ea~t-west freeway interchange to Hout~ lO to a 90 foot major arterial and the recommendations as approved in the Che~ter Village Plan. Ayes: Mr. Applegste, Hr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayer. Absent! ~r. Sullivan. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY ANENDING CBAPTER .2.%! THE Z0~ING ORDINANCE, ARTICLES I, III AND III.A On motion o~ Mr. Currln, ~econded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted %he following ordinance: AN ORDINANC~ TO AMEND =-~ CODE OF C}{ESTi~I{~I~LI), I978, AS A~D~D, BY AMENDING T~ ~ON/NG ORDINANCE, B-~TI~LES I, ARTICLE III. DISTRICTS GEN~Rk5L¥, Division 11.3. Villa~ 0verla¥ District. ~sc, 2~-67.16, ~rsas of Appllcabilit¥ and Exemptions. (a) The Village Overlay Distriut shall include all lan~ as specified herein: (3) Chester Village Core, oomprised of all that ar~a boun~e~ by the e~s~ern, proper~y line of Tax Map 115-2 {~) Parcel 10; by the northeastern property line of Tax ~ap ll~-XQ (1} Parcel 4; by Buckingham Street (Route 1506); by Shop Street (Route I507); by Baxrowgat~ Road (Route 144); by School Str~t (Route 1505); by Percival S=ree~ .(Route 1510); by Dodomesde Stree~ (Route 1509); by the Atlantic Coast Line right of way; by the northwestern property line of Tax Map 115-7 (2} Che~tsr, Block P2, Lot 410; by Winfrs~ ~treet (Route 1515); by Chester Roa~ (Route ~44); by the northern property llne of Tax Map 115-7 (1) Pa~cet 50; by the eastern an~ northern property lines of Tax Map 11§~7 (1) Parcel 49; and by the Atlantic Coest Line right of way~ save and except the ar~a e~ the Chester Village old ~undred Area described in paragraph {~} belo~ (all said Tax Map Parcels being those shown on the Tax Assessor's Map July 1, 1989); and being the ~ame area shown on the maD entitled Chester Village Areas, prepared by %he Chesterfield county Planning Depar~men~ an~ dated July 1, 1989, incorporated by (4) Ch~t~r Village Old ~uD4red goad Area, comprised of all that srea bounded by West Hundred Road (Route lO); by the Addition, Lots 22, 25A, 26B, 27~ 28, 29A & 29~ by the south- ~a~t~rn property Iine~ of Tax Map ll~-lO (5) $nead Curtis Addition, Let 29, and Tek Map 115-6 (4) McLean Tract, Lot ~, add Tax M~p 115-7 (4) McLean Tract, LOts 1, 2A & 2, and Tax Map 115-7 (2) Chester~ Block N2, Lot 407; by the southeastern property line of Tax Map 115-7 (t) Parcels 28 & 27 extended northeastward to th~ Atlantic Coast Line right of way: and by ~he Atlantic Coast Line right of way (all said Ta~ Map Parcels being those shown On the Tax Asse~sor'~ Map Suly 1, 1989); and being the same area shown on the map entitled Chester Village Areas, prepared by the Chesterfield CouDty ~lanning Department and ~ated July 1, 1~$9, incorporated by reference. (5) Chester village Fringe East, comprised of all that area bounded by the Atlantic Coast Line right of way; by the northern and eastern property lines of Tax Map 115-7 (1) Parcel 49; by the northern property line of Tax Map 115-7 (1) Parcel 50; by Chester Read (Route 144}; by Winfree (Street Route 1515); by the northwestern preperty line of Tax Map 115-7 (2) Chester, Block P2, Lot 410; by the Atlantic Coast Line right of way; by Dodomeade STreet (Route 1516); by the southwestern property lines of Tax Map 115-7 (2) Chester, Block Q2, Lots 414A, 413A & 413C; by West Hundred Road (Route 10); by the eastern and northern property lines of Tax Map 115-3 (1) Parcels 40, 13, 12 & 11; by Chester Road (Route 144); by the northwestern property lines of Tax Map 115-3 (1) Parcels 48 & 49; by the southwestern property lines of Tax Map 115-3 (1) Parcels 49 & 51; and by the northwestern property line of Tax Map 115-3 (1) Parcel 56 (all said Tax Map Parcels being those shown on the Tax Assessor's Map July 1, 1989); and being the same area shown on the map entitled Chester Village Areas, prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department and dated July 1, 1989, incorporated by reference. (6) Chester Village Fringe West, comprised of all that area bounded by by the eastern property line of Tax Map 115-2 (1) Parcel 10, and Tax Hap 115-9 (1) Parcel 58; by Shop Street (Route 1507); by Buckingham Street (Route 1506); and by the northeastern property line of Tax Map 115-10 (1} Parcel 4; (all said Tax Map Parcels being those shown on the Tax Assessor's Map July 1, 1989); and being the same area shown on the map entitled Chester Village Areas, prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department and dated July 1, 1989, incorporated by reference. (7) Chester Village Corridor East, eomprised of all that area within 1,000 feet of the north line of West Hundred Road (Route 10) between the eastern property line of Tax Map 115-3 (1) Parcel 40 and the western property line of Tax Map 116-5 (1) Parcel 6; and of all that area within 1,000 feet of the south line of West Hundred Road (Route 10) between the southwestern property line of Tax Map 115-7 (2) Chester, Block Q2, Lots 414A, 413A & 413C, and Parker Lane (Route 810) (all said Tax Map Parcels being those shown on the Tax Assessor'~ Map July 1, 1989); and being the same area shown on the map entitled Chester Village Areas, prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department and dated July 1, 1989, incorporated by reference. (b) Uses in R, R-T~, R-MF, and A Districts shall be exempt from all standards for th~ Village Overlay District, with the exception of Section 21-67.33. and Section 21-67.38. Sec. 21-67.33. Development Requirements. Heights. The maximum height of all buildings shall be as follows, unless otherwise provided in Section 21-39 or Section 21-40. (a) Midlothian Village Core, Chester Village Corridor East. (1) R, R-TH, R-MF and A Districts. a. All buildings other than buildings--two and one-half (2.5} stories or thirty whichever is less. (30) feet, b. Accessory buildings--one-half the height of the principal building or twenty~five feet whichever is greater. In R-TH Districts, except those lots listed in Section 21-113.1 (a), no window~, doors, Or other similar openings will be permitted above one story or ten feet, which* 89-820 property line shall maintain a ~olid wall (havi~g no windows, doors, or other similar openings) along ~aid adjoining property (2} 0, B, and M DistrActs. Ail buildings--two and one-half (2.5) stories er thirty (30) feet; whichever is less. (b) Midlethian Village Fringe, Chester Village Chester village old Hundred Road Area, Cke~ter Village Fringe (1) R, R-TH, R-MP and A Di~tzicts. a. Ail bnilding~ other tha~ accessory buildings--three (3) stories er forty (40) feet, whichever is less. b. Accessory buildings--one-half the height property line ~hall maintain a solid wall (having no windcw~, doors, cr other similar openings) along said adjoining property line. (2) O, B, an~ M Districts. Ail building~--thr~e (3) ~tcrie~ or forty-five (~5) feet, whichever is less. Sec. 21-67.33.1. Yard Requirements. For Yard R~qulreme~ts, see Chapter Division 4, Section 2~.1-255.6. 21.1, Article Access and Internal Circulation. For Access and Circul'a=ion, ~ae Chapter 21.1, Article 7, all sections. Sec. 21-67.38. Limitation of .~.~.gns. For limitation Of Signs, see Chapter 21.1, Ar%isle particularly section~ 21.1-265 through 21.I~26~ and 21.1-270.1. Ay~: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, ~r. Daniel and ~r. Absent; Mr. Sullivan. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 197~, AS ~J~ENDED, ~ ~-~NDZ~G CHAPTER 21.1., T~E ZONING OPJ~INANCE, ARTICLES 4, 5~ 6, 8 AND 10 On motion of Mn~ C~r~in, ~econd~d by ~r. Mayas, the Roar~ adOpt~ the following ordinanse: AN OPuDIN~N{~E ~A~I~D~CODE OF ~ ~O~OF C~STE~I~, 1978, AS · r~ zON~G O~, ~IC~ 4, 5~ 6~ 8 ~ 1D ARTICLE 5. DaVELOPMENT ~QUI~ENTS--~SIDENTIAL, TOWN~OUSE RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-F~iL¥ ~SID~TIAL. DIVISION 1. ~E~EPJk~Ly. DEVELOPMENT tU~QUIREMENTS - COUNTYWIDE. Sec. 21.1-237.1 ~ei~hts--Aqricultural, Residential, Townhouse Residential and Multi-Family Residential in Village Districts. (a) Midlothian Village Core, Chester Village Cerridor ~ast. (1) ~11 b~ildings other than accessory buildings--two and one-half (2 1/2) stories or thirty (30) feet, whichever is less. (2) Accessory buildings--one-half the height of the principal building or twenty-five (25) feet whichever is greeter. Further, in the R-~H Districts, except those lots listed in Section 21.1-100(a), no windows, doors, or other similar openings will be permitted above one (1) story or ten (10) feet, whichever is less. Accessory buildings that abut a common side property line shall mafntain a solid wall (having nO windows, dOOrS, or other similar openings) along said adjoining property line. (b) Midlothian Village Fringe, Chester Village Core, Chester Village Old Hundred Road Area~ chester Village Fringe ~t, Chester Village Fringe West. (1) All buildings other than accessor~ buildinqs--three (3) stories or forty (40) feet, whichever is less. (2) Accessory buildings--one-half the height of the principal building or twenty-five feet (25) whichever is greater. Further, in R-TH Districts, except those lots listed in Section 21.1-100(a), no windows, doors er other similar openings will be permitted above one (1) story or ten (10) feet, whichever is less. Accessory buildings that abut a common side property line shall maintain a solid wall (having nO windows, deo~s, or other similar openings} along ~aid adjoining property line. ARTICLE 6. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS--OFFICE, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL. DIVISION 1. GENERALLY. DEVELOPMENT REQUIrEMENTS-COUNTYWIDE. Sec. 21.1-243. Reserve. DIVISION 2. DEVELOPMENT REQUII~M~NTS-- ~MERGING GROWTH AP~EAS. Sec. 21.1-250.1. ~eiqhts. The maximum h~ighf of all buildings within any office, commercial or industrial district shall be as follows, except as outlined in Section 21.1-212: (a) In office and commercial districts, no structure shall exceed a height of three (3) stories or forty-five (45) feet, whichever is less, except office buildings, hospitals and hotels which may be constructed to a height of twelve (12) stories or 120 feet, whichever is less. (b) In I-1 Districts, no buildings excep~ offices, hospitals and hotels, which may be constructed to a height of 89-822 twelve (12} stories er 12Q ~eet, whichever is less, shall ~xcmed a height of three (3) sborie~ o~ fifty (50) feet, whiskever ie less. (c) In I-2 and I-3 D~stricts, no building~ ~hall exceed a (d) ~c structures within 100 feet of any undeveloped residential district, or any agricultural district designated for residential use by the General Plan, shall exceed a height of three {3) stories or fifty (50) feet, whichever is less. No structure within 200 feet of say existing zesidential neighbor- hood shall exceed a heiqht of %we (2) stories or thirty fee%, whichever is less. However, if there is an existing dwelling mo~e than two (2) stories in height within 10O f~t of the dis~rict, the height of the structure may ~s increased to the height of the dwelling. DIVISION 3. DEVELOP~NT REQUIg~MENTS-- POST DEVELOPMENT ABEAS. ~ec. 21.1-252. Areas c~ A~licahili~. and Exemptions. The Post Development Areas ~hall include all tsnd~ a~ ~pecifi~d herein aha which are located in cffica~ commercial and industrial dimtrict~ Po~t Development Ar~a~ shall include: (e) Reserve.. Sec. 21.1-255.0.1. Heights. The maxL~um heiqh~ of all buildings within any offlce, commercial er industrial district shall be. as fe~io~s, ex~pt as ontlin~ in Section 21.1-212: (a} In office and ~ommerolal districts, no $%I~cture ~hsll execs4 a height cf three (3} stories er foray-five (45} feet, whichever is lees, except offic~ h~ilding$, hospitals and hotels which may he constructed to a height of twelve (12} stories or 120 feet, whichever is less. (b) In I-1 Districts, no bnil~iugs excep~ offices, hospitals and hotels, which may be c~n~tructed to a height of twelve (t2} stories or 120 £eet, whichever is less, shall exceed a hei~h~ of three (3) stories or fifty (50) feet, whichever is le~s. (c) In I-2 and I-3 Districts, nO buildings shall exceed a height of i~Q feet. (d) No ~trueture$ within 1O0 feet of any undeveloped residential ~istrlet, or any agrisultur~l distric~ designated for residential u~e by ~he General Plan, shall exceed a height o~ three (3) s~cries or fifty (50) feet, whichever is less. Ne ~tructnre within 200 feet of any existing residential neighbor- hood shall exceed a height of %we (2} stories or thirty ~eet, whichever iu leto. However, if there is an existing dwelling more than two (2) stories in height within iQ0 feet of the distriot~ the height of the structure may be inczeamed to £h~ height of the dwelling. 89-823 DIVISION 4. DEVELOPMENT REQUIP~MENTS-- VILLAGE DISTRICT. Sec. 21.1-255.2. Areas of Applicability and Exemptions. The Village District shall include all lands as specified herein: (a) The Midlothian Village Core, comprised of all that area bounded by the Southern Railroad right of way~ by the western property line of Tax Map 15-12 (1) Parcel 51; by the northern and western property lines of Tax Map 15-12 (1) Parcel 50; by Westfield Road; by Sycamore Square Drive; by Midlothian Turnpike2 by the western and southern property lin~s of Tax Map 15-12 (1) Parcel 41; by the southern property line of Tax Map 15-12 (1) Parcel 100; by the southern property line of Tax Map 15-12 (1) Parcel 39; by the western and southern property lines of Tax Map 15-12 (1) P~rcel 38; by the western property line of Tax Map 25-4 (1) Parcel 4 extending to the north and south; by the northern property line of Tax Map 15-16 (1) Parcel 15; by line extending due east from the northeasternmost corner of Tax Map 15-16 (1) Parcel 15; by a line extending to the north and south, 500 ieet west of and parallel to the eastern property line of Tax Map 16-13 (1) Parcel 2; by the southern property line of Tax Map 16-13 (1) Parcel 2; by the eastern property line of Tax Map 16-9 {1) Parcel 31 sxtending to the south; by Midlothian Turnpike; by Mt. Pi~gah Drive; and by the eastern property llne of Tax Map 15-8 (1) Parcel 56 (all said Tax Map parcels being as shown on the Tax Assessor's Map January 9, 1989); and being the same area shown on the map entitled Midlothian Village Area, prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department and dated February 7, 1989, incorporated herein by reference. (b) Midlothian Village Fringe, comprised of all that area bounded by the Southern Railroad right-of-way; by Winterfield Road; by the northern and western property lines of Tax Map 15-7 (]) Parcel 44; by the northsrn and' western property lines of Tax Map 15-11 (1) Parcel 1; by Midlothian Turnpike; by the western property line of Tax Map 15-11 (1) Parcel 3; by the ~outhern property line of Tax Map 15-11 (1) Parcel 3 extending to the east; by LeGordon Drive; by the southern property line of Tax Map 15-11 (1) Parcel 4; by a line extending from the southeasternmost corner of Tax Map 15-11 (1) Parcel 4 to the ~outhwesternmost corner of Tax Map 15-11 (5) Midlothian Village, Parcel 1; by the southern property lines of Tax Map 15-11 (5) Ridlothian Village, Parcels 1, 9, 6, and 7; by the southern property lines of Tax Map 15-12 (6) Midlothian Village, Parcels 3 and 5, and of Tax Map 15-12 (1) Parcels 41 and 100; by the southern property line of Tax Map 15-12 Parcel 39; by the western and southern property lines of Tax Map 15-12 (1) Parcel 38; by the western property line of Tax Map 25-4 (1) Parcel 4 extending to the north and south; by the northern property line of Tax Map 15-16 (1) Parcel 15; by line extending due east from the northeasternmost corner of Tax Map 15-16 (1) Parcel 15; by the eastern property line Tax Map 16-13 (1) Parcel 2 extending to the south; by the southern property lines of Tax Map 16-13 (1) Parcels 6 and 9; by the eaetern property lines of Tax Map 16-13 (1) Parcels 9, 8, 7, 4, and 11, and of Tax Map 16-9 (1) Parcel 61; by Midlothian Turn- pike; by the eastern property lines of Tax Map 16-9 (1) Parcels 19 and 34; by the northeastern property lines of Tax Map 16-9 (1) Parcels 19 and 34 extending to the northwest; by 01d Buckingham Road; by the eastern property line of Tax Map 16-9 (1) Parcel 51; by the eastern and northern property lines of Tax Map 16-8 (1) Parcel 59; by the northern and western property lines of Tax Map 16-9 (1) Parcel 58; by the northern property line of Tax Map 16-9 (1) Parcel 57; by Mount Pisgah 89-824 Drive; and by the eastern property line of Tax Map 15-8 ~aroe~ 56~ ~av~ and ~×eept the area of the Midlothian Villaqe Cora described in paragraph {a) above (all said Tax Map being as shown on the Tax Assessor's Map January 9/ 1989); and being the same area shown On the map entitled Midlothian Vikings Ar~, prepared by the Chesterfield County P~ann~nq Department and dated February 7, 1989, incorporated herein by reference. (o) Chester Village C0~e, comprised of all that area bounded by the eastern, p~operty lin~ of Tax Map 115-2 ~ar~el 10; by ~he northeastern property line o~ Tax Map 1t5-10 (1) Parcel 4; by Buckingham Street (Ront~ 1506); by Shop Street (Route 1507); by Harrcwgate Road (Route 144); by School Street Street (~uute 1509); ~y the Atlantic Coast Line right of way; by the northweeter~ property llne of Tax Map 115-7 (~) Chester, ~lock P2, Lot 410; by Winfree Street (Route 1515); by Chester Road (Route 144); by the ~orthern property lin~ of Tax Map 1t5-7 (1) Parcel 50? by the eastern and northern, property lines of Tax Map 115-7 (1) ~arcel 49; and by th~ Atlantic Coast Li~e right of way; save and except the area of the Chester Village 01d Hundred Area described in paragraph (d) b~low (all said MaD Parcels being ~hose shown on the Tax A~es~o~'~ Map July 19~9); and being th~ ~ame area ~own on ~he map entitled Chester Village Areas, prepared by the Chesterfield County reference. (d) Chester Village Old Hundred Road Area, comprised of all that area bounded by We=t Rundred Road (Route 10};. by ~outhwaet~rn property lines ~f Ta~ Map 115-10 (51 Snead Curti~ Addition, Lots 22, 25A, 2~, 27, 28, 29A & 29~ by the south- eastern property lines Of Tax Map 115-10 (S} Mnead Curtis Addition, Let 29, and Tax Map 11~-6 (4) Mclean Tract, Lot and Tax Map 115-7 (4) Mclean Tract, Lot~ 1, 2A & 2, and Tax Map 115-7 (2) chester, ~lock N2, Lot 407; by %he ~southaastern ~roperty line of Tax Map 115-7 (1) Parcels 28 &. 27 extended northeastward to the Atlantic Coast Line right of way; and by the Atlantic Coast Line righ~ of way {all said Tax Map Parcelm being those shown on the Tax Assessor's Map July 1, 1989)~ and being the same area sheen on the map entitled Chester Villag~ Areas, prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department and dated July 1~ 1989, incorporated by reference. (e) Chester Villag~ Fringe Ea$~, comprised of all ~hat area bounded by the Atlantic Coast Line right of Way; by the northern and eastern property llne~ of Ta~ Z~p 115-7 (l( 49; by the northern property line of Ta~ ~ap 115-7 (11 Parcel $0; by Chester Ro~d (Route 144~; by Winfrea Strss~ (Route 1515); by the northwestern property line of Tax Map 11~-7 Chester, 5lock P2, Lot 410; by the Atlantic Coast Line righ= of ~ay: by D0d0meade Street (Route 1516); by the southwestern property lines of Tax Map 115-7 (2} Chester, Block Q2, Lots 414A~ ~13A & 413C; by We~t K~nd~ed Road IRc=to lQ); by the Paroel~ 40~ 13, 12 & 11; by Chester Road (Route 144); by the northwestern property lines of Tax Map i15-~ (1) Parcels 48 & 49; by the ~outhwestern property llne~ of Tax Map 115-3 Parcels 49 & ~1; and by the northwestern property line of Tax ~a~ 115-3 (1} Parcel 56 {~11 said Tax M~p Parcels being those shown on th~ Tax Assessor's Map Jul~ 1, I~89}; and being the ~ame area shown on th~ map entitled Cheater Villag~ Area~, prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department and dated July t, 1989, incorporated by reference. (f] Chester Village Fringe West, comprised o~ all that area bounded by by the eastern property line o~ Tax Map 115-2 (1) Parcel 1~, and Tax Map 115-9 (1) Part~l 58; by Shop Street (Keute 1507); by suckingham Street (Route 1506); and by the northeastern property lin~ of Ta~ Map 115-10 (i) Parcel 4 (all said Tax Map Parcels being thn~e ~hown on the Tax 89-825 Map July 1~ 1989); and being the same area shown on the map entitled Chester village Areas, prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department and dated July 1, 1989, incorporated by reference. (g) Chester Village Corridor East, comprised of all that area within 1,000 feet of the north line of Weet Hundred Road (Route 10) between the eastern property line of T~x Map 115-3 (1) Parcel 40 and the western property line of Tax Map 116-5 (1) Paroel 6; and of all that area within 1,000 feet of the south line of West ~undred Road (Route 10) between the southwestern property line of Tax Map 115-7 (2) Chester, Block Q2, Lots 414A, 413A & 413C, and Parker Lane (Route 810) (all said Tax Map Parcels being those shown on the Tax Ax~essor's Map July 1, 1989); and being the sa~e area shown on the map entitled Chester Village Areas, prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department and dated July 1, 1989, incorporated by reference. Sec. 21.1-255.5. Setback Requirements for 0 and C Districts. Except where a conditional use permit requires a greater minimum setback (in which case there shall be no maximum setback, unless otherwixe xpeoified by such conditional use permit), the following setbacks shall be observed. (a) Midlothian Villaqq. Core, Chester Village Core. The maximum and minimum setbacks for all buildings, drives, and surface and deck parking areas shall be as follows: (1) Setbacks along major arterials. a. The minimum setback along major arterialx, for buildings, shall be fifteen (15) feet. The maximum xetback along major arterials for at least one building on a lot shall be fifty (50) fe~t; however, this maximum setback shall be rsduced in accordance with the following formula, if there is an existing building on one or more sides of the subject lot, but in no case shall the maximum setback be less than fifteen (15) feet. Formula for mandatory reduced maximum setback: The average of the setbackx of the closest 'principal buildings occupying the lots adjoining the sides of the subject lot, if buildings occupy both these adjoining leto and are within 200 feet of the subject lot; or The average of the setback of the closest principal building Occupying a lot adjoining one sid~ of the subject lot and fifty (50) feet, if a building Occupies only one of the lots adjoin- ing the sides of the subject lot and is within 200 feet of the subject lot (whether the opposite side of the subject lot is an unoccupied lot or a public, right of way). Landscaping shall be provided within the setback in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping E. b. The minimum setback along major arterials, for drives and parking areas, 'shall be twenty (20) feet behind the front line of the building with the least setback on the lot. If there ix no buildlnq on the lot, the minimum setback for drives and parking areas shall be twenty (20) feet behind the maximum setback for one building on the subject lot ax determined in paragraph a. above, aowever, in no case need drives be set back more than fifty (50) 89-826 feet. Landscaping shall be provided within the Further, this minimum setback may be r~duced to the front line of the building with the least setback on the lot with provision of landscaping in accordance (i) Front and corner side setbacks. a. The minimum fr6nt and corner side setbacks along rights of way other than major arterials, for buildings, shall be fifteen (15~ feet~ however, the minimum ~etback shall be increased, if there is an existing building on one or mor~ sides of the subject lot, in accordance with the following formula, but in no case shall the minimum aetbaok be more than tw~nty-fiv~ (25) feet. Formulas for mandatory increase of minimum setback: · The average of the setbacks of the closest principal building~ occupying the lots adjoinin~ the sides of the ~ubjeth lot, if buildings occupy both then9 lets and are within 200 or principal building occupying a lot adjoining side of the ~ubject lot end fifteen (15] feet, if a building eccupie~ only one of %he lo~s adjoining the ~id~s :of the subject lot end within 200 fee= (whether the opposite side the ~ubje~t Ice i~ an unoccupied lot or a public right 0£ way~. The maximum front and corner side setback~ along rights of way other than major arterials fez ~t least one building on a lot shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Landscaping shall be provided within the setback in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping D. b. The minimum front and corner side setbacks along rights of way other than major arterials, for ~rives and parkinq areas, shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Landscaping shall be previded within the setbacks in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping D. Purth~r, this minimum s~tback may be reduced to the front llne cf the building with the ~east setback on the lot with provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping F. [3) Side ~etbacke, The minimum side z~tbaek for buildings, drives, and parking a~mas shall be twenty-five (25) feet with the prevision of land~0apin9 in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping A; r_his setback may be reduced to ten {10) feet with previuion of landscaping in ae=erdance with Perimeter Landscaping B. A1Bernatively, the ~ide ~etback, for buildings only, may b~ zero fast, but not between ~ero (0) and ten (10) ~eet, when adjacent to an office, co~ercial, or indue%rial district. (A) R~er setbacks. The minimum rear setbacks for buildings, drives, and parking areas shall be twenty-five (25) feet with the provision of landscaping in accordanc~ with Perimeter Landscaping A; this setback may be zedueed to ten (I0) feet with provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping B. Alternatively, the rear setback, for buildings only, may be zero - feet, but net between zero (0~ and ten (lei ~eet, when adjacent to an office, con~neroial~ or industrial dis%riot. (5) Setback~ fo~ 9asoline .~umps. The setbacks for gasoline pumps and drfve~ serving gasoline ptt~p islands 8~-827 ~hall be %he same as those for drives and parking areas as required in paragraphs (1) through (4) above. (b) Midlothian yillage Fringe, chester village Fringe Eastj Chester Village Fringe West. The maximum and minimum setbacks for all buildings, drives, and surface and deck parking areas shall be as follows: (1) Setbacks along major arterials, a. The minimum setback along major arterials, for buildings, shall be fifty (50) feet; however, this minimum shall be increased as authorized by the Director of Planning when the average setback of the existing buildings on one or more sides and within 200 feet of the subject lot is more than £iity (50) feet. Landscaping shall be provided within the setback in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping E. h. The minimum eetback alonq major arterials, for drives and parking areas, shall be no less than the front line of the building with the least setback on'the lot. If there is no building on the lot the minimum setback shall be fifty (50) feet. Land- scaping shall be provided within the setback in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping ~. (2) Front and corner side setbacks. a. The minimum front and corner side setbacks along rights of way other than major arterials, for buildings, shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Land- scaping shall be provided in accordance with Perime- ter Landscaping D. b. The minimum front and corner side setbacks along rights cf way other than major arterials, for drives and panking areas, shall be no less than the front line of the buildinq with the least setback on the lot. If there ia nc building on the lot the minimum setback ehall be twenty-five (25) feet. Landscapinq shall be provided within the setback in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping D. (3) Side setbacks. The minimum side setback for buildings, drives, and parking areas shall be thirty (30) feet with the provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping A. However, the minimum side setback may be reduced to ten (10) feet with provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping B, except when adjacent to any R, R-TH, R-MF, and A District. (4) Rear setbacks. The minimum rear setback for buildings, drives, and parking areas shall be forty (40) feet with the provi~ion of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping A. ~owever, the minimum rear setback may be reduced to twenty (20} feet with provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping B, except when adjacent to any R, R-TH, R-MF, and A District. (5) Setbacks for ~asoline pumps. The setbacks for gasoline pumps and drives serving gasoline pump islands shall be the came as those for drives and parking areas as required in paragraphs (1) through (4) above. (o) Chester Village Old Hundred Road Area. The maximum and minimum setbacks for all buildings, drives, and surface and deck parking areas shall be as follows: (1) Setbacks along major arterials. 89-828 a. THe minimum eetbac~ along major arterialsr for buildings, shall he fifteen (1~) f~et. The maxim~ setback along major arterials for at Ieest one building on ~ lot ~halI be fifty ($0) feet~ however, this maximum setback shall be reduced in accordance with the following re,mule, if there is an existing building on one or more sides of aha subject lot, but in no case shall the maximum setback be lees than fifteen (15) feet. Formula for ~andatory reduced maximum setback: The average of the setbacks of the principal buildings occupying the lots adjoining the sides of the subject ich, if buildings occupy both these adjoining lots and are within 200 feet of the subject lot; or The average of the setback of the principal building occupying a lot adjoining on~ side of the subject lot and fifty (50) ~aat, if a building occupies only one of the lot~ adjoin- ing ~he si~ee e~ the s~bject lot and is within 200 feet cf the subject lot (whether the opposite ~ide of the subject l~t ia an unoccupied lot or a public ~ight of way). Landscaping shall be provid6d within the setback in accordance with Perimeter Land,capOnq E. b. The minimum setback along ma~or arterials, for driv~ mn~ p~xklng areas, shall be tweAty (20) feet behind the front line cf the building with the l~st setback on the lot. If there is ns building on the lot, the minimum% setback for drives and parking areas shall be twenty (20) f~t b~hind the maximum setback for one building on %he subject tot d~te~ine~ i.n paragraph a. abovm. Huwever, in case n~ed drive~ be ~e~ hack more than fifty f~t. Landscaping shall be provided within the am%back in accordance with Per,ekes Lan~scaplng Further, this min~um setback may ~e r~duced to front line of the building with the least setback the lot with provisium of landmeaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping F. (2) Front and corner side setbacks. n. Th~ minimum ~ront and corner sid~ along rights of way o~er than major arterials, for buildings, shall be five (5) f~e%; however, tbs minim~ setback shall be increamed, if there is exiatin~ building on one or more ~ides of. the subjec~ lot, in accordance with the following formula, but in no cass shall the mlnim~ setback be mere ~han ~wen=y-ftve (25) feet. Formulas for mandatory increase of ~i~imum ~etback: principal buildings occupying th~ lo%~ adjoining the sides of th~ mubj~ct lot, if building~ occupy both these lot8 and aye within 200 feet; or principal building occupying a lot adjoining side of the subject lot and twenty-five (25) fuut~ if a building occupies only on~ of lots adjoining :he aides of ~e subject lot and i8 within 20~ feet (whether th~ opposite aide of the subject lo% is an unoccupied lot or a public right of way). 89-829 Alternatively, if the resulting increased minimum setback is less than five (5) feet or if the formulas do not apply, the ~etback observed may be zero (0) feet, but not bstween zero (0) and five (5) feet. The maximum front and corner side setbacks along rights of way oth~r than major arterials for at least one building on a lot shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Landscaping shall be provided within the setback in accordanc~ with Perimeter Landscaping D. b. The minimum front and corner side setbacks along rights of way other than major arterials, for drives and parking areas, shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Landscaping shall be provided within the setbacks in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping D. Further, this minimum setback may be reduced to the front line of the building with the least setback on the lot, but not less than fifteen (15) feet, with provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping F. (3) Side setbacks. The minimum ~ide setback for buildingz, drives, and parking areas shall be twenty-five (25) feet with the provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping A; this setback may be reduced to ten (10) feet with provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping R. Alternatively, the side setback, fo= buildings in office and com~erclal districts only, may be zero (0] feet, when adjacent to an office, commercial, or industrial district. (4) Rear setbacks. The minimum rear setbacks for buildings, drives, and parking areas shall be twenty-five (25} feet with the provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping A; this setback may be reduced to ten (10) feet with provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping B. Alternatively, the rear setback, for building~ in office and commercial districts only, may be zero (0) fset~ when adjacent to an office, or co~a~arcial, or industrial district. (5) Setbacks for ~asolins pumps. The setbacks for gasoline pumps and drives serving gasoline pump islands shall be the s~me as those for drives and parking areas aS required in paragraphs (1) through (4) above. (d) Chester Village Corridor East. The maximum and minimum setbacks for all buildings, drives, and surface and deck parking areas, as defined by Section 21.1-255.2 (a), shall be as follows: (1) Setbacks along major arterials. a. The minimum setback along major arterials, for buildings, shall be thirty (30) feet with provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter L~ndscaping E. b. The minimum setback along major arterials, for drives and parking areas, shall be thirty (30) feet with the provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping ~. ~owever, the minimum setback may be reduced to fifteen (15) feet with the provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping F, when the Director of Planning determines that it is physically impossible to locate the number of parking spaces required for a new use of an existing building outside the minimum setbacks otherwise required, providing that the reduced minimum rear setback in paragraph (d) (5)b, below has 89-830 m already been granted, Front setbacks. e. The minimum front setback along rights of way other than major arterials~ for buildings, shall be thirty (30} feet with provision of landscaping in b. The minimum front setback along rights way other than major ar%erie!s, for drives and parking areas, shall be thirty (30) feet with th~ provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping D. However, the minimum ~etbaak may be re~uced to fifteen (I5) feet with the provisicn of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping F, when the Director of Planning determines that it is physically impossible to locate th~ number of building outside the minimum ~etbackn otherwise required, providing that the reduced minimum rear setback in paragraph (d) (5)b, b~low has already been granted. {3} Corner eide setbacks. a. The minimum corner ~ids setback along riqht~ of way otherthan major arterials~ for build- ings, shall be thirty (30) feet with provision of landscaping i~ eceerdance with Perimeter Land~caping twenty-five (25) feet with the provision of land- scaping in accordance wi~h Perimeter Landscaping and may be further reduced to fifteen (15) ~eet with the provision of landscaping in accordance with P~rim~t~r 5andscaplng S, when the lot ia back to back with another corneY lot. rights of way other than major arterials, for drive~ and parking area~ shall be thirty (30) fast with the provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter red,ced to fifteen (15) feet w~th the provision of landscaping in accordanc~ with Perimeter F, when the ~irector of ~lanning determines that it is physically impossible to locat~ She cumber of parking spaces required for a new use cf an e~isting building on%side the minimum setbacks otherwise required, providing that the reduced minimum rear setback in paragraph (d} (5}b, below has already bean granted. (4) Side setbacks. a. The minimum side metback, for buildings, shall be seven and one-half (7.~} feet with provision ~ landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Land- scaping B. b. Th~ minimum side setback, Ior driue~ and parking areas, ~hall be ~even and one-half (7.5) fe~t wi{h the provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landseapin~ F. Rear setbacks. a. The minimum rea~ setback, for buildings, shall be twenty-five (25) feet with provision landscaping in accordance with P~rimeter Landscaping B. b. The minimum rear setback, for drives and parking areas, shall be twenty-five (25) feet with the provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping B. However, the minimum setback may be reduced to seven and one-hal~ (7.5) feet with the provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping F, when the Director of Planning determines that it is physically impossible to locate the number of parking spaces required for a new use of an existing building outside the minimum setbacks otherwise required. (6~ Setbacks for gasoline pumps. The setbacks for gasoline pumps and drives serving gasoline pump islands shall be the ~ame as those' for drives and parking areas as required in paragraphs (1) through (5) above. Sec. 21.1-255.6. Setback Requirements for I Districts. Except where a conditional use permit requires a greater minimum setback, the following setbacks shall be observed. (a) Midlothian Village Core, Midlothian Village Fringe, Chester V~lage Core.,..~ster Village Fringe East, Chester Village Fringe West, Chester Village 01d Hundred Area. The m~ni~uI~ setbacks for all buildings, drives, and surface and deck parking areas shall be as follows: (1) ~b~.c~s .along ma~or arterials. The minimum setback along major arterials, for buildings, drives, and deck parking areas, shall be seventy-five (75) feet in I-I and I-2 Districts and ninety (90) feet in I-3 Districts. Landscaping shall be provided within thc s~tback in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping B. However, in I-1 Districts this setback may be reduced to fiity (50) ~eet with provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping H. (2) Front and corner side setbacks. The minimlnn setback along rights of way other than major arterials, for buildings, drives, and parking areas, shall be forty (40) feet in I-1 Districts, sixty (60) feet in Districts, and ninety (98) feet in I-3 Districts. Land- scaping shall be provided within the setback in accordanee with Perimeter Landscaping A. However, in I-1 Districts this setback may be reduced to twenty-five (25) feet with the provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping D. (3) Side setbacks. The minimum side setback, for buildings, drives, and parking areas, shall be thirty (30) feet in all I Districts. Landscaping shall be provided within the setback in accordance with Perimeter Land- scaping A. However, in I-1 Districts this setback may be reduced to ten (10) feet with the provision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping B. (4) Rear setbacks. The minimum rear setback, for buildings, drives, and parking areas, shall be forty (40) feet in all I Districts. Landscaping shall be provided within the setback in accordance with Perimeter Land- scaping A. HOWeVer, in I-1 Districts this setback may be reduced to twenty (20) feet with the provision of land- scaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping B. (5) Setbacks for gasoline pumps. The setbacks for gasoline pumps and drives serving gasoline pump islands shall be the same as those for drives and parking areas as resulted in paragraphs (1) through (4) above. 89~832 see. 21.1-2~5.8. ~eri~kera~.~urface and Deck Parking Ar~a Landscaping. The following peripheral landscaping shall be raquire~ along any side of a parking area except those sides which abut rights of way. (Those sides which abut rights of way shall be landscaped in accordance with Section 21.1-255.6.} A landscaped strip shell be located between =he parking area and the ab~tt±ng property lines~ except wh~re driveways or other openings may be required. Continuous hedge forma and at l=ast one (1} large deciduous tree, as defined in Section 21.]-224 (b} (2), ~hall b= planted in the landscaped strip ~or each fifty (5~) Lineal feet. These landscape ~lement~ shell be sufficient in size and arrangement to minimize the visihil~t~ of the parking area and parked vehicles. Sec. 21.1-255.10. Heights.. The maximu~ height of all buildings within any office, commercial or industrial district shall be a~ follo~, except as provided in Section (a) Midlothian Vitlaqe Core~ Che~ter Village Corridor East. No structure ~haI1 exceed e ~ght of two and on,-half ~-~2) stories or thirty (30) feat, whichaver is le~. (b) Midlothian Village Fringe, Chester village Core, Chester Village old Hundred Road A~a, Chester Villag~'~in~'e ~est, Chester Village Fringe West. ~o structure shall exceed a height of three ~3} stories er forty-fi~e {45) feet, whiuh~ver is less. (c) ~o ~tructur~ within 200 feet of.any existing residential neighborhood ~hall exceed a height of ewe and one-half (~ 1/2) stories or thirty fact, whichever is lesa. However~ if there i~ an existing dwelling mor~ %hen two and one-half {2 1/2) stories in height within t00 feet of the district, the height of the structure may be increased to the height of the dwelling. ARTICLE ~. SIGNS. DIVISION 1. COUNTYWIDE--GENERALLY~. Sec. 21.1-2~6. Generaily. (j) Outdoor advertis'ing signa ~hall be prohibited within the following areas~ (1) kll p~xeels of land located within 1,500 feet of the centerline of State Route 10 {Iron Bridge Road} between the Richmond ~orporate l'imits and the intersection of Route 10 and Interatate 295. Sec. 21.1-267.1. Signs--Village Districts for R, R-T~, and A Districts. Signs shall be permitted withi~ the Village District in all R, R-TH, R-MF, and A Distrfetn in accordance with Section 89-~33 21.1-267; however, the following additional provisions shall apply; (a) Midlothian Village Core, Midlothian Village Fringe Chester Village CO~, .Chester Village Old Hundred Road Area, Chester Village Fringe ~ast, Chester Village Fringe West, Chester Village Corridor ~ast. (1) In no case shall the height of any sign, which is net attached to a building, exceed the lesser of either fiv~ (5) feet or the maximum height prescribed £Or such sign in Section 21.1-267. (2) In no case shall the area of any sign, which is not attached to a building, exceed the lesser of either twenty-font (24) square feet or the maximum area prescribed for such sign in Section 21.1-267. Sec. 21.1-270.1. Stuns--village Districts for O, C, and I Districts. Signs shall be permitted within the Village District in all O, C, and I Districts in accordance with Sections 21.1-268 and 21.1-269, however the following additional provisions shall apply: (a) Midlothian village Core, Midlothia~ Village Fringe, Chester village Corridor East. (1) In no case shall the height of any sign, which is not attached to a buildinq, exceed the lesser of either five (5) feet or the maximum height prescribed for such sign in Section 21.1-268 or 21.1-269. (2) In no case shall the area of any sign, which is not attached to a building, exceed the lesser of either twenty-four (24) squar~ feet or the maximum area prescribed for such sign in Section 21.1-268. or 21.1-269. (3) The setback for signs permitted in Sections 21.1-268 and 21.1-269 may be reduced to five (5) feet. (b) Chester Village Core, Chester Villag~ 01d Hundred Road Area, Chester Village Fringe East, Chester Village Fringe West. (1) In no case shall ths height of any Eiqn, which is not attached to a building, exceed the lesser of either ten (10) ~eet or the maximum height prescribed for such sign in Section 21.1-268 or 21.1-269. (2) In no case shall the area of any sign, which is not attached to a building, exceed the lesser of either area shown in the Maximum Sign Area Table below or the maximum area prescribed for such sign in Section 21.1-268 or 21.1-269. Maximum Sign Area Table Sign Height in Feet MaximumArea in Square Feet From 0 to and including 5 ..................... 24 From 5 to and including 8 ..................... 15 From 8 to and including 10 ..................... ~ (3) The setback ~or signs permitted in Sections 21.1-268 and 21.1-269 may be reduced to five (5) feet. 89-834 (4) Instead of the freestanding business sign(s) as ~nrm~tted in Section 21,1-269, business si~n{s~ may be mounted perpendicularly to a building, provided that all other requirements of said section end of this ~ection are met, and that such perpendicularly mounted sign p/ejects no more than thirty 130) inches from the building, ham a fags to fa'Ge thickness no greater then six t6) inches, and dons not exceed a hnight of ten (10) feet. The minimum front and conner side setbacks along rights of way other than ms]or arterialm for perpendicularly mounted signs in ~ha Chester Village Old Eundred Road Ama may be reduced to zero [0) fe~t. (5) In shopping centers, office parks, industrial parks, commercial parks, or simila~ groups of buildings, instead cf an equivalent amount of ~quar~ fOO%~ge ef individual business sign(s} attached to the main building or major appendage as permit%nd by S~etiOn one (1) business sign may be pnrpnndicularly mounted to building, provided that all other rsquire~oent~ of said snct~on en~ o~ this section are mnt~ and that such perpendicularly mounted sign pnoje=ts no mere than thirty (30} inchns from the building, has a face to face thick- ness ne greater than six (6) inches, and docs not exceed a height of ten (lQ) feet. The minimum front and corner side setbacks along rights of way other th~n major arterials ~er perpendicularly mounted signs in the Ch~t~r Village 01d Hundred Ar~a may be Induced to zero (6) inet. Ayes: ~r. Applugata, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. It was generally agreed to recess for £ive minutes. Mr. ~ayes reqneste~ clari~ication of the motion relativn to th~ Chester Village Plan; sta~ed he had ~rao~ the road network du~ing the discussion of the Plan and that his ~ecend and vote had not included approval of the portion of the ~lan relating to the ~epkins Road Extension; that he voted for what he had traced on thc chart; and if the metion included the ~opkins Road Extension he would withdraw his second and esked for a revere. Mr, Micas state~ the motion had been made, the vote taknn and it was final. Mr. Mayes strongly objected to the way %he vote had been taken, requested a revo~s as he was not in favor of ~he ~opkins Road Extension a~d did not understand that declared the ~ssting in recess for ten minutes. Mr. Mayes r~iterat~d him concern for clarification as to the ac%ion taken ea the Chester village Plan and statnd if the motion included the MOpkins Road Extension he weald withdraw his second and tic vote. Mr. AppLegate stated that on advice of the County Attorney a transcript or video tape of that portion of the meeting could be provided to Mr. Mayer; however, the meeting would have to proceed. Mr. Micas stated Mr. Mayes' object,on would be noted for the record: however, the decision was final as voted upon. ~r. Daniel suggested the County 89-835 Attorney meet with Mr. Mayes to discuss the matter further. Mr. Mayes asked that, prior to proceeding with the meeting, if the Chair would acknowledge that he carefully traced the road, prior to the vote, to clarify the motion. Mr. Applegate acknowledged that Mr. Mayes had requested staff to trace the road network during the discussion. 10.A. 89SN0182 - G. E. MILES AND W. COURTNE~ W~LLS, SERMUDA DISTRICT In Bermuda Magisterial District, G.E. MILES AND W. COURTNEY WELLS requested rezonlng 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 ei Chalkley Road, approximately 800 feet south of Inge Wood Circle. Tax Map 96-12 (1) Parcel 10; Tax Map 96-16 (1) Parcels 7, 0, 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 presented a brief summary of Case 89SN0162, stated the case had been deferred until such time as a decision was rendered relative to the Chester Village Plan and Thoroughfare Plan, and stated the Plahning Commission recommended approval. He stated the request is consistent with the Board's recently adopted Chester Plan and noted the addendum listing recent proffers submitted by the applicant which are acceptable to staff. Mr. John G. Dicks, III, representing the applicant, presented a brief history of the proposed request and stated the recommendation was acceptable. Mr. Larry Keen and Mr. Phil Cunningham voiced support fer the proposed request. There was no opposition present. Mr. Currin expressed concern relative to access to Chalkley Road. Mr. Applegate expressed concerns relative to the impact of the proposed developmant upon the construction of the proposed Ecoff Elementary School and existing area middle and high schools. There was further discussion relative to the impact of Hopkins Road Extended, at what point the road would be constructed, etc. Mr. Daniel inquired about road construction and who would be responsible. Mr. ScCracken stated, when the tentative comes forward, staff will impose a condition that will ensure the construction of that road very early on in the process and probably request a bond to ensure that that road will be constructed. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved Case 89SN0182, subject to the followinq condition: A fifty (50) foot buffer strip, exclusive of easements and required yards, shall be established and maintained adjacent to Chalkley Road (Route 632). The area of this buffer strip shall either be left in its natural stats, if sufficient vegetation exists to provide adequate screening, or be planted and/or bermed in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Department, if sufficient vegetation does not exist to provide adequate screening. Prior to approval of any final site plan or reoordation of any plat, the developer shall flag thi~ buffer strip for inspection, and shall post a bond to cover the implementation of the landscape plan, if such plan is required. Except for approved public road access(es), ne access shall be permitted through this buffer strip. This buffer strip shall be noted On any final site plans, and any final check and recordation plats. The Planning Con~nission or Director of Ptanninq may modify this condition at the time of 89-836 tentative subdivision review. And further, the Beard accepted the following proffered The minimum size of the living unit or dwelling ~hall bs 2,000 square feet cf finished 5lying area, exclusive cf one-story epee porches and garages. The condition stated on page two ef the staff report proviOes that the Planning Commim$iOn or the' Director of ~lanning may modify the condition of a fifty (50) foot to be established and maintained adjacent to Chalkley Koad (Route 6321. The condition stated on paqes 4 and 5 of the Etaff report provid~ that access should be controlled to Chalklay Road, thereby precluding direct driveway access surrounding neighbors relative to the dwellings to be constructed in e manae~ so tbs= the dwellings would face Chalkley Road, the applicants proffer as follows: a. There will be a minimum of a twenty-live (25) fooC buffer strip, exclusive of easements and required yards, established and maintained adjacent to Chalkley Road. b. At ~he rear of ~he yards of the lots ~acing Chalkley Road, at an exact location to be de,ermined a~ the tim~ of tentative subdivision (25) feet in width will be established for the exclusive purpo~e~ and use of the said lots, so road will only access the subdivision streets to sion review 9recess and will net under any from individual lot~ to Chalkley Read. That ~o outside dec~s, accessory buildings or clothe~- lines shall be parmitte0 or seen along Chalkley Chalkl~y Road ~hall net include garages or uther Ayes~ Mr. Appleqate, Mr. Currin and Mr. Daniel. Abstention; ~r. ~ayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. ll.E. TO CONS/DER THE WAiV~A OF S~CTIO~S E2 AND E3 OF THE PRO- TECTIVE COVENA3~TSt CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR COL=, JR. AND ~LARJORIE B~ GOL~ ~r. Micas ~tated this date and ti~e had been advertised for a public hearing to consider waiver of Section~ E2 au4 ~3 of ~he Protective Covenants, Conditions and Re~tri~tion~ for the Chesterfield Industrial Park for a 3.~6 acre parcel owned by Mr. Marshall W. Cole, Jr. NO one came fo~ard to speak in favor of or against the matter. on motion Of ~r. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Currln, the Board authorized the County Administrator te exeuu~e a waiver of the Protective Covenants, Conditions and Re~trictions relativ~ to Sections ~2 and E3 for the Chesterfield Industrial Park by Mr. Marshall W. Cole, Jr. for his property solely affecting tho 89-837 repurchase of a 3.36 acre parcel, at the original purchase price of $10,000 p~r acre, which parcel is located at the Chesterfield Industrial Park and owned by Mr. Marshall W. Cole, Jr. (It is noted a copy of the waiver is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Maye$. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. ll.P. TO CONSIDER A LEASE TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT O~ STAT~ POLICE RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED OFFICE AND SHOP SPACE ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING NANGAR/0P~IC~ BUILDING CURRENTLY LEASED TO THE STATE POLICE Mr. Hammer stated this date and time had been scheduled for a public hearing to consider a lease to the Virginia Department of State Police of recently constructed office and shop space attached to the existing hangar/office building currently leased to the State Police. No one came forward to speak in favoz of or against the matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Coffin, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents to lease to the Virginia Department of State Police 2,500 square feet of recently constructed office and shop space attached to the existing hangar/office building currently leased to the State Police, which lease is to run consecutively with and subject to the provisions of the lease dated January 28, 1988 between the Virginia Department of State Police and the County of Chesterfield. Ayes: Mr. Appleqate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. ii.G. TO CONSIDER A-N AMENDMENT TO THE 1989-90 BUDGET TO ARPROPRIATE $1,000,000 IN AN ADVANCE TO THE VIRGINIA D~PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE WIDENING OF ROUTE 10 PROM ROUTE 288 TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY COURTHOUSE Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an amendment to the 1989-90 budget to appropriate $1,000,000 in interest earnings in'an advance to the Virginia Department of Transportation for the widening of Route 10 from Route 288 to Chesterfield County Courthouse. No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board appropriated $1,000,000 in interest earnings from the Route 288 Bond Project account to the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion for the advancement of the widening of Route 10 from Route 288 to the Chesterfield County Courthouse, with the understand- ing that the Virginia Department of Transportation will reim~ burse the County in 1991; and further, authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for design, right-of-way and construction contracts/agreementS with VDOT for the widening. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currln, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayee. Absent: Mr. Sullivan, 12. NEW BUSINESS 12.A. AWARD OF DESIGN CONTRACT FOR ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS TO TRE BON AIR AND CENTPS~L LIBRARIE~ On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board awarded an architectural design contract in an amount not to 89-838 exceed $~S2,00Q ko Design Collaborative of Virginia Beach for the additions and renovations to the Central 117,000 square feat) and Ben Air (7,000 square feet) Libraries. (It is ~h~ source of funds for said p~oject is General Obllgetion ~ondc from the 1988 Bond Referendum and which funding for this design inctud~ $75,000 from the CiSy of ~ichmon~ for the Air Library Project.) Ayes: Mr. Applega%e~ ~r. Coffin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. May~c. Absent: ~r. Sullivan. 12.B. REGIONAL AIRPORT STUDY AND APPOINT~I~NT OP R~PR~TA~IVE TO TH~ ~C~NICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE On mQ~ion of Mr. Daniel, seconded ~y Mr. Mayas, the Board formally endorsed the "Regional Airports System ~lan'~ as developed by the Richmond Regional Planning District Cca~ission (RRPDC) which is a study of the area'$ aviation needs through the year 2010 for airports in Chesterfield, ~anover, New Kent, Richmond International, Louisa and P~t~rsburg; a~d f~rther, the Board appointed ~r. Bradford S. Hammer, Deputy County Administrator for ~anaqement S~rviee$, aS checter£i~ld County's representative to the Tachnlcal Advisory Cc.~ittee. Ayes: Mr. Asplegate, Mr. Currln, Mr. Daniel and Mr. May~m. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. 12.C. APPLICATION FOR COM~4%r~ICATION~ Gk~T FUI~DS On me,ion of Mr. Daniel, secondsd by Mr. Mayas, the Board authorized the County Adminiatfator to submit an application the Virginia Depar~ent of Criminal Justice Ssrvloem for grant ~unds in the amount of np to $20~,000 for the purchase of ~quipm~nf to be used ~o renovate an existing radio communications tower in the Union Branch area~ converting it to ~00 M14z to ali~via~e the ~roblem ef poor communications capabilities along the Appomattox River Basin. (It is noted fha Cuunty'~ matching portion to complete the project is anticipated to be $~09,000 from the FYPl Capital Improvements Plan, for a total project cost of Ayes~ Mr. App~egatu~ Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayer. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. 12.D. APPROVAL OF INTERIM LAND USE AGREEMENT .AS/0 SET DATE FOR COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION There was brie£ discussion regarding the Interim Land Use Agreement and the multipl~ uses o~ the site. On ~otion of ~I. Currin, secondsd by ~r. Daniel, the Boa~d approvsd an Interim.Land Use Agreement between the County of Chesterfield, Virginia and the Chesterfield County Fair Association, Inc., which. Interim Agreement provides that a certain parcel of lan~ located in chesterfield Conn~y bounded by Courthouse Road Extended and Krause Road containing appro×im~tely 17 acres may be used for the purpose of conducting the t989 Chesterfield County Fair with thg Agreement herein being sffectivs for a period of thirty days commencing this date and ending October i3, 1989; and f~r~her, the Board set the date of September 27, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to consider th~ land lease with Chestexfield County Association, InG. (It is noted a copy of ~aid agreement is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and ~r. Mayas. Abaent: Mr. Sullivan. ~9-839 12.E. C0~D4UNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 12.=.1. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved obtaining cost estimates for the installation of street lights at the following locations .in the District as indicated: 1. Intersection of Riggers Station Drive and Trailtop Terrace, Bermuda District; Intersection of Riggers Station Drive and Woodsacre Lane, Bermuda District; and Intersection of Po×berry Road and Hicks Road, Clover Hill District. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. 12.E.2. AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INT0 A CONSTRUCTION CONT,{ACT TO CONSTRUCT A FLOOD WALL AT BROMWIC~ COURT There was discussion regarding the proposed construction of a flood wall at Bromwich Court, drainage problems in other districts of a similar nature, the setting of a precedent if the request were aRproved, deferral of the matter to further determine how many mor~ similar situations currently exist in the County and why were developers permitted to construct a home in a floodplain ar~a, etc. On motion of Mr. Coffin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferred consideration of a request for authorization to enter into a construction contract to construct a flood wall at Eromwich Court until October 11, 1989. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr, Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. 12.F. CONSENT ITEMS 12.F.1. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental ~nginssr, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Cardiff Road, Cardiff Lane and Ivybridge Cross- ing in Be×ley, Section 11, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, it is resolved that Cardiff Road, Cardiff Lane and Ivybridge Crossing in Be×ley, Section 11, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby 'are established public roads. And be it further res01vsd, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Cardiff Road, beginning at the intersection with existing Cardiff Road, State Route 2641, and going easterly 0.3 mile to the intersection with Ivybridge Crossing, =hen continuing southeasterly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Cardiff Lane, then continuing southeasterly 0.03 mile, then turning and going westerly 0.06 mile, then turning and going westerly 0.07 mile to end at the intersection with Ivybridge Crossing; Cardiff Lane, beginning at ~hs intersection with Cardiff Road and going northeasterly 0.04 mile to end at the intersection wi%_h Hicks Road, State Routs 647; and Ivy- bridge Crossing, beginning at the intersection with Cardiff 89-840 Road and going southwesterly 0.~4 mile to end at the inter- section with Camelbaok Road~ State Route 2683. This requaat ia inclusi¥o cf the adjacent glope, sight distance and designated Virqinia Department of Tmanspertation drainage eamements. And be it further resolved, that %he Board of Supervisors g~arantees to ~he Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' This section of Bexley is recorded as follows: Section ll. ~lat Book 37, Pages 29 & 50, September 24, 1980. Ayes: Mr. Applegat~, Mr. Coffin, Mr. Daniel and ~r. ~ayee~ A~sent: Mr. Sullivan. This day th~ County Environmental ~nginaer, in accordance with ~iract~cn$ fro~ this Board, made re~ort in writing upon his examination of Exbury Drive, Ex~ury Court a~d Exhnry ~errace in Exhury, section 1, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and nn motion of Mr. Daniel, second~d Dy Mr. Coffin, it is resolved that Exbur~ Drive, Bxhury Court and Exbnry Terrace in Exbury, S~Ct~on 1, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as publi~ roads. And be it further resolved, that t21e Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into Secondary system~ EXbury Drive, beginning at the intersection with Lucks Lane, Sta~e Route 720, and going ~outherly ~.04 mile to the inter~eetiun with Exbury Court, th~n continuing southerly 0.06 mils to %he intersection with Exbury Ter~aee~ then turning and going southwesterly 0.~8 mil~ tO the in,er- sec%ion with proposed Winbury Drive, Exbury, section 2~ and then continuing southwesterly 0.07 mile to en~ in a cul-de-sae~ Exbury Court, beginning at the intersection with Exbury Drive and going westerly 0.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and =xbury Terrace, b~ginning at the intersection wi~h Exbury Drive and going westerly 8.03 mil~, th~n turning and going southwesterly 0.08 mile to ~nd in a cul-de-sac. Again, ~xbury Terrace, beginning at the intersection with ~xbury Drive and going easterly 0.03 mil~ to end in a dead end. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight und designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage These roads serve 55 lets. And be it further resolved, that the BQar~ of Supervisors guarantees ~o the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50~ right~of-way ior all of these reads. Thi~ suction of Exbury is recorded as follows: Sectio~ 1. Plat Book 51, Page 72, December 2, 1985. Ayes: Mr. Appleqat~, ~r. Coffin, Mr. D~niel and Mr. Mayas. Absent: ~r. Sullivan. This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his e×~minaticn of D~bbs Lane in Poooshcok, Section 5, Clover Hill District. S9-841 Upon consideration whereof, and On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currln, it is resolved that Dobbs Lane in Po¢oshock, Section 5, Cloves Bill District, be and it hereby ie established as a public road. And be it further re~olved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Dobbs Lane~ beginning at the intersection with Twilight Lane, State Route 854, and going westerly 0.03 mile to tie into existing Dobbs Lane, state Route 2697. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, ~ight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage This road serves 6 lots, And be it further ~esolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for this road. This section of Pocoshock is recorded as follows: Section 5. Plat Book 59, Page $$, May 18, 1987. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Absent: Mr, Sullivan. This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon hi~ examination of Middle Road and Middle Circle in Providence Meadows, Section B, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, it is resolved that Middle Road and Middle Circle in Providence Meadows, Section S, Clover Mill District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved~ that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it h~reby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Middle Road, beginning at the intersection with Twilight Lane, State Route 854, and goinq westerly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Middle Circle, then continuing westerly 0.03 mile to tie into existing Middle Road, State Route 2696; and Middle Circle, beginning at the intersection with Middle Road and going northerly 0.03 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 18 lot~. And be it further resolved, that the ~oard of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 60' zight-o£-way for Middle Road and a 40' right-of-way for Middle Circle. ·his section of Providence Meadows is recorded as follows: Section B. Plat Book 57, Page 8, December 22, 1987. Ayes: Mr. Applegmte, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Parrish Branch Road and Bailey Mountain Trail in Bailey Ridge Estates, Section B, Matoaca District. 89-842 UpOn consideration whereof; and on motion of Mr, Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, it is resolved that Parrish Branch Road and Bailey Mountain Trail in Bailey Ridge Estates, ~¢tion ~, ~atoaca District, be and they hereby are established as public And be it further resolved, that the virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby i~ requested to tek% into +-he Secondary System, ~arri~h Branch Road, beginning ,at the inker- section with S~nfield Drive and going southwesterly 0.08 mil~ to the intersection with Bailey Mountain Trail, then continuing sonthwesterly 0.02 mile to end et Bailey Ridge Estate~, S~¢tion C; and Bailey Mountain Trail, ~eginning at the intersection with Pettish Branch Roa~ and going northwesterly 0.12 mile to end in a ~ul-~-$ae. hgain ~ailey Mountain Trail, beginning at the intersection with Parrish Branch Road and going south- easterly 0.24 mile to end in a temporary turnaround. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, eight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage These roads serve 44 lots. An~ bm it further resolved, that the Board of Snpervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50~ right-of-way for all of these roads. This section of Bailey Ridge Estates i~ recorded a~ follows: Section B. Plat Book 56, PageE 23 and 2~, February 9, 1987. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Ceftin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. This ~ay the County Environmental Enginesr, in accordance with directions from thi~ Beard, made report in writing upon hi~ examination of ~iller~ Run Road in Mayfair Estatss~ Section ~, Upon conslde~tiom whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department Of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Millers Run Road, beginning at %h~ in=er- section with Dunraven Road, State Route 2081~ and going This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainag~ This road s~rves 6 lots. And be it further resolved, that the ~eard of supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for this read. This ~ection of Mayfair Estatea is recorded as Iollows: Section E. Plat Book 57, 9age 76, July 9, 1987. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, ~r. Ceftin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent~ ~r. Sullivan. 89-843 This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions, from this Beard, made report in writing upon his examination of Eewlett Line Drive, Fox Knoll Drive, Deer Springs Run and Wood Duck Lane in Walthall Creek, Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4, Bermuda District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, it is reeelved that Howlett Line Drive, Fox Knoll Drive, Deer Springs Run and Wood Duck Lane in Walthall Creek, Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4, Bermuda District, be and they hereby are established as public road~. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Howlett Line Drive, beginning at the inter- section with Woods Edge' Road, State Route 620, and going ~outherly 0.49 mile to end at the intersection with Fox Knoll Drive; Fox Knoll D~ive, beginning at the intersection with Howlett Line Drive and going easterly 0.27 mile, then turning and going northeaeterly 0.34 mile to the intersection with Deer Springs Run, then continuing northeasterly 0.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Again Fox Knoll Drive, beginning at the inter- section with Howlett Line Drive and going westerly 0.12 mile to end at the intersection with Wood Duck Lane; Deer Springs Run, beginning at the intersection with Fox Knell Drive and going easterly 0.04 mile to tie into proposed Deer Springs Run, Walthall Mill, Section 6; and Wood Duck Lane, beginning at the intersection with Fox Knoll Drive and going northwesterly 0.05 mile to end in a dead end. Again Wood Duck Lane, beginning at the intersection with Fox Knoll Drive and going southeasterly 0.05 mile to the intersection with proposed Clear Springs Lane, Watthall Creek, Section 5, then continuing ~outheasterly 0.02 mile to end in a dead end. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. These roads serve 84 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of the~e roads. These sections of Walthull Creek are recorded as follows: Section 1. Plat Book 53, Pages 24 & 25, June 20, 1986. Section 2. Plat Book 53, Pages 47 & 4S, July 7, 1986. Section 3. Plat Book 55, Pages 39-41, December 3~ 1986. Section 4. Plat Book 59, Page 2, October 27, 1987. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. 12.F.2. SET DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 12.F.2.a. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CKAPTER 21.1, CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978.,...~S AMenDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 21.1-230 RELATING TO STREET FRONTAGE REQUIP~EMENTS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board set the date of October 11, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend Chapter 21.1, Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending Section 21.1~230 relating to street frontage r~quirements. Ayes: Mr. Appleqate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan, 89-844 TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AM~D TH~ COD~ OF ~ COUN?¥ OF CBESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AM~NDED~ BY AMENDING CATIONS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTiOnS AhVD VARIANCES WITHIN TWELVE MONTM~ OF D~NIAL On motion of Mr. Daniel, so,ended ~y Mr. Coffin, the Board set the date of October 11, 1989, at ?:00 p.m., for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Cede o~ the County of Chesterfield, I978~ as amended, by amending and reenacting section 21.1-19, relatinq to reapplications for special exceptions and variances within twelve ~oD~h$ of denial. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Kr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan+ 12.F.2.c. TO CONSIDER APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR SCHOOL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ~ROGRAM There was discussion relativ~ the ~oheol Soard'~ request for an i~ the to~l ~mo~t of $42,200,000 for- ~he School Capltel to be sold in January, 1990 and $2~100,000 of anticlpa~ed co~itted and pending to date, the pruject cash flow for ~apital project$~ individual school project titles and descriptions, etc. Mr. Daniel stated he was agreeable wi%h the setting of a Capital Improvement Proje=ts but requested that the School any additional, pertinent data and answer any questions the funds acaompanie~ with a personal commitment as to how and On motion of Mr. D~niet, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board set the 19~8 ~end Issue funds in th~ amount of $42,200,000 for the Ay~= Mr. ~ppl~gate, Mf~ Cur~in, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. 12.F.~. FUNDING FOR RECYCLIEG DROP-OFF CENTERS ELEMENTARy SCHOOLS On ~otion o~ Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Currin, th~ Board accepted a grant from %he Virginia Department of Mines, Mineral~ and Energy in the amount of $20,000 to reestablish the Recycling Drop-Off Centers Program at County elementary schools; appropriated $20~000 in grant funds and transferred $~0,000 in matching County funds from the General Buildin~ and G~ound~ ~alaries account to Grants Fund for the project; and authorized the County Administrator to e×ec~t~ necessary documents to solicit proposals/bids from qualified uentractors and award :0 the lowest resDonsibl~ bidder. (It is noted funds were not included in the gYP0 budget ~or this program as it was anticipated that services ~rom the private sector would continue to support the progr~; however, continuation of tho program in FYPl will require additional funding to be included in the FY91 Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Nr. Currin, Mr. D~Diel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. 89-945 12.F.4. REQUEST FOR BINGO/P~%~FLE PERMIT On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. approved requests for bingo/raffle permits erganizations for calendar year 1989 as follows: Organization Type Enon Civic Association Raffle ~eterans of Foreign Wars, Post 2299 Bingo/Raffle Ayes: Mr. Applegate, M~. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayer. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. Currin, the Board for the followinq 12.F.5. TRANSFER ~UND~ FOR PARKS MASTER PLAN On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, tha Board transferred equal funds, in the amount of $4,400, for a total of $22,000, from each Magisterial District Three Cent Road Pund account to the Parks Bond Non-project Account for use in development of a Parks Master Plan, as it is anticipated that such Plan will be beneficial to all County residents and which plan will be prepared with the assistance of Virginia Commonwealth University staff. Ayes: Mr. Appleqate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent~ Mr. Sullivan. MEDICAID ~ILOT ~ROJECT FOR SOCIAL SERVICES On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Cnrrin, the Board approved participation of the Chesterfield County Department of Social Services in the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services' Medicaid pilot project for one year beginning November 1, 1989 and ending October 51, 1990 in an effort to increase the Medicaid participation rate of eligible low-income pregnant women and children under age two; increased revenues and expenditures to the Departmsnt o~ Social Services budget by $15,900 for the employment of an eligibility worker for seven months during ths current fiscal year to work exclusively with the ~ealth Department at the prenatal clinic in order to take applications on site and provide follow-up to the families in obtaining verifications for eligibility. (It is noted the Virginia Department of ~edical Assistance Services will reimburse tbs worker's salary and benefits at 100%; the County Social Senvices Department and/or Health Department will absorb other operational costs within existing FY90 budget~.) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: M~. Sullivan. 12.F.7. AUTRORIZATION OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN S~ARON BROO~S AND ASSOCIATES AND THE CEESTER~IELD COUNTX DSPARTM~NT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR T~E PRODUCTION OF ADVBRTISING, MARKETING~ PROM0~%0NAL AND INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS AND RELATED SERVICES On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board authorized the County Administrator to prepare and execute a contract betwesn Sharon Brooks and A~ociates and the Chesterfield County Department of Economic Development for a two year term with two one-year renewable options for the production of advertising, marketing, promotional and informational materials and related se:vices. (It is noted a 89-846 multi-year contract is desired in order that an effective marketing campaign can be impl~mente~ with continuity £or Chesterfield County.) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Cnrrin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. MayeR. AbseDt: ~r. Sullivan. APPROPRIATE THREE CENT RO~_D FUNDS FOR TH05L~S DALE HIGH On motion of Mr. Danisl, seconded by Mr. Currln, the ~oard appropriated $6,808 from the Bermuda District Three Cent Road Eund for the construction of a permanent sign at Thomas Dale High School to carry the school name an~ advertise special events and which will replace an existing temporary sign. Ayemz Mr. Appl~gate~ Mr. C~rrin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Maye$. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. 12.G. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS 12.G.2. REQUEST FROM DEVELOPERS OF RIVEP~BEND TO CONS~RUC~ A WABTEWATER PUNPINd STATION ~u~b F0~CE M_~I~ Mr. Curtis disclosed ~o the Board that he i~ a partner in Riversbend, declarsd a conflict of interest p~r~uant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and himself fro~ the meeting. ~r. Applegate referenced a lektef from ~r. George re~uesting a deferral ~o that concerns regarding the pump station could be addressed. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred consideration of a request from developer~ of Riversbend to construct a wast~at~r p~unplmg station and force main until September 27~ Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayec. Absent: Mr. Curtis and Mr. Sullivan. ~r. Curtis returned t~ the meeting. 12.G.3. CONSIDEI{ATION OF A P~EQUEST PROM MR. GLEN PARSONS OF CREEN~I~L 5B$OCIATRS FOR PE~ISSION TO I~$TALL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS IN AN E~ISTING.50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-NAY Mr. Curtis disclosed to the Board that River~bend property the County Attorney that a conflict of int~cmst did not exist, he felt it appropriate, as he is a partner in sive~sbend, and declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehe~sivs Conflict o£ XnterestAc~ and excused himself from th~ On ~otion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved a r~ques= from Mr. G{en Parsons, General Partner Of Ore,shill A~oeiate~t for permission to install roadway improvements within ah existing 50~ unimproved right-of-way adjacent to their property to serve a proposed office warshouse, which is subject to the following o0ndi~ions: I. That ~he roadway be constructed in accordance wi~h the site plan of Rivers Rend Offie~ approved by County staff. 2. That the applicant execute cross ease~snt agreements with the adjoining landowner when tha~ property is developed, to prcvlde ingress and property tc ~he west. 3. That the applicant maintain the e~isting storm sower within the right of way upon which this road is to be constructed from the roar of Lot 8, Block A, Section 2 of Rivers Bend, to the existing right or way of Route 10. 4. That tho applicant agree to pay the pro-rata share of the Johnson's Creek Drainage District for the area lying within the right of way, if this is applicable at tho time of development. 5, That the adjoining landowner to the east be required to enter into a maintenance agreement with the applicant to pay one half of the co~t of ~aintenanee of this roadway if access is used when that property is developed. 6. That the applicant save the County harmless from any claims of injury or damage as a result of tho construction or maintenance of said ~oadway, and that the developer agree to maintain this roadway until it is accepted into the state maintenance system. (It is noted a copy of said plat is filed with the papers of this Board and that subject property lies within the Johnson Crsek Drainage District and the developer will be requi~ed to pay the appropriate fees.) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Currin and Sullivan. Mr. Currin returned to the meeting. 12.G.4. CONSENT ITEMS 12.G.4.a. ACCEPTANCE OF DEEDS OF DEDICATION ALONG LORI ROAD FROM COURT SQUARE, INC. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed of dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of two 15' strips of land along Lori Road from Court Square, Inc. (A copy of said plat is filed with the papers of this ~oard.) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. 12.G.4.a.2. ALONG GENITO ROAD FROM WILLIAM B. DUVAL AND GENE B. DUVAL On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator bo execute the necessary deed of dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a 35' strip of land along Genito Road from Mr. William B. Dural and Mr. Gene H. Duval. (A copy of said plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. FOR RELOCATION OF PORTION OF COURTHOUSE ROAD FROM HALINDA ASSOCIATES On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard approved and authorized the County Admfnistrator to execute the necessary deed of dedication accepting, on behalf of the 89-848 County, the conveyance of two ~trips of land for the relocation of a portion of Courthouse Road at its intersection with Ironbridge Road (Route 18), from Halinda Associates. (A copy Of $~id plat is filed with the pape:s of thi~ Board.} Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Cuttle, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: ~r. Sullivan. FOR RELOCATION OF A PORTION OP COURTHOUSE ROAD FROM HU DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS On motion of Mr. Coffin, ~scondu4 Dy Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and au~lorized the Connty Administrator to execute th~ necessary d~e~ o~ dedication accsptlng, on behalf of the County, the conveyance Of two strip~ of land £cr the relocation of a portion of Courthouse Reed e= it~ intersee=ion with Ironbridge Road (Route t0) ~ from HU Development Partners. ~ copy of ~aid plat is filed with the papers c~ this Board.) Ayes: Mr. Applegat~, Mr, coffin, Mr, Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. l~.G.4.a.~. ASONG MORRISETT ROAD F~OM ~. DEAN WHITTINGTON AND NONIE E~ WHITTINGTON On motion of Mr. Coffin, ~conded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary de%d of dedication accepting, on behalf of Coun:y, the convayanoe of a 25~ strip o~ land along Morrisett Road from ~r. M. Dean Whittington and ~. ~onie ~. ~i~ingtcn. (A copy of said plat is filed ~ith the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Coffin, Nr. Daniel and Mr. Mayer. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. 12.G.4.b. CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND ~ND POWER COMPANY On motion of Mr. Currln, ~e~nded by ~r. Daniel, the ~oard authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute an easemen~ agreement with Virginia ~lectrio and Power Company to install buried cable for service to the Tomahawk Bump Station off Old Hundred Road. (A copy Of said easement is filed ~ith the papers of this Board.~ Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Nr. Daniel and Mr. Mmye~, 12,G.5~ REPORTS Mr, Sale presented the Boa~d with a report On ~he developer water and sewer con=facts executsd by the Gounty Administrator. 12.~. REPORTS Mr. R~ey presented the Board with a sta~u$ report on the General Fund Contingency Account, QeReral Fund Balance, Road B~serve Funds, District Road and Street Ligkt Funds, L~aue Purchase, School Board Agenda and Minutes~ and tho Board Public Nearing ~chedule. Mr. Ramsey stated ~he Virginia Departmen~ o~ Transportation has formally notified the County of ~he acceptance end/er ebandonment of %he following reeds into/from tbs State Seoondary Sys%em~ $9-~49 ADDITIONS LENGT~ WAREI~LD ~STAT~S, SECTIONS Aw B, C AND GOYNES SUBDIVISION Route 4450 (Perdue Avenue) - From Route 616 to Route 4453 (Cedar Lane) Routs 4451 (Perdue Court) - From Route 4450 to east cul-de-sac Route 4452 (Perdue Terrace) - From Route 4450 to northeast cul-de-sac Route 4453 (Cedar Lane) - From Route 616 to Route 4450 (Perdue Avenue) 0.24 Mi. 0.04 Mi. 0.14 Mi. 0.11 Mi. GLEN OAKS, SECTION 3 Route 3585 (Glen Oaks Drive) - From 0.05 mile south Route 717 to Route 3586 0.32 Mi. Rou~e 3586 (Namlin Drive) - From 0.25 mile south- west Route 3585 to Route 4477 (Ha~lin Avenue) 0.20 Mi. Route 4475 (Glen Oaks Court) ~ From Route 3585 to east cul-de-sac 0.05 Mi. Route 4476 (Walters Drive) - From Route 3585 to southwest cul-de-sac 0.18 Mi. Route 4477 (Hamlin Avenue) - From Route 3586 to Route 144 0.06 Mi. MILLCREEK - SECTIONS 2 & 3/SYLVANIA - BLOCKS D ~ ~ Route 3456 (Lalonde Drive)'- From 0.07 mile east Route 3457 to Route 3455 0.01 Mi. Route 3455 (Roland View D~ive) - From 0.02 mile south Route 3456 to north cul-de-sac 0.29 Mi. Route 3458 (Sylvania Place) - From Route 3455 to Route 1140 0.18 Mi. Route 3459 (Sylvania Court) - From Route 3458 to northeast cul-de-sac 0.06 Mi. CAI~DI/ELAMP - SECTIONS A & E Route 4190 (Third Branch Drive) - From Route 654 to south cul-de-sac 0.20 Mi. Route 4191 (Third Branch Court) - From Route 4190 to southeast cul-de-sac 0.19 Mi. Route 727 (Murray Olds Drive) - From 0.11 mile south Route 60 to Route 868 Route 866 (Murray Olds Court) - From Route 727 to southwest cul-de-sac 0.18 Mi. 0.06 Mi. ABBOT'S MILL Route 3971 (Abbot's Mill Way) - From Route 3970 to 0.02 mile southeast Route 3973 0.07 Mi. Route 3972 (Brimfield Lane) - From Route 3971 to southwest cul-de-sac 0.12 Mi. 89-850 ABEOT~S MILL (continued) Rout~ 3973 (~oxford Lan~) - From 2971 east cul-de-sac CHARTER WOODS - $~CTION 2 Route 4181 (Swanhur~t Drive) - From 0.04 mile northwest Route 4150 to Route 41~3 Route 4161 (Chartstone Drive} - ~rom ROu%~ 4183 =o 0.05 mile southwest Route 41~2 Route 4182 {~ox~one Road} - From 0.14 mile northwest Route 41~l-~ast to Routs 4iS1-West Route 4153 {chartstone Court) ~ From Route 41~1 to north ~ENGTH 8.14 ~i. 0.04 Mi. 0.11 Mi. 0.0~ Mi. Section 2 of new location Route 667; Pruject: 0667-020-240,C501,~668 0.16 Mi. BRANDEP~4ILL TP~tDE CENTER ROUte ~999 (~a~t ~oun~ary Court) - Fro~ ~oute 2978 tm ~outheaet cul-de-~sc CHARTER WOODS ~ SECTION 3 Route 4181 ~Swanhuret Drive$- Fro~ 0.0S mile south Route 4182-East to 0.05 mile south Route 4t84-East ~out~ 41gl (Cha~tstone D~i~e) - From 0.04 mile ~outh Route 4lS2-We~t to 0.05 mile south ~oute 4184-West Route 4184 (Knightcroee Road) - From Route 4181-West to Route 4181-E~st ~e=tion 1 of o!~ location Route 667~ Project: 0667-02~-240~C5O1,B668 0.16 Mi. 0.09 Mi. 0.09 ~i. 0.30 Mi. L~NGTH 0. ~6 ~i. Ther~ was ~iscussion relative ~o a joint Board of Supervisors/School Beard Executive Sea,ion an~ it was gen~rally agreed that an Executive Session be scheduled for ~eptember 25, 1989~ at 5~O0 p,m, in th~ Adr~inistration BuiLdin~ Confe~enc~ On motion of ~r. Currin, seconded by ~r. Mayss, the ~oar= ad~ourned at 12:~0 a.m. (EDT) until 5:00 p.m. (~DT) on Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr, Currin, ~r. Daniel and Mr, Mayee. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. "~ne B. Ram~ey ~ County Administrator' Chairman 89-851