Loading...
09-27-1989 MinutesROA~D OF SUPBRVlSO~S 1989 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. G. H. Applegate, Chairman Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr., Vice Chairman Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. Jesse J. Maye~ Mr. M. B. Sullivan Mr. Lane B, Ramsey County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Ms. Amy Davis, Exec. A~st. to Co. Admin. Mrs. Doris DeHart, Asst. CO. Admin,, Leqi~. Svcs. and Intergovern. Aiialrs Ms. Joan Dolezal, Clerk to the Board Chief Robert Eanes, Fire Department Mr. Bradford S. Hammer, Deputy CO. Admin., Manaqement Services Mr. William ~. Bowell, Dir., Gen. Services Mr. Thomas ~. Jacobsen, Dir. of Planning Ms. Mary Leu Lyle, Dir. of Accounting Mr. Robert Masden, Deputy Co. Admin., Human Services Mr. R. J. McCracken, Transp. Director Mr. Richard McElfish, Dir. of Env. Eng. Mrs. M. Arline MeGuire, Treasurer's office Mr. Steve Micas, CO. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of News/Info. Services Col. Joseph Pit,an, Chief of Police Mr. William D. Peele, Chief, Dev. Review Mr. Richard Sale, Deputy Co. Admin., Development Mr. Jay Stegmaier, Dir. of Budget Mr. M. D. Stlth, Jr., Dir. of Parks & Rec, Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities Mr. Frederick Willis, Dir. of Human Resource Management Mr. Applegate called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. (EDT) in the ~oard Room. 1. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Mr. Applegate. There was a moment of silent prayer in memory of Mr. Thomas ~ayne~, a prominent member of the Chester community who was murdered. 89-856 2. ~LED~E OF AT-T-FGiu%NCE .TO. TH~ FLAG OF 'r~ ~NITED STATES OF Mr. Frederick lq. Willis, Director of H~an Resource Management, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag cf the United Statem of A/nerica. 3. APPROVAL OF Mr. Currin proposed smenc~nents to the s~ptemb~r 13, 1989 minute~ relating to the Chester Village Mr. Mayas requested clarification on ~r. Cursings amen~ant~ to the minutes. He ~tated he felt approval of ~ minutes should b~ 6alerted until clarification of the propomed ~en~men~s were r~olved; and %ha%, if the Board w~ra ~o proceed with approval of the minut~ at this time, he wished the record to reflect hi~ stron~ objection and that he felt it wa~ b~ng done in a high-handed, cavalier manner. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the minutes of Septs~er 13, 19~9, a~ Mr. Daniel ~tated that he felt that if any review reflected evidence would be brought forth to the ~oard. The voee on the motion was as follows: Ay~: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin and ~x. Daniel. Nay~ Mr. Ma~es, as he felt th% minuets were amended inaccurately and in a cave!is= manner. Absent: Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Appleqate stated =hat if the tape~ were to prove Mr. May~ incorrect he hoped Mr. Maye~ wo~4 ru~zact his statements. Mayas stated he had a copy of ~e tape and was certain that what he had ~aid wa~ correct. 4. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S CON94EIF~$ Mr. MeC~acken introduced Ms. Con,tahoe Sorrel1, recently appein=ed as Richmond Distriut Administrator with the virginia Department of ~ransportation {VDOT} and o~tllne~ her pro~essional backq=ound. Me. Softail expressed appreciation for the opportunity to work with and continue UDO?'$ e×o~llen~ professional relationship with the County. Mr. Gene Augsburg,s, Regional Forester with the Department of Forestry, inkYcdueed Mr. Ted Tats, the new Chesterfield County Forester and briefly outlined his professional background. Mr. Aug~bnrger pre~ent~d the Board with a packet of information entitled, "Forest Management Plan", .a, copy of which is filed with the papers of this Bo~rd. Mr. Tats expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to work with the County and advised the Board of several of the ~par~ment's ongoing aotivitiee. Mr. Ramsay introduced Chief Robert Eane~ who presented a brief ~u~m~ary of two ongoing initiatives %0 provide assistance =o residents ~n South Carolina who wer~ recently impacted by the damage/destruction of ~urri~ene Hugo: the transport of canned goods/clothing to the area by DuPont and the deployment cf a County squad unit from the ~on Air Volunteer Fire station, six firefi~hters and two officers~ to assist residents, official~, and the fire department of MurrelI's Inlet. The Board commended the Department ~or these activities. ~r. Ramsay commended the County Police Department £Qr their diligent efforts end aggressive police work which resulted in 99-S57 the arrest of suspects in the reeent tragic event resulting in the death of Mr. Thomas Haynes. It was generally agreed a resolution recognizing those Police Department and/or other individuals involved in the expeditious arrest of suspects be brought forward. Mr. Daniel reported he attended the Richmond Reqional Planning District Commission (RRPDC) meeting at which the Task Fores reco~endation on a water resources plan for the entire region was approved and will be proceeding toward its goal; stated an item is scheduled to be added to the Board's morning agenda relative to the RRP~C's By-Laws and Charter which were also approved at the most recent RRPDC meeting; represented the County at the Capital Region Airport Commission (CRAC) meeting; and also addressed a group of financial individuals from the various metropolitan governments, sponsored by Peat, Marwick, regarding regionalism and issues facing all jurisdictions in the next ten years. Mr. Mayes reported he attended a Conference in Williamsburg regarding Information Management held by the Council on Information Management and had placed a copy of the report in the Board Reader File with a ~eport in the future to be made available to the County outlining the results of that meeting; and attended the Appomattox Basin Industrial Development Corporation meeting (ABIDCO), Mr. Currln reported he attended a regional Social Services meeting at which there was discussion regarding upcoming chanqes that will impact the Social Services Department; and attended the Appomattox ~asln Industrial Development Corporation (ABIDCO) meeting which was a regional meeting of all elected State representatives addressing issues of m~t~al Mr. Applegate reported that for some lengthy period of time there has been an ongoing effort to establish a regional signsge image program to identify points of interest in the region. He stated it was his understanding that there will a public announeement of the program which will affect the City of Richmond and the Counties o~ Henries, Hanover and Chesterfield, which wil~ be made at the State Fai~ later in the day. Ms. Pauline Mitchell reported that at the recent Board of Trnstees of the ~enricus Foundation Annual meeting the President of ~armac presented additional acreage to Henricus to expand the e×ieting parkinq lot, there wac a donation of $1,000 in printing, and there was a donation of additional acreage from Shoosmith for the tourist center, and ~r. Qarland Dodd, a past Board member, donated a mobile home unit to serve as an office for the tourist center. 6. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION~ EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES IN TNB ORDER OF PRESENTATION Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that he owns approximately three-fourths of an acre which may be within the proposed Drainaqe District and drain to Johnson's Creek for which two items are to be discussed during the adoption of the agenda that could be considered a potential conflict of interest and, until he received clarification from the Coramonwealth's Attorney's Office as to whether or not an actual conflict did exist, he would prefer not to vote on any issues relating to these items. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded, by Mr. Mayss, the Board received additional in~o~atio~ relative to Item ll.A., 89-858 Resolution ~upporting an ~ndment to the Richmond City Code ~egulatiag Adult Movie Theatres and Adult ~ook Stores~ added Item ll.M., Adoption of Resolution to Ratify ~endments to the Richmond Regional Planning District Co~mission (BHPDC) Charter~ to Bellow Item ll+F.3.; added Item I1.N., Authorize the County Attorney to Petition the Circuit Court for an Election to Fill the Position of County Sheriff, tO follow Item ll.M.; wan distributed revised in~crmatloo regarding Item 10.B., Public Bearing To Con~id~r the Amendment O~ the Budget and the Appropriation of Funds ~rcm the Following Source~: Bond Pro~eed~ of $40.1 Million and Intercet Earnings of $2.1 Million~ tho Total c~ $42.2 Million Will Be Used on School Projects; added to existing I~em ll.I., Executive Sezzlen, a ~econd topic pertaining to Consultation with Leq&l Counsel Relating to Pro,able Litigation Between the Hoard of Supervisors and the School Board~ pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a) (7) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended~ and adopted the agenda, as amended. Ayes: Mr. Apple~ate, Mr. Coffin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. ~bsent~ ~r. Sullivan. ~r. currin disclosed to the,~Boa~d .~hat~he owns approximately three-~ourths of an acre ~hich may be within tlhe proposed Drainage District and drain.:to!:~ohnson's Creek which could b~ considered a ~ot~ntial conflict of inter~st~ declared a potential conflict of interezt pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Inter&~tiAOt2aDd excused himself from On motion of ~r. Daniel, eeconde~ by Mr. Meyes~ the Board deferred until October 25, 1989, consideration c~ Items 9.D., Approval of Financing for Johnson's Creek D~ainage Project and Set Date for .a Public Meaning to Impose a Drainage Service District on a Portion of the Johnson's Creek Development District; and 9.E., Johnson'~ Creek Drainage District. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Abeent: Mr. Currln and Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Currin returned to ths meeting. 7. RE~OL~T~ON$ F~qD SPECI~3~ i~ECO~ITIOWS 7.A; ~R. WOOD$0N WA~BINGTON, UPON ~ETIrtF24~NT FROM SERVICES DEPARTMENT Mr. Howell introduced Mx. Washington, conuuended h/m for his diligent service tc the'~¢ounty 3e~3s~at~d he would be sorely missed by his friends and co-workers. On motion of Mr. Cuzrin, S~C~a by Mr. Daniel, %he Board adopted the following resolution: WB=~AS, ~r. woodson washington will retire f~om the General Services Depart~msnt, Chesterfield CouDty, on October 1, 1989; and W~EREAS, Mr. Washln$ton ha~ provided BO years of q~elity service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and W~EREAS, Chesterfield County and the ~oard of supervisozs ~ill mis~ Mr. Washington'8 ~iligen~ service; and WHE~AS, Mr, Washington has given the County his loyalty and support; during tko many ~hang~$ that have takmn place in the County~ Mr. Washington never changed in his constancy and devotion to hi~ job an~ his cheerful willingness to do =asks that might be shunned by others; he has ~%t an ~ple for all ~o follow. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED~ that this Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Washington and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his service to the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution be pre~ented to Mr. Waehington and that thio Resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr~ Ourrin/~Mr. Daniel and Mr. ~ayes. Absent= Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Currin presented the executed resolution and engraved Jefferson Cup to Mr. Washington and wished him well in his 7.B. MR. L. M. JOHNSON, UPON RETIREMENT FROM UTILITIES DEPART- MENT Mr. Welchons introduced Mr. Johnson, commended him for his diligent service to the County and stated he would be sorely missed by his friends and co-workers. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Mr. L. M. "Buster" Johnson will retire from the Utilities Department, Chesterfield Ceunty~ On October 1, 1989; and WHEREAS, Mr. Johnson has provided 34 years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss Mr. Johnson's diligent service; and WHEREAS, Mr. Johnson was employed by the County as a draftsman and initially worke0~J~t~ the Department of Taxation Office in Riob_~ond preparing the property identification maps of the County, which were the basis for the maps used today; he later worked with the developmeKt~ ,o'£~ the house numbering system; performed updated work on the maps; and WHEREAS, Mr. Johnson, in the early I960's with the extension of the sewer program, worked as a Utilities Inspector until 1969; he then became an Engineering Assistant; later he was promoted to Chief Utilitie~ Construction In~pector and during these 16 years, he was responsible for the inspection of approximately 1,600 miles of water and sewer lines. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this Soard of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Johnson and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his service to the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution be presented to Mr. Johnson and that this Resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: M~. Sullivan. Mr. Currin presented the executed resolution and engraved Jefferson Cup tO Mr. Washlngton'~and wished him well in his 89-860 There wer~ no hearing~ of citizens on unscheduled matter~ or claims. The Board w~l¢omed Mr. SulZivan to the meeting upon his return since his recent illnesg. ITEMS COST APPROVAL DEFEHRAL There was brief discuaaion relative to the location of certain street light installation requests, a request for a list of those not installa~ as 'yet'but funded more than a year ago; etc. Mr. Applegate expressed concern r~gardlng tho to,al amount of cost for the ~eq~ested installations exceeding the balance of his District Street Light Account, stat~ ho was reluctant to take such action at this time and requested deferral of the matter until October--il-, ~19~9. On motion of Zr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the ~oerd approv~ the co~t~ for street light installation at the interEection of tree,man Driv~ an~ Sara Kay Drive in the DaI~ Maglst~rial District in the amount of $1,050 from the Dal~ Distri=t Street Light Fund; and deferzed until October 1989, consideration of the costs for ~tre~t light installation for th~ ~ollowlng locations in the Clover Hill Dis~rict: 1. Intersection Qf Red Chestnut Drive and Red Chestnut Court, $5,870; 2. 129~ Red Chestnut Drive, $3,989; Intersection of Pecan T~race and Tall Hickory Drive, 4. Inter~ection of Acorn hill Court and Tall Hickory Dr±v~, ~3,087; 1~06 Red Chestnut Drive, $2,06~; and 6. Intersection of Tall Hickory Court au~ Tall Hickory Drive, Vote: Unanimous Mr. Sale noted that since the Hoard adopted a new Subdivision Ordinance, which included the cost e~ the installation of street lights fnz newly constructed subdivisions being borne by developers~ the County baa experienced, in ~erms of new deferra~ coat~ an approximate cost savings of $100-150,000 9.B. PUHLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO A/4END SECTIONS 21-10 AND 2I_1-5~ CDDE ©E ?~ COUNTY OF CHHETER~IELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CONDITIONS OF ZONING~ CONDITIONAL USH PERi, ITS, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES Mr. Mica~ stated that at its September 19, 1989 meeting, the Planning Con~issien d~farred consideration of an ordinance to amend the county Code relating to p~nalties for violation~ of conditions of zoning, ~onditional use permits, special exceptions and variances in order to receive additional input from the Chesterfiel~ and Colonial Heights Ear Association and ~tated it would be appropriate, at thi~ time, for the Board to also defer sa/~e until such time as the Planning Commission has taken action. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred until October 25, 1989, consideration of an ordinance to amend Sections 21-10 and 21.1-5, Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, relating to penalties for violations of conditions of zoning, conditional use permits, special exceptions and variances. Vote: Unanimous 9.C. P~EQUEST FROM DEVELOPERS OF RIVERSREND TO CONSTRUCT A WASTEWATER PUMPING STATION AND FORCE MAIN Mr. Currin ~isclosed to the Board that he is a partner in Riversbend, declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. There was brief discussion relative to whether or not this request was in conformity with the manner in which other pump stations were handled; if the pump station were in concert with the overall survey of needs for the entire County; what specific area the pump station would serve; who will pay for the pump station; pu~p station size and capacity, location of force main; etc. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved a request from the developers ef Riversbend to construct a wastewater pumping station and force main to connect tc the public wastewater system to serve approximately 600 acres of residential and Commercial/industrial development in the Meadowville area of the County; additionally, the pumping station will be designed, sited, and constructed to accommodate an additional 300 acres of development east of Interstate 295 which also requires the use of a pumping station, which pump station will be constructed by the developer at an estimated cost of $800,000. (It is noted the use of the pump station by Riversbend will be limited to no more then 250 single family residences, 275 multi family units, 14 acres of office, and 49 acres of light industrial; any modification shall be approved by the Director of Utilities; and the developer will be responsible for obtaining and dedicating the necessary easements, for construction of the pump station and force main as well as the gravity lines connecting to the pump station.) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan, Absent: Mr. Currin. Mr. Currin returned to the meeting. 10. PURLIC~FJ~RINGS 10.A. TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF E.I. DUPONT DENEMOURS & CO., INC. FOR A PERMIT TO PROVIDE BASIC LIFE SUPPORT RESCUE SQUAD AND E.M.S. SERVICES FOR TEE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THEIR SPRUANCE PLANT '.."~'. ~ " ',' Ns. Davis stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider a request from E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. for a permit to provide basic life support rescue and EMS services for the exdlusive use of the Company's Spruance Plant. She stated Mr. Larry Davis, Chief of Emergency Operations for the Spruanoe Plant, was present to answer any que~tion~ the Board may have. No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter. 89-862 i When asked, ~r. Davis stated the intent o~ Du~ent is tn afford itu employeeu/cuntractors an ambulance service for expeditious transport to local hospitals end would be used only on the DuPont site. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Roa~d approved a request for approval of an applioatlon from E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Medical Emergency Response Team to the Commonwealth of Virginia, State Department of Heal,h, for a license to operate a private rescue squad that would provide basic life support rescue and EMS service~ for th~ excluelve uae o£ the Dugout Spruance,~lant, Vote; Unanimous ~. Squad supporting the request. -. 10,B. TO CON~ID~R THE A/6~ND~NT OF TH= BUDGET AND THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES: BOND ~R0CEED$ OF $40.1 MILLION AIqD INTEREST EARNINGS OF $2.1 MILLION~ THE TOTAL OF $42.2 MILLION WILL BE USED ON SCE00L PROJECTS ~r. Stepmaier sta%e~ this data and ~ime ha~ haan scheduled for a public hearing to consider the appropriation of funds for. FXP0 ~chool Capiaal Improvements Program in the amount of $42.2 million. There was discussion relative to the cash flow plan; the appropriation o~ $I?.1 million versus the appropriation of the entire amount of $42.2 million; the anticipatlo~ the= the of supervisor~ Should e×pr~s its in%eat at this meeting authori=e the issuance of general obligation bonds in sufficien= principal amount to support the appropriation; the appropriation versus the actual cash flow~ whether or not $990,000 for a management contract should be~ appropriated at thi~ time; etc. . ~. ~ .~ ~ . . Mr, St~gmaier stated the gchoo% ~oa=~ anticipates, at this time, through the month of Oetoher~ i~suiug contracts which would require an additional $18 million beyond wha= is currently appropriated. ~r. Daniel stated that he could support appropriatinq the $17.1 million at this time as well as a few hundred =housan~ more to ensure that the School Administration could continue business ~hrough January l, 1990; however, he would feel more comfortable appropriating th~ balanc~ Of the funds on a contract by contract basis, ~hich would not only be good management but also ~ould place the Board in a posture of supporting the commitment the Board made to certain School p~0ject~. Mr. May¢~ stated he did not have the same information ~r, Daniel had and he was unable to comment at this tim~. Mr. Sullivan expressed concerns as to whether er not the would be impacted if more money wer~ advanced at an cartier date; if such action would not make less money, in terms of interest, availuble; if the scenario proposed by Mr. woul~ adversely impact the School's o~eration; and stated he could support appropriation of $17.1 million a~ this time and if more fnn~s ware nea~ad, those ~unds could be appropriated in December. Mr. Currin inquired a~ to how much interest earned over a period of time on unspent monies; whether or 'not any projections had been. made.:on how .much intere~% could be earned if $42 million were borrowed; etc. ~r. Appl~gaee stated he ielt ~r. Daniel's comments contained merit; however, he approved must be considered through the public hearing process in October for funding through December 31, 1989 and that th~ 89-863 balance then be appropriated on.a con%tact by Contract basis. He stated the voters approved the bond referendum and even though there are differenoes, o£ opinion between the two Boards, that he believed that the School Board and School Administra- tion were capable of moving forward in a timely fashion to get the schools built and if the process of coming back month after month continued it would be an unnecessary expense to the County. He ~tated he felt the money should be appropriated at this time and placed in the hands of the School Administration to use for the needed projects. After further discussion, Mr. Daniel stated he could agree to appropriate all the funds except the $990,000 noting that no funds are being appropriated for construction management contracts until said issue is resolved by both Soards. Mr. George Seadlee stated he felt the School Administration should briug each issue forward to the Board of Supervisors for appropriation on a case by case basis and felt the two Boards should meet and discuss existing differences. There being no one else to address the matter, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Mayes concurred with Mr. Daniel's comments; stated no one has answered question as to why it is necessary to expend funds for the hiring of consultants by the School Board for purposes for which the County is.already.equipped, to provide and he did not feel the monies ~hould be allocated until such q~estions were answered. Mr. Daniel ~tated, that in the spirit of cooperation and a desire to get schools constructed, on time, he moved appropriation of $41,210,000 for the FY90 School Capital Improvements Project, with $990,000 for construction management contracts being withheld for appropriation at a future date; the Board set the date of October 11, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing to adopt the formal resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds in the total a~ount of $42.2 million for the School Capital Improvements Program and %he sale of bonds in the amount of $17.1 million, with the understanding that the only bonds to be sold in FY 89-90 will be for $17.1 million and the balance of the appropriation in the amount of $41,210,000 to be sold in FY90-91; and further, that the Board expressed its intent to authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds in a sufficient principal amount to support the ap- propriation at some time in the future. Mr. Currin seconded the motion. There was further discussion as to whether or not the Contingency Fund could be used to fund construction management fees; etc. Mr. Sullivan concurred with Mr. Daniel and the intent of the Board; would ask that the School Board and School Administra- tion understand that the Board is very committed regarding this matter; and that, even though there are differences of opinions, the School Board and Sohool Administration would seek to accommodate the Board on this matter. Vote: Unanimous NEW BUSINESS ll.A. P~ESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN AMENDMENT TO TEE RICSMOND CITY CODE R~GULATING ADULT MOVI~ TK~ATR~S AND ADULT BOOK There was brief discussion regarding supporting a resolution for amendment to the Richmond City Code regulation adult movie theatres and adult book stores; that failure to take a position 89-864 m m prevent Route 60 fro~ being convert®d into a pornographic in the City, etc. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Coffin, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, A proposed development on Midlothian Turnpike within the City of Richmond intends to sell pornoqraphi0 movies and books and offmr massages in conjunction with a motel permitting short-term lease opDort~nities; and WHEREAS, such activity ad,scent to or close to ~esidential uS~, schools add churches severely diminishes the quality of lifo of the entire Richmond area; and WHEREAS, Such sexually explicit business activity in close proximity to Chesterfield County affects appropriate land use planning aa well as future eCOnomic development within the County; and W~REAS, Chesterfield County has already chosen to regulate s~xually ~x~licit activity through our zoning and massage ~arIor ordinances. NOW, TEEREPOP~ EE tT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors supports the propo~d ~usDdment to =he Richmond City Code ~atroned by Mrs. Riddell, Mr. Lsidinqer and Mrs. McDaniel prohibiting adult hook s~ores, adult motion ~icture theatres and massage parlors within 500 feet of any church, school, motel or c~rtain rssldeDtial activitiez~ AND BE IT ~URTMRR R~$OLV=D that such statement of support be presented to City Council at ite..October 9, 1989 public h~mring. Vote; Unanimous ~h~n a~k~d, Mr~ Micas ia~icated t~e County's ordinance regulate such activities a~ this, as w~lt as massage parlors. COMPANY AGREEMENT AND SET COMPENSATION FOR GRTC DIRECTORS Mr. Micas stated that, at its August ~3, 1989 meeting, the Board authorized the Chairman to execute all necessary documents to permit the City's non-r~fdent Director~ to r~ain on tho Greater Richmond Transit Company IGRTC) Board, of which organization Chesterfield is an equal owner. ~ Statsd since that time, the City Council has replaced the non-residen~ longer any reason for the amendment to the original GRTC Aqreement~ the BOard should rescind the ~msndment authority it previously granted. ©n motion cf Mr. Daniel, ~econ~e~ by Mr. Mayee, the Board rescinded the authorization granted on August ~3, 19~9 to amen~ the GRTC Agreement; au=horlzed compensation of $2,808 per year ior each of the three GRTC Birector~ repr~ntlng Chesterfield Contingency Account for this purpose. Vote: Unanimous ll,C. ACCEPTANC~ OF DEED OF DEDICATION FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR ECOFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Mr. Micas noted that the County has been attempting to negotiate with the School Board a process for obta£niDg proper~y ~or use as sshcol $ites~ however, there is no S9-865 agreement on said proces~ at this: time.. He stated the School Board has taken title in its name to the Ecoff ~lementary School site and is requesting that the Eoard accept a dedication of the parcel to the County. On motion of Mr. Cu~rin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the neoessary deed of dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of the Ecoff Elementary School site from the Chesterfield County School Board, with the understanding that the acquisition process may chanqe after further negotiations with the School Board. (A copy of said deed of dedication is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous Mr. Sullivan noted that he and Mr. Currin are in the process of discussing said negotiations with the School Liaison Committee to come up with a suitable process. ll.D. APPOINTMENTS - DEBRIS MANIFEST APPEALS BOARD On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board nominated Mrs. Donna Link, Mr. Fred Carreras and Mr. John Dyke to Serve on the Debris Manifest Appeals Board, whose formal appointments will be made at the October 11, 1989 meeting. Vote: Unanimous ll.E. CONSENT ITEMS ll.E.1. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Twelve Oaks Road, Twelve Oaks Court, Glen Tara Drive, Glen Tara Court, O'Hara Drive and Gable Way in Glen Tara, Sections 4A, 4C, and 4D, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, it i~ re~nlved that ~welve Oaks Road, Twelve Oaks Court, Glen Tara Drive, Glen Tara Court, O~Hara Drive and Gable Way in Glen Tara, Sections 4A, 4C, and 4D, Matoaca 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~eby is ~requested to take into the Secondary System, Twelve Oaks Road, beginning at the end of existing Twelve Oaks Road, State. Route 3123, and going south- westerly 0.09 mile to the intersection with Twelve Oaks Court~ then continuing southwesterly 0.08 mile to end at the inter- section with Glen Tara Drive; Twelve Oaks Court, beginning at the intersection with Twelve Oaks Road and going northwesterly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Glen Tara Drive, beginning at the intersection with Twelve Oaks Road and going southeasterly 0.06 mile, then turning and going northeasterly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Glen Tara Court, then continuing north- easterly 0.14 mile to the intersection with 0'Hare Drive, then continuing northeasterly 0.06 mile to the intersection with Gable Way, then continuing northeasterly 0.08 mile to tie into existing Glen Tara Drive, State Route 3124; Glen Tara Court, beginning at the intersection with Glen Tara Drive and going 0.06 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; O'Hara Drive, beginning at the intersection with Glen Tara Drive and going northwesterly 0.05 mile to end at the intersection with Twelve Oaks Road, State Route 3123; and Gable Way, beginning at the intersection with Glen Tara Drive and going southeasterly 0.03 mile to end in a temporary turnaround. 89-866 This request is inclusive O~ the a~jaoent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage These roads serve 78 10ts. And be it further resolved, that th~' Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these roa~s. Section 4A. Plat Bock 42, Page 68, March 16, 1983. Seetio~ 4C. Plat Book 44, Page 1, September 12, 1983. Section 4D. Plat Book 4S, Page 37, Jnne 28, 1984. Thi~ day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his ~xamination of Sycamore Ridge Court in Sycmmor~ Ridge, Phase I, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, end on motion of Mr. Daniel~ SeCOnded by Mr. Sullivan, it is re~olv~d hha% ~yeamore Ridge Court in Sycamore Ridge, Phase I, Clo~er Hill District, be and it hereby is established a~ a public rOa~. And be it further re~olved, that the Virginia Depar~men= of Transportatlcn, be and it hereby i~ requested to take info the Secon~ry ~y~tem, Sycamore Ridge Court, beginning at the intersection with Evergreen East Parkway~ State Route 3970, and going eeeter!y ~.0] mile, then turning and going southeasterly 0.Q5 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjao~nt slope, sight distance an~ designated Virginia b~par~en~ cf Transportation drainage This road serves 16 lets. And be it farther r~elved~ that the Board of Supervisors guarantees tQ the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50~ right-of-way for this road. This section of Sycamore Ridge is recorded as follow~= Phase I. Plat Book 52, Page 40, March 6~ 1986. This day the County ~nvironment~l ~ngin~er, in accordance dlrcctloas from this ~oard, made r~pcrt in writinq upon examination of Alberta Cir~re in a pe~ti©n of Sunnybrook, Sestlon $, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereef, and c~ motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, it is resolved ~hat Alberta Cir¢!s in a portion of Sunnybrook, Section 8~ Matoaca District, be and it hereby is establi~hed as a p~blic ~ead. And ~e it further resolve4, that %he Virginia Department of Transportation~ be and it h=ruby is requested ~o take int~ the Secondary System, Alberta Circle, beginning at the intersec- tion with Alberta Road, State Route ~88, and going easterly 0.09 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, ~ight distance 89-867 and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. This road serves 14 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantess fo the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50~ ~ight-of-way for this road. This portion of Sunnybrook is recorded as follows: Section 8. Plat Book 57, Pages 16 & 17, May 26, 1987. Vote: Unanimous ll.E.2~ REQUEST FOR EINGO/B~FFLE PERMITS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved a request from the following organizations for bingo/raffle permits for the calendar year 1989: Or~ani~afien T~r~e Crestwood Elementary P. T.A. Raffle Ladies Auxiliary to the Midlothian Volunteer Fire Department Raffle Vote: Unanimous ll.E.3. RESCEEDULE PUBLIC HEARINO TO CONSIDER LAND LEASE WITR CHESTEP~IELD COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board rescheduled the date of October 25, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hea~ing ~o con~id~r a land lease with the Chesterfield County Fair Association. ll.E.4. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTERS 8 AND 12 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY CHESTERFIELD, 1978~ AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A NEW Ad~TICLE %IV AND AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 12-39 AND 12-117 RELATING TO SHORT-TERM RENTAL TAX On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board set the date of October 25, 1989, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to eonside~ an ordinance to the County Code for consideration of short-term rental tax. vote: Unanimous ll.E.5. APPROPRIATE FUNDS ~OR PARKS MASTER PLAN FROM GENERAL BUND RATHER THAN 3 CENT ROAD FUNDS There was discussion relative to utilizing funds other than the Three Cent Road Funds for the Barks Master Plan; why fundinq for the Park Master Plan was not included in the budget process or either funding requested from the 1988 Bond Referendum monies; preparation of the Plan by County staff versus consultants; absorbin9 the expenditure in the County budget~ etc. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. App~egate, the Board rescinded the appropriation of $4,400 from each of the Magisterial Districts Three Cent Road Fund, a total of $22,000~ for the purpose of preparing a Parks Master Plan; and approved 89-868 the expenditure of $22,000 ~or the purpo$~ o~ preparing a Parks Master Plan, with the understanding the appropriation will ~e absorbed in the Parks and Recreation Department 1~89-~0 opera- tional budget. {It is ~otud that this will be handled ee a year-end adjustment for P¥90, if neuessary.) Vote: Unanimous ll.F. COMMUN%TY DEV~LGPMMNT %TEMS 11.F.1. STREET NAME CHANGES On motion o5 Mr. Coffin, seconded by Mr. approved street name changes ag follows: 1. 3. Vote Daniel, the Board That portion of "Hicks Read" from Providence Road east approximately 1,000 feet be ren~m~d "Harqrave Hill Lane", Clover Hill District~ and "Danzler Battery Road" be renamed "Danzler Road", Dale District; and "Barkers Lane" be renamed "Barkers Battery Road", B~rmuda District. Unanimous - 1I.F.2. ~T~ET LIGHT REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Currln, seconded by Mr. Mayes, th~ Board approved obtaining cost estimates for the installation cf street lights at 1511 Bermuda Hundred Road and 2400 Re,met Road in Bermuda Magisterial District. Vote: Unanimous ll.F.3. LUCre LANE AND COURTHOUS~ ROAD WID=NING ~ROJECT On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, ths Board adoDted the following resolution~ WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervimor~ ha~ rmceived requests from citizens to:improve' Lucks Lane and Courthouse Road; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Depar~m~ent of Transportation (VDOT) has developed plans to upgrade Lucks Lane and a ~ection ef Courthouse Road to four lane divided facilities; and WHEREAS, VDOT's proposed improvements to Lucks Lane and Courthouse Road are in compliance with the County's Thorough- fare Plan~ Six Year Secondary Road Improvement ~lan, and ~ikeway ~lan. ~QW~ TESt{EEOC, B~ IT Pd~SOLV~D, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors support~ the vi~giRia Department o~ Transportation~ plans to i~prove Lucks Lane and Courthouse Road. It wa~ noted that th~ Board was given a copy of a statement which would bs presented at the Virginia Department of Tra~pertation~s (VDOT} publio hearing on October 10, 1989 at 7~00 p.m. 89-869 ll.M. ADOPTION OF P~ESOLUTION TO RATIFY AMENDMENTS TO TEE RICHMOND REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT C05~4IE$ION (RRPDC) CHARTER On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHERRAS, The Richmond Regional Planning District Commis- sion has recommended amendments to the Commission charter; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County's representation has supported the recommended amendments. NOW, THER~FOR~, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does endorse the recommended amendments to the Commission charter. Vote: Unanimous It was noted additional representation could be appointed after all jurisdictions have adopted the proposed amendments. ll.N. AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORI~EY TO PETITION THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR AN ELECTION TO FILL THE POSITION OF COUNTY SHERIFF On motion of Mr'. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Attorney, on behalf of the County, to petition the Circuit Court to order a special election, to be held in November, 1990, to fill the unexpired term of office of the Sheriff of the County. Vote: Unanimous ll.G. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS ii.G.i. REQUEST TO EXTEND SEWER SERVICE ON REXMOOR DRIVE, STONEHENGE There was discussion relative to the extension of sewer service on Rexmoor Drive to eliminate the problems of a septic failure; th~ fact that the property owner originated and completed much of the work on this prior to the change in County policy for the installation of public sewer service; how many more much situations exist in the County at the present time; the difference in cost relative to the previous policy versus the new policy; etc. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved and authorized the Department of Utilities to design the extension of public sewer to serve 11741 Rexmoor Drive, Stonehenge Subdivision, and to develop a cost estimate based on the construction plans in preparation for establishment of an assessment district, with the understanding that the design' costs will be fHnded from the current capital budget and repaid by the assessments. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel stated he wished the record to reflect that he found it difficult to continue to vote for any more requests under the previous policy; however, since this request was initiated under the old policy, he would support it. Mr. Currin noted that he has an existing situation in his District similar to the request being considered that may be forthcoming. Mr. Mayes inquired how many more such cases the Board would be asked to consider, stated he felt a precedent was being set, and that this request was a classic case indicative of what is to come in the future regarding septic systems; and questioned if the Soard would make exceptions for other cases brought 89-870' forward in the futur~. ~r. Sullivan stated the regarding this request i~ not based upon the fact that ther~ is a problem but that this prelect was originated and was sold on the baei~ cf what was then in effect which was th~ previou~ policy. ll.G.2. CONSENT ITEMS ll.G.Z.a. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG SUNCRJ~ST DRIV~ FROM CAR POOL, !NC. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, s~¢onded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed of dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a 10' strip of ladd along Suncrest Drive from Car ~ool, Inc., A Virginia Corporation. (A copy of said plat is filed with the paper~ of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous CONSIDERATION OF A RAILROAD AGREEMENT ~OR ROUTE 60 WATER LINE EXTENSION, 88-0100 On motion of ~r. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, =he Board accepted the railroad sqreement to install and maintain a water line oros~ing of the Southern Railway Ccmpany'~ right of way and tracke at a point 3,287 ~e%t northeast cf milepost F-1~5 and authorized the County Ada~inistr~tor to execute any necessary documents. Vote: Unsnimous ll.G.3. REPORTS Mr. Sal~ presented the ~oard with a report on the developer water and sewer eontraeE~ e~ec~ted by the Connty Administrator. Mr. Rameey p~eseneed th~ ~eur~ with a statue report On the General Fund Contingency- Account, General Fund ~alance, Read Rssnrve Pun~s, District Read end Street Light Funds, Lease Pureha~ez, School Beard Agenda and Minutes and ~oard Public Rearing Schedule. Mr. Ramssy stated the virginia Deuartment of Transportation ha~ fokTaally notified the County of the acceptance of the fallowing roads into the state Secondary System: IRON ~RIDGE PAPJ{ Route 701 (%7hite ~ine Road) - From Route 10 to il,I, EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of M~, Sullivan, s~conded by Mr. May~, the ~oard went into ~ecutive Session to =oneult with legal eeuneel Dursuamt to Section 2.1-3&4(a) (7} of th~ Code o~ Virginia, 19~0, as aalended, regardinq probable litigation rulatinq to Boulders Boulevard an~ probable litigation between the Board of S=pervlsor$ and the School Board. 89-871 Reconvening: All Board members returning to the meeting. Pertaining to the probable litigation relating to Boulders Boulevard, it was on motion o£ Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that the Board approve the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has this day adjourned into Executive Session in accordance with a formal vote of the Board, and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WRFR~AS, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act effective July 1, 1989, provides for certification that such Executive Session was conducted in conformity with law. NOW, THEP~EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors does hereby certify that to the best of each member's knowledge, i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Freedom of Information Act were discussed in the Executive Session to which this certification applies, and ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the Motion by which the Executive S~ssion was convened were heard, discussed or considered by the Board. No member dissents from this certifi- cation. The Board being polled, the vote was as follows: Vote: Mr. Daniel - Aye. Mr. Mayes - Aye. Mr. Sullivan - Aye. Mr. Currin - Aye. Mr. Appleqate- Aye. Pertaining to the probable litigation between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, resolved that the Board adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has this day adjourned into Executive Session in accordance with a formal vote of the Board, and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WBEREAS, the Virqinia Freedom of Information Act effective July 1, 1989, provides for certification that such Executive Session was conducted in conformity with law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors does hereby certify that to the best of each member's knowledge, i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Freedom of Information Act were discussed in the Executive Session to which this certification applies, and ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the Motion by which the Executive Session was convened were heard, discussed or considered by the Eoard. No member dissents from this certifi- cation. The Board being polled, the vote was as follows: 89-872 ~r~ Daniel - Aye. Mr. ~ayss Aye. Mr. Currin - Aye. Mr, Applegate- Aye. Mr. Sullivan - Abstention, Mr. Applegate stated the reeo~d ~ho~ld reflect that ~r. Sullivan ~isclosed to the Board that he had a financial interest in a C©~poration involved An day care pr0gra~$, declared = conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act end excused himself from the ~xecutive Session prior to the discussion of probable litigation between the Board O~ Supervisors and ~cheol Board. ll.J. LUNCB The Board recesse~ to travel to th~ Sunset Cafe for lunch. 11.~, R~QU~TS ~0R MOBILE HOME In Bermuda Magisterial District, B~IRI~Y GARRIS requested renewal o~ Mobile Home Permit 84SR181 to park a mobil~ home on property fronting the south line o~ Drewrye Blu~ Road, opposite of Old Plantation Road and better known as ~679 Drewrys Bluff Road. Tax Map 67-3 (1) Parcel 12 {Sheet 23). The first permit was issued on July 13~ 1977, Mr. Jacobsen presented a brief history of th9 prepe~e4 request, sta~ed staff's flel~ inspection revealed that additional living spaces hav~ been added onto the .front an~ r~r of the mobile home but are iegally ~rm~tted and that staff~ e~ opposed to making the applicant remove the addlt~en, reco~ends that the request be approved subject to Standard ConditiOns 1 through end 5 through 7 and amended Condition 4. M~. Shirley Carrie stated the recommended eondieions were acceptable, included amended Condition 4. There was no opposition present. On motio~ of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved Case 89SR0399 for seven (7) years, subject to Conditions i through 3 and 5 through 7 and amended Condition as follows: 1. The applicant shall be ~he o~er and occupant of the mebil~ home, 2. Ne lot ~r parcel may be rented or leased for use as mobile home ~i%=~ nor shall any mobile hom~ be ~$ed for ronda! property, Only one (1) ~obile home shall pe~ittud to bu parked on an individual lot Or parcel. 3. The minim~ 10% size, yard Eetback$, r~quired front yard, and other zoning requirements of th~ applicable zoning home shall be located close~ than 2~ f~t %o any existing residence. Nc ~dditional permanent-type living space, other than the existing aOdition, may be edded onto ~he mobile home. The mobil~ h~e ~hatl be skirted, but shall not be placed on a 89-B73 permanent foendation. U~e of the existing addition to the mobile home may be continued during the renewal period; however, such addition may no~ be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, substituted, er structurally altered. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being granted a Mobile Rome Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Rome Permit. Unanimous 89SR0400 In Bermuda Magisterial District, FRED AND KA~d~N PA~KER request- ed renewal of Mobile Bome Permit 84SR183 to park a mobile home on property fronting the north line of Sculley Road, approxi~ mately 200 feet northwest of Point of Rooks Road and better known as 2516 Sculley Road. Tax Map 136-14 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheets 43 and 44). The first permit was issued on September 26, 1979. Mr. Jacobsen presented a brief history of the request and stated staff recommended approval of Case 89SR0400, subject to Standard Conditions. Ms. Baron Parker stated the reconunended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Currin, seoended by ~r. Sullivan, the ~oard approved Cass 89SR0400 for seven (7) years, subject to the £oll~wlng Standard Conditions: 1. The applicant shall be the Owner and occupant Of the mobile home. 2. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. 0nly one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located oloser than 20 feet to any existing residenc~. 4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirtsd but ~hall no__~ be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the O~ice of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Ayes: Unanimous 89-874 ll.L. ~EQUEST~ FOR REZONING Landmark dselgnetion for IVXMONT. Lo0ated in Midtothian Magisterial District on property fronting the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, and better known as 14111 ~idtethian Turnpike. ~ax Cap 15-11 {1)~ParceA 3 (~heet Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning CoK~iesion and ~res~rvation committee recommended approval of Landmark Designation for Ivymont, 5need on the ~ollowin~ findings: 1. Tbi~ i~ a distinguished building of high architectural quality and historic interest; and 2. This designation will eau~e nO significunt adverse effpet on ~he future development o~ the County. ~ou%e 60 were widened in the vicinity u~ Le Gordon Drive it may ~Q~OD briv~. Mr. McCrackan stated, although=he right-of-way obtained by the County for Route 60 along th~ Midlothian Corridor ia adequate for any futu~ ~idening plans in that On mo:ion of ~r. ~ulllvan, seconded by Mr. Coffin, the ~oard property fronting the mouth line of ~idlothian Turnpike, and better known as 14111 Midlothien Turnpike, Tax Map t5-11 (1) Vote: Unanimous 88~0257 (Amsnded) In ~idlothian Magisterial District, ~AY I~OWE requested amend- men~ to Conditional Us~ ~lanned D~ve!epmant (cass $3S115) relative to master plan approval, road improveuments~ access, ~uff~r~, lighting, $~back$, landscaping, signs, use~, and building heiqht~ in an Office Business (o) Diet, ice. This feet on the north line of North Providenc~ Read, also fronting ~ppro~ima=ely ~0O feet on the west line of suford Koad, anO located in the northwest quadrant of th~ intersection of roads. Tax Map 18-15 (1) Parcels 18, 46, 48, 49, and 53 and TaX Map 18-16 {1] Parcel 3 (Sheet Mr~ Jaccb~on ~t&ted the Planning Commission approval of Case $$$S0257, subject to certain scnditi0n$; however, the applicant has requested an additional ninety day deferral. He noted, ~er the ~oard'~ information~ that thi~ request has been deferred e number of time~ at the applica~='e When asked, ~r. Jay Rowe stated the adjacent residential property to the north is currently ~a the market and if that property should be zoned for n non-r~sideneial use, it may b~ appropriate to allow more int~n~ u$~ on his property; there- fore, & deferral pending a future rezonlng on th~ adjacent property is r~que~ted. There was no opposition to the request for deferral. $9-875 On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board deferred Case 88SN0257 until December 13, 1989. 895N0329 In Matoaca Magisterial District, INVESTORS ~4ANAG~4ENT GROIFP re- quested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Developments (Cases 86S097 and 88SN061) relative to bulk exceptions (maximum nttmber of units per building)' in a Residential (R-7) District. This request lies on an 11.8 acre parcel lying approximately 2,000 feet off the northeast line of Iron sridge Road, across from Lewis Road. Tax Map 114-6 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 31) . Mr. Jacobsen stated the applicant ham requested a thirty day deferral of C~se $9$N0329. Mr. Steve Plescow, representing the applicant, stated a thirty day deferral had been requested to discuss the project with the neighbors. · · Mr. Applegate disclosed to ~he Board that he is financially associated with Investors Management Group, declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. There was no opposition to the deferral. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board deferred Case 89SN0329 until October 25, 1989. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Applegate. Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting. 89SN0291 In Matoaca Magisterial District, DOUGLAS R. SOWER8 requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15). A mingle family residential subdivision is planned. This request lies on a 9.3 acre parcel lying approximately 1,000 feet off the east line of Escada Drive, measured from a point approximately 2,700 feet north of Raven Wing Drive. Tax Map 76 (1) Parcel 24 (Sheet 20). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Residential (R-l:5} subject to amended proffered conditions. Mr. Don Ford, representing the applicant, stated the reoO~U~endation is acceptabl~. There was ne opposition present. Mr. Mayes referenced the addendum containing the amended proffered conditions; questioned how many lots were being requested; the requested 25,000 square foot lots versus the requirement of 30,000 square foot lots; the use of septic systems; whether or not public water facilities would be available to area residents in the event well contamination were to occur; etc. Mr. Doug Sowers stated he intended to extend public water faeilites to his subdivision. Mr. Sehmels stated a water main extension is currently under design to provide service to the Plantation Estates Subdivision which will be routed along 'existing or planned streets through portions of Clover Hill Farms and Reedy Mill Subdivisions. He stated, when completed, the public water system will be within approximately 500 feet 89-876 Extend water lines from his subdivision to tha~ conn~cti©n thereby providing water for tho~e area residents who also desire to connect to the system. Mr. Applegate expressed concern~ as %o assess for the subject request. Mr. Sowers stated access to the ~nbject property will be provided through a stub road in the proposed Reedy Mill Subdivision. Mr. Jsoobson stated traffic distributed from development of the subject parcel through the Reedy Mill acceptable volumes sstab!ished by the Planning Commission in their Stub Road Policy. Mr. Mayas inquired if the applicant consulted the area residents regarding any concerns they may have had relative te the proposed project. Mr. Sowers stated h~ had contacted and received concurrence with the adjacent landowners. approved Case SPSN0291 and ~ccepted the following amended proffered conditions: The following Restrictive Covenants shall be recorded with Chesterfield County in conjunction with recordation of firs% section of the proposed 9.~ acre ~evelop~ent. A. An Architectural Review Committee, hereinafter o~lled "ARC~ shall b~ comprised of Do6gla$ R. Sowers, bis heirs, personal representatlv~s, sucoa~ore~ and assigns. ARC shall coordinate ~ach residence and lot and g~nerally coordinate the develop~ent~ construction end planning of ~he lots in Reedy Mill, according to the spesiflsations set ~or=h in "Architectural Review Reedy Mill" attached her~tc and mad~ a part hereof. of any character, othe~ than internal alterations, shall be constructed upon any lot h~r~by Conveyed, nor shall any lot be subdivided, or altered {the term "altered" shall include~ (a) r~moval of live crees, (b) grading or locating driveways er entranceways, [c) filling, or any kind or type of construction whether temporary or landscaping lay-out for the same have bash approved writing by the ARC, as to (1} quality of workmanship and material types, (2) exeernal design and a~pearance, location o~ improvements .and overall landscaping, and C. All easements along road £ronUags and lot lines as shown the developer, his personal representatlvez, hair~ assigns, or agents, for the purpose of drainage or S~rnishing light, =elephon~ or an~ other utility to the property. D. All lots shall be u~e~ for re~id~ntlal purposes only, and there shall not be erected on any One lot, as such lot may be prescribed and designated ce ~ai~ subdivision plat, more ~han one detached, single family dwelling house, and the necessary outbuildings suitable there£or~. No building shall be located on any lot nearer to any or to a ~ide lin~ ~han is permitted under T_ha local zoning ordinance in effect ~t the tLme such building is constructed. Fences or wall~ net constituting a part of a buildi~g shall be approved by th~ ARC, and no fences or walls not constituting a part of a buildinq shall be than the minimum front or exterior set back line except with the prior approval of the ARC. 89=877 No animals, including without limitation, rabbits, poultry or livestock of any kind shall be allowed on any lot except that dogs, cate, or normal household pets may be kept thereon in numbers not exceeding those permitted by the law provided they are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purposes, and must be kept under control of their owner when outside owner's premises, nor constitute a nuisance in the opinion of the ARC, his successors or assigns. NO dog or cat kennels, rabbit hutches or pigeon lofts, temporary or permanent, shall be erected. Ne structure of temporary character, trailer, motor home, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn, or other outbuilding shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence, either temporarily or permanently. G. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. No use shall be made of any lot which will depreciate or adversely affect the value of the surrounding lots or of the neighborhood. Ail lot owners shall take care not to disturb or siltate shoulders, backslopes, ditches, pavement or driveway culverts within the public right of way. ~ach let owner agrees to be responsible for disturbances and siltation caused by themselves, their employees, suppliers or contractors and shall have 14 days from the receipt of a letter from the ARC to correct the damage. If a lot owner fails to properly correct the damage, then the ARC or developer will correct the damage and bill the lot owner directly. Lot owner hereby agrees to make payment within 30 days of presentation of bill. A 2% per month (24% per annum) service charge shall be applied to bills after 30 days of presentation. I. No shrubs, trees, fences or structures of any'type shall be erected which may partially or fully block vehicular sight distance, as set forth in the ~irginia Eighway Department regulations, on any roadway in Reedy Mill. J. Any one or more of the conditions, covenants, limitations, charges, and proprietary requirements imposed by Paragraphs 3 through 7 bereo£ may' be amended, waived, modified, or rescinded, in whole or in part, by written instrument signed by a majority of the lot owners in the subdivision and Douglas R. Sowers, except that the concurrence of Douglas R. Sowers will not b~ necessary whenever he no longer owns any lot in the subdivision. K. Invalidation of any of these covenants and conditions, by court adjudication or otherwise shall in no way modify, affect or invalidate any of the other covenants and conditions contained herein which shall remain in full force and effect. L. Each and every covenant and condition herein imposed may be enforced by the undersigned or the owner of any lot by appropriate proceedings at law or in equity against any party violating or attempting Or threatening to violate the same to prevent or rectify such violation and/or recover damages therefore. The failure of an owner Or the ~ndersigned to bring any such proceeding shall not be con- sidered as a waiver of any rights at law or in equity that any such party may have for past or future violation of any covenant herein contained. M. These covenants and conditions are to run with the land and shall be binding upon subsequent owner or owners and all parties ¢lalmlng through or under such owner or owners for a period of thirty (30) years from the date these 89-878 Vote: ten (IQ) years Unless an instrument sign0d by a ~ajority of the owner~ of the lots has been recorded, revoking said Or in pert. Any brick pier founde[ion~ bsil~ ~n house exteriors shall incorporate lattice panels. All plans to be approved prior to commencement of construction on such lot. Eouee, well, and septic 1. Square Footage Minimum 1,700 square feet Minimum 7I/2 pitch Minlmu~ 12" overhang A~phat~ dimensional shin~les, equivalent or better 25 year ~hingle Brick Youndation~ 5. Stoo~s and Walks Brick stoops or painted fir {no ~alk tr~atsd Minimum 40 sq. ~t. Concrete sidewalks 6. 9idin~ Minimum 1 x 6 rak~ and iaeia boards NO TI-ll or vinyl ~iding 7. Landsca~in~ 6 in. ah tho ~ase. Minimum 2 colors Satellite ~ishes and ewi~ing pools desiqn, locution and screening to be approved prior to installation. The Architectural Review Committee reserves the right to disallow construction of architecturally $~milar hemes adjacent %0 each other. 89-879 89SN0179 Tn Matoaca Magisterial District, M3 INDUHTRI~B, IFC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (Al to Convenience Business (B-l). A retail complex is planned. This request lies on a 4.3 acre parcel fronting approximately 543 feet on the south line of Hull Street Road, approximately 1,435 feet west of Mockinqbird Lane. Ta~ Map 75-4 (1) Parcels 1 and 4 (Sheet 20). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recon~ended approval of Case 89SN0179, subject to a single condition and acceptance of proffered conditions. Mr. Robert Maddux, representing the applicant, stated the recommended condition and proffered conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved Case 89S~0179, subject to %he following condition: A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the southern property boundary. This buffer shall comply with Sections 21.1-226 through 21.1-228 of the Zoning Ordinance. And further, the Board adcepted thc following conditions: proffered Uses shall be limited to the following: Artist material and supply store. Bakery goods. Bank. Barbershop. Beauty shop. Book or stationery store. Brokerage, Camera store. ~ Candy store. Cleaning, pressing and laundry. Clothes store. Drug store. Dry good store. Dairy products store. Florist shop. Governmental offices. Grocery store. Nardware store. Laundromats and coin-operated dry cleaning. Medical facility or clinic. Newspaper or magazine sales. Nursery schools, child or day care centers and kindergartens. Offices, business and professional. Optometrists sales and services. Paint and wallpaper sales. Pharmacy. Restaurants, not including drive-in establish- ments. A% lea~t fifty percent (50%) restaurant and the rest catering/deli. Savings and loan associations. Shoe repair shop. Tailoring and dressmaking shops. Telephone booth. Toy store. Variety store. Video store. A fifty (50) foot buffer southern property boundary. Sections 21.1-226 through shall be maintained along the The buffer shall comply with 21.2-228 of the Zoning Ordi- nance, which is 1-1/2 times thc density of landscaping C. 89-880 m m Ayes: Buffer is to include a six-foot privacy fence on the southern border with gate. 3. Excluding office usage, any individual t~nant spa~ ~ize shall not exceed 8f000 square feet of spaos not in~iuding tkeir offices. 4. No u~e ~hall be open to the pnblic b~ween the keats of 12~00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. 5. Development shall not exceed 18 ~tores. Deletions fxom propossd list of possible businessesl Laundromat and e0in-opers~ed dry cleanin~ Sho~ repair store Dollar-Gen~ral/Disoeunt Variety Store Unanimous 89SN0243 (Amended} In ~atoaca Magisterial District, MALBONE-I~i~I~COCK TRUS~ guested rszoninq from Residential (R-9) to Light Industrial (M-l; and Residential ~=lti-family (R-MF) ~o Corporate Office (0-2) plus amendment to Conditional Use Planned office/oo~eroial/industrial complex is planned. This li~s on a 43,0 acre parcel ~ronting approximately 920 fee~ on ~he south line of ~ull street Road, approximately 810 feet west O~ CO~by Road. T~x Map 74 (1) Part of ~arcel 1~6 (sheet ~r. Jacobsen stated the Planninq Co~ission recomended of the requested General Industrial [M-2} us~ exceptions and setback exceptions and approval u~ the rezoning ~o Office (0-2~ and Light Industrial (~-1) uses and par~ing space siz~ ~xceptions, ~ubject %o certain conditions. Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Boa~d that he is involved in this project~ declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflic~ of Interest Act and himself from the meeting. gr. Jim 5ayes, representing %he applicant, ~tated the Co~ission reuu~nia=ion wa~ acceptable, including the Therm was no o~posi~ion present. MS. Stuart Cosby questioned whether or not the change in ownership oi the subject pr0per%y wo~ld n~gats ~h~ existing 100 foot buffer condition. M~. Jacobsen stated it would On motion of Mr. ~aye~, seconded by Mr. Su!liv~n, .the Board deni~ G~neraI Industrial {M-R) use exeaptions and setback sxceptions ,nd approve~ rezoning to. Corporate Offics (Q-2) Light Industrial ~M-1) uses with parking space size exceptions~ s~ject to the followinq The followlng conditions no~withstandinq, ~ plan .pre- pared by J.K. Ti~o~s a~d Ausociates, P.C., revised June 13, 19~9r %h~ T~xtual Statement, dated March 17, 1989, modified by the letter dated June 13, 1989, shall be a. This condition suDerse~e~ Condition 1 of Case 87s103 for that portion of ~he proper- %y included in th~ ~equest. b. Th~ let=er dated June 13, 19B9t amends the Ma~e~ Plan and Textual State~en~ ~y delet- ing the previously re~ested ~ezoning from R-MF to M-1 and substituting a request for rezoning from R-MF to 0-2.) 2. TO ensure adequate wastewater capacity, the following shall be accomplished: a. The developer shall participate in expansion of the Dry Creek Wastewater Pump Station to ensure adequate wastewater oapacity for this develop- ment, as determined by the Department of Utilities. b. The developer shall extend a wastewater trunk line along Dry Creek to serve the development and adjacent upstream properties within the drainage basin, as determined by the Department of Utilities. (U) 3. A minimum of forty-three (43) percent of the M-1 and 0-2 tracts shall be maintained as open space; however, if the Upper Swift Creek Plan recommends less percentage of open space, the development may conform to the Plan. Open space shall be defined as that portion oi a site or sites which is not covered by a building, parking area, drive- way~ roadway, or loading area. (P) (NOTE: This condition supersedes Textual Statement A. Definitions. "Open Space" and R. General Conditions. B-2. O~en Space and Rights of Way.) 4. All of the land zoned M-1 and 0-2 shall drain through retention ponds or other facilities to allow any impu- rities or surface pollutants in the water to settle before reaching Swift Creek Reservoir. (P&EE) (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 4 of Case 87S103 for that portion of the property included in this request.) 5. In conjunction with site plan review for any si%e, a drainage and erosion control plan ~hall be submitted to Environmental Engineering for appreval and shall include mea~ure~ to minimize the impact of surface runoff on the water quality of Swift Creek Reservoir. The drainage plan shall include the institution of "best management prac- tices'' that are consistent with the recommendation includ- ed in the final report prepared by Camp Dresser & MoKee, titled Watershed Management Stud~; Lake Michie and Little River Reservoir Watersheds, dated November 1988. Further, the "best management practices" shall include, but shall not be limited to, the use of wet detention ba- sins/permanent pool(s) for the control of nutrient load- ings on the watershed for the Swift Creek Reservoir. This plan shall be approved by Environmental Engineering prior to any clearing or grading. The erOsiOn control and drainage plan shall assure, to the maximum extent possi- ble, that the develo~nuent of the site will not contribute to any water quality and sedimentation problems in the reservoir watershed. (P&EE) 6. The Light Industrial (M-l) tract and the Corporate office (0-2) tract shall be subject to the bulk requirements of Chapter 21.1 for emerging growth areas. For the purposes of determining the specific bulk requirements for the M-1 tract, the specific requirements for I-1 shall be adhered (NOTE: This condition supersedes Textual Statement A. Definitions. "Buffer Area," "Pro,eot Road," B. General ~ions. B-l. Buffer Areas., B-5. Landscape Plans., B~6. Site Lighting., B-7. Signage., and B-9. Parking 89-882 Space Size RequirementS.; and is in additio~ ~o E-$ Archi- tectural Euildin~ Design.) The ioLlowing use~ shall nob be permitted in the Light Industrial {M-l) traut~ a. Any M-2 uss. b. Building materials, storage, and sales. c. Contractors' shops and storage yards ~if ~ush storage yards a~ not visible from any public street). d. ~lectrical, machinery equipment, an~ supplies manufacturing. ?urniture an~ fixtures mauufas~uring. Ice manufacturing. g. Other fabricated metal products ma~u£ao=urlng not otherwise specifically li~t~d Chesterfield County Zoning ordinance. h. Transportation equipmunt manufacturing. i, Textile mill products - manufacturing. Tobacco manufacturing. k. Truck terminals, 1. Whole,ale greenhouses. (NOTE: This condition is tn addition to T~tDal Statement C. (M-t. Office/Warehouse/Commercial District. C-1. Uses Permitted.) Except as noted herein, all previously imposed an~ proffered conditions cf zonin~ approval for Case 875105 shall remain in effect, where applicable. Conditions 8, 9, and 15 of Case 87S103, for R-MP development, shall be deleted.) (~OTES: in Ayes: ~r. Currin, 'Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Nr. Applegate. Nr. Apptegate returned to the meeting. 89SN0312 In Matoaca '~agisterial District, ROBERT C. SC2~R~M requested re~oning from AgriculturaI (A) ~o ~si~ential (R-12). A sinqle family residential subdivision ie planned. Thi~ request li~$ on a 25,0 acre parcel located at the eastern terminus of Belspring Road. Tax Map 132-8 (1) Parcel 15 (~heet 41). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recci~mended approval of Case 89SN0312 and acceptance cf the proffered conditions. Mr. Robert Snhrnm, Jr., representing the ~ppllcant, stated the recommendation was acceptable. There was nc On motion of ~r. May~, ~sconded by ~r. Currin~ approved Case s95~0312 and accepted the following conditions: opposition the EQar~ p~offer~d County water and County ~ew~r t¢ b~ used. Lot sizes shall b~ a minimum of ~,00O square feet. A maximum of twenty-two (22) lots shall be allowed to exit onto Belspring Road into Hidden Valley Subdivision. All 10Ts shall have a minimum cf 100 feet of width ae ~h~ building ~etbs=k line. 89-883 5. NO plans for a primary dwelling to be constructed on t~he property shall be submitted fo~ such approval unless the living area of such dwelling, exclusive of one-story, open porches and garages shall exceed 2,000 square feet. 6. All road, building, and utility construction equipment and machinery shall enter and exit off of Miller Road and Baldwin Road. 7. Construction traffic for home building is to be prohibited during the time that children are being picked up and delivered home by bus, Monday through F~iday, while school is in There wac b~ief discussion relative to zoning case 89SN0246 that was denied which is located within close proximity to the subject parcel; the size of the subject parcel not having as significant a traffic impact as case 89SN0246; etc. Mr. Daniel stated he had voted against Case 89SN0246 primarily because of health, safety and welfare concerns and because of the size of the current proposal he did not see a negative impact on the health, safety and welfare of the residents in this area. Vote: Unanimous 89SN0526 In Bermuda Magisterial District, VIRGINIA PIRST SAVINGS BANK requested rezoning from Residential Townhouse (R-TH) to Residential (R-9). A single family residential subdivision ie planned. This request lies on a 14.2 acre parcel lying approximately 200 feet off the so~th line of Sand Hills Drive, approximately 230 feet w~st of Jefferson Davis ~ighway. Tax Map 116-15 (1) Parcel 16 (Sheets 32 and 41). Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0326. Mr. Paul Walk, representing the applicant, stated the recommendation was acceptable. There was no opposition present. Mr. Currin expressed concern that the proposed development may have a slight impact on area schools, particularly Thomas Dale High School which may need expansion in the mid-1990'e and asked that ~taff provide him with more infe~mation regarding this matter. On motion of Mr. Coffin, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved Case 89SN0326. Vote: Unanimous 89SN0328 In Midlothian Magisterial District, BASSETT AND COMPANY quested rezonlng from Office Business (0), Community Business (B-2), and General Business (B-3) to Community Business (C-3). A retail complex is planned. This request lies on a 4.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 528 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike acro~ from Pocono Drive, also fronting approximately 557 feet on the south line of Robious Road, approximately 50 feet west of 01d ~on Air ~oad. .Tax Map 17-7 (1) Parcel 21; Tax Map 17-7 (6) Woodbridga Square Condos, Lots 2, 3, and 4; Tax ~ap 17-11 (1) Parcel 15; and Tax Map 17-11 (10) Woodbridge Square Condos, Lot 1 (Sheet 8). Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended 89-884 approval of Case 89S~0328 and acceptance of the proffered conditions. Mr. Jim Evmns, representinq the applicant, stated the recommendation was acceptable. ~here was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, apprcvsd Cass ~9SN0328 and conditions: seconded by Mr. Currin, ~he Board accepted the following proffered 1. Access to Robious Road shall be limited to one {1) en- trance/esi=. This access shall be located towards the western property line, as approved by the Transportation Department. 2. An additional lane of pavement~ curb, and gutter shall be. construe%ed along ~obieus Road for fhe entire p~operty frontage~ A right-turn lan~ shall also be provided for 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permi=, ~or=y-five (45) feet of riqht of way, measured from the centerlin~ of Robious Road, shall be dedicated to and for Chesterfield 4. Uses located within 150 feet of the ultimate right of way of Robious Road shall be limited to those uses permitted in the C-2 District. 5. A minimum of thirty (30) feet s~tback shall be maintained along Robious Road to be landscaped in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping C. Vote: Unanimous Conditional Use to permit commercial automobile parking in a Convenience Bns~nese (B-l) Distr~ct. Thi~ request lies on a 0.~ acre parcel fronting approximately 40 feet on fhe east line of Chesterfield Avenue, appro×ima~ely 200 feet south of Lee Str~t. Tax Map 182-14 (1) ?arcel 13 (Sheet 53/54). Mr. Peele ~tated the Planning Commission recommended denial of Gase 89SNQ296 because the proposed land use does not conform to the S~.~h~F~__Area Land Use and Transportation Plan which designates the property for light commercial uses versus th~ heavier co~ercial uses requested by the applicant; that the predominantly single family residential neighborhood; and due to the nature of adjacent land uses, it would nQ% be possible to consider approval of the request, c~rtain condition~ have been rcco~ndad in ~he "Request Analysis and Reeo~en4~tlon'~ fo~ ~posltion ~o minimize ~e ~pact the proposed u~e may hav~ ~r. H%tmphries stated he would accept a recommendation for approval with ~m~os~tion of the alternative r~commended Condition 2. There was no opposition present. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the alternative recommendation was an approved Case 895NQ296, subject to the following condition~! 8~-885 The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan sub- mitted with the application shall be considered the plan of development. 2. The existing chain-link fence shall be removed. A minimum ten 110) foot high solid board fence, which incorporates decorative features, shall be installed along the north, south, and west sides of the vehicle parking area to minimize the view of the use from adjacent properties and public rights of way. The fence shall be set back a minimum of fifty (50) feet from the ultimate right of way of Chesterfield Avenue (i.e., ninety-five (95) feet from the eenterline of Chesterfield Avenue). (P & BOS) 3. Other than security lighting, there shall be nO outdoor lighting. Security lightinq ~hall be low level and designed so that the direct or reflected illumination does not exceed 0.5 foo~ candles above background measured at the lot line of any adjoining property line. Light standards shall be of a directional type capable of shielding the light eource from direct view f~om adjoining properties or public right of way. A lighting plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P) 4. Any paved driveways and parking areas shall be delineated with concr~t~ curb and gutter. (~) 5. This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for J.E. Humphries, St., and shall not be transferrable nor run with the land. (P) 6. Within fourteen (14) days of the approval of this request, a site plan depicting the requirements outlined herein shall be submitted for review and approval. Within sixty (60) days of the approval of the site pla~, the improve- ments shall be completed. (P) 7. This Conditional Use shall be granted for a period not to exceed five (5) years from date of approval and may be renewed upon satisfactory reapplication and demonstration that the use has not adversely affected area properties. (NOTES: a) The Zoning Ordinance requires that parking areas be set back at least fifty (50) feet from the ultimate right of way for Chester- field Avenue (i.e., ninety-five (95) feet from the centerline of Chesterfield Avenue). This will necessitate that measures be taken to preclude parking between the fence and the required setback (i.e., curb/gutter or timber~). b) The Zoning Ordinance requires that parking area~ for six (6) or more vehicles be paved. If the site is restricted to five (5] or less spaces, the area should be graveled with a minimum of six (6) inches of #21 or ~21A stone. c) The Zoning Ordinance requires submission of a site plan for review and approval prior to utilization of the mite for this use or construction of any required improvements.) 89-B86 a~o263 In Matoaca Magisterial District, FIRST (X)LONIAL FINANCIAL COI~80RATION requested Conditional Use to p~rmit a bank and an office building in an Agricultural (A} District o~ a ~.0 ac~e parcel fronting approx~ately 830 feet on ~a northeast line of ~outhwest line of Happy Hill Road, and located at the inter- section of these roads. Tax Map 132-1] (2) Garden City ~eights, Lots 2 and 2A (Sheet Mr. Jacob~on ~tated the Planning Co~ission reco~ended approval of Case 89SN0263 subject =o oertain ccnditions~ posed use does not conform ~o the Southern Area Land U~e and surrounding area for medium deneity residential use (1.51 4.00 units per acre}; and ~hat approval of %h~ request could of ~he inter~ection of ~arrowgate and Happy Hill Roads and on designate~ location~ wh~re coa~rcial developmsnt is corridors such as Route 1/301 and to properties zoned and/or developed for co~ercial land use~ and such a precedent could r~sul% in proIifera~ion o~ piecemeal, s~zip uo~ercial merit along Ha~rowgate and Happy Hill Road~. He stated ~taff currently preparing a draft ~ndment to ~e Southern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan that will address the appropria~e- ness of allowing small scale, neighborhood orisnted co~ercial ba~ed upon ar~a d~v~lopmunt patterns and appropriate standards. ~e atated that the draft Plan ~ndmen% ~hould in preliminary form by July, 1990 and, at that time, should allow ~uffioient data for the BOard to eval~at~ the appropri- ateness of the proposed land use and sugg~s~e~ ~a~ it may be more appropriate to defer this request for a sufficient length of t~e %o allow the Hoard tO consider an amen~ent to South=rn Area Plan. Mr. John G. Dicks, III, representing the appllc~t, stated the the proposed projec~ has the overwhelming ~upport of ares outlined the various types of propo~ uses previously quested for =he ~ite wh~oh area residents felt ~er= in- applicant as to wha~ ~ype uses they would like to se~ on th= subject parcel and that their concerns were addressed MS. Phylli~ DaSS, representing resident~ of ~everal area ns~ghborhoo~, reierenced a copy of a petition mailed to the Board of S~pmrvisors and ~tat~d these residents support will enhance ~e neiqhborhood, that the proposed prcj~ct will se~e as a buffer to and will be compatible with thm neighborhood. Ms. Sandra Burk~ stated area re~ident~ oriqinally strongly opposed =he proposed re, est; however~ they now support the request a~ they feel it will be appropriately d~velop~d ~o ~$ To rid the neighborhood o~ an ~yesore and it will not adversely impact the uxistinq residential area. Mr. Sullivan stated ha ~ult that since the Southern Are~ U$9 ~nd Transportation Plan is being considered for amendmen~ time, eapressed major concern that approval of this request could get a pr%ced~nt that could resul~ in the proliferation of plecem~al, strip co~srcial d~velopment along Harrowqate and Happy Hill RoadS; and suggested the request be deferred until such time as the ~ended draft ~outhern Area Plan wa~ completed 89-887 so the Board could evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed When asked, Mr. Jaoobson stated the Planning Co~mission, with input from Mr. Mayas, had appointed a committee to work on the amended Plan and a report should be forthcoming in the near future. Ms. Bass stated there are already existing oc~umerc±al uses in the area and referenced a future church to the north and a nursery and daycare center to the south of the request site. Mr. Currin expressed concerns relative to uses for the proposed request, requested definition of the term, "business office", etc. Mr. Daniel concurred with Mr. Sullivan and stated he felt it appropriate for the committee to proceed with action on the draft amended Plan, and suggested the proposed request be deferred until such time as the ~lan is completed and adopted. When asked, staff pointed out on a map the location of the church site, nursery and daycare center. Mr. Applegate questioned if the circumstances relative to the draft amendment cf the Southern Area Plan were similar to circumstances relative to the Courthouse Road Study wherein cases were being deferred until such time as an adopted Plan were in effect. Mr. Jacobson stated it was. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the proposed land use is appropriate for the subject property, the area residents are in favor of the request and feel the proposed use is more acceptable than the existing use or the construction of a subdivision, there appears to be no adverse impact by the proposed development on the neighborhood, stated he felt the request is in the be~t interest of the County and could see no reason for denial. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Applegate, that Case 89SN0263 be approved subject to the following recommended conditions: 1. Except as stated herein, the plan dated November 15, 1988, shall be considered the Master Plan. (CPC) 2, Uses shall be limited to business, governmental, medical or professional offices; libraries; brokerages; churches or sunday schools; travel agencies to include travel arranging and transportation ticket services; optometrist sales and service provided that the sales and servicing of eyewear is done by an optometrist as an accessory use in conjunction with the medical practice and not more than 15% of the gross floor area may be dedicated to such sales and service; one (1) bank or savings and loan association with or without an outside public address system and with or without drive-in windows. (CPC) 3. Except as stated herein, development shall comply with the development and access requirements of Chapter 21.1 for Neighborhood Office (0-1) Districts in Emerging Growth Areas. Site plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission ~cr approval. (CPC) (NOTE: In addition to other requirements of the O-1 District, this condition requires that loading docks and drive-in loading doors shall be prohibited.) 4. With the exception of churches, sunday schools or automat- ic teller machines (AT~) no use shall be opened to the public between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (CPC) 5. No more than two (2) structures shall be developed. The bank or savings and loan building shall not exceed a gros~ floor area Of 1900 square feet. Any other buitdinq shall not exceed 8,000 square feet of gross floor area. Struc- tures shall have brick foundations and cedar shake roofs. 89-888 All structures shall have an architectural style compatl- bls with surrounding resi~eD~ial neighborhoods. Com- patibility may be achieved through the u~ of ~imilar building ma$$iug, Materials, scale or other architectural features. {CPC) 6. Except as noted herein, ~iqn~ ~hall comply with the quirements Of Chapter 21.I, Neighborhood Office business freestanding sign, to be located in the vicinity area of fifty (50) sguare feet shall be Debitted to iden- tify this development. (CPC) 7. The public wastewater ~ystem shall be used. (CPC) (45) feet of right of way~ measured from the oenterline of Happy Eill Road and sixty (60) fPst of right of way~ dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, frs~ unrestricted. (CPC} paveme~7 shall bo installed for the entire property front- aq~ alon~ ~appy ~itl and Harrowqat~ Roads. (CPC) 10. A thirty-fiv~ (35} foot buffer ~hall be maintained along the southern property line. Except for utilities which r~n generally perpendicular through the buffer, land,cop- ing, other screening f~atures and access, as ~ppreved by be no facilities permitted in the buffer. (cPC} Zr. Daniel stated he did not wish to vote for denial of the request but felt the best interest Of %he County and its citizens would be served if ~hs rsquest w~re deferred until a Mr. Daniel made a substitute mn~ion, ~eeo~ded by Mr. Sullivan~ to defer Case SPSNQ263 until such time a~ the amsn~e~ ~ou=hern Area Land Cae and Trans~cs~ation Plan were adopted. W~cn aska~, ~r. Jacobsen stated a n%%mber of &lt~rnatiYe reviewe~ but he could net identify any specific differences in the current Plan versu~ th~ amonded ~lan at this ti-me. timeframe within twelve months. Mr. Daniel emended his motion to defer Case ~SNO263 for si~ months or until such time as the adopted, whichever ocsur$ first. ~r. Sullivan amunded hi~ seaond to reflect same. Mr. Sullivan stated the Board ef Supervisors made a conscience time as certain Plans were developed and that in this case to that is in the process of revised the current Southern Area ~r. Mayas stated zoning rsquest ~iteg w~r~ approved with 3optic system use prior to a County policy being a~optsd providing for septic system standards. Mr. Currin stated ~hose case~ wer~ system standards that were finally adopted by the Board. ~r. Sayes made a substitute motion to approve Ca~e 89SN0263 subject to approval of th~ amended Southern Area Land U~e and Transportation Pl.a.n with whatever new requirements may be adopted by the Board. Mr. Micas stated such a zoning provides no guidance in ter~s of the land use and planning decisions that might be made at this time and suggested that Mr. Mayes' substitute motion was not legally appropriate. When asked, Mr. Dicks stated his client preferred not to defer the case for twelve months; staff has indicated that the earliest the amended' Southern Area 5and Use and Transportation Plan would be available is approximately ten months away; that the citizenm who would be involved in the revised Sou%hera Area Plan are the same citizens who support the proposed request; and ~tated his client would object to a deferral. Mr. Applegat¢ restated Mr. Daniel's amended substitute motion, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, to defer Case 89SN0263 for six months or until such time as %he amended Southern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan is adopted, whichever occurs first. Ayes: Mr. Appleqate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. Nays: Mr. Mayes. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the Board should maintain its consistency in approval of pending rezoning cases where there are revised Blans involved even if substantial citizen support for the rezoninq request is evident. It was qenerally agreed to recess for five minutem. Daniel excused himself from the meeting. 89SN0323 In Midlothian Magisterial District, C~STERFIELD BERRY FARM, INC. requested Conditional Use to permit retail sales exceptions in an Agricultural (A) District. This request lies on a 5.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 500 feet on the north line of Hull Street Road, approximately 2,800 feet west of Skinquarter Road. Tax Map 71 (1) Bart of Parcel 22 (Sheet Mr. Peele presented a history of the proposed request and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0323 subject to certain conditions. Mr. Greg Jennings, representing the applicant, stated the re6ommended conditions were acceptable, with the e×c~ption of Conditions 3 and 4 which he requested be modified to grant the use for more than 10 years because of the expensive nature of resubmitting applications for rezoning and to permit the existing sign to remain and further requested the applicant be permitted outdoor display of merchandise as it could be attractively accomplished without being a nuisance. When asked, approximately fifteen persons stood in favor of the proposed request. Mr. Peele stated outdoor display of merchandise could best be achieved if such items were restricted and were designated to be displayed in a certain location. Mr. Sullivan submitted to the Board a suggested Condition regarding outdoor display of merchandise. There was no opposition present. Mr. ~ullivan stated he felt staff's original recommendation for five years was more appropriate in that this area is an 89-890 emerging area of develop~eut that will be very i~portant to the County in the future, however, he could support the Planning Commission's reao~mendation for ten years hut. he could not eupport the tuques% for modification Lo the sign r~quirement. When asked, Mr. Jenninge stated the suggested condition relative to outdoor display of merchandise was acceptable. Mr. Applegatc ~tated he concurred with Mr. Sullivan regardiuq the emerging growth ~tatus of this area c~ the County. ~e questioned when public water and sewer would be available to the area. ~r. Schmalz ~tated the nearest public w~ter line is approximately 6.5 miles east of the subject site at Wocdlake Village Parkway and it wound be difficult to aouertaln exactly when public water and ~ewer would be available to the site. ~r. Daniel returned to the meeting. There was further dieou~ion r~lative to the size o~ the sign for th~ property. Mr. Jenninge requested the applicant be granted approval cf the ~equest waiving imposition of the sign requirement ~tll April l, 1990. Mr. Sullivan stated that was acceptable. On motion of Mr, S~llivan, seconded by Mr. Currln, th~ Board approved Case $9SN0323, subject to the following condlt~on~ 1. The following c0nditicn$ notwithstanding, the plan dated June 1989 and %he application dated June 19, 1959, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. This Conditional Use shall be granted to an~ for field Berry Farm, In~+ and shall not be trans£erable nor run wi~h the laud. 3. Thin Conditional Use shall be granted for a period not to exceed t~n (10) years and may be r~newed ~pon satisfactory reappllaation und demcnstraticu tha~ the use has not detrimentally a~fected area prop~rtle$ ~nd will be compat- ible with area development trends. (P&CPC} 4. The existing signs may remain on the property until April 1, I990, at which ti~ ~1! signs shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 21.1, Emerging Growth District standarde for office districts. IP&B0S) 5. Rortable sanitary facilities, if approved hy the Health Department, shall be located eo as not to be visible fro~ Route ~60. The location shall be approved by the Planning Department. {P) 6. Outside display of merchandise shall be confined to items such as produce, bedding plants, and Chriatmas treee/garland/wreath~. Outside display of merchandise sh~ll b~ located within covered sidewalke~ courtyard areas, a~d/o~ ~h~ area located north of the buildin~ and parkiug area. 7.. Outdoor lighting shall comply with Section 21.1-240 of the ZOning Ordinance. (NOTE: Driveways and parking ar~a~ ~Ust be paved, curb and gutter must ~e installed around the perimeter of driveways and parking areas, unless a Variance is obtained £rom the ~oar~ o~ Zoning Appeal~ It ma~ be necessary to eubmit site plan~ for review and approval.) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, ~r. Mayas and Mr. Sullivan. Abetention~ Mr'. Daniel, as he was out o~ the meeting on other County business. ~9-891 Messrs. Applegete and Daniel e~cused themselves from the meeting. 89SN0385 In Bermuda Magisterial District, BEP/~A ~DRED ENERGY L.~. requested rezoning from Heavy Industrial (M-3) to Beavy Industrial (I-3) with Conditional Use to permit an electric power generation plant on a 14.1 acre parcel lying approximately 485 feet off the south line of Bermuda Hundred Road, measured from a point approximately 5,400 feet east of its intersection with Discovery Drive. Tax Map 137 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 44). Messrs. Applegate and Daniel returned to the meeting. Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0385 subject to certain conditions and acceptance of proffered conditions. Mr. Daniel disclosed to the Board that the subject parcel is located directly across from Philip Morris and, although his employer does not intend to utilize these services, it is in close proximity to the request site, and since he is employed by Philip Morris, he would declare a conflict of interest pursuant to Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excuse himself from the meeting. Mr. John Cogbilt, representing the applicant, presented a history of the proposed request, stated the recommended conditions were acceptable with the exception of the Planning C~ission's recOnunended Condition 2 which he requested be modified to limit the buffer/vegetation to within 250 feet of the river line. Me further requested deletion of Condition 4 relative to the color of the stacks being a neutral color to blend with thc background landscape conditions as such requirement would place an unusual financial hardship on the applicant of up to $500,000 to meet that requirement. Mr. Frank Bahala and Mr. George Beadles voiced support for the proposed request as they felt it would make industry in the area more competitive and reduce utility ccst~. Mr. Hill Carter, a resident living at Shirley Plantation across the James River; Mr. Prank Deckert, with the Petersburg National Battlefield; and Ms. Patricia Jackson, representing tbs Lower James River Association, voiced opposition to thc proposed request as they felt it would have significant adverse impacts on the natural and cultural resources of the Lower James River Watershed relative to water quality, air quality, visual impacts and archaeological resources. Copies of written statements and photographs were submitted for the Board's perusal. Mr. Applegate suggested, because of the development along the industrial sorrid0r of the James River, it might be appropriate for the County to appoint a liaison to the Lower James River Association to be apprised of any ongoing efforts of thc organization. The~e was discussion relative to what type pollutants the facility would emit; whether or not other such facilities have monitoring systems; a description of the scrubber system for the plant; the percentage Of pollutants that escape into the atmosphere; the type paint to be used on the stacks; the height of stacks; no disturbing of the wetlands; the use of concrets to construct the stacks versus metals; etc. There being no further public input, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Mayes stated he could support the proposed request as it 89-892 appeared the use would mesh with the established community and would produce additional revenues. Mr. Sullivan stated he could support the request but would ask that the applicant be conscious of and do whatever possible %0 improve the project for the ~etterment of the area residents. Mr. Appleqate stated he felt the project would be an a~ek to the County but that precautionary steps should be taken to protect the adjacent property owners. ~r. Currin reviewed the site plan and the conditions which the applicant had requested be amended. There was further dis~nssicn relative to the cost of paint for the stacks, the type materials to be used for construction of the stacks; the northern boundary berm; the colort ~onstruction, etc. of other existing industrial stacks versus the proposed stacks for this project~ On motion of Mr. Currin, mecond~d by ~r. ~ulllvan, the Board approved Case 895N0385, subject to :he following conditions; 1. The plan, dated September 19, 1989, and Textual Statement submitted with the application shall b~ considered the Master Plan. ~P) Between the James River and the easternmost dr±v~way~ as depicted on the Master Plan, all existing vegetation within 2~0 feet of the edge of th~ river shall be retained. The removal of v~getatio~ within this area to accommodate utilities, archaeological inspection, and ~eneratlon plant ~hatl be permitted only upon apprOVal by 3. ~n cQnjua¢~ion with site plan submission, a class 1 ar- chaeological survsy~ prepared by a per,on acceptable to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, shall be submitted to the Planning' Department. If the ~urvey. reveals any sipn±ficant finds, ~ determined by the Plan- ning Department, based on Section 106 of th% National Preservation ~t, the site plan shall be taken to the Plannin~ Co~ission for approval at which time conditions may ~e imposed to either protect significant finds or provide for %h~if removal to an acceptable lecatlon. (CPC} 4. The applicant shall submit the proposed color of the stacko to the Planninq Director for approval. (NOTES: (a) Prior to release of any building site plans must be submitted for review and approv, I. structures that exceed a height of 150 feet steve average grade or any building, struuture, drive~ or parking area that does not conform to required fron~, side, and rear yard setbacks.} the Board accepted the following proffered And further, conditions: 1. The temperatur~ of the water taken from the James River shall be monitored for a period of t~n (10) years from the time th~ eogeneration plant begins eperation~, or for a longer period as required by the Stats Water Control Board o~ the Commonwealth of ~irginia. The results of this monitoring shall be reported semi-annually to the ~lanniDg Department of the CoBnty of Chesterfield. The temperature of Cooling water discharged into the James River shall be monitored for a period of ten (10) years from the time the plant begins operations, er for a longer. ~9-~93 period if required by the State Water Control Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The results of this monitoring shall be reported semi-annually to the Planning Depart-ment of the County of Chesterfield. 3. Stationary air quality shall be monitored for a peried of one (1) year from the time the plant begins operations, at a location near the plant, to measure the concentration of NO(x). The results of this monitoring shall be reported semi-annually to the Planning Department of the County of Chesterfield. 4. An undulating berm having a height of eight (8) to ten (10)' feet shall be provided along the northern boundary of the property within the required side yard setback. The purpose of the berm shall be to reduce the view of the buildings and cooling towers located on the northern portion of the property. The berm shall extend from the buildings on the northwest portion of the property to the nooling towers located to the east. In addition to the required landscaping within this setback, the berm shall be planted with evergreen trees at least four (4) feet in height at an average ~paoing of one (1) tree per twenty- five (25} lineal feet which shall be counted toward the required amount of landscaping. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adjourned at 5:00 p.m. (EDT) until 7:00 p.m. (EDT) on October 11, 1989. Vote: Unanimous Lahe B. Ramsey ~ County Administrator Chairman 89-894