Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
03-14-90 Minutes
~r. C. F. Currin, Jr., Chairman Mr. M. B. Sullivan, Vice Chairman Mr. Harr~ G. Daniel Mr. Lane B. Ramsay County Administrator Mr. Griffin R. ~ur~on, Vice chairman Mr. william H. Goodwyn Dr. ~. =. Davis, Superintendent S~hool Board M~m~er~ A~ent~ Mr. Jsffrey S. Cribb~, Chairman Dr. John A. Carder ~$. Amy Davis, Exec. Asst. to Co. Admin. Mrs. Doris DaKart, A~t. CO. Admin., Lsgis. Svos. and Intcrgcvern. Affairs Mr. William Diag,, Real chief ~obert Ean~s, Pit. of Plannin~ Dr. Burr Lows, Di~., Human Services Dir. of News/Info. Mr. Richard Sale, D~puty CO. Admin., Mr. ~rederick Willis, LUNCH Er. Currin stated that Er. Jsffrey cribbs was unable to attend the me,ting du~ to a previous commitment. ~r, C~rr~n and Griffin ~urton, Vic~ Chairman of the school B~ard jointly Administration. Building Conferenc~ Room {Room 502), a~ which time lunch wa~ Mr, R~msey stated the purpose of tbs work ~mai0n was to provide presentations to the Board regarding the School Budget, County Bndget and ~h~ propese~ ordinance requiring disclosure of partie~ in interest fez loning and variance requests, 90-220 3/14/90 2.A. PRESENTATION OF SCHOOL BUDGBT Mr. Burton expressed appreciation for the opportunity to meet with the Beard of Supervisors to discues the proposed School Budget, noted that Dr. ~arde~ was also unable to attend as he was unexpectedly called out of town, and stated that Dr. Davis and his staff were preaent to answer any 'questions and/or provide any clarifications that the Board may have regarding and positive attitude of those involved in'the p~epa~ation of the proposed budget had raaulted iB a close rapport that he felt would be mutually beneficial to the ~itizehs of the County. Dr. ~. S. Davis, School S~perintend~st; ~r. Ralph Westbay~ Director of Finance, and other School Administration staff were presen~ to address the propeaed budget. Dr. Davis material provided to the Board relative to the proposed ~chool ~u~get a~dr~ssing issues of target levels; the d~erance in %he ta~gstmd rePenue allocated originally for the School Budget line items as outlined in the subject material, all salary and beset±ts were increased 5.6~ and all operating and capital line items were increased 4~; stated the major percentage increases are in debt service, replacement of buse~ and employee b~nefits; deacribe~ data relative tc the Project; additional funds intended for items such as new man,ares, personnel/payroll system, reductions i~ State funds; consolidation of services, student population trends; etc. mandate by the ~nvironmental Pretection Agency raqulrlng the testing of all underground fuel ~tof&ge tanks and whether or not there is a program providing ~er the elimination of said for personnel, transportation, operation and maintenance and food service; rental of office space to t~cate the payroll/ac- counting department; somputer assisted inatrue%ion in conjunc- tion with the Ben~ley/Harrowgate Project addressing concerns regarding the parity of educational achievement levels; the use ance instruction olassroome; early r~tirement program; require- ment~ for textbook changes~ adherence to State mandates for continued funding relative to the school bu~ replacement program and whether or not a waiver to said mandate could he requested~ coneideration of submittal to the state cf a ten year plan for =he replacement of buses; identification o~ items not included in this budget that ~ould be conducive to education~ reductions/restructures in the ScAool Budget to bring it in line with the County Administrator's proposed Budge~; consolidatien ~f ~ranspertatien/maintenance services; The Bo~rd generally a~r~ed the School Budget wns well-prepared and p~esented; tha~ much progress had been made in the in which the material was presented; and COnL~ended th~ Board and School A~ini~tration staff and the School Board Liaison Co~ittee for their diligent affort~ on th~ proposed Budget. 2.B. ~P~ESENTATIO~ OF C0%rNTY BUDGET Mr. Jay Stegmaier presented an overview of the County's proposed FYP0-91 and FY91-92 Budget, outlining the Board of Supervisors budget objectives; data relative to the Reserve for Future Capital Projects; projected balances as of June 30, I990 and J~aa 30, 1991; projected additional r~venues from increased Capital Projects fund; projected Fund Balance; major issues D0-221 3/14/90 influencinq the budget; the FY91-92 proposed bndqet~ General Fund revenues and the difference in those revenues for FYPO and FYPl; General Fund expenditures; School Budget expenditures; School Rcard Baso-Qualit~ item~; Co~ueunity Contracts li~t for FYPl; and new positions for the proposed 1990-91 budget. There was lengthy discussion, questions and conunent~ r~lative to the proposed 5udget al=er which the Board requested the following: a change to the wording of the budget objective dealing with fairly allocating resources among competing demands, which Mr. Maye~ ~tated he felt was too broad, wag an attempt to ignore the needs cf the Matneca District and he felt ~hould be ehan~ed to its o~igiual context to state equitable distribution of fund~; a breakdown On the sources of exces~ of :he r~al estate assessment i~¢rease is commercial/industrial ~ersus residential; identification of the $5.5 million "Ail Other~' category depicted in the FY91~92 proposed budget; identification of what percentage of the difference in the $25.6 million ~enerated between the FYPO and FY91 Local Tax~s i~ real ~tat~ tax~; identification by department Qf th~ seventeen (17) "Ail OtherTM category of new position~ proposed for the ~¥90-91 budget; censideratio~ of a one time contribu- tion in the ~unt Of $5,000 to $10,OO0 to a £~a$ibility study on th~ funding of r~gioaat community contracts with the antici- Da~ed result being to indicate how to more eff~ctlve~y handle cultural activities; and distribution of entreated Capital Improvement Project information li~ting community projects by Districts as requested by ths Buar~. Mr, Daniel stated hs felt it importan~ that ~he publio be aware of the fact thee the $3.5 million projected additional funds from real estate assessments for FY91 is taken from total funds and allocated to %he FY91 budget to be allocated to the Reserve for Future Capital ~rojec~s Fund ~ that it is not an over- estimated amount from real estat~ asse~ment~. Mr. Ramsay stated staff would be forwarding responses to the PROPOSED ORDINANCE REQUIRING DISCLOSUR~ OF ~ARTIES IN INTEREST FOR ZONING AND VARIANCE REQUESTS Mr. ~teve Hy~r~, Assistant County A%=orney, presented an overview of a proposed ordinance ~equiring disclosure of parties in interest for zoning and vaziance requests and a comparative disclosure alternatives Drafts C, i and ~ an~ stated =he ~lannin~ Commission, at its January, 1990 meeting, unanlm~usly rsc~ended approval of Draft 9. During discnsslon~ Mr. ~ayes expressed concern r~lative to the proposed ordinance becaus~ it would require that any applicants or ~etitioners for ~onin~ amendments or variances other the Board of Supervisors must furnish full disclosure of the real parties in intersst and he fel~ that th~ Board Of visors, when an applicant in a zoning case; should not be excluded from the s~me requirements as citizens, ~r. Sullivan ~tated he felt that passage of such an ordinanc~ would be misleading the public into b~lieving they would receive full disclosure of all parsons with economic interests in zoning case~ when, in reality, i~ would not be difficult to evade the provision through a loophole in the law that do~s not require di~closur~ beyond a c~rtuin point and, that un,er ~uch circum- stances the ordinance would be ineffective. Mr. Applegato ~0-222 3714/90 stated he felt that neither information nor personality r~garding investors in zoning cases has anything to do with land uss decisions considered by fha Board. Mr. Daniel stated he falP the concept of tko proposed ordinance is to open up the process of government~ that the public has a right tO k~ow with whom they are dealing in zoning matters, that disclosure has nothing to de with better zoning or quality zoning and that he views the ordinance simply as a "Sunshine Act". Mr. Carrie stated he had no problem with disclosure; however, if there is a perception that la~d trusts are dishonest, then he felt such entities ~hould be eliminated through the appropriate channels, When ask~d~ Mr. Myers stated that falsahoods on a zoning application have no impact on a land use decision~ however, there ma~ be a c~iminal penalty {s.q., perjury violation} fez swearing ~nder oath that the data wa~ 0effect when in fact it After further discussion, it was noted the proposed ordinance reql/iring the disclosure of parties in inta~mh for zoning and variance requests was scheduled far public he,ring ~urinq the evening sea,ion and a decision would be made at that time. 14.I. ~'~CUTI%rE SESSION On motion of Mr. Sullivan, se0onded by Mr. Daniel, the Board went into Executive Session pursuant to ~ection 2.1-344 (a) (3) of the Ce~e Of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to consider the acquisition of real property for public use and for consultation with legal counmel pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a)(7} of the Code of Virginia, '1950, as a~nd~d, regarding litigation ~nvolving John W. Roberts vers~s the Board of ~upervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote~ Unanimous On motion of Mr. Apptegake, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, ~he BOard of Supervisors has this day adjourn~ into Executive Session in accordance with a formal vote of the Board, and in accordanc~ with the provisions Of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS~ the Virginia Freedom Of Information Act effective July l, 198~, provides for certification that such Executive Session was conducted in conformity with law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County ~up~visor$ does hereby o~rtify that to the best of e~ch member's knowledge~ i) only public buuin=ss muttars lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Freedom of Information Act wer~ discussed in ~he Executive Sesmion to which this uertiIication applias, and ii) only such public business matters aa wer~ identified in the Motion by which the considered b~ the Board. No member dimgents fro~ this certifi- cation. The Board being polled, the vote was as follows= Mr. Baniel~ Aye. Mr. Mayas: Aye. MS. Appleqate: Aye. Mr. Sullivan; Aye. Mr. Currin; Aye. 90-223 3t14/9~ The Board recessed at 4:50 p.m. (EST) to travel t~ the ~uneet Cafe for a dinner meeting With the Community Services Board. 3. ~Iq~NEK Mr. Currin called th~ meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. t~T). In=reductions were ~&de of those present and dinner followed. Mr. Peter Ward, Chairman o~ the Community Services Board, Board and presented a brief ~pdate of the Community Services Board~s ongoing activities. Dr. Bart Lowe, Executive Director of the Mental Health/Mental Retardation Department, referenced an informational handout that had be~n distributed and briefly innovations/accomplishments of the department (e.g., Family Outpatient Time=Limited Therapy, innovat~va Employment, School and th~ ~ew a~/RR/SA ~uilding) and s~ated that, although the upcoming year ie anticipated to b~ v~ry busy it appears services will he fiscally sound, he wished to alert the Board base budget for FY92-94 a~ 10W as possible. integration of special needs children in %hie program into their dedioation and commit/nent to the high quality s~r~ices it r~nd~r~ %0 th~ citizen~ oi the County; and indicate~ that if to them to ~eel free to call upon them. The Beard recessed at 6:35 p.m. (EST) to travel to the Courthou~ for its regularly scheduled meeting. Eeconvening: 4. INVOCATION Mr. Currin introduced Mr. William Diggs~ Director of the Department of Real E~tate ASSeSsment, who gave the ingecation. 5. PI~DGE OF, ALLEGIAR~ TO THE FLAG DF THE ~NTT~D STATES OF Chief Robert L. Eanes, Jr. led the PLedge.of Alleglance~to the Flag of the United Btates o~ America. 90-~24 3/14/90 On motion of Mr. Applegat*, seconded by Mr. Mayas, 2he Board approved the minutes of February 29, 1990, as ~u~mitted. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. AppIegate and ~r. Mayas. Abstentionz Mr. Daniel, ~us to absenteeism. Mr. Ramsay stated there were no County Administrator's comment~ a% %his time. BOARD CON~IT'r~ P.I~I~ORTS Mr. Daniel reported he attended the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission meeting at which there was aqreement that the Commission would continue to provide the planning services for the recently e~tablished Central Virginia Waste ~anagement Authority until such time as the Authority should decide to utilized the RRPDC as a contract planninq staff. Mr. Mayas reported he attended the Education Advisory Committee tc the CO%nell en ~uca2ion Information ~anagemen~, which oommittee'~ report ha~ b~en finalised and forwarded to the ~over~ur ~ General Assembly with recommends%lens ~er cha~glng in trends in education in the Commonwealth. M~. Sullivan reported he and Mr. Mayas attmnded th~ Hudget/Audit Committee meeting, which input wa~ included in the Budget presentation mad~ earlier in the day at the Board~s work session. 9. ~E~UESTS TO POSTPONE AC~TON, F/~R(~NCYADDITI~S OR C~%NGES IN z~u~ ORDER OF PRESENTATION on motion of Mr. Maye~, seconded by ~r. Applega~e, ~he Board ~dded Item 10.C., Resolution Recognizing the Manckestar Lancers for Splendid Sportsmanship and Outetandin~ Representation of Chesterfield County; added Item 1O.D., Re~olution ae=ognizing the Matoaoa Warriors for Splendid Sportsmanship and Outstanding Roprosentatio~ of Chester£iel~ County; added Item 14.~.7., Request for Binqo/Raffle Permit from the Meadows defszred Item 14.~.4., Request fo~ Amendment to Bingo/Raffle Permit for the Richmond Area Mental Health A~sociation until March 28, 1990~ at 9:00 a.m.; de~erred I=sm 12.B., Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of a 14, untll April 11, 1990, a% ?~00 p.m.~ move~ out of =eq=unce Item 12.E., Street Name Changes, to i~mediately follow Item 10. R~SOLUTIONS A~D 8F~CIAL P~COGNITION$ I0.A. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM Mr, Masden indicated that Dr. Wesley McClure, President of Virginia State Univ~r~ity~ had not arrived 9o p~$ent a resolution t~ the ~o~ in ap~rec~at~on..Qf the County's support of th~ University's scAol~rship program. Mr. Currin suggested th~ matter be deferred until after the disposition of the other the matter would be deferred until the Marsh 2S~ 1990 meetinq 10.B. BOY SCOUT TROOP ~94, EAGL~ 10.B.1. MR. LAk~y KIDD, JR. Qn motlcn of the ~oard, the following r~solutien was adopted: W~EREAS, The Boy Scouts of Americ~ was incorporated by Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, ~910; and WHEREAS, The Boy Scout~ of America was founded to ~r0m0te citizenship ~raining~ personal development and fitnes~ of individuals; and WR~REA~, After earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wid~ variety of fields, serving in a leadership position in a ~OQp, carrying cut a service project benefioiei to his eommuni%y~ bain9 active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit and living up ~o the Scout oath and Law~ and WHeReAS, ~r. Larry Kidd, Jr., Troop 894, has accomplished those high standards of commitment and has reached the sought goal of Eagle Scout which is re,sired by le~ tha~ two ~ercent of those individuals entering th~ S¢outlng mcvemsnt~ and ~h~RZAS, Growing through his experiencs~ in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship and priding himself on the great aceomplishment~ of his County, Larmy indeed a member of a n~w g~neration of prepared young of whom we can all be very proud. NOW, THER/~FOR~ B~ IT P~ESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County ~oard of Supervisors hereby extends it~ congratulations to Mr. Larry Kidd, Jr. and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have much an outstanding young man as one of its oitlz~ns. On motion of th~ Board, ~h~ following resolution was adopted: W~ERF~$, The Boy $cou~m of km~rioa was incorporated by Mr. William D, Boyce On February 8, 191~; and WHEREAS, The Boy Sceut~ of America was founded to promote citizenship traizing, personal development and fitness, of individual~F and WBEREA$, After earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of fields, serving in a leadership poeiti0n in a troop, carrying out a service project beneficial to his co~unit~, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit and living up to the Scout Oath and L~W; and WH~R~A~, Mr. William C. Wheeler, Troop 894, has accomplished those high standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought goat of Eagle Scout which ia received by less then two percent of tho~e individuals entering the Scouting WMEP~AS, Grow£Dg through his c~perience$ in Scouting, learning the lessens of re~ponsible citizenship and priding himself on the great accomplishments of him Ceunty, William is indeed a member of a new generation of prepared young =itizens of whom ws can all be very proud. 90-22~ 3/14/90 NOW, TWESEFORE BE IT I~ESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its congratulations to Mr. William C. Wheeler and acknowledges the good fortuna of th~ County to have such an outstanding young man as gna cf its citizens. ~r. Sullivan presented tho excreted resolutions to Mr. William 10.C. RECOGNIZING TOE MA~CH~STSR ~ANC~HS FOR SPL~DIU SPORTS- MANSHIP AND OUTSTANDING REPP~SRNTATION OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEPu~%S, Participation in high ~chcol ~ports ha~ long been an integral part of Chestsrfleld Ccunty~ educational, physical and emotional development for etudsnts; and WH~R~AS~ The 1989-9O Manchester High School Baskatball Runner-up~ an~ al~ par~icipated iD %b~ Sta~a Taurnamant~ an~ ~]~E~A$, The citizens cf chesterfield County continue to support our high school basketball teams. County Boar~ of Supervisors does hereby recognize the raprusentaticn o~ Chsa~arfial~ County. Supervisors, on behalf of tho citiz~n~ of Chesterfield County, sportsmanship and hard work and express their bee= wishes for RECOGNIZING THE MATOACA WARRIORS FOR SPLENDID SPORTS- MANSEIP AND OUTSTANDING REPRESENTATION aP CHESTERFIELD COUNTY On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHE~tEAS, Participation in high ~ehool ~port~ ha~ long b~en an integral part of Chesterfield County's aducational, physical W~Z~EAS, The Matoaca Warriors finished the Season with a 25-3 Record including 6-0 against C%ntral Dietrict Team~ and WHEREAS, The Matoaca Warriors won tho preetiqion~ Fort L~e Holiday Classic Tournament; and WHEREAS~ The 198~-90 ~atoaca High School Basketball Team~ known as th~ Matoaea Warriors, b~came tho Southside District Champions and Region I Champions and advanca~ to the ~inal ga~a in the State Championship; and J i WMER~AS, The Matoaca Warriors distinguished the County and Mateaca Hiqh School by winning the coveted Marshall Johnson Sportsman Award whiuh was the result of a strong emphasis by coach Williams on good attitude and sportsmanship; and WHEREAS, The citizens of Chesterfield County continue to support our high school basketball %ea~s. NOW, TE~K~FOR~ BE IT RESOLV~D, that the Chesterfisld County Board of Supervisors does hereby recognizs the Metoaca ~igh $chool basketball Team for its outstanding representation of Chesterfield County. A~D, BE IT FURTHER RE$0LV~D, that the Board of Supervisors, on behalf of the citizens of Chesterfield County, does hereby co~mend the ~atoaca Warriors for their splsndid sportsmanship as evidenced by the receipt of the Marshall Johnson Sportsmanship Award and h~rd work for t-heir distinguishing Chesterfield County in the final game of the State AA Tournament and express their best wishes for continued Coach William~ and ~embers of the Ma~oaca Warriors Basketball achievement and representation of ~he County. 1D.A. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO BOARD OF SUP~RVI~©R$ FRO~ VIRGINIA ~TATE UNIVerSITY ~r. Currin noted ~hat Dr. wesley MCCl~r~ had not arrived and it was generally agreed to defer until March 28, 1990, et 9~00 a.m., acceptance of e resolution of appreciation to th~ Board of supervisors from Virginia State Univ~rslty for th~ County's support of the university's scholarship program. 11. ~t~INGS OF CITIMZNS ON ~NSC~.~ M~TTB~ OR fL~)~4~ Ther~ wer~ no hearing of citizens on unsehednle~ matters or claims. Nr, Sale ~ta~ed, at ~he February 14, i990 meeting, the Board deferred consideration of the rena~inq cf the following Streets so th~t ~l%s appropriate sitizens residing along the affected streets may ha notified of th~ proposed changes %o i) Belmont Courthouse Road to--the planned intersection of the proposed extension of ~hitspina Road: 2) North Bailey Bridge Road, from U.S. Route 360 to Bailey Bridge Road, to Cleypoint Road; ~d ~) Newbya Bridge ~oad, betwesn Courthouse Road and Quells Road~ %0 Claypoint Road. He noted that all affected property owners were ne=iliad, indiea=sd there was opposition to the proposed changes, and stated that, at the request of Mr. Daniel and with th9 concurrence of the Chairman, Ms. Grace McNamara was pre~ent to address the Board on that section of the r~naming of said street rela%iv~ to Belmont Roe~ to Whltepine Road. Mr. Currin sta~ed wes a also a citizen present who wished to address the renaming of ~ewby~ Bridge Road and ~hen asked~ another citizen indicated he wished to express concerns relative ~o North Bailey Bridge Road, 90-228 3/14/90 Ms. Grace McNamara referenced a letter ehe had forwarded to Mr. Applegate and submitted copies of said letter to the Board; voiced oppoeition to the proposed renaming of Belmont Road aa she owns a business along the affected portion of said road and flnancial hardship and inconvenience to her both professionally and personally; and submitted a petition of sixty (60) signatures of individuals also opposed to the renaming of Belmont Road. Mr. Scott Harding~ As~ooiafie Minister of the broadcasting and advertising expenses of an a~ready existing a petition from other residents along Newbys ~ri~ge Road that had be~n ~ubmitt~d indicating their opposition to the ¢~ange. ~r. ~alph ~e%lamy, a 45-year resident of North Bailey Brid~e Road, voiced opposition to the proposed change because tko residents currently living in the coK~uni~y ~o not want the n0/~¢ changed, the renaming of that portion of the road wo~ld adversely impact residents in that area w~o are retired and venienced an~ financially impac~e~ by a change which is After a brief discussion, it was on ~otion of ~r. Mayas, from its aurren% intersection with Courthouse ~oad to t~ planned i~tersection of the proposed extension of Whitepine Road: 2) North Bailey Bridge Road, from U.S. Route 360 tc Bailay Bridg~ Road, ~o Claypeint Road; and 3) Newbys Bridge Road, between Courthouse Road and Quells Rca~, to Claypoint Road. Vote: Unanimous I2.A. ADOPTION OF BOARD POLICY RELATING TO CAS~ PROFFERS Mr. Micas abated that the Board, at its February 14, 199~ meeting, closed the public hearing regarding the adoption of a policy concerning the acceptance by the County e~ proffers cf cash and property from appl~uan%~ for zoning amendments and deferred adoption of ~aid policy until this date and time ~o allow the ~e~er~l ~embly ~ ac~ ca ~he County's impact f~ legislation. He noted the impact fee legislation was carried over ~o the 1991 General Assembly ~ession. Discu=sion,' que=tions and comments ensued with Mr. Diggs, Director ~f the Real Estate Assessment, relative to what he if ea~h proffers wer~ implemented; the amount of antlcipa~ed revenues to be generated within the upcoming year ~rem the acceptance of cash proff~r~ th~ a~u~ption that ~xi~tlng residential dwelling assesament~ would be affected by new adjacent development proffering cash or property as it would b~ reflected in the market value, thus affectinq the assessment: etc. real estate as~essment~; that whatever action the Board may take, ~he entire citizenry needed to be given consideration; and that he felt the Board should wait until next y~ar since the County wool4 not be likely to obtain any significant revenues for two to three years and to observe what occurs regarding impact fee legislation. m m m Mr. Daniel stated he did net see why the development of a new subdivision in a distanc~ portion of thm County offsring proffers 0hould impact older, ~xisting residential areas of the County~ Mr. Digg~ ~tat~d development occurring adjacent older neighborhoods has the ~ame impact as n~w development as required to chang~ the market value of ~x~$ting homes; appeal pro,ess available to citizens through the ~oard of Mr. Daniel voiced suppor~ for the adoption of a cash proffer of a cash proffer policy with ~n iDitial fee of $2,000 to be paid a~ the tim~ of Building ~ermit application. Mr. Mayes obtain any significant revmnues and that the Board should wait to observe whet Occurs regarding impact fee legislation; and he compensate for the loss of funds. Mr. Sullivan referenced taxes should bo sought us funding sources; expressed concerns the elderly who cannot afford higher :ax~s; that the Board had a motion. ~r. Currln described the process by ~hich the Board had arrived at this point for considering ~he adoption of yeer, with a cap, if any~ of $2,500. Mr. D~nlel~ was no~ intended to be more ~han $~,000 in the second year and $4~000 in th~ third year. He ~tated ~mpact fees dealt with only schools and transportation and oa~ proffers would deal with etha~ aspects a~ w~ll. Mr. Applegate stated that it had been anticipated ~hat revenues would no: likely be seen for two to three years: that he did developed without cash prof£er and if impact fees werz applicable to those parcels/tracts of land, f~nds could be ~r. Daniel made a motion that the Board adopt a policy for development to be effective March 15, 1990 in bh~ amount of $2,000 for the p~riod of March 15, 1990 until J~ne 30, 1991) further that said fee, through the bndqet rsview process, be increased by no more than $1,000 to an amount of $~,000 for period of July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992 and increased by no more %hen $1,000 te an ~mount of $4,00Q for the period of July 1, 1992 to June 30~ 1993, with the County continuing to study 90-2~0 3/14/90 other alternatives/mechani~m~ for funding growth and, if necessary, inslede a redefinition of cash proffer amounts; and further, if said issue were continned to h~ ~tudi~d through the on sai~ co~ittees. Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate, Bx. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Nays: Mr. Currin. There was ~urther discussion relative to comments from the Board's last meeting on the discussion that had transpired at regarding cash proffers for commercial/industrial development. It was noted that th~r~ had b~n previous discussion r~Iativ~ to cash proffers for commercial development regarding off- and on-~ite road improvements, fire ~ervlce improvements, etc.; the ra~ifieatlons of a policy for commercial/industrial development which the Board could adopt~ Mr. Applegate stated he would llke to see true figures from staff relative to funds generated by residential cash ~rofferz verzu~ con~reial/indu~trial cash proffers. After further discussion, it was generally a~rsed that a work session relative to cash proff~rm for commercial/industrial developmen~ be conducted at ll:O0 a.m. on March 21, 1990, in the Admiuistr~tlo~ Building Con£erenc~ Room (Room It was generally agreed to recess for five (5) minutes. 12.C. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST A~PROVAL Mr. Sale ~tated the p~titioner, Mr. Sam Wag~taff, has requested that the request for street light installation cost approvals for the following loeation~ in th~ Clov~r Hill District be deferred indefinitely ~endlng resolution of easement problems: l. Adkins Road and Aonaldton It was qenerally indefinitely and b~ provided. Chery~ann Rend and Fransll Drive, Frsncil Drive and Kayvse Road~ $2,905,00; and Cherytann Road and Viekil~6 Road, agreed that the request could not be deferred that it be tabled until sai~ information could 12.E. APPOINTMENTS - LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COM~ISSION On motion cf ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board appointed the following individuals to ~erv~ on the Local Emergency Planning committee in the sategorias a~ ~ndioated, whos~ term~ are at the pleasure of th~ Board: ~elegate $%ephen ~. Martin Major Dennis McDonald Mrs. Lynda G. Furr Unanimous Dist~ict~ there matezial abandoned on Officials B~srgency Response =mergeney Response in %he day in the Bermuda s~ccessfnI recovery fro~ hazardous the highway which was accomplished i through the offorts of the Local Emergency Planning Commission 13. ~LIC~IEARINGS I3.A. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AM~ND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS A~ENDED, BY A~IENDINS AND RE- ~NACTI~G SECTIO~ ~1.1-16 R~LATI~G TO D!~CL0~D~ E~ AFPLI- CAMTS FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS OR VARIANCES Mr. Micas stated this date and time had been advertised fo~ public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chemter~ield, 1978, az a~end~d, relating disclosure by applicants for zoning amendments or varianses. Mr. Steve Myers, Assistant County Attorney, present~ an overview of a proposed ordinance requiring disclosure of parties in interest fer zoning and varianco requests and a comparison of the proposed draft disclosure alternatives and stated ~he Planning Commission, at its January, 1990 unanimously recommended approval of Draft 9. ~s noted a copy of amended Draft 10 was distributod to the ~oard to include Mr. Mayes' concerns regarding languag~ r~la~ive to the requirement that any applicants or petitioners for zoninq ~mendments or variances other than the Board of ~upervisors must furnish full disclosure of the real parties an interest. Discussion, questions and con, eats ensued relative to concerns that the p~oposed ordinance required ~hat any applicants or petitioners for zoning amendments or variances other than the Board of Supervisors must furnish full disclosure of ~he parties in interest; the opinion that ~he Board of Supervisors, when an applicant in a zoning case, should not be excluded from the same requirements as citizens; passage of such an would mislead the public into belisving they would receive full dizolosure of all per~ons with economic inte~est~ in zoninq cases when, ~n reality, it would no= b~ diffiomlt to evade the provision through a loophole in the law that docs not require disclosure beyond a certain point and, that under such circumstances the ordinance would be inufEectiva; that neither information nor personality regarding investors in zoning eases has anything to do with land use dacisions considered by the Eeard; %ha concep~ of ~he proposed o~dlnance is to open up the proces~ of qovernment~ that the public has a right to know with whom they are d~a!ing in zoning matters, that disclosure has nothing tO do with better zoning or quality zoning and that the ordinance i~ simply a '~$unzhine Act"; if there' is ~erception that land t~usts are dishonest, th~n such entities shoul~ be eliminated through the appropriate channels: falsehoods On a zoning application hays no i~paot on a land use decision, however, could, resRlt in a-criminal penalty (e.g., perjury violatioo}~ for sw~aring'unde-r oath -that the data was correct when in fact it was not; etc. MS. Meg Donovan, President of the Crestwood Farms R~id~nt~ Association~ Mr. George B~a~les, a resident of sa~oaca District; ~s. Fays Palmer, Pnesident of the Salisbury Homeowners A$~ociation; Mr. Bill Hastings, a resident of ~atoaca District~ Mr. Phil ~unningham, a resident of Bcrmud~ District; Senator Robert E, R~$sell; MS. Carolyn Pew=rs, a Midlethian resident and President of MIDCAP; and ~s. ~ary M~rray, a Midlothia~ resident, voiced support for the proposed ordinance as they felt it was a comT~itment of opennesm; that whale developers could ~ossibly avoid tbs full disclosure requirement, passage would convey a m~s&ge to County residents that such information ~elativs to the identities of development entities can be made available; that the ordinance could be improved; that citizens have the right to know information relative to zoning when it impact~ thei~ community and the CouDty in which they pay taxes; etc. 90-232 3/14/90 Mr. Oliver D. Rudy voiced opposition to the proposed ordinance as he felt information about investors in zoning eases had nothing to do with land use decisions rendered by the Board of ~npervleore and that said disclosure would not serve any public interest in the zoning of property in the County. Mr. George ~merSen expressed concern that passage of the proposed ordinance wohld generat~ mare paperwork, attorneys f~es to fill out the paperwork and eliminate citizens' rights to apply for ~oning. Mr. Daniel stated that he felt that havinq the proposed ordinance, even with its flaws, was better than having nothing; that the responses he had receivmd on the matter had all be~n positive until the testimony this evening but the proposed ordinance wa~ endorsed by the citizenm, the legimlatorm and the press; that he was prepared to support one of two proposals; and requested to make the motion for approval at the appropriate time. Mr. Mayee stated he felt elected officialm should represent the views of their constituents; that the npinien~ of his constituents are ver~ important to him~ and voiced support for the proposed ordinance. Mr, Applegate expressed appreciation for the oo~ents of tho~e citizens who had come to the meeting; that he was concerned with thc ra~ifications of approving the proposed ordinance; and stated he preferred to wait to voice hi~ decision. Mr. Sullivan expressed concern that passage of the proposed ordinance would fool citizens into believing that full disclosure of all persons with economic interests in zoning cases would be available when, in reality, it would not be difficult to evade the provision ~hreugh a legal loophole that does not require disclosure beyond a certain point. He further notsd, however, that as long as the citizens are aware of the context of the ordinance and support it, then he would support it. ~r. Currin stated he wa~ opposed to the ordinance; however, h~ had visited hie community, discussed the matter with many of his ordinance and Stated tha~, under those ¢ircum~tance~, he would support the ordinance. There was brief discussion relative to the amended Draft 10 to include language that th~ Board of Supervizor~ or Planning Commission may file an application or petition without making the r~qulred disclosures after making a finding by vote of those members present and voting on the issue that the disclosure requirement should be waived to further an appropriate governmental interest such ae acenomlc develcpms~t. On motion of Mr. Applegete and Mr. Danisl~ zeconde~ by ~r. Mayes, the B~ard adopted the iollowing ordinance: AN O~INANCE TO AM~/~D BE I~ O~AINED, by ~h~ Board of Supervisors of th~ County of Chesterfield, Virginia, that: (I) Th~ Code of she County of Chesterfield, 1978, i~ hereby amended ~o =e~ as follows: Sec. 21.1-16. Applications. (d) Any applicant or petitioner shall furnish the follow- ing information: (1) A list of ~he n~ and addr~$se$ cf all persons owning any legal or equitable interest in the real property which is the ~ubject of the application noteho~der, including trustees, beneficiaries of trusts, general part,ers, limited partners un~ all other natural or artificial persons owning any ~uch interest7 provided, however, tha~ the names and addressam of governmental entitie~ and public service companies owning recorded easements over the subject property need not be disclosed. (2} If any of the persons disclosed under Section 21.1-16(d) {1) is a corporation, then the application also list the names and addressee of any sharehotde~m who own ten (10} percent or more of any clam~ of stock issued by such corporation and where such corporation has (10) or fewer shareholders, a llst of the names addrecses ~ all the shareholder~. If any of the persons joint venture, trnet or other artificial person Other than a corporation, then the application shall also list the hhereiu equal to ten Il0) percent or more of the total of unknown to the applicant a~d whose identities cannot be a~certain~d by th~ e~r¢ise of due diligence end for any corporation that hen mere than 100 9hazeh6lders or who~e stock is regularly traded on a stock exchange or in the lieu of providing a lis~ of its stockholders or other p~r~on~ having an ihferest therein. (3) If any of the persons disclosed under Section 21.1-16(d) (2) is a corporation, partnership, joint v~ntura, trust or other artificial pmrmOu~ the ~pplicstion shall De sworn to under oath before a notary public or whether or not any member of the ~lanning Commission or holds ownc any intesest in the real property which subject of th~ application as a titl~ owner, licensee either indlvld~alty or by ownership of interemt in a corporation, trust, partnership, joint me, er of the Planning Commim~ion Or ~oard of Supervisors or of any of their i~mediate households ow~s uny much interest, the application shall identify each such the nature and extent of his ownership interest. ©~herwise~ nc furthe~ ~iscloeure of the ownership of the r~al property which is the subject of the application or petition is required. {4) Prior to every public hearing, the applicant or p~titioner mu~t file a list updating tke informs%ion previously disclosed under s~otion 21.1-16(d} to reflect any change since the date of his previous submission if suck has occurred. {5) Ike Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission file an application or petition without making the required disclosures after making a finding by majority vote of those members present 'and Voting on the issue that development. 90-234 3114/90 Mr. Daniel indicated he would like to make %_he motion es he pr~vio~sl~ stated. It was generally agreed to r~e~ for five (5) minutes. Reconv~nlng: Mr. App!eqate excused himself from the meeting. 13.~. TO CONSIDER ~ ORDINANCE TO AMEND C~APTER 10 0F TH~ CODE OP T~ COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED~ BY ADD- ING A NEW SECTION 10--19.2 R~LATING TO DEBRIS O~ C0MST~UC- TION SITES Mr. Micas stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield~ 19?S, as amended, relating to debris on con,traction sites. Mr. Sullivan stated ~hat, ~urlng previous conversations, representatives of the Homebuilders Association requested that the proposed ordiDance be deferred for thirty further review the provisions of the ordinance. ~e stated he felt that the proposed ordinance may be than that which is currently proposed; tha~ it would be more appropriate to permit public inpu~ on the finalized version the proposed ordinance; and suggested that consideration be given to the request for thirty (30) days. ~e one eam~ forward in opposition tc the deferral. On motion of Mr. sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currln, the Board de~erred until April 11, 1990, at 7~0G p.m.t the p~bli¢ hearing to consider an ordinance to amend Chapter 10 of the Code of the County of the County o~ Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by adding a new S'ecti~fi" 10~f~i2 relating co debri~ on construction Ayes~ Mr. C~rrln~ Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayss. Absent: Mr. Applegate. 13.C. TO C©NSI~EE AN OKDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELDa 1978~ AS ~LMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE Mr. Micas stated =his date and ti~e had been ~% for a public h~aring to consider am ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfi61d, 1978, as amended, relating to ~treet names and building numbers. No one c~a forward to speak iD f~vor of or against the proposed ordinance. On motion of Mr. Sullivan~ mecOnded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following ordinance: CODE OF TH~ CO~I~ OF C~M~/{FIELD, 1978, ~ BE IT ORDAINED, by %h~ Board Of S~pervi$or5 of the (1] that Chapter 17 o~ The Code o~ the County of Ches~erZield~ 1978, as ~end~d, i$ hereby amen4ed a~ follows: Article III. Street Names and ~uildinq N~ers. See. 17-14. Uniform 9~et=m adopted; compliance with artiot~_ There is hereby established a uniform system for naming streets and n~mbering buildings fronting on all streets. All streets shall be named end all buildings shall be numbered in accordance with the provisions of the article and with the approval of the director of environmental engineering. For the ~urposs cf this article the word "street" ~hatl include interstate~ primary and secondary roads, roads proposed for acceptance into the state secondary road system, private roads ~hich serve more than one address, or any other road which the director o~ environmental engineering determines should be named to promote the safety and welfar~ of the public. Sec. 17-15. P~epa~a~%~.~ and filing of official directory. ~n order to facilitate the nu~berlng of buildings and the naming of streets, an o~icial dlre~tory shall be prepared showing the number of ~ach building and the name of each street. The of~iciaI directory shall be kept on file in the office of th~ director of ~n~irona%ental engineering. Sec. 17-16. Street namin, standards. ~or the purpose of clarifying and systematizing street naming in the county, the followin~ standards are adopted: There ~hal] b~ no ~uplication or n~ar-duplloafion of street names within the county and the j~risdictionm comprising the Richmond Regional ~launing District Commiseien and the Crater Regional Planning District Co~ission, Streets with the same name, but different street type designations will be considered duplicat~ street n~es with the ~xc~ption col=dec,ac ~=r~ets which intersect with a street names shall be considered duplicate ~tre~t names. Street names with con~u~ing~ obscure or unconven- tional spellingm will not b~ permi=ted. Street names shalI not contain prope~ names of individuals or the beard of supervisors. (c) Street names will nee contain more than sixteen (16) characte~, no~ including the s~ree% type designa- tion, N~es shall not contain hyphens, apostrophes, or other non-letter charac~r~. Street names will not co~tai~ ~ore tha~ two (2) words, exclusive of the street typ~ (d) Streets continuing through an intermmotion will retain the same na~e, An ~xc~ptlon to this standard may b~ grant~ by the director of enviro~ental un~inc~ring if the street cro~se~ a majo~ road. If th~ entrance to a co~ercial, multi-f~ily, or town-hous~ devotement extend~ from a publicly maintained cul-de-sac, th~ entrance mn~t hav~ a (e) Cul-de-sacs which are directly opposite each other and which intersect with a co--on ~t~e~t shall have different names. (f) Street names shall not change due ~o a change direction of the street nor ~hall a n~w prefix permitted for those streets =ha~ meet the criteria for using compass points in the street name. 90-236 1. A street crosses the North/South zero baseline for address a~sigrum~nt, or 2. A street is con~%uuote~ in stages from two ends and does not connect; provided, however, that =ompa~ point prefixes may be used in tkis situation only u~til the street i~ physically connected. Sec. 17-16.1. Street-TyFe Designation Standards. For the purpose of clarifying and systemstising street- type designation~ in the designations shall be used for the following types of streets~ For a major ~oadway such as an interstate, multi-lens, l i~itad aete~ divided federal road of fee: ~4) ur m~ro lanzs: 1. Highway 2. Pike 3. Freeway 4. Expressway Throughway 6. Turnpike (b) For a major multi-lane, non-limited access road which is a maiK arterial roadway carrying high volumes Of traffio~ ~ighway 2. AVon~e 4.Boulevard Parkway (o) For a local, two-lane connector road: 1. Avenue 2. Street 3. Road ~. Drive (d) For a local street providing access to individual lots within a subdivision or commercial area: 1. Lane 2. Drive 3. Way 4. Circle 5. Trail 6. Loop 1. Court Place Terrace (f) For & street providing ingress and egres~ to a shopping mall or center: 1. Square 3. Center 90-237 3/i4/9~ (g} For a street located to the rear of residences and net designed ~r regularly uDed for through travsl: Alley Sec. 17-17. Street name Every subdivider stall furnish a fee as set by the board of snpervi~or~ for the purchase and installation of signs for avary street intersection within the subdivision. The county shall replace street signs needed because of street nama changes. Street name and a~dresa signs shall confer~ in appearance with standarda eetabllshed by the diracfor environmental engln~arlng. Sec, 17-18. Au~hor~y of board of su~ervinors to change street The b©ard of supervisors may change, r~na~e or Da~e existing or newly established street at any time, subject the standards of this article. Sec, 17-19. Repealed. Sec. 17-20. Repealed. Sec. 17-21. Dutie~ of director of environmental engineering, It mhall be fha duty of the director of environmental engineering or his a~thnrized agent to a~sign building numbers and to k~p the official directory up =~ date. ~Rc% ~Z~2. Du~ of owner of a building. It shall be the duty of =he owner of every building tn obtain the proper building number and attach Hhe n~mber to the premise~. No building parmi~ for a building shall he issued until the proper building number has been issued and ne cer~ificat~ of occupancy shall be issued until the proper humbert have ~een affixed to the building. In order :o facilitate %ha kaeping cf the oS~icial directory, a duplicate cody of each building p~rmit shall be forwarded to the enviroru~enta! anginaer*s office. Sec. 17-23. Numbarin~ generally~-From base linea. Building numbers mhall ascend from zero to the north and south from the Midlothian Turnpik~ b~$~ line. The Jafferscn Davis aighway base line is the beginning of the 2600 block intersection of Meadowville Road and East/wezt Hundred Road (State Route 10). The dixectQr of environmental engineering is authorized te establish a ~ymtem for numbering buildings which is not inconsistent with this section, and to chanpe any building number pure.ant to the provisions of such system, Sec. 17~24. Same--Time of placing numbers on buildings; payment of cost. Numbers shall be plaue~ on existing bui!di~Fs within thirty (3~] days a~ter being a~ignad. The cost of the numb~r~ shall be paid for by the property owner. sec. 17-25. Sama--$i~a, type eX ~aterial and location of Nttmbers sh~ll, not be less than feu~ (4) inches in helqh-t for residential buildings and not less than ten (10} inch~ in height for all ether buildings. NUnfuar~ shall be ma~e of a durable and clearly visible material, The numbers shall be conspicuously placed on, abov~er at the side of ~he ma~n 3/14/90 entrance door ~o that the nu~be~ is plainly visible from the street. Whenever a bnildinq is more than fifty (50) feet from the streets or when the entrance is not visible from the street, the n~mber shall be placed at the walk, driveway or other suitable location that is easily discernible from the street and se that the number is clearly visible from both directions of street approach. See. 17-26. Repealed. Sec. 17-27. Separate nunubers to b~ assigned each entrance. ~hen a building has morn than one (1) entrancn snrving (2} That the ~tre~t na~e portion ef this ordinance ~hatl not adoption o£ this ordinance. [3) That the bnil~inq number portion of th~s or~nance shall no~ apply to buildings for which a certificate cf this ordinance. Absent: ~r. Apple~ate. 13.D. TO CONSIDER A PROPOSAL TO LEASE A PORTION OF THE CHESTER- FIELD COUNTY AIRPORT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE SYSTEM (AWES) Mr, Mi~s stated this dat~ and time had b~en advertised for a public hearing to consider a proposal to lease a portion of the Chesterfield County Airport to the U. S. Government for the purpeae c~ installing an Automated Weather Observation System [AWES). ~o one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter. On motion of ~r. Daniel, ~econded by Mr. ~aye~, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a leace agreement, which leacu iu effective upon execution of the lea~e agreement and will expire in september, 20t5~ between Chesterfield County, Virginia and the U. S. GoverD-~ent (Depart- ment of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration) for m parcel of land a~ the Chesterfield County Airport for ~he pnrpo~e of ins~allinq an Automated Weather Observation System (AW0S), which system will monitor w~athe~ conditions and provide a complete weather report to pilot~ on a specified radio frequency. (A copy of said lease is filed with the papers of this Board.) Ay~: Mr. Currin, ~r. Sullivmn, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. Absent~ gr. Appleqa~e. 14.A. ~D%TIONA~ POSITIONS FOR $~ER%FF'~ D~RARTMENT FOR COURT SECURITY AT NEW COURTS BUILDING (13) additional positions for the Sheriff's Department to Mi~on was pEesent and explained ~he ~q~est in detail. Diacu~sion, ques~iona and comments ensued relative to available thirteen positions as opposed to ten positions; adherence %o 90-2~9 3/14/90 Stabs funddng policies for courtroom security; documentation of statistics to justify future appFo~al of three positions Dot approved at this time; ~tilization of said position when not previdin~ courtroom security~ etc. On motion of Mr, Daniel, aesonded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board authorized the establishmena of ten (10) full-time permanent, 10QB C~unty funded pesition~ effective ApRil i, I990, for the Sheriff's Depa~tmen~ for FY-1991 to provide courtroom SecUrity for the new Courts Building, with the understanding that staff may come ba~k ~o the Board at a futur~ date with of ~tati~tiem justifying approval of the remaining three (3! requested positions~ and further~ increased e×pendlture~ and appropriated funds to the $heri~f's Departmen~ Budget in the amount of $110,500 in surplun revenue identifie~ in the Fund for FY-1990 for said pe~i~iOn$, ~hich funding inctude~ personnel, operatin~ and capital costs. (It i~ noted if approved, it ~s unlikely tha£ the State Ccmpenmation Beard will ~und any e~ th~se posiTion~.} Ayes: Mr. Coffin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and ~r. ~ay~s. Absent: Mr. Applegate. Mr. Sullivan stated that he felt this effort could be dated ~iTh ~ke ten positions and, if not, th~ opportunity is available for staff to come back to the Beard with tion to request consideration of 5h~ remaining three positions and that the funds could b~ retained in the general Fund Balance and appropriated far those positions at that time. i~.B. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC NEARING TO CONSIDER FYgl ~UDGET! 1991-t995 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND RELATED FEE AND ORDINANCE CHANGES AND APPROPRIATION OF 1990 BO~D ISSUE On motion of M~, Daniel, seconded b~ Mr. Coffin, the Board set the date of April 3, 1990~ at 7~ p.m., for a public hearing to consider ~he F¥9~ Budget, the 1991-1995 Capital Improvement Pregrom~ appropriation of the 1990 Ganeral Obli~mtien Bond Issue in the amount of $9,634,000~ and the following related fee and ordinance changes~ 1. An ordinance to con~ider amendments to Sectien 6-4 of the County Code relating to building p~rmit fees; ~. An ordinance to con~ider an amendment to S~ction~ ~0-25, 20~37 and 20-~] of the County Code relating tc charges for An ordinance to consider a~endments to Section ~-22 of the County Coda relating ~o dog license fees. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayer. Absent: Mr. Appteqate. ~.~. DEBRIS LANDFILL OPERATING AND gIT%~C 2Tk~BA2DS REPORT On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Daniel, th~ Board accepted the Deb:is LandFill Operating and Siting Standard~ R~port, a~ ~ubmitted, and referred said Rspor~ ~o the Planning Commission for consideration and adoption. Ayes: Mr. C~rrin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Ab~n~: ~r. Applegate. 90-240 S/14/9~ 14.H. APPOINTMENTS 14.D.1. PRESERVATION COMMTTT~ On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board nominated the following persons to serve on the Chesterfield County Preservation Committee, who~9 formal appointments will be made on March 28, 1990; M~. Mary Ellen Howe Mr. Bryan walker Ms. Donna Schneider Mr. Ca~i Morris Mr. Zane Davis Mr. Jim Daniels Mr. Steve Bryant Ayes: Mr. Coffin, Mr. Sullivan, M~. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Applegate. related to him. 14.D;2. R=CYCLING COMMITTEE On motion of ~r~ Daniel, S~ond~d by Mr. Mayes, ~he Hoard nominated the following citizen ~epresentativeu~ f~em the District as indioated, to serve on tAe Recycling Committee, who~e formal appoin~ment~ wilt be made on March 28, ]990: Metoeca District - Mr. William Hastings Dale District - ~r. Aay Cash R~rmu~a District - Mr. Steve Shoosmith Absent: Mr. Applegatm. Mr. Deniel di~cloBed No the Board that Mr. Stuart Puliot~ nominee from the Midlothian Dist~iee, iS one of his eo-workexs at Philip Morris, Inc., declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Cemprehensive Conflict of Int~r~st Act and stated he would not vo~e on the nomination. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, s~sonde~ by Mr. C~rrin, %he Board nominated Mr. Stuart Pullet as a citizen representative from the Midlothian District to serve on the Recycling Commi=tee, who~ formal appointment will be mad~ on Marsh 2~, 1990, Ayes: Mr. Currin, ~r. $~llivan and ~r. ~ayes. Absen~: Mr, Applegate, Abstention= Mr, Daniel. It wa~ noted nominee~ for the Clove~ Hill District would provided at a Iater date. 14.D.3. CENTRAL VIRGINIA WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (ALTERNATE) On notion of Mr, Daniel, S~condpd by Mr. Mayes, the Board 9~-241 3/14/90 nominated Mr. BraO~ord S. Hammer ns an alternate representative to the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority, w~ose formal appointment will be made on March 28, 1990. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Maye$. CONSENT ITEMS 14.R.1. CHANGE DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE CENT~J~L VISGINIA WASTE MaANAQEMENT AUTHORITY On motion of Mr. Sullivan, ~econde~ by Mr. Daniel, the Board rescheduled the public h~arlng to consider an ordinance creating the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority (CVW~A) from Marsh 28, 1998~ at 9$OO a,m. to April 25, 1990, at 9:00 a.m. Ayes: Mr. Currln, ~r. Sullivan, Mr. Danlel and ~r. Mayer. Absent: Mr. ADDte~ate. 14.E.~. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE Thi~ ~ay ~h~ County Environmental ~ngineer, in auuordamce with directions from thi~ Board, made report in w~ieing upon his examination of Earkbridge goad, Barkbrldge Circle and Tulip Oak Road in Pennwood~ Section 7, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Barkbridqe Road, Barkbridge Circle and Tulip Oak Road in Pennwood, Section 7, Clover Sill District, be and they hereby are e~tablished as public roads. And be it further resolved, that th~ Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is raqnestad to take into the Secondary S~stem, Barkbridge Road, beginning at existing Barkbridgs Road, State Route 2159, and going southwesterly 0.Q3 mile to the intersection with Barkbrldg~ Circle, the~ con=iht- ins zouthwemter!y 0.09 m~l~, than taming and going weut=rly 0.04 mile to end ae the iutersection with Tulip oak Road; ~arkbrldgu Circle, beginning at the intar~eeticn with Hark- ~rldge Road and going northwesterly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac: and Tulip Oak Road, beginning ut the intersection with Rarkbridge Road and going southerly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Again Tulip Oak Road~ beginning at the inter- section with Barkbridge Roa~ and going northerly 0.13 mil~ to end at existing Tulip Oak Road~ State Route 3438. This request is inclusive of the adjacent zlope, Sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage Tha~a roads ~arvs 41 lots. And be it ~urther rssolved~ that the Board of Supervisors guarante~ to tbs Virginia Department e~ Transportation a 5Q' right-of-way for all of these roads. This section of Rennwood is recorded a~ follows: Section 7. Plat Book 59, Pages ~9 and 70, December 11, 19~7. Ayes: Mr. Coffin, ~r. Sullivan, Mr. DaDiol and ~r, Mayas. Absent~ ar. Applegate. This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directlens from thi~ Board~ made r%Dort in writing upon his 90-242 3/t4/9~ e~amination of Rams C~ossing and Rams Crossing Court in Bexley ~a~t, Clover Rill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. 8ullivan~ ~conded by ~r~ Daniel, it is resolved that Rams Crossing and Rams Crossing Court in Bexley East~ Clover Hill District~ be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Trmnsportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Rams Crossing, beginning at the intersection with Broadstone Road, State Route 2682, and going southwesterly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Rams Crossing Court, then continuing southwesterly 0.05 mile, then turning and going southerly 0.13 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Rams Crossing Court, beginning at the intersection with Ram~ Crossing and gelng nerthwest~rly O.04 mil~ to end in a cul-de-sac. Th~s request is inclusive of t~e a~jecent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Trau~purtatton ~rainage right-of-way for all of these roads. Ayee~ Mr. Ceftin, Mr. sullivan, Mr. Daniel and ~r. ~ayes. Absent: Nr. Applegate. This day the COUnty Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from thi~ Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Oak River Drive, Talon Point Court, Eagle Cove Court, Eagle Corm Circle, Oak River Court and !van Road in Eagle Cove, Sections 1, ~ end 9, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Sullivan, ~econded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Oak River D~iv~, Talon Point Court, Eagle Cove Court, Eagle Cove Circle, Oak River Court and Ivan Road in Eagle Cove, Sections 1~ 2 and 9, Matoaea District, be and they hereby are established as public And he it further resolved, that tho Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby i$ ruquested to take into the Secondary System, Oak Rive~ D~ive~ beginning at ~xi~tin~ Oak R~ver Drive, State Route 1364, and going southwesterly 0.2~ mile to the intersection with Talon Point Court, then turning and qo~ng westerly 0.13 mile to the intersection with Eagle Cove Court then continuing westerly 0.24 mile to th~ int~r- section with Oak River Court, then continuing westerly 0.1~ mite to th~ int~r~ection with Ivan Road, then confirming westerly 0.17 mile to ~nd in a oul-de-sac~ Talon Point Court, b~ginning at t~he intersection with Oak River Dr~v~ and going ~outh~]~ 0.06 ~ile, th~n tnrning and going ~outheaeterly 0.07 mils, then turning and going southerly 0.15 male to end in a cul-de-sac: Eagl~ C~¥e Court~ b~ginning at the intersection with Oak River Drive and going southerly 0.12 mile te the intersection with Eagle Cove Circle, then continuing 0.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Bogle Cove Circle, beginning at the intersection with Eagle Cove Court and going southwesterly 0.16 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Oak River Cost=, beginning at the inter~ction with Oak River Drive and going southwesterly 0.47 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Ivan Read, beginning at the intersection with Oak River Drive and going northerly 0.06 mile to end at proposed Ivan Road~ Ironwood ~ubdivi~ion. Again Ivan 90-243 3/1&/9~ Eoad, beginning at the intersection with Oak River Drive and going southerly 0.10 mite, th~n turning and going westerly 0.23 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive o~ the adjacent elope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of ~ransportabioa drainage These roads serve 109 lots. And be it further resolved~ that the Beard ei Supervisors guarantees te the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way ~or all of the~e roads excep5 Oak River Drive, Eagle Cove Circle and Talon Point Court which have a variable width 50'-130' right-of-way. These Sections of Eagle Cove are recorded as follows: Section 1. Plat Book 57, Page 62, January 30, 19~7. Section 2. Plat Book 59, Pages S% and 85, December 21, 1987 Section 9. Plat Book 61, Page 62, May 20, 19~ Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Sullivan, Hr. Daniel and MU. Rayes. Absent~ Mr. Applegate. This day the County Environmental Fnginemr, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon him ~xamination Of Mason Run Drive in a portion of Mason Section C, Dale District. Upon consideration ~hereof~ and on ~otion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Mason Run Drive in a portion O~ Mason Wood~, Section C, Dale Diserict~ be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further re~elved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby i~ ~equested to take into the Secondary System, Mason Run Drive, be$innlag at the inter- section with Cinderweod Dri~, State Route number to be as$igne6~ and going northerly 0.05 mile to and in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of ~he adjacent slope, sight distance an~ designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. This road ser~es 5 lots. And be ih further r=solved, that the Board ~f Snpervisors gnaranteee to th~ Virginia Department of Transportation a right-of-way for this road. This section of Mason Woods is recorded as follcw~: Section C. Blat ~ook ~3~ Page 62, July 16, 1986. Ayes: Mr. Currin~ Mr. SulllvaD, Mr. Daniel end ~r. Mayas. Absent: Mr. Applegate. 14.E.3. AMENDMENT TO MOAED OM MUPERVISOgS MINUTES O~ FEBRUARY 14, 1990 On ~otien of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniml, the Soard amended the minutes of the February 14, 1990 Board of S~pe~visors meeting, as follows: FROM ~On motion of Mr. Sullivan, $e~Qnded by Mr. A991egate, ~oard deferred until Marsh 14~ 1990, th~ phblic hearing 90-244 3/14/9Q the consider adoption of a policy relating to cash proffers. Vote: Unanimous~ TO "On motion of Mr, Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Apple~ate, tko Board deferred until March 14~ 1990~ consideration of a policy relating to cash proffers, ¥ote~ Unanimous" Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr.'Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Apptegate. 14.E.5. RECOMFIRM P~ESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL P~COGNITIONC FROM On motion of Mr. Sullivan, eeeoDded by Mr. Daniel, the Board reaffi~[~ed the following resolutiene se Mr, Daniel wac absent "7.A. SERGEANT WALTER LAMARM LOVELADY~ JR.~ POLICE DEPARTMENT On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by M~. Sullivan, the Board adopte~ ~he following resolu~ion~ WRER~AS, Sergeant Walter Lamarr Lovelady, Jr. has retired from the Polico Department, Chesterfield County, on February 1, 1990; and WHEtc~AC, Sergeant Lovela~y haB provided twenty-seven years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and W~EREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will mls~ Sergeant Lovetady~s diligen~ servi¢o~ and WHEP~AS, Serqeant Lovelady served Chesterfield's citizens and Eolicm Deportment with unquestionable honor as a ~atrolman, a c~iminal Investiqator~ a $~pe~vising Patro~ se~qeae%~ and an Employee Background Investigator. ~ergaan~ Lovelady's character, fortitud~ and loyal~y to the Department, our citizens and to the principles of law enforcement will stand as the example for total eoK~itment tO u reWardinq~ many time~ dangerous, sometimes frustrating but always purposeful career of being u Police 0f~icer. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board o~ Cupervlaorm publicly recognizes Smrgeant Walter Lmmarr Lovelady, Jr., also respectfully known by the citizens of Eastern Chesterfield a~ Mister Lovelady~ and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation ~or his service to tho County. AND~ BE IT FURTHER RE$OLVED~ that a copy of this resolution be presented to sergeant Lovelady and that ~hi$ resolution be permanently recorded among thc papers of this Beard of Supervisors of Chesterfield Coon%y, Virginia. Ayes: Mr. Curtis, Mr. ~ullivan, Mr. Applcgate and Mr. Mayes. Ab~nt~ Mr. Daniel. On motion of Mr. sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayee, adopted the ~ollowin9 re~olution~ the Board 90-245 3/1~/90 m Governor's Advisory Committee for child Abuse and Neglect from 1975 to 1980, during which time she was instrumental in promot- ing the ~tatewide development of Child Abuse Multi-discipline Teams in all localities; and W~ER~AB, Mrs. Elmeze's outstanding contmuni~y efforts and Christmas ~other for Chesterfield-Colonial Heights in 1981; Area YWCA in 5994; and a xecipient in 1988 of the Gevernor's ~eights Beard of Social Services from 1982 to 1990, and as Chai~an Of thie Beard was instru~sntal in organizing the Chesterfield Human Services Coalition and the Capital Area Coalition of Social Services Beards; and disadvantaged children, families and elderly and has ~ivmn unsslfishly of hsr time through m~mb~r~hip on the Capital Ar~a Agency on Aging and variou~ co~ittees of ~he United Way of services and contributions to the citizens Of Chesterfield has se~ tn serving the bes~ injurer,S of Ch~sterfisld County. On motion of Zr. ~utllvam, ~econded by ~r. Applega~a, the Board adopted the following ~esclution: in existence since 1981 with the objective of sducating the public about the problems of littering and the beDefits of recycling; and W~EREAB, The Board of Supervi~or~ annually appoint~ one representative from ~ach of the ~ive magisterial ~is~ricts to Clean Corporation, having served a~ Chairman for on~ year; and WffEREAS, Mrs. Klm ha~ been a leading advocate of recycling and litter prevention resulting in- hundreds of Children and adults being involved in the program ~hrcughout th~ year in 90-246 3/14/90 recognize h~r faithful service ~s the ~ermuda D~triet Representative on the Keep Chesterfield CI~an Corporation Board. ~OW, T~ER~F0kE SE IT ~ESOLVED, that the Cheeterfield CeR~ty Board of Supervieoru publicly recognizes the loDg ada distingu~she~ volun=eer service 0~ Mrs. ~ariIyn Kim and her contributions to the County. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Sullivan~ Mr. Applegate and ~r. Mayas. Absent: Mr. Daniel. SIGNET BAN~ FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE YOUTR/TAMILIES ~XRLORING ALTERNATIVe RROGRA~ Qn motion Of Mr. Sullivan, seconded b~ Mr. Applegate, the Board accepted e contribution in the amount of $2,500 from Signet Bank/Virginia, in matching funds from the Governor's Council on Alcohol an~ Drug Abuse Problem~, %0 the Youth/Families Exploring Alternatives Program (which i~ a cooperative effort of the Chesterfield CADP~, Offlue on xo~th, Juvenile Detention Home~ 12th District Juvenile Court and the Cheetsrfield ~ental Health Center) and adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Youth substance abuse has become one of the most pressing issues on the national agenda with over hali of the ~ation's high school seniors using illicit diugs at some time~ and WNERBAS, The Chesterfield County CADRE, a coalition of agencies, organizations, citlsen~ and youth wa~ formed to address youth substance abuse problems in Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County CADRE applied for and received a grant from the ~overnor's Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Problems to address the needs of high-risk youth in ChesterfieI~ County; and WMER~Ag, The Governor's Council ~rant will be ueed to fund the "Yonth/FamilieB E~ploring Alternatives Proqr~" which is a drug abuse intervention progr~ ~hat will be offered =o youth to youth who are om probation and aftercare; and WHE~AE, The goal of ~hi~ Program is to eliminate use of opportunity ~or a~ol~s~nts to e~amine the role of drugs in their lives, to explore related ~mily issues and to be e~po~e~ ~E~AS, The "Youth/F~ilies Exploring Alternatives Progr~" i~ a cooperativ~ ~ffoft of the Chesterfield CADRe, Office on Youth, Juvenile Detention Homu~ 12th Dis~riot Juvenile Court and the Ches~erfiel~ ~en=al Health center; and ~E~AS, signet ~ank~ dem0nst~ating its =u~i=ment to efforts which improve the q~ality of life, generously provided matching dollars ~or =his grant ~y m~kinq a contribution of $2,500. NOW, T~EREFO~ BE IT ~SOLVED, that the Chesterfield County soard of Supervisors expree~es it~ appreciation and gratitud~ to Signet Bank for supporting this e~ur% ~o redirect troubled ~outh and for being an active partner in this and other endeavors which make Chesterfield County a positive and caring co--unity for all of its citizens. Aye: Mr. Currin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Mayas. ~sent: ~r. Daniel. 90-247 3/14/90 7.~. RECOG~IZ~WG NARC~, 1990 AS "NAVAL RESERVE MONT~'~ AND THE NAVAL REP~RI~'~ 75TH BIRT~DA? adopted the followinq re~ol~tion: WHEREAS, The U. S. Naval Reserve trace~ its proud tradition of services to the Country to the original thirteen colonies when loose groups were Organized into stat~ navies; and WH=R~AS, Skate Navies wore activated during the Civil War and later the existence of these ~tato naval miIitia~ prompted the U. S. Eavy Department to establish the 0ffise of Naval Militia in tSPl; and WHEREAS, Officers and ~n from these early navies served along side the regular Navy in the Spanish-American War and by 19%~ Congr~ passed l~giglation establishing a regular F~eral Naval Reserve; and WHEREAS, The Naval Reserve ha9 been called to activ~ duty during th~ pa~t seventh-five year~ with increased frequency and sixty percent of the World War I Navy and sevunty-fiv~ p~rc~nt Airlift, the Korean and V~etnam Wars, and ~ore Tecently aboard the USS New Jersey off the coast of Lebanon in 19~3 and les4; and WHEREAS, The American public and citizens of Chesterfield County have depended on th= skills, training and dedication of the men and women of the Naval Reserve in every major eon£1ict for th~ pa~t Seventy-four yc~rs~ and WE~REA$, Some ~5,000 men and wom~n are servin~ the U. Naval Re~erve and the 75th Naval Anniversary March ~, 1990 marks aD outstanding opportunity for Chesterfield County of Virginia to recognize the achievements and important role these men and women play in the defense of our Country. NOW, TNEP~FORE BE IT RESOLED, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby proclaims Marchz 1990 ~$ Ayes: Mr. Ceftin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Mayer. Absent: Mr. applegate. 14.E.6. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR NEW On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Board authorized tbs e~tabli~hment of on~ (1) now ~mplcyment S~rvicas Nork~r position to comply with the regulations of the Food Stamp ~mpleyment and Training ~rogra~ (FSET) , which program is effective April 1, 1990, an~ which Drogram is designed to assist approximately 500 Feed Stamp Clients move %owar~ self- support; and further, the Board increased revenues and expendS- tutus in thc amount of ~5,987 for P~90 to fiho Chesterfield- Colonial Neigh%$ Depar~men= of social -Sarvice~ for the period through Jun~ 38, 1990 for the employment of one ~mp!oymen~ Services Worker. (It is noted ~evenues end expenditures in the amount of $3t,794 for FYPl will b~ included in the Chesterfield-Colonial Helght~ Department of Social Services 90-248 3/14/90 budget at fha time ths Board of Supervisors adopts the FYO1 Budget.) Ayes: Mr. Cnrrin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Ab~ent~ Mr. Applegate. On motion of M~. sullivan, aecoa~ed by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved a recfuest frc~ Th~ Meadows Jaycees for a raffle peimit fox calendar year 1990. Ayes: ~r. Currin, Mr. Sullivan, MT. Daniel and ~r. Mayas. Absent: Mr. Applegate. 14.r. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 14.F.1. STREET LIGHT REQUEST On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Mayem, the Board approved o~taining cost estimates for the installa%ien of street lights at the following locations: 2. Intersection of Beach Road and Ncodlan~ Pond Parkway, ~atoaca District. Ayes: Mr. Ceftin, Mr. Sullivan, ~r. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Absent: Mr. Applegate. 14.F.2. S=T DAT~ FOR PUBLIC ~EARING TQ CON$IDER THE ~EADOWVI~LE PLAN Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that there is uncertainty as to whether or not he may be able to vote on the Meado~ville ~lan, declared a possible con~!ict of interes~ ~ursuant fo the Virqinia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. After a brief discussion, it was on mo~ion of Mr. Daniel, ~eeonded by Mr. Ma~es, re~olved to ~at the date of May 9, 1990~ at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing tu consider the Meadowville Plan. Ayes: Mr. Sull±van~ M~. Daniel and Mr. Maycs. Absent: Mr. Currin and Mr. Applegats. Mr, Currin ata~ed that ha does not own any land located within the Meadc~ille ?lan boundaries and has submitted a letfer to the Attorney GeneraI~ office for a decision as to whether er no~ he may vote on tke matter. i4.F.3. APPLICATION FOR VIRGINIA COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT On metio~ of ~r, Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the ~eard authorized the County Administrator to apply to the Virginia Council on ~he Environment for a Virginia Coastal R~sourues Management P~©~am G~ant by ~arch 16, 1990, in the maximum amount of $40,000 and ~h~ch funds w~ll be used to ~ndertake Iimited land use planning and stormwater management studies. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Sullivan, Mi. Damiel and ~r. Mayas. Absent~ Mr. Applegate. 90-2%9 3/].4/~Q UTILITI~ DEPARTMENT ITEMS AUT~ORIzA~0N TO E~RCISE ~INENT DOMAIN FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A VARIABLE WIDTB P~MANENT WATER EASE- MENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 24 INCH WATER LINE ACROSS PROBERT¥ OF MR, AND MRS, CHARLES ~. BROWN, JR. There was brief discussion regarding the use of eminent domain, whether or not the val~e of timber on the subject property had be~n taken into consideration in staff's offer to the owners for the acquisition of th~ easements; obtaininq v~rificatlon as to the value of the timber on the subject property; etc. On motion cf Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board deferred until April lI, 1SS0, authorization to exercise eminent domain for the acquisition of a variable width ~ermanent water sasement for tbs i~tallation of a 24 inch water line across property of Mr. and Mrs. Charles ~. Erown, Jr. Ayes: Mr. Ceftin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Absent: Mr. Applegate. .14.G.2. CON$=N~ IT~SS 14.G.2.a. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR NORTB SPRING RUN ROAD WATER LINE EXTENSION PROM ~ULL STR~T ROAD TO TRIPL~ CRO~ DRIVE On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by M~. Daniel, the Board awarded Contract Number 89-0739 for the ccnstr~ct~en of a 24" water line along North Spring Run Road from Hull Stree~ %o Triple Crown Drive to H. ~amner Gay Co., Inc., in the amount of $434;617.80 to provide service to the Spring Run area; and authorized the County AdministratOr to execute any necessary documents for said contract. (It is noted, the projece is funded in th~ eufr~nt Capital Improvement Budget.) Ayes~ Mr. CurriD, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and ~r. Mayer. Absent: Mr. Applegate. 14.G.2.b. CONVEYANCE OF ~A~i~NT TO T~E CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA ADJACENT TO ~COFF ROAD A~ GO¥~ PARK Qn motion cf ~r. Mayas, seconded by Mr, Daniet~ the Board a~khonized the Chairman of the BO~rd and ~he County Administrator to axacuts an easement agreement betwe%n the County of Chesterfield-and The Chesapeake and ~otomac Telephone Company of Virginia to install overhead cable within a 2Q~ ~asement adjacent to Ecoff Road at Goyne Park for a relocation in co~juaction wi=h the road widening in front of GOyn¢ Park for ~coff Elementary School. (A copy of said plat is filed Ayas= Mr. Currin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas; Absent: Mr. Applegate, 14.G.2.s. APPROVAL OF A~REEMENT FOR VACATION AND ~DEDICATION OF SEWER ~A~=~NT ACKO$$ PROPERTY OF D©DD'S LEaSInG, INC. approved and authorized the Chairman Of the Eoard and the property of Dodd'~ Lea~inq, Inc., A Virginia Corporation, which is necessary due to the realignment of the ~ewer lin~. (A copy 90-250 3/14/9g of said plat i~ filed with the papers of this Board.] Ayes: Mr. Ceftin, Mr. SulIivan~ Hr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: ~r. Applegate. 14.G.3. REPORTS Mr. Sale presented tiaa Board with a repoxt on the 4eveloper water and sewer uontracts executed by the County Administrator. 14.M. REPORTS Mr. Ramsey presented the Board with a status report on the General Fund Gentingeney Ae0ount~ General Fund Balance~ Reserve for F~ture Capital ~rojects, District Road and street Ligh~ Funds, Lease Purcha~es~ School Board Agenda and the Board's ~ublie ~aring Schedule. Mr. Ramsey eta%ed ~he Virginia Departmen~ o~ ~ransportation has formally notified the County of ~he acc~ptan~ of ~he follewing roads into the State Secuadary ~ystem: ADDITIONS L~NGTM QUEENSPARK - S~CTIONS ~., C ~.~..(~URCTIV~ Reute 832 (Rebious Cro~s±ng Drive) - From Route 408] extended to Eou%e Route 4081 {Castle ~ill Road) - Prom 0.03 mil~ Northwe~t Route 4080 to Route 832 extended. Ro~te 4082 (Park Ridge Road) - From Route 832 to Route 40~1, Route 405~ (Queens Crown Drive) ~ From ~oute 40~1 to No~th cul-de-sac. Route 40~4 (Prince Brian'~ Court) - ~rom Route 832 to 0.04 mile W~t kout~ 832. Rou=e 4085 (Lady ~arien La~a) - Erem Route 832 to 0.04 mil~ We~% Roues 832. 0.1~ Mi. 0.44 Mi. 0.30 Mi. 0.14 Mi. 0.04 0.0~ Mi. SALEM OA/~S (Effective .2/26190) Route 642 {Salem Oaks Dr~v~] - From ROu%e 145 tO Route 2090 (Springwced Road) - From 0.03 mile West Rout~ ~059 to 0.0~ mile W~St Route 642. ~eute ~?10 (8~lem Oaks Place) - From Route 642 to Rorth cul-de-sac. Route 3710 {SaI~m Oaks Court) - From Rout~ 642 to Seuthwest cul-de-sac. Route 3711 (Salem oaks Terrace) - From Route 642 to West cul-de-sac. 0.33 Mi. 0.10 Mi. 0.12 ~i. 0.04 ~i. 0.04 ~i. ASBLE~ GROVE - SEGTI0~F (Effective 2/21/90) Route 3484 (Manitoba Road) - From 0.06 m~le South Route 3481 to 0,08 mile Southwest Route 3495. Route 3495 (Katy Reid Court) - From Route 3484 to Southeast cul-de-sac. 0.11 Mi, 0.o m 90-251 3/14/98 SALISBURY - SECTION P {~ffeotive 2/21/90) m Route 10lQ {King"s Lynn Road) - From Rouk~ 1029 to 0.19 mile Sou=heast Route 1019. 0.19 Mi. 0TTERBuRN (Effective 2/21/90) Route 3669 (0tterburn Road) - From Rou~e 604 to South cul-de-sac. 0.24 Mi. WOODLAND POND - SECTION 3 (Effective 3/1/90) Rout~ 3670 (Woodland Pond Parkway) - From 0.01 mile Southwest Route 3677 to 0.0t mile Southeast ~oute 3681, 0.44 Mi~ Route 3671 (Waterfowl Flyway) - From 0.Ol nile South Route 3678 to 0.23 mile ~ast Route 3670. 0.70 Mi. Route 3679 (Gadwell Court) - From Route 3678 to Wes~ uul-de-sae. 0.14 Mi. Route 3680 (Lesser Scaup Landing) ~ From 0.09 mile North Route 3671 to 0.~9 mite Southwest Route 3671. 0.28 Mi. Route 3681 (Whistling Swan Road) - From Route 3670 to 0,05 mile Southeast Route 3652. 0.29 ~i. Route 3682 (Pintnil Place) - From Route 3681 to Northeast cul-de-sac. 0.19 Mi. 15. ADJOU~4ENT On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adjourned at 11:45 p.m. (EST) until 11:00 a.m. (EST) on March 502]. Vote: Unanimous 90-252 chairman 3114/90