Loading...
06-27-90 MinutesBOARD OP SU'P~RVI~OI{S Mr. Harry G. Daniel County Ad~ini~tratar S~ff ~r~. Dori~ A~t. Co. Admin.., %egis. eyes. and Interqovern. Ns. Joan Dolezal, clerk to the Board Chief Robert Mr. sradford S. ~ammer, Deputy Co. Admln., ~anagc~e~t Services Mr. William H. Howell, Dir., Gen. Servioes Mw. Thomas ~. Jacobson, Dir. of Planning Ms. Mary Lou Lyl~, Dir. u£ Accounting De9uty CC. AO~in., Dir. of Env. Attorney ~rs, PanliDe ~i~chell, Dir. of ~ews/Info. Chief, Dev. Review, ~r. Richard Sale, Deputy Co. Admin., Dir. of ~udge~ Dir. of Parks & Rec. Dir, of U~ilities ~r. Frederick Willis, Pi:. of Human ~. Currin called the xsgularly scheduled meeting to or,er at 9:15 a.m. {DST). 1. INVOCATIO~ Mr, Currin introduced Chief Robert Depar~ent, who gave ~he invocation. 90-499 6/27/90 Mr. RandolDh Smith, staff ~ri~er for the Eiohmond Times- Dispatch, lcd the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United $~ates of America. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the minutes of June 13, 1990, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Chief Robert Eanes presented an brief overview of an underground pipeline rupture which occurred Friday, June 22, I990, at a private pond located in %he County at 90720 BurneLte Drive and exhibited slides of efforts to contain and dispose of the substance. 5. BOA~I) CO~ITTEB i~PORTE Mr. Applegate reported he uttend%d the Capital R~gion Airport Commi~slon (C~AC) meeting at which it was noted tkat ~nplanements and carqo traffic ~Ontinu~ tO ~ncre~$e and at which new officers were elected. Mr. Sullivan repo~ted h~ and Mr. Curr~n attended a meeting of existing major manufacturers located in the County concerning their a~Diration~ toward growth within %he economic oo~n~ty; and attended a rec~nt m~ting conducted ~y Mr. Gary McLaren, Director of ~conomio Development, at which there were discussions of problems, poten~ia! problems and solutions and which he was pleased t0 note is tO bu an un-~0ing program %hat will work for ~he benefit of ~he ui~izems of ~he County. ~r. Cur~in repor~ he a~tended ~Se ~i~hmond Regional Planning Dist~ic% Co--lEsion (~DC} mee%in~ at which th~r~ was di~cu~on concerning th~ Central V~rqin~a Waste ~anaqemen~ Authority becoming operational, fo~ation o~ a Board, and inter~ consulting services being provided by the staff of %he Richmond Regional Planninq District Co~ission. 6. R~QU~STS ~0 POSTPON~ ACTION, Ft~RG~Y ~DDITIO~S OR C~NG~$ IN 'xn~ ORDER OF PRESENTATION On motion of Mr. Sulllvan~ seconded hy Mr. Applegatet the Board added Item ll.I., Purchase o~ 5.5 Acres of Land Adjacent to Chent~r Landfill, ~o fol~ow Item Il.C.; add~ IBem ll.J.~ Executive Session for Consultation with Legal Counsel for Personnel ~a~ers Rela=inq to a soard Appointment pursuant te Section 2.1-344 {a) (11 of the Code of Vi~qinia~ 1950~ as amended, to follow Item ll,F.; an~ adopted the agenda, as amended. On motion of the Board~ the felIowin~ reeolutiou wes adopted: WHEREAS, Ms. Marian Blunt will retire ~rom the Treasurer's Department, Chesterfield Ceunt~, on July I~ 1990: and 90-500 6127/90 quality service to the citizens of Chesterfiel~ County~ and WH~REA~, Chesterfield County and the Bea~d cf Supervisors ~ill mZss ~s. ~unt's diLigen~ se~vlce~ and W~REAS, ~uring X~, ~iunt's years of service as an Accountan~ in the TreasUrer's Office, her primary responsibility has been to balance each day the Co~ntyls revenue from all SOUrces with the total day's bank deposits and ~$A, the County's automated accounting sy~te~; and W~EREAS, Ms. Blunt has sssn many changes due to County growth and auto~&tion but sh~ ha~ always adapted to these changes cheer~ul!y and with a keen dedication to excellenee~ consistently serving in an outstanding and professional manner. NOW, TB~P~FORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield Go~nty Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Ms. Marian Blunt and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of chesterfield County their appreciation for her service to the County. ~D, B~ IT FU~T~R R~SO~V~D, that a c~py o~ ~i~ be permanently r~corded ~ong the pa~ers of thi~ Beard Supervisors of Chesterfield County, virginia. VoTe: Unanimous ~r. Currin presented the ~%~u~ed resolution to Ms. Blunt, recognized f~i!y, friends and coworkers who were pre~ent and On motion of th~ Hoard, th~ following re~olution was adopted~ WHE~AS, ~s. Eva W. Clarke will ret~r~ from ~he LUC~ ~orr Nursing Home, C~esterfield County, on July 1, 1990~ an~ W~E~AS~ Ms. Clarke has provided eighteen years of quality service to =he citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHE~AS, Chesterflald County and the Board of Supervisors ~ill miss Ms. Clarke'~ diliqene servic~; and W~EREAS, Ag a Geriatric Nursing Assistant, Mm. Cla=ke has given competently and graciously of her skills, d%diea%iOn and Throughout ~e years, she has consistently fulfilled her asslg~nts in a pleasant, friendly manner while continuously providing a high degree of quality Care. Recognized for her exc~llmnt work habi%s and good relations witR residents, f~ily members and Btaff, ~he was singled out in 1989 by the nursing the Year." Ms. Clark~ personifies the qualities and eha~aet~rigtic$ of ~ "good nurse" in the fulles= meaning of the term, and has been a oredi~ to her profession, the Nursing NOW, T~K~FO~E BE IT ~SOLV~D, =hat ~e Chesterfield Couney BOard Of Supervisors publicly rscognizes.Mz. ~va W. Clarke and extends on behalf of irs m~ars and the citizen~ of Chesterfield County their appreciation for h~r ~rvice to the C0un=y. resolution be presented to Ms. Clark~ ~nd tha~ this resolution 6/27/~0 be permanently recorded among the papers ef thie Board Of S~p~rwi~or$ Of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Mr, Currin presented the executed re~olutlon to Ms. Clarke, recognized family~ f~iends and ccworker~ who were present and wished her well in her retlremoat. MRS. HOGER HABECK FOR CO~RIBIF~tON OF CH~S~ELD ~J~%NACS On motion o~ the ~oar~, the following resolution was adopted~ WHEREAS, Mr. Roger K. Babeok, President of First Impression~ and Publieher of Cho~terfi~ld Almanec; and WHEREAS, M~, klyson Taylor-White, ~ditor of Virginia Review, also published by First Impressions, have serve--d the County of Chesteriield ~hrough %heir combined kusband~wife skills and resources; and W~EREA$~ In numerous instances they have ~potlighted the specialized talents and achisvomenta of Cheeter£ield County emptoyeos~ and WHEREA$~ For the past two yea~ Fi~s~ Impressions has p~r~icipa=ed in an unusual and successful Drivate-D~lic Da~tner~hip With Chesterfield County, ~hereby s~veral thousand free copies of the Chesterfield Almanac were dona:ed ~o the Office of ~ews and Public Inf~ Services; and [~A~, This valuable gift has assisted the County by ~nablinq it to distribute the publication to new r~sidents, and prospective County employee~, bu~ines~n and ~0W, THEREFO~ BE IT ~SOLV~D, that ~ County Board of Supervisors does acknowledge with appreciation the corporato gift cf Mr. and ~rs, ~ab~Qk to County and wishes them and First Impre~sion~ conkinued as they conduct their business in Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Currin prison=ed the ~x~cu~ed re~olution to ~.r. and Habeck and expressed appreciation for their gene~o~ contribution to the County. It is noted copies o~ ~he 1990 Chesterfield Almanac and Virginia R~vi~w were presented to the Board. 7 .D. F~R. TKOMA~ D. ~5B~¢ JR. ~N ATTATNIN~ RA]~K OF ~ ~O~ On motion of the Boa~d, the following re~olution wa~ adopted: ~E~S, The Boy Scouts of ~erica wa~ incorporated by Mr. ~illiam D. ~oyoe on February t, 1910; and WEE~AS, The Boy Scout~ of ~erica was founded to promote citizenship training, p~r~onal d~v~lopment and fitness of WHE~AS, After earning at lea~= twmnty-one merit badges in a wid~ variety of field~, ~rving in a leadership po~ition in a troop, oarrying out m service p~oj~ct beneficial to his cO~Unity~ being activ~ in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit and living np to the Scout Oath and Law; and WHMR~AM, Mr. Thomas D. Masbach, Jr., St. =dward*s Catholic Church, Troop 893, ha~ accomplished those high standards of 90-502 6/27/90 eoF~itme~t and Aaa reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout which is rsceived by less than two p~re~nt of those individuals entering the Scouting movement; and WHEREAS, Growing through his experiences in Scouting, learning th~ le~on~ of responsible citizenship an~ priding himself om the great accomplishments of hiz County, Thomas is indeed a member o~ a new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be very proud. NOW, TH~REFOR~ ~E IT ~ESOLVED, that the Ch~t~rfiel~ County Board of Supprvi~ors hereby extends its congratulations to Mr. Thomas D. Ha~bath, Jr. and acknowledges the good fortuas cf the County =o haYu such an outstanding young man a~ on~ of its citizenS. Vote: Unanimou~ Mr. Sullivan presented the ~xecuted re~.o~ution tO Mr. him on his outstanding achievement. Mr. Currin pr~nted M~. Susan Craik, Program Courdlnater, Extension Service~ a resolntion adopted b~ the General Assembly of Virginia, pa%toned by ~he Chesterfiel~ County Delegation at its 1990 So,mien! c0~e~ding Chesterfield County's "Keep Chester~iel4 County Clean" Program and commended her £or the ~ut~tanding recognition. o ~. ~L~IN W. ~O~'~, ]~EGA~DING THE S~ATUS OF ~n~ C~ST~R- FIELD C~ILD CS%]~ ASSOCIATION VS. YMCA Mr. Mayas stated he had met with Mr. ~urnett concerning his presentation regardin~ t-he status of th~ Chesterfield Child Care Association versus the YMCA; clarified his position regarding the daydare program indicating'he believed in the free enterprise system, thought the motion.the Board passed retaining the abillty to permit new families to participate in the progr~ was not the B~ard's intent~ that it was his belief all the time that the daycare program service was offered by the YMCA because it was not available otherwise; that Mr. ~urnett infer~ed him services wars available during the tim~ that this program starte~ which was surprising to him because that was the basis of his insistence that thcs% familie~ who were already in the program should remain in there through normal attrition; that he did not think that additional £amilies should come into the pr0gra~ and he believed the Board'~ motion ignored or omitted that and he tho=ght it should Mr. Sullivan stated he f~lt his motion was clear that new families would be allowed to come into the program up to the caps that the Board ~et. Mr. Currln stat~ that %h~ motion concerning the Y~CA has been voted on and passed by the Board and any additional attention b~ought to this subject would have to be brought back to the Board through another a~¢nda item if any member wo~ld like ~o do that. ~r. Melvin Burnett stated he felt this matter should be brought before the Board again and that it be corrected; that the private dayeare centers ars not opposed to the YMCA; they feel the YMCA i~ welcome in the County tO genera~ programs where the entities are not in competition; that the private ~eeter 90-503 6/27/90 supports ~u~h progr~uus as the after-school care for inter- mediates but he did not feel it fair %o permit the YMCA to rent schools a: a nominal fee in arena the: the private sector already serves because they pay no taxes and are subeldized by the ~ai:ed Way; and that the private daycare centers feel it unfair competition to use tax money to subsidize ab organiza- tion :hat is in competition with fh~m~ etc. Mr. Sullivan recapped the history of the manner in which this issue evolvsd~ noted the ma%te~ was discussed and voted upon by :hie Board; that the Board approved fen the upcoming year the listing of non-~ohool activitlee submitted by the School Board with the understanding that the issue will be presented to the Board again in April O~ next year and at that time the Board will have an opportunity to vote either to con:inns or discontinu~ the program. Mr. Daniel stated he supported the motion because there was a caveat that statistics would be kept to as~s~ what areas w~re being impacted so that when the issue was resubmitted next year for review the Board would have sufficient data available to better determine %he course of action to be taken. He noted that he felt there would be mor~ pre,murks to p~cvid~ public dayuare centers .~nd ~he Board needs mtatistice to determine what future actions may be necemmary and that the program ag approved be given an uppertunity for one year to work. Mr. Mayas stated his position wee that if th~ YMCA began a service that was not available in tko privat~ sector th~n tho~e famillas that were in the program should be permitted to stay and be phased out by normal attrition; he di~ not want competition with the free enterprise system and previoue action by the ~oard wa~ to ~orreet it; and tha~ ha intende~ tc initiate an agenda item to be brought hack to the Board so that the addition of n~W families' in the program could be consider- ed further. 9. DEFEPuRED ITEMS I{OuT~ 10 S]~ A$$ESS~T DISTRICT; AND SET PUBLIC HEARING · 0 Aez'~ORIZE ISSUANCE OF ~E BONBS ~ ~ APPROPR~AT~ BOND ~ROCEEDS, AND TO /%~PRO%-R TNT~T~ LOAN F~O~ $~F/~ FUND ~r. Currin disclosed to the Board that he o~ns property that lie$ within the propoeed Route lO Sewer Assessment District, declared a o0nfli~t Of interest pursuant to ~he virginia Comprehensive Conflict of In:erect Act and excuse4 himself from the meeting. Mr. Micas stated at its January 24, 1990 and April 25, 1990 meetings, the Beard continued the public hearing tO consider an ordinance to establish the Route 10 Sewer Assessment District and sat tko public hearing to authorize i~uance of revenue bonds and to appropriate bond proce~s and to approve an interim loan ~rem =he Sewer Fund Balance to resolve concerns cf landowners expressing opposition to the District and to pur~ue several alternative approaches that ~ene under consideration. H% slated it has now become apparent that ~le opposition oi the landowners in the D~tr~ot cannot be overcome without restructuring the District in a fashion that would cause considerable cost to the Utilities Department and its rate payer~; therefore, eteff recor~ende that the Foard reject the ordinance and not create the Route 10 Sewer Assessment Di~trlct. ~r. Jamee ~riend, one of the property owners involved in negotiations regarding the Route 10 Sewer Assessmen~ District, stated those involved in this matter have worked v~ry diligently for sor~e time on thi~ plun~ ~-hat it WaS his 90-~04 understanding staff was to cor~unicate to him any changes that would effect the property but this had not occurred; and that he was not aware until now that there was a recommendation to terminate the ~stablish~nt of the propose~ District. Mr. Charles L. Cahell stated he had been working with a number of the members of the District as it wax originally proposed, as well ss specifically rspresentlng Ironbridge Prcpertie~ II which is located with the proposed District; stated =hie ~istrict has been enlarged and red,ced in size in efforts to improv~ the District; that those parties involved do not wish to force anyone into this District nor do they wish this District to pose any significant OO~ to =he County; and requested chat thio matter be deferred one additional time for ninety (~Q) ko allow the participants in the District to get back together to reconfigure the Dietrich to include only %he$~ people who want to be in an~ pay fen the District. Whsn asked~ Mr, Welchons stated staff had discussed ~he matter with Mr. Cabell and f~lt the mat~r could bs rasolvsd. Zr. Mayas made a motion to set the date of September 26, 1990, at 9:00 a.m.~ for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to establish the Routs 10 Sewsr Assessment District and sst the public hearing to authorize issuance of r~venue bonds aR~ to appropriate bond proceeds and to approve an interim loan f~om the Sewer Fund Balance. ~r. Applegate expressed concern regarding th~ advertising 'costs invol¥cd saoh ~ime an itsm is deferred and e~gqested, that consideration be given to continuing the public hearing to a mpeui£ic da~u and time and not readvertise nnless necessary. Mr. Cahell ute%ed that would b~ agreeable. ~r. Mayas withdrew hi~ original mo~ion and made a motion to contlnus until and/or reedv~rtise if necessary for September 26, 1990, at 9:~0 a.m., a public hearing =o consider an ordinance ~o establish the Ro~te 10 Sewer A~$essment District and set the public hearing to authorise issuance e~ revenue bonds and to appropriate bond proceeds and tc approve an interim loan from the S~wer F~n~ salance. ~r.. Applegste seconded the motion. Ayes: Mr. sullivan, Mr. Appleqate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. ~ayes. Absent: ~r. Currin. ~r. Daniel stated h~ was skeptical about such assessment districts and would like to have all relative financial data necessary to consider such a dis%rich prcvido~ to the Board prior to the meeting, Mr. Currin returned tc the me,ting. 9.D. CONSIDERATION OF A LOCAL O~INANC~ R~STRICTING SMOKING WITHIN PUBLIC BUI~DIN~ ~r. Daniel disote~ed to the ~o~rd that, siece he is smployed by ~hilip Morris, Inc., he did not feel hs should participate in the discuesion~ declarsd a conflict of interest pursuant to Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the dais but did not leave the ~r. Micas stated at its June 13, 1990 meshing during discussion of proposed draft 1990 General A~sembly Legislation itsms the Board deferred, until th~ ~ntlre Board could participate, consideration of ~B 1055, SB 150 relative to adoption of the Virginia Indoor Clean Air Act which rsstrictions he briefly explained, After brief discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Applegate~ ssconded by ~r. Sullivan, %ha Board $~= ~he date of September 12, 1990, at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing tO considsr a legal ordinance restricting smoking within public bnitdings. 90-505 6/27/90 Ayes: Mr. Currin~ Mr, Sullivan, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Maye$. Absent: Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel returned to th~ dais. On motion of Mr. Currinf seconded by Mr. Sullivan, %hg Board approved obtaining ees~ estimates for the installation of a ~treet light at the location between 2336 and ~342 ~usna Vista soulevard in the Bermuda District. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Applmgate, seconded by Mr, Sullivan, the Board denied the request for a street light at the cul-de-sac at the end cf Spesks Drive in the Clover Hill District as it did not meet the established criteria. Vote: Unanimous SET DATE FOR PU~LI~ ~EARING TO CON~IDERAPPROVA~ O~ FIN~d~CIN¢ F01~ 'i'~ J0~SOI~'S C~ DPJ~INAG~ PROJEC~ TO INC~.~D~- A DI~iINAG~ S~I~VICE DISTRICT ON A ~?ION OF ~ $0~80~'~ Cl~I~K DEFELOi~F~NTDI$~RICT Mr. Currin disclosed %o the ~oar~ that he owns approximately three-fourths of an acr~ which may be within tko proposed Johnson's Creek Drainage District and drain to Johnson's Creek, deel&~ed a potential c~nflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Micas b~iefty e~plained the proposed Johnson's Creek Drainage D~strict project, recor~mendations for conmtruction co~% financing and mtat~d the purpo$~ of tho item being discussed is whether or not to m~t a public hearing ~o consider an alternative ~inancing plan. He noted that several meetings have been held with property owners within ~e Johnson's Cre~k Drainag~ Di~ric~ an~ thais doss not appear to be a am to wh~ther or not to proceed with th~ projmct, th~ ~ann~r which the improvements should be financed if the project built or whether or not ~o repeal %he. existing develo~en~ district~. ~e Stated if ~h~ ~oard does not approve She proposed finanein~ ik may wish to consider abolition of the ~xisting Johnson'~ Creek Drainagm District which coul4 r~quire refunds of monies already paid into th~ fund. Mr. Sullivan stated he had attended several m~etinqm rmgarding proposed prcjec~ at thi= poine, that he felt the ~oar~ needs tak~ action on and/or dispose of the ~atteM~ and ~eque~e~d Mr. Daniel stated b~ W~$ uncomfortable setting a public hearing to disc~ss an i~mue on which he felt the data provided wa~ not in ~he appruprla~e posture for discussion; rmferenced a portion of the paper indicating a history of negative cash flow relative to the entire project; stated he would like =o defer establishing a public h%arinq until at l~a~% ali of the necessary da~a could b~ =~piled indicating realistically co~ts, what th~ ~ali~tic n~bers would be; etc. There was further discussion relative to alternativ~ me~odm of ~he public hearing procemm; th~ n~d for further remeafch and compilation of a creative ~inancing; the u~e of lea~e financing; t~e constraints; cool,eat of =ash outlay~ who 6/27/90 Mr. Applegete no%ed that a majority vote was needed in ordex tQ set the public hearing and %hat would not be possible if Mr. Daniel were to vote against much a motion. Mr. Daniel stated ho would he receptive to discussion cf any particular financing mechanism including leaze purchasing but not tO a ~egative cash flow pzopositlon and could not support a public hearing at thiz time~ On morion of Mr. Appleyate, seconded by ~r. Sul%ivan, the Board set the date of July 25, 1990, at 9100 a.m., for e public hearing to consider approval of financing for the Johnson's Cr~k Drainage Project to include a Drainage Service District on a portio~ Of the Johnson's Creak Development District. Ayes: Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Appl~ga%e. Nays: Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayem. Mr. Daniel stated staff has the option of bringing othe~ financial alternatives forward in the future. Mr. Currin returned to the meeting. It was generally agreed to recess for ftys (5) minutes. 10. P~"B~IC HEAR/N~S 10.A. TO CON$ID~ A~ i~ XO '£~u~ 1989-D0 ~X ~ ~P~P~ $~,000,000 FOR T~ P~O~ OP INC~SIN~ T~ ~ ~ B~ FOR 'r~ ~RC~R 0F ~ a public hearing to consider an amendment to the 1999-90 Budget to appropriate $2,000,000 for th~ puxpose, of increasing ~ school Board B~dget ~or the purchase of land for a nor~ern area school site and presen%ed a brief s~ary of =h~ matter. Mr, Tom Pulghum, A~i~tan% Superintend=ut ~ur ~lann~nq a~d Faoilities for School A~inistration, presented an overview of $%aff'$ reco~endation of a $i%e for a Gounty northern area high school ~ exhibited maps ~howing the area ~onhaining p0%enti~l sites reviewed for the high school uss as well as an elementary school and park~ reviewed co~%~ for acquisition and developmen=, presented pertin=n~ info~ation relative to the Riverton site, re~r~nced ~tatistics regarding ~tuden~ overcrowding a~ Monaca~ and ~idlo~hian ~igh School~ if a new high school site wer~ not constructed, d~aln~ge and enviro~en~% ~oncera~, criteri~ wi=h which the ~ite must comply according to %h~ Chesapeake Bay Pr~$~rv~tion Act, etc. Mr. Jouuph ~Ilony of ~ Mosel~y Group pr~ented data rela=ive to ~e Riv~rtOn ~i=~ an~ exhibited slides an~ eddressed concerns regarding terrain, drainage, soils, ~opography, si~e developmen= costs, e~c. Dr. Carl Chafin~ Managing Director fo~ Planning and ~valuation for School A~inistration, a~dr~ssed concerns rel~tiv~ to overcrowding at existing schools; the g~oqraph~c location of the ~ubj~ct site; th~ neoessity for construction of a northern area hiqh ~chool site as compared tc th~ use of other area school~ for relieving 0vercrowdinq; Dr. J~ffrey ~ansel~ Mr. J~e8 Wetzel; Mr. Bill ~astings; Mr. Meg Dcnovan; M~. Joan Czyszczon~ MS. Jennifer 501mus; Ms. Pauline Hutkins; Mr. Craig Hobson; M~. Phyllis Hu~y (who also read a letter on behalf of Mr. Danny Smith); Ms. Gab Roberts~ 90-507 6/27/90 Mr. Charles Ellis (who also read a letter on behalf of Mr. Tom Miller); Mr. Jim Henricks; and Mr4 Timothy Brown voi~d Support for tho appropriation of funds for the construction of the proposed northern area high school ~ite as they felt tko County h~$ an obligation to residents who approved the 1988 mahocl bond referendum which included the construction o~ such a school; that the Groensprin9 area would be a more appropriate location for said high school; that traffic congestion in the area would be relieved; =he sub)eat tract would bs a multi-functional site which could serve many facets of the co~uni~y; =hat failure to approve this appropriation would s~verely damage local goverr~nent'n credibility; that %ho~e individuals who campaigned for the recant bond referendums would find it difficult to return to their communities in the future asking support for future referendums; that parents de Dot wish their children attending classes in trailers ex additions to existin9 schools; that the purchase of the subject site is an investment for the future; that =he proposed high ~chool grounds are needed ~o serve future Little League needs in the area; and that the subject site is apprep:iate for the proposed use. (It is noted reference was mede to previously submitted petitions and additional petitions and letters were submitted to the Board far the record.) It was generally agreed to recess for five (5) minutes. Mr. William Thompson, III, M~. Fays Palmer, Mr. Henry Jones, Mr. Gene Remantini, and Mr. F~ed Williams voiced opposition to the appropriation for the purchase of the Riverton sit~ but not the need for a centrally located northern area high sohooI; cited rea~on~ why' they f~lt the ~it~ was unsui~'abt~, including uncertainties reqarding wetlands, co~t~ for roads i~provements block the aeces~ road fram Robieus Road into the scheel~park site and endanger these in the area, hidden costs that may ~volve after th~ site i~ purchased, the purchase price of the land, ~hat in all the data provided there was nc evidence that any department in the County has indicated this is an appropriate site for the proposed use, that the site selected has too many deficiencies and inconsistencies and they feel there ~hould be further investigation for an alternative site. Mr. Daniel ~tated the School ~oard~ not the Board of Sup~rvlsors, has the responsibility of decldlnq site locations for ~cheel~; that he ~upported the can~tr~ticn of a northern area high school and ele~mntary mchoot am goon as possible; that he had in the past emphasized the importance of plannin~ for the future by iden=lfying potenuial sites as correlated to growth pattern~ and ~ugg~t~d effort~ be mad~ te S~cufa options on those tracts; raised concerns reqarding development costs and estimates, wetlands, and State participation in the process to decide wetlands issues as related to the Chesapeake Rreservation Act regulations; and stated he could not support appropriation of the funds un=il hs had had an opportunity to re~iew the results of ~ngineering feasibilify studies that ind~aate the ~ite ~an ~ueeee~fully he utilized for school sites. Mr. Maye~ ~tated he supported the construction of a northern area high school and elementary school but expressed concerns regarding the purchase price per ae~ for the ~ubject site; that he felt there was insuXfieient data available at this point to pursue the purchase of the sit~ as there are too many unknowns and uncertainties~ and that the site was a gamble he could net support with taxpayers' money. 6/27/90 Winterfield Road; the impac~ to the developer if the Dnrohase is delayed; stated he ix familiar with the tOpOgraphy, drainag~ appropriation being authorized. Mr. Sullivan reitera:ed that the school Beard, not the Board of Supervisors, has ~he responsibility of deciding site locations for sohools; rsferenced letters to which he responded regarding the acquisition of a northern area high s~hQol si~e and ~ubmitted ~cr the record; reviewed the procems by which the Board had arrived ah this point and urged tko ~oar~ not to during discussion; etc. harmony to achieve its directive and had ~ever intended %0 understanding that certain i~formation/d~tails were provided and criteria met. delays regarding the purchase of the subject proper~y and these After further ~iscassion, Mr. Daniel ~ugg~s%ed the $2,000,000 appropriated at this time an~ %hat the appropriation action be until a speelfic date and time. Dr. E. E~ Davis~ School won~d p~efer d~ferre% te the date of September 12, 1990 and, in viable option ~ke School Board and Board of Supervisors would Board budget a maximum nf $2,000,000 from the ReSerVe for Future Capital Improvement Projeet~ fez :h~ acquisition o£ land f~rther elo~d th~ p~llc h~rlng and deferred until september $2,000,~0Q for the purpose of increasing ~he School Board Budget for the purchaae cf land for a northern arsa high ~chool Aye$~ Mr. Currin, ~r. sullivan an4 Mr. Daniel. Nays: Mr. Applegate. Abstention: Mr. Mayes. Mr. Currin stated that due to tim~ constraints, the Board would go i~o ~ecu~ive session in the Board Room Conference during which time lunch would b~ ~ervud; and after reconvening 90-~09 6/27/90 the Board would continue with the remainder cf the public hearing items, rezoning request~ and the remaining agenda items. 11.~. ~CB ~ ~l.J. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mr. Appleqate, seconded by Mr, Daniel~ the Board wen~ into ~×ecutive Se~sio~ for ¢onsulta~ien with legal counsel for personnel ~attera relating to a Board Appointment pursuant to Se~tlo~ 2.1-344 (a)(1} of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as emended. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Daniel, s~conded by ~r, Applegate, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has this da~ adjourned ~eard, and in aocordance with the provi~ions of the Virginia WHEREAS, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act effectivs July 1~ 1989~ provides for certification that such Executive Session was conducted in conformity with law. NOW, T~RRFOR~, S~ IT RE~OLvED that the ~oard of County Supervisors dce~ hereby certify that to the b~st of each member's knowledge, i) only public business matters law£ully ~Xempted from open meeting requirememts under th~ FreedOm Of Informatie~ Act were discussed in ths Exeoutlve Session to which this certification applies, and ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the ~otlcn by which the considered by the Board. Nc member dissents from this certifi- cation. The Board h~ing polled, the vot~ was as follows: Mr~ Daniel: Aye. Mr. Mayes~ Aye. Mr. Applegate= Aye. Mr. Sullivan: Aye. Mr. Currin~ Aye. 18. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Steg~aisr ~tated this date and t~e hsd bean advertlssd for a public h~aring to consider an amendment to the I989-90 Budget to appropriate $600,000 for park land and facilities. No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter, Discussion, questions an~ co~ments ensued relative to using the same verbiag~ for ihs appropriation for the park l~nd facilities as was used for the northern area high school site; the original source of funding; uss of p~eviously appropriate~ fund~ for the ~uhject ~ge being u~d in~tead for the Emergency ~edical Services Study and the remainder of funds being earmarked from the Pa~k Bond Issue~ acreage and identification of said parcel and o~her specific details relative to v~lopment; elimination of the marina use; how the funds 6/27/90 Emergency Medical Services Study were used; etc. On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Applegate~ the Board appropriated $600,000 from the Reserve for Future Capifal Improvements Project for the purchas~ of land for futura ~evelopmsnt o~ park land/facilitie[] along Lake Chesdin, with the understanding that the site will be identified at a later date. Mr. Sullivan expressed concern that the Board was being asked to appropriate $6SD,000 for preperty on which very lit%la information was available, that he had no objection to the park !and/fecili~ies bu~ did object s~renuously to $ facility being constr~eted with a marina operation, that he felt mere information should be available fei the Board's review and could not support the request as presented. Mr. Daniel suggested a~ended verbiage to badger $6Q0,000 for %he acquisition ef park land/faeilitie~ along Lak~ chesdin but withhold the appropriation until such time am th~ site is i~en~ified. Mr. Mayas restated his motion, seuon~ed b~ Mr. Applegate, to appropriat~ $600,000 from the Reserve for Future Capltal Improvements Project for the puroha[]e of land for future dsvelopmen~ of park land/facilltle~ along Lake CheEdin, with the understanding that the site will be identified at a later date. H~ called for the question. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Applegat~, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayer. Nays: M~, sullivan, i~.C. ~OINT ~LIC ~/NG WITN 'r~ ~IRGINIA DEPARTMENT TRAN-~PORTATION TO CONSIDER IMPIIO~/E/~ENT-~ TO T~ SECONDARSf SgOONDARY IMPROVEmeNT BDD~T 1990-91 THROUGH 1995-96 Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised fo~ a joint public hearing with the Virginia bep~rt-men~ of Transp0rta~ion to oonsider improvements to the secondary Read System in Chesterfield County for th~ ~i~-Y~r Improvement BUdget 199~-91 through 1995-96. Re noted Mr, Dennis Morrison, Resident Engineer, Chesterfield Residency of the Richmond District of the Virginia Depart~eut Of Yransper~ation, was prc$~t ~o participate in ~he public hearing There was brief discussion relative te VDOT'~ P~cpesed FY 1990-91 ~hrough 1995-96 Secondary Read Six-Year Improv~ent Plan; priorities which w~re e~tablished through the actual allocations and were no% nscsssarily ~etabli~hed by the priority number designated in the plan; revenue/cost data for each year of the plan; the listing of preposed projects with specific allocations; thc status of improv~ents for Leto acceleration of the Rhodes Lane project i~ right-of-way ceuld be obtained with the project financed by funds obtained from reduction in the seo~e of Werk On North ~ailey Rridge Road; the Revenue Sharing Project d~vetopment schedule7 etc. Mr. Sullivan suggested staf£ explore possibilities for inclumion in the Legislative Program for ~e County in order make a determination as to th~ varloun alternatives %ha~ may be available t0 a~sis% the Ceunty with funding reed im~ruVemunto and to prepar~ ~aid alternatives for The ~oard's review, adopted the following WHEREAS, The Hoard of supervisors of Cheeterfiald County and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) have conducted a public hearing on the FY 1998-9t through FY 1995-96 SecOndary Road Six Year Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, The Board concurs with the proposed projects identified in the plan. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the Revenue Sha~ing Project development schedule as submitted~ authorized staff to take ali necessary steps to implement construction of the projects; and adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, section 33.1-75 of the Code of Vi~qini& permits thc Commonwealth Transportation Doard to make an equivalent ~atehiug allocation to any C0~nty ~or designations by the ~u~ds received by it during the current ~iacal year pursuant to "State and Local Fiscal A~i~tanc~ AC~ of 1972" for u$~ by the Commonwealth Transportation Board to con~truct~ main~ain~ or improve primary an~ $~¢ond~ry highway systems within such County: and WHEREAS; The CheSterfield County Hoard of Supervisors appropriated $500,000 for the Revenue Sharing Program with the adoption of ~]u FY 1998-91 Appropriation Ordinan.ce; and WHERF~%S, VDOT has notified f~ County that $424,800 is the maximum amoq.n.~ of Cheaterfield County f~d$ that will be matched by the State d~ring FY 1990-91. NOW, T~EREFOR~ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Soard of Supervisors has appropriated $424,0~ to be matched by the State for the FY 1990-91 Rev~nu~ ~baring ~D, ~ IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Hoard has nppropriated $76,000 in unmatched funds for %h~ ~Y 1990-91 Revenue Sharing Program. BE IT FURTHER EESOLVED¢ that the funds be allocated to the following projects: $430,000 North Bailey Bridqe Road from Route 360 to Bailey Bridge ~oad (Preliminary ~ngineering and construction; $215,000 VDOT and $215,000 County) $420,000 Hopkins Road ~rcm ~eulah Road to Inca Drive {Preliminary engineering and construction; $209,000 VDOT and $211,00~ County) $ ~4,0OO Genito Road £rom R~ute 36S to Old Hundred Road {~r~limiDary engineering and construction; $7~t000 County} Vote: Unanimous It wa~ generally agr~s~ to toke Item 11.R.1., Utilitie~ Public Hearing to Conaider an Ordinance Lo Vacate a 20 Foot Sewer And brainagc Easement Across Lot 2, Sleek A, ~e~ley Wast SubdiviSiOn~ Section 1~ out ~f ~equence to be heard at this time. ,11.1~. UTI~.ITIES D~PARTMEN~ I~EM,q ll.E,1. PUBr. I~ HF_~J~N~ TO ~O~SIDI~R ~J~ ORdINANCe. TO U~C~7~ ~t 20 Mr. Sal~ ~%a~d thi~ date and 2im~ had been a~vertis~d for a public hearing to consider a request from Mr. Jim Birinq~r Bi~inger Buildezs, Inc., for the vacation of a 20' ~ewe~ and ~rainags sas~=ent across Lot 2~ Block A, Bexley W~zt subdivi- sion, Section 1. NO otc c~me ~orward 2o speak in favor of or in opposi~ion the matter. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. ~ayes, the Board adopted ~he following ordinance: AW O~INANCE to vacate a portion o~ a 20' and variable width sewer and ~rainage easement across Lot 2, Block A, Be~iuy West Subdivision, Section 1, Clever Hill District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly r~cord~d in the Clerk's Offie~ of thc Circuit Court of Chestsrfield County in Plat Book 54, Pag~ ~E~AS, Biringer Builders, Inc., A Virginia Corporation, petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Ches~erfiald County, Virginia to vacat~ a portiQu of a 20' and variable width' Eewer and dralna~e ~asement across Lot 2, Block A, Bexley West Subdivision, S~ction 1, Clover Hill Magi~t~rlal District, Chesterfield County~ Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Offic* of ~e Circuit Court of said County in Plat ~ook 54, Page 45, made by Balzer and Associates, to be vaca=ed is more fully described a~ fellows: A portion o~ a 20' and variabl~ width Lot 2, Block A, Bexley West Subdivision, fully ~hown on a plat ~madc by Balker s Associahes, Inc., da~d ~ay t5, 1990, a copy o~ which is attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance. ~E~AS, notice has ~een given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as ~em~ed, by advertising; and khe portion of e~mement sought to be Th~s Ordinance shall be in full force and effect accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code together with %he plat attached hereto Shall be recorded Circuit Court of Chesterfield Counzy, Virginia pursuant to Section 15,1-485 of the Code of Virqini.a, I~50~ a~ 90-513 6127/90 The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1~483 is to destroy the force and effect of the r~cording of the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee simple title of th~ ean~m~nt and portion of easement hereby vacated in the property owner cf Let 2, Block A within Be×lay West, Section l~ free and clear of any rights of.public uss. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and Att~n J. Herren title~ as grantee. Mr. Currin restated the remainder of the agenda would be deferred until after Item I1.H., Requests for Rezoning. Mr. Currin stated that he wished the record tc reflect that one o2 his constit~ents~ Ns. KL~ Jones~ had advised him of a problem ~he had encountered the previous week and he had advised he~ that he would bring that matter to the attention of however, since that ti~e Mr. Ramsay ha~ indicated that th~ ~at~er o~n and will b~ resolved a~ministrativsly and that said info~matiOn will be conveyed to her. li.H. I~[~QUt~T~ FOR P,.EZONLNG 87S166 (Amended) In Clover Hill Maqisterial District, F~%RTEEN ASSOCIATES requested rezoning from Agricult~rnl IA} to Of~c~ ~usine~s wi~h Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use (convenience co~ercial) and bulk exceptions. This lies on a 3.~ ac~e parcel fronting approximately 480 feet cn the east line of Courthouse Road, also fronting approximately of the inter~ction of ~ese road~. Tax Map 27-6 (ll Parcel 14 Mr. Jacobsen ~tated he had b~an info~a [h~ applicant asking for a thirty (30~ deferral of Case 87S166. Mr. Edward Willey, Jr., repreaentin~ the applicant, stated a a reaid~nt of Eylton Park and r~pr~santative for Courthouse Road R~sidantial Today and Tomorrow, voiced opposition 5o the 9ro~oaed deferral; stated thin case ha~ ~ean on th~ agenda approximately two and one-half (~-1/~} years; ~at he saw justifiable reason to continue deferral and his opposition to the proposed deferral and concurred with the development of ~he Courthouse Roafl Plan; that he had not changed his position on his motion of ~ovember 8, 1~9 that said Plan r~main in e~f~ct until certain criteria were completed; however, h~ believed ~h~t clrcuma~anc~s were such that approval of the thirty (30) day deferral would not be deferred Case 87S166 un~il July 2S, 1990. 90NP0202 Landmark deeignation for C~ESTER COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE. LOcated in Bermuda Magisterial District on propert~ fronting on the north line of Richmond Street and better known as 12133 Richmond Street. Tax Map 115-7 (6) W.C. Trueheart, Lot 2 (Sheet 32). Mr. Jacobson presented a summary of th~ request and stated the PreServation Co~littee and Planning Commission recorm~ended approval of historic landmark designation for Chester Collegiate Institute, Case 90~P0202, based on the following findings: 1. This is a distinguished building of high architectural quality and histeric interest; and 2. Th~S ~$ipn~tion will cause no significant adverse effect on the future development of the County. There was no Opposition present. On motion of Mr. Curtis, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Boar~ approve~ the ~oard approved historic land/~ark designation for Cheater Collegla~ Institute, described as followsz CRESTER COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE. The designated proper~y sha~l be as follows~ T~x Map 115-? (6] W. C. Trueheart, Let 2 (Sheet 32). Ve~e: Unanimous 89SN0345 In Matoaca Magisterial District, JA~4~S D. ~3~K~K requested razoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12). A sinqte family residential subdivision i~ pt~nned. This request lies en a 29.0 acre parcel located at the western t~rminus of Marobrith Road. Tax Map 149-~ (1) ~=cel 6 ($See~ 41}. Mr. Jacobson presented a $~ary of tke request and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0345 and acceptance of the applicant's proffered condition. K~ noted the application wac submitted prior to July I, 1989, therefore, no cash proffers ere le~ally acceptable. therefore, Mr. Currin stated it would be plated ~u its regular sequence on the agenda. 90~N0189 In Midlothian Magisterial District, ~ p. COOK~ requested rezoning from Agricultural (~) =o community Busines~ (C-3} on u 1.~ acre parcel fronting approximately 156 fee~ on the north line ol Midlothlan Turnpike, approximately 471 feet west of Alverser Drive. Tax Map lS-ll (1) Part o~ ~sreel 15 (Sheet 7). Mr. Jacobson presented a s~ary of the request and ~tated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 90SN0189 and acceptance of the applicant'~ pref£ered conditions, which include standard ~ira Drotection oa~h proffer and construction of road improvements. Mr. Mark Shimbob, representing ~he applicant, Stated the recommendation wa~ aoceDt&blu. Ther~ was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegata, the Board approved cate 90SN8159 and accepted the following proffered conditions; 90-515 6/27/90 1. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any building ¢onscru0ted on the property, an additional lane of pavement along westbound U.~. Route 80 with curb and gutter shall be constructed along ~he entixe frontage of the property. 2. Prior to obtaining a building permit, one cf the following shall bs accomplished for fire protection: A. For building per, its obtained on or before Jun~ 30, 1991, the owner/developer shall pay to the County $150 pe~ 1,000 square fe~t of gross floor area. If the building p0rmi% is obtained after June 30, 1991, the amount of the required payment shall be adjusted Marehall gwiff Building Cost Index increased or decreased between June 30, 1991, and the date ~f payment. With the approval of tko County*s Fire Chief, the owner/developer shall receive a credit toward the required payment for the cost of any fi:e suppression ~ystem not otheTwi~e req~ired by law which i~ include~ as a par% of %he developmen%. OR County's Yir~ Chief datelines substantially r~duc~s Vote: Unanimous In ~atoa~& ~a~isterial District, REBECCA ~0 ~]~ON r~Led Conditional Usa ~c permit a dwell~n~ unit separated from the principal dwelling unit in a Residential (R-~) District on a 0.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 88 feet on the south Lane. Tax Map 49~14 (S) H~nters Landing, Section 4, Block G, Lot 21 (~heet Mr. Jacobsen pr~ented a ~ummary of the request and mtat~d the Planning Commission recommended approval of Ca~ 9OSNOlg0~ MS, Reb~¢c~ Jo ~il~en stace~ the reco~u~ended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition On motion of Mr. ~ayes, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved Case 905N0190, subject %0 the %ollowing coalitions: 1. Occupancy of either ~welling unit shall he l~ited to quests or family members of the property owner. At no tize shall either dwelling unit be rented or sold as a Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction indicating the requirement in Con~itlon 1. (~) 3. Public water and wastewater systems shall be used. {U) 4. Th~ property own~ shall not request a separate driv~wa connection for the propoeed ~econd dwelling unit. ~08W0118 In Midlothian Magie~e~ial District, ~OB~R~ D. ~_~¥ requested rezoning fxom Agricultural IA) to COmmunity Buslne~ (C-3) on 2.3 acre parcel frontin~ app~eximataly 260 feet on the north line of M£dlotkian Turnpike, approximately 1,620 f~et wes% of Winte~field Road. Tax Nap 15-6 (1) ~art of Parcel 1 /Sheet 7). ~he Planning Commission r~commend~d approval of Case and acceptance of ~he applicant's proffered eond~tione. Mr. A~drew Shirzer, re~resen~ing the applicant, stated ~pplican~ has met with all th~ ~itizen~ groups and feet they have submitted adequate proffered cendition~ to resolve ~h~ir ~onoerne end indicated h~ wished to ~ubmi~ for ~he record, at the request of citizen groups with whish they have met, a copy of the Maste~ Plan used during tho~e dls=ussione. Mr. Sullivan ~tated he under,toed that it was agree6 that the mlnute~ reflect that it is the int~ntlon of the applicant, for future zoning, to include the balance of his property, as shown on the Master Plan as well a~ ~ended proffered condition 2 which ~li~ina~es "occul~ ~clnnces such as palm readers, astrologer, fortune tellere, t~a leaf readers, prophets, etc." from the Ms. Faye ~almer, representing the Salisbury ~om~owners Association and citizens o~ Wes~field, s~eted they have worked with all those involved in this matter, feel a application for rezoning of the B-2 portion of his property, approved Case ~0SN0118 and acceptance of the following 1. The Architectural ~tyle of all buildings shall be Village Marketplace cr Ivymont Square, Architectural plans shall be eubmitted to the Planning Department for approval in contraction with Site plan re¥iew. 2. The following u~=s are excluded from =he permitted C-3 d.Cocktail lounges and night,lube. Hospitals. w. Commercial kennels. Civic Association prior to filing or consenting fox filing, any rezoninq or conditional use application on the 6/27/90 land known as Tax Map 15-6 (1) Pert ef Parcel 1 which is not included az a part of this application and any such application will be accompanied by a Schemati~ Plan showing how the use of the property which is the subject of this zoning application will be affected. All buildings and accessory buildings shall not exceed the development height requirements for :he ~idlo~hian Village core of 2 1/2 stories or thirty (30) feet, whichever is Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, additionel pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed along the westbound lanes of Route 60 ~or tbs entire frontage of the subject property. In addition, thi~ pavement and curb and gutter shall be extended east of the ~ubgeet property to provide an adequate rlght-tura lane a~ the approved Prior to ebtaininq a building p~mit, one of the following shall be aecemplishe~ for fire pre=cc=ion: A. Far building permits ob=mined on or before June 30, t991, the owner/de,eloper shall pay to the County $150.00 per 1,00O square feet of gross floor ar~a. tf the building permit is obtained after June 199I, the amount of the required payment shall be adjusted upward or downward by the s a~e perc=ntage that the Mmraha~l Swift Building Cos= Index increased or d~ereased between June 30, 1991, and the date of payment. With the approval of the County's Fire Chief, the owner/developer ~hall receive a credit toward the required payment for the cost of any fire suppression system not otherwise required by law which is included as a part of the development. B. The owner/developer shall provide a fire suppression system not otherwise required by law which the Counzy's Fire Chief determines substantially redune~ the need for County facilities otherwise necessary for fire pre~eetien. Vote: Unanimous In ~ateaca ~agiBterial ~i~trict, ~I~ ]~ requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to R~sidential ~R-~5) of ?.4 ac~es, plu~ amendment to proffered conditions on 269.6 acres of an existing zoned Residential (R-2§) tract. A ~ing!e family residential subdivision is planned. These requests lie on a total of 277 acres which fronts approximately ~400 feet on the west line of Bradley Bridge Road, across from Glebe Point Road. Tax Map 1~1-~ {1) Part of Parcel l, Tax Map %~1-9 (1) Parcel 1, and Tax Map 131-14 (1) Parcel I (Skeet 40). Mr. Jacobsen presented a summary of Case 90SN0140 and stated the ~lanning Commission recommended approval of said request and acceptance of the applioant'~ proff~r@d conditions. Ee noted that the proffered conditions restric% %he number of single family lots to be developed for this project. Mr. Carrie disclosed to the Board that he owns land adjacent to the subject property, declared a conflict of interest pureuan~ to the V~rgXn~a C~prehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Don Balzer, representing the applicant, ~tated the recommendation was acceptable. Nr. Maye~ commented r~gar~iag the policy requiring water and sewer along Swift Creek being inconsistent and stated he felt that %h~ County should come ko acme kind of ctos~re on the continued use of septic tanks for development in the County; that he realized under the present ~oard policy septic systems are permitted but he did not intend to vote for i%. Mr. Balz~ explained the reason for th9 rezening is no~ to gain addi~iomal lots or to increase density but to ~traighten out th~ property line so that %h~ property can be include~ in the subdivision. ~r. Applegate excused h~meelf from the meetinq. Mr. Mayas stated he had no problem with att=mpting tc straighten cut ~oun~ary lin~s and, if that was the only aspeo= with wlch this request dealt, he oould euppoft it. There was no opposition present. Mr. Dani~ e~preseed concern regarding data in the staff report relative to ashool capacity, the fact that sewer is recommended but septio systems would be used, etc., and noted ho Would second the motion but had reservations concerning th~ r~qnest, On motion cf Mr, ~y~s~ seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Board approved Cae~ 90SN01~0 and acc~ptanc~ of the following 1. M~imum of 150 lots for entire development. The ne~ parcel will not add any more lots to th~ existing tentative. 2. The attached Restrictive Covenants entitled "Decla~aticn of Covenants ~J~tel Bluff" to be r~orded prior to issuance of building permits. $. 2,000 ~quare feet minimum heated living ar~a. 4. Applicant to ~etiIy Glebe Point Coordinator thirty (30) days prior to tentativ~ subdivision plan approval. 5. No lot shall be less than one (1) acre in size. 6. No foundations shall have exposed concrene blocks. 7. Public water shall be used. The approved tentative for Am~ei ~luff shall be revi~ed to reflect an access eaeement an~ a water easement to the "Bishop" property and/er provide a s=ub roa~ to th~ Bishop property allowing access and water availability, Aye~ Mr, Sullivan, ~r. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Absent; Mr. Currin and Mr. Appleqate. Mr. Currin re=urned =o ~he meeting. 89SN0345 In Makoaca Na~i~erial District, ~B/6E5 D. CARTER reques~e~ r~xoning from Agricultural {A} to Residential (R-12). A ~ingle family residential subdivieion is planned, This request lies on a 29.0 acre parcel located at the western terminus of Ma=obrith Road. Tax Map 149-5 (1) Parcel 6 (Sheet 41), ~r. Poole presented a summary of %he request a~d stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89~N0345 and asceptance of the applicant'n proffered condition. Ha nete~ the application was submitted prior to J~ly 1, 1989, therefore, no cash proffers are legally acceptable. 90-519 6/27/90 Mr, Applegate returned %o the meeting. Mr. Sullivan expressed concerns that Happy Rill Road can nut safely accommodate the traffic gen~ated by the ~ubje~t request, ~he staff report £ndlcatss that Happy Rill Road has pour vertical and horizontal aligrauent, poor sigh= distance and minimal shoulders and in addition, the applicant has not offered to dedicate necessary right-of-way for the 200 foot ~ast-west freeway as indicated on the Tho~hfare Plan, that new residents and additional ~tudent$ will be g--~-~a~d by tho proposed development and the applicant has proffered neither a park nor a school S~te; and t~t he felt it unfair to citizens of the County to approve such a rezoning and place the what point %h~ ea~t-wes% f~eeway wo~ld eut through hi~ property nor did they know how far into his property the rlqht-of-way would encroach. Nr. ~cCracken orated chat the application is for reaching from Agricultural (A) to Residential (~-15) E~elide&n (st~aightl aching, that staff could not imputed conditions but did request preffeze however the applicant did not see fit to proffer any condition~ other than that which is listed in the staff report. There was further dlscussien relative to road improvements in Mr. Carter stated he felt the concerns that had been expressed When asked, Mr. ~cCracken stated a proffer could be developed deferred Case 89S~0345 until July 25, 1~90. 89SM0346 In Matoaca Magisterial District, ~I~) TJkYLOR requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12] of 107.30 aere~, Multi-Family R~idential (R-NF) of 2t.125 acrese Residential Tcwnhouae (R-TH) of 13.~44 acres and Co~vsnleneo Du~iuesa (C-i) e~ 3.O ~cr~s. A mixed use ~velopmont with single fa~ity residential~ multi-f~ily~ townhou~ mn~ co~ercial um~g ig planned. Thim r~queg% ling on a 144.5 acre parsel lying approximately 175 fee~ off the southern terminum of ~ollyb~rry Drive. T~x Map 96-1~ (1) ~arcel 4 (Sheet 31). ~r. Jacobsen presented a s~ary of Case 8~N03~6 and seated ~roffer~d conditions. Mr. John Cogbill, re~r~ntin9 the applicant, ~tated the rmco~endation was acceptable but requested relief fzom ~ buff~ ~eguir~m~nt adjacent to the propoz~d north/s0n~h S~i%h and Mr. John G. DickE, III ~upporting the request; n0t~d the development would be an upscaled, ~ality development; and f~lt that ~e concern~ of tb~ ad3acpnt property owner~ had been addressed. Mr. Ted Patrick referenced a letter dated May 29, 199O that he sent to Mr. Cogbil! requesting that he be notified of any discussion8 regarding this project and expresse~ concern tha~ he had received RQ such notiffcation~ prior to this meeting and Mr. Elbert Hew&rd~ Mr~ John G. Dicks, III and Ms. Janet F~rmer voi~ed support for the proposed project as they felt the project would be a quality project; that the applicant had made substantial efforts to protect the adjacent property owners; the proffered conditions; and urged approval of the request. Mr. Cogbill addressed Mr. Patzick'~ ~oncern7 ~tated there had been dialogu~ with Mr. Patzlck un several oo~asions regarding the subject project; indicated the applicant would Continue %0 keep him informed of on-g~ing eventS; and apologized to the Board and Mr. Patrick for his failure to contact him prior ~o this meeting, ~r. M~yes expressed concern relative tQ the addendum and stated he did not feel the applicant should be taxed with the addiaional burden Of ~hprQvements not conti~uou~ to his property and wa~'p~epa~ed to make a motion for approval of the request a~ the appropriate time. ~s. Co,bill reminded the Board that the epplicanf was also asking relief from the 5%ffer requirement adjacent to the proposed north/south collector ~oad. When asked, Mr. ~eCracken stated staff roQo~ended the thirty-five foot buffer requirement to prevent direct a~ss to the arterial road as w~ll as to screen individual x~sidenees adjseen~ ~o the road f~om the intrusion of light and:noise from passing traffic. There was discussion relative to cos~ for off-sit~ and on-site improvements; r~duced density; signalization: road improvements; e~c. Mr. Sullivan pointed OUt the Central Area Land Use and ~gportatlon Plan designates the request ~it~ for medium density residentaal development and the p=opos6d uses are inconsistent wi~h the plan; expressed concern that th~ applicant has not proffered internal dg~a!opment improvements; that additional new residents and ~chool children will b~ ~roffered a school site or park faoility~ that he did no% feel the burden of the expense for these se~vieas should be pIac~d ~n the citizens o~ the County~ and that ke did not feel the request was appropriate and should be denied. Mr. ~ayes ~tated he felt the applican~ had adequately m~t ~he requirements plac~d on him and th~ b~xden for other off-site ~provements should have been placed on the developer of Wrexham Estates. buffer requirements and road improvement~ M~. Daniel addressed concerns ~alative to costs for construction of turn-lanes, the nt%~be~ of lots in the development, shoz%-~uttiag through the subdi¥1slcn; wh~ther or not th~r~ could be a requirement that it is the developer~ responsibility that to enseco that his purchasers ar~ aware that there i~ th~ potential for the road to widened to four lanes. Mr, M~Craoken stated he felt the buffer requirement was the best mechanism for the protection of the right-cf-way for futur~ planned widening of the road. on motion of Mr, M~y~, seconded by ~r. Currin~ the Board approved Case 89SN0346, subject to th~ following condition: A thirty~five {35) foot buffer strip, exclusive of sase~ents and required yards, shall b~ established and north-south arterial road. The area of th~s buffer strip ~hall either be left in its natural state, ~f sufficient vegetation exists to provide adequate screening, or be planted and/or harmed ~n accordanoe with a landscape plan approved by t~he Planning Department, 90-521 6/27/~0 if sufficient vegetation does not exist to provide adequate Screening. Prior to app:oval of any final site plan or recordation of any plat~ the devel0p~r shall'flag this buffer strip for inspection, and shall post a ho~ to cover ths imglenentation of the landscape plan, if such plan is req~ire~. ~xcspt access shall b~ p~rmi%ted through this b~ffer striD. This building setback and buffer strip shall be noted on any final site Dla~sz and any ~inal ch~ck and recordation plats, (P & T) ~nd ~urther, the Board accepted the fellcwlng proffered conditions: 1. The total number of single £~i1~ dwellings within the prepoe~ R-12 portion of the development shall not exceed 230. 2. No more than ten (18) lots shall b~ served by a road which is connected to Turkey Oak Road w~ich will be the access tc ~he internal road system of the Autumn Oaks Subdivision. The Autumn Oaks 'internal road system, aa extended, will not be opened Lo any portion of the remainder cf Davelc~sr's project or any adjacent parcels. 3. Any lot abutting Autumn Oaks Subdivision or which is g~rved by a road which is sonneete~ %0 =he internal read system of the AutUmn oaks subdivision shall have a minimum Any residential dwelling bait% On a lo% abut%in~ Autumn oaks Subdivision er on a road which is connected to the internal road system of the Autumn Oa~s Sub~ivislcn shail have at least 2re00 square feet of finished living space, not counting unfinished living space, garages or perches. The above ground foundations of residential dwellings shall be faced with brisk. 5. Any let which is served by a road which is connected to th~ internal road eystem o~ ~he Autumn Oak~ Subdivi~i0n shall be subject to restrictive covenants that are comparable to and not less stringent than the Autumn Oaks Subdivision restrictive covenants. 6. Any Single ~amily dwelling unit constructed on a lot ~hich 2,000 square feet of living space fo~ a two-story home and 1,$00 square feet of living space for a single story rancher-type, not including unfinished living ~paee, garages or porckes. The above ground £oundatlon o£ any such dwelling uni~ shall be faced with brick. Lot~ abutting Wca~ha~ Estates Su3~divis~on shall be subject to restrictive covenants comparable to and not less stringent than the restrictive covenants currently applicable to Wrexh~t] Estates Subdivision. public water and wastewater system, s shall he used. to the Branch's Colony t0wnh0use development. 9. Ail multi-family building construction shall be comparable lO. In coujuuc~ien witch recordation of any portion of subdivision to b~ 5erred by Old Wr~xh~m Ro~ ~r ~rior tO issuance of any building permit on any building un the property served by Old Wrexham Road, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall dedicate to Che~terfleld County, free and unrestricted, an eighty (80) ~oet wide right o~ way ~or the proposed north/~omth arterial from Old Wr~ha~ ROad, a~ the northern property line, through the entire lanqth of the subjest property to the Patrick property. The loca;ion of this arterial shall be approved by the Transportation Department. The Developer shall be responsible for constructing a minimum two-lane road within ~he no~th/south arterial right of way throughout th~ entire length of th~ euD~eot pr0p~r~y to %he ~a~rick ~roperty. The Dsveloper shall provide a bond Or other surety to %h~ T;~nspQr~ation Department for the construction of the road improvem@nts. A phasing plan for th~ ben,lng may be submit%ed to and approve~ ~y ~hs Transportation Department. 12. In a~dition to ~u~miesion of road construction plans to the Virginia Department of TraDsporta~ion and Department of EnviroQfQental En~ineerin~ ~or the extension of Old Wrexham Road, the plans for the two-lane portion Of the north/south arterial shall also be s~bmidted to and approved by the Transportation D~partmgnt. 13. Developer shall notify the th~a ~zesident of Wrexham Estates Homeowners Association (the "Association") at the road construction plan~ for the ~wo-Ian~ portion o~ the then President of ~he Association at the tim~ Developer Depar~ent for the d~v~lopm~n% Of the RTH and ~P portions 14. The C-1 portion of the Property shall not be used for the following uses that ar~ currently pe~itted in a C-1 laundromat; (b) Grocery Store; or The C-1 portion of the Property sh~ll not be used for thm following uses that are currently pe~itted in a C-1 district with certain r~gtriCtion~: (b) Pet Grooz~ing Shop. In addition, the C-1 portion of the Property shall not be u~ed for a convenience store such R9 (for ux~ple) 7-11, FaeMart, or Lucky~s. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Appi~ate, ~r. Daniel a~d Mr. ~aye~. Nays: Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan re~erenced a r~cent rezoninq along Happy Hill Road that wa~ d~nied b~=au~e Qf insufficisat o~-site road improve- ments, indicated ~aid ca~e was brought back to ~e Board with r~est wa~ not indicative ~f a change of policy. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas r%f~r~nced receipt of a Iett~r from Mr. Taylor, which letter Mr. Daniel s~mitted to be sneered into the record. 90-523 6/27/90 90SN0126 (Amended) In Dale Magisterial District, STEP~I~N L. BRYANT requested rczoning from Residential [R-7] tO Agricultural (k) with Conditional Use to permit a profess£enal office on a 2.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 218 fsst on the north line of Centralla ~oad, approximately 80 feet west of Centralia Station. Tax Map 97-1 (1) Parcel S (Sheet 32). ~lanning Commission reooi0~ended denial ss the proposed zoning and land use do not conform the the Central Asea Land Use and Trans$ortatlen Plan, that it represents con~ercial encroachment into a stable, single family residential neighborhood and notsd that there was substantial community opposition to the request. He noted th~ existing structure, known as Circle Oaks, and the subject property, as well ee ~eveTal other area structures, have received historic landmark designation. Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that One of his associates owns the subject pr0per~y but he wished the record to r~fle~t that he persona!ly has no financial interest in %he house, the property or any of the adjacent properties; that in the past, when rezonings were being considered that involved one of his aesociates he did disqualify himself due to potential COnfliC~ of interest; tha~ he had discussed this issue with the County Attorney and since h~ i~ nc% invcl~e~ cuzre~tly nor will he be in the ~uture wi:h the ~ubjast property~ he intended to vote on the case. There was brief discussion relative to ~xisting development in the area; two commercial uses permitted in the vicinity of the subject property which r~c~iv~d zonings in the 1970's or earlier~ etc, Mr. Steven Bryant presented an overview of his proposed u~e fo~ structure to house the law offiee~ Of hi~ firm and affiliates only; that h~ did not consider a law office to be classified as a commercial use; that he did not feel there would be a slgniiioant increase in t~affic volumes in the area if the request were approved; that he r~ali~ed the significance of the histolic landmark designation of the structure and that it would be retained as a quasi-public use op~ned to the public and maintained properly; asked that consideration be given to %he fact that there are other bu~ines~ u~e~ in the ar~a; supporting th~ requ~%; and a~ke0 the Doerd's ~avorable consideration. There was brief discussion relative to hour~ ef operation, signage, etc. Mr. Peele briefly addressed conditions and/or standards that would re~ulate the use and stated that should the Board wi~h to approv~ th~ request, staff would ask that it be deferred in order that cenditi~n~ could be read--ended requiring compliance with =merging Growth District standards as well as conditions which restrict the use of the property. Ms. June Durham, ~r. Jim Daniels and Mr. Oliver D. Eudy voiced support for the proposed use as =hey felt it would be an appropriate use for the subject structure and p~operty. Ms. AD3~ Ten,ilia, MS. Marqaret Robertson, Mr. Bill Morton, and Mr. Tom Tennille voiced opposition to the proposed request as they felt the property should be used as a residence; to permit a commercial use on the subject property would set a precedent for future commercial encroachment into an established, ~inqle family community; the residents in this vicinity do not want th~ proposed use iD their community; noted that the historic landmark designation of the structure is irrelevant to tho zoning; that if the zoning wer~ approved and Dh~ strnctur~ destroyedt the applicant could rebuild oth=r types of 90-~24 6/27/90 co~unerciaI uses on the proper~y that may De permitted by his property to othe~ owners if it were zoned for commercial use; referenced notes from the original owner who indicated he was willing to repurchase the property at a profit to tho current owner; refsrenoed ~he two existing business zonings in the ares stating those uses were approved more than fifteen years ago; indicated they did not feel financial gain ~honld be th~ incentive for the preservation of a kistorlcally designated lan~merk as other owners of such structures in the area had been able to financially maintain their homes as residential dwellings~ and to change the ~e of the structure from residential to business would negatively impact the integrity of the co.unity of Centralia and th~ home itself. When asked~ Mr. TOm Te~nill~ stated he would not object to having ~r. Bryant live in Tube oommunity as a resident; however, he would object to anyone using the subject ~tructure add property for business use as it would negatively impact the cor~mun fry. Mrs. Elizabeth Welchons eta%md the r~sidents in C~ntralia have a good, strong n~ighborhuud an~ wish to keep their co--unity it is - that the r~id~n~$ are not opposed to p~ople but are opposed ~o businesses being m~tablished where they would lik~ %o ha~e residences. Mr. Bryant skated that base~ on the opposition he would willing ~o consider the po9sibility of residing in th~ structure am a conditXo~ o~ zoning and if the ~oard should consider deferral of the re.est, he would r~view very seriously that two previous denials for b~siness/co~ercial uses of =he subject properly even though the applicant was willing reside on the property; %hat the Central Arua Land Use and surrounding area ~oz medi~ d~nsity residential use and it the railroad fracks will d~v=lop co~c{ally and that which on the west ~ide will ~emain residential notwi~$t~n4ing {wo p~eviou$1y cited properties' which were zoned many years ago; that he haz r~viewed this request from ~we~y aspect b~ in %h~ b~st interest of the co~uni~; and at appropriate time, he intended to make a motion for denial the request e~ reco~undud. Mr. Mayes stated ha felt the existing area residents should given =h~ first consideration and that he was inclined to with the reco~end~tion for ~$nial. When asked~ Mr. Peele stated that if ~r. B~yant were willing to live in the residence the Zoning Ordinance would permit hi~ have a law office there al~o as long as only ~ily members wer~ employed in the office. Mr. Peele stated th~ zoning application would be required to expand the bu$ine$~ buyon~ that and given ~ probable precedent that such action would set staff would mo~t likely red--end against it. historically designeted lan~ark structures, the use of suggested that it may be advantageous to con~ider deferral th~ request to review any alternative options that may b~ available and asked that %he Buard con~ider deferring the ease. Mr. Daniel stated he did not feel a deferral would be ieasible or in the best interest of th~ co~uni~y at this time but that it may be appropriate to ~evisit the land u$$ at some time in the future whmn ~ere may ~e changes in the a~ea. Mr. Currin stated he could ucc no ha~ in d~ferring the matter and fei~ 90-525 6/27/90 deferral would be beneficial in that i% wonld provide an opportunity for Mr. Bryant and the opposition to determine if they could resolve their differences. Ms. Tennille reiterated that the area residents do not object to Mr. Bryant's residing in the cO.unity but they have concerns that he may move to the subject property only to obtain his zoning and then move away at u later tim~. She also noted that area residents are concerned that the subject property hca not been li~ted for sale on the residential market by the cnrr~nt owner. Mu. ~ryant stated he had not previously given serious consideration to residing on the subject property, ~hat there are many factOrS tO he cOnSidered if he were co de so and that hu has not had ample opportunity to explore all the ramifications of such action. ~e stated if the Beard were inclined fo defer the request for thirty {3~) da~e he would b~ willing =o discuss the matter with the Tennilles, make a decision and provid~ ~J%e Board with a firm answer withiD said tlmaframe. Mr. Daniel made a motion to defer Case 905N0126 un~il July 25, 1990 with the understanding that the request (Case 905N0126) ~ot be reopened for discussion; that Mr. Peele arrange moderate a ~eetlng between Mr. B~yan~ and the opposition; that =he decision brought back at the next Board meeting be only whether or not there is a po~itiv~ or negative decision regarding an agreement between those parties involved. Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. Mr, Mica~ ~ta~ed this iS ~ case i~ which there is potential for substantial change being engqested; if the Beard were to cleat the public hearing that meant literally that when the request is brought buck to the Board ther~ could be no public input: and suggested that it may be advisable to keep the public hunting open. Mr. Daniel stated if it were felt that type of flexibility was necessary he wuu!d amend his mo%ion to refleut Mr. Daniel ~ended his motion fo defer Case 90SN~126 until July 2~, 1990 with the understanding that public cc~lmsnt would be permitted; that ~r. Peele arrange and moderate a meeting between Mr. Bryant and 'the opposition; and that the decision there is a positive or negative decision regarding agreement between those parties involved, Mi, Sullivan seconded the motion. It was generally agreed to recess for fiv~ (5) minutes. 90SN0t27 (AmaZed) In Dale Magisterial Di~trict~ IBONBRIDGE I~ACQD-KT C~B r~quested amen~en~ to Conditional Use (Case 73S~147) to permit tennis courts and health club activities, plus c0ns~ption and sal~ of alcohol at an e~isting indoor tennis and racquet club facility. Thi~ request lie~ in an Agricultural ~A) District on a 4.0 a~ parcel f~onting approximately 40 feet on the east line of Iron B~idg~ Road, approximately 300 feet north of Will~br~n=h Roa~. Tax Map 66-9 (1) ~a~l ]1 and Part of Parcel 29 {Shoe% 22). subject to certain conditions, with ~e exception of the beverage~. Mr. Bill Do~g, representing the applicant, noted there were individuals in suppor~ of' the request and ~fated the existing facility has been at this location for approximately which were recently inspected and found to be acceptable. Tom Mil~er~ owner of the subject property, stated he requested public water and sewer facilities be extended to his site requirements that a design and engineering plan be completed and septic ~y~tem ~rrently function very well and indicated did not fee~ he should be required to connect %0 the public facilities at thi~ time. uncertainties ~hat nasd to ~e addressed rela[ive to design and engineering of the site~ and that staff is being consistent with ils policy that when there are ~paneions and/or changes of uses that the facility b~ requested to comply with current There was nc opposition Hr. Applegate, to deny of the amendment to permit th~ sale or to permit health ~Iub activities, to include ~xarcise classes submitted March ~9, 1990, shall be considered th~ plan of development. {.P) 7~S1~7 relative ~o Maaeez Plan approval.) Uses shall be restricted ~o indoor tennis and racquet courts, plus health club activities within the ~xls=inq structure, and other accessory use~, pl~ three (3) (NOTES: A. This condition supersedes Condition 5 of restricted based upon parking reqairements · (~.e., four [4) spaces for each court, plus one speakers. 4. There shall be nQ OUtdoor lighting ko facilitate use of 5. A minimum $ixty-~ive (55) fee% buffer shall b~ maintained residentially zoned property to th~ we~t and south. Within this buffer, !andscaDing and screening shall be ~c¢omp!ished in compliance with Section 21.1-226, 2t.1-227, 21.1-22S (a) {~), and 21.1-228 {b) of the Zoning ordinance. (2~ 6. There shall ba no'backboard for practicing purposes providmd at the three (3) outdoor tennis courts. (CPC) (NOTES: A. Except ~s noted herein, all previously imposed conditions of Cases 73S147 and 74S161 remain in effect. Prior %e any aonstructlon, site plans must be submitted for review and approval.) Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel stated he wished the record to reflect that County staff recommended the ese of public water and was%ewe%er syst%m~ end that the applicant is proceeding ~t his own risk. 90S~0177 In Clover Rill Magisterial Di~triet, R~T~y W. Pi~RK~R reqllested rezoning £~o~ Agricultural (A) to ~esidential (~-15). A single family re~idential Subdivision is planned. This request lies on a ~,6 a~re par~al fronting in two (2) places for a total of 252 feet on the east line of ~outh Providence Road~ ac~oss from Sharpstead Road. Ta~ Map 39-2 (1) Parcels 25, 26, and 27 (Sheet 14). Mr. Jacobsen presented a summary of Case 90SN0177 and stated th, Planning CoK~]i~siun recommended daniel because tko applicant has indicated an unwillinqness to participate in the provision of oapi~al fauility improvements that will be rmqui~ed as a re~ult of the proposed develo~nent of the site. When asked~ ~r. Delmonts Lewis, representing the applicant, stated the applicant ha~ proffered a 45 foot right-of-way dedication to the County and noted that a past s~wer easement had bean dedicated to %he Co~nty by the applicant's deceased father. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. AppLegate~ seconded by Nr. Daniel, approved Case 90SN0177 and accepted the foltowinq condition: At th~ time of rsuorda=ion of a subdivision plat for a maximtum of ~ix (6) lo=s, or prior =ouhe issuance of any building permits, whichever occurs first, (45} feet of right of way on the from the centerline of %hat part o~ =he roa~ i~edia~ely adjacent to subj~ce proper~y will be dedicated, ~ree an~ unreztricted, to and for the benefit cf Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous In Midlothian Magisterial District, E. C~%P~STf~N ~ILT~N, JR. requested r~zoning from Agricultural (A) to Neighborhood ~usiness [c-2) on a 0.~ mere parcel fronting mpproximately feet on the west line of Muguenot Road, also fronting approximately 143 fee% on the north line of Old Buckingham goa~, and located in the northwest quadrant of the of these roads. Tax Map 16-8 (1) ~aroel 12 (Sheet 90-$28 6/27/90 m Mr. ~acobson presented a summary of %he request and stated tbs ~l&nnin~ Commieeion reCOmmended approval of Case 90SND186 and ac~ptanc~ of the applfeant's proffered conditions. Mr. Joh~ G. Dicks, III, representinq the applluant, stated the recommendation was acceptable and referenced a l~tt~r provided by the 01d Coache Village Civic Ass0oiation indicating their support of the proposed development. There was no oppoeition present. On motion of Mr, Suliivan, seconded by Mr. ADple~ate, the approved Ca~e 90SN0186 and accepted the followinq 1. ~cep% as stated herein, the architectural treatment of the building(s) shall conform to Section 21.1-248 of the Zoning ordinance, and shall be compatible with tha~ proposed on adjacent development to th~ north. Tn conjunction with site plan review, architectural plans shall be submitted to the Planning ~taff for approval, 2. All buildings, driveways and parkfng areas shall be back a minimum of twenty-~ive (25) feet fro~ the ~ight of way of Old Buckingham Road. 3. Ail dumpst~rs and compactors gh~tl be screened from view of 01d Buckingham Road with use of masonry ~alls compatible wi=h the brick utilised in the buildlnqe. 4. in addition to the requirements of Section 21.1~39 of the Zoning Ordinance, loadinq end ~viee areas, i~ provided, shall bs screened from public right of way with evergreen treat, having a m~nimum initial height of eight (~) feet tO ten (10) feet, planted in double staggered rows fifteen (15) feet'on center. If the loading and ~ervic~ areas are vielble to the development proposed on the adjacent property to %he nor%h, they will be screened in accordaDce with Article 4, Division 4 of the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinant~. 5. The ~roperty shall be considered as an outparcel of the adjacent property to the north relative to cigna. Signs shall comply with the requirements of Section Z1.1-269 cf the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Prior to obtaining a building permit, one of the following ehall be acccmpliehed for fire proteotion~ A. For building permits obtained on or before June ~0, 1991, the owner/developer shall pay to the County $150.00 per 1,006 square fe~t of gross floor area. If the building permit is obtained after June 30, 1991~ the amounf of the required paymen~ sAalt be adjus%e~ upward or downwar~ by thc sams that ~hs ~arshaI1 Swift Building CO~ Index increased or decreased between June 30, 1991, and the dat~ of pa~rment. With the approval of the County's Fire Chief, the owner/developer shall receive a credit toward the required payment for the cost of any fire e=gDreesion system not otherwise required by law which i~ included aS a part of the development. OR B. The owner/developer shall provide a fire suppression syste~ not otherwise required by law which th~ County's Fire Chief determines substantially reduces the need for County facilities otherwise n~c~ary ior fire protection. 90-529 6/27t90 Prior to the is~ua~os of a building permit, ~i~ty (6~) feet o~ right of way on the wagt side of Huguenot Road measuxed from the centerline of the part of the read immediately adjacent te the property shall be dedicated, frae and unrestricted, to and for ~he benefit of Chesterfield County. 8. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, an additional lane of ~av~ent, curb and gutter shall be constructed along the wegt side of ~uguenot 8oad and the north side of Qld Buckingham Road for the entire prep~rty frentage. 9. There ~hall be no direct access from this preperty to either Huguenot Read or 0id Buckingham Road. Acce~ for thi~ parcel shall be provids~ through the adjasent propert~ to the north as provided in Case No. 89SN0303. 10. The following C-2 uses ~hall not b% permitted: a) Convenience store b) Motor vehicle accessory {auto parts). 11. NEW BUSINeSS Il.A+ ADOPTION ORDINANCE ON EMEllG~I~CYBASIS i~ULATING ~-~ U~qLAWFUL DISPOSAL OF FIS~ A~D SET DAT~ FOM PE~ILIC ~K~RING Mr. Mica~ stated th= ~oard was being requested to adopt on an um~rguncy basis an ordinance to amend the Cod~ Of the Count~ Of Chesterfield, 1975, a~ amended, regulating the unlawful disposal of fish; briefly eunu~ariz~d Said 0rdi~ence and that, in accordance with State law, a public hearing to the ordinance mu~t be he~ within sixty (60) days of the emergency adoption. On motion of Mr. Applega~e, ~econded by Mr. Daniel, the BOard ad~pted the following ordinance on an emergency hasim and the date of July 25, 1990, at 9:OD a.m., for a public hearing to consider readoption of an said erdinance on a permanent basis: AN ORDI/iANf~TOAMEND 'r~i~CODE OF THE BE ~T ORDAIneD by the ~oard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Chapter i1 of t~ Cods of =he County of chester- fiel____~d, 1978, aa amended, ie amended by adding the following ~tore or other retail or wholesale e~tabli~h~nt ko dispose of fish, shellfish or other forms of marine life, whether placed immediately in refuse wshicles. Such placement shall waste from the vicinity of ~he e~t~blishmsnt. 90-530 6/2?/90 On motion of Mr. Appl~gater seconded by Mr~ Sullivan, the Board ~u~panded its rules to allow 9imultaneous nomination/appoint- ment of a representative to the Metropolitan Economic Develop- mant Council Operating Committee. Vote: Unanimous On motion e~ Hr. Coffin, seconded by Mr. kpp!egatc, the Board aimultaneously nominated/appolntsd Mr. James Cox to fill the unexpired term of Mr. R. Garland Dedd on the Metropolitan Economic D~v~lQpment Council Operatin~ Con~ittee, representing Chesterfield County at-large, whose ~erm is ef~ectiv~ immediately and will exgire February ~, 1992. Vote: Unanimous ,ll.B.Z. BUILDING CODE APpF_~%LS On motion of Mr. Applega~e, seconded ~y Mr, ~ulliva~, the Board nominated the following peIs0ns to ~erve On the ~uildlng Code Appeals Board, whose formal appointment~ will be ~ade on July 25, 1990~ Mr. ~obert J. Leipertz, Jr. Mr. Willia~ C. ~aria, Jr. Mr. A. W. Dnnbar Mr. Michael W. Tart Mr. G. Warren Vau~han Vote: Unanimous L1.B.3.,CI~:~PKAKE BAY COMMITT~, Discussion, co~ent~ and qu~tion~ ~n~ relativ~ to constraint~ fOr compliance with ~egula~ions regarding the Chesapeake Bay PreServation; establishment of a special ~tu~y co~ittee %o study local ~pl~m~ntation of ~he Act; oo~ittee's tharge Of duties and/or re~ponsibilities; perfo~anc~ s~andards and impl~entatiQn methods~ the Plan~ing Co~ission'u scheduled me,tings; a public h~aring da~e consider the Planning Co~is~ion's re~o~enda~ion~ etc. Mr, Currin stated he had requested a !i~ti~g of two n~es from each District Supervisors for nomination to the study had reviewed thos~ n~ea, had attempted to ~el~u~ individual~ from various areas of the co~unity to provide balance and ~qui=y among the representation, and ~s~abli~hed the Special Study C~i%%ee for study of local impl~m%n%ation of the Chesapuake Bay Pre~e~ation Act, wi~ th~ understanding that t~n persons w~re needed %o ~erve on ~aid co~ittee an~ he would 9rovide tkose names in the i~ed~ate fu~ur~ from thosu submitted by the ~oard. He requested that staff schedule a m~eting with h~ ~cr June 28, 1990 and Drapare a Calendar of topics for di~cussiun. 1__1.~.4. COMMUNIT~' SER~r~cE~ ~O.Z~D On motion of Mr. Daniel~ ~e¢onde~ by Mr. Mayas, the Boar~ suspended its rules to allow simultaneous nomina~ien/aDpoint- ment of a representative from %he Dale District to fill the unexpired te~ of Dr. Aonald Jessup on %h~ Community Services Boar~. Vote: U~animous 90-531 6/27/90 On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board simultaneously nominated/appointed Mr. Bernard Pete, representing %he Dale District, to serve on th~ CQ[~,sunity $ervices Beard to fill the unexp£red term cf Dr. Ronald Jeesup and whose term is effective immediately and will expire December 31, 1992. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel requested that a resolution recognizing Dr. Jessup's service on the Community S~rvice Beard be prepared presentation at a future date. ll,C, CONSENT 11.C.1. STATE 1%0AD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with ex,ina%ion of Fa~ Field Drive and Perm ~ield Court in Hilltop Fa~s, Sec=ion D, Bermuda District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mi. Sullivan, and Fa~ Field Cour~ in Hilltop Farms, Section D, Bermuda bis~ric~, be an~ they hereby are ~stablished as public reads. And b~ it further r~solved, that the Vir~inla Depar~en= Transportation, be and it here~y i~ requested %o take into S~condary Syst~, Farm ~iuld Drive, beginning a= =he end of ex~s%tnq ~arm Field Drive, State Route 3582, and going eas=erly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Farm Field court, then continuing easterly 0.0I mile to end in a dead en~; and Earm ~i~l~ Court, ~qinning at the ~nt~rsec~ion w~th Fa~ Drive and going southerly 0.06 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent ~lop~, ~iq~t and designated Virginia Depar~ent of Transportation dralna~s easements. And be it further res01v~d, that th= Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' $~ction b. Pla~ ~ook 60, Page 53, March 2, 1988. Vote: Unan~ous This day the County Environmental Engineer; in accordance with directions ~rom this Board, made report in writing upon his examine%leu of ArbOr ~re~ Drive, Arber ~ree~ Court, 0akbro~k Lane and Walnut Landing Way in Arbor Landing; 2action 1, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion cf Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is re~olved that Arbor Green Drive, Arbor Green Court, Oakbrook Lane and Walnut Landing Way in Arbor Landing, Section 1, Matoeca District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Tzansportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary Systmm, Arbor Green Drive, beglnnln~ at the intersec- tion with Ironbridge Parkway, State Routs number to be assigned, and going northerly 0.05 nile tO the inter~ection 6/27/90 with Arbor Sroen Court, thcs continuing northerly 0.03 mile to the intersection with 0akbrook Lane, then turning and going northwesterly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Walnut Landing Way, then turning and going westerly 0.10 milo to on~ in a cul-de-sac; Arbor Green Court, beginning at the intersection with Arbor Green Drive and gcinq eastsrly 0.03 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Oakbrook Lane, beginning at tho ieter~ction with Arbor Green Drive and qeing southwesterly 0.98 mile to and in a cul-de-sac7 and Walnut Lending Way~ b~qinning at the intersec- tion with Arbor Green D~ive and going easterly 0.09 milo, thcs turning and going southoast~rly 0,09 mile tO en~ cul-de-sac. This requost is inclusivo of tho adjacont ~lope, ~iqht distance and designated Virginia Depart~ent of Transportation drainage easements. These roads serve 47 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guaranteos to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads. Thi~ ~eetion of Arbor Landing is rs=orded as follows: Section 1. Plat ~ook 60, Pages 57 and 58, March 7, Vote: Unanimous Thi~ day th~ County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with dlruotions from this Board, made roport in writing upon his examination of Hidden Arbor Place, Arbor Highlands Terrace, Arbor ~nks Terrace, Hickory Landing Place, Maple Lauding Place and Arbor Banks Court in Arbor Landing, Section 2, Matoaca District. Upon considoration wheroof, and on motion Of Mr. Sulli~an, ~econdod by Mr. Denial, it i~ r~olv~a that ~idden Arbor Place, Arbor ~ighlands Terrace, Arbor Bank~ Terrace, Hickory Landing Plash, Maple Banding Place ~nd Arbor ~anks Court in Arbor Landing~ Section 2~ Matoaea District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And bs it £urth~r resolved, that ~he Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby ia requested to take into the Secondary System, Hi~en Arbor Place, beginning at the inter- section with Ironbridge Parkway, Stat~ Route Rumber to be assigned, and going easterly 0.~5 mile to end in a cul-de-sac~ Arbor Highlands Terracm, beginning at the intersection with Ircabridge Parkway, State Routo numbor to be assigned, and going Southerly O~09 mile tO end in a cul-de-sac; Arbor Banks Torraco, boginning at tho inter~oction with Ironbridge Parkway, State Route number to be a~signe~, and going westerly 0.07 mile to the intersooticn with ~ickory Lan~ing Place, then continuing westerly 6.04 mile to the intersection with Maple Landing Placo, then turning and going northwesterly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Arbor Bank~ Court, thSD turnin~ and going northerly 0.06 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Hickory Landinq Piece, beginning at th~ i~ter~ction with Arbor Banks Terrace and going ~outhorly 0.06 ~ile to end in a cul-de-~ac~ Maple Landing Place, beginning at the intersection with Arbor Banks Terrace and going northerly 0.07 mil= to end in a cul-de-sac; and Arbor Banks Court, beginning at the intersection with Arbor Banks Terrace and going southwesterly 0.03 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This rsguest is inclusive of %he adjacent slope, sight distance and desiqeat~d Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. These roads serve 62 lots. 90-533 6/27/90 And be it further ~osolved, that the Beard ef ~upefvi~ors guaranteee to the virginia DeBarment of Transportation a 50' ~ight-of-~ay for all of these roads. This section of Arbor Landing is recorded as follows: Section 2. Blah Book 62, Pages 39-43, August 1, 1988. This day the County Envirorm%antal Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Whistlers Cove Drive and whietlers Cove Court in Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Daniel, it is resolved that Whistlers Cove Drive and Whistler~ Cove Court in Spring Trace, Section B, Matoaca District, be and they hereby are ~gtabllshsd a~ public And be i= f~rther resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is raqueste~ to take into the Secondary System, W~istlers Cove Drive, b~ginning at existing Whistlere Cove Drive, State Route 4717, and going northeasterly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Whistlers Cove Court, than eontinulnq northeasterly 0.05 mile to ~nd in a cul-~e-~ac~ and Whistlers Cove Cour=, beginning at the intersection with w~iatlers Cov~ Drive and going ~outheastorly 0.09 mile tO end This request is inclusive of ~he adjacent ~lope~ sight distance and ~eaignated Virginia Department of Transports=ion draiDag~ The~e roads serve 27 lots. And be it further resolved, t~at =he Boar~ Of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a ~0' right-of-way ~or Whistlers Cove Drive and a 40' right-of-way for Whistlers Cove Court, This section of Spring Trace is recorded as followe: Section B. ~lat Book 65, ~ag~ ~3, ~arch 6, 19g9. This day th~ County ~nuironmental Engineer, in accordane~ with dlr~ctions from this Boar~, made report in w~iting upon his examination of velvet Antler Dri~e~ Velvet Antler Circle, Velvet Antler Trail, Velvet An=let Run, Velvet Antler Court, Velvet Antler Way and Buck Rub Drive in Door Run, Se=tion 2, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereo~, and on motion of Mr+ Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Velv~ ~ntler Drive, VelVet Antler Circle, Velvet Antler Trail, Velvet Antler Run, Velvet Antler Court, Velvet Antler Way an~ Buck ~ub Drive are established as public And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Secondary System, Velvet Antler Drive, beginning at eEisting 0.1~ mile to the in=ersec~ion with Velvet An%let Circle, then easterly 0.10 mile, then turning add going northerly 0.12 ~ile 90-534 6/27/9£ to the interceotion with Velvet Antler Trail, then continuing northerly 0.13 mile to the intersection with Velvet Antler Run, then continuing northerly 0.08 mile to end at existing Velvet Antler Drive, State Route 4702; V~lv~t Antler Circle, beginning at the intersection with Velvet Antler Drive and going north- e~s%erly 0.~ mile to end in e cul-4e-sac; Velvet Antler Trail, beginning at the intersection with Velvet Antler Drive and golnq westerly 0.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Velvet Antler Run, beginning at the intersection with Velvet Antler Drive and going westerly 0.09 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Velvet Antler Court~ beginning at the intersection with Velvet Antler Drive, State Route 4702, and going southeasterly 0.10 mile to end in cul-de-sac; VelVet Antler Way, beginning et %he intersection with Velvet Antler Drive, Stat~ Route 4702, and going north- westerly O.D4 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Buck Rub Drive, beginning ak existing Buck Rub Driver State Route 4713, and going westerly 0.22 mile to tie into proposed Buck Rub Drive, Deer Kun, Section 3. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, ciqh~ distance and d~signated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easement~. Th~e roads serve 166 lots. And be it farther resolved, that the Beard of 8upervlsors guarantee~ to the Virginia Department of Transportation a right-of-way fo~ all of thece roads. Thio uuction o~ Dear Run is recorded as follows: Section ~. 91at Deck 57, Pages 42-44, June 15, 1987. Vote~ Unanimous This da~ the ~eunty EnviroD-~en%al Engineer, in accordance with dir~otion~ iron this Board, made repo~t in writing upon his examination of Franoill Drive, Francill Court and Marblethorpe Road in Forest Acres, Section D and a portion of Forest Acres, S=ction C, Clovur Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconde~ by ~r. Daniel, it is resolved that Francili Drive, Francill Court and Marblethorpe Road in Forest Acres, Section D and a portion of Forest Acres, Section C, Clover Hill District, he and they h~r~by ar~ ~etablished as pu~lis roads. An~ be it f~rther r~solved, the% ~he Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, rran¢il! Drive, beginning at the intersection with Ronaldton Road, State Route 1457, and going northerly 0.07 mile to the intersection with Fran=ill Court, ~hen continuing northerly 0.05 mile to end at the intersection with Marble- thorpe Read~ Francill Court, beginning'at the intersection with Francill Drive and going westerly 0.68 miI~ to end in a cul-de-sac; and Marbletkorpe Read, beginning at the intersec- tion with Francill Drive and going sontheasterly 0.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Again Marblethorpe Road, beginning at the intersection with Francill Drive and going westerly 0.12 mile to end in a tsmpornry turnaround. This request is inclusive of the a~jac~nt slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage These roads serve 40 lets. And be it further rosolved, tha~ the Board of Bupervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department e~ Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these reads except Francill Court which has a 40' right-of-way. 90-535 6/27/90 Section D. 19'59. Plat Book 49~ Page 55, June 3, 19B5. ~la~ Book ll~ Pages 57, 5~ and 5~, september 11, This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from %his Board, mad~ report in writing upon his examination of Harbeur Ridge Road in Harbour Ridger Clover Hill Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that ~arbonr Ridge Road in Harbour Ridge, Clover Mill Di~=riQt, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And bu it ~urther resolved, that the Virginia Department Transportation~ be ~n~ it hereby is requested to tak~ into the Secondary Sys=sm, Harbour Ridge Roa~, beginning at the inter- section with Marbour Point Road, State Route 3200', and going northerly 0.03 mile, then turning and going northwesterly 0.07 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Thig r~q~est i~ inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance end designated Virginia Department of Trunsportation druinage This road serves 17 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board Of Snpervi~or~ gaarant~es to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for this road. Harbour Ridge is recorded as follows: Plat Book 64, Page 83, December 30, 1988. 11.C.~. APP~OVA~ OF APT~.ICATIONS FOI{ GBAN'X FUNDS; F~NDS O~ ~otion of Mr. S~llivan~ u¢conded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the County Administrator to apply to the chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department for grant funds in the amount of $200,170 %O defray cea%~ to the County associated with the implementation of the new Chesapeak~ Bay Preservation Act regulations which g~ant fund~ ~nclude first year funding for three positions in the Environmental Engineering D~partment and one position in the Planning Department; authorize~ the creation of four positions [thr~ in the ~nvironmental Engineering Department and one in the Planning Department) to complete sa~d prc]eG~ contingent ~pon approval of grant funds and with the understandinq that the position~ created by this action would be reduced or eliminated if the grant amount were reduced; and which action includes $192,365 matching in-kind County contributions from FY 1990-91 previously appropriated f~nd~ for personnel (hours per week spent on the project} provided by current County staff in the Rngleeering, ~lanning and Community Development Depa~tmentm~ contingent upon approval o~ said grant and with ~he understanding that if the County does not ~ecuive thio grant, or i~ the amount is reduced, adjustments will be made witkia the program's budget so that additional County funds ar~ not required for the first year, and further that, after the first year of said program, the q0-536 6127/90 i i County will apply ~or additional funds which if net received continue or to eliminate the program. (It is noted a copy of tA~ requested Grant and County patching funds ia filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote~ Unanimou~ ll.C.2.b. VIRGINIA COMMUNITXDEV~LOP~BLOCK G~a%NT on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the ~oard authorized the County Administrator to apply to the Uirginia Co~unity Development Block Grant (CDBG} Program fo~ a FY 1990-91 Virginia Community Development Planning Grant in the ·mount of $25,000 which, iS awarded, will bs used tm undertake a housing conditions ~urv~y in the Village of ~%triek a~ well as a preliminary ~ngineering study rela=in~ to a ~rainage problem in the Village of Bttrick, with the understanding that upon approval of the grant, this action provides authority for staff to appropriate revenues and expenditures in the a~ount cf the grant amount received for said project. 11.C,2,c. HIGHWAY SAFETY GtI~IT APPSICATIO~S On motion of Mr. S~llivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, ~h~ Board authori~e~ the County Administ=atur to apply for twelve (I2) Highway Safety Grants ~rem the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, totalling $305,850, with ~he understanding that upon approval of the grant, this action provides ~uthorlty for the County Administrator to appropriate revenues and expendit~re~ in the amount of the gZant amount received ior said project; an4 authorize~ the creation of One full-time traffic analyst position to replace the present part-time analyst position. (It iS noted a copies ef the Annual Eighway Safety Questionnaires are filed with the papers of thim Board.) Vote: Unanimous 11.C.3. P~Q~ESTFOR BINGO/RAFFI~PERMI~ On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Board approved a nequeet from the Midlo~hiam Ban~ Boo,tara for a raffle permit fur calendar year 1990. on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the request of the Brandermill Board of Director~ for Mr. W. G. ~ulifant, III, of Dominion Fireworks, a division o~ Vineland ~ireworks Company, Inc., to stage a firework~ display in the Sunday Park area of ~randermilI on Wednesday, July 4, 1990, subject to all County policies and regulation~ go~rning Vote: Unanimous 11.C.4.b. Cm~ST~RFI~LD PAI~KS AND P. EC~F~ATION DEI~ART~ENT FOR C~.qTERFIE~D CO~/B]TY ~n motion of M~. Sullivan, ~c~nd~d by approved ~he requesg of the chesterfield 90-537 Daniel, the Board County ,Parks and Recreation Department to stage a fireworks display at ~he Chesterfield County Co~ptex area on Wednesday~ July 4r 1990, subject to all County policies and regulations governing s~ims. Vute: Unanimous 11.C.5. SET DATES FOR~3BLIC~a-RINGS 11.C.5.a. TO ~0N$IDER COUNTY ORDINANCES Au'rmOP~TZ~D BY Tw~ 1990 recommendation the following items: 1. {HB 639) Amendment to Section 15.1-466 that substantlally revises the SuBdivision Ordinance relating to gift lots to family members; 2. (SB 279) Amendment to Section 15.1-486.3 to require that local zoning OrdinanG~$ permit, as a matter of right, gronp homes for the handicapped for up to eight (8) mentally disabled per~ons (current limit 4). I~ exempt~ the definition of mental illn~ss; 3. (HB 6~5) Amendment to section 1~.1-499.1 which would increase the p~nalty for a civil violation of a Zoning Ordinance for cna offense from $50 to $100 with the maximum total penalty from $250 to $3,000; and (~B 1076) Provi~ion that local Zoning Ordinances must permit, as a matter Of right, mobile homes in Agricultural 5i~trlot~ $o long aS tha~ m~t ~inqle-family home development ~riteria. (Replace~ ~even-year pe~it process And further, the Board s~t ~e following da~e~ ~nd tim~, as indicated, for public hearings to consider Connty ordinances au=horized by the ~eneral Asse~ly~ 1. september 12, 1990, at 7:00 p.m., tu consider: (CB 160) - bodies to increase their audit fee for bingos and raffles 348, SB 132~ - ~endmen= to Sectiun 46.1-752 allowing 3. Sep~e~er 1~, 1990, ~t 7:00 p.m~ %o consider (HB 169) - establish a separate tangible p~rsonal property rate for meale =o the elderly or disabled; 4. september 26, 1990, at 9:00 a.m., to consider {H~ 74) - Amen~ent to S~ction 14.1-133.2 to allow any County to 1991; 5. October 10, 1990, ak 7:00 p.m., %o consider (HB 753) Section 4-96 authorlz~s the County to prohibit ~ public parks Or playgro~nd~ or p~blic ~tre~:s; 90-53~ 6/27/90 Section 15.1-133.01:1 allows the County to adopt an ordinance providing that Polise Departments may destroy or render inoperable any unclaimed firearm after ~ixty (60) days from which the Police Department has obtained pez~ezzion of the firearm~ and 7. October 10, 1990, at ?:00 p.m., to consider (HB 7901 Expansion of the ~xisting requirements for smoke detectors in ocr%sin building~ to allow amendment of local ordinances to require the installation of smoke detectors in buildi~g~ with fewer than fo~ dwelling unit~ which were not in compliance cn July 1, 1984. Vote: Unanimou~ ll,~.5.b. TO ~-ONEIDER AN O~DINANCE ~ELATING TO T~ TIO~ OF. ~H~ STATE on motion of ~r. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Daniel, ~he ~oard set the date of July 25, 1990, at 9:00 a.m., ~cr a public hearing to uoneider an ordinance to amend the code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as an~ended, relating to the incorporation of the S~ate motor vekicl~ laws in~o the County Cede. 11.C.6. FYg0 SCHOOL BOARD GPu%NT YEAR-END On motlo~ o% Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Bcald approved ~Yg0 School Board Grant year-end adjustments and appropriations an~ increased School revenues as indicated in the followlng c~tegorles and amounts: FYg0 Preschool Handicapped Incentive Grant - Increased estimate~ Federal revenue and appropriations by $97,S75 making the total FYg0 Preschool Inc~ntiv~ Grant Award $115,~75; and F~90 Grant Administration - Appropriated estimated expenditure~ by a like amount for this grant. Vot~: Unanimous · Ii.I. PURCHASE OF 5.5 AC~S OF LAND ADJACENT TO There was discussion relative ~o =he necessity for aoquiriag the 5.5 + t~aet of land adjacent to the Che~ter Landfill for constraints promptinq action at this time; discussions with the property owners relative to the purchase of said propergy and the offered ~rice; alternatives available to the Count~ if the Camdens do not agree to the purchase price~ etc. Mr. Mayes expressed concern regarding the potential use of eminent domain procedures to acquire the subjeut property and that this particular tract of land was not included in the original purchase of land for renovations of the Chester Landfill. Mr. Appl~gat~ stated he had visited/inspected the ~ubject landfill and felt prompt action was necessary at this time. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Hoard approved the purchase of a 5.5 + acre~ (Camden tract) of ladd adjacent to the Chester Landfill at a price net to exceed 90-539 6/27/90 $11,000 with funds fo be reallecat~d within the sanitation budget; authorized the COUnty Administrator to execute ~he necessary documents for said purchase~ and if the offer were not a0oepted, authorized th~ County Attorney to proc~e~ with ~minent domain o~ an emergency basis and exercise immediafe right of entry pursuant to Section 1B.1-235.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1~5o, aa amended and that the County AdministratOr be instructed to notify the owner by certified mail on July 6, 1990 of the County's intention to take possession of the Ayes: Mr. Currln, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Daniel. Abstentien~ Mr. Mayas. approved the cost for a ~re~t light in~a!lation at Stilton Cour~ cul-de-sac wi~h ~unds in ~he ~o~nt Of $9~2.00 ~o be Vets: Umanimous surest lights. ll.D.~. STREET LIGHT I~O~U~ST on motion of Mr. Sullivan, s~cond~d by Zr. Applegate, the Board approved obtaining oost estimates for the installation o9 a street light at th~ ~cce~$ ~riveway to the ~arking 10~ of Sycamore Presbyterian Church on Coalfield Road in the Midlothian District. 11.D.~. TRAW~I~ SIGTIAL STUDY ON ~EFFE[~)N DAVIS ~IGH~AY AT T~FE. WAY ~OuS~ On motie~ of Mr, curzin, sec0ndud by ~r. Agplegata, the Bonrd adopted the following resolution: WME~AS, The Chesterfield County Boar~ of reueived requests from citizens to install a traffic signal at Wondervlew Drive (Route NO~, T~EREFOR~ B~ IT ~©~V~D, that the Virginia DepaT~ment Of Transportation is requested to perform a traffic signal study at thi~ intersection and install a signal if warranted. 11.D.4. CHI~$TER VILLAGE LANDSCAPING ~aOJECT On motion cf ~r. Ceftin, ~eoon~ed by Mr. Sullivan, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Route 10 ~rou~h the Village of Chester is being widened to a four lane facility; and WHE~AS, Th~ Kiwanis Club cZ Ch~ste~ is planning a landscaping project to enhance the quality of life in the Village. NOW, THEREFOR~ BE IT i%ESOLV~D, that the Board cf ~uparvi~o~ approp~iah~ $3,000 for the project from the Bermuda Dimtrict Thres Cent Road Fund. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Eoard intends to provide an a~dition~l $3,000 in F? 1990-9I ~nd $3,000 in FY 1991-92 from the Bermuda District Three Cent Road Fund for the project. Vote: Unanimous 11.D.5. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF F~)E~AL HOUSING TAX CREDITS FOR PRICE CLUB BOOI, EVAP, D A.P~%.RTliEI~E~ Diseussion~ questions and comments ensued relative to the ramifications of ~1~ County's involvement in supporting Federal ho~sing tax cfadit~ the responsibility of th~ pri~ate sector for raising its own eapi%al for such developments; dsferral of tbs matter in order to obtain additional backgronnd informa- tieD; etc. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the ~eard dafezred until July 25, 1990, at 9:00 a.m., cons~deratlon of a r=uotution authorizing th~ County Administra%ox to convey ~e th9 Virginia ~o~si~g Development Authority Chesterfield County's support of an allocation o£ Federal housing tax credits for the Price Club Boulevard Apartment~ located on Price Club Drive. ll.E. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT TT~{~ (COntinued) ll.E.2. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HFJkRING TO CONSIDER A~TBORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UTILITIES On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate~ set the date of July hearing ~o considsr authorizing the Revenu~ Bonds totalling $10,766,800. the Board for a public of Utilities ii.E.3. CONSENT IT~ ll.E.3.a. R~EST FROM MR. AND MRS. BERTON V. K1A%M~T0 ~C~OAC~ ON~kN ~XISTING 25 FOOT S~WE~EAS~NX ON LOT 10, SRCTION ~t SPXltNA~ERCO~I~ M~OBDIVIBION On motion of ~r. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved a request from Mr, and Mrs, Bar%on V. Kramer for pe~mis~ion for portion~ of a deck to encroach on an existing 2~ foot sewer easemen~ on Lo% i0, Section 2, spinnaker Cove Subdivi~ion~ subjec~ t~ the execution of a license agr~e~ent~ with thm understanding that they be rmsponsibl~ for any damage don~ to the structure if it interfere~ with County maintenanc~ of the ~acilitle~ prssmntly located in the easement an~ any future facilitie~ the County sass fit to install in the ea~ent. (A cody o~ said 91at iz filed with the papers of this Board.) ll.E.3.b. APpROVAi~ OF AN' AGi%EF_~ms~T WITH VIRGINIA DEPAI~I~9~T OF Ti~ANSI~)RTATI(~ F0K UTILITIES ALONG On motion of Mr, Applegate~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board 90-541 6/27/90 epproved an Agreement between chesterfield County and the Virginia Department of Transportation for the £nstallation of water and sanitary sewer lines along Route 10 between Cosby~s Lake and Route 288 (Project $89-O811) and authorired the County AdminiStratOr to executs the necessary doeument~ on behalf of the County for said Agreement. (It is noted funds for this project are appropriated in =he current Capital Improvement ll.E.].c. CO~¥A~Cl OF ~ ~'1~ TO ~I~GXNIA ELECTRIC A%ND MIDD~ ~CH00L On motion ei Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the soard ~ower Company for the installatio~ of overhead lines within a conjunction with the widening of acute 60 by the virginia Depart/cent of Transportation. (It is noted a copy of said plat is filed wi~h the papers of this Board.) Ve~e: Unanimous ACCEPTANC~ OF DEEDS OF D~DICATIOI~= ALONG ~u,-L STKEETROADPROMLERASSOCIATES On motion of ~r. ADplegate, SecOnded by Mr. Daniel, the Board accept on behalf of the County th~ ~onveyanee of a varlabl~ width strip of lan~ along Hull Street R~ad from LER A~sooiate~ A Virginia General ~axtnership and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary d~ed of dedication. (A copy of ~ald plat is filed with tke papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous 11.E.3.d.2. FOE W17,D~DSE DRIVE AND OTTERDALE ROAD IN SO~iER- ~TTJ.R, SECTION 3 FROM ~O~M4EIi~ILL~ CORPORATION . On motion of Mr. Ap~l~gate, .seconded by Nr. Daniel, the Boar~ accepted on behalf of ~h~ County th~ conveyance of 1.9~9 acres being ~e right of way for Wyldrose Drive and O~terdaI~ Road and authorized the County A~inistrator to execute the neceusa~ deed of dedication. (A copy of said p!a~ is filed CO/%PORATXON On mo%ion of ~r. applega=e, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the ~card accepted on behalf of the County the conveyance of a 0.401 ecr~ parcel of land west of Wyldrose D~ive from Sommerville Develop- ment Corporation, A Virginia Corporation and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed u~ dedication. (A copy of said. plat is £ile~ with the papers of this ~oardl)' 90-542 6/27/90 On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Bani~l~ th~ Board accepted on behalf of the county ths conveyance of a 0.189 acre par~l of land along Senito Road from Mr. Brye~ ~, Given and M~. Barbara N. Given and autherlsed the County Adm±ni~trator to ~xe~ute the necessary deed of d~dication. (A ~opy oi said pla% f~ filed with the papers of thi~ Board.) Vote~ Unanimna~ ll.B.4. REPORTS Mr. Sale presented the Board with a report on ~he developer wa~er and sewer ~on%rac~s executed by t~e County Admlnls:rat:r. tl.F. ~r. ~u~ ~e~nted th~ Beard with ~ s~a~us report on G~neral Fund Contingency A¢oonnt, Gene~eI Fund Balance, Re~erv~ for Futur~ Capital ~rojocts, District Road and Street Light Funds, Lease Purchames, School Board Aqenda, and th~ Board's It was noted that a~ the Jun~ 13, 1990 meeting, the Board June 27, 1~0 fo consider the l~a~e of spac~ at the Ai~port to Air Chesterfield, Inc.~ howsver, this wa~ not ~uffieient time to properly advertise the public hearing and same has been advertised for July 2~, 1990 at 9:60 Mr. Ramsey stated the Virginia D~partment of Transportation has formally notified the COunty o~ the acceptance of the following roads into the State secondary System: ROCKW00D PAFJ< (~ffectivs 6/13/90) Route 744 - From Route 366 to 0.29 mile North Route 360. R6~ '2~98 (~affron Lane} - From 0.01 mile Bast Route 2499 to Rou~e 4950. kout~ 4590 (~orlanya Drive) - From 0.08 mile North Rout~ 2498 to 0.11 mile Ea~ Ro~te 2~95. 0.08 Mi. 0.19 Mi. TIMBEPJ~ZLL (Effective 6/13/90) Route 4360 (?imb~r Trail D~ive) - F~om Route 654 to 0.06 mile We~t Koute 4363. Route 4361 (Campbellridge Drive) - From Route 4560 to 0.04 m~le Northeast Rout~ 4362. Route 4362 {camDbsllr~dge Court) - From Route 4361 to 0.05 mile Northwest ~oute 4361. Rout~ 4363 {Timber Trail Court) - From Route 4360 ~o 0.04 mile North Route %360. 0.I7 Mi. 0.09 Mi. 0.05 Mi. 0.04 Mi. 6127/90 On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegat~, the Board adjourned at 7:30 p.m. {DST) until 9:00 a.m. (DST) on July 2~, 1990. County C. F. Currxn, Jr Chairman 90-544 6/27/90