08-22-90 MinutesBOARD OF SUi~R~I-~ORS
AUGUST 22, 1990
Hr. ¢. ~. Gurrin, Jr., Chairman
Mr. M. B. Sullivan, Vice Chairman
Mr. G. H. Applegate
Mr, ~arry ~. Daniel
Mr. Jesse J. Mayas
MS. Lane B. R~usey
County Administrator
scarf in ACcedence:
Asst. tm Co. Admin.
A~t. Co. Ad, in.,
Legis. Svcs. and
MS. Joan Delaval,
Clerk to the Board
Fire Department
Deputy Co, Admin.,
Mr. Robert Euebner,
Empleyea Relations and
Development A~min.
bix. of
Ms. Mary Leu Lyle,
Dir. of Accounting
Mr. Robert ~a~den,
Deputy C~. Admin.,
~uman Services
Transp. Director
Mr. Richard
Dir. of Env. Eng.
Mr. Steve M~ces, Co.
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir. of Kew$/Info.
Services
Mr. William D.
Chief, Development
Review, Planning
Deputy Ce.
Dir. of Budget
Mr. M. D. Stith,
Dir. of ~arks & Rec.
Mr. David Welchcns,
Dir. of Utilities
Mi. Currin aalled the regularly scheduled meeting to crier in
the ~oard Aoem at 9:10 a.m. (DST).
1. INVOCATION
Mr. Currin introduced Chief Robert L. Eane~, Jr., Fire Depart-
ment, who gave the invocation.
~. PL~DC4~ OF ALLF~IA~CE TO -£~ FSA~ OF ~ UNITED STATES OF
Mr. William W. Davenport~ Commonwealth's Attorney, led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag o~ the United States of
90-602 8/22/90
On motion of Mr. Sullivan, ~econdsd by ~r. ADDlegate, the Board
approved the minutes of July 25, 199~, as submitted.
Vote: Unanimou~
4. COJI~YADM~NISTI~%TOR"S CO]~F~I~TS
~r. Rameey announced that Mr. Jesse J. Mayas, Matoaca District
Supervisor, was reappointed to the Educatio~ Advisory Committee
of the Virqinia Council of Information Management, which
men%ber~ are appointed b~ Gov~rno~ Wil~er.
Mr. Ramsay ~tated Ch~t~rfi~t~ County receive~ several awards
for Outstanding Programs at the recent National Association of
Counties annual conference, which awards wore presented to the
following ~ndividuals:
Director of Planning
Mr. Willia~ Davenport,
Commonwealth's A~torney and
Mr. Glen Paterson, Program
Director, Community DiYe~sion
Judy Beach, Nursing Home
Chief Robert L. genes, Jr.
Mr. Jamco J. L. stegmaier
Nrs. ~auline A. ~itchelt
Mr. Carrie and Mr. Ramsay
~illaqe Planning for Eistoric
Communities and 14-Hour Zoning
Information ~stem;
Pre-Trial Release Programs;
Long-Term Care Su~eommitto~ for
Fire Safety Training video;
Determining the Cost of Capital
Facilities Related to Growth and
Committee on tho Puture;
Award of Excellence f~om the
Information Officers.
¢o~ended all the recipients of
awards for their outstanding achievements, recognized staff and
Dr, Freddie W. Nioholast Sr. and Mrs. Mershal~ Crandall,
member$ of the C~ittee On ~he Future, who w~r= present and
congratulated ~rs. Mitchell upon her re-election as the
Mid-e~tern Regional Director for the National Association of
Counties Information Officers.
Mr. Daniel reported he atbenOe~ the Capital Keqion Airport
CoK~iusiOn (CRAC) meeting ut which it was reported that cargo
traffic is continuing to increase and which operation overall
is proceeding very well; attended the Richmond Regional
Planning District Commission (RRPDC) meeting at which a report
wa~ r~caivud from the Taxi Committee which oontained
significant and pouitive recommsndmtions to improve/coordinate
taxi eervice in the MetrOpolitan area and which ~eport was
endorsed by the RRPDC and elevated to the statue of a Taxi
Advisory Boar~ tO coordinate all r~gienal aetivities~ visited
Governor Wilder's office with the Virginia Association of
Counties (VACo) to lobby for localitiee in seeking relief from
the $1.4 million shortfall for the 1990-92 Biennium which
shortfall will significantly impaot existing local budgets; and
90-603 B/22/90
attended the Virginia Association of Counties Board of
Directors' meeting ut which there was d~scusslon among
State-wide locality leaders regarding the potential for the
lOSS of funding on programs and the how tko impact of such
losmes wilt effect each locality,
Mr, Mayes reported he attended the Civilian mhd Military
Advisory Council for Fort ~oe, sponsored by the Petersburg
Army Survey Committee present te discuss a potential site fur
th~ new Defense Com/~issary Agency, one of which is Fort Lee and
the other is Fort Sa~ Houston and which will provide
significant employment for the area selected; and attended the
Council on Information Management to the virginia Council of
Information Management to which h~ was reappointed, which he
noted Chesterfield County il the only county within the State
to be represented on said committee and expressed appreciation
for the opportunity to serve on the Council which he felt an
honor.
Mr. sullivan reported he attended the Recycling Committee whish
he felt is progressing very well at this point and anticipates
will be on schedule to meet both the State and County mandates;
attended the Budget Committee meeting which plans to not only
review very curly on the upcoming budget bu~ also the current
budget; noted that curr~nt budget projections are accurate and
on target and that the Committee is continuing ~ts efforts to
keep abreast of all on~qoing activities.
Mr. Currin reported that he attended the Capital Area Training
Consortium; attended with Mr. Ramsey the Metropolitan Richmond
Convention and Visitors Bureau {CONTOUR) at which Ms. Ann
Anderson was elected President for the upcoming year; continued
his visits to County Fire Departments and observed the
Bensley/BurmUda Emergency Medical services and Fire Department
operations; attended with Mr. ~ullivan several meeting~ to
discuss/support the impact fee bill being sponsored by Senator
Robert E. Russell at the General Assembly; attended a financing
infrastructure conference in PortlSnd~ oreqon which
precipitated an invitation te several of the conference
speakers to address th~ Board with information it is felt
critical to the County's future regarding financing cf the
infrastructure; and stated the Board anticipates conductinq a
work session on AUguSt 29, 1990, from 12:30 9.m. ~o 4:30 p.m.,
at which it is expected there will be attendanc~ of individuals
involved in/concerned wi~h growth issues in the County.
recelv~d a revig~d copy of Item 9.B., Authorization to Exercise
Eminent Domain to Acquire an Easement ~or the Cheste~
~rojec~ from ~r, add Mrs, Joseph Perger~on; added a copy of
plat to existing Item 10.B., Public Hearinq to Consider the
Donation to the Fores= View Volunteer Rescue Squad of an
Irregular Shaped Pa~ceI~ slightly Less Than One Acre in size,
Fire Station, Between th~ Fire Station and the site NOW
Occupfe~ By Contel Cellular; moved out of sequence Item
Executive Session Pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a} ~7~ of the Code
of Virginia, 1950, am ~sn~e~, for Comau!re=ion wi%h
Counsel R~arding Probable Litigation Involving
Condonation of Property Owned by J. J. Jewe~t, to be held
prior to recessing for Item E., Lunch at J~hn Howl~tt'~ Tavern~
and adopted the agenda, as
Vote: Unan~OuS
90-604 8/22/90
On motion of 5h~ Board, khe following z~so~ution was
W~Ag~ Dr. F~eddi~ Warren Nicholas, Sr. Ass been an
~mportant member of the Chesterfield County co--unity,
~eginning during klm undergraduate days at Virginia State
Universit~ where ke qraduat~d in 1965, where he received
Master's Degree in 1970 at age 44 and where he served as an
associate professor; and
WHE~AS, Dr. Nicholaz c~e to Chester a~ Executive Vice
~re~id~nt of John 9yl~r Co--unity Colt~ge in 197~ and
the Presidency in 1979; and
W~E~S, Dr. Nicholas has seen that College grow and
expand to include branches in Mid/othian and Fort Le~; and
W~E~AS, Dr. Nicholas provided ~trong leadership during a
t~e when the Coll~ge was devastated by a fir~--y~t w~s able
by creative alternate solution~ ko ~he myriad problems facing
the college~
W~E~AS, Dr. Wiuholas has been an outstanding and
attractive role model for countle$$ young people with whom
has come in contact; and
WHE~AS~ Dr. Nichola~ has ~erved with ~i~i~n~
Ch~sterfie%~ Cou,~y in n~rous civic and co,unity
orqanizations, including Vice Chairman of ~e Chester YMCA,
member of the Appomatto~ Scenic River Advisozy Co~i~ee
appointed by the Governor; m~ber of the ChesteTfield County
Co~ittee on the Futnr~; m~mber of thm Civic and Political
Action Association of the Matoaoa ~aglsterlal District;
association~ and professional affiliations.
NOW~ T~E~PO~ BE IT ~SOLVED~ that the Chesterfield
County ~oar~ of Supervisors does hereb~ wish Dr. Freddie Warren
Nicholas, Sr. a long, happy and healehy retirement from his
challenging ca=eer as an educe%or an~ much ~uccess ~n h~a new
role as muter of the Board of Visitors of the University
Virqinia.
~r. Mayes and Mr. K~ssy presented the ex~cuted re~ol~tion
Dr. Nicholas, co--ended him for hi~ ~rong leadmrskip and
dedicated service dur~n~ hie ten~re at John Tyler Co,unity
College and to his =o~unlty and wished him well in his future
7.~. MS. G~ORGI~ &. CA~pS ~'PON P~TIREM~NT~
On motion ~ th~ Boar~, ~ ~ollowln~ re~oln~ion ~
W~EREAS, Mrs. Georqi~ A, Cap~s will retire irum
Accounting Depar~nt, Chesterfield County, on October 1, 1990;
and
W~EREAS, ~rs, Capp~ has provided twenty-feur year~
q~ality service to the citizens of Ch~s=erfie!d County~ and
90-605 8/22/90
will mi~ Mrs. Capp~' diligeut zervice? and
W~R~AS, M~e. Capps has been ~eapensible for proceaslng
payroll for all County employees for app~oxLmaf~ly twenty of
her tweaty-four years with the Court=y, including supervising
the Payroll Section since 197~ and
~EREAS~ Mrs, Capps wac instrumuntal in the installation
of ~he County's existing mainframe payroll system which beca~o
operational on January 1, 1979. Th~ project wa~ completed in
four and a half months, approximately one-half of the
recommended project length, with minimal p~ohl~m~,
demonstrating the quality of her work; and
WHEP~AS, Dealing with ~ployees' paychecks r~quires a rare
co~itment to accuracy and meeting deadlines and Mrs. Capps has
me= ~he ~eman~s placed on her through he~ dedication and
manag~ent, her co-worker~ in Accounting and employees in other
manner in which ~h~ ha~ handled her 90b responsibilities; and
W~B~AS, Mrs. Capp$ has consistently performed in ~
e~emplary manner that was recognized in 1979 when she was
hono~d a~ the County's Employ~-of-~he-Year.
NOW~ THEREFO~ BE IT ~8OL~D~ that the ~hesterfield
County ~oard of Supervisors publicly recognizes ~rs. Georgle A.
Capp~ and extend~ On behalf of ~ts me~efs and the eitizen~ of
Ckesierfimld County their appreciation for hex service tu the
County.
~D, BE IT FURTheR ~SOLVED, that a copy of this
re~olution be pre~nt~d to Mtg. Capp~ and that ~i~ r~solu=ion
be pe~anently recorded among the paper~ of this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfi~l~ County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Currin and Mr. a~sey presented the e~ecu~ed resolution to
MS. C~pp$, CQ~eD~ her for h~ oo~$tanding, dmdicated service
to the Connty, recognized f~ily, friend~ and coworkers who
7.C. ~COGN~zING AO~U~T 7 - $~T~R 3, 1990 AS "NATIONAL JOB
TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT ALUMNI ~EEK"
On motion of the 5card, the following resolution was adopted~
WH~P~EAS, The federally funded Job Training Partnerohip Ae~
(JT~A} is an effective progra~ for assisting school dropouts,
welfare rscipients~ unskilled adults, dislocated workers,
v~teran~ and others who face serious barriers to employment;
and
the press and our community ~hould he informed of the positive
impact STPA has on t_he liv~g of our f~llow citizens~ add
WHE~AS, All of th~ partner~ in the JPTA system (federal,
comn%unlty-based organizations and service providers) must
assume an active role in e~fectively communicating the sucoes~
of the program; and
W~E~EAS, JTBA Alumni (individuals who have successiully
9~-606 8/22/90
employment and are now productive members of our co--unity are
~h9 b~t a~vQ~a~e~ for the program; and
of Supervisors to officially recognize the achievements of JTPA
NGW, TH~Pd~FQRE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board o~ Supervisorg does hereby pro¢lai~ A~gusk 27 -
September 3, 1990 as "National Job Training Partnership Ac~
Alum%hi Week."
AND, BE IT FURTHER R~gOSV~D, that t~e Chesterfield County
Bosrd of Supervisors ham oaumed the seal of Chesterfield County
to b~ affixed this 22nd day of August 1990.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Cur~in presented ~ke executed remolution to Ms. Rosalyn
Key~ Executiv~ DirectoT of the Capital Area Training
Consortium, an~ expressed appreciation for s~rvice~ provided by
the Jot Training Partnership Act in assimtinq theme who face
serious barriers to employment.
On motion of the Board, ~he following ~e~olution was adopted:
W~EREA$, The ~oy Scouts of America Was incorporated by Mr.
William D. Boyce on February @, 1910; and
W~=R=AS, The ~oy Scouts of America was founded to promote
citizenship training, personal d~velop~ent ~ £1tness of
individuals; and
WEEREAS, After earning at least twenty-one merit badges in
a wide variety of fields~ serving in a leadership position in a
troop, carrying out a service project beneficial to his
co~unity, being active in the troop, demonstrating
spirit and living up to the Scout Oath and Law~ and
WHEREAS, Mr. Scott D. ROSe, St. Luke's United Methodist
Church, Troop 874, has accomplished those high standards of
commitment and has reached the tong-sought goat of Eagle Scout
whist is received by les~ than two percent of those individuals
~ntarlng the Scouting movement; and
W~EREAS~ Growing through his experiencez in SCOUting,
learning %he lessons of responsible citizenship an~ priding
him~elf on the great accemplishment~ of hi~ COUnty, Scott
of whom we can all be very proud.
NOW, TH~FO~ BE IT ~S'OLVED~"--that the Chesterfield
County to have such an outstanding young man a~ one of
co~ended him ~or his out,tending achiev~ent, recognized
7.E. B~NSL~¥ AT~T,RTtCASS~CIATION FOR ~ONTRTBUTION$ FOR
I~IPRO%qD~ENTS TO BE~SI~YCO~ITYBUILDIN6
On motion of the Board, the Board accepted a donatien totalliag
90-607
$5,500 for the Parks and Recreation Department from the Bensley
Athletic A~ociation ($2,5~0 for a heating/cooling zystem and
$3,000 for the purchase of chairs, tables and a sound
fur the new Commu~it~ building) and adopted the following
WH=R~AS~ The Bensley Athletic Association constantly works
to benefit the children of Chesterfield County by providing
year-round Sports leagues~ and
additional ~ays to benefit chesterfield County and its
citizens; and
WHEREAS, The Association provided the fund~ necessary to
cQn~truet th~ Benslsy Community Building, which opened July
21~t as ~h~ County's first public conlmunlty building; and
$2,500 for air-uondi~ioning and $~,000 for table~, chairs and
purchases will make the building com~ortable for gatherings
Chesterfield citizen~; and
sincere appreciation and gratitude To the Bentley
Association for its overwhelming civic-mlndedne~ and co~nity
NOW, THE~FO~ BE IT ~SOLVED~ that %he Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes and heartily
co~end~ the Bentley A~hle%ic A~sociation for its contributiOnS
for %he Bensley Co,unity ~uilding.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Currin presented ~ executed :e~olution to ~a. Kitty
Belcher, representing the Bensley Athletic A~soclaticn, and
~hll =nni~ of the Parks and Reoreation Dep~r~ent, and
COlluded the active support and diligent ~ffor~ of those
involved for their con%ributions toward the improvements %o the
Sensley Co--unity Ruilding.
9. D~F~D ITemS
PUBLIC H~AP~ING TO ~ONSIDER.AN ORDINA~C~ TO A~END S~"TION
AMENDED, B~ A~E~DII~G ~ECTION 20~6~ I~ELATING TO ~EQUIt~D
Mr. ~icas stated that at the July 2~, I990 meeting, the Board
deferred the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending
the County Coda relating to required use of the County
WaStewater System and directed staff to draft additional
language. He stated staff ha~ drafted additional languaq~ to
the amendment requiring the developer to contract with the
County to connect to the County's was%ewnter systems when any
of the four n~c~ssary c0nditlon~, as outlined in the ~g~nda
paper, for the variance ne lonqer
Mr. George Beadles~ a Mntcace resident~ stated he fait the
ordinance had been improved~ however, ~uggested that a system
of checks' and balances be provided to prevent any future
developers comply with requirements as they proceed with their
dcvelop~ent~.
Mr. David Warriner, representing Mr. ~zl Cattle, skated the
the proposed ordinance, including the amendment~ is acceptable
to his client and expressed appreclatlos for the opportunity to
develop th~ subject property.
Mr. Mayas raised que~tien~ rnqarding clarification oi the
intended Life o£ the faoility, limitation of r~hs proposed use
on the ~ite~ the County's role of responsibility for correcting
£~iled septic systems, etc., and Stated he felt the Board was
setting a precedent that would only result in more of th~ ~ame
~ypes of problems being considered in the future if it were to
approve the subject request in its present ~orm.
Mr. Daniel suggested the prcrposed ordinance be modified to
require that the D'irector of Uti~itles may recommend a variance
~ub~ect to approval of the Board of Supervisors as opposed
that portion of the lang,&ge as writte~ in the proposed
ordinance.
Mr. Daniel moved a~proval of the following ordinance:
AN O~DINANCE TO A~ND ~CTION
0~ ~ COD~ OF 'g. Rl:- COUN'I"/' OF C~EST~RFIELD, 1978,
BE IT ORDAI~D by ihs Buard of Supervisors of Chesterfield
Sec. 20-63. Required uae o9 count~ wa~tewater System.
Any individual structure for which a building permit has
been obtained after the ~ffe¢~iv~ d~tu of this Article and
which is within two hundred (200} feet of a gravity wastewa~er
Director of Utilities may re~o~en~ a variance fr~ this
r~irement to the Ro~r~ of ~upervisors after makizg a wri=ten
finding that: (1) a ~eptic system can serve ~hs property
consls~ent with ~e requirements set for=h in Ar=isle xI,
seq. of this Chapter, (2) the use of public sewerage for the
property is physically impracticmble, (3) the property owner
has submitted a r~port from a sell scientist to the
Department that the ~eptic syst~ will provid~ ~equ~te
wautewa~er disposal for ~he intended llfe of the facility (4}
a septic system to serve the property is not reasonably likely
future; and (~) the developer of the structure ha~ ~ntered into
a contract wi~ th= County obtiqating him and his successors in
Director's findings.
Any variance granted from the roquir~men~ of this S~ction
~hall terminate when one or more of the condi~ios~
for granting the varianc~ e~a$~' to ekist~ and thm'
shall connect to the County wa~t~wate~ ~stem piom~tly upon
would be regulated by the pe~itting process of the Health
for the use of septic systems in accordance with th~
90-609 8/22/B0
performance standards; whether or not there ar~ ~imilsx
requirements for public water; etc.
Hr, Hayes sta~ed he did not feel there wes sufficient
clarification and/or answers to his questions to warrant
approv~ and that he coul~ not support the request
~ubmitted~ Mr. Daniel stated he felt modifying the proposed
ordinance to place final responsibility On the Board of
Supervisor~ would protect the public as well as th~ rights of
the individual develeper~ would be considered based on the
merits cf the reguest.
After further discussion, Mr. Daniel r~$tated his
seconded by Mr. sullivan, to approve the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO A~END MECTIO~ 20-63
OF Tu~ (~ODE OF T~ COUNTY OF unnSTE~IELD, 117M,
~LATING TO P~QUIRED USE OF COUNTY WASTEWATER SXSTEM
B~ IT 0RDAIN~D by the Deard of Supervi$or~ of Chesterfield
County that the Code of the Count~ of Chesterfield, 1978, as
amended, is amended, by amending Sectio~ 20-63 as follows:
~uy individual structure for which a building permit has
been ~btaincd after the effective date of this Articl~ and
which is within two hundred (2OO) ~eet ufa gravity wastewater
service shall connect to the county wastewater system. The
Director of Utilities may recommend a variance from t-his
requirement to the Board of Supervisors after making a written
finding that~ (1) a ~eptic system can ser~e the proDert~
consistent with the requirements set forth in Article XI, et.
seq. of this Chapter, (2) the use cf public sewerage for
property is physically impracticable, (3) the prop~rty owner
has submitted a report from a soil scientist to the Health
Department d~mon~trating to the satisfaction Of the Health
Department that the s~ptic system will provid~ adequate
wastewater disposal for the intended life of the facility (4}
the Health Department has certified in writing that the use of
a septic system to serve the property ia not reasonably likely
to adversely affect the public health, ~afety or welfare in the
future; and (5) the d~veloper of the structure has entered into
a contract with the County obligating him and his succeeeor~ in
i~terest to connect the structure to the County waetewater
$~ste~ at any time~ after the Director of Utilities makes
written funding that one Qr more cf the conditions necessary
for granting the variance no longer eximt. Th~ Board of
Supervlaera may grant a variance only if it concurs with the
Director's findings.
Any variance granted from the requirement of this Section
shall terminate when one or more of the condition~ necessary
for granting the variance cease to exist, and the ~tructure
shall connect to the County wastewater system promptly upon
Ayes: Mr. Currin, ~r. Sullivan, ~r. Applegate and Nr. Daniel.
Nays: ~r.
9.B. AUT~OkTZAT~ON TO E~ERCI$~EMINENT~3kINTO ACQUIP~ AN
KAS~4~PFOR THE CHESTERLANDFILLPROJECTFROMMR. AND
Mr. Hamms= stated a~ ~he July 25, 1990 meeting, the ~oard
deferred for 30 days consideration of a request for authoriza-
tion to exercise eminent domain to acquire an easement Ior the
Chester Landfill Preject from Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Pergerson.
He noted mtaff met with ~r. Pergerson on August 21~ 1990 =c
discus~ this particular acquisition as well a~ various
alternatives, indicated te ~r. Perger~on that the
~ngress/egrsss to his propeYty would be prot~cted~
they were unable to come to an agreement. When asked, Mr.
HeaL, er ezplained that Mr. Pergerson indicated tentative
contracts on the subject property had been offered in the
amount of $65,000 which equated to $6,500 per acre and Co~D%y
staff indicated they would be willing to meet that price per
acre for the ~mount cf property the County needed (3/4 of an
acre) which would yield a offer of $5,880 for the property
which is above the $3,&20 previously offered. ~e further
stated that if Mr. ~ergerson were to decide not to accept the
offer, the Board could authorize the County Attorney to
exercise eminent domain for =he acquisition of a drainage
easement across the property of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Pergerson.
Discussion, questions and co~ents enCue~ relative to the
variation in ~he amount offered for the purchase of the
property; whether or not staff con$ide~s~ ~he ~pact of the
easement to the value of Mr. Perqermon'5 ~roperty; how the
mwale would affect ingress/egress as well as the aesthetic
appearance of his property; the amount of expenses to be
incurred to proceed with legal aution versus purchasing the
~r. Daniel mtatsd he felt the $5~00/$6,000 offer was
appropriate; that additional time should be permitted Mr.
Pergerson to consider the offer; and, if he did not accept th~
offer, then staff sheuld proceed with eminent domain. Mr.
~ayes expressed concern that if the County were to proae~d with
eminent domain, Mr. Pergerson would have to incur a financial
b~rden to hire an attorney to represent him and he did not feel
that was fair. Mr. Sullivan stated he felt thi~ wa~ a health
and safety issue; that it appeared a fair prkce had been
off,red and was consistent with t~a% offered by a privat~
source; and if' the matter could inot be' resolved then he
suggested it b~ deferred.
WTu~n asked, Mr. ~ammer explained there is trash on Mr.
Perqerson's p~operty~ however, the lan~filI ha~ not
onto ~he property and reitera=e~ the alternatives staff had
suggested to Mr. P~rger~on to correct th~ ~xi$%ing situation
and at the s~e %fmc protect his ~roperty.
Mr. Perg~r$on ~ta~u~ he felt he had not be~n.treatsd fairly by
the Coon%y; that he feels the County i$ aware tha~ ~h~ County
has encroached on~o hi~ ~rop6rty but has never offered
because he is ~n the process of selling his property and has a
DOtantlal contract, thc County has some forth with this offer;
that he feel9 the county should bear the burden of whatever it
cOutu to cleanup the property,.~tQ.
Mr. Sullivan mad~ a motion %hat the Board apprQve authorization
to uxercis~ eminent domain with the under,tending ~at if Mr.
Perger~on has a substantiated Offer of $5,Q00 for hi~ proper~y~
onto his property and be prepared to handle whatever r~edies
Mr. Mayas st~te~ he felt an independent ~terminat~on needed to
deracination an~ ~r. Fer~er~on should hav~ ~a opportunity to
be included in that process ~f ~ ~eleotion of the engineer to
perform the work. Mr. sullivan stated hs felt that if there
any way the County can assist Mr. Pergerson =hat it ~houl~,
hot'ever, he did not feel it was within the purview of
to select whomever i~ to make the dete~ination a~ it would
place th~ County in an adversarial position. Mr. Mayas
9G-611 8/22/90
~xprmmmed conemrn rmlativm to th~ ug~ of thm mminent domain
procedure and the linen=iai burden that would result for Mr.
After further discussion, Mr. Sullivan restated his motion =o
a~thorise the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain
on an emergency ba~±s for the ~ubj~ct parodi at an negotiated
price equal to the per acre price offered to Mr. Pergerson;
that the County make a determination, in conjunction with Mr.
2ergerson as to whether there has been any ~urther encroachment
as determined by a certified %est boring.
Mr. Micas suggested that the motion be amended to reflect that
stated by the Board, then the Board may authorize th~ use of
eminent domain on an emergency basis.
Mr. Sullivan restated his motion, seconded by Mr. Daniel, that
if Mr. Pmg~rmon rejects an offer based on the calculation
stated by the Board, th~ Board authorized ~]e County A~torney
to pro=~ed with ~minent domain on an ~mergency basis for the
subject parcel at an negotiated price equal to the per acre
price 0flexed to Mr. P~rg~rson; that the County make a
there has been any further encroachment upon his property and
purchase that property at the same price as detsrmlnad by a
c~rtifie~ t~t boring.
Ayes: Mr. Cuttle, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Daniel.
Nays: Mr. Mayer, on the use of eminent domain in this case.
9.C. i~R TO PLANNING CO~H~IM$ION AN OKD1NANCE ~BL~TING
G~nR~LLY TO TH~PROC~DOI~E ~OH D~$IG~TINGANHISTORIC
DIeT~XCT
Mr; Sale 'stated at its July 25, 1990 meeting, t~he
de~erred consideration of r~fsrrinq to the Planning Commission
an ordinance relatin~ generally to ~he procedure
designating an historic district se the i~sue could be
discussed with the Preservation Ce~i~tee.
Mr. Sullivan ~tate~ he opposed referring conslderat~on of said
oldinance to the Planning Ccmmlssion; that he has a concern
that the Board should leave the initiative with those
who own %hess historic buildings to pursue historic
designation~ that~ with all due respect tc the individual
property c%rners, the Board does not generally d~ml with
deuignation of historic dirt but with historic buildings and
would feel more Gomfor%~ble leaving that initiative with
parsons who own those buildings an~ will he most cer=ain!y
affected by any change ~hat may occur and he would recommend
that th~ ~oard reject this item and not forward it to the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Currin stated he and Mr. Sullivan brought tho issue up last
month and have since discussed it with Mr. Jim Daniels on the
Historical Board and he ~oncurred end would prefer to leave it
as it i~.
On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
tabled consideration to request the ~lanning Co~u~ission
consider an ordiuan¢~ r~lating generally to the procedure for
designating an historic district.
10.A. ~0 CON.~ID~ THE EXCHANG~ OF A .6 + ACRE P~, OWNED BY
T~E COUNTY aND nOtATeD IN ~SU~0T PA~X, FOR TWO P~L$
0W6~D BY AUBR~X A. AD~JK AND ALHO LOCATED WITHIN
~AP~, WHICH FARC~AS CONTAIN .287 i%Nb '.~46
RE~F~CTIV~LY
Mr. Masdsn stated this date and time had been set for a public
hearing to consider the exchange of a .6 · acre parcel
Huguenot Park for two {2) inholdin~ parcels of nearly ~qual
acreage a~d appraised value.
No one came forward ~o speak in favor of or against the matter.
On motion of Mr. Sullivan, ~ecusded by ~r. App!sgate, the Board
approved ~he exchange of a .6 + acre parcel, owned by the
County and located in HuguenOt P~k, for ~wo (2) parcels owned
by Mr. and Mrs. Aubrey A. Adccck and Mr. Jam~s A. Adcock and
also located within th~ ~ark, which parcels contain .287 and
.346 acres, respectively; authorized the County A~ministrator
ho execute the necessary contract and 'deeds of dedication for
acquisition of the two (~) inholding parcels in Huguenot Park;
authorized the. Chairman of the Board and ~he County
Administrator to execute the deed for the conveyance of the
+ acre 9aru=l to the Adcozks~ an~ transferred the remalnlnq
~unds, in th~ amount of $10,264.58, from hh~ 1'988
Elementary school Parks Improvement Project to the Huguenot
Park Pro~ect to pay real estate fees and ¢oD$~ruct 2rails
across the newly acquired ~arcels.
Vote: Unanimous
IO.B. TO COH~XDI~R Ti~ DONATION TO a-~ FORRtT ~IEW VOLUNTEER
P..I~;..~CUE- -~lk%.O OF A~ IP,.R.EGU/,~,R -q~APKD PARCEL, SLIGHTLY LES,~
ADJACE~PT T~ $~T~ON ~,, BUFORD ROAD FIR~ STAT~/ BETW~
THE FIP~ STATION AND RIT~ NO~ OCC~ BY CO~TEL CELLULAR
Chief ~anes stated this date ~nd time had been advertised
public hearing to consider the donation to thc Forest View
Volunteer Remcue Squad of am ~rxegular shaped parcel, slightly
less than one acre in size, of unused property located adjacent
to Station 9, Bufor~ Rea~ Fire Station, between th~ Fire
Station and site now occupied by Contel Cellular to construct
squad house ior administrative ackivity and operate
to serve the County's rescue needs.
No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter.
Mr. Sullivan stated he f~lt this action to be very appropriat~
and expressed appreciation for the efforts tc
protection cf citizens in this ar~a.
On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applega~e, the Board
approved th~ donation to the Forest View Volunteer Rescue Squad
of an irregular shaped parcel, slightly less than one aor~ in
size, of unused property lecat~ adjacent to Station 9, Buford
Road Fire Station, between the Fire Station and nit~ now
OCcupied b~ Contel Cellular to construct a squad house for
administrative activity and operate ambulanc~ tO
County's rescue needs, subject to the right of first refusal
held by Colonial Twenty-Two Associate~, ~inerich A$~oclates and
Corporate Hills Associates, which may be exercised until
September 14, I990. IA copy of said plat is filed with the
papers of this Board.)
Vote~ Unanimous
90-613 8/22/90
11. NEW BUSINESS
A1.A.I. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
This day the County Environmental Engieeert in accordance with
directions from this Board, made r~port in writing upon his
examination of Tillers Ridge Dr~ve {formerly Providence Hills
Drlv~), Tillers Ridg~ Cou~ (formerly Providence dills Court},
and Tillers Ridge Terrace (formerly Providence ~ills Terrace)
in Tillers Ridge, Clover hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and On mctlon of Mr. sullivan,
seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that Tillers Ridge
Driv~ (formerly Providence Hills Drive), Tillers Ridge Court
(formerly ~rovidence ~ille Court), and Tillers Ridge Terrace
(formerly ~rovidence Hills Terrace) in Tillers ~l~ge, Clover
Hill District, be and they hereby are established as public
And bs it £urther resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation~ be and it hereby is reqnested to ~ake iDto the
Secondary System, Tiller~ Ridge Drive (~ormerly Providence
Hills Drive), beginning at th~ intersection with Elkardt Road,
State Route 663, and going northerly 0.09 mile to the inter-
~eotlon with Tillers Ridge Court, then continuing northerly
0.06 mile to the intersection with Tillers Ridge Terrace, then
eontinuin~ northerly 0.05 mile to end in a temporary turn-
around; Tillers Ridge Court (formerly Providence Hills Court),
beginning at the intersection wi~h Tillers Ridge Drive and
going eastarly 0.04 ~ile to end in a cul-de-sac: and Tillers
Ridge Terrace (formerly Providence Mills Terrace), beginning at
th~ intersection with Tillers Ridge Drive and ~oing easterly
0.04 mil~ to en~ in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slopa, sight distance
and designated Virginia Deper~ent of Transportation drainage
These roads serve 29 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
q~a~ant~=s to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 40'
right-of-way for all of these roads except Tillers Midge Drive
which has a 50~ right-of-way.
Tillers Ridge is recorded a~ follow~
~lat Book 63, Pag~ 93, ~ov~mb~r 7, 1988.
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made reDor~ in wrieing upon his
examination o~ Chatmoss Road and Chatmoss Cou~t in Chatmoss,
Clover ~ill District.
Upon u0n~id=ra~ian whereof, and on motion of Mr. Snllivan,
~e~onded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that Chatmoss Road
and Chatmoss Court in Chatmoss, Clover Hill District, be and
they hereby are established as public reade.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transpor=ation~ be and it hereby i9 requested to take into the
Secondary System, Chatmoss Road, beginning aH the int~rmection
with Wcodlake Village Parkway, State Route number to be
assigned, and going northwesterly 0,04 mil~, then turning and
going northsrly 0.lO mile to the intersection with Chatm~ss
Court, then continuing nortJaerly 0.09 mil~ tO enH in a
cul-de-sac~ and Chatmoss Court, beginning at the intersection
with Chat~ess Road and going westerly 0.04 mile to end in a
cul-de-sac.
Thi~ request is inclusive ef ~he adjacent slope, sight distance
and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage
These roads serve 45 lots.
And be i% further ~esolved, ~hat the Board of Supervisors
guara~tee~ to the Virginia Department of Trangportatio~
right-of-way for ell of these roads.
Chatmoss is recorded as follows:
Plat Book 59, Pages 7~ & 72, Deue~ber 14, 1987.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental ~ngineer, in accordance with
directions ~rom this ~oard, mede report in writing upon his
~xamina~on of Ztanding 0~k Lane, ~anding oak Road, Standing
ti, Clover Rill Di~rict.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion e£ Mr. Sullivan,
Lane, Standing Oak Read, Standing Oak Court an~ Standing Oak
Place in S~anding Oak, Phases I and II, Clover Rill District,
be end they hereby are established as publi~ roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Secondary $yztem, Standing oak Lane, beginning at the intersec-
assigned, and going northwesterly 0.04 mile to end at the
beginning at the intersection wi~h Standing Oak Lan~ and going
Court, then continuing northerly 0.06 mils, then tnrning and
going northwesterl~ 0.I0 mile to end in a cut-de-sac. Again
~uing westerly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Standing oak
a cul-de-sac; Standing Oak Court, beginning at the intersection
with Sta'nding Oak Road an~-"~6i~ ~esterI~ 0.04 mile, then
turning and going northwesterly 0.13 mile~ then turning and
Oak Place, beginning at the intersection wi~h Standing oak Road
an~ going southerly 0.06 mile te end in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive oi the adjacent slope, sigh~ distance
And be it further r~ol~ed, that ~he ~oard of Supervisors
~uarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50'
right-of-way for all ef these roads except Standing Oak Lane
Th~$~ pha~$ of Standing O~k are recorded as
Phase II. Plat Book 61, Pages ~4 a 15, April 21, 1988.
Vote: Unanimous
90-615 8/22/90
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Winters Hill Plnce, Winters Mill Circle and
Winter~ Bill Court in Wi~%~rs Hill Place, Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on mo=ion cf Mr. Sullivan~
seconded by MS. Ap~lugate, it is resolved that Winters Hill
~lace, Winters Hill Circle and Win~er~ Hill Court in winters
Hill Placed Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are
established as public roads.
And b~ it ~urther resotwed~ that the Virginia Department nf
~ransportation, be and it hereby i~ requested to tak~ into the
SecoRdary System, Winters Mill Place, beginning at the inter-
~ee~ion with Reams Road, Stat~ Route 647, an~ going westerly
0.1~ mile to end at the inter~ection with Wint~r~ Rill Circle;
Winters Hill Circls, beginning at the intersection wi%h Winters
Mill Place and going northwesterly 0~08 mile, then turning and
going westerly 0.03 mile, then turning and going southwesterly
0.14 mile, then turninq and going southerly 0.05 mile to the
intersection with Winters ~ill Court, then turning and going
northeasterly 0.16 mile to end at the inter~ection with it~el~
and Win~ers ~ill Place~ and Wint~r~ Rill Court, beginning at
the intersection with Winter~ Hill Circle and going southerly
0.0l mil~/ th~n ~urning ~n~ going southwesterly 0.03 mile to
end in a cul-de-sac.
Thi~ request i5 inclu~iv~ of ~e adjacent slope, sight distance
and designated Virginia Department u~ Transportation drainage
These roads serve ?4 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of ~upervlsors
guarantees to the V~rgin~a Department of Transportation e 50~
right-of-way for all of the~e road~ except Win~e~ Milt Place
which has a 70' right-of-way.
Winters Hill Place is recorded aE follow~=
Plat Book 55, Paqe 6~, N0ve~ber 17, 1986.
CO~4IT~EE ON TNt F~TURE'$ LONG-RANGW STP~T~IC PLAN
There was discussion relative wh~h~r or not ~he Conuuitt~s
voted to r~quest consultant ~unding; servlc~s which would bs
provided with and/or without the funding requested; the results
tha~ would be accompl£sh~ by the consultant condu~tin~ citizen
workshops; etc.
On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
awarded a contract to Economics Research Associates (RRAI in
the alaounh of $82,500 [$50,000 currently in the Committ~ on
the Future'~ Budget and $32¢500 in additional £und~ from the
Board Cunelngency Account} ~or the Committee on the Fueure's
Long-range Strategic Plan; appropriated the additional $32,5~;
an~ authorized the County Administrator to execute sai~
contract To complete the project.
On motion of Mr. sullivan, seconded by ~r. Ap~legate, the Board
approved the revised Revenue Sharing Project D~¥elopm~nt
i
WHE~F2%S, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia permits
the Commonwealth Transportation Board tQ make an equivalent
matching allocation to any County for designations by
funds recaived by it during the current fiscal year pursuant to
"State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972" for use by the
Board to construct~ maintain or improve primary aHd Secondary
highway systems within such County~ and
W~EREAS, The Virginia Department of Transportation
has notified the County that ~15,020 is the maximum amount cf
Chesterfield County funds that will be matched by the stats as
a supplemental FY-90 allocation.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED~ that the Chesterfield
County Boaxd of Supervisors designates =he Genito Road Project
from Rout~ 360 to Old Hundred Road as the FY-90 Suppl~ntal
Revenue Sharing Prn]ect ' ..
AMD, S~ IT FURTHER R~MQLVED, that the County's $15,020 of
matching iunds will be providsd from th~ previously
appropriated but unmatched funds designated ~or the projsct.
ll.A.4. ROUTE 360 ~rfDENIN~ ~ROM T~I~F~ ROAD TO COURTHOUSE ROAD
On me,ion of ~r. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the ~oard
approved the Statement of Support for the widening of Route 360
from Turner Road to Courthouse Roa~ =o be presented by the
Chairman of the Eoard of Supervisor9 at a Virginia Department
u£ Transportation location and design public hearing scheduled
for Septe~abef 6~ 1990, at 7:00 p.m., a~ ~he Knights of
Columbus-Bishop !zetou Center, located at 3300 Old Courthouse
Road. (A copy of said Statement is ~iled with the paper~ of
thi~'Bo~rd.)
Vo=e: unanimous
ll.A.5. CH~STBR~LLAG~I~%RDsC~-PI~G P~DffECT
On me,ion ~f Mr. ~u~livan, seconded by ~r. Appl~ate, the Board
~=RZAS, Route lQ through the Village of Chester i~ beinq
widened to a four lane facility; and
WHE~AS, The Kiwanis Club of Chester i~ planning a '
landscaping project to enhance ~lS quality of life in the
Village; and
WEE~AS, The ~oard of Supervisors wishes to assist the
Kiwani~ Club in =he p~ojact~ and
W~E~S, The Board appropriated $3,000 in June~ 1990 for
the project.
NOW, THE~FO~ BE IT ~0LV~Pr tha~ the Board of
Supervisors appropriates an additional $3,000 for the project
appropriate au additional $3,000 in FY 1991-92 from the Bermuda
District Three Cent Road Fund for =h~ projec=.
Vote~ Unanimous
90-~17. 8/22190
ll.A.6. MIDL0~IANP~LIC ~Pc%N~Oi~,ATI0~ STum¥
On motion of Mr. ~ullivan, seconded by Mx. Apgl~gate, the Board
approved an addendl~a to the Agreement for Utilization of
Pass-Through UMTA and State Transit Funds in the Richmond Area
~or Fiscal Year 1989 (July 1~ 1988 to June 30, 1989) Between
the Richmond R~qional Planning District Co~ission and
Chesterfield County~ dated December 6, 1988, e~%endin~ the
Midlothian P~blic Transpertation S~dy ~hrough June 30, 1991
and aRtho~izud the County A~inistrator ~o execute any
necessary doo~nts,
Vote: Unanimous
I1.A.7. ~Q~STSFOR B~NGO/RAFFL~P~RMiTS
On mo=ion cf Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Appleqate, the Hoard
appr0~ed requests for bingo/~affi~ permlt~ ~or ~h~ ~ollowing
0r~aniza~i0ns ~or oalendar year 1990~
Reams Road Athletic Association Raffle
Woodmont Recreation A~ctiaeion Raffle
Clover Hill ~igh School Marching
Pand - Eeyno~es Raffle
Vote: Unanimo=~
ll.A.~. P~ICH140~iD~ /4E~TAL HE~L~HA~$OCIATION BINGO
There was brie~ discussion regarding the eximtlng ~ituation
involving the conditional permit issued to the Richmond Area
Mental Health Association; the ~ranting of a conditional permit
by the Boar~ iD ~eb~ry, 1990; a brief history of the
operation of the organization end the difficulties being
en=ountered~ etc, Mr, ~icas indicated ~taff would continue
dialogue with the organization in an effort to attempt to
arrive at a ~trueture in which they could pexh~ps reapply in
the future wi%h provi~ions/mechani~m~ ~hat would pfotee~ th~
County and it~ citizens.
On motion ef ~r. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the
disapproved the r~quest for an extension of a conditional bingo
and raffle permit for the Richmond Area ~an:al aaatth
tion to op~rate uneil August lA, 1990, due to the Association's
noncompliance with oD~ratinq proo~dure~ mandated by the
Internal Audit Department and comp~etlon of a satisfactory
audit and many citizen complaints.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.A.9. R~iOVAL OF SERGEANTS ~]AkLD A. ~L%YKES AND DONALD
On motion of ~r. Sullivan, seconded by Mr, Appl~gate, the Board
approved removal of Sergeants Gerald A. Haynes and Donald K.
moved into o~e~ area~ of the Fi~e Depar~ent.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Sullivan, ~conded by Mr. Appl~gat~ ~ ~u~r~
approved the appoin~en= of sergeant Jeffrey A. Howe as an
A~i~tant Fira Marshal pursuant to Section~ 27-36 Of ~h~ Code
of virginia, 1950, as ~ended, and which appoin~nt will allow
fire Drevsntion code violation grunted by S~ction 9.1-8,
'~Authority of Fire Marshal and Assistant Fire Marshal~" of the
Code ci the County of Chesterfield~ 1978, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
A~ENDING SECTIONS 2-34~ 2-40, 2-43, 2-43.1 AND 2.45
P~ATING G~LX TO i~URCHASING
On motion of Hr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegat~, the Board
sat the date of September 26, 19~0, at ~:00 a.m., ~or a public
hearing to con~ider an ordinance to amend the Code of the
County o~ Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, relating generally ko
purchasing.
Vote= Unanimsu~
ll.A.Ii.h. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO ;~END THE COD~ OF
~0~_pF C~8T~F~IELD. 1978~ AS AMENDED,
A~ENDINGAND P~NACTING ~ECTIONS 21-3, 21-50~
~ATING TO T~PORARY OUTDOOR VE~DORS
On motion of ~r. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. ApDlega~e, the ~oard
~et the dat~ of September 12, 1990, ~t 7:00 p.m., for a public
hearing to consider an ordinanoe to .amend the Code of the
outdoor vendor~.
11.A.11.e. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO /94R14D CH/~T~R 21 OF '~u~
CODE O~ TH~ CO~ O~ CH~$T~FI~D~ 19~,. AS
A}~NDED, bY A~IEI~NC ~CTI0~ 21-67.~3.! P~I~TING TO
VILLAC~ DISTRICT XARD REQUIREA~I~S
On motion cf ~r. Sullivan~ ~eoonded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
sot %h~ date of September 12, 1990~ a~ 7:00 p.m.,' ~er a pu~llc
hearinq to eon~id~f an ordinaDce to a~end the Code of th~
Count~ of Chesterfield, 1978, as am~nde~, relating to V~i~age
District Y~rd Bequirements.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Applpgate, the Soard
set the da~e of september 12, 1990, at 7:00 p.m., for a public
h~aring to consider an ordinance to amend the Code of the
County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, r~lating generally ko
resubdivisions.
Vets: Unanimous
90-619 8/22/90
11.A.]2. I{EQ~EST FO~{ PEi~IT TO STA~E FIREWORKS DISPLAY AT
On motion of Mr. sullivan, seconded by Mr. Apple~ate, the Board
approved the r=quest from Mr. William J. Ebsrhart of Vitals
Fireworks Display Co., inc., to stage a ~ireworks display at 2
Bellona Arsenal, Midlothian, Virginia, 23113, on September 29,
1990, subject to aL1 County pelicies and regulations governing
Vote: U~animous
~S~T'ION .......
0n motion o~ Mr. Sul~i~an, seconded by M~. ApDleqate, the ~oard
approved a request from the Chesterfield County Fair
A~sociation for an entertai~ent/mu~ical festival permit and ~
firmworks pe~it i~ order to conduut the Annual County Fair at
th~ Chesterfield Coun%~ Fairqround~ for th% p~riod of August 27
September I, 1990, subject tu all County policies and
~ugutations governing same.
Vote: Unanimous
11.A.14. LEASE OF OFFICE SPACE IN CENTRE ~0~IRT BUILDING FOR
ECONOMIC DEFELOPM~NTDEPAB.TM~NT
There was b~ief dlgcu~sion r~tati~e to %he l~a~ of office
s~aoe in the Centre ~Cour~ni~ding heing mere visible and
accessible and more qond~giQe .to ~he business climate fur
appearance of the existing pond on the property versus its
abilit~ to preY%de for water retention and/or run-o~f after
h~avy periods of rain; etc. ''
On motion o~ ~r. ~nllivan, secon~e~ by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved the lease Of 3~205 ~quare feet of office space for the
County Economic Dave!opment Department fram ~. U. Development
Partn%~hip at the Centre Court Building located aerc~ from
the new Courthouse, for a period of six I6} years and
authorized the CountyAdministrator to execute any nece~ear~
on motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved inutallation of street lights at the following
locations:
1. Intcrae¢%ion of Evelyn Drive and Sand ~ills Dr~v~,.in the
amount of ~779.80,. to be =xpemded from the Bermuda
District Street Light Fu~d;
2. 5~24 Kay Road, in the ameunt ef $24t.00 to upgrade street
light, to be expended fr~m the Bermuda Di~rict Street
Light Fund;
3. Intersection of Beulah Road and Hopkins Read, in ~he
~me~nt of $485,QQ, to be expended irOm the Dale District
Street Light ~und;
4. Intersect±on of Lawnwood Drive and Slumber Lane, i~ the
amount of $1,017.~0, to be e~pended from, the Dale District
stree~ Lifht Fund;
5. 5501 S. Jessup Road (Intersection with Pairpines Road), in
the amount of $1,009.00; to be Expended fTom the Dal~
6, Beulah Road and Hilmar Drive, in the amount of $450.00~ to
be expended from the Dale District Street Light Fund; and
7. Intersection of Bria~patch Drive and Hugusnet Road, in the
amount of $1,394.00, to be expended from the Midlothian
District Street Light Fund,
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Sulllvan~ seconds8 ~y Mr. Ceftin, th~ BOard
approved obtaining cost estimates for the installation of a
street light at th~ following locations:
1. Relocat~ current street light on pole ~QF44 to pole ~QF46
in th~ vicinity of Beulah United ~e%hodlst Church at 6925
Ropkins Road, Dale District; and
Intersection of Corner Rock Road end Robious Road,
ll.Bo3. Bi~OVg OF ~I.qTING [~ILLBOAP, D,q
Mr. Micas stated that a~ %he Jul~ 25, 1990 m~etinp, the Board
referred to the 91arming C~ission ~c= a race, sade=ion the
question of whether of nut ~h= Zoning Ordinance
should be amended to furthe~ restrict new billboards. He
stated ~taff was also requested to review legal r~ifieation~
of ~u~ure bans on existing bill~ar~s to be brought back thi~
date. He stated the Planning Co~ission and ~o~=~
Supervisors cannot adopt ~uch mn ordinance, on an ~mergency
basis.
of the marl%= and/or demerits of ~ortization of billboards;
the phasing out of billboards; concern~ regarding ~he financial
impac~ on ~he invesument of individuals utilizing billboaxdm;
the n~e~ of exiuting billboards currently in the County; ets.
proportional ~u ~ha perception of economic development, that
amortization of billboards in certain ~r~S Of the County
b~ achieved and a~ked that the Board support public debate on
the matter. Mr. Sullivan mkaked h~ felt the restricting
a~v~r~ising w~uld handicap citizens and negatively affect amall
businesses. Mr. Currin sta%ed he did no= Seal all signs were
detr~entml ~o the County but that restricting advertising
would convey mixed signals ~o the business co,unity. He
mtated h~ di~ not have a problem with the Planning Co~i~mion
reviewing th~ issue, hewever, he did not wish. to direct the
Co~iMsion to phase out signs.
Mr. Sullivmn asked ~hat staff provide the ~oard w~th a lis%
roads in the County and idemti~y the zoning classification
the lan~ adjoining them in Order to identiiy the potential for
future billboards to b~ erected.
Afte~ further discussion, it wa~ on ~otion o~ Mr. Sullivan,
seconded by Mr. Mayas, to tabl~ =on~ideration of a request to
8/22/90
the Planning Commission ~equiring the removal of ~xi~ting
billboar~ and make a recommendation to the Board.
ll.B.4. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ~ROCE~DINGS OF c~G~NFIEID
REV~ND]~ BONDS FOR HOO%rER & ST~ON~ INC. ~AN$ION
On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
adopted th~ following
~0LUTIC~ OF ~ ~USTR~ D~
AU~O~TY OF '~u~ CO~ OF
~ER~S, Thor% hav~ b~n described to t~e
Developmen% Authority of the county, of chesterfield. (the
"A~thority'} the plans o~ Hoover & Strong, Inc., a Virginia
corpoxa~ion (the "c~pany") , to construct and equip in
Chesterfield County, Virginia {the "County") a manufacturing
faciliay expansion for the production of gold jewelry findings
(the "Project") consisting of approximately lS,400 ~quare feet;
and
and in its appearance before the Authority has described
benefits t~ ~he County and ha~ requested the A~thority to agree
%~ issue its Industrial Development Revenue Bonds or Notes
under the Virginia Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act
(the "Ack") t in such ~oun~ aS ~ay be pece~ary to finance a
portion of the cost of ~e Project; and
~EREAS, The Authority ha~ held a public hearinq on August
a~ re~ui~ed under S~etion I47{f) of the Inte~nat Revenue Code
of 1986, a~ amended (tbs "Code").
BE IT ~SOLV~D BY THE INDUSTRI~ D~LOP~T AUTHORITY OF
THE COUNTY OF
1. I% is h~by found and fl~%e~ined %hat th~ location
of the ~roject for the Co,Deny in the County will bring
additional rev~n~ and e~ployment into th~ County and will
promo=e the indu~trlal ~ev~lopment and economy o~ th~ County,
thei~ ~af~ty~ health~ welfare, ~onv~ien~e and pro~perity.
2. To in~uce the C~pany to locate the Project in the
County, the A~thori%y h~r~by agrees to ~ndertak~ the issuance
of it~ Industrial Development Revenue Bon~ or Notes (the
thereof shall be leased Or sold by the Authority %o the Company
lease or an ins%aliment sale agreement which will ~rovide
and premix, if any, a~d intexe~% 0~ th~ Bond~ and to pay all
b~ issued in form and pursuant %o te~s to be set by the
Au~ority, and ~h= pa~ent of =he Bonds shall be secured by an
a$$1g~nt, for th~ benefit of the holder~ thereo~, of th~
Authority's riqhts tc parents under the leas=s or agre~ents
C~pany. '
3. It having be~n represented to the Authority ~at it
ia necessary to proceed i~ediately with ~he Pro~ec~,
Authority hereby aqree~ ~ha~ ~he C~pany may proceed wi~ plans
i
for the ~ropeet~ enter into contracts for conatruction and
equipping and take such other st~p~ as they may deem
appropriate in connection therewith, provided that nothing
h~r~by ~halI be d~med to au%ho~i~ tho CQmpany to obligate the
Authority without its consent in sash instance to the paynent
the Project. The Authority agrees that th~ Company may be
reimbursed from the proceeds of the ~on~s for all costs so
incurr%d by it. Th% Authority als0 agrees, ii r~que~ted, to
issue its sends to obtain interim or construction financing for
the P~0ject on terms to be mutually agreed upon, such Bonds to
be guaranteed or otherwise secured by the Company as required
by the Authority.
4. The A~th6rit~ agre~, if r~q~$%ed, to accept the
recommendation o~ the Company with respect to the appoint4~ent
of an agent or underwriter fo.r the sale of the Bonds pursuant
to term~ tn be mutually agreed upon.
5. All cost and expenses in connection with the
financing of th~ 9ro~ct, including %h~ f~o$ ~d expenses of
bond counsel, Authority counsel and the agent or underwriter
for th~ sal~ of tho bon~s, shall be paid from the proceeds of
~hall be paid by the Company and that the Authority shall have
no responsibility therefor.
6. The Authority intsnd~ that the adap:ion of thi~
resolution be considered as "official action" toward '.the
issuansa of the Bonds within the meaning of the regulations
i~uad by the Internal R~venu~ So,vice pursuant to SectionE 103 '
and 141 through 1§0 ~f the Cede.
7. Az the financing plans of the Company 'have not been
cOmpleted, the inducement given by this resolution ~hall also
run tc any business entity in which tbs Company, any of it~
principals or any related entity are or will be principals.
8. The Authority shall perform such other acts and adopt
undertakings as herein set forth, and if requested by the
of bond counsel. ~o tha~ end, the Chairman er Vice Chairman of
power Of attorney naming counsel selected by the Company for
such purposes.
Company conveyance of %~tle to the Project and the land on
mortgaged~ pledged or otherwise provided as securit~ for the
bendz. ?he ofiicsrs of She Authority are hereby authorized and
instruments cf title with r~spect tc the Froject and any other
property and any proper deed or deeds in cOnneetio~ will such
Company may request~ wiehout cost other than the expense of
10. Unless this resolution is extended by th~ Authority,
the Bonds au=hori=e~ hereunder shall he issued within two years
Il. The Authority hereby recommend~ that the Bear~ of
Supervisors of =he County (the "Board") approve the issuance of
apply to ths Allocation Administrator to request an allocation
90-623 8/22190
net to exceed $2,500,000 of the State Reserve to the Bonds,
pursuant to Sections 1~.1-1~99.I0 through 15.1-1399.17 of %h~
Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, and any requla%ion~
prom=igated p=rsuant thereto.
12. This resolution shall ~ake effeo= i~uedia%ely upon
its adoption.
Vote: Unanimous
11.~.5. AWARDING OF CONTRACT FOI~ ORT~OPHOTOGRAPHYr TOPOGRA~HX
A~D STREET CENTE]{LINE ~ATA IN T~E IMPLFZ4ENTATION OF
On motion of Mr, Mayer, Seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
awarded a contract between Geonex Corporation and th~ County cf
Chesterfield, in an amount not to exceed Z564,826.80, to
provide orthophotography, orthophotography with ~opoqraphy, a
digital topographic file on tape and a diqital street
centerline ~i!e on tape to form ~he basis for the graphic
database of the County Geographic Information System IGIS]
Project.
Vets: Unanimous
I1 ,~. ~TILITIBS DEPARTMENT
ll.C,1. CON.qE~T ITF~
~XISTING 16 FOOT ZEWER~n~F_.MERT ON P~OPEPJ~Y
On motion oi Mr. Applegate, s~conded by ~r. Mayas, the Board
building, dnmpst~r pad, and concrete slab to encroach on an
existing 16 foot sewer easement on property located at 10305
~utl Str~t Road, subject to th~ ~xecution of a licens~
agreement, with the understanding that they be responsible for
any damage done to the structures if they interiere with County
~aintenan~ of any present or future sewer line~ located in the
papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
11.C.~.b. ~QU~T FKOR D~E~-~Y & DAVIS TO
A~-~OCIATES, ADJACenT TO ~O/{TH i%/~CH ROAD
On motion of ~r. Applegate, seconded by Mr. ~ayes, the Seard
approved a request from Dewberry & Davis to quitclaim a 16 foe%
adjacent tc North Arch Road and authorized the Chalr~an of
Board and County Administrator to ~xecu%e said quitclaim
(~t is noted a copy of said plat is filed with the papers
this Board.)
Vote: U~animous
11.C.~.¢. CONVE~ANCE OF AN ]~A$]EX4~{T~0 ~IRGINIA ~T-~CTP-IC AND
~0WE~C~ARYFOR{~DE~R0~NDCA~LEALONG~I'r]SFINE
on motion of ~r. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the
au~horize~ the Chairman of the ~oard and the County
Chesterfield County and Virginia Electric and ~ower Company to
90-624 8/22/90
Whitepine Road, which request is for replacement of the
existing sable in conjunction with the relocation of the
mail/delivery boxes at t_h~ Airport/Industrial Park. (It is
noted a copy of ~aid plat is filed with the papers of this
Board.~
i1.C.i.d. APPROVA~OF IIE~ISED UTILITIES CONTRACT FOR ~
On ~otion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board
approved the following revised Utilities contract and
authorized the County Administrator to ~xeoute any necessary
documents:
Contract Amount:
Water (~ddition~l work) - $ 4,600.00
{Cash Refund)
~$tima~ed D~vsloper Cost: $61,097.50
Vote~ Unanimous
11 .C.l.e. A~PRDVAL O~ WAST~aTATER CONTRACT FOR STONI~ENGE
approved the follewin~ wastewater contract and authorise~ the
and 2, Block F, Section A, Project Number 90-0362~
D~velop~r: Clyde N. Gauldin & Co., Inc.
Total'EstSma{~ Codnt] Cest: ..... '
Wastewater (AddltioKal Wdr~)' $
(cash~
Wastewater (Off~it~)
(Refund thru connection~)
Cads: {Additional Work)
~ 8,06~.26
$29,849.49
5P-57240-898800R
5P-58350-890733
S~BDM$ION - LO~ 1~, ~LOCK J, S~TION B
On motion of ~r. Applegate, seson~e~ by ~r. ~ayes, th~ Board
approved the following wa~tewater contract and authorized the
County Administrator to execute any necessary docum~nts~
Wast~wa=er Contract ~ar Stonehenge Subdivision - Lot 1~,.
Block J~ Section B, Project Number 89-0806~
D~veloper~ Clyde N. GauI~in & Co., Inc.
Contractor: T & E Construction Co., Inc.
Con%rac~ Amount: ~stimated Total - $11,50O.GO
Total E~timat~d County Cost:
~astewater (offsite) - $ 1,509.35
(Refund thru conuectionE)
Estimated Developer Cost: $ 9,990.65
90-625 8/22/90
Cods: (Offsite) 5P-58350-890733
Vote: Unanimous
I1.C.I.~:. A~PIi0%rA5 OF WATER CO~PI~ACT FOR WELLINGTON
SUBDM~ION - O~'~L~.NA~R LI~LONG CH~tLK~ ROAD
On motion of ~r. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board
approved ~he following water contract and authorized th~ County
Administrator to execute any necessary documents:
Water Contract for Wellington Parma subdivision - Offsite
Water Line along Chalkley Road, Project Number 90-0333:
Developer= ~iles & Wells, A Partnership
Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc.
Contract Amount: Estimated Total -
Total Estimated County Cost:
Water (Overelzing) -
(Cash)
Water (Offsite)
(Re~nd ~hru uonnectiens)
Eetimated Developer Cost:
(Oversizing)
{Offsite)
$17~,695.0Q
99,579.75
2~,163.50
5~951,75
5H-~7240-$9~200~
5H-58350-890731
lI.C.].h. ACCEPTANCE OF D~EDS OF DZDICATION
ll.C.l.h.1. ALONG U.~. R0.~TU 10 ~c~91q~,,Lfi~ ~j~LOPF~ENTCO.
On motion of ~r. Appleqate, ~econde~ by Mr. ~ayem, the Boar~
accepted on behalf of the County the conveyance of a 0.17 acre
parcel cf lnnd along U.S. Rout~ I0 from BN~ Land & Development
Co., A North Carolina Corporation, and authorized the County
Administrator to execute the necessary deed of dedication. (A
COpy of ~aid pla~ i$ filed with %h~ pap~r~ of thi~ Board.)
Vo~e: Unanimous
11.C.l.h.2. ALONG ~EFFEP~ON DAVIS ~/GRWAy {U.S. RelaTE 301)
On mo~ien of ~r. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board
accepted on behalf of ~he County the conveyance of a 0.59 acre
parcel cf land along Jaffer~o~ Davis Highway (U.S. Reu~e 301}
from Breck~nridge Aseociate~, A Worth Carolina General
~ar=nership and authorized ~he County Administrator to execute
the necessary deed of dedication. (A copy of ~aid plat i~
M~. ~ale presente~ the ~oard wi~h ~ report On th~ developer
water an~ se~er contratt~ executed by the County Adm~nlstretor.
ll.D.~REP0RTS
Mr. R0msey presented the Board with a status report on the
~eneral Fund Contingency Account~ General Fund Balance, Reserve
for Future Capital Projects, District Road and Stre~ Light
Fund~, L~ane Purcha~e~ and the Board's Public ~earing Schedule.
90-626 8/22/90
Mr. Ramsay stated the Virginia Department of Transportation has
formally n~tifi~d the CounSy o£ ~he acceptance of %he following
roads into the State Secondary System:
$~QK~T~ RIDG~ (~ffeg~ive
Route 310§ IYucca Drive) - From 0.03 mile West
Route 3107 to Route 4760
Route 4760 (Maad0we~ee~ Drive) - From Q,O9 mils
North Acute ~10~ to 0.12 mile South Route 3105 O.2O Mi.
~n motion of ~r. Sullivan, ~eeouded ~y Mr. Mayer, the Board
w~nt into Ex~ut~v~ ~ee$ion pursuan~ ~o ~ection 2.1-344(a){7~
cf the Code of the Count~f Chesterfield, I978, as amended,
for consultation ~h ~gal gounsel reqarding probable
liti~&hion involving the condemnation of property owned by J.
J. Jewett.
~r. Appleqate dieclo~ed t~ the Board he had been advised that
have a conflict of integer% that, in order 50 dispel ~ny
perception of improprie:y, he felt it appropriate to declare a
pot~nti&l conflict o~ interest pursuant to the Virginia
Comprekenslva Confllc: of Interest Act and not participate in
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the ~oar~
adopted the following regolution:
W~EREAS, the Board of $upervi~or~ has thi~ doy adjourned
W~A$, the V%rginga Freedom of In£orma%iun Ac= effective
July 1, 1989, providss for certification that such Executive
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County
Supervisors does hereby certify that to th~ h~st of ~ch
member's knowledge, i) only public business mat%ers lawfully
which this certification applies~ and ii) only such public
busln~ss matt~ze as w~re identified in =he ~o~ion by which the
con$1dere4 by the Roard. No member ~iseents from this oertifi-
The BOard b~ing ~olted, the vote was as follows:
Mr. Sullivan: Aye.
~r. Currin= Aye.
90-627 8/22/90
The B~a~d recessed at 1~00 Neon t0 travel ~o John Howlett's
Tavern for lunch.
Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home in a Residential ~R-7)
District. The density of the proposal is apprezimately one (2)
unit/acre. This property front~ the north line of Kingsdale
Road, approximately ~00 fee~ we~t of Brandywine Avenue, in the
vicinity of 2810 Kinq~dale Road. Tax Map 81-12 (1) Parcel 38
(~hee~ 23).
Pr. Jacobsen presented a summary of Case 905~0255 and stated
~ mobile homo in this area i~ ~ot in character with
property (cna acre), it may be difficult to screen the mobile
home from existing hom~s. He noted the applicant is not
represent him.
proposed use was appropriate and that there is substantial
opposition amonq the ~urround~ng n~iqhhors r~garding th~
he could not support the request. ~e noted he had discussed
r~a~hed in tim~ to be a~vise~ u~ this pusslbility..
Mr. Linweod Carrel!~ Chairman of the Kingsdate Area Civic
Association and Chairman of the Board of Deaoons of the First
Baptist Church, voiced opposition, on behalf of both groups, to
the placement of a trailer ad3acent to the church property and
in the middle of an ~stablished residential community. He
stated the proposed u~e would depreciate the value of their
property, fuuure developmenu plans for church expansion
in opposition, there would have been many more people present.
regarding the case.
Mr. Daniel ~ugges~ed staff conduct a full presentation cf
case prior to approval of Mr. Currin'~ motion.
staff's reasons for recommending denial and displayed slides
indicativ= of the neighborhood, proposed usa, etc.
$/22/90
~r. Currin rssta~e~ his motion, seconded by Mr. Applegate, to
deny Cs~e 906N0253.
Vote: Unanimous
905N0112
In Matosca Maqiste~ial District, JANE8 ~ GATTIS requested
withdrawal of consideration for rezoning from Commnnity
Business (B-2) to Neighborhood Business (C-2). The density of
the amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or
Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the
property for re~±d~ntial development cf 4.01 to 7.0 units per
acre. This request lies on a 0.7 acre parcel fronting
approximately 140 feet On ~he east line of Jsffersen Davis
Eighway, also fronting approximately 140 fe=t on the south line
of Arrowfi~ld Road, and located in the southeast quadrant of
the intersection of these roads. Ta~ Map 163-11 (1) Parcel 7
(Sheet 49).
Mr. Jacobsen ~resented a summary of Case 90SN0112 and stated
the applicant has requested withdrawal of the case. He noted
that the ~ew Zoning Ordinance would allow a re,action in the
setback from fifty (50) to twsnty-fivs (25) feet along
portion of Jeffaruon b=vis ~ighway and, at first, the applicant
desired that b~cause that is th~ area they planned to use for
installation of the septic system; hewmver, that is not the
situation ~oday and the' applitant przfers, glven some of th~
other requirements of the C-2 Zoning District, to deuelop the
furniture stere under the old B-2 zoning and therefore is
requesting withdrawal of the ease.
Mr. Daniel noted that, considering action taken earlier in the
meeting regarding an ordinance relating to required use o~ th~
County Wastewater System, it may be advisable for the applicant
to continue with his request as opposed to withdrawing it. ~r.
Jacobsen stated that, after the Board's action earlier in th~
morning, Mr. Warriner, on behalf cf Mr. Cathie, reaffirmed his
~esire to w~thdraw this rszonlng request. After
discussion, the Board generall~ agreed to 5ear Case
and Mr. Jacobsen stated it would be pla~ed in its regular
s~quence on the agenda.
89SN8333
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, DR. C~STIS COI~v~%N re~/~s~-
ed a sixty (60) day deferral of consideration for rezoning from
Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15). Residential day,lop-
meat of up to 2.9 units par acre is permitted in a Residential
(R-i~) Di~triet. The Comprehensive Plan designs%es the
property for agricultural/forestal use with density to be
controlled b~ zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. This
request lies on a ~9.~ acre paruel fronting approximately t,26D
feet on the south line of Genito Road, approximately 2,000 feet
west of Woolridge Road. Tax Map 45 (1) Barcel 57 (Sheet 12).
Nr. Jacobsen presented a summary of Cass 896N0333 and stated
the applicant has r~qu~sted approval of a sixty 160) day
deferral.
Dr. Custis Coleman stated he is requesting a ~ixty {60) day
deferral in order to obtain mor~ insight as to how what is
occurring with the Swift Creek Plan and the Ckeuapeak~ Bay Blan.
There was no opposition to the deferral present.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Bo~rd
90-629 8/22/90
90SN0194
In Hatoaca Magisterial District, THOMA~ S. WINSTON, .III
requested rezoning from aesidential (R-15) to ~eighborhcod
Office {O-1}. Th~ proposed amendment wonld permit building
densities of up to 5,000 square fe=t oS gross floor area per
acre. The Comprehensive Plan d~signates the property for
residential development of t.51 to 4.QQ units per acre. This
request lle5 on a 1.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 200
feet on the south line u~ Courthouse Road, also ~rentlng
approximately 330 feet on the northwest line of Sa~bar Road,
these roads. Tax Map 95-3 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 31).
the Planning Commission recommended approval and acceptance of
the applicant's proffered condition.
~r. Thomas S. Winston, III stated ~he recommended conditions
were acceptable. There was no opposition present.
on motion of :MM. M&yes~ ~eoonded by Mr, Daniel~ the Board
approved Case 9QSN0194 and accepted the following proffered
condition:
Sixty {60) days prior to occupancy of the
existing building ~cr non-residential uses
and sixty (60) days prior to the issuance
of any building permit for e~pension of the
existing structure or for any new buildings,
the developer shall pay $4,200 to ~he
County of Chesterfield for th~ construction
of a p~rmansnt cul-de-sac on Sambar Road,
as approved by the Transportation Department
and VDOT.
90SN021~
In Midlothlan Magisterial District, JOSEPH A. LANGE, Jla.
requested COnditional USe tO permit a stock far~ i~ a
~esidential (R-40) Dis~rie~. The density of the proposed
amendmunt will bu controlled by zoning conditions or OrdinanC=
seandards. The C~mpreh~n$ive Plan ~ssignates th~ property for
residential d~velopment of 1.5 units p~r acre or le~s. This
r~quast lies un a 13.3 acr~ parcel ~ronting approximately 875
feet on the east line of Old ~un Road ~est, also fronting
approximately 1,050 feet on the south line of Young ~anor
Drive, and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersec-
~ien of ~hsse roads. Tax Map 2-13 (1) Parcel 6 (sheet 2).
Mr. Jacobean presented a snmmary of Case 90SNO~10 and etmte~
the Planning Cemminsion rose--ended approval, subject to
certain conditions.
~r. S~er, rupreucnting the a~pllcant; stat=d thc reco~ended
conditions were acceptable. There was n0 0pDosiCion present.
approved Ca~ 9~SN0210, m~ct to th~ following conditions:
I. Th~ following conditions notwi~mtandimg~ the plan
submitted in conjunction with =his request shall be
considered ~= plan of development.
90-630 8122/90
The pasture and stable area shall be ~ai~tained in such a
manner so as to eliminate the proliferation of O~Or and
the prepaga~ion of insects,
This use shall be limited to ne more than one (1} horse
for ~ach 1,5 a~r~ of lan~ cz ~ maximum of six (6)
· he portion of the request par~c! devoted to the keeping
of horses shall be enclosed by a fence of adequate height
se as to ensure ~he ~ecnri~y of r_he site and to aIford
protection to the zurroundin9 residential development~,
The fenced a~ca{$) sAall include, but need not be limited
~o, pastures, barn (stablel and e×ercise ring.
No ee~erciat activity shall be permitted in conjuD~tion
with this
90SN0214
In Matoaca Magisterial Distri=t, ~OF~ ~. C~N requested
~6~en~snt to Proffered Conditions o~ a previously granted
rezoning (Case 89SN0212) relative to lot $i~ and use of public
u~ilities. The density of the proposed amendment will be
controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance st~o~axds. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property for residential
development of t.5 unitg p~r acre Or 1~. This request lies
in a Residential (R-25) District on a 69.3 acre parcel fronting
approximately 1,24~ feet OD the ~ou~ line of Beach Road, al~o
fronting apprcx~at~ly 300 feet on the ea~% iin~
Tax Map 110-12 (1) Parcels 16 and 48 and Tek Map 1t0-16 (1)
Parcel 21 (~heets 29 and
%he Planning Co~ig~ion reco~nded approval and acceptance
~eeo~endation was a~eeDeable. A citizen indicated he opposed
=he subj~== requ~s~ and ~r. Currin stated
its regular sequence On ~le agenda.
In ~i~lethian b~agisterial Distris~, HANC'f POSTWAR requested
Conditional Use to permit a family day care h~e~ The density
of the proposed ~sndment will be controlled by ~oning condi-
tions or Ordinance standards, The Comprehensive Plan
designates the property for residential development of 1.5
units per acre or less. This r~q~est lies in a Residential
(~-15) District on a 0.6 acre parcel fronting approximately 140
~et on the southeast line of .McCaw Drive, approximately 200
feet sou=henst of Ben Oaks Lane. Tax Map 10-2 (4) Mohawk,
~r. Jacobsen presented a ~mmary of C~e 90SN0~15 and stated
the Planning Co~ission reco~ended approval, subject to
certain condftion~.
condition~ were acceptable. When asked~ he noted concerns had
be~n ~xpress~d by %we area resident$~ however, after reading
the reco~ended conditions as outlined in the Request Analysis
and being assured that the applicant woul~ comply with those
conditions~ they were satisfied. There wa~ no opposition
present.
90-631 8/22/90
On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegaee, the Board
approved case 90SN0215, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Conditional Use shell be granted to and for Nancy
Foster and shall not be transferable nor run with thz
land. (P)
2. The number of ~hfldr~n permitted at any one tim~ shall not
exceed nine {9). The applicant and her immediate family
memb~r~ shall be the only employees. (P)
There shall ba no additions or alterations to the existing
structure to accom%~odats this us~. (P}
There shall be no signs permitted to identify this use.
90SN0226
reque~te~ a~end~eu5 to CendiSioual Use Plannsd ~evelop~snt~
(cases ~S0J~ and 8~0066) relative to ~igns.
~h~ proposed amendment will hs co~r~I~ed by ~enin~ conditions
or Ordinence standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the
property for light industry with density to be determined by
development regulations. This r~que~t lie~ in a Light
Industrial (~-1) District Qn a 9.0 acre parcel
approximately 850 feet on the south line of ~ull Street Roa~,
also fronting aDproximaeely 450 f~ee on bh~ west line of Deer
Run Drive, and loceted in the ~outhwest quadrant of the inter-
section of these roa~s. Tax Map 75-3 (1) ~arcels 15 amd 16 and
Tax ~ap 75-4 (1) Parcels 8 and 9 (Sheet 20}.
Mr. Jacobsen presented a sumunary of Case 90S~8~6 and steted
the Planning Commission reco~ended epprovel, subject to u
reeor~mended condition was acceptable. He noted his client had
met with representatives e~ the Deer ~un Civic Assuciation who
support the request. There Wa~ no opposition preuent.
On motion of ~r. Mayez, seconded by Mr. Apptegate, the Board
approved Case 90S~0226, subject to the following condition;
For purposes of determining signage,
the property shall be Considered to be
zoned Light Industrial (I-l). Signs
shall comply with requirements cf the
Zonin~ Ordinance, ~ections 21.1-265,
(~OTES: A. This condition supersedes
Condition 2 of Case
relative to sign~.
B. Except a~ ~¢t~d h~r~in, all
conditions cT zoning epproval
~e~ain in effect.
C. Prior to erection of any
signs, sign permits must be
obtained for any siqn~ in
excess of six (ti square feet.)
Vote: Unanimous
90-632 8/22/90
90~0231
In ~ermuda ~agieterial District, ~[~UI{BAN PROPAP~ DrY,SION OF
QUA~Tu~ CH~ICA~ CORPORATION ~ques~ed r~zoning from General
Industrial (M-2} to Hea~ Industrial (I-3). The d~n~ity of the
Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan d%~iqnates the
property for light industry with density =o be de%ermined by
development regulations. This req~e~ li%~ 0n a 5.0 acre
parcel fronting approximately 367 f~e= on ~he south line 0~
We~t Hundred Re,df also fronting approx~at~ly 517 feet on ~e
e~t line oi Oid Stage Road, and located in the southeast
quadrant Of the intersection of the~e roads. Tax Map 116-12
(1) Parcel 30 (Sheet 3l).
the Planning C~ission race--ended approval an~ acceptance of
%he app!icant's proffered condition~.
Nr. ~ill Foni~tock, representing =he applicant, Stated the
present. Mr. Currin referenu~d a le~er he received from ~e
President of ~e Enon Civic Association indicating ~h~r
sub,or% of the request.
On motion of ~r. Currin, s=con~e~ ~y Mr. S~lllvan, the Boa~d
approved Ca~ 98SN0231 and accep[ance of th~ following
proffered conditions:
Uses shall be restricted to the following~
Il) Fuel (gas or liqu±~} ~torage~ distribution,
(2) Any I~l and T-2 permitted or restricted use.
and
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, one hundred
(100) feet of right of way on the south side of Route 10
and forty-five (4~) f~t of right of way on the east side
of Old Stage Road, both measured from the oenterline of
that part of the roa~ i~ua~ia%ely adjacent to the
property, shall be dedicated~ free ~nd unrestricted, to
and for the benefit of Chesterfield County.
3. Prier to ~h~ issuance of an occupancy permit for the
redevelopraen% of this property that would warrant turn
lanes as determined by the Transportation Department,
additional pavement shall be constructed along Old Stage
Road ~o provide left- and right-turn lanes at the approved
90S~02~7
In Bermuda Magisterial District, OLI~FRR D. H]JDY requested
amendment to Conditional Us~ Planned Developments {Ca~s $7S0~9
and 89S~0~54) to permit a veterinary hospital in a Residential
(R-15) District. Residential u~ of up ~o ~.9 units per acre
is permitted in a Residential (R-15) District. ~h= density of
such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or
Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan d~siqnates the
property for ~e~id~ntla~ ~ of 1.51 to 7.00 units per acre and
commercial use with density to b~ determined by deYslopment
regulations. This rsquest lies on a 16.6 acre parcel fronting
approximately 980 feet on the north line of East Hundred Road,
approximately 1,1~0 feet east of its intersection with Meadow~
villa Road, also fronting approximately 880 f~et on the south
line of Sunset Boulevard, approximately 80 feet east of its
intersection with Meadowvit!e Road. Tax Map 118-9 (2} Wes~over
~arms~ ~art of Lot 120 (ah=ut 33).
90-633 8/22/90
~r, Jacobsen presented a sununary o£ Cass 905~0237 and stated
thc Planning Commission recorm~ended app~oval~
certain conditions.
Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board ~hag he was a co-owner of t~he
subject property, declared a conflict uf interest pursuant to
the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused
himself from the meeting.
Mr. Oliver D. Rudy ~tat~d the recommends0 conditions were
acesptabls. Thers was no opposition
hospital shall be permitted.
2. There shall be no outdoor runs permitted.
(NOTES: a. These conditions are in additiee to condl-
89SN0264.
Ail conditions of zoning approval for Cases
87~039 and 89SW0264 remain in effect.)
Mr. Currin returned to the meeting.
90SN0242 (Amende~)
~n Matoaca Magisterial Distnic%, C~ESTERFI~LD COU~FfY pLAN~TN~
~ISSION requested Conditional Use to permit an above-ground
water ~ank in an Agricultural (A) Dis~ric=. Rasiden%ia! use of
~p to 1.0 uni%~ pe~ 5.0 acre~ i~ p~it~d in an Agricultural
(A) District. The density of ~uch amendment will be controlled
by zoning conditionu ur Ordinance utandard~. The Comprehensive
Plan designates fha 9roDerky for agricultural/fores:al u~e with
density %o be determinud by. development regu!atiOn~. This
reques~ lleu on a 2.5 a~e parcel f~nting approximately 50
fe~t on th~ west line of Wint~rpock Road, upproximately 19~
feet south of ~each Rua~. Tax Map 1O9-1 (1) Part of ~arcel 19
(Sheet 29).
the Planning Co~is$ion r~oo~ended aDDroval, subject to
certain conditions.
acceptable.
Mr. G~orge Beadles, a Matouca resident~ asked for a point Of
Board would ~ ~ettlng a bad precedsnt. ~s noted the origiDal
applicant was fo~erly ~e Chesterfield County Department of
Utilities; however, Our~ng the proceedings of th~ August 21,
1990 Planning C~iSSiOn meeting, it was d~te~ined ~e
Depar~ent of ~tilities did not hav~ the authority =o apply for
said request and ~e re, est was considered by the Planning
Cotillion, upon advisement o~ ~he County A~turney, on it~ own
initiative. He stated be felt ~e re~es% should be
90-634 8/22/~0
readvertieed in the appropriate manner ~dentifying the proper
applicant and considered by the Board at its Sept~mbe~ 26, 1990
meeting. Re further noted he did net feel t~e health, safety
and welfare of Connty citizens would be adversely impacted by
thirty ($0) day deferral of this case,
Discussion, questions and comments ensued relative ~o the
technicality of the application; etc.
When asked, Mr. Micas indicated this case was complex
procedurally; explained that due to the County's inability to
secure a power of attorney fo~ item the seller's attorney,
this request was considered by the Planning Commission on its
own initiative; stated he felt there were some legal aspects
that needed to be addressed~ and that the prudent approach
would be to defer the case for thirty (30) days and readvertise
it.
Mr. Oliver D~ Rudy, r~pre~enting the seller, stated no one
asked his client tQ participate in this aDpllcatlon; that he
has a contract signed by the COUnty that was to close on July
1, I99Q which at the present time has net been honored; the
County wehld not close On his real estate contract; now other
circumstances have arisen which will further dela~
of his business on behalf of his client; and he did not
After fur=her discussion, Mr. Micas suggested that the requemt
be deferred until September 26, 1990 or un%il ~uch time as the
case could be readvertlsed to the earliest possible date
consistent with advertising requlr~m~nts and that hs and Mr.
Rudy meet in an e~fort to resolve the financial aspects of
On motion of ~r. Mayas, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the
deferred consideration of Caee 9OSNQ242 until September 26~
I990 or until such time as the case. eo~id be read~ertis~d to
the earliest possible date consistent with advertising
requirements.
Vote: Unanimou~
In sateena ~agisterial District, J~4ES F,~J%L C~%TT~ requeste~
withdrawal of ~oneid~rati~n for rescuing from Community
Business ~B-2) to Neighborhood Business (C-2). The density of
the =mendment will be =out,oiled by zoning condlt~ons or
Ordinance s~andards. Th~ Comprehensive ~lan designates thc
property fo~ residential development of 4.01 to 7.0 units per
approximately 140 feet on the east llne o~ Jefferson Davi~
Mi~hWay~ also fronting approximately 140 feet oa ~he south line
the intersection of th~me roads. Tax Map 163-11 (1) Parcpl 7
Planning Co--lesion race--ended approval cf the request;
ar. Warrin=r, on behal~ of Mr. Gattis, briefly explained the
hfs%dry of the subject request, diffiOultle~ encountered while
att~mptin~ t~ complete the project and reaffirmed his ctiunt's
desire for withdrawal as a result of the ~oard's actions
earlier in the meeting regarding the o~dinance ~=ndment
Discussion, questions and co--ants ensued relative to ~he
existing B-2 versus C-2 zoning requirements; the ac~isition of
additional property; c~p!iance with established septiu system
90-635
~tandards, with the e~ueption of lot sizes; ets,
Mr. George Beadles, a Matcaoa resident, voiced opposition to
withdrawal of the proposed request aS he felt approval of the
case would require the applicant to comply with the 40,000
square foot lot size requirement in accordance with the septic
system standards and not allow the development of a ~eptic
system to standards leSS than those adopted by the County
generally. Ms. Alice Beasely~ rep~es~nting her parents who ow~
property to the south of th~ ~ubject re~=esC, voiced opposition
to the proposed rezoning and approval of permitting the use of
a septic system as she fel~ it would adversely impact their
property.
When asked~ Mr, Jac0bson briefly explained permitted B-2 uses
that could be applicable to :he subject property. Mr. Pools
indicated the current C-2 zoning r~uire$ smaller setbacks than
the terror= B-Z zoning. When asked, Mr. Micas indicated that
the Board could net approve the more restrictive C-2 zoning
and, =t the same tame, grant an exception for less than 40,000
square foot siz= lut~. Mr. Pools briefly outlined several
permitted used in the C-2 resoning classification. Mr.
Warriner pointed Out that regardless of th~ rescuing the
applican~ is extremely restricted to the type o~ =ce by the
=utablished septic system standards and th~ fact %hat th%
County Kealth Department will net permit a change in t~e ~$e
unless th%re is data submitted indicated that the septic system
Mr. Daniel moved approval of rezoninq from Community Business
(B-l) to ~ighborhood Business (C-~) for Case 90SH011~ wi~h %h~
~nderstanding the all septic system isuRes will be brou~hf bask
to the Board for approval in accordance with tho ordinance
amendment apprOVed relative to tho required use of the County
When asked, Mr. Micas indicated ~at, as a fo~ uf more
restrictive zoning, thc Board could approve Conditional Use
restricting the proposed request to chat single use.
After further discussion, Mr. Sullivan moved approval of
rezoning from Community Busines~ (B-~) to Agricultural IA) with
conditional Use restricting the use onl~ to a furniture store,
subject to existing Community B~i~e~ (B-2} development
standards. ~r. Daniel seconded the motion.
Mr, Maye~ stated he felt the grantinq exceptions to established
~tandards in thi~ in~tanee wa~ not in the b~$t interest of the
County and he could not support the motion.
Mr. Pools stated that he believed the Zoning ordinance required
were required to be ~O,OOO square feet in order tO use septic
systems. Rt. Beadles stated he did not understanding how this
recp~est could be chonged to a Conditional Use request with
conditions when it was advertised as ~uclidean zoning and fha%
if such a change were being considered that it should be
~e~erre~ and rea~vsrtised.
Mr. Micas stated Mr. Pools was correct regarding the more
restrictive r~quirementm of the septic system standards and
stated the Board conld~ by this rescuing, possibly preclude
fact that the Board made certain modifications to the septic
system standards earlier in the meeting, the Board may wish to
defer thi~ cabs to determine how both decisions would interact.
Mr. Applegate offered a substitute motion, seconded Mr. Daniel,
to defer Ca~e 90SN0112 until September 26, 1990~
90HN0214
In Matoac~ Magisterial District, T{ ~. GO~/)ON
ar0end~ent to Pr0~fer~d Conditions ef e previously ~rant~d
rezoning (Case ~PSN0212) r~lati~e ~o loc size and use o£ public
utilities. The density of the proposed amendment will be
controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property for ~esidential
development of 1.D units per a0re or !sss. This request lies
in a Residential (~-25) District on & 69.3 acre parcel fronting
approximately 1,242 f~e% on the south line of Beach Road, also
fronting approximately 3CS feet on the east line of
Tax Map 110-I2 (1) Parcels 16 and 48 an~ Tax ~ap 110-16
Parcel 21 (Sheets 29 and
~r. Peele presented a sulm~ary of Case 905N0214 and stated the
Planning Commission recommended approval and acceptance Of the
applicant's proffered conditions.
Mr. Frank Ports, representing the aDplicant, stated the
reco~endation was acceptable.
~r. George Beadles, a Matoaca resident, ~oic~d oppositio~ ~O
certain condition~ and should be required ~o comply with those
pro~ered condition~.
Mr. Mayem ~tated he wam astounded by the recO~endation for
~pprov~l; =h~ he felt in the 1990's approval of subdivision~
for male to potential buyers without public ~ater and sewer i~
entrapment and he could not supper= the request as pressnted.
Mr. Daniel stated he had previously mtated his position to be
that he would not vote favorably for ~ubdivision requests that
did not include p~blic water and sewmr but, after the r~hreat
regarding ~eptic ~ygt~m r~quiremen=s, had modified his
for publi= water and, on that basi~, could not ~uDport this
support ~he proposed request, as submitted, as a matter of
conscience. Mr. Applegate raised questions as to whether
the number of lots in the neighborhood7 the location of
subject property; the dis=a~ce o~ the nearest water line to
site~
~%n n~k~d, M~. Sc~lz indicated th~ closest water main
loca=ed in ~each Road a9proximatety 7,820 feet we~t of the
~equest site near Phy~ic's Hill. He fiurth~r explained the
utility Ordinance policy regarding the required use of public
water to subdivisions and stated the application i$ within the
Daniel ~tated ha had voted originally fo~ the zoning with the
understanding ~ere would be public wa~e~, the applicant
requesting amen~ent o~ hi~ proffera to elimlna~e that
provision and under those cir~an~$ h~ could not support
the request. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the applicant's
ability to provide public water from ~h~ eas~ ar~ very
s~nce Pocahontas State Park lle~ tha~ in dir~ctio~; therefore,
the only alternative would b~ to ~xtend water 7,82Q from the
west side of the ~ite. Mr. Mica~ stated, in his opinion, the
applicant did meet the legal standar~ of bo=h ~e Zoning and
Mr. Mayes moved, s~conded by Mr. Daniel, denial of Case
90SN0214.
90-637
8/22/90
Ayes; Mr. Sulliv&n~ MS, Daniel and Mr. Mayes.
Nays: Mr. Currin and Mr. Applegate.
89b"N03~5
In Matoaoa Magisfe~ial District, J~S D. CA~R requested a
tblrty ($0) day deferral of consideration for rescuing from
Agricultural (A) to Eesidsntial (R-12). Residential
development of up to 3.~3 units per acre is permitted in a
Residential (R-12~ District. The Comprehensive Plan desiqnates
the property fo~ re$1~entlal~evelopment of 1,51 ts 4.0 units
per acre. This request lies on a 29.0 acre parcel located at
%he western terminus of Marohrith Road. Tax Map 149-5 (2)
Parcel 6 (Sheet 411.
Mr. P~ole presented a summary of Case 89SN0345 and noted this
request has ~een deferred on several occasions to allow the
applicant an opportunity to meet with f_he Transportation
Department staff to determine an a~o~ptable ~s~hanism to
dedicate ~igbt-of-way for the future east-wsst freeway.
stated that the applieent~ as of this date, has not submitted
such ~ proffer. 5e s~ated the Planning Commission recoa~ended
approval end acceptance of s proffered condition which requires
right-of-way dedication along Marobrith Roa~ an~ that
developer may not develop in the area designated for the
proposed freeway until a tentative plan for the p:operty As
the subdivision.
when asked, ~everal citizens indicated opposition to deferral
of the r=quest.
Neither Mr. Carter nor a reprmsmntativ~ for him were present.
~r. Peele in~icato~ the applicant hms not contacts~
he is aware of the meetinp, and that he had not requested a
deferral cf h~s case.
Mr. Christopher Toiler voiced opposition to the proposed
rezoning tc Residential (R~12) and expressed concerns relative
to water quality, road paving, ~train on public utilities,
educa~ion~ ere., an~ ~tated the r~si~eDt~ have ha~ ~o previous
co~unication from Mr. Carter concerning his plans for
Mr, May~ ~ta[ed h~ wished tO hear the concerns of all those
pre,eat in oppo~i£ion to khe re,nest.
Mr. George Beadles stated 'he felt %he applicant~ er his stent,
should be notified on area residents concerns; ~hat ia hi~
opinion, Mr. Carter did not fully understand the process by
which he was expected to eomply~ and that hs f~lt an effort
should b~ mad~ to contact
Ms. Linde McGill, a resident of Happy Hill Farms Rubdivision,
expressed concern that most area residents were working
famili~ and it was difficult to attend the zoning sessions to
voice concerns/opposition to proposed requests because o~ the
time at which ~he case~ are scheduled to be beard; and stated
area residents like ~heir comm~nit~ ss ~t i~ and fsel it is an
received previous notification of th~ pr0p0~ed rezon~ng but had
not had any contact with Mr. Carter re~arding this ca~e.
There wa~ di~ou~slea ~elative to ing=e~/eg~e~$ to the proposed
site; a su~qestion that considers%ion be given to dsferral of
this ease for thirty d~ye; rezoniDg fro~ Agriout~uraI (A) to
Residential (R-12}; concern that the pr~a~y issue of a
proffered condition 'that would provide for the dedication of
ripht-of-way for the proposed eamt-w~t freeway not being
When asked, Mr. McCracken stated t~ha% the best proffer the
applicant was willing to make is reflected in the Request
Analysis and indicated he believed the app'lic~nt is
experiencing difficulty in obtaining approval to develop from
heirs o£ the property.
On motion of Mr. Hayes, seconded by Hr. Cnrrinj the Board
deferred Case 89sN0345 until September 26, 1990.
Mr. Sullivan ~tated he has voiced objections to the proposed
that the proposed request impaot~ hot only the residents of
Happy Mill Road and surrounding area but also residents of the
entire County as it places on them the financial burden for
road i~provemen~s and other public facilitee; and Chat he could
not support the request as submitted. Mr. Curriu stated he
felt there needs to be a meeting of the applican/~ r~sidents
]~SN017~
In Matoaca MagiBterial DiStrict~ J & Y C~/~Y r~quested
amendment ~ Conditional Use Planned Dev~lapmant ICase
relative to recreational facilities end buff~ requirements. A
townheuse development, ~ot exceeding olgh~ (8) units per acre,
is planned. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for
residential development of 4.01 ~o 7.Q0 units per acre. This
request lies in a Residential (R-12) District on a 12.3
parcel fronting approximately ~00 feet on the south line of
Chesterfield Meadows Drive~ approximately 880 f~et east o£
Sridge Road. Tax ~ap 9¢~9 (1) Parcel ~ (Sheet 31).
Mr. Peele presented a summary of Case 9QSP01?6 and ~tated
Planning Commission recommended approval, subject to
~r. Jeff Collins, representing The applicant, stated th~
recommended conditions were acc~ptable~ There was no
opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Hayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Beard
approved Case 90SN0176, subject to th~ following oonditions~
1. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be required along the south
property line of Tract "c" adjacent to the Taylor property
unless this property ~s zoned wi~k a cc~orclai or
multi-family (R-TH or R-~iF) classification, in which case
no b~ffer shall be required.
(NOTE; This condition supersedes Condition ~7 of Cass
84S082.}
2. An area conveniently accessible to ~nd included within
d~velopm~nt of not less ~qan ten (10) percent o% the gross
acreage shall be provided for suitable recreational use by
the occupants, amd in no event ~hall less than one and
one-half (1 1/2) ae~es be provided. Recreational facill-
ties, including a¢Cive and passive recreation and
community buildings shall be provided, as deemed appro-
priate during tentative subdivision approval. Issuance of
occupancy permits for townhouses ~hal~ be in conjunction
with the phasing of recreational facilities in
with the approved s~bdivision plan. (CPC}
(NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 14 of Case
Vote: Unanimous
90-639 8/22/90
tDST) on August
adjourned at 3:30 p.m. (DST} until 12:30 p.m.
29, 1990 a: Clover Hill ~igh School.
Lan& B. Ramsey ~
County A~inistrator ~
t