Loading...
09-26-90 Minutes1990 Staff in Attendance: Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr., Chairman Mr. M. ~. Mullivan, Vice chairman Mr. G. H. Applegate Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. Lane B. Ramsay Coun=y Admin£s=ra=or Mrs. Doris DeHart, A~st. Co. Admin., Legis. Svcs, and Intergevern, A~fairs Ms. Joan S. Clerk to the Board Chief Robert ~ane$, Pire Departmant Deputy Ce. Admin., Mr. William H. Howell, Dir., GeD. S~rvices M~. ~ary Leu Lyle, Dir., Accounting Deputy Ce. Admin., Mr. ~. J. ~cCracken, Mr. Richard Mc~lfish, ~r. Breve L. Micas, Co. Mrs. Paullna Dir. of News & ~ubllc Col. J. ~. Pittman, Jr. Chief of Police Mr. William D. Chief, Dev. Review, Planning D~par~nt Mr. Richard Sale, Development Social Serviceg Mr. J.L."Jay" Stegmaier, Bir. of Budget & Mqt. Mr. M. D. S%i=h, Jr., Dir. of Libraries ~r. David Dir, Of Utilities Mr. Frederick Willis, Dir. of ~u~an Mr. Currin called the regularly meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. (DST) in t~e Board Room. 90-683 9/26/90 Mr. Currln introduced Revsrend John Holmes, Paptor ef Contrails Presbyterian Churck, who gave the invocation. 2. P~ OF ~r~.~GIA~CE ~ 'rku~ p~AG OF '~ ~X~ S~A~ES OF Mr. O. Ruffin Apper$on, past Board member, led the Pledge of Allegiance ~o tbs Yla~ cf the Unite~ States of America. 3. AppROVAL OFI~TBeT~ On action of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, ~he Board approved the minutes o~ September 12, 1990, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous 3.B. SEPT~ 19, 1990 Qn motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved the minutes of September 19, 1990, as amended. Vot~: Unanimous 4. COUNTYADMINIST~ATOR'M CO~4ENTS Mr. Ramsey introd~ood Mr. J. Ruffin Apperson who presented a brief summary of events resulting in the r~cent update of the hiszory cf the American Legion. He introduced Commander John Thomas who presented the Moard and Dr. Robert E. Wegenkneeht, Director of Library services, with six copies of the recently publish~ official hi~tory of the American LegioD ~or the County libraries. ME. Louis Winters, an A~erican Legion me~ber Mr. Ramsey in~roduced Mrs. Jerri Harding, Chris,mas ~o~hsr for 1990, eMpze~d appreciation for she Beard'm pa~t and continuing suDport, outlined the organisation's current program indicating recipients of funding, extended un invitation to the Board %0 the visit t~$ Christmas Center to ob$~rve ail ~he ongoing mctivitiem and premented the Board with a copy of their budget, Mr. Rnmssy recognized Mrs. Doris DeHart, Assistant County Administrator for Legislative and Intergovernmental ~ffairs, who recently was appointed to ~erve on the National A~sociation of Counties (NACo) Int~rgov~rnmsntal Rain,ions Steering Committee and commended her on her accomplishments. Mr. Willis, Director si Human ReuOurCu Manage~e~t~ i~troduced Ms. Mary ~artin, ~ecen~ly hired Equal ~mploymen= 0ppcr~uni%y Coordinator, and outlined her educational qualifications and achievements, profmmsional mxp~rienuc, duties and responsibili- ties. The Board wslccm~ed Ms. Martin to the County. 5. BOA~D ~O~ITTEE P~EI~ORTS Mr. Daniel reported he attended the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission meeting at which there was extensive briefing regarding ~he Central V~rginia Waste Management Authority program, the establishment of a Citizens~ Advisor7 Com~ittee, and the appointment by each locality a~ a citlz~n ~o 90-684 9/26/90 serve on said Advisory committee; and attended the Capital Region Airport Con~ission m~eting, at which it wa~ indicated that, in spite of nat£on-wide economic trends, the Richmond International Airport continues to ~xperi~uce continued increase in its passenger enplanements and air cerqo business. Hr. Mayes reported he attended the Educational Advisory CoK~ittee to the Council on Iu£ormatlon Management meeting and noted that Fort Lee, Virginia was selected fo~ the Department of Defense Co~issery Agency operation, in which the Crater Planning District Co~missicn played a key role. Mr. Sullivan reported ~hat he, Mr. Currin and M~, D~niel attended ~he Cuntral virginia Legislative meeting held at the Chamlber of COmmerce wherein member~ of the General Assembly, as well a~ elco=ed officials from the region, gathered to become acquainted and discuss issues of concern to the reglon~ which he felt beneficial. ~r. Currin reported he attend the social services meating,.at which COunty G~ncral Assembly members were present, to address concerns regarding impending state ehortfalls for ~ocial Services; attended the ~ttrick Towne Meeting conducted at ~atoaca High school to listen to the concerns/issues of minorities in the District; attend~ the School ~oard Liaison Committee meeting at which several issues Were discussed including budget reductions, year-round school program, etc.; and attended the opening o~ Virginia Pcwer's Unit 7 plant, at which Delegate A. L. Philpott, Speaker, ~ouse of Delegat~s,'was the guest speaker and which facility he indicated is anticipated ho g~n~rat~ additional County tax revenne. $. HEQ~STS ~0 ~OST~ON~ ACTION, EMERG~NCYADDITIONS ~R CHANGES ~N TH~ ORDER OF ~SENTATION On motion of Mr. Sullivan~ s~conded by Mr. Applegate, it was resolved that the Board adopt the agenda, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous Chesterfield County Police Department on October 1, 1990~ and W~ER~AS, Sergeant ~hillips has provided twenty-nine years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County~ and friends with the citizens of Chesterfiel~ County and given much WEEREAS, Chesterfield County and the ~oard of Supervisors will mies sergeant ?hillip~s diligent service. 90-685 9/26/90 NO~, T~B?d~FOP~ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chssterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes citizens of Chesterfield County their apprcci~tlon for service to the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolutioo be presented to Sergeant Phillips and t~a~ this resolu~±on be pe~anentl~ recorded among the papers of this Vote: Unanimous Mr. Currin presented the executed resolution and an engraved Jefferson cup to Officer Phillips commemorating his many years of dedicated, quality service to the citizens Of the County wimhsd him well in his retirement and future end~avors. DF~ARTW~I~P On motion of the Dcard, the following =es01ution wa~ adopted~ Chesterfield County Police Depar%Jasnt on October 1, 1990; and WHEREAS~ Officer Vauqhan ha~ provided ~wen%y-seven years of quality Servic~ to th~ citizens Qf Chesterfield County; WH~AS, officer Vaughan was hi~ed by the Police De9ar~ent as ~ Diupatcher in 1963 and was promu%ud to t~u rank of ~atrol Officer in 19~5; and Motorcycl~ Emcort Unit where h~ has distinguished himself and brought honor to %ha County ~rouqh h~s 9ro~s~onal conduct and d~eanor while bandlln9 his assigned duties; and ~EREAS, Chesterfield County and ~e Beard of Supervisors wi~ miss officer Vau~hau~s diligent service. NOW, THE~F0~ BE IT ~SOLVED, that ~u Ches=erfield County Board of Supe~isors publicly recognizes O~ficer Larry N. Vaughan and ex~end$ on behalf of i=s members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his se~vic~ to the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER ~9OL~D, that a copy of this resolution b~ presented ~o Officer L~rry H. Vaughan an~ that this resolution be ~e~an~ntly recorded ~ong the pa~rs of Vote: Unanimous ~r. Currin presented th~ execute~ resolution an~ an u~grav~d Jefferson cup to Officer Vaughan co~emorating hi~ mnny wished him well in his retirement and future endeavors. 7.C, COMMEM0~a%TIN6 T~E 90T~ ANNIVERS~Y OF 'r~u~ %r/RGINIA COUNCIL OF SOCIAL W~LFAI~E On marion of th~ Board, thc following resolution was adopted: ~B~E~$, Thc Virginia Council on ~ooial Welfare wa~ ~ounded in 1900 as the Virginia Conference on Charities and W~REAS~ The Virginia Council un Social Welfare WaS instrumental in th~ C0~onwsalth of Virginia in %he Creating of a Board of Charities which haa evolved to the presznt Virginia Board of Social Services and the Virginia BOard of Corrections; and WB~F~AS! The Virginia Council c~ Social welfare was also instrumental in the establishment in Virginia of services for persons with epilepsy and for persona wi<h mental illne~ and WHEREAS, The Virginia Council on Social Welfare in 1940 reoormnended to the Commonwealth a ~yStem of parole from pris0n; &nd WHEREASt For ninety years the Virginia Council on Social Wslfare an6 its Capital Area District has provided training for human ~ervice workers employed by the County Of Chesterfield through trai~ing conferences, institutes and workshops; and WHBREA~, The County of Chesterfield and the people of Chegterfield have benefited from human eervlces agencies which were established by the Co~onweatth of Virginia as a result of the advocacy of the Virginia Council on Social Welfare; and Chesterfield hava been able to provide more skilled services to citizens in need as a resul= of training ~rOVlded by the virginia Council' on Bocial Welfure aq~ its Capi~al Ar~a Di~t~ict. ' NO~, T~F0~ ~ IT ~SQLV~D~ ~at the Chesterfield County ~oard of S~perVisors cc~oratem the 90th Anniversary of the Virginia Council on Social Welfare and wishe~ it w~ll it continues to serve the welfare of the citizens o~ the County of Chesterfield and of =kc Co~cnweal~ of Virginia. William~on, Chairperson of the local Capital Di~trlct of the Virginia Council o~ Social Welfare and wished them well their continu%d ~ffosts to s~rve the welfare o~ chesterfield County and the Co~onwealeh o~ Virginia. 7.D. FIDRT.TTy FEDERAL S&%"'~NG~ BANK AND LZGC;WI'T--CHES?RgPT'R. nn A~S FESTIVA~ On motion cf the Board, t. he ~oard aGcepted contributions totalling $1,050 to tho Park~ and Racreation Department ($300 from L~ggett-Chesterfield Towns Center and $75~ ~rom Fidelity Fsderal Savings Bank) for the costs of p~bli¢ity, entertainment and supplies for th~ 1990 Rainbow o~ Arts Festival and adopted =he following resolution~ W~EREAS, The CheSterfield County Parks an~ Recreation Department s×i~ts %o provide ~uality special events to citlzene of CheSterfield County; and WHEREAS, The 1990 Rainbow of the Arts Festival is an annual event which provides County citizens positive exposure to the arts; and WHEREAS, Fidelity Federal Savings Bank and Legge~-Chesterfield Towna Center have provided, generous support for this event, therpby substantiating involvement with ~he community. NOW, THEREFORE ~E IT RESOLVED., that th~ Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Fidelity Federal Savings 90-687 9/26/90 Bank and Leggett-Chesterfield Towns center for their genero=s contributions to this event. AND, 5E TT FURTHER RESOLVED~ that ~h~ ChesterfiEld County Board of Supervisors is d~eply grateful to Fidelity Federal Savings Bank and Leggett-Chesterfield Towns Center for their continuous community support. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Carrie presented the executed resolutions to Ms. Rhonda Perry of Legge~%-Ches~erfield T0wne center, Mr. Richard Hollander, Chairman of the Advisory Board of Chesterfield Fidelity Savings Bank, and Mrs. Bernadette StEwart, Branch Manager, Fidelity Saving~ Bank, and commended them for their generou~ contrlbu=ion tQ this event and for their corporation's continuou~ e0n~unity support. 8. ~.I~INGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSC~U~.W~ ~ATT~S OR CLAIMS claims. 9. DEFERRED ITEM~ 9.A. PUBLIC ~EARIN~ TO CONSIDER ANORDINANCE TO E~TABLISH THE TO AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS AND TO APPROPRIATE BALANCE M~, ~iCau orated stair has been workin~ for some time with developers in the Rout~ 10 ar~a for the purpose of attempting modifications to the original plans and consideration of various financing arrangements. He noted, however, developer~ within the district have informed the County that they ne longer support nor wish to finance a sewer assessment district at this time. Mr. Carrie disclosed to the ~oard that he owns property that lies withi~ the Route 10 Sewer ~es~ment District, d~clared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Inter~t Act and excused himself from the meeting. Sewer Assessment District as he felt it was needed in the propose~ SrEa $0 that it COuld be properly d~veloped~ that the County should do the same for thi~ area a~ it did for the Route 1/$01 Sewer A=sessment District; and a=ked that the Be~r~ consider voting in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Appl~gate ~xpress~d concern relativ~ to the length o~ time this ma:tot has ~eon un,or consideration and suggested i~ be rejected as opposed to being tabled. Mr. Mayes objsct%d to rejecting the Routs l0 Sewer Assessment D~stric~ as ho felt it an opportunity to initiate a new policy to sewer tho~e ar~as being developed in the County, not just specific areas; that hu felt th~r~ should be equitable distribution of policies County-wide; and that the matter should be tabled. Mr. Daniel the di~trict~ and outlined other financing mechanisms for sewer districts. ~r. Appleqe=e indicated he ielt the creation of a to reject the matter aB he felt it was a good financing mechanism for these kinds of issues. When a~kEd, ~r. Miea~ indicated there is no difference betwmen ~abling and/or r~jeeting an issue. i .! Mr. Maye~ moved to table the ordinance to establish ~e Route 10 Sewer Assessment Distriet~ and se~ the public hearing to authorize issuance of revenue bonds and to appropriate bond proceeds, and to approve an interim loan from the Sewer Fund Balance. There was no second. Mr. Sulliva~ stated tbs motion failed for lack of a uecond. Mr. Apple~te moved, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, to reject the ordinance to establish the Route 10 Sewer Assessment District; and ~et the public hearing to authorize issuance of revenue bond~ and to appropriate bond proceeds, and :c approve an interim loan from the Sewer Fund Balance. Ayee: ~r. Sullivan and M~. Applegate. Ways: Mr. Daniel and ~r. Maye$, Absent: ~r. Currin. Mr. S~llivan stated that the matter would be continued to the October 10, 1990 meeting. ~r. Currin returned to the meeting. Mr. Sale briefly outlined the current policy for extending public wa=er and/or ~we~ to existing the Boar~ had directed s~aff to prepar~ an alterna=iv~ to th~ a~essment/developmsnt.distrlct policy which reco~ended components of the recor~endation are outlined in ~he Board ~r. Cu~in utatu'd ~at he preferred ~at the COU~ty'~ portion of th~ flnanoing rom the ~x~en~ion of these services be expended t0tall~ from the Utilities Depar~ent Discussion. quus~ions and ~o~ents ensued r~latlv~ to the ratio of county expenditures versu~ Utilities e~penditu~es; financing for public wot~r and/or sewer for ~%0n~henge and Bunters L~ding~ diffarencas in c~rrent f~nancing policies as opposed extending public facility lines exceeding that genera%ed by connection fee revenues; extension uf public COunty would be exposed tO under ~is policy being potentially a $8~ million capital inves~ent on water and/or sewer, if the reco~endsd poliGy were adopted; if the ~reatment facility wer~ existing subdivisions; Mr. Sullivan added {h~re wer~ also s~ilar ~itu~tions in generally fav0ru same~ but he f~It more consideration should be meeting the n~d~ 0f public safety, health and welfare versus prepared to vote On this matter at ~is time. Mr. Mayes 90-689 9126/90 proee~m by which tho~e matters were resolved; s~atsd he felt a distinction was being made as to the location of the problems: that he did no% feel pr~stices of the board were being applied uniformly; that the Board approves subdivisions wi%hone public water and/or sewer, knowing that problems will arise and that the County and taxpayer will ultimately have to pay the bill. Mr. Daniel moved to defer indefinitely the extensions of public water and/or sewer service to existing subdivisions until additional data could be provided. Mr. Currin concurred with the motion for deferral and asked that a work session be scheduled for the Board to further review details of the matter. Mr. Maye~ ~tated Matoaca resldsnts supported the bond referendums; ho felt a distlnotion was being made when it came to providing for the needs of his area; and he felt some of the benefits of those referendums should be extended his constitueats. There was brief discussion relative to the timeframe within which the matter could be brought back to the Board for a work se~sien~ Gtc. Mr. Currin ~uqg~t~d the work s~ssion be scheduled for October 10, 1990. ~r. Daniel amended hi~ moticn~ seconded by Mr. ~ayes, tn de~sr until October 10, 199O, the extensions.of public water en~/o~ sewer service to ezisting subdivisions until a~diti0nal data scold b~ provld~d and a work s~ssion, There was further discussion as to how quickly staff could p~epare all the information necessary and Mr. Sullivan suggested tbs issue be carried forward until ~ovember 1~, 1990. Mr. Daniel made a motion, seconded by NI. ~ayos, ~o defer until November 14, 1990, consideration of the eXtenSiOns of public water and/ur ~ewer service to existing subdivisions uDtil additional data could b~ provided and a work session held on Neuember 14, 1990. Vot~: Unanimous 9.C. CONSIDER ~QD~$T TO ~T~ND W&T~R ~ER~ICE TO ~m~AINDRR OF GL~B~ POINT SOBDIVISION Mr. Sale briefly outlined the request to oOnSider extension of water service to the remainder of Gl~be ~oi~t ~ubdivision, seetiens 1 and 2~ ~hat were not served by water under the previous program and addressed the proposed financing mechanism for same. Discussion~ questions, comments ensued relative to the ramifi- sation~ of downsizing =be Physic ~ill water tank~ alternative financing mechanisms; whether or n~t an immediate health, safety an~ welfare issue relative to Glebe ~cint Subdivision e~isted; comparison o~ the percentage of homeowners in Seetion~ 1 and 2 that would connect to public water if available~ O~timated costs for extending water facilities to Suction~ and 2; Mr. ~ayes stated he supported a Dre~ieu~ staff recommendation to downsize tho Physic ~ill water tank to accomplish thiz request since the Ceanty was able to purchase water from City of Richmond. Mr, Sale state~ when the r~que~t was made to extend water service to the remainder of Globe ~ciat Subdlvi~isn, staff reviewed several funding option~ and d~t~rmined that the Physic Hill wa<er tank c~uld be b~t not e]im~nated because of th~ County's abLli%y tc purch~ water from the City of Ric~ond because growth is not going to be in the= area at thio t~e. He further no,ed evgntDally additianal capacity would have to bui%t but poBmibility at a different location. Farther discussion onsae~ relative to available options if the Physic Hill Water tank were downsized and ~v~ntuall~ a~iticnal capacity ware needed; project elimination or a rate increase would be proposed for all County water service; priority of Drojects and its relevance to Glebe Point as it relates to serious health problems; reference to a list of projects in various areas of the County and their priority of sequence in being eligible for extension of water service; etc. Mr. Sullivan stated this issue has been before the Board on dete/~ine the order in which water extension world occur after a policy ha~ been implemented; indicated he has a problem with resolving prOblem~ in Glebe Point or any other place for people who knowingly, willingly purchased property and oonstructe~ a home where there was no pnblic Water and/or sewer facilities available; requests~ staff exhibit slides o~ homos located in Gt~be Point Subdivision7 ~nd suggested the matter bs deferred until a policy h~'b~e~ discussed, at which time a priority list could be established based uponl the -health, safety and welfare of the ci%isens in the areas and then proceed from there. ~r. Applaga~e stated, for clarification, he thought the the subdi~islon referenced was Hunt~r'e Ridge, nod ~unter~e Lan~ing. ~r. Daniel stated he felt a formalize schedule was needed with formalised projects and monies appropriated, with the funding being directed by need and not convenience. ~ ntated that if commitments wsre to be made, as part of a project recommenda- tion, to address c~rtain situations, then th~r~ needed to be a commitment structured so that future Boards mumt honor that co~u~itment. Mr. Sullivan made a motion to defer until NOveafoer 28, 1990, eonsid~ratian of & request to e~end wa~er service to the remainder of Glebe Point Subdiviuion. Mr. Mayas stated he hoped that the Board would reach an equitable decision on this ~atter. Mr. Currin stated he had previously voted in apposition to this request because of its overall Lmpact on ~he citizens of the County~ however, he felt ~hsre neede~ to be a solution to the concerns expressed by residents of Glebe Point subdivision. ~e stated, even though ho agreed with a deferral at this time~ ~e felt it absolutely imperative that, i£ the Board were to adopt and implement a ~o%icy which is feasible for the overall health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the County, Gleb~ Point Shauld ba at the top o~ the priority list. ~r. Sullivan restated his motion, seconded by Mr. Daniel, ¢o ~efer until ~ovembsr 2~, 19~0, consideration of a rcgue~t to extend water service to the remainder Of Glebe Point Subdivi- sion. 90-691 lO .~, "I'O CC. NS~ ~ ORDINANCE "1"0 ~ 'rnJ~ CODE OF 8-69 TO TU~ CODE OF C~ESTERFI~LD IMPOSING A ~2.00 CIRCUIT COURTS FOR CO~RTHOUSRMAI~T~ANCE~ P~OVATIONAND Mr. ~icaE stated this date and tim~ had b~en advertised for public hearing %o con~ider an ordinanc~ ko amend kh~ Code of the Count3 of Chesterfield, 1978, as amandad, rela~ing to the imposition of a $2.00 f~ on all ~r~inal and kraffic cases in District and Circuit Courts flor courthouse maintenance, r~nova~ion and No one came forward %o speak in favor, of or against the proposed ordinance. 0n motion o~ Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following ~TIC~ ~, SECTION 8~69, ~-~T~NG ~ ASS~S~S OF FEES IN CR~N~ ~ T~FIC ~ IT O~AI~D by the Board of ~up~rvi~ors of County that the C~ o~ =he County c~ Chesterfield, 197~, a~ amended, is ~ended by adding Articl~ XV, Section 8-69, a~ A~ticle XV. T~porary A~essmen% of Fees in Criminal and Traffic 8sc. 8-69. Imposed; ~mount; collection; applica~ion {a) Pursuant to Section 14.1-133.2 Of the Code o~ Virqinia the County hereby asseeses as part off the costs incident to ~ach criminal and traffic case brought in the General District or Circuit Courts o£ t_he County, the sum of two dollars ($2.00). (b) Such a~sments shall be collected by the Clerk of the Court in whlsh the action it filed, and remitted ~o tSe Treasorer, subj%c~ to disbursements by th~ Board of Supervisors, for the oon~tructlun, renovation ur maintenance of courthouse or jall and court-related facilities and to defray increases in the cost of heating, cooling, ~lactrlcity and ordinary maintenance. (c) This previ~ion shall expire ~uly t, 1991. Vote= Unanimous 10.B. TO CO~SIDEK A~ ORDI~ TO AMEND ARTICLE V/IIr CHAPTER COD= O~ TH~ COUNTY OF C~STEP. FIKLD~ 19~, AS BY AMENDING SECTION 8-32 ~LATING TO TAX ON 8, of the Code of the Ceunt~ of chesterfield, 1978, as amended, ~c one cam~ forwar~ ~0 Speak in favor of or against i i i Qn motion of ~r. Daniei, seconded by Mr. Sulliva~ the Board appropriated $37,0U8 in additional revennes from increased and $29,000 from the Law Library Reserve to Drovide ~urnishings in th~ new Courts Building and other related operating and capital costs incurred during ~Ygl and adopted the following AN ORDINANCE TO AF~END ARTICL~ ~II, CH/%FTER 8, OF Tm CODE OF '£~ CO~I~TY OF CNF~T~RFIELD, 1978, A~ A~EI~ED, BY AMENDING S~CT~0~I RELATING TO TAX ON CI~IL ACTIONS BE IT 0RDAI~ED by uhu ~oar~ of ~upervisors of Chesterfield County that the Code cf the County o~ Chesterfield~ 197R~ amended, i~ ameu~ by amending ~ectibn S-32 Sec. $-~2. ~mFose~; amount; collectio~L..~lication to Fsderal (a) ~urs~aut to Chapter 4 of Title42.1 of the Cod~ of incident to ua'ch civil ac%ion filed in the Gsneral Di~triot Court of the County the sum of four dollars ($4.08), and in Circuit Court of th~ County, the sum of four dollars o o o Vote: Unanimous 10.C. TO CONSIDAglANANENIIN~IT TO SECTION 2-56 OF T~ CODE OF D~F~TIOR OF ~C~ P~PBRTY ~r. Micas stated thi~ date and time had been advertised for a public hearlnq ko con~id~r an ordinance to ~n~ th~ Cod~ of the County ~ ~hester~ield, 1978, a~ amended~ relating disposal of unslaked f~rea~$ an~ o~h~r weapons. ~o one c~ fo~ar~ to ~p~ak in favor of o~ agai~s~ the proposed ordinance. There wa~ brief di~c~D~io~ felatlve to whether or nee any valuable and should not b~ destroyed; l~itation/legaI r~ifications regarding the ~ale of weapons use~ ~ur~ng the co~ission of a crime; etCl ' Mr. Daniel' asked that staff establish = policy, to be interually a~inistered, to dateline On motion of Mr. ~ullivan, seconded by ~r. Applegat~ the Board adopted the following o~dinance: County that ~e Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, =men~e~, is ~en~d By adding a new Section Sec. 2-56. Disposal of nnolaimed firea~$ and other weapons. (a) Whenever an unsl&imed firearm or other weapon has been in the posse~sio~ o~ the Police DeDartmcn= for mere than si~ty {60} deys~ the Chief of Police may cause the firearm or w~apen to be destroye~ or rendered permanently inopexa~le. 90-693 9/26/9~ (b) For the purposes of this Section, "unclaimed firearm or oth~r weapon" shall have the same meaning as "unclaimed personal property," as defined in Section 2-53. (c) Prior to deetroyin~ er rendering the firearm Or weapon inoperable, the Chief of Police skali make reasonable obtain from the C~nmonw~alth~$ AttQrney in writing a statement advising that the firearm er weapon i~ not needed in any Of general circulation in this locality once u week for two {21 weapon and the date, time and place of the destru0ti0n ~hall be identified in the notice. Vote: Unanimous 10.D. ~ CON~IDERA.~I A~II~D~ ?0 SEC'i'ION 14.1-18 OF ~ CODE OF 'r~ COuN'£x OF CHESTERFIELD~ 1978~ AS AMENDEDr ar. Micas etated thi~ date and time had been advertised for p~lic hearing to consider an amendment ko Section 14.1-18 of th~ Code of the County oi Chester~ield, 1978, as amended, regarding exemption of certain '~6h{clag u$ed by re~Cua ~quad~, fire depar~ents and ~eir members fro~ County license Mr. George Beadle~ voiced opposition %0 random ustabli~ent of exemptions ~s proposed as he felt there were other means by which t0 COmpenuatu volunteer servic=s for r~scue squads, fire departments and %heir me~ers. fire department~ p~ovid~d an invaluable, ~ax-savlng $~vic~ %o =he citizens of ~he County and the proposed ordinance was appropriate. Mr. Ramsey explained the certification and administration of ~he proposed ordinance. 0n motion of the Board, the Board adopted the following ordinance: ~ IT O~A%N~D Dy the ~Q~r~ Qf Supervisors Qf (1) That Section 14.1-18 tke C~d~ of the COunty chastarfield, 1958, as amended,, is ~nd~d and zeenac~ed read as follows: Sec. 14.1~18. R~quired; (a) Thers i~ here~y imposed a license %a~ upon mo~or vehicle, trailer or semitrailer normally ~araged, or parked in ~he Coun%y. (c) ~he previsions of ~his Section shall no% apply vehicle~ owned by 1) a Volunteer R~sc~e Squad, 2) a Volunteer Squad or a Volunteer Fire Depar~ent provided such member ~h~ chief or head of ~he me~er'~ volun~eer orqanization, c~r~ifyin~ ~he s%~e~'~ active memb~rshlp fQ~ th~ slx-month i i m m period prior to obtaining a license, and provided that no more than one Vehicle owned by such member may qualify for the exemption previded by this subsection. vote~ Unanimous 10.E. TO CONSIDER ~ ORDT~C~ ~0 ~ ~.'il~ iL'ODE OF ~ CX)W~Z OF CH~STEP~'±~LDr 1978t A~im/~ENDED, BY AMENDING 2-34, 2-&0, 2-43, 2-43.1 ~LND 2.45.~T~l~G G~NER~LLY ~ PU~ING ~r. Micas stated this date and time had been a~vertised for a p~lic besting to consider an ordinaac= ~o ~snd the Co~e the Count~ of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, r~ia~ generally to purchasing. No on~ eam~ forward ~o ~peak in favor o~ or against the proposed ordinance_ On motion of Mr, Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopte~ th~ following ordinance~ ~ O~I~CE ~ T~ CODE 0~, x~ cou~ OF C~S~IE~ 1978, ~ ~ED, BY ~IN~ SECTIONS 2--34, 2-40, 2--t3, 2-43.1 ~ 2.45 BE tT ORDAINED by the Boa~d of Supervisort of County= (1] The= the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is ~ende~ and reenacted %0 rea4 as follows: ARTICLE VIII, Purchasinq Sec. 2-34. Definitions. For the purposes of this Article~ %he foltowln9 words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively a~c~ibed to them by ~is Section: Professional services, Work perfoamed by an aontracto~ withi~ the scope of the practice of accounting, architecture, land surveying, landaoape architecture, law, m~dioine, pharmacy, p~yehiatry, psycholo~, optemetry or professioD~l engineering. ~e~ 2-40. Competitive p~rcha~in~ ~snerallyL All County contracts'with nonguver~ntal con%rectors for the purchase o~ lease of goods, for the purchase of or for th~ ~ale of obsolet~ or unusable goods, shall be awarded only after competitive sealed bidding or competitive =ion as hereinafter providu~ in this Article; p~ovided, twenty thousand dollars ($28,000.00) in the case of contracts for professional ~erv~ce$ or fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) in the case of all other contracts and the Co=nty Yurchaslng Agent has established alternate purchasing proc~dnres for such o o o 90-695 9/26/90 Sec. 2-43. Competitivo negotiation - POx nonprofessional services; procedure~ award. (a) Pot all contracts for nOnprOfessional services that may be based on competitiv~ negotiation pursu~n~ to the p~ovi~ions of Section 2-41 of this Articl~ proposals shall be solicited by a written Reguest For Proposal [~P}. The RFP shall indicate in genekal terms that' which is sought to b~ procure~, specifying =he . iac~or~ · which. ~ill b~ used in evaluating the proposal and containing or incorporating by reference, applicable contraotual te~s and condition~, including but not l~ited to any unique capabilities or qualifications which will be required of the P~Iic noti~ of the RFP ~hall be inserted at least OnC~ in newspaper of County-wide circulation. Proposals shall a~so be soil=ired by sending the ~P to prospective contractors and by po~ting th~ ~P in a public place. Sec. 2-43.1. S~e - For ~rofessional service~; ~roGedure; award. (a) For all con~racts ' for professional proposals shall be solicited by a written Req~e~% For Proposal (RFP). Th~ RF~ ~hall indicate in genm=al terms that which ~ sought to be procured, specifying the factors which will b~ by reference applie~le contractual t~s and condi%ion~, including, but no= Iimi=ed =o a~y unique capabilities or qualifications which will be r~quired of the contractor. The ~P shall not, however, request tha~ o~ferors furnish estimates of man-hours or cost for services. Public notice of th~ RFP shall be inserted in a newspaper o~ County-~i~e ~irculation. ~rop0$al$ shall at~o b~ nolicit~d by ~ending the RFP to place. {b) The Purchasing Agent, in conjunction with ehe staff of applieabl~ depar~ents, shall engage in indiuidual rssponslbte and ~ui[able on the ba~i~ of initial responses and with emphasis o~ p~ofe~io~al competence, to ~rovide required services. Repetitive informal interviews shall be permissible, such off~rors sh~ll be e~courage~ %0 elaborate on their qualifications and pe~fo~anae ~ata or staff e~p~rti~e per~inent =o thm proposed project, as well ~ construction and life cycle costs. Methods to be utilized arriving at p~i~e for ~ervices may also be discussed 9ropriutary info~ation from competing offeIors shall not disclosed to the public or to competitors. At the conclusion of evaluation faotors published in the ~P and all Purchasing Agent~ in conjunctlo~ with ~e staff o~ departments, shall select in ~he order of preference two (2) more offerors whose professional qualifications and proposed services are deemed most meritoriou~. N~go%iaeions shall then be conducted, beginning with the offeror ra~ed first. If a shall be made to that of razor. 0%h~ise, negotiations wieh on un~it ~uch a contract can be negotiated at a fair rea6onable price. Should ~he Purchasing Agent de~ermi~e writing and in its sols discretion that only one (l~ off~ro~ fully quali~ied~ or ~ha= one {1) offeror ig clearly more highly qualified and suitable than th~ others under ooneideration, a contract may be neqotiatad and awarded to that off~ror. Sec. 2-45. Stat~ aid projects. No contracts for the constzuctlon of any building or for an addition to or improvement of an e~ieting building for which State £unds of fi£teen thousand dollars ($15,000,00) or more, by appropriation~ grant-in-aid or loan, are used cz are to be used for all or part of the cost of construction shall be awarded except a~ter competitive sealed b~dding. The procedure for the advertising for bid$ and awarding of the contract shall con~orm to the provicionc of Chapter 7, Title 11 of the Cod~ of Virginia. No person who has been engaged as aa architect or engineer far the same pro)act shall be eligible to bid or to be awarded any such contract. 11. N~4BUSINESS ll.A. PdlALLOCATION OF PAKK B~ND PROJECTS TO C0~i~I~TE xn~ On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Appla~ate, the Board transferred a total of $17~,70~ fro~ three Midlothlan District Park projects ($130,500 - Mic~cllaneou$ improvements at ~idlothian ~iddle School athletic facilities; $9,200 - Mi~cellaneo~e new school improvement~ and $33,000 - Surplus balance for ~idlothian ~iddle School feo~all/soceer lighting project which has been completed) to the Pa~k Bond Projects approved in the 1988 Bond Referendum to complet~ the financing plan fc~ the purchase o9 the Riverton cite. Vote: Unanimous ll.B. RR~0CA~ION 0~ 1989 A~D 199~ ~OND PR(KiEED$ On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, =he ~aard authorized the reallocation of I989 and 1990 Bond proceeds to meet cash flew needs for school projects and adoDted the following r~solution: RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY T~E S0A~/~ 0~ ~U~VI$OE$ ON DECEMBER 14, 1988 AND JANUARY 24, 1990 ~E IT RESOLVED BY THE ~OARD OF SUPERVIaORS OF TH~ CQ~T¥ OF C~ESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA: that, as a~ended, such Section 1(o) shall read in its entirety obligation bonds authorized by the voters of thc County at the 90-697 9/26/90 advisable and in the bast interests of the County to 5uthorize twenty-rheas million nine hundred thousand dollars obligation bonds for the followin~ purposes: (i) Nineteen million nine hundred and twenty-three thous~Dd dollars ($I9,923,000) fo~ ca~[~a~ sohoo% improvement prelects in the County; (ii) Four hundred' & nine thousand dollars ($4~9~000) for publiu sare:y improvemen~ proje6~s in the Ceun:y; (iii) Two millioa eight hundred & thlr~y five thousand dollars ($2 S35 000) fo~ park and recreation improvement projeo=s in ~he County; (iv) Three hundred & fifty =hre~ ~hou~and dollars {$353,000) for library improvement pro~t~ in the Coun~y~ and (v) Thre, hundred & eighty ~housand dollers for mental health and mental retardation improvement in th~ Connty." SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF ~SOLUTION ADOPTED ON JANUARy. 19~0. S~ction 1(c) of the resolution adopted by the Board cf supervisors of the Coun~y on January 24, 1990, entitled Pd~SOLUTION AUT~0RIZIEG AND 9ROVIDING FOR TEE ISSUANCE, ~AL~ AND DELIVERY OF NINE MILLION FORTY THOUSAND DOLORS C~ESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, ~D PROVIDING WITH RESPECT TO TH~ ISSUANCE ~D $AL~ OF A L~K~ P~I~CI~AL ~OU~T OF PUBLIC IMPKO~ENT BO~D ANTICIPATION NOTES IN ANTICIPATION OF ~ended, such Section l(c) shall read in it~ entirety as ~'(c) The Beard of s~per~imor9 de~ it advisable and in the best inSerters'of the County tQ authorize and provide at this tim~ for the i~uance, sale and delivery of nine mi11ion of ~uch general obligation bonds for the following purgoses: (i} Seven million thre~ hundred & ~v~n~y nlna th.uusand ~ollar= ($7~79 000} for capital school improvement projects in the County~ {ii} Zero dollar~ {$ 0 ) f~r public improvemen~ projeo=s in the Connty; (iii) One million six hundred & ~ix=~ one thoumand dollars ($1,661~00Q} for park and recreation improvement projects in (iv) Z~ro dollar~ ($ 0 ) for library improvement projectm in the County." SECTION 3. ~FFECTIVENESS OF RESOLUTION. This r~solution shall t~ke effect upon it~ adoption. Vote: Unanimous After di=cussion, Mr. Sullivan no~ed that staff would he forwarding to the Board da~a re~ard~ng the County's bond issue schedule. Mr. Ramsey no=sd staff was working closely with School Adminiutration to determine the impact of the revised schedule on school projects. ~s no%ed %ha% recently two rating aDalyst from Standard and Peers visited the ~ounty and were impressed with the County's quality of development, diversity Of ~ndu~try, the road system ~nd othez elements se~n in the County. He further noted he and Mr. Currin would be meeting with rating agencies in the near future to discuss the actual rating on the bond sale anticipated in November, 199Q. 11.C. ~I~3~I~I'M~ - BOA~D OF DIR~&~TO~ FOR GF,~AT~R RICI~OND T~A~.~ IT COMP~ On ~otion of M~. Apple~ate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board suspended its rules to allow simultaneous nomination/reappoint- ment of persons to serve on the GreateK Richmond Transit Company Board of Directors. On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~econded by Mr. Daniel, the Bo~r~ simultaneously nominated/~eaDpolnted Mr. Daniel K. Smith, Mr. David W. Mathews and ~r. ~arry I. Schutt~, Jr, %o serve on ~he Greater Richmond Transit company Board of Directora, whose t~rm~ will be effective October ~, ~990 add will expire October 14, 1991~ and further authorized th~ County Administrator, Or bin de~ign~, to appear at the Octobe~ $, 1990 GRTC annual ~eetin~ te ve~e for the Dire~tor~ appointed by the Board and by Richmond City Council. Unanimous i~.D. CONS~T ll.D.1. STAT~ ~PAD~CC~PTA~C~ Yhis ~ay the County ~nvironmen~al ~ngin~er, i~ accordance wi~h dir~ctio~ fro~ thi~ Boa~d~ made report in writing upon his ex~inatio~ of Castle ~ock Koad in Rock Castle ~usine~ Bark, ClOVer ~ill District. U~on consideration ~hereof, and on motion o~ Mr. Daniel, seconded by Rock Castls Business Park, Clover Kill District, be and it h~reby is ~stablish~d And be it fur~er remolved~ that the Virginia Depar~en~ of Transportation, be and it h~r~y i~ re~$%ed ~o %ak~ into the Secondary Systsm, Castl~ Rock Road~ b~qfnning at the inter- southerly D.11 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Thi~ rmqummt im inclumivm of the adjacent slope, ~i~ht dimtanc% and designated Vizginim Depar~ent of Tran~por=a%ion drainage This read ser~es a~jacent co~ercial And ba i~ further resolved, that the Board of Sup~rvimor~ right-of-way for thi~ road. Pla% Book ~8~ Page 99~ November 2, 1988. Vote: Unanimous This day %he County =nvironmen~al Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, mad~ report in writing upon his examination of Rivsrpark Way, Northhreok Circle, Southern 90-699 9/26/90 Points Drive and Southern Po£nt~ COUrt in River Ridge, Sec%ion B in Matoaca District. seconded by Mr. Mayas, it is r~solved that Riverpark Way, Nerthbreok Cirule, Southern Point~ Drive and Southern Points Court in River Ridge, S~Gtion D in ~atoaca Dietri0t, be and they hereby ars e~tablishsd as public roads. And ba it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Riverpark Way, beginning at e~isting Riverpark Way, State Route 4350, and going northerly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Southern Toints Drive, then oontinuing northerly 0.03 mil~ ~o the intersection with Northbrook Circle, then con,inning northerly 0.01 mile to end at proposed Riv~rpark Way, River ~idge, ~eotion ¢; ~orthbrook Circle, beginning at the intersection with Riverpark Way and ~oing easterly 0.04 mile to end i~ a uul-de-~ac; Sou%hem 9oints Drive, beginning at the intersection with Riv~rpark Way and going westerly 0.10 mile %o the intersection with ~outhern Points Court, then continuing westerly 0.08 mile to end at proposed Southern Points Drive, River Ridge, Section C; an~ So,them Point~ Court, beginning at the inter~eetion with Southern Points Drive and ~olng southerly 0.07 mile :o end in a This request is inclusive of th~ adjacent mlope, sight distance an~ ~esignat~d Virginia Department of Transportation drainagm And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of the~e roads except Northbrook Cir~l~ which has a 40' right-of-way. This section of River Ridge is recorded as follew~ Section B. Plat Book 62, Pages 51 ~ 52, August S, 1988. ll.D,2o AMENDMENT TO AUGUST 22~ 1990 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mlq~;TES REGAl{DING ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION CONFI~LING FIN;tNCING OF REV~NU~ DONDS FOR ~00~I~R & STI~NG, ~ANS~ON' On motion of Mr. Daniel~ ~econded by Mr. Mayes, the Board amended the minutes of August ~, ~990, regarding Item Resolution C~nfirming Proceedings o~ Chesterfield Industrial D~v~lopm~nt Au%hereSy for F~naneing of R~venu~ Bond~ for ~oover & Strong~ Inc, Expansion Project~ as follows~ "On motion of Mr. Sullivan, ~econded by Mr. Applegate~ the Boar~ a~opte8 the following resolution: AuT~ORI~ OF T~ COUNT~ OF ~ER~S, There have been described to the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority'1) the plans of Hoover & Strong, Inc., a virginia Corporation {the "company"), to construct and equip in Chesterfield County, Virgini~ (the "County") a man, factoring facility expansion for the prod~ction of gold j~welry findings 90-700 9/2~/90 (th~ "Project") aonsistlng of approximately 18,400 square fact; and W~P~AS, The Company both in its application submitted and in its appearance before the Authority has described the benefits to the County and has requested the Authority to agree Lo issue its Industrial Development Revenue Bonds or under the virginia Industrial Development and Revenue Bend Act (the "Act"), in such amounts as may be necessary to finance a portion of the cost of the Project; and WI~EREA$, The Authority has held a public hearing On 2, t990 with respect to the issuance of bends for the Project, as r~quired under Section 147(£~ of tho Internal Revenue code of 1986~ as a~eeded Ithe BE IT RESOLVED BY T~E INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T~= COUNTX OF C~ST~FI=LD: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the ioaation of the Propec% for th~ Company in the County will bring additional revenues and emplosa~eat into ~he County end will promote the industrial development and economy of the County, benefit its inhabitants, increase their oorm~erce an~ promote their safety, health, welfare, convenience and prosperity. 2. To induce the Company to locate the Project in the County, the Authority hereby agrees to undertake the i~uance of it~ Industrial Development Revenue Bon~s or Notes (the ~'Bonds~') therefor in amounts now e~timated not to exceed ~2,500,000 upon t~rms and conditlon~ to be mutually agreed upon between the Authority and the Company. The Prcpect or portione thereof sh~ll be lease4 or sold by the Authority to the Company or to such person or persons as it may designate pursuant to a lease or an installment sale agreement which will provide payments to the Authority sufficient to pay the principal of and premium, if any, and interent on th~ Bonds and =o pay other expenses in connection with the Project. The BOnds shall Autherity~ and the payment of the Bonds shall he secured by an assignment, for the benefit of the holders thereo~, of Anthsrity'$ rights to pay~ent~ under t_he leases or agreements and may be additionally secured by a mcr=gage of or security interest in all or part of the Project or other property o£ the Company. ~. I~ having bo~n represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed i~mediately with the Project, Authority hereby agrees that t_he Company may procss~ with plans for the Project, enter into contracts for construction and equipping and take such ether steps as they may deem appropriate in connection therewith, provide4 that nothing hereby shall be deemed to authorize the Company to obligate the Authority without its consent in each instance to the payment of any monies or the performance of any ac~$ in conneetten with the Project, The Authority agrees that the Company may be incurred by it. The Authority al~o &gr~, if requ~Ste4, issue its ~onde to obtain interim or construction financing for the Project on terms to be mutually agreed upon, ~uoh ~onds be guaranteed or otherwise secured by the Company as required by the Authority. 4. The Authority agre~ if req~e$~e4, to accept the recommendation of the Company with respect to the appointment of an agent or underwriter for the tale of the Bo~ds pursuant to terms to be mutually agreed Upon. 5. Ail COSt and expenses in connection with th~ financing of the Project, including the fees and expenses of bond counsel, Authority counsel and the agent or und~rwrlter 90-701 9/26/90 for the sale of the bonds, shall be paid from the proceeds of tho Bonds or from funds of the Company. If for any reason the Bonds are no~ issued, it is undexetood that all such expenses shall be paid by the company and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. ~. The Authority intends tkat the adoption of this resotntion he considered as "official action" toward the issuance of the Bonds within the meaning of the regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Seetion~ 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code. 7. As the financing plane of the Company have not been completed~ the inducement given by thi~ ~e~olution shall also run to any business entity in which the Company, any of its principals or any related entity are or will be principals. 8. The Authority shall perform such other acts and adopt such further resolutiuns as may be required to implement its nndertaking~ as herein set forth, and if ~equ~ted by the Company, it will make application to t~e Internal Revenue Service for such ~ax rulings ae may be necessary in th~ opinion of ~ond coun~ol. To that end, the Chairman or Vice Chairman 6~ the Authority is hereby a=thoriz~d to execute an appropriat~ power of a~torney naming counsel selected by the Company for 9. The Authority shall accept from or on behalf of the Company conveyance of title to the Project and the land on which the Project is to be located and any other property to he mortgaged, pledged or otherwise provided as security for the bonds. The officers cf the Authority are h~r~by authorized and directed tO accept and have ~ecofded~ if appropriate, proper instruments of ti=lc with respec~ to ~he 9reject and any other conveyanse. If for any reason the Bonds are not issued, tho Authority shall conv~y the Project and such land and any such other property to the Company er to each other person as the Company may request, without cost other than the expense of preparation and recordation o~ instruments of ti%l~ and deeds 10. Unless this resolution is extended by the Authority, the Bonds authorized hereunder shall he i~suod within cwo years i~om the date hereof. 11. The Authority hereby re¢o~ende that the Board o~ Supervisors Of the County {the "Board") approve the issuance cf the Bonds and that tke Board direct the County Administrator to apply ~o the Allosation Administrator to request an allocation not ~a ~xoeed $2,500,000 of the State Reserve to the Ponds, pursuant to SectiOnS 15+1-1399.1Q thYough 15.1-1399.17 cf tho Code o~ Virginia of 1950, as a~ended, and any regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. 12. This resolution shall tak~ effect i~nedlately upon its adoption. TO "0e motion of Mr, Sullivan, seconded by Mr. A~plegate, the ~oard adopted the ~ollowing resolution: P. ESOLUTION OF 'rn~ BOARD OF SUPEI~'/SOI~ WHEREAS~ The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield ("the Authority") has considered the application Of Hoover & Strong, Inc., a Virginia Corporation 90-702 9/25/90 m m (the "Company"), ~or the issuance of the Authority's Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed (the "Bon~s"} to assist in the financing of the Company.'s construction and equipping of a manufacturing expansion for the production of gold jewelry findings, ~ongi~ting of approximately 12,400 equate feet: the facility will be located at 10700 Trade Road in Chesterfield Countyt Virginia; and the Authority has held a public hearing thereon on August 2, 1990~ and WEEREA$, The Authority has r~qu~ted the BOard of Supervisors (the "Board") of Chesterfi~l~ County, virginia (the "County"), to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section 147{f) of the Internal ~evenue code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and to apply to the Allocation Administrator to request an allocation Of $2,~00,000 of the State Esssrve to the Bonds, pursuant to Title 15.1, Chapter 33.2 of the Cod~ of virginia of 19~0, as =mended (~he "Chapter"), to comply with Section 146 of the Code; and WHEPcEAS, A copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the sends, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a record oi the public hearing and a "ii,ca1 impact ~tat~pn~nt" with r~speet to the Project have been filed with the Board. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINI~ 1. The Board hereby approven the issu~oee of the Bonds by the Industrial Deuelopment Authority of the County of ChesterfielO for the benefit o~ 5cover & Strong, Inc., to e~tent required by Sect/on 147(f) of the Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The Board hereby agrees to apply to th~ Allocation Administrator to request an allocation of up to $2,500,008 of directs th~ Ceunty Administrator to pre,are and file an application therefor as promptly as practicable. ~. Approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by 8~ctiun I~7(f) of the Cod~ does not ccnstitut~ an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as required by Section 15.1-1388 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as azusnded, the ~onds shall provide that neither ~he County nor th~ Authority shall ba obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest %h~r~0n or oth~r costs incident thereto except ~rcm the revenue~ and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor ~qe taxing power of the Ccunmonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption, this 22nd day of August, 1990. Vote: Unanimous" Vote: Unanimous 11.D.3. ~ CONCRRNTN~ BTOP~4 WATER ~%N~'EM~TT SYSTEM FOR AUTO AUC~'TON On motion of Mr. Daniel. seconded by Mn+ Maye~ th= Board au~horize~ the County Administrator to execute a storm Wate~ Managemen~ A~reefaent with th~ developer of Richmond Auto Auction, with the County's only involvement being to assure that the maintenance agreement is being followed by the owner. {I~ is noted a copy of said Agreement is file~ with the papers o~ this Board.) Vote: Unanimous 90-703 9/26/9~ lI.D.4. A~ OF COI~RACT FOR ADVANCI~ SIT~ ~01~K FOR ~Ul~'r.'rC · ?U%FETXTRAINING FACILITIES On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board awarded a con~ract for advanced site work for the new Public Safety Training Facilities to H. W. Blanken~hiD & Sane in the amount Of $83,50Q, which project is a portion of the Bublic Safety Training Center approved in the 1988 BOnd Referendmn and will bs constructed on the Government Complex near ~he Wagner Building. lit is noted the tot=t project cost for thin tuildinq will be $5.S million, and it is anticipated the design for same will be completed in Dec®mber, 1990/January, 1991 for a February, 1991 bid date.) Vot~: Unanimous ll.D.5. Sl~l' DAT~ FOR PUBLIC ~F2~AIN8 TO CONSIDER: ll.D.5.a. UPPER SWIFTCP, EEKPLAN On motion cf Mr, Daniel~ ~eeonded by Mr. ~ayes, the soard set the date of ~ovembsr 14, 1990, at 7~00 p.m., for a public hearing to consider the proposed U~per Swift Creek Blah, which plan encompasses land use, transportation, phasing, historic preservation and public ~acilitie$ recommendations for development of the northwestern portion of the County and, when adopted, will amend part of the Powhite/Route 2S8 Development Area Plan, a part of th~ comprehensive Plan for Chesterfield. Vote: Unanimous TO ~ .rnu~ CODE OF THE COUNTY OF 21-228 ~ SZCTZO~S 21.1-229.10 On mOtiOn of Mr. Daniel, seennded ty Mr. Mayas, the Soard sot the data of November 14, 1990, at 7~00 p.m., for a p~blie hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, ~978, as ~mended, relating generally to the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. 11.D.5.c. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND T~E CODR OF T~E COUNTY OF CHESTEI~FIELD~ ~ AS/IHEND~r BY~I~DINGAI~D Pd~ENACTING S~CTION 20-43 AND BY ADDING SECTION S~WRR CONNI~CTIONE IN THI~ UPPER ~WIFT CP~EKWATERSHED On motion of Mr. ~anlel~ seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board set the date of Norther 14, 1990, a~ 7:00 p.m., for a public h~aring to conE/der an ordinance to amend the Code of the Count~ of Chesterfield, 1978, aa amended, relating generally te mandatory water and sewer connections in the Upper Swift Cre~k Watershed. 90-70~ 9/26/9Q liAZARDOU$~IA'i~PJ3~ On motion cf Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board set the date of October 24, 1990, at 9:00 a.m., fur a publi~ hearin~ to consider an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 197~, as amended, requiring reimbursement of expenses incurred in re~ponding to emergencies involving hazardous mate~£al. ilaR. CO/,~I1/NI.'I"X DEVE~OP~ ITEMS ll.R.1. STREET LIGHT I~EQUESTS On motion Of M~. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the ~oard approved obtaining sost estimates for the installation cf a street light at th= follcwin9 locations: Vote Intersection of Banes Court {East and West) and S. Jessup Road, Dale District; In~erseotlen of Eramblston Road and S. Jessup Road, Dale Dietric~; and 11.E.2. APPROPRIATE FUNDING FOR SIDEWALK~ ON I~0R~S~ HIlL AVSI~E Th~r~ wa~ di~ion, question and comment regarding the appropriation of funds for the construction of sldswalks along Virginia Department of Transportation policy regarding funding of same; the proposed r~quest being only for the design providefl in the project and if se, whether or not =hey be Avenue; haw the construction of sidewalks would ~enefit this project as compared to a previously completed Hopkins Road sidewalk project; etc. adopted th~ following resolution: provided in the project. to design the project with sidewalk~ on both side~ of Forest ~r. Currin suggested that the construction of sidswnlks be dissussed with the Couaty's Legislativ~ Delegation for inclusion in future General Assembly legislation. 90-705 9/26/90 11.~.3. STRRETNAMEC~AN6~ On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Hayes, tbs ~oard directed sta~ to proceed with renaming a portion of previously used Courthouse Road irom Route 10, north 1,500 feet to a permanent cul-de-~ac~ to Halls Run Road, ii,F, ~TILITIg8 D~PART~ZNT ITEMS ll.F.l.a. TO CONS%DERAI~ O~DINANCE TO VACATE A ~ POO~ TEMPORARY CON~TR~CTION~A~EMENT IN FOX~ERR¥ SUBDIVI~IO~ ....... Hr. ~ale sta~sd this date and time had b~n advertised for a p~blic hearing to consider an ordinance to va¢~t~ ~ 5 foot temporary ~onstrnctlon easement ecro~e Lot 3~ Block Foxberry Subdivision, S~etio~ 1, subject to the dedication of an additional easement aer~e~ Lot 31. Nc one came forward to Speak in favor of or against ~he On motion of Mr. Appleqat~, seconded by Mr. ~ullivan, ~he ~oard adopted tho following ordinance~ AN ORDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF vacate~ to KIMBERLY A. ~RSHALL, ("¢FJ~T~"), a ~' Temporary Construction eagement across LOt 30, Block A, Foxburry Subdivision, Section l, Clover Magisterial D~strict, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as ~hown on e plat thereof recorded in the Clerk's Offic~ of the Circuit Court Cf Chesterfield County in Plat Book ~5, Paqo~ 47, 4~ and W~ER~S, Rodney Clutchs and Corinne D. Cle~uaens, petitioned the Board of Snpervisor~ of Chesterfield Lot 30, Block A~ Foxberry Subdivision, Section 1, Clover ~ill Magisterial District, Chesterfield Coon=y, virginia more par~ioularly shown on a plat of record in the clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of ~aid County in Pla~ ~ook 45, ~age$ 47, and 49, made by Lewis & 0wen~ Inc., COnSulting Engineer9 & Surveyors, dated February 27, 1984. The easement petitioned be vacated is more fully described as follows: A 5' Temporary Construction easement, Subdivlslon~ Section 1, the location made by Balzer and Associa~e~ Inc., is attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance. advertising; and WHE~AS~ no public necessity exi~t~ for the continuance of %he eam~eAt sough: to be vaca%e~. 90~706 9126190 .! NOW THE~LMFOEE, RE IT ORDAINED BY THE .BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid easement be and hereby This Ordinance shall be in full foxce and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b} of the Co~e of vir 1950, as amended, and s certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall b~ recorded no sooner tha~ thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.l-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1980, as ~mendsd. The sI£ect of this Ordinance pursuant tO Section is ~o destroy ~he force and effect Of th~ ~ecording of the portion of the pla: vasate~. ~his ordinance ehall v~Et fee simple title of the easement hereby vacated in the property 1 free and clear of any rights oi public use. Accordingly, thie Ordinance shall be indexed in the names o~ the County c~ ch~eterfietd, a~ grantor, and Ki~erly A. Marshall, or her succe~or~ in title~ as grante~. ll.F.l.b. TO CONMIDB"R AN ORDINANCE TO YACAT~ A M3RTION OF 2% 16 I~OOT DRAINAGE ~M~NT X~ ~OODF~E~D ~r. Sale s:a~ed this da=e and =fmc had been scheduled fur public hea~in~ to eon~id~r an ordinance to vacate a portion a 16 fou~ drainage easement across Lot 22, Rlock A, Wo~field Subdivision, subject to the execution of a new easement. No One ca~ forward to ~peak in favor of or against the On motion of Mr. ApplegaCe, seconded by Mr. sullivan, the Board adopted the following ordinancu: AN ORDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF CHEETE~IELD, VIRGINIA, vacates to J~S G. SCADUTO and across Lot 22, ~lock A, Woodfield ~ubdlvision, Clover ~ill ~agisteriat District, che~erfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk'~ Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 54~ Page 43. WHE~AS, J~s G. Scaduto and Denise R. Scaduto, Virginia to vacate a portion of a 16' drainage easement Lot 22, Block h, Wood~i~ld Subdivision, C!Qver hill Magisterial Dimtrict, Chesterfield County, Virqinia ~ore parki~ularlp ~hown of ~aid County in Plat Book 54, Pag~ ~3, made b~ Caxrou~ and easement petitioned %o be vacated i~ more fully described as follows: A per%ion of a 16' drainag~ easement, across Lot 22, Block A, Wocdfield 90-707 9/~6190 Subdivision, %he location of which is moro fully shown, on a plat made by Balzer and Associates, Ino., dated August 2, 1990~ a copy of which i~ attached heretO and made e part of this Ordinance. W~EREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Cede of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and WHEREASj no public neccusity exiutu for the continuance of the portion of easement sought to be vacated. NOW TBEREPORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ~OARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Sectiou 15.%-482(b) of tbs Code of be and is hereby vacated. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482{b} of tho Code of Virginia, 1950, a~ attended, and a certified copy of this OrdinancS, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hsr~after in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pursuant to Sectien t5.1-485 o~ the ~inia, l~0, as ~nded. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy the force and effect of th~ recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinanc~ shall vest fee simple title of the portion of easemen~ hereby vacated in the preper~y ownsr c~ Lot 22, Block A, within ~oodfield Subdivision free and clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed i~ the n~es of the County of cheatorfield, as grantor, and James ~. Scaduto and Denise R. Scaduto, {husband and wile), or their successors in title, as grantee. Vote: Unanimous 11.F.1.~. TO ~NSIDER ~/~ OE/)IN~B/~ ~ VAC~AT~ PORTIONS OF GILL STIII~T AND PET~ILEBURG ~TREI~T Mr. ~ala stated thia date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance ~o vacate ~ portion of unimproved Gill Street in Bast Chester Subdivision and a portion of Petersburg Street in Resubdivision o~ Lot~ 38, 39, 40 and 41~ Block '~E"~ East Chester, Resubdivision of Block C-2, Chester Subdivision, and Che~ter Subdivision Re~ubdivislon of Re~ubdivld~d C-2. He ~ndicat~d this vacation could landlock some properties. When asked, ~r. '$~uel West ~tated all adjoining owners~ including those entering from Curtis Street, support tho On motion cf Mr. Curr~n, socen~e~'~y ~r'. ~ayes, %he Board a~opted th~ following ordinance: AN O~DINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD~ VIRGINIA~ ("GRANTOR") vacates to S~U~L ~. ~ST and A~NA R. ~ST, ~husband and wife)~ ROBERT L. ~ORT~R, JR,, FLOYD G. ~DS~AW, R0~RT F. KELLIS, JR., and SHARON W. KELLIS~ (husband and wife), ~TTA R. L~, KENNEDY LYON and KATHERINE H. LYON, 90-708 9/25/90 {husband and wifel, and LOUIS J. WRIGHT, ("~R~NT~E"), certain portions of ~ill s~reet and/or ~etersburg Street, Bermuda District, Chesterfield, Virginia, as shown on plats thereof d~ly recorded in the Clerk'm Offic~ of the CircUit Court cf Chesterfield County in Plat Book 2, Page 306, Plat Book 33, Page 58, Plat Book 30, Page 51, and Plst Book 33, Page 7. WF~REAS, samuel H. West and Anne H. Wort, petitioned tko Board of Supervieors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate portions of Gill Street and Petersburg Street, Bermnda District, Ches=erfield County, virginia mere particularly shown on plats of record in the Clerk's Offi~m of the Circuit Court of said County as follows: East Chester by W. W. Laprade, dated April 1910, Plat Book 2, Pag~ 306; Resubdivisiun of Lots ~$, 39, 4Q a~d 41, Block ~'~" East Chester Su~divisinn~ by J. Timmons & Assoc., thc., dated February 19, 1979, Plat Book 33, Pa~e 58~ Resubdivision Of Block C-2, chester Subdivision Austin Brockenbrough and Associates, dated December ~, 1977, ~le= Mock 3Q, ~age 51; Chester Subdivision, Resubdivision of Resubdlvlded Block C-2 by Austin Brockenbrough and dated December 6, 1978, P~at Book ~3, Pa~e 7. The p~rtion~ of reads petitioned to be vacated are more fully de~srlbed as Collows: A portion of Gill Street, ~0' in width~ 50~ and'variable in width the location o~ which is more fully shown on e pla: by th~ Utilities Dmpartment, Chesterfield County, Virginia, dated September 28, 1990, a copy of which is attached WHEREAS~ notice has been given pursuant to Section I5.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as ~/~ended, by advertising: and WHEREAS, the Board linde tha~ no public necessity exists for ~he Continuance of the portions of roads cough= to be vacated. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY TN~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: Thee pursuane eo Section 15.1-4~2(b) o~ the Code Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid portions of road~ be and are hereby vacated. The G~ANTEES hereby convey unto GRANTOR and the GRANTOR hereby reserves a sewer easement within the entire area of Gill Street hereby vacated as shown on the attached plat. This Ordinance shall be in full ~orce and effect in accordance with $ectidn 1D.1-48~(b) cf the Code of virginia, 1950, as amsnded, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached h~rstO sh~I1 he recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield Couuty, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 o~ the Code of Virginia, 1950~ os amended. The effect of this Ordinance p~rsuant to Section I5.1-483 is to d~troy the force a~ effect of the recording of portion of the plat vaCat=d. This Ordinanc~ shall vest fee simple title to the centerline of thc portions'of roads hereby vacated in the Own=rs of the abutting lots, free and clear of any rights of ptfolio use. Accordingly, =his Ordinance ehatl he indexed in the names of the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, as grantor, and ~U~L ~. W~ST and ANNA R. W~ST, (husband and wife), ROBZRT L. MORT/R, JR., FLOYD G. BRADSHAW~ ROBERT F. KELLIS, JR., and SHARON W. KELLIS, (husband and wife), LOR~TTA R. LAMM, K~N~DY L~0N and ~ATBERINE ~. LYON, (h~band end wife), and LOUIS J. WRIGU~, or thei~ successors in title, as grantees. Vote: Unanimous ll.F.l.d. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACAT~ A PORTION OF A 38 ~OQT ]~IS~R~: ~$~VATIO~ ~A~ ~N ~LTHALL CP~EK SUBDiVISiON, S~C?~ON ] Mr. ~al~ stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearin~ to consider an ordinance to vacate a portion cf a ~0' historic preservation ~as~ment acro~ Lot 6, ~lock Walthall Creek Subdivision~ Section 1. NO One came forward ~o ~eak in favor of or against the proposed ordinance. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. ApD1egate, the Board adopteh %he following ordinancu: AN ORDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF CHZaT~KFI~D, V~RGI~IA, vacates to ~IRIT T. MEHTA and JYOTI K. ME~TA, ("G~AMT~"), a portion of a 30' Historic Preservation easement acros~ Lot 5~ Block B, WalthalI Creek aub~ivi$1en, ~eeti0n 1, Bermuda ~agisteriaI District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office cf th~ Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 53, Pages 24 and WH~d~AS, Kirit ~. Mehta and Jyoti ~. Mehta, petltion~d th~ Beard of Supervisor~ of'Che~terfleld County, V~rginia vacate a portion of a SO' ~iatorlo Preservation ~asement across 5ct 6, Hlock B, Walthalt Creek S~bdivi~ion, Section 1, Bermuda Magisterial District~ Chesterfield County~ Virgimia more particularly shown on a plat of r~cord in the Clerk's Office the Circuit Court of said County in Pla= B~k 53, Pages 24 and 25, made by Charle~ C. Townes & Associa%~, P.C. Inc., March 24, 1986. The portion of easemen~ p=titioned Creek $ubdlvi~ion, Section 1, the location o~ w~ich in more fully shown, un a Juno 11, 1990, a copy of which is attached 15.1-431 of thm Code o~ Virginia, 1950, am ~mendmd, by the portion of easement sought :~ b~ vacated. That pursuant to Smction 15.1-482{b) of the Cede of Vir~inia~ 1950~ am ~ended, the aforesaid purlieu 0f easemen~ be and is hereby vacated. 90-710 9/26/90 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 1~.1-482(b) of the Co~e of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of thi~ Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall he recorded no sooner than thirty days hersaft~r in the Clerk'~ Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield county, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-~85 of th~ Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-453 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion Qf the plat vacated. This OrdinanGe shall vest fee simple title cf the portion of easement hereby vacated in the property owner of Lot 6, Block B, within walthall Creek Subdivision, Section 1 free and clear of any rights of public Accerdinyly, t~is ordinance shall be indexed in the names of %he Cohnty of Chesterfield, as grantoi, and Kirlt T. Mehta and Jyo%i K. Mehta, (husband and wife), or their su¢oe~sozs in title~ as grante~. ll.F.2,a. ~ST P%~O~RS. KIMBBRLY ~ARSHALL FOR PERMISSION TO ENCROACH ON AN EXISTIN~ S FOOT F~EF~F~ ACROSS LOT ~ BLOCK a~ FOXBE~R..7,, S~CT~ON 1 On motion uf Mr. Applegate, seconded hy Mr. Mayes, the Board approved a request from Ms. ~imberly ~arsha11 fur permission ~er a portion o~ a porch to encroach on an existing 8 foot easement across Lot 30, Block A, Fo×berry, Section 1, subject to the execution e~ a license agreement, (A copy of said plat is filed witk the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous On motion of ~r. Applegate~ seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved a request fro~ J. K. :Ti~unons & Associates, to quitclaim a portion of a 16' sewer easement across property owned by Salisbury Corporation, aeros~ lots 37-47, in pro~osed Salisbury ~ichaux Section C and authorized the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate said portion of the sewer easement. (A copy of said pla~ is filed wi~h the papers of this Board.) Vo~e: Un~nlmous ll.F.2.c. APPROVAL OF UTILITIES 'CONTRACT FO~ sU~4ERFORD - LINE ~r. Appl~gute disclosed to the Board that h~ ~ a trustee for property adjacent to tbs request site and was uncertain if public s~wsr facilities would benefit th~ ~i~e; declared a potential conflict of interee~ pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from ~he meeting. On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by ~r. ~ayes, the Board a~prove~ the following Utilities contract and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents: Su~mmerford - Section A - Onsihe Utilities and offsite Wastewat~r (0versizing) - (Refund th~u connections) (Refund thru connections) Code: (0versizimg) (0ffsite) Ayes~ Mr. Ceftin, Mr. Sullivan, ~r. Partial and Mr. ~ayee. Absent: Mr. Applegate. Mr. Appl~ga%e returned to the meeting. $652,624.00 $ 28,096.18 - $ 4,370.75 $62Q,157.07 5B-58~50-~90730 ~P-58550-890733 ll.F.2.d. COIf'/I~/A.~CE OF ~%SEMENT TO VIRGINIA ELECTP~C AND ~OWER ll.F.2.d.1. INSTALL OVERhEAD ~AB~ AT NATOA¢~% ~ R~ATION On motion of Mr. Appl~gate, seconded by ~r. ~ayes, the Boa~d authorized the Chairman of th~ Board and the County Electric and Rower Co~pany to install overhead Cable within a in conjunction with relocation o~ scrvic~ to ~llow VDOT to make repairs to the bridge. (A copy of sai~ plat is filed with the pape~e 0i thio Board.) ll.F.l.d.2. TO XNSTALL U~DZRGROUND LIN~S WITHIN A 15 FOOT KASEMENT~t~ONG LORI ROAD ANDT~E CO~PI~Y ~INI~TION BUI~ING On motion O~ Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board authorized ~he Chai~an Of the ~oard ~nd the Couney Administrator ~o execute an easement agre~ent with Virginia Electric and ~ower Company to install underground cable within a 15 foot ~as~ent along' Lori Road and the County A~inistra- tion Building, which request i$ fo~ an ~di~ional ~a$~men~ required in conjunction with th~ widening of Lori Road~ (A copy of ~aid pla~ i$ filed wi~h =he papers of ~his ~gar4. ll.F.].e. ACCEPTANCR OF PI~:CRLS OF ~ ll.P.2.e.1. ALONG B~L, IOI, Pi'ROAD FROM BEII'~0NTASSOCIA'i'RS OF On motion cf Mr. Applegate, seconded by Er. MayeR, the Board accepted on behalf of the County the conveyance of a 0.75 acrs parcel of land along Belmont Road from Belmont A~ociate~ of ~ive ~orks, L.~., A Virginia Limited ~ar~n~r~hip, authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed of dedication, which is ~e~$sary ~9 faeitlta%~ upcoming. inprcvements at the intersaction of Belmont Road and Five Forks 5~e. (A copy of said plat is filed with the papers of ~his Board.) Vote: Unanimeus i On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~eOnded by Mr. Mayas, ths Board accepted on behalf of the Coanty the conveyance of a 0.1041 acre parcel of land alonq Baldwin Creek Road from Mr. C. Wayna Golf and authorized the County Administrator to execute necessary deed o£ dedication. {A copy of said plat is filed with the paper~ Of this Board.) 1X.F.2.m.3. A~O~G HU~L -~T~T ROAD F~OM B~EZZE-IN /%S$OCIATES On motion of Mr. Applegate, ssuonded by Mr. Mayas, the ~oard accepted on behalf of the County thm conveyance Of a 20 foot and variabt~ width parcel o( lan~ along Hull Street Road from Breeze-In Associates, A Virginia General Partnership, and deed of dedication. (A copy of said plat is filed with papers of this soard.) lt.F.3. P. EBORTS ~r. ~al~ presented th~ Board with a ~eport on th~ devalepsr water and sewer contracts executed by the Connty Administrator. Mr. Ramsay presented the Board with a status report On the General F~nd Contingency Account, ~eneral Fund ~alancs, Reserve for Future Capital Prej~et~, District ~o~d an~ ~tr~t Ligh~ Funds, Lease Purchases, School Board Aqenda~ Debris Management formally notified the Ceunty of the acceptance and/or dlacen~inuanoe of th~ following roads into/from the State See©nda~y System= ADDITIONS LEN~T~ CANDLEWICK {~ffectiv@ 9/4/90) Route 4~20 (Candlewick Koa4} - Erom Koute ~600 to 0.15 mile Southwest Route 3600 0.t5 ~i. Route 4321 (Candlewick Court} - From Route &320 to 0.21 mile West Route 4320 0.2I Mi. B~C~WO©D POINT (~£~e=tive Rents 3600 {Woodlake Village Parkway) - 0.06 mile North Route 3644 to 0.17 mile North Rout~ 3661 3600 to 0.40 mile East Route 3600 0.48 Mi. Rents 4331 (Beechwomd Point Circle) - From 4~0 0.06 mile Northeast ~oute ~600 to Route 4330 0.32 mile Northeast Route 3600 0.32 Mi. ROute 4332 (BeechWood ?tint Court) - From Route 4330 ~o 0.14 mile Northwest Rout~ 4330 0.14'Mi. 90-7t3 9/26190 WOODLAKE (~ffective 9/4/90) Rout~ 3600 {Woo~k~'~fih-ge Parkway] - Prom 0.02 mile Northwest Route 4330 to 0,73 mile Route 4330 0.71 Mi+ PE~NW00D - SECTION 7 (Effective 8129/90) ROUte 215~ {~arkbridge Road] - Prom Q.03 mile Southwest Route 3437 to Route 3438 Route 3435' (Barkbrid~e ~ircle) '- From Rout~ 2159 to 0.04 mile West Routs 2t~9 Route 3438 (Tulip Oak ~oad) - From 0.03 mile South Route 2855 to 0.~4 mile South Route 2159 0.56 Mi. 0.04 Mi. 0.17 Mi. 0LD~ WILLIAMSDURG-SECTIONS 2 & 3 (Effective 9/17/~0) Route 4419 {Gloucestershire Street} - From Route 4418 (bodds Ridge Drive) - From goute 4419 to 0.07 mil~ No~th Route 4~19 0+07 ~i~ ADDITIONS {Effective 9/11/90) reotion 2 of new location Route 653 Project TR00-020-101, PE102, C502 Section 2 of new location Route 1757 ~roje~t TR00-O20-101, PE1O4, C505 0.44 Mi. 0.10 Mi. DISCONTINUAMCES (Effective 9/11/9~} Section 1 of old locatio~ Route 6~ Pro3ect ~ROG-020-1Ol~ PE1O2, C502 Section 1 of Old location ROUt~ 1757 Project TR0O-020-101~ P~104, C505 Route 60& to 0.70 mile North Route 60~ Frojuct WK00-020-101, ¢~0~, a~203 Route 9~0 (Ola Route 754) - From 0.46 mile South Route 720 to 0.50 mil~ South Rout~ 720 Project TR~0-020-101, C503, RW203 0.45 Mi. 0.04 Mi. 0.04 ~i. ll.H. L~NC~ The Board recessed at 11:35 Howlett'~ Tavern for lunch. a.m. {DST) to travel to John Reconvening: Mr. Currln stated that, due to Daniel would not be present for meeting. a previous commi~_ment, ~r. the rezoning portiou of the m In Bermuda Magisterial Di~trict~ BE~¥ ~AYE requested renewal oi ~obile Nome ~ermit eSSA139 to ~ark a mobile ho~e in a Residential (R-7) District. The density of the pEopo~al i~ approximately 1.28 units/acre. This proper~y Zzon~s ~he north line of Freedom Lane, approximately 524 fe~t w~st of Shady Lane, and is better known as 3032 Freedom La~e. Tax MaD 5~2 (1) Parce~ 4 (Sheet 16). Mr. Peele presented a sugary of Case ~0SR0276 and ~tated ~taff M~. Betty Kaye stated th~ race, ended ~onditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. When asked, ~r. the County Plannin~ De~ar~ent to s~bmi~ an applicat~on through th~ mobile home approval proce~. On motion o~ Mr. Currin, ~econded by M~. Appl~gate, ~h~ BQ~z~ approved Case 90SR0276 for seven (7) year~, gubj~a% bo ~he mobile hcme+ 2. No lot or parcel may ~e ren~ed or l~a~d fo~ ~e as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile hame ~a u~ed for rental proper~y. Only one (1) mobile hom~ shall be permibted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. and other zoning requir~enb~ of ~h~ ap~l~cabl~ zoniAg di~trlct Shall b~ ~ompli~d wi~h, except that no mobile home ghall b~ located ~lo~E than 20 feet to an~ existing 4. No ~dditional permanent-type living space may ~e added onto a mobile home. ALi mobil~ h~s shall be skirted but Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the appllcaDt shall then obtain The necessary pe~it~ from the Office of th~ Building Official. This ~h~l be done prior to the installation or relocation of ~e motile home. 7. Any violation of the a~ove Oonditions shell be qrounds for Aye~ Mr. Currln, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Appl~g~t~ and ~r. Mayas. ~sent: Mr. Daniel. 90ii~'0264 {Ame. tt,;l~',;] ) In Bermuda ~agisterial District, landmark designation is recreated fo~ O~KD~ {O~/aW, ND}. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for single family residential develop- ment o9 1.0t =o 2.50 units per acre. Property fronts the east line of Curtis Street, aor0ss from Oakland Avenue, and is better known es 3601 Curtis Street. Tax Map 115-8 (1) Parcel ~ {Sheet 32). 90-715 9/26/90 Mr, Pools presented a sugary of Case 90E~0264 and stated tho Planning Con~is~ion and Preservation Con~ittee recommended approval of Landmark D~signation for 0akden (Oakland), based on the following findings: This is a diatlngulsAed building of high architecture] quality and historic interest; and 2. Thi~ designation will cause no significant adverse effect on the future develepr~ent of the County. Mr. Ogden Paredes, Owner of the subject property, concurred with the recommendation and stated he felt this designation would a~$iSt in protecting the property. There was no opposition present. On motion of ~. Ceftin, seconded by Mr. Appl~gate, th~ Seard approved Historic Landmark Designation for Case 905H026~, Oakden (Oakland), described aa follows: 0ARD~ (~}: The designated preDerty ~hall be the house and 12.078 acres of land shown on Tax Map I15-8 (1), Parcel 4. Ayes: ~r. currin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applega%e an~ Mr, Mayer. Absent: ~r. Daniel. 89SN~345 In Matoaca ~agisterlal District, J~S D. ~T~R requested a sixty (60) day d~ferral of oonsideration for ~ezoning from Agricultural IA) to Rssid~ntlal (R-I2). Residential develop- nent of up to 3.63 ~nit~ per a~re ia permitted in a ~esidcntiul (R-12) District. The Comprehensive Plan d~signaees the property for residential development of 1.51 to 4.0 units per acr~. This request lies on a 29.0 acre parcel located at the western terminus of Marobrith Road. ~ax Map 149~5 (]) Parcel 6 Mr. Peele s~a~ed prlcr :o the meeting ~r. James D. Carter made a verbal request ~or a sixty (60) day deferral of Case Mr. Carter sta~ed he desired a s~xty (60) day deferral to meet with area residents and Transporeation Department staf~ to discuss/resolve concerns. When asked, Mr. Carter indicated he understood the issues and n~cessary actions required regarding right-of-way dedication and road improvement con~truction On motion of ~r. ~ayes, seconded by Mr. Applegat~, the Board deferred consideration of Case 89S~8345 until November 28, Mr. Sullivan stated chis case had been under consideration for some time and expressed concern r~qarding itm impact on Happy Hill Road and the school system. Ayes: ~r. Ceftin, Mr. S~llivan, Mr. ADDlegate and Mr. Mayes. ~bs~n~: Mr. Daniel. 90SN0112 In Me,ceca Magisterial District, JAMES ~ GATTI$ requested withdrawal of consideration for rezcning from Community B~sine~s (B-2} to Neighborhood Business (C-2). The density o~ Bhe amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance ~tandards. The Comprehensive Plan designates ~he p~ope~ty for residential development of 4.01 to 7.0 units per acre. This regueet lies on a 0.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 140 feet on the ~a~t lin~ Of Jeffersen Davis Highway, also f~onting approximately 140 feet on the south line oF krrowfi~ld Road, and located in ~he southsast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 163-11 (1) Parcel 7 Mr. Peele presented a brief summary of Case 90SM0112, indicating it was deferred from the Board's August 22, 1990 meeting to allow the applicant and County Attorney to explore way~ in which the uss of the property could be restricted without resulting in rescuing; and stated Phs Planning Commission recommended approval but the applicant has reqDe~te~ withdrawal of the ease. When asked, ~here were citizens pre,ant indicating opposition to the request for withdrawal. ~r. Currin stated, since there ws~ opposition p=esent, the request would ha placed in its regular sequence on the agenda. 90s~0242 (A~ended) up te 1.0 units pcy 5~0 e~r~s is permitted in an Agricultural by zoning conditions er Ordinance standards. The Cemprshensive Plan designates the preperty for agric~ltural/forestal use with density to he determined by development regulations. This request lies on a 2.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 50 fee~ on ~he west lin~ of Winterpeck Road, approximately 190 feet south of Beach Road. Tax Map 109-1 (1) Part of Parcel 19 (Sheet 291. ~r. Peele presented a summary of Ca~e 905K02~2, i~dicatlng the Commission reconsidered the requesb and again recommended ap~rovai, subject to certain conditions. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayas, sesun4ed by Ns. Applegate, the Board approved Ca~e 90SN6242, subject to the following conditions: submitted with the application shell be considered the Master Plan. (P) 3. The site shall be secursd with a fence, se~ bac~ a minimum of twenty (20) feet from property boundaries, ~c as to preclude trespassing. (~} boundaries shall be maintained as a buffer. E~isting high $~or~ trees within this bu££er shall be maintained so as properties. Other than existing high story ts~es; fencieg; eCC~$~ and utilities which run generally perpendicular through the buffer; and security devices, there shall be no facilities locat~dwithin the buffer. Clearing for ~he fence shall not exceed & width of five (5) f~et. At th~ time Of site plan review, a conceptual landscaping plan for ~he buffer shall be submitted for approval. A detailed landscaping plan shall be 90-717 9/26/90 submitted for review and approval within thirty (30} days of rough clearinq and grading. The detailed plan shell include the general location of existing fencing. Prior to the i~uanee of a building permit, forty-fiv~ (49) feet of right of way on the west side of Wintsrpock Roadt measured from the centerline of that part of Winterpock ~oad in%mediately adjacent ~o ~he property, shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit Of C~ssterfield County. (NOTB; P~ior to obtainin~ a ~uil~ing permit, site plans Ayes: Mr. Ceftin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Absent: Mr. Daniel. In ~idlo~hian Magisterial Dis~ric~, 'r~ A$~4ONT requested rezoning from Agricultural (A( to Residential {~-15}. Residential ~$~ of up to 2.9 units per acre i~ p~rmitted in a Residential (R~lS} District. The Comprehensive Plan designates on a 7.9 acr~ parcel lying apprOXimately 295 feet Beukhwest of thm western tezminus of Barrand Roa~. Tax MaD 27-5 (1} Parcel 23 (Bheet ~}. Hr. Poole presented a s~unary of Case 905H8236 and stated the Plannin~ commiaaion recommended aD,reval and acceptance of the applicant's proffered condition. Mr. Delmonte L~wi~, representing' the applicant, stated ~h~ reco~ndatlon was acceD~abl~. There was no p~D~nk. Mr, Sullivan ~xpre~s~d concern regarding proffered condition being inconsistent with the County's cash proffer policy. Mr. Currin stated, since there was concern ~xpre~ed regarding the ca~e, it would be placed in its regular 9OH, N0238 requested rezcning from Agricultural (A} ~v Re~identlal Residential use of up to 1.74 unit~ per acre iD permikte~ in Residential (g-25) District. The Comprehensive Plan the property for residential u~e of 1.5 units per acre or less. This request lies on a 21.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 325 feet on %ha ~ast l±n~ of Nash Road, approximately 1,250 feet north of Woodpecker Road. Tax Nap 113 (1] Part of Parcel I~ (Skeet 39). Mr. Pool~ pr~ented a ~u~ary of Case 90SN0238 an~ stated the Planning Commission race.ended approval, subject to a single condition a~d a~eeptance of the applicant's proffered conditi0nm. Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that he doe~ not own any of %he subject proper%y; however, when tk~ adjacemt property w~s originall~ zoned, it was a centroversiel issue and he was advised by legal co~el not to p&rticipa~e in the discussion, therefore, he did net vote on the matter then nor would he Vote on the request now~ declared a co.flier of lntsrest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himsel~ from the meeting. i 1 proffered condition being inconsistent with the C0unty~s cash proffer policy and requested that the case be placed in its re,tar sequents on ~he aqende. Mr. Currin returned to the meeting. 908~10244 In Midtothinn Magisterial District~ ~UGUENO~-ROBIOUS ~SSOCIAT~S requested rez~nlng from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrlal (I-l). The density of such ~mendment will be con[rolled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprahensivs Plan designates the property for indus[rial and office use with density to ba determined by dmvelopment re~ulatlons. This request lies on a 1.0 acre parcel lying approximately 180 feet off the south llne of Huguenot Roa~, approximately 950 feet east of Robious Road. ?ax Map 9-13 (1) ~ar% of Parcsl t (Sheet Mr. Peele presented a ~u~ary Df Ca~ 90SND244 and stated the Planning Co~ission race--ended approval and acceptance of ~h~ Mr. J~ss Theobald, reprsssnting the applicant, On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr~ Appl~qate, the Board conditions: 1. T~e following conditions notwi~standing, the ~ite ~hall b~ d~v~lop~ in a~cordanCe wi~ th~ plan submitted with the apDlieation. The Structures shall have an ~u~n~nofi-Robiou~ Mini-StOrage facilities and shall incorporate the same materials and 2. A solid wood stockade~type fence shall be provide~ alonq the southern and ~ast~rn boundaries of the property. Any wood fence and thc development. 3. Th~ u~es p~itted ~hall b~ limited exclusively mini-s~urage. There shall ~e no other o~flue, co~erclal or industrial u~e permitted. 4. If, in ~e future, existing vegetatio~ i$ removed from the property which adjoins the northern boundary of the request site (i.e., between the northern property line and ~ugueno= Road), ~v~rgr~n tree~ and shrubs shall be war~house buildings. These plantings shall be placed where space permits including, but not limited to, the areas within nhe indents=ions of exterior building wall facing th~ northern 5. There shall be no signs located on the r~e~t property right~ of way. P~iof to obtainin~ a building permit, on~ of the following shall be accomplished for fire a. For building pe~its ob=tined on om before Jane 30, 1991, th~ owner/developer 90-719 p/26/~o ~hall pay to the County $150 per 1008 square feet of gross £1oor area. If the building permit is obtained after June 30, 1991, the amount cf the required payment shall be adjusted b~ward or downward by tho same percentage that the Marshall Swif= Building Cost I~dex increased or d~creased between June 30, 1991 and =he date of ~ayment. With the approval of the County's Fire Chief, the owner/developer shall receive a credit toward the required system not otherwise required by law which is inelude~ as a part of the development. OR h. The owner/developer shall provide a fire suppression system not otherwise required by law which the County's Fire Chief determines substantially reduces the need for County facilities otherwise necessary for fire protection. Absent: Mr. Daniel. 9~$N011~ in ~a~oaca ~agisterial District, JAMES EA~L GATTI$ requested withdrawal of consideration for rezonlng from Community Busines~ (S-2) to Neighborhood ~usiness (c~2). The density of the amendment will he controlle~ by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for residential development of ~.01 to 7~0 unit~ per acre. This re,nest lies on a 8.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 140 feet on th~ east line of Jefferson Davi~ Highway, also fronting approximately 140 fact on the ~outh line of Arrowfield Road, and locate~ in the southeast quadrant the intsrsectlen of these rcad~. Tax Map I63-11 (1) Parcel 7 (Sh~t ~r. Peele presented a brief history of Case 90SN0112 as outlined in tho ~equest Analysis~ exhibited slides depicting the ~ubje~t site~ sta£ed the ~lanning approval; however, the applicon% has requested withdrawal of Mr. David Warriner, representing the applicant, briefly explained the series of events resulting in this case being presented to =he soar~, difficulties enceuncere~ while attempting to complete the project and reaffirmed his client's de,ire for withdrawal. He ~tsted, as a result of the Board'a actions at the August 2~, 1990 meeting at which the Board amended the Utility Ordinance relative to the required use of the County Wastewater System, the applicant i~ a~king that the Board accept the withdrawal of the request so the applicant could move forward with developing thio co~ercial Discussion, quos=ions and commsn~s ensued relative to the length of time this application has been under consideration: permitted B-2 v~r~ue C-2 zoning requirements; compliance of the proposed uss with established septic system standa~d~, with tho e~¢~ption of lot sizes; ~hat any action by the Board, o~her than acceptance of the applicant's request for withdrawal, would result in a rezening which would necessitate a minimum lot size of 4Q,880 square feet for use of a septic system; the adverse impact of rezoning on the applicant; the applicant's intent to ~ubmit an application requesting relief from the Ms. Alice ~easley, representing her parents who own property adjacent to the subject si~e, voiced concerns regarding the adverse impact of drsinage from the subject property affecting her father's property and requested that, if the Board were to approve th9 request, fh~re be some %yp~ of written guarantee reqnfring the applicant to incur any r~pair expenses if offsite drainage problems and/or d~]age to the driveway ocsurred as a result of ki~ development+ Mr. George Beadle~ voiced opposition to withdrawal cf the proposed request as he felt the ~pplicant should be required to comply with established septic system standards, unless the applicant is willing to forfeit his septic tank permit. Mr. Mayas expressed concern regarding the number of ti~es this case had been considered by the Soard; the manner in which the request was presented to obtain approval and indicated he could move d~fsrral of this case but did net feel that would sulve the problem. He asked if the applicant wished a thirty (30) or sixty (6@} ~ay deferral. Mr. Warri~er i~dica~ed he did not desire a deferral. ~r. ~ayes stated his preference was to either ~ef~r or deny ~he request. After further discussion, Mr. Mayas made a motion to defer Case 90~N0112 until November 28, 1990. There was no second. Mr. Sullivan stated, given the circ~lmstances and length of time involved considering this case, he felt it would be appropriate to render a decision at this time. ~e stated, in his opinion, the applicant had the right to use the subject property to the effect to their property; and was confident staff would meet that when the applicant resubmits his request, he must apply sufficient safeguards to protect adjacen~ property owners. Mr. would improve the drainage situation in that area. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate~ the Board accepted withdrawal of Cass 905N0112. Ayes~ Mr. Currin, Mr. Sui~ivan and ~r. Applegate. Absent: ~r. 89SN0263 CORPOI~ATION requested conditional use to permit a bank and an offic~ building in an Agricultural (A) District. The density of ~his amendma~ will be controlled by zoning conditions or property for residential use o£ 1.51 Ce 4.00 un/ts pen acre. This request lies on a 5.0.acre parcel, frontlng approximately 830 feet on the northeast line of Ha=rowgate Road, also fronting approximately 886 feet on hh~ ~ou%hw~t line Of ~appy Mill Road, and located at the intersection cf these roads. Tax Map 132-11 (2) Garden City ~eighte, Mr. Poole presented a surgery of Case ~9S~0263; stated the Planning Commission recentmend~d approval of th~ request, subject to certain conditions. He noted, however, staff Eeeommended denial of the request ab the SO,thorn Ar~a Land Usu and Transportation Plan designates the request parcel and surroundinq area for medium density residential use, and approval could set a precedent for similar requests in ~he area of Harrowgate and Eappy Hill Roads. 90-721 9/26/90 Mr. Guy $cheid, representing the applicant, stated the Pia~ning Commission recommendation was acceptable; briefly reviewed the history 0£ the rsquest~ stated there was no opposition but rather support of area residents for the proposed use; and stated the proposed ~e~ast would be in the bast intermst of the ~rsa citizens and County and would not adversely impact/overburden the Connty's infrastructure. There was brief discussion relative to the tax base; the amount rates; employment benefits to the County; public facilities and Ms. Phyllis Sass, representing area residents, voiced support for the proposed request; stated the proposed use is considered would lik~ to s~t a precedent with thi~ typ~ of development in this area; stated she had contacted a member of the Matoaca District Advi~ory COuncil tO discuSS this par~ioutar issue and was informed they had no objec~ion to proposed project but requested a copy of the area residents' recommendation be submitted to them for their review~ referenced copie~ of a document provided to th~ Board regardin~ the legal co~saquencas/ra~ifications of not approving request within twelve month~; note~ the Ch~ter Village Committee did review the request and supported the proposed use; referenced a previously submitted petition of appreximately 65 or 70 signatures in favor of the project; and asked favorable consideration of the request. Ms. ~elen Fritz also voiced support for the project as she felt it was the best uS~ pzoposa~ for the property thus far. Mr. J~a$ Leonard also voice support for the proposed project. Me. Base, on behalf of the Presld~nt ef ~idden Valley ~omeown~r$ Association who was ~chednled ~o be present to address the Board, vai~ed that area's support for the project. On motion of ~r. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Ceftin, the ~oard appnov~d C&~ 89SN0263, subject to the following conditions~ 1. Except as stated herein, the'plan dated November I5, 1988, shall be considered the Master Plan. (CPC) 2. Uses shall be limited to business, ~overnmental, m~dical or piof~$siona] offieem; libraries; brokeragem; churches or Sunday schools; travel agencies to include travel arranging an~ transportation ticket ~ervi¢~s; optometrist ~ale~ and zarvise provided that the sales and servicing of eyewear is done by an optometrist a~ an accessory use in conjunction with the medical practice and not more than 15% of the gross floor area may be dedicated to ~uch sales and service; one [~)bank or savings'and loan association with or without an outside public address system and with or without drive-in windows. (CPC] 3. Except as stated herein, development shall comply with the development and access requirements of Chapter 21.1 for Neighborhood Office (O-1} Districts in Emerging Growth Areas. Site plans shall be submitted to =he ?fanning C0m~ission fo~ approval. (CPC) (NOTE: In addition to other r~quirementS of the 0-1 District, t~is condition requires that loading docks drive-in loading door~ shall be prohibited.} 4. With th~ exception of churches, Sun~ay scheol~ or automat- ic teller machines (ATM) no uss shall be opened to the public between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (CPC) 5. No more than ~wo (~) s~ructure~ sh~lI be developed. The bank or savings and loan building shall not exceed a gross floor area Of 19Q~ square ~eet. Any Other building ahall tares shall have briok foundations and cedar shake roofs. Alt structures shall hav~ an ar~hltectural style compati- ble with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Com- patibility may be achieved %hro~gh ~he use of similar building massing, materials, scale er other architectural features. (C~C) Except as noted herein, signs shall comply with ~he re- quirements cf Chapter 21.1, Neighborhood Office (0~1) Districts in Emerging Growth Areas, A maximum of one business f~eestanding sign, to be located in the vicinity of the Karro¥;gate Road Access, not to exceed an aggregate area of fifty (5O) square feet shell be permitted ~o iden- tify this development. {CPC) 7. The public wastewater system shall be used. {CPC) 8. Prior to the issuance o~ a building parT, it, fOrty-five (~5) feet of right of way, measured from the csnterllne of Happy Hill Read and sixty (60) fee= of right of way, measured from the centerline of Marrowgate Road, ~hall be dedicated to and for the County cf chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (C~C) 9. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy pemm~t, additional pavement shall be installed for the entire property front- age along Eappy ~ill and ~arr©wg~te Roads. (CPC} A %hirty~five (35) fOQ~ buffer shall be maintained along the southern property line. Except for utilities which run generally perpendicular through the buffer, ~andacap- inq~ other screening features amd &~eess, as approved by the Planning and Transportation Departments. ~here shall be no facilities permitted in the buffer. (CPC) When asked, Mr. Micas explained the dec%zment referenced by Ms. Ba~s~ ~tating this request ha~ already been deferre~ ~ur a period of one day lea~ ~han a year and if the Board were take no action ea the request by september 27, 1990 %he request ~ould be deemed denied. Mr. Mayas indicated none of hie constituents er members cf his District committees have vol=ed concern or objection to the proposed request and stated, if they were in opposition, they waul~ be present to address the Board. Mr. Peele ~tated he was aware that the Southern Area Land Use an~ Transportation Plan co~ittee had met several times and addressed a number of issue~ but had not yet begun to address specific land uss issues in specific araa~; and that~ in the near future, the Comprehensive pl~Ding s~aff would be forwarding information to that come,tree tO begin Mr. Applegat~ inquired as to how ~any ef these individuals present who addressed this issue were members of the ~aucaca District Advisory Ceuncil committee, how frequently the co~mmittee me~; and stated it appeared to hi~ that ufa£f proceed with action On the Plan. ~r. Mayas stated staff is an extensien of the Board and follow~ th~ guid~line~ as Set forth by the Board; that the County Attorney has indicated on several occasions that ~lans are guideS; ~ha~ area residents have requested approval of the proposed req-deat~ aa ~ubmitted~ and hc felt the request should Mr. Sullivan expressed concern regarding'the potential for ~uI1 build-out on th= subject parcel; ~pproval of other more intense uses when the amended Plan is brought forward~ requested Mr. Peele describe some of those uses'; expressed concern with the length of time this case has been pending On the docket; stated he felt those involved should have th~ benefit of ~ completed, 9/16/~0 amended Plan, prior to any rezoninq approvals occurring; and stated if he had to decide on this ease at this time, he would vote to deny. Mr. Nayez stated he felt the opinions and concerns of the residents in the co~nunity should be given serious consideration in the decision on this request; that the area wanted in their community; and that he was willing to give the Mayes stated he was wilting to aDD,ore the p~oDosed ~equest, as Analysi~ which the applicant stated he accepts. Mr. Cnrrin pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended approval and the ~atoaca District Planning Commissioner voted in favor of that xesommenda~iou. Ayes: ~r. Currin, Mr. Applsgat~ and Mr. ~ayss. Absent: Mr. Daniel. 90SN0139 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, GEORG~ B. SOWERS, ~. A~SO<IAT~S requested amen~men~ to conditions o{ a previou~ rezonlng (Case 88SN0032) relative to density and average size in a Residential (R-12) District. Residential development of up to 3.63 unit~ p~r ac~ i$ pe~itted in a Residential [R-12) District. The density of ~a proposed amendment will be con~rolle~ by zoning conditions or Ordinan~e s%aD~ar~$. The Comprehensive Plan deuignute~ the property for residential development of 1.51 to 4.00 units per acre. This request on a 58.58 acre parcel ~ronting approximately 822 feet O~ the south line of Lucks Lane, approximately 600 feet wes~ of Abingdon Road. Tax Map 38-1 (1} Parcel 25; Tax Map 38-1 through 12 and 27 through 51; and Tax Map 38-5 (3) Poplar Creek, Lots 13 through 26 {sheet 14). Mr. Pools presented a s~ary of Case 90SN0139 and stated the increase in both the n~mber of allowable lots snd density of development would have an adverse impact on the County~ ability to provide adequate capital ~acilities and with infrastruc~ur~ impxovemen~ would r~ul= in a ~ub~hantiat Mr. To~y Balzer, representing %h~ applicant, explained the 65 acres; stated ~e applicant had met w~th ~0T and the appllcant~s improv~ents would subsequently b~ Mr. George Beadles, a Matoaca District resident, ~ugg~ted the be t~ted ~h~ ~ as others with respect to compiimnce wish Mr. Applegate expressed concern that the original max~ n~ber of lots was 11~ and is the s~e ~odayf that no has been made tc the n~ber of lot~: that it appeared to him density from t.8 units per gross acre %o 2.0 u~its per acre, and if this were an effort, b~cause it is an amendment ho an original zoning, to require cash proffers because the amendment ~as filed after July 1, 1989, he felt it wax wrong~ Discussion, questions and comments en~u~d relative to the original density and number of acres as tempered to the current request; the increase in the number of dwelling units; the reduction in acreage of the overall prcpect; the net effect of the proposed amendments to the proifered conditions which would allow the unit/acre denaity of the development to additional burden placed on the County's taxpayers to provide adequate capital facilities and infrastructure improvements to ~erve the site; when a~ked, Mr. ~¢Crack~n indicated he could net confirm that the applicant had submitted e $50,O08 check to VDOT for Lucks Lane road improvements. NI. Balzsr indicated he had a copy of the cancelled ch~ck. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Appiegate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, resolved to approve Case 90SNQ139 and accept the following proffered conditions: t. Ther~ will be a maximum of 115 lots within the subdivision or the density will not exceed 2.8 dwelling unit~ per gross acre. 2. Th~ overall av~rag~ lot $iz~ within the subdivision exclusive of roadway~ thai1 not be less than 19,000 ~quare feet. Ayes: ~r. Cut,iD, Mr. Sullivan, ~r. Applegate and Mr. Mayas. Absent: Mr. Daniel. The Boar~ generally agreed ho rece~ for five (5) mlnute~. Re¢onvenin§~ 90~N0236 ~n Midlothian Ma~i~eri~I District, ~'~ ASMMONT CO~PANX requested rszouing f~om Agricultural {A) to Residential R~idantial u~e of up to 2.9 units per acre is permitted in a Residential (R-15) District. The COmprehensive Plan designates the propur~y for residential use of 1.5 units per acre or on a ?.9 ac~e parcel lying approximately 295 fee~ southwest the western terminus of Berrand Road. T~x Map 27-5 (1) Parcel 23 (Sheet 90S~0236; however, concerns had been e~pwe~ed relative to cash proffers and the case was plac~d in ~ts regular ~or discussion. Mr. Sullivan apologized ~or detaining Mr. Lewis; stated he now discussed his concerns with %he County Attorney and was On motion of Mr. Sullivan~ seconded by ~r. Applegate, the Board approved Case 90S~0236 tad accepted the following proffered condition~ t~ any new additional lot~ a~ recorded as a result of this r~zo~ing, =he subdivider 0r his a~ign%% ~hall pay ~he following to th~ County 90-725 9126/90 at the t~me of the building permit application for infrastructure ~%provement~ within the service district earring the property. a. $2,000 per lot, if paid prior 5o July I, b. The anount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to ezceed $3,000 per lot; if paid between July 1, 1991, and June 30, c. The amount approved by the Board of Supervieor~ not to exceed $4,000 per lot, if paid between July 1, 1992, and June 30, I993, inclusive; or d. The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed $4,000 per lot ad3usted upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swif~ Building Cost Index between July 1, 1992, and J~ly 1 of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid after June 38, 1993. Ayes: Mr. CnrrinI Mc. Sullivan, Nr. Applegat~ and Absent: ~r. Daniel. 90SN0238 In Matoaca ~gisterla~ District, O~I~ D. ~Y, X~'r~ requested rezonin~ from Agricultural (A} to Residential (R-25). Residential use of up to 1.74 units per acre is permitted in a Residential (R-25~ District. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for r~midential use of 1.5 unica pe~ acre or lems. Thi~ request lies on a 21,0 acre parcel fronting approximately 32~ f~ on the east line of Nash Road, approximate%y t,250 feet north of Woodpecker Road. Tax Map 113 (1) Part of Parcel I3 (Sheet Mr. Peele stated there was no opposition present to Case 90SN0238; however, coneern~ were expressed relativ~ to the cash proffers and the case wac placed in its regular sequence for Mr. Currin diecloe~d to the Boar~ that he does not own any of the subject property; however, when the adjacent property was originally sorted, it w~$ a controversial issue and he was a~vlse~ by l~gal counsel not to participate in the diecus~ion~ therefore, he did not vote on the matter then nor would he on th~ request now~ declared a con~Iiot of interest pureuent to the Virginia Comprehenslv~ Conflict of Interest Act an4 excused himself ~rom the meeting. Mr. Rudy stated the reco~endabion was acceptable und inquired if there were a problem wi~ the legality oS =kc current proffer policy. Mr. Mica~ stated ~e policy is legal. th~ cash proffer policy, which he would like to have reviewed Discussion ~nsue~ re]at~v~ to the ma~ number of developable lot~ and ~Welling units; the provision for public water and/or ~ew~r facilit~e~ etC. Mr. Mayas expressed concern that there were no Drovisi0ns for public sewer faciliti~ for this project and ~hat septic systems would be installed within the Appomattox sasin. Mr. Rndy sba%ed that %he ~eveloper must c~ply with the ~tablish~d septic system standards, as adopted by ~he BOarO. 90-726 9/26/90 Mr. Beadles referenced the Request Analysis which indicated his objection to ~roffered Condition 5 and clarified hie objection wa~ access to Na~h Road. Mr. Mayes stated he felt approval of this request would create a potential disaster and ha could not support additional septic systems in the Appomattox Basin where almost all %he residents utilize well wa~er. Nr. Applegats stated he felt the County has a very sophisticated septic systeJ~] in e~fect and he intended to support the application. Mr. Sullivan stated h~ felt the proposed use appropriate; =hat his concerns in t2%ia matter regarding proffers have been alleviated; and that he could support the re~e~t. Mr, Mayes made a motion to deny Ca~ 905N02~8, based on tko fact that adding additional septic tank~ in an area where re~ident~ utilize w~15 water ar~ iD the majority and ha would not be a part of it. There wa~ no second. Mr. Sullivan stated the motion failed for lack cf a second. Mr. Applegats stated th~ proposed toques= will utilize publio water; there is no qro~d water contamination in that subdivision; the project does not drain to th~ ApDomatte~ ~asin/Lake Chesdin urea~ and that he felt comfortable that the established septic syst~ criteria will protect area residents. 0a motion of ~r. Applogate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved Case 90SN0238, subject to the following eondition~ A fifty (50) foot buffer strip, sxclu~±ve of easements and required yards, shall be established and maintained adjacent to Nash Road {Route 636;. The area of this buffer strip shall either be left in its natural state, if sufficient exist~ to provide adequate ~cre~ning; or be planted and/or b~rm~d in accordance with e landscape plan approved by the 91arming D~partm~t, if sufficient vegetation doe~ not exist to of any final site plan or recordation of any plat, the developer shall flag this buffer strip for inspection, and ~hall post a bcn~ to cover the implementation of the landscape plan, if such plan is required. ~xcep~ for &pprovad public road access(e~), no access shall ba permitted tlqrough this b~ffer strip, This b%ffer strip shall be noted on any final site plans, and any final check and recordation plats. The Planning Co~missien or ~ha Director of Planning may modify this condition tentative subdivision r~view. And further, the Board scoop=ed the following proffered conditions: The Master Plan submitted with the Mighlands (Zoning Case %88SN~148) shall be considered the Master Road Plan. Approval of the Master Plan by the County does not imply that the County give final approval to any particular road alignment or section. Individual lot frontage along the collector reads sho~n on the Master Plan ~hall be minimized as determined by the Transportation Department. 90-727 9/26/90 2. Forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the csnterline of Nosh Road ~hall be dedicated to Chesterfield County~ free and uure~tricted. 3, Prior =o recordation of any lots adjacent to Nash Road, e revised centerline for Nash Road shall he submitte~ tot and approved by, the Transportatlen Department. Forty-five {45) feet of right of way from the approved rsvise~ oenterllne cf Nash Road shall be dedicated to and for the Connty of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. 4. Additional pavemeut shall be constructed along Mash Road to provide left smd right turn lanes at esch approved access. The ditch line along Nash Road (excluding the section from Lic~nq Creek %o appro×imately 1,500 fact south of Licking Creek) mhall be relocated for the entire property frontage and adequate shoulders provided. A phasinq plan may he submitted to, and approved by, the Transportation Department for the ditch line and shoulder improvements. 5. Nc facility i~tended to be transferred to any Homeowner's Association which may be created as a zesult of this development, shall be transferred until said facility has teen completed or un%il a bond has been posted provided for 100% surety of the completion of all such improve- ment~. 6. Retention capability shall be designed into the lake facilities which would help deter ~owastream flooding, 7. Applicant will impose restrictive covenants on the lots tc be developed as a re~ult of this zoning which are equal to er more restrictive than the Woodland Pond Restrictive 8. ~f additional lots are created by this re~oning, the applicant will pay east proffers for read improvements as per the following schedule= a. $2,000 per lot, if paid prior to July 1, 199I; of. Supervisors not to exceed $3,000 p~r lot, if paid between July 1, 1991 and June 30~ 1992~ inclusive; c. the amount approved by the Bear~ of Supervisors not to exceed $~,000 per lot, if paid b~tween July 1~ 1992 and June 30, 1993, inclusive; and d. the amount approved by the ~oard of Supervisors not to exCe=d $4,000 per lot adjusted by any increa~ in the Marshall and Swiit July 1, 1992 and July 1 of the made, if paid after June 30, 1993. Additional lots will be those where a house or septic tank site is created within the bouads of this rec~est. Cash proffers will be made at time of building per.it application. ~. 90-728 9/26/90 Ab$gn%: Mr. Currin and Mr. Daniel. Currin returned to the meeting, Sullivan requested that staff undertake a review of the 12. On motion o~ Mr. Applegate, seconded by ~r. Sullivan, the Board adjourned at 4:02 p.m. {DST} until 2:00 p.m. (DST) on October 10, 1990. Vote: Unanimous Lin~ B. Ramsey ~ ~ Counfy Ad~ini~trafoff Chairman 90-729 9126190