Loading...
03-27-91 Minutes1991 Mr. M. P. Sullivan, Chairman Mr. C,F. Currin, Jr., ¥ioeChrm. Mr. G. H. ADplegate Mr. Marry ~. Daniel Mr. Jesse J. Mayee Mr. Lane B. Ramsey County Adminia~xatur Staff in Attendance: A$~%. Co. Achuin., Legit. SVCs. and Int~rgover~. A~airs Ms. Joan S. Dolezal, Clerk to the Board Chief Robert Eanes, Jr. Fire DeDartment Mr. Bradford $. HAUL, eS, Deputy Co. Admin., Mr. Willia~ H. HOwell, Dir., Gen. Services ~r. T~omas E. Jacobsen, Dir., Planning Dept. Ms. Mary Leu Lyle, ~ir., A¢co~a~ing Dept. Mr. Robert L. Masden, Deputy CO. Ad,in., Attorne~ ~r. Jeffrey L. Mincks, Sr. Asst. Co. A%=orney bit., ~ews & Public I~fo. Services Mr. Riohard Nunnally, Chie~ of Police Mr. William D. Poe!e, Chief, Dev. Review, PlaD_~in~ Department Mr. Richard sale, Deputy Ce. Admin., DeveleDment Dir., sudg~t ~ Mst. Dir,, Parks & Rec. Mr. David welchona, Dir. of Utilities Sheri~ C. G. Williams, Kr. Fredezi~k Will~s, Mr. sullivan oalled the regularly Scheduled meeting to Order at 9:~0 a.m. (~ST) in the Chesterfield County Beard Room. 3/27/91 ~apti~t Church, who gays the invocation. 5ir. R~say le~ the Pledge United States of America. of Allegiance to the Flag o£ t_he 3. Ai~aOVALOFHINUTES 3,A. MARCH 13, 1~% On motion of Hr. Applegate, seeended by Mr. currin~ the Board approved tke minutes ef March 13, 1991, as submitted. Vet~: Unanimous 3.B. MARCH 14, 1991 On ~otioR of ~r. Sullivan, meconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the minutes of March 14~ 199t~ as submit=ed. Vote: Unanimous on meuien of ~r. Sullivan, seoen~ed by ~r, May~, ~he Boar~ apD~oved the minutes of ~aroh 19~ 1991, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous The Board congratulated Mr. Richard Nunnally, ~x%ension Service Director for Chesterfield Co~u%ty, who was selected to rece±vs the National County A~ents Association Distinguished Service Award for 1991 which will be presented at the National Convention in Peoria, Illinois. 5. BOARD CO~-±-r~RF~ORT~ F~. Daniel reported he attended ~he Riehmon~ Regional Planning District Co~ission (~DC) meetinq, at which there was First CI~ in the fall tc discuss regional issues; and thc CaDital Region AizDort Co~i=~ion (C~C) meeting, which he very ~tronq fin~ial posture which remulted from the initia~iom of sound financial management princLples. Mr. Mayes reported he attended meetings o~ the Crater MetroDolitan Pla~ing Orqanization [~O), Crater Devel~ent Airport Co~ission (~C) meeting. ~. currin reported he particiDated with students and local/state officials in an ink,mafiosi ~uminuss oo~y s~inar at Lloyd C. Bird High School. Mr. sullivan reported that he attended a State Corporation CoK~nission meeting at which he pre~ented a request to permi~ VEBCO %o extend a transmiasioe line through Chesterfield County and several meetings oi the Regional Water Authority motion of Hr. ApDlu~ate, seco~ded by Mr. M~yes, tko Board deferre~ until April 10, 1991, ~ 7.A., R~solutio~ Raco~izing ~s. R~si~ Titco~, Lucy Corr ~rsin~ ~e~ and 7. P~SOLIYi~O~$ AND SPKCIA~ 7.B. RE--ZING Ai~R/L AS "~l~T.n ABIZSE On motien cf the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Child abus~ and neglect is a reality tha~ touches all segmeno~ of the co~m~unity of Chestsrfield County; and W/qEREAS, The Ch~sterfi~l~ County Board of Supervisors believes that ohildz=n are bert served in their own homes and tha~ factors that create child mistreatment tan b$ addressed with support fro~ co~nity at--ices; and ~AS, Th~ celerity strait9 agencle~ and p~ivate citizens have joined hands to strengthen the f~lies' ~ility to provide aDDropriat~ ears and ~idance of thei~ children: and reco~izes and supports the efforts to resolve the issue of ohild abuse and neglect in ~ur locality. N~, ~F0~ BE IT RESOLED, that the month o~ ADrit, 1991 b~ proclaimed "chil4~use Prevention Month". ~D, BE IT ~T~ER ~S0L~D, that appreciation is hereby extended to th~ Child Protective Services Workers ~or their dsdication to working wi~h f~ilies and that this =esolution be calle~ to th~ attention of all ci=izsns. Vot~: UnaRimous Flemin~ and staff from th~ Child Protectlv~ ~urvices DivisiOn O~ Social Services and co~nded ~ ~or their dedication and diligent efforts to resolve the issue of child ~use and neglect in the certify. 8. H~ARINCS OF CITIZENS ON ~Sr-~.,~LED~A~-,.~.~ OR CI~,TM~ Rt. Alan G. Barnes, repreSentinq the Len~wood Acres C~vi¢ Association, referenced a presentation by Pla~nlng Advocates, Ino. on overcrowding in the County School System; outli~ed several ~u~gested recommended alterna~ives/O~tio~S for resolving the overcrowding/£undiag ~sues, copies of which ars filed with the papers o~ this Board; inquire~ as to how he could obtain information on the recently established ~eve~ue Resources and I~frastru=ture C~nk~itte~; and requested that the 91-184 3127/91 SGhool Board and Board of Supervisors respond regarding funding strategies se that he could inform his g~c~p of any pertinent decisions. and Infrastructure Committee but suggested Mr+ Barnes obtain There were no deferred items for discussion at this time. 10. PL~BLIC ~F2%~G~ o TOCO~SID~RANAREND]~gT TO INCRKA~K ','MK 1990-91AI~ FACIL~I'r IN ACfX]RDAN~q~WIT~A~P~%NTBEINGP~C~A~DFP~UM='~ FEDERAL DEPARI~4~ OP AVIATION AND T~ ~%R~INIA DEPAP~N~T ~r. Ka~er stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing ~e csn~ider an ~mendmen~ ts increase she 1990-91 Airport Capital Budget k~j $1,222,222 for i~rovements received from the Federal Department of Aviation ~d the Virginia D~Dar~gn= of Avia=ion. matter. On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. C~rin, ths Board authorized the County A~inistrator to apply for ~d aoceDt a FeO~ral Depar~ent of Aviation gr~t in th~ ~ount o~ $1,100~000 and a Virginia Depar~ent of Aviation in the ~o~t of $61,111 whioh will b~ match$~ with ~61,111 in Count~ fun~$, for a total of $1,222,222 for improv~ents to the Airport facility ~d to enter into contracts with the Federal and State gover~e~ts fo~ e~e~dit~re of ~aid ~unds; a~thorized the County A~inistra~or to solicit bids for ~he Airport Improvement Project (AIP) - Grade Runway Safety ~ea and with the l~e~t responsive and responsible bidder~ appropriated ~cess f~ in the ~iteDine Road ~tension Phase III in the ~ount o~ $61,100 ~d transferred s~e from ~he ~it~pi~ Roa~ ~%easion Phase ~II projec~ ~o ~h~ Air.r: Capital Projects Fund for the matching grant; ~d upon a~proval o~ gr~nt ~unds appropriated ~l,l~,OOO in F~d~ra~ funds, $61,111 in State ~unds and $61,111 in Co~ty matching ~unds ~or ~aid project. ll.A. CONE~T 11.A.1. STATE ROAD ACCEI~ANCE This day the County ~viro~antal Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Ecard, ma~e report in writing upon his ex~ination o~ Ti~ercreek Drive snd Ti~ercreek Court Upon consideration whereof, ~d on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by ~. c~rin, it is Iesolved that Ti~ercreek Drive 91-185 3/27/91 and Timber=r~ek Court in Ashton Woods south, Dale District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. Transportation, be end it hereby is requested to take into the Secundazy System, Timbercrest Drive, beginning at the intor- sectiom with Salem Church Road, State Route 642, and going easterly 0.25 milo to tho intersection with Timbercreek court, then continuing easterly 0.19 mile to end in a cul-de-sac~ and Timbercrest cou~t, beginning at the intersection with Timbercrest Drive and going $outhee~terly 0.22 mile to end in This request is inclusive of the adjacent slopE, eight distance and designated Virginia Department of T~aasportation drainage easements. These roads serve 70 And be it further resolved~ that the Board cf Supervisors guarantees to ~he Virginia Department of Trar~poruauion a 50' right-of-way for Timbercreek Court and a variable width 68' right-of-way fez Timbercreek Drive. Ashtun Wos~s South is recorded as follows: Plat Bock 69, Pages 48 & 49, January 5, 1990. Vote: Unanimous This day the County ~nvironmoaual ~ngineer, in aooordancs with directions fro~ this Board, ~de report in writing upon his examination cf Battery Dan~zler Road in Bermuda Industrial Perk Extension, Bermuda District. Upon een~id~rati0nwh~r~of, And on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currin, it is resolved that Battery Dantzler Road i~ Bermuda Industrial Park F~ten~io~, Bezl~da District, be and it hereby is established as a public read. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requeate~ to take in~u the seecndar%z Syste~, Battery Dantzler Road, beginning at the intersection with Bermuda Triangle Road, S~a=e Route %785, and going westerly 0.15 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This recluest i~ i~clusivo of the adjacent mlope, sight ~is~ance and designated virginia Department of Transportation d~ainuge e~suments. This road serves as access to commercial properties. knd be it further r~solved, that the Board of Supervisors g~arantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 60' right-of-way for this road. Bermuda Industrial Pa=k E~tonsisn is rocorded as follows: Plat Book 68, Pago 4~, octobor 17, ~989. Vote: Qnanlmous Upon considorstion wher~of, and on mot~on of Mr. ApplugaLo, seconded b~ Mr. C~rri~, it is resolved that Chital Drive, Branched Antler Drive, Branched Antler Court, Branched Antler Circle, Key Deer Drive, Deer Thicket Lane, Deer Thicket Drive, Deer Thicket Court a~d Deer Run Drive in ~ultler Ridge, Matoaca District, be and they hereby are established am public roads. 91-186 And be it furthpr resolved, that the virginia Department o~ Transportation, be and it hereby is requested tO t~ke into the secondary system, chital Drive, beginning at the intermection with Hull Street Road, state Route 360, and going southerly 0.22 milo to ~he intersection with Deer Run Drive; Branched Antler Drive, beginning at proposed Branched Antler DrivG, Antler Ridge, Section 2, and going easterly 0.04 ~ile to the intersootio~ with Branched AnUler Court, then continuing easterly 0.04 mile to the i~tersectio~ with D=er Run Drive, then continuing easterly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Branched Antler Circle, then continuing easterly 0.04 mite, then turning and going southerly 0.07 milo to end in a cul-de-sac; Branched ~tlar Court, beginning at the inter- section with ~ranohed Antler Drive and going northerly 0.13 mile to end in a Cul-de-sac; ~ronch~d ~%n%ler Circle, beginning at th~ intersection with Branched Antler Drive and going northerly 0.11 mile to en~ a cul-de-sac; Key Door ~rive, beginning at the intersection with Deer Run Drive and going easterly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac, Again ~ey Deer Drive, beginning at tho intersection with Deer Run Drive and goin~ wss~srty 0.04 milo to end at proposed Key Deer Drive, Doer Run, ~e~tio~ 4; Deer Thicket Lane, beginning at the intersection with Doer Thicket Drive and going northeasterly 8.05 mile to e~d at proD0sed Deer Thicket Lane, Doer Run, Section 3; Deer Thicket Drive, beginning at the intersection with Door Run Drive and going southerly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Deer ~ick~t Court, then continuing southerly Q.09 mil~ to the interxeGtio~ with Deer Thicket Lan~, the~ continuing southerly O.Q5 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Again Deer Thicket Drive, beginning at tko intersection with Deer Rtt~ Drive and going northorl~ ~.12 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Dear Thicket Co,It, beginni~ at tho intersection with Deer 5~nicket Drive and going easterly 0.03 mile to en~ at proposed Deer Thicket court, Deer Rue, Section 3; and Deer Run Drive, beginning at proposed Deer Run Drive, Door Ru~, Section 3, and going westerly 0.~ milo to the intersection with De~r Thicket Drive, then continuing westerly 0.11 milo to the intersection with Chi=al Drive, then turning a~d going southerly 0.o9 mil= to tho intersection with Branched /~ntlor Drive, then coBtinuing southerly 0.07 mile to the intersection with Key Deer Drive, then continuing southerly 0.03 milo to end at pro~ose~ Deer Run Drive, Deer Run, Section 4. This rocfuest is inclusive of tho o~jaeont slope, sight distance and ~eoi~nated Virginia Department ~f Transportation drainage eaae~eRt$~ These roads serve 100 lots. And be it further resolvet, that the ~Q~r~ of supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Dopa3~tment of TranSpOrtation a 50' which has a 60' right-of-way and Chitai Drive which has an 80~ right-of-way. Antler Ridge is roeorde~ ao follows: Plat ~eak ~1, Pager 1t, 11 and 13, March 30, 1988. Vote: Unanimous This day tho County Znvironmontal Engineer, in acoor4anoo with directions fr~ thi~ Bo~rd, mode report in writing upon his examlnatic~ of Huntgate Wooda Road in Oak ~prings, clover ~ill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applagate, seconded Dy ~lr. Currin, it is resolved that ~untgate Woods 91-187 3/27/91 Road in Oak Springs, Clovez dill District, be and it hereby is established as a ~ubli¢ zoad. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transp0rtatio~, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, ~untqage Woods Road, beginning at existing Huntgate woods Road, State Route 2594~ and going northwesterly 0.05 mile to the intersection with itself, then continuing northwesterly 0.12 mile, then turning and going westerly 0.04 mile, then turai~g and goimg southerly 0.03 mile, then turning and going southeasterly 0,11 Mile, the~ turning and going easterly 0.09 mile to end at the intersection wi~h itzelf. distance and designated Virginia Department o~ Transportation This read serves 49 lots. And be i% further resolved~ that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Dep~rtmemt o~ Transportation a 50' right-of-way for this road. This section of oak Springa is recorded as follows: Plat Book 64~ Pages 91 & 92, January 4, 1989. 11.A.2. SC~0OL~O~C~NT 0~ metlon Of Mr. ApDlegate, seconded by ~ir. ceftin, the Board acce~ted an~ ~ppropriated $~1,91~ ~o th~ School Beard Gra~t ~und for revenues and e~endlturea for the C~ Model Progr~ ~revention P~ogr~ ~or Srade K-1i", which grant proDo~e~ continu~ of s~stance ~u~e prevention ~ervicez to school-aged children~ is funded u~der the U. S. Drug-Fr~ Schools and Co~ities Act (DFSCA] of 1985; is affectiv~ i~ediat~ly and will resinate seD~eI 30, 1991; will be u~ed ~o provide a part-time ~rant research assist~ce; and which will be a~inister~d through the ~rsvention Service ~ager f~r Chesterfield Mental Health Depar~ent but assisted by the cc~S Coor~inatur ~ s~tance ~use and Discipline. (It is noted no local f~nds ~re involved.) Vote: Unan~ous 11.A.3. RE~TS ~OR BINGO/RAFFLE on ~oti~n o~ Mr. Applegate, seconded b~ Mr. ~rrln, approve~ requests fez bingo/raffle ~ermits orga~izati0~u ~or calend~ ~ar 199~: ORG~TI~ Grang~ Hail Elementa~ ~hool ~A Poseidon Swiping, Inc. (~en~ent for new location) Greenfield Elementary School ~TA for the ~ollowing Bingo/Raffle Raffle Raffle 91-18S 3/27/91 11.A.4- A~RLI~ATION FOR VIRGINIA COASTAL RESOURCES ~NAC~T Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that he owns property along the James River and inquired if approval of an application for Virginia Coastal Resources Manage-~ent Program Gra/~t funds wsul~ benefit his property ~hereby posing a conflict of interest for him. Mr. Minck~ indicated Mr. Curri~ Wo~ld be River and, therefore, a cc~iict of intere~ d~d not exist. 0D motion of ~. kpplegate, seconded by M~. Ceftin, the Board authorized the C0~ty A~nistrator to apply to th~ Virginia Co,oil on th~ EBviro~nt for a Virginia Coastal ResourCeS a progr~ to ma~/deliau=te wetlan~ along the App~attox and J~es Rivers in Chesterfield County ~d which Drogr~ wetlan4s, develop appropriate p~lic ac~ez~ to water,runt ar~as in the co~ty an~ m~age growth a~ ~uvel0~ent enviro~ntally ~enzitive areas of the Co~ty: and approprlat~d necessa~ f~ds uD~ approval by the stat~. is noted the ~ount of Federal funds applied for will $40,88o ma~c~ed ~ in-kind con=ribu%io~s of existin~ in ~he C0~uni~ Development A~inistration and LSCA ~RANTS T~0~GH 'r~ VIRGtRIA STATE LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES ll.A.5.a. TO DEVKLO~ IHI~OVED L/~SPJ~IY SEK~IC~.~ TO LICenSED DAY AMOUNT OF On motion o~ Mr. Applegate, secon~nd by ~. Curtis, the authorized th~ County Administrator to appl~ to tho Virginia State Library and Archives for an LSCA gran~ in t-he amount of $37,286 to £~n~ a program ~ntitled "In the BAg" which would provide part-time library staff, equipment, books an~ uther materials required to develop ~nd ~mplement library ~peci~ically designed for licensed day care centers and Head appropriated necessary funds upon approval by the State. (It is noted vehicle milage costs will be absorbed within the Library budget; staff will attar to recover other overhead COSt= which may not be included in the grant funds accounting, ~urchasing f~oticns]; ai~d which f~ding for ~aid grant upo~ approval is effective July 1, ~991 through June 30, 1992.) ll.A.5.h. TO ESTABLIS~ A LIT~KACY p~Z~q{A~ AT '~'~ PAP/( HoU~LN~ C09~fu~IT~ TN ~ AMOUNT O~ $20,205 On motion of ~. Applegate, seconded by ~. Currin, the BUSEd authorized the County A~ini~trator to apply ~o the Virginia Sta~e Library ~d ~chives for ~ LSCA gran~ in ~ ~ount of $20,205 %o ~gt~lish a litera~ progr~ at the Park L~e m~terials f~r o~-~ite f~ily literacy progr~i~; and appropriated necessary f~ds upon appz0val by the Statm~ and 1, 1991 through Juno 30, 1992. 3/27191 ll.A.6. TI~N~ ~ ~ ~ SHORT.AXiL AND TO ~E On motion of ~4r. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board transferred $45,800 from tho balance in the Loaf ComDosting Project (in the County Capital Improvement Fund) to the Cheater Land,ill Account (in the County Capital Improvement Fund) for the acquisition of land necessary for proper drainage of the project and $58,600 to the General Fund Fund Balance to cover a FYP~ budget deficit due to the reinstate- ment Of the spring leaf collection program, for a total of $96,400. VQ~e: Unanimous i1.A.7. SET D&T~ FO~ i~3BLIC I{~%H~i~G TO CC~I~EI{ AN O~DINA~CK 15.1-22 OF ~ ~A)DE ~ x~ CO~ OF C~E~'r~z~FIKLD, 1978r A~ AI~D~D~ B~ ~EAIX)L~I~iWG ~ECTI(~ On motion o~ Mr. Applegate, secondud by F~r. Currin, thc ~oard hearing to conaidar an ordinance to amend Section 15.1-12 of readopting Section 15.1-22.5 relatinq to muzzte~loading rifles. Vote: Unanimeuz ll.A.8. A~RF~ENTS FOR MAINT~AN~E OF BEST MANA~T ll.A.&.a. NO~l"r~ On motion of ~. Appl~gate, ~e~onded by ~. Currin~ the Board Manag~nt Synt~ an~ B~t Mana~nt Practice (~P) Facility Maintenance/Ind~ifioatiun Agre~nt with Ridq~way Develo~ent co~any~ o~srs of ~orth settlers Landing. vote: Unanimous ll.A. 8.b. WRT~.TN~TONFAI~S~ On motion o~ Fr. Applegate~ seconded b~ Mr. Currin, the Boakd authori~ the COUnty Administrator =e execu=e a s~o~ wa~er Management systems and ~est ~ag~ent Practice (B~) Facility Maint~nanoe/Ind~nifica=ion Agre~ent with W~llington Fa~a, Section A, with ~he Co~ty's only involvement ~ing to assure ~ha~ the Main=e~n~ Agre~ent ~ollowed b~ the ~ner. (A copy of s~id ~greement is filed with the Da~rs of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous 11.A. 8.¢. ~0}~U~KVIT,r,R, SE~'rr~ 2 Mr. AuDlegate disclosed to the Board that he i~ a nutuholds~ o~ interes~ pursuan~ ~e the Vir~iaia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest On motion of Mr- Daniel, ~ec0nded by ~r. Mayas, the Board authorized the CounUy A~inistrator ~o ~xecu=e a storm water Management Systems aad Best ~ag~ent ~ractice (BMP) Facility 91-19U 3/27/91 Nain~enance Agreement with thc developer of Sommerville, section t~ with th~ County'~ only involvement being to a~e that the Maintenance Agreement is followed by th~ ~4~ner. (A copy of said Agreement is filed with the ~apers of this Ayes: Me. Sullivan, Nr. CefTin, Mr. Daniel a~d Mr. Mayas. ~d~stention: M~. ~pplegate. ll.B. i1.B.1. S~EETLIC~REQUF~T Mr. Mayas stated he wou~d lik~ to hav~ and repasted the matter be deferred ~or t~ir=y (30) days. deferred ~til ADril 24, 1991 consideration o~ a re~e~t for obtaining ~ OOSt esthete ~or the installation light at th~ end 09 Halls Run Road, ~til additional infor~%iO~ has b~n provided. VQt~; Unanimous STATE ACC~'~ANC~ OF AN ~A~D ~0AD OFF ~auKCH ROAD On ~o~ion e~ Mr. Mayas, ~econded by ~. C~rin, the Board adopted the following resolutio~ ~, Section 35.1-72.1 Cl of %h~ Code of vizqi~ia, ~ended, allow~ the Virginia Deponent of Transportation take str~etm into th~ Secondary syst~ of s~a~u Righways; and ~, Chestmzfieid County and the Virginia Depar=ment of Trans~or~auion have determin~ that the ~ed road system ~der Section 33.10-72.1 C1 of the Code of Virgi.gia, ~ended. NOW, ~F0~ ~E IT ~MOL~, t~t the Board Supervisors re~estm the Virginia Department o~ Transportation to accept the u~ed road off Church Road, b~gi~ng at its intersection with Church Road then proceeding i~ = wusterty dir~otion for a len~h of 0.29 mile, into the State Seco~a~ system in acco/danc~ with Section 33.1-72.1 C1 of the Cede Virginia, as ~en~ed. BM IT ~ ~SOLV~, that the Chesterfield cowry Board of Supe~isors ~arantees ~o ~he Co~onw~al~h Virginia a. fifty '~oot unrestricted right-of-way for this right-of-way is recorded a~ follows: Deed Book 2131, page 542. Deed Book 2131, page 546. Deed Book 2137, page 159. Deed ~ok 2137, page 162. Deed Book 2137, page 165. Dee~ Bock 2126, paq~ 207. 91-191 3/27/91 Mr. Currin requested tha~ staff provide updated information on the status of a road in his District that was also requested to be considered for aeceptanss into the State Secondary i1.C. UTILITIES ll.C.1, i:~BT.,IC ~alLT'B'G TO CONSIDER AI~ ORD23~%_NCB '1'0 V'ACA./~ A DIVISION public hearing to conmider an ordinance to vacate a ~ortion of Bennett Place in PeterGbu~g Heights subdivision. opposition to the proposed vacation; referenced rec~nt action by the adjacent proper~y owners which resulted in drainage probl~s on his property; indicated one of his primary eonsiderationz in purchasing his property hsd been the available accesses aD~ that approval o~ the vacation wo~ld have a ~e=rlmental impact on his property in that it would and devalue the property for sale ~o prospective buyers. Mr. C~erge Reb~rteon, of Downing and Associates surveyo~ and a member of Ivey Memorial Methodist Church, ~xplained the recent expansion program at the Church included a da~ care ~,nt~r which by State law requires the installation of a fence ~or the safety and protection of the Children it indicated =he chursh is attempting ~o r~me~¥ any ~rainage ~robtems the fence may have caused; stated that Bennett Place~ zn his o~inion, did act meet the recruited criteria for construction aa a public road; and indicated there were other citizens prezent in support of the pro~o~ed vacation. When asked, approximately fiv~ (5) citizens ~tood %n support of the prot~osed request. Discussion, questions and comments ensued relative to the size of tho subject easement; how much ~oetage of the easement was adjacent to Ivey Memorial Methodist Church and Mr. Vasiloff's property; whether or not there was suffi¢ien~ provided by the easement to access Mr. Vasiloff's property; whether or not the e~s~ment could be constructed as a public road a/Id the fact that there ~ay not be adequate separation from the Rout~ % Harrowgats Road intersection for the sonstruetion of a road; etc. NLr. Hayes stated the oonsideration befe=e tho ~oard was approval of the vacation of the easement and concerns raised by Mr. Va~iloff did impinge on that decision. Mr. Daniel stated it did not appear there ~as sufficient propert~ tO provide i~gruss/egress from the ~ortien of the easement adjacent to the M~. Vasiloff's property. On motioo of Mr. ~ayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, th~ Board adopted the following ordinance: AN OPdDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF C~EST~%FIELD, VIRGINIA, ("GRANTOR"] vacates to OF IVEY ~ORIAL ~T~tODIST CEqJRCH, and J0~ C. VASILOFF and WALTRAUDVASILOFF, & portio~ c~ a ~O' Road k~own aG sennett Place in Petersburg Subdivision, Ma~oaoa District, Chesterfield, Virqinia, as shown on a plat ~hereof duly ~ecorde~ in the Clerk's Office ~f the 91-19~ 3/27/91 court of chesterfield county in Plat Book 4, Pa§u %~qE~, by resolution dated February ~3, 1991 the Board u~ Supervisors of C~ester~ield County, Virginia authorized staff to proceed with the vaca~io~ of a portio~ of a 50' Road known as Bennett Place in Petersburg Heights subdivision, Xatoaoa District, Chesterfield Couety, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat dated xay 15, 1928 recorded in the clerk's office of the circuit cou~t of said County in Plat Book 4, Page 68. ~he ~ortlon of road petitioned to be vacated A ~ortion of ~ 58' Road kn~ as Bereft Place, the loch%ion of which i~ m0r~ fully ~ho~ on a plat by D~ing aha Associates, dated February 19, 1991, a copy o~ which is attache. ~S, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-A31 o~ the C~e o~ Virginia, 1950, as ~nded, ~S, no ~%ic necessity ~ists for the continuance of the portion of road sought to b~ vacated. NOW ~E~O~, BE IT O~AI~ BY ~ BO~ OF ~at pursnant t0 Section 15.1-482(b) of the C~e Virqinia~ 1~5~, as ~nded, the aforesaid portion of ~nd is hereby vacated. ~e Grantees hereby conv~y unto the Grater a~ the Gran=or hereby reserves a 50' drainage ~d u=ility easement as ~ho~ on the attadhad plat. This Ordinanc= shall bu in full ~orce and effect accordance with Section 15.1-482(b~ o~ ~he Code o~ Vi=ginia, 1950, as ~ended, and a certified copy of thi~ Ordin~ce, sooner th~n thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office o~ the Circuit Court of chesterfield County, Virginia D~su~t to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virqinia, 1950, as ~ended. ~e effect of this Ordin~ce p~SU~ ~0 Section is to destroy the ~orce and effect of the recordin~ o~ the per%ion o~ the plat vacated. This Ordinate shall vest fee simple title to the ce~terli~e o~ th~ portion of road hereb~ vacated in th~ ~ners 0f the ~uttinq 10ts wi~in the Petersburg ~eights S~divi~ion, fr~e and clear of any rights of ~e County of Chesterfield, as grater, an~ ~e T~stees of Ivey ~emorial Methodis~ Ch~h, Jo~ C. Vasiloff and Waltr~ud Vasiloff, or their successors in title, as gr~tee. vote: Unanimous 11.C.B. C~-q~T ITEMS ll.C.2.a. AWARD OF CONTRACT P0R PHYSIC on motion of Mr. Applegate, ~econd~d by M~. Daniel, the Board awarded contrac~ Nu~er 89-0644~ for censtluetion of the ~hyaic Kill elevated tank tu the low bidder, PDM, in the amount of $1,815,000; and authorized the County Administrator 91-193 3/27Y91 th±~ prc~eo~ has been previously appropriated.) Vote: Unanimous ll.C.2.b, AWARD CONMTRUCTIO~ C(~FfRA~T FOR SLIPLININ8 ~u~iSTIN~ LINES On motion of ~r. Applega=e, seconded by 9~r. Daniel, the Board awarded a construction contract ~or the sliplining of gravity sanitary sewer lines at force main discharge points from six (6) p~r~p stations to the low bidder~ Astor Belden Enterprises~ ~n the amount of $148,230.63; and authorized the County fund~ for thi~ project are appropriated in the current Capital Improvement ~roject.) Unanimous 11.C.2.c. A~PROVAL OF P~VISED WASTEWATER CONTRACT FOR STONY On motion ef Mr. Ap~legate~ ~ec~nde~ ~ ~r. Daniel, the ~oazd approved the ~ellowing revised wsstewater contract and authoriz~ the Count? Administrator to e~eeute any necessary documents: Revised Contract for Stony ~oint Referme4 Presk~/terian Church, Pro~ect Numbel 90-0L74: Developer: stony Point Reformed Presbyterian Church contract ~o~t: Est~atad ~otal - Wa~tewater (Cash) Wast~water (offsite) (Refund thru co~ections) Est~ated Developer Cost= Code= (Ad~tional Work) (099site) Vote: Unan~ous ~40,873.75 $ ~,1~0.00 $37~133.75 5~-5724Q-~98800R 5P-58358-890733E R~f0T~T TO ~Fi~CLAIN 16 ~00T SEWER EAS~EI~ AND 20 FOOT C(~STR~)~ION EAF~E)~T ACROSS I~X)PE~Y ADJACenT On motion u~ ~r. Ap~legato, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the approved a request from C & C Investments, A Virginia ~eneral Partnership, to quitclaim a 16 foot sewer easement and 20 foot constr~ctien easement across its propert~ adjacent to ~ull Street Road; end authorized the Chairman ~f the Board and (A copy of said plat is filed with the papers of this Board.~ 11.C.2.o. ~?~9~OVAL OF C~ANGK O~D~ FOR ADDITIONAL On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~ecended by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved a change order in ~he amount of $10,118 to Leak Repairs, Inc., for additional work r~quired to complete baein repair~ (to replace the joint m~terial in the set~!ia~ at the Swift Creek Water Treatment Plant, which additional 91-194 3/27/91 work included in the contract and involves concrete repair/re- placement and sealing o~ uxac~s; and authorized the Ceu21ty Administrator to execute the necessary documents. Vote: Unanimous ll.C.2.f. A~CF~TANCE OF A ~A~C~ ~ R(~IO~ ~OAD ~C~ On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~eco~ded by ~r. Daniel, the Board accepted on behalf of the County the conveyance Of a parcel of land containing 0.124 acre along Roblous Road from Wessex of Richmond, L-~., A Virginia Limited ~artnership, and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a co~y of said ~lat is filed with ~hs pa~erz of thi~ Board.) 11.C.2.~. AMEND ACTI~OFNO%g~ER 22..1989 On motion of Mr. Applegats, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ the Beard umend~d ~he original re.est from the developer, Ro~i~ Corporation, for fi~ncial assistance through the Utility Department Economic Develo~e~ ~ensio~ ~olicy ~o ex=end water and sewer service to two (2) prospective induat=ie~, Prod~ct, Ltd. [re, laces C=stom ~tics), which fir~ have selected sites on Ruffin MAll Roa~ locatud on nhe Rosl~ Corporatidn property ~ing developed; which re,est c~plies with =~e County's U~ility Inducement Progr~ fox develo~ent and results in a reduction i~ the ~o~t of cowry less than wculd hive been genemated by Custom Optics; aside for extension of water and sewer lines ~der the Economic D~velopment Account~ in th~ Water and Capital Budgets provided the co~ty~s share of total tion ~ost does no~ ~xcee~ 75% and is repai~ to the Utili~ie~ DEpar~ent ~rom increased t~es within t~ee years; and the ~ollowing is a financial s~a~ of ~he Ia) southeastern ~gin~ring (bi Colonial Marble Pr~uct, Ltd. = $79,440.O8/3yr. Total Estimatsd Utilities Cost County's Share - $297,000.00 (includes engineering = $ 79,440.00 (Approximately 27%) (~ased on Capital Investment o~ $3.20 Million Overall)) Unanimous Mr. Sale presented the Board with a report e~ tho d~veloper 91-195 $/27/91 water an~ sewer A~inist~ator. ll.D. RfLPOKTS Mr. Eameey presented the Board with a status report o~ the on Appropriation of Funds for a Feasibility Study and Schematic Desi~ Doc~ent for the ~e~&cus Historical Park Visitor Center. ~r. R~sey stated the Virginia DeDar~ent of TransDortation has formally notified the Co~ty of the accept~ce of the ~oll~ing roads into the State Secon~ System: ~Di~S L~G~ ROCK ~STLE BUSI~S~ P~ - {Effective 3/15/91) ROUte 965 (Ca~tl~ ROO~ Road) ~ From Route 360 to 0.11 mile South Ro~ ~60 0.11 ~, SILVER BIRCH - (Effective 3/18/9t] Route 4348 (Silver Birch L~ne) - From Route 3600 to 0.21 mile Northeast Route 3600 Route 4349 (Silver Birch Court) - From Route 4348 to 0.07 mile Southeast Route 4348 0,07 CHESTERFIELD ~ADOWS OFFICE PARK - (Effeotlvu 3/18/91] Route 933 (Memory Lane) - From Route 145 to 0.15 mile South Route 145 O.15 Mi. WALTON PARK - SECTION ~ -(sffective 3/18/91) Route 4155 (Timberlake Courtl - ~zom Route 624 0,13 mile East Route 624 Route 415~ {~nobhill Court) - From Route 624 to 0.20 mile Eas~ Route 624 O. 13 Mi. O. 20 Mi. SYCAMORE RIDGE - PHASE I~ - {Effective 3/18/91) ROUte 3975 (To!leroes Road) - From Route 3970 to Route 3977 O.O5 Mi. Rout~ 397~ (Taekley Place) - From Route 3975 to 0.08 mils North Route 3975 0,08 Mi. Route 3977 [Kirkgate Lane) - From 0.04 mile Northeas~ Route 397S to 0.07 mile Sou=hw~st Route 3976 0.11 Mi. It was generally agreed to recess for five (5) minutes. ll.E. B~f~ET WORK Mr. Ramsey stated, durinq the last two work sessions, Board members raised varying ~uestions regarding CeUnty and Schoel budgets to which staff had prepared a response an~ copies of 91-196 3/27/91 the response were dimtribu~ed. (It is nc~ed a copy o~ this information is filed with the papers of this 8card.) It was generally agreed this data was for infel~mati~n~l purpo~e~ and Mr. Welehsn~ presented an overview of the amende~ Utilities Department Capital Improvement Program, Based elimination of proposed add.acks and ne chan~e to th~ existin~ u~er fees and briefly explained the 5 year Capital Improvement ~rogr~m and ihs ir~Dact of budget reduction~ on sam~. noted copies of said information are filed with the papers of this ~ervices and thm s~s~ent impac~ on ~e based on the elimination of proposed ad. acks an~ no change t0 =he have to b~ ~limi~ated; increases in service interruptions ~o line failur~ and laok of maintenance repairs; reductions in funding for the r~h~ilitation ~d replacement for wa~tewater facilities; c~rtez r~ir~ent ~or Board adoption cf a five (5) ~ear Utilities Capital I~roveme~t Pro~; rate increases and when a previous rate increase was e~ective~ etc. i% was generally a~r==~ this data wa~ for info~ational Mr. Sulliva~ stated that, Subs=quent to the Board's work session on Namch 19, !991, he had prepared a list of proposed budget reductions, totallin~ approximabely $3.~ million, whick he felt cO~1~ be imple~e~te~ without detrimentally affecting the current level of services and d~tri~uted copies to the Board for %heir p~rusal. {It is noted a copy of the list is filed with the papers of this Board.) Mr. Da/riel stated he would prefer to submit a li~ after ~he ~lic hearing on April 3, 1991 had been conducted ~ ~uggeste~ that in those S~mlttals %berm be for each ad.ack Dropose~ an e~al reduction listing 0f teen.ended ad. acks/reductions to be compiled for review at th~ ~xt scheduled Co~ty budget work ~e~ion on April 1S, 1991. hi~ ~eco~nde~ budget reduction list was tax relief fo~ the slderly, which issue hu had re~e~ted staff provide data concerning the max~ ~0~n=s of relic9 all~le per the General Asse~ly for ~. ste~aier distributeR informat%on ~O the Boaz~ zelative to 1990 s=atimtics reuar~nu t~ abatements for the elderly, i~co~e/~ut worth ~ounts all0we4 per uurze~ Cou~=y Qrd~oe as comDar~ ~o allowable previous and revised l~itation, stc. (It iz norad a co~ ~9 ~aid i~fo~ation ~ere was brief di~c~sion relative to the fo~ula used for dete~ining income l~it ~li~icatlon~ and ax~ptions; methods used for dete~ining the graduation of income l~v~ls It was noted %his data was provided for info~tional pure,es ~I.F. ~mu~C~]TI~E SF-~SION On mo~ion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr+ Mayes, the Board went 91~197 3/27/9t into ~xeoutiv~ Sem~ion pursaant ko (1) Section 2.1-344 (a){3), Code of Virqi~ia, 1958, as amended, to discuss the condition, acquisition and use of real ~roperty for public purposes relating to the use and development of school si=ca and (2) Section 2.1~344 (a)(1}, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for discussion or consideration of matters relating to the employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, dsmotion, malaries, disciplining or resignation of an office= of the Hoard. Vote: Unanimous OD motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded b~ Mr. CUrrin, the Board adopted the follewln~ r~sol~tion: W~EREAS, the Board of Supervisors has this day adjourned into ~x~cutive Se~io~ in a=oord=nce with a formal vote of the Board, and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Free,om of Information Act; and W~W~t~JL~, ~ke Virginia Freedom of Info~ation Act =ffective Jul~ 1, 1989, provides for certification that such Executive session was conduc:e~ in ~onfo~ity with law. NOW, ~FO~, BE IT ~SOLV~ that the Board of County Supervisors does here~ certify t~t to thc best of ~ach me,erie ~ledge, ii only p~lic ~usiness mat=ers lawfully exempted fr~ open meeting remitments ~der the Freedom o~ Info~a~ion Ac~ were discussed in ~he E~ecutive Session to which this certification applies, and ii) only such p~llc business matters as were iden%iEied in the Motion b~which the considered ~ the Board. NO m~er dissents from this certi!ication. ~e Board being poll~, the vote was as follows: ~. Daaiel: Aye. ~. Mayes: Aye. ~. ADDle~ate: Awe. ~. Currin: Aye. ~. Sullivan= Aye. 11.~. ~NC~ The Board rec~smed at 11:40 Cafe for lunch. CE~) to ~ravel to The American 91~815~ re,es=ed renewal of Mobile Home Permit B6SR142 to park a mobile home in a R~sid~n~ial (K-7) District. ~ density of =he proposal ia aDDrox~ately 1.00 unit/acre. ~e C¢~prehe~- sire Plan de~igna~s ~h~ pmop~rty for residential use of 1.51 to 4.0~ units/acre. This property fronts the w~t line of 91-198 3/27/91 Beaumont Avenue, approximately 700 feet south of vstda Rosd, and is better known as 10156 Beaumont Avenue. Tax Map 97-4 (~$ central Park, Block 11, Lots 1 through 6 and 28 nh~cugh 33 (Sheet ]2). Mr. Jacobson presented a summary o£ Case 915R0154 and stated ~taff recommended approval of the request. Ms. Kethleen Bland stated the ~eo~e~ed conditionx were acceptable. There was no opposition present. oa motion u~ Fir. currin, seconded by Mr. ADplegate, the Board approved Case 91SR0154 for seven (7) years, subject to the following standard conditions: 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. 2. No l~t or parcel may be rented or lea~d f0r uso a~ a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile homo be used for rental property. Only one (1] mobile hums shall be permitted to be parked on an individual l~t or parcel- 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, req~/i~ed from= yard, and uther zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall b~ located closer ~han ~O feet to s-n~ existing rusidcncu. 4. Ne additional permanent-type living spa~e may be ad,ed onto a mobile ho~e. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a per~ane~% foun4atio~. they shall be used. 6. Upon bein~ gxa~t~d a Mobile ~ome k~rmit, th~ applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the office of the Building O~iciul. This shall be done prior to the installation o~ rol0ca=ig~ u~ =he me~ile home. Any viola=ion o~ the above conditions shall be ground~ for revocation of the Mobile ~ome ~ermit. Vote: STSlO~ (Ame_~dml) In Midlothian Magisterial District, ~T L. BEL~r/N requested rezoning from Agricultural (k) an4 C0~ity ~u~inuss (~-2) to Residential ~ulti-family (R-MF), Corporate Office (0-2), and Light Indus%rial (I-l}, Rssi~ential use of up to 10 units per acre i~ permitted in a Residential (R-MF) District. The density of such amendment will bm =on=rolled by soning oondi- =ions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the DreRer~y for mixsd use With d~nsi~¥ to be determined by development regulations and residential ~e of 2.2 units pst acre or less. This request lie~ on a 72.5 aero parcel fronting on the south lin~ of Midlothian Turnpike in four {4) places fsr a total of approximatel~ 916 feet, also ~rontlng approximately 2~3 feet on the east line cf County Line Road, Tax Map 13 (1) Parcels 23, 24 and 105 (Sheets 5 and 6). Mr. Jacobsen presented a summar~ of ~ase 87s106 and ~tated the Planning Commission recommended denial am th~ proposed zoning an~ land u~ d~ ao~ conform to ~he ~ecently adspte~ Up,or swift Creek Plan and that development of the request property and surrounding area would be inappropriate until such time as public facilities are available to ser~e t-he area. He note~ 91-199 3/27/91 staff has zeoelved a letter from the applieant'~ representative requesting the case be remanded %0 the Planning Commission. Mr. Hatford Haye~, representing the applicant, stated his client desired to have this request remanded ~o the Ptanninq Ce~iseio~ so the aDplieatio~ Could bu amended to comply with the Upper Swift Creek Plan and include additional pro~erty in the application. majority of residents along County Line Read sro in has been on the docket for an extended period of time. Mr. deferrals and that he ielt it should either be approved, denied or withdrawn. F~. ~ayes in~cated he had only ~en involved in this for a short period of time. ~. Sullivan indicated he would give the a~licant one mor~ opport~ity to bring the re.est On ~OtiOn o~ ~. Sullivan, seconded by MX+ C~rria, the 91SN0126 I~ Clover Hill Magisterial District, C~L~ W. reque~te~ rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Reeidential (R-9). Residential uae of up to 4.84 units per acre is permitte~ in a Residential (R-9] District. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for residential U~e of !.51 to 4.00 units Der acre. This request lies on a 15.51 acre parcel which lies at the eaetern terminus of Porters Mill Road. Tax MaD 37-4 Part of Parcel 14 (Sheet 13). ~I. Jacobsen presented a summary ~f Ca~e 91SN0%~5 sad stated the Planning Con,mission race.ended approval and acceptance of the applicant's Dr0£~ered ~ondition. ~r. Delm~nte Lewis~ representing t~e applicant, stated the recommendatio~ Wa~ acceptable. There was ~o opposit%o~ on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard approved Case 915N0126 and aooeDted the followinq proffered condition: The applicant, subdivider, or assignee(e) shall pay the following to the County of Chegterfield at th~ time of building permit application er within two years Of record plat approval, whichever shall occur ~±r~t, ~or infraztructure improve- ments within the service district for the property. a.$2,000 per lot, if ~aid prior to July 1, 1991; ~r b. The amount approved by the Beard ef Supervisors not to exceed $3,000 per 91-200 3/27/91 lot, if pai~ between July l, 1991 and June 30, 1992, inclusive; or Superviecr~ not to exoeed $4000 per lot, if pai~ between July 1, 1992 J~ne 30r 1993, inclusive; or d. Th~ amount approved by the Board of lot adjusted upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July l, 1992 and July 1 of the fiscal year in which the pa~meut is made if paid after June 30, 1993. Unanimous 89s~0340 In Ma~oaea Magisterial District, FINANCIAL Fd~r~ES requested rezoning from AgricultUral IA) to Residential (R-9). Residential use of up to 4.84 ~its ~r acre is per, trod in a Residential (R-9) District. ~e Compruhumsiv~ Plan dssi~utes the property ~or residential use 0~ M.2 units per acre or 1~, ~i~ r$~e~t lies on an 86.B ~re p~r~l ~r0nting in two (2) places for a total o~ approx~tely 441 fee~ on west llne of Bailey Bridge Road, also fronting approximately 187 ~u~t on the north line of Quailwood Roa~, appr0x~ately 1,~05 f~t w~t of Bailey Bridge Road, ~d located northwest of the intersection o~ these roads. T~ Map 62-t5 (t) Parcel 20; T~ Hap 76-2 (1) Parcel 6; and Tax Map 76-3 (1) ~arcel 27 (Sheet 20). the applicant's proffered condition~. Mr. Ashy Stin~on, representing the a~lic~t, e$iain~d the proposed use; rev~ewe~ th~ ~sto~ o~ the case; ~ndicat~d applic~t met on several occasions with area residents to resolve mutual conu~rns; that he inten~d to use p~lic water and sewer for the project; ha~ proffered $262,500 in off-site Toad ~mprov~ments to Bailey Bridge Road~ and s~se~nt to the ment conc~rnin~ the inclusion o~ DTO~eTS to extend a ~oad to adjacen~ property, install buffers 5o adjacent property, est~Iish ~ architect~al control co~ittee with to 1,200 s~are feet for ranch-style homes ~d 1,A00 feet ~or 2-s~u~ hom~s. ~ no~, however, the applican~ not make these proffers in that the Board could impose Conditional Use Planned Dev~lo~ent and ~k~ th~ of zoning. ~e stated, however, they ~d learned that the ~rchite~tural control c~ittee and restricted ~o~se condition~ for i~rov~ent~ to ~chool facilitie~ b~ the applicaat; the fact that the aepllc~ had ~Qt s~tt~d written proffer indicatin~ that he would usu p~lic water and sewer facilities ~or the DroDoaed project; expre~sm~ concern a~ to whether or not the applicant~ ~tatement of intent to use p~lic facilities meant that he would actually ~ indicated h~ would prefer to have re~leCte~ in the z0ni~ statement indicating that th~ ap91ic~ shall use p~lic water and sewer facilities in order to develop his plan in a=corganue with the maker in which it is s~ittmd. Jacobsen indicated the ~j~ct application was s~tt~d prior 91-201 3/27/91 tO JUly ~, 1989 and was therefore Rot subject to the Board's recently adopted ~slic¥ regaxdi~ applioants'/develQpezs' partimipation in the provision of capital facility improve- meats with respect to schools, e:o. He added that, if the ~oard were to approve the request for R-9 zoning wi~h Conditional Use Planned Development, conditions requirin~ public water a~d sewer facilities, buffers and stub roads could be Mr. Stinson indicated the applicant's transportation Droffere~ condition for $~62,500 off-site roa~ improvements for this project was predicated on the development of 175 lots and to develop that density weuld require the use ef public water and ~ewer £acili%ie~, which the applicant intended to use, Whea a~k~d, Mr. Micas indicated that if the applicant were te develop hi~ project at a lower density than that reqlles~ed he could use well~ and septic systems and s~ch i~sue would be resolved at the Plannin~ Commission level at the time of sttk~ivision approval. Mr. Breat Lougee stated he had been working with the duveloper and area residents to resolve concerns regardin~ this stated area residents agr~e~ with 5Ir. Stinson~s proposal and felt he hud worked diligently on this project; a/~d they were comfortable with inclusion of ~h~ a~chiteotural control committee and restricted s~urm footaqe for house ~izes in the restrictive covenants. thirty (30) days to permit the applicant an opportunity to submit written pre~ers relative to public water and sewer and buffers. Mr. Ma~es s~ated hu felt th~ applic~ had worked diligently on this case, and although he was net completely satisfied with the manner in which the conditions were structured he would accept the applicant's intent to use publi0 watmr and sewer for the project. on motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. ADDlegate, the Beard ~pDroved Came 895~340, subject to the £ellowi~g condition: A fifty (50} ~oot ~u~fer strip, exclusive of re,aired yards and easements which do not run generally ~erpendicular through the buffer, shall be established and maintained adjacent to Bailey Bridge Road (Route 654). The area of this buffer s~rip shall either be lef~ in its natural ~tate, if sufficient vegetation exists to provide adequate ssreen~ng; or be planted amd/or burmed in accordance with a l~d- Department, if sufficient vegetation does net exist to provide ade~aate screening. Brior to approval of ~y final ~ite pla~ Or =eeordatio~ of any plat, the developer shall flag this buffer strip for inspection, and shall pest a bend to cover the imple- mentation o~ the landscape plan, if such ~lan is required. Only access(es) approved by =he Transportation Department shall he permitted through this btu~er strip. This buffer shall ~ noted on any final site plans, and any final chcck und recordation 91ate. A~d £u=~her, the Board accepted the following proffered conditions: i. At time of recordation of a subdivisio~ plat for the lot~ adjacent to Bailey Bridge Road, forty five {45) feet of right si way on the west side of Bailey Bridge Road, measured from the oenterlino of that Dart of Bailey Bridge Road i~iately a~ja~ent to the property, shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and ~cr the bene~i~ of chesterfield County. A buffer shall bm provide~ along Quailwood Road for the entire property frontage. Ac=u~s throu~h this b~ffer shall be apDr0ved by the Transportation Department. Additional pavement shall be constructed along Bailey Bridge Road at tbs approved access to provide left and right turn lanes. 4. Tko ditch line along Bailey Bridge Road shall be re- property frontage. The maximum density of this development shall not excee~ t75 lots, and the develoDex shall be responsible for the recon~tructio~ of ~ s~ction of North Bailey Bridqe Road between Bailey Bridge Road and Ro~te 360 or a sec=ion of Bailey Bridge b~tw~en the subject property and North Bailey Bridge. The exact louatien of the section shall be detormine~ ~n4 approved by the Transportation Department. The reconstruction shall be to VDOT Urban ~inor Arterial Standards with modifications as approved by the Transportatic~ D~Dartmont. The developer shall not be require~ to make any such improvements (other than the left end zi~ht turn lanes required by proffered condition ~$), beyond those =hat can be constructed for a cost not to exceed $262,508, as detc~ined by the Trans- portation Department. This ~eoon~tru0tion shall be completed a~ determined by tko Transportatio~ Department, pri~r to final check plat aD,reval of more than 60 lots unless otherwise approved by the Transportation Depart- ment. T~ere was further discussion as to the rationale for not imposing a condition relative to house sizes. Mr. Hicas indicated that, if the county were to write conditions dealing with house size, it ~ould be sensidered exclusionary zoning, however, the applicant could pro~er such conditions o~ his own volition. Whom askS, Mr. Sacobson explained the ieee associated with conditional zcninq applications are baaed e~ th~ amount of work involved in reviewing/administering prc~iere~ conditions. Mr. Apple§ate indicated the record should reflect that =he applicant had agreed to include in the Remtrictive Covenants the extension of a stub road to adjacent property, installation ~f bu~ers to adjacent property, establishment of an architectural control committu= with neighborhood membership and restriction of sguare footage fox ho=se size to 1,200 square feet for ranch-style homes and 1,400 ~uare ~eet ~cr 2-~tclm; homes. Mr. Sullivan stato~ he felt tho applicant had ~a~ a significant proffer with respect to off-site road improvements and considered that a v~ry worthwhile gesture on the par~ of ~he applicant. Mr. ~ayes called for ~he vote. In Mi~lothie-q ~i~gisterial District, ~T~ ~ I~ L~(~ requested rszoning 9rom Agricultural (A) to N~ighborhood Office (O-t) and Neighborhood Business (C-~) with Conditional Use tc permit a fast food restaurant in the Neighborhoo~ 91-203 Business [C-2) tra0t. The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property far residential aere~ fronting approximately 2D5 feet on the we~t line of Courthouse Road, approximately 200 feet north of Lucks Lane, also fronting approximately 1,040 feet on the ~orth line of Lucks Lau~, approximately 350 feet west of Courtheu~e Road, and located northwest of the intersection of these roads. Xa~ 3S-2 (1] Parcei~ 15 ~hzou~h 21, 32 ~d P~t 0f Parcel (Sheets 8 ~d 14). staff and the Pl~in~ C0~i~sion re~o~ende~ denial of the re,est as the pro~sed zoning and l~d use dG no confo~ the Northern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, that th~ residential uses along these portions of courthous~ Road and Lucks Lane. and that the Co~ission a~d Boar~ have indicated that co~ercial development along Courthouse Road, qenerally south of Rou~e 60 and north of Route 360, is inappropriate, at Mx. Edward Willey, Jr, representing the applic~t, explained layout o~ the proposed project; addressed th~ individual distributed copies of a Revised Zoning Disclosure ~fidavit, a ~. Rich HQr~erqer and Mr. Lewis Se~s voiced support for the Co~ty's t~ base, provide services to area residents ~d ~ot negatively ~pact the charaoter of the neig~orhood. Mr. Wille~ i~diCatud ~. Don BZi~ht, WhO WaS ~1~ to attend th~ m~e~ing, had previously indiGated his support for the proposed re,est. Mr. John Baker, Ms. Sandra Loan, Mr. Jer~ ~erhardt, J~ea Harris, ~. Rot Ryland, Mr. Russell Gulley, Mr. Walter Sraves and Ms. Edith Kennedy voiced opposition to the proposed re,est as the~ ~elt the interseution c~ Lu~ks Lan~/Courthouse would 0nly m~ke the area more conqe~ted and more difficult 1959 not to c~erc~alize this ar~a until much t~ a~ p~lic hearings held %o insure that the road widening shall occur, and uhe f~ing made avail~le %o co~le~e the that there are sufficient shopping centers/convenience marts n~d.d ~r wanted; etc. {It is not~ copies of the fi~ncia! analysis prepare~ in cunjunc=iua with =bm Courthouse Road Corridor Plan were ~ubmitted by ~. Gulley ~or the Board's Derusat, a o0Dy of which is ~iled with the papers o~ this Board.) ~r. Daniel disclose~ to the Boar~, for the record, that he and M~. Russ Galley are ~mployed by the s~e fi~; however, they conflict of interest existed with r~s~ct to his hearing Gulley's r~mar~. ~en asked, Mr. willey indicated h~ did not d~sir~ any =~buttat to op~sition co~ents. ~ere beinq no discussion. distance o~ the nearest dwelling from the right-of-way for the Lucks Lane road widening project; wha~ would happen when 3/27/91 the existing dwellings were converted to office use with respect to utilizing wells und whether or not existing septic zystems were adequate to accommodate any additions to the existing dwellings; etc. When asked, Mr. Willey indicated that initially the e~isting dwellings, when uonverfed for office use, would utilize ~he e~isting wells and septic tanks, if approved by the Bealth Depart-~ent. Ne indicated further, that at such %i~e public water and sewer li~s are located in probity to the proposed office structures, it would be the imtention tQ connect to the public Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation to the individuals who had attended the m~eting to speak to this ease; indicated he opposed the request based on the health, ~afety and welfare of citizens residing in the area; that he felt approval of the case would be spot zoning: referenced the ~oard'~ pO$1~ion in 1989 that the current Northern A=ea Lsnd Uso and Transporta- tion Plan remain in effect until the design for the wide~in~ of Couxthouse Road is completed, public hearings held to insure that the road widening shall OCcu~ and the fu~ing made avail~lc to aomplet~ tho ~roject, which matters he felt were no~ c~leted; ~d suggested the re,est be withdra~ until each st~p outlined in 19a9, durin~ cc~idera=ion of the CoO=abcom= Road Corridor Plan ~en~ent, is comple~. ~r. Maye~ ~estioned whether the proposed development Iepr~sented intrusion i~=o an est~lished co~ity; statud, however, t~t a property o~er has the right to develop his had mixed emotions r~=ardinG the ease. ~r. ApplG~a=e ~tated he ~elt great strides had ~en made Roa~ Plat but noted the only funding occident at ~his time was for improvements a= this i~tersection a~d not the entire in 1989 that th~ current Northern ~ea Land Use and Transpor- tation Plan remain in effect ~til the desi~ for %h~ widening of Courthouse Road is collated, p~lic hearings held to insure t~t ~e road widening shall occ~ and the f~ding made ~vail~Ie to complete the project; e~rem~ed concer~ as other factors had not been ad~ess~d such as the la~k o~ ~u~ing for improvements to the remainder cf the Co,thence Road Corridor, the impact of this project on tzans~rtation, congestion, drainage/erosion, etc. He stated this part~cUl~ area is a highly developed r$$i~ential area and that he ~mpathized with the resld~nt$ along Courthouse Road ~t he felt the a~roval of a S~opping center in this area would only create problems. ~r. C~rin indicated he thought f~ding fo: Courthouse Rued and Lucks Lane in the ~ia~e ar~a had been co~itted. M~Cracken indicated that there was no o~i~e~ for f~dinq intersection and the applicant had agreed %o ~edioate right-of-way only if the Virginia Depar~ent o~ Transportation ~ev~lopex. ~en asked, Mr- Jacobsen indicated that he anticipated, ah such time that the items outlined by the Board in 1989 had ~en co~le~ed, the Boald woul~ r~est staff reconsider the ~la~ ~en~ent. H~ further indicuted without an adopted Plan to ~ide non~e~id~ntial development along the stated he felt that the i~act of the road widenin~ on =he residents living along Courthouse ~ad had not been given 91-205 3127/91 Gonsi~eraticn; that the proposed land use was appropriate and that action should be taken on the case. Mr. ~ullivan stated thai he felt everyone believed ~hat the area would eventually be eormmercializod; that the pro~ered conditions, with some exceptions, addressed the impacts; the residents living along Courthouse Road deserved some reliefj and tha~, since funding for road improvements had been committed for this section of Courthouse Road end Lacks Lane, at least a ~ortion of the 1989 commitments had been fulfilled. straight zoning with proffered conditions on the majority of ~he property ~nd, ~herefore, the Board could not a~en~ the proffered conditions and could only impose conditions on that portion of the property for which the applluant was ~ezoning with Conditional Use fez a fast food resta%h~ant; that the Board could defer the oase and request that the applicant amend the proffered oond~tiQ~g Or the Board Could approve rezoninq, Conditional Use and Conditional Use Planned Development and impose the conditions which they felt appropriate. Mr. Sullivan stated that, although he had seconded the 1989 motion regarding the Plan amendment, the required road improvements for this section of CoUrthouse Road and Lucks Lan~ are now commit%ed and, ~herefore, he favored approval this but not other rezonings until similar road improvements wer~ ¢ommi~te~. He stated, ~owever, =~a= he coul= only support the request if there were assurances relative to drainage an~ transportation impacts. Ee stated thet the applicant's proffered conditions ~ailed to address these concerns, and, therefore, he felt the case should either he deferred o: a Conditional Use Planned Develoument approved with the conditions recommended by staff to address these Mr. Daniel stated he would prefe~ to act upon the Case at this time. Me stated he would sscond the motion for approval with Conditional Use Planned Development and appropriate conditions but intended to vote against the request as he felt the Board should stand behind their 1989 commitment. Mr. Jacobsen then suggested that if the Board were inclined to approve the proposed use, staff would ~e~emme~ that the prc~fered conditions not he accepted and that the Board approve a Conditional Use PleD/led Development with the requested zoning and impose appropriate conditions to address land use compatibility, transportation, utilities, the Bsard with a list of euggested conditions, a copy o~ which is filed with the papers of this Board. Brief discussion followed regarding approval of O-1 and C-~ zoning wi=h a Conditional Ume for a fa~t food restaurant and a Conditional Use ~lannecl Dmvelopmemt subject to the suggemted mechanisms for ensuring dedicatio~ of right-of-way for the proposed project; etc. PEr. Sullivan made a motion, seco~dedby~. Daniel, to approve 0-1 a~d C-2 zoning with a Conditional Use for s fast foo~ to the fo!lowing conditions: 1, ~ublio wa~ur/wastewa~er systems shall ~e used. The ow~ler/developer shall extend the existiDg sixteen (16) inch water lines north along Courthouse Road to the northern property lin~ of the site and west along Lucks Lane to the western property llne of the site. (U) 91-206 3/27/91 Prior to any land disturbing activity, an overall site plan shall bo S%~bmitted to and approved by Engineering and all off-site easements shall ba obtained. 3. If any runoff from impervious areas drains through the adjacent ef£-sita pond to the west, the Dead shall be analyzed. Either improvements, i~ deemed shall De made to the dam and pond based on present day criteria or an o~-site facility shall be designed having a release rate ec/uivalont to existing runoff for a two 4. Withi~ ten (10) days written request of the County, all Ch~s%erfield County, ~ree and unrentrieted, along Court- he,se Road and Lucks Lane according to the approved construction plans for projects ~0720-020-254, C-501 and %0653-020-236, C-503. 5. Additional pavem~B~ and ¢~rb and g~ttex shall be con- str~cted along Courthouse Road and Lucks La~e at each approved access ~O provide e right tur~ la~%e. (T) 6. Any a~c~s~ to Lucks La~e from ~he sits within 1,0O0 feet of the intersection ~f L~oks Lane/Courthouse Road shall be designed and constructed as ri~ht-infright-out only. 7. If any eEoasovur is c~nstrueted along Lucks Lane =c the site, th~ developer shall Dear thc full coat of any warranted traffic signal amd/or t~r~ lanes at the crossover. (T) Prior to site plan apDroval~ acceem easements, acceptable to the Transportation Department, shall ~e granted to Parcels 2 and 3 on Tax Map 38-2 (1). Access easements~ acceptable to ~he Transportation Depart_meat, shall also be granted to Parcel 8 on Tax Map 38-1 (1) and Parcel on T~ Map 27-14 (1) if dceme~ necessary by the Tranm- pertation and Planning Departments based on final site plan design. 9. A fifty (~0] fuo~ buffer shall be re~ired on the C-2 property adjacent to any Agricultural (A) zoned prs~erty except adjacent ~o the fast food restaurant where a seventy-five (75) foot buffer shall be require~. A forty (40) feet buffer shall be reguired on the O-1 property adjacent to any Agris~ltura! (A) ~roperty. ~ese buffers shall be dele=ed if the adjacent property is zoned for non-residential purpose~. These buffers shall installed and maintained according to all requirements Article 4, Divi~i05 4 of Chapter 2~.~ of the Zoning ordinance except Section 21.1-227 (6). Access to Court- house Road and/or Lucks Lane shall ~e permitted within the portions of these buffers closest tc these roa~$ if r~quized b~ the Transportation Dopartmsnt to provide safe access. (P) 10. Tho architectural appearance of the propose~ shopping center shall he substantially similar to Village Market- place at Midlethian. 11. The pro~rty zoned C-2 shall be developed and used only as a shopping center~ which ~a~ include a fast food restaurant. 12. We b~ilding permits shall be issued until a~tur contracts are let fsr the VDOT road widening projects 254, C-501 and %065]-010-236, 91 207 3/27/91 Mr. A~pl~gat~ reiterated concsrns that there were no commlt~ents for the widening ofj~provement~ to Courthouse ~ea~ north of Ch~rylann Rua~ an~ ~he ~oar~ hsd made a Ayes: Mr, sullivan, Mr, Currin and Mr. Mayes, 12. adjourned at 4~1~ ~.m. (EST) until 2~00 P.m. (EST) on ADril ~, 1991. Vote: Unanimous 91-2~$ 3/27/91