The URL can be used to link to this page

04-24-91 MinutesAP~.~L 24, 1991 Supe~-~is~ in Attendance: Mr. M. B. Sullivan, Chairman ~r. C. F. C~rin, Jr., Vice chrm. ~. G. ~. Applegate ~. Harry G. Daniel county A~inistrator Staff in Hs. B~rbura Bennett, Dir., ©£C. on Youth Me. Elizabe=h Bernhard, Dir., vi:./Wi%. M~. Dilly A. Bland, Registrar MS- ~- ~y Davi~, ~xec. Asst. to Co. Admin. F~rs. Doris R. DeHart, A~t. Co. Admin.~ Int~rgov~. Affai~ ~. 3cmn S. Dolezal, Clerk to the Ch~f Robert L. Eanes, Jr. Fire ~. Bradford S. Deputy Co. Mr. William M. Howell, Mr. Thomas E. Jacobson~ D~r., Planning Ms. ~ry Lou Lyle, Dir., Accounting Mr. Robert L. ~asden~ Deputy Co. Admln.~ Hu~n Trans~. Mr. Richard M. MoElfi~h, ~ir., Env. Eng, Dept. M~. Steve~ L, Micas, CO. At%orney Mrs. Pauline A. Mi=cheil, Dir., Newm & Public Info, Services MS. Suzan craik, Mr. William D. Poole, chief, Der. Review, Pla~ing Department Mr. ~ichard F. sale, Deputy CO. Admin., Develogment Mr. James J. L. Dir., Budget & M~. M. D. Stith, J~., Dir., Parks & Mr- David ~. Dir. of Utilities Sheriff Clarence Williams Sheriff'~ Dept. Mr. Frederick Willis, ~r. Mr. sullivan ~alled the ~e~Pala~ly scheduled me=tin~ to orde~ at 9:10 a.m. (DST]. 91-~5D 4/24/91 Mr. Sullivan introduced Reverend Hilbert H. Dom, Pamtor of Grace Lutheran Church, who gave the invocation. Chief Robert ~,. Eanes, Jr. led the Pledge oS Allegiance ~:o the Flag of the United States of ~unerica. ~. APPROVAL~Ff~IN:OTR$ On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved the minutem of April 10, 1991, as submitted. Vo~e: Unanimous M~. Ramsay i~trod~ced M~. James W. Dunn, President of the Me~ropolltan Richmond Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Dunn thanked the Board f~r an opportunity to address them and presented an overview of two new programs. He stated that due to the slow ~conomic downturn, th~ ChaMber felt it was important to help those businesses already in existence, particularly young startup conpanies and that they had developod a program entitled~ "Business GroWth Network", i~ which compenie~ who have been in business for under five y~ar~ meet twice a montk and are kept informed of resources available and briefly "Focus on our ~t~e", was a ~egional, visioning pr~ram in which they will at=amD= =o identify goals and visions for the felt it i~ e~mential for the surrounding ar~as to develoD the strongest private/public sector partnership possible in order to maximize the ~ost of each j~isdiction'u resources in order Mr. Currln noted that he fslt it would be. beneficial to extend an invitation to our Con~essmen and/or their repr~sentativ~ and also representatives of flnanci~l lendlng/~ankin~ institut~o~ to attend ~ese mee%ing~ in order to k~=p them experiencing. 5. BOARD CO]~I~"~ERREPORTS Mr. Daniel and Mr. C~rrin ~Tated they hsd attended the virginia Association of Counties (VACO) Board of Directors meetin~ in which they discussed reven~e shortfalls that counties are experiencing. They commended sta~ ~or a job well done in preparing the budget am it im a difficult tim~ Kc. Mayes stated he attended the Military and Clv~lian council meeting at Fort ~oo ~n which ~oncern wa~ ~r~d for attendance from the Tr~-C~t~e~ area. ~r. sullivan stated he and ether Beard ~embers had attended a school ~oard briefing on overcrowding in the schools and fel= the School Beard i~ making a ~incere attempt to mak~ the public aware of the problems the schools are ~aoing. He ~tated the School System is holding meetings for public input on the issue and urged all interested citizens and groups to attend and be a part of the ~ecision making process. 91-251 4/24/91 On motion of ~ir. Dami~l, ~econded by Mr. Applegate, the Boa~d added Item 11.H.~ to follow Item ll.E.t Executive Session Pursua/%t to Section ~.1-344(a) (71, Code of virginia, 195D, as Amended, for Consultation with Legal Counsel Pertaining to Probable Litigation Regarding the Claim of Arburg, InC. Vote: unanimous 7~ R~SOL~TTONS AN~ SPECIAL RECf~NITTONS On ~otion of the Bo~rd, the followln~ resolution was adopted: ~E~AS, A f~dam~ntal p~i~oiDle of a ~ooracy citizen participation a~ knowledge of it~ gover~ent; and ~ER~ ~nowledge Of ~e f~ction~ and process of local ad~rassed by local offlclal~ are e~ntlal elements citizenship; and ~EAS, EleVenth and twelfth grade ~tudent~ ~EREA~, Through a competitive process, 75 eleventh and twelf~ ~ade students h~ve been ~osen ~o reDresent their provided first hmnd experience in the operations of legal ~R~S, S~nce 1981, several hundred high school students have participated in "Model County Government Day" activities; ~S, T~e C~esterfield county soard of Sup~rvi~or~ believes in the importance cf yegg peoplu having the op~or~itie~ =o learn abou~ ~h~ir gov~r~= i~ order become info--ed citizens; and ~E~S, The Chesterfleld County Board of Supervisors s~ppor~s aotivitie~ which build youth leadership and ~tren~en the foundation for citizen partidipatio~. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by t~ C~e~t~field Cowry im hereby proclaimed "Zodel County GoVer~ent Day" in Chesterfield County and that 5his o~servanoe is called to the att~tion of all its ciDizen~. ~ote: ~animous Be~ett~ Di~eeto~ of t~e 0ffioe o~ Yo~t~ w~o accepted the resolu~ion on behalf of ~e students participating in County Gove~e~t Day" activities. ~. Bennett appreciation for =he County's involvement in thi~ introduced M~, Lee Cha~e, Inut~uotional specialist fcc Social ~tu~ies for ~e school ~y~=em, and the ~eventy-~ven participating. ?.B. P~ECOGNIZING /~R~. PHIq~I$ C. BUPd~5~ ~PON ~ ~ETIP~ENT Mr. Willis introduced ~. Sale who indicated ks. B~rk~y's dedication and commitment to the office of Com]~unity D~velopment~ to the Board, and to the County Administration On motion of tho Board, the ~c!lcwing resolution was adopted: W~AS, Mrs. Phyllis C. B~rkey will retire from the ~esterfield County Casualty Development Division O~ ~ay ~S, ~. B~key was employed Auqu~t~ 1975 and ~e~ed years; and ~E~S, ~s. Burkey transferred to the C~unlty D~ve~oDment D]vlsion in June, 1977 where she has sewed a~ Secretary, Administratlv~ S~cr~tary a~d Assistant to the Deputy county Administrator for C~unit~ Development; and ~ER~S, Mrs. Burkey has diligently served ~ Board Supervisors and the County Administration as a Secretary with the highest degree of r~pon~ibillty and dedication to her job for the past sixteen years, performing work of a highly r~sponsible nature and Droviding a f~ll range of a~i~istrative s~ppo~t services; and yea~ of service a~d ha~ always willingly offered backup %hu~ her e~ertise in the secretarial field will be sorely misse~ by the citizens, t~e County Administration an~ the NOW, THEREFORE ~E IT ~OLV~D, ~at the Chesterfield C. Bu~key and extends on behalf of it~ member~ and th~ c~tizens of chesterfield County their appreciation for her wishes to her in her retlr~ment. ~D, BE IT F~ RESOLVED, ~hat a copy of resolution be presented to Nra. Burk~y and that re~olution be pernanently recorded a~onq th~ DaD~ of thi~ vote: Unanimous Kr. sullivan presented the execut~ re~olution to Mrs. ~urkey, wished her well in her retirement. Several indlvidual Board 7.C. I{ECOGNIZING Llau'£ENA~T LACY T. BO~FEN UPONHIS ItETi~9~ENT Sr. Willis introduced Sheriff Williams who outlined the dedication, loyalty, and professionalism of Lieutenant Bowem. On ~otio~ of the Board~ t~d following ~eeol~tio~ Nas adopted: ~ERF~AS, Lieutenant Lacy T. ~owen will retire from the sheriff's Department, Chesterfield County sa May 1~ 1991; and WI~EREAS, Lieutenant Bowen has provide~ sixteen years of quality service to the citizens ef Chesterfield County; and 9I-2~3 4/24/91 WHEREAS, Lieutenant Howsn bas been a valuable contributor in =he development of inmate work programs; and instrumental in the development rehabilitation program; and WHEREAS, Lieutenant Bcwem character and dimtinction; and in his y=a=~ of eervie~, was of the treatment and inmate served with pride, dignity, ~q{~EA~, Chesterfield County and the Hoa~d of Supet~;isor~ will mis~ Lieutenant Bowen's diligent service. NOW, TEEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chestsrfield County ~oar~ cf Supervisors publicly r~cognizes Lieutenant Lacy T. Bewen and extend~ on behalf of its me~ber~ and the citizens of Chesterfield County ~ir appreciation for his ~ervice to ~x County. ~D, B~ IT ~URT~ ~SOLVED, that a copy of resolution be permanently recorded among ~e papers of Board of Sug~isoTs of ~esterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous ~. sullivan pre,em=ed ~e executed resole=ion to Bowen, thawed him for his s~rvice to the County and wished him well in his retirement. M~. Suz=n Craik was present a~d O~tli~ed t~ occident of Mr. Harris %o the Keep Chesterfield Clean Corp~ra~ion, his volunteer effort~, and continuing interest in the County, 0n motion of ~he board, ~he following re~olution was adopted: ~ The Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation has been recycling; and ~S, The Scald Of supe~iso~s annually appoints one serve on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Co~o~utio~ ~S, ~, Willi~ Ham~is wa~ appointed to se~e in January, 1984, and has continued to serv~ as a volunteer to the Keep Chesterfield Clean ~rogram since; and P~ogram re~ulting in many of the County'~ illicit dumps and littered eyesores being removed; and ~R~ ~. Harris has giwen of his p~rsonal Magisterial District; and ~EREAS, T% is the de,ire of the ~e~terfield County to the Keep Chesterfleld Clean Corporation. NOW, TR~R~FOR~ B~ IT ~$0LV~, ~hat the Chesterfield county Board of supervisors publicly ~ecognize~ ~e long and distinguished volunteer semite of Mr. Willi~ Harris and his oon~ribution~ to the County. 91-254 4/24/91 ~. Sullivan pre~ented the executed remoluticn to Mr. Ha~ and thanked him for all his service on the Eeep Chesterfield his appreciation to ]~r. Marrla for h~s hard work and dedieatio~ to the co~po~ation and ~speci~lly Matouca District. 7.E. lq~OGNIZING S'tt~ ~EK OF ~L 22 - 26. 1991 ~ ~r- W~ll{s indicated the secretaries of the Co~ty ar~ hard working and dedicated and ~hould b~ reco~ized accordingly, On motion of the Board, ~e followin~ re~cluticn was adopted: ~, The importance of profe~mional secretaries to ~ericmn public an~ Rrivate organizatlon~ hu~ been recognized ~ the designation of April 22 - ~6, 1991 as "National s~cr~tnries~ week"; an~ ~s, P~rsons who serve Chesterfield County in job classification must meet high standards of p~rfo~ance through a co~ination of effective interpersonal ab~l~ti~ and technical clerical skills, responsive and courteous service citizens and fellow employees, and knowledge and application of num~rou~ County ~nd depar~ental policies and prooedures; and ~s, Th~ Administration wishes to e~ress its appreciation tu all County secretaries for their dedication excell~nc= in public service and for their contributions to ~he County team. ~OW, TH~FOR~ ~ IT R~SO~V~D, :ha= =he Chem=erfleld County Board of ~upervi~ora h~reby recognises all its seore~ari~s for their invaluable assistance to the county and Vote: Unanimous Mr. Sullivan presented the executed resolution ~ Kana~ent, Qn b~alf of the secretar~e~ who work for County and e~ended his appreciation to the secretaries for their dedication and hard work. 7.F.~NIZrN~ THE WEEK OF A~kI_L 21 - 27. 1991 ~ P.I(~iTSWEEX~ ~rs. ~llzab~th B~r~ar~ re~e~ adoption u~ ~he r~ulu~ion reco~izinq "Victims' Right~ Week" in conjunction with oov~rnor Wild~r's ~roclamat~o~. On motion of %he Board~ %he following resol~io~ was 21 - 27, 1991 as "victims' Rights We~k" in Virginia; and ~ER~S, ~e psychological, financial and physical devastation innocent victim~ suffer as a result of violence =ont~nue~ to %ear at the fabric of our society; and ~ER~S, The State of virginia has focused greatly attention on the ~eed~ of c~i~ Vidti~ by pa~i~g ~ law~ ~ER~, Th~ Chesterfield County Co~onweal~'s Attorney's Office, Victim/Witness Assistance Program, 9~-255 4/24/91 eo~itted to aiding all citizen& who become innocent victims of crime in the County of Chesterfield, not only during "Victims' Rights Week" but throughout the your. NOW, T~EREFOR~ B~ IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board cf Supervisors proclaims April 21 - 27, 1991 ss "Victims' Rights week" in Cho~ter£ield County and reaffirms its ce~uuitment to address victims' right~ and criminal justice i~ues during "victims' Rights Week" and throughout the year. ~3~D, BE IT F!3RTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to the CheSterfield County Co~usanwealthis Attorney's Office, Victim/WitheS= Assistance Program. ~ote: Unanimou~ Hr. S~lliva~ pre~ent~d the executed resolution to Ms. Bernhard, Director of the Victim/Witness Assistance Program, an~ stated that the ~oard eupported the efforts of the ?.G. I~EC{K~{IZIWG~I~I~I~ 21 - ~7. 19~lA~ ~rv~ce to the Co~ty. On mo~ion of ~e Board, ~6 followin~ re~oSution was a~opted: ~ER~S, Volunteering i~ a way of life in ~e Unita~ ~E~S, Chesterfield Cu~ty has e~tabli~hed an Office Volunteer se~ices, t~ough which vol~teer~ give thcumand~ of significantly to the quality of life in our county, our co~onwealth, an~ ~ country~ and ~ZR~A$, volunt~ers from ~v~ry ag~ group and walk of life have ~nriched the lives of people through bo~ public and pr~vat~ agencies, bo~ formal and ~nfo~al arran~nt~. NOW, E~EFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Board of ~up~rv~or~ duen hereby recognize Aprll 21 - ~7~ 1991 as "volunteer Appreciation Week" in ~sterfield contributions to the well-being of our Cowry and its people. Vote: Unanimous ~. Sullivan presented ~e executed resolution to ~. and Bonnet and Ms. Peltier an~ thanked them all for their untiring effort~ ~d those of all the volunteers. ?.H. RECO~NI2IN~EW~EI(OF~A~ lU - lS. 199~AS "NATIONAL On motio~ of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: ~ERFJ~S, The dedicated, loyal and brav~ me, ers of Police De~artm~t$ ~roughout the County provld~ an invaluable service to all citizens; ~d WHEREAS, THe week of Mey 12 - 18, 1991 is recognized "~a~i~nal Police Week"; WHEREAS, The County is proud and honored to have such outstanding and profe~oicnal individuals as police eff~o~s in Chesterfield County who serve to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizenry. NOW~ THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the CheSterfield County Board of supervisors declares the week 0£ May 12 1991 as "National Police Week" in Chesterfield County and Vote: Unanimous Mr. S~lliva~ stated the executed ~esolution would ba presented during ~"National Police Week" activities to the Police Department. ?.I. lkEOOGI~I~ING THE~E~OF~A¥ 19 - 25. 199~ AS ~S~ ~U~w Chief Ean~ ~r~d appreciation for Board c0n~iderati0n 0f a resolution recogni~ing the dedication and co~itment of the Volunteer Rescue Squad Associationu in the County. On motion of th~ Board, th~ follow~ng resolution wa~ ~ER~S, Bensley-B~muda~ Ettrick-~a~oaca, ~cr~t and Ma~ohe~e~ Vol~tee~ Rescue S~ads provide emergenoy pre-ho~pita~ care to ~e ~i%iaemm Of Chesterfield County; and answered thousands of calls and contributed over 100,000 hours ~ $~io~ and untol~ hours of supper= by auxiliary and a~inistrative member~ and ~s, Each i~diVidual volunteer gives of hi~/her to participate in training aaa continuing e~ucation ua that h~ or sh~ ~ay provide th~ highest quality patient care; and ~EAS, Thes~ se~ices are provided twenty-four hourE a day, three hundred and sixty-five days a year~ free of charge and without personal compensation, representing a considerable sawln~s t~ each patient and ta~ay~r; and ~S, Chesterfield County is co~itted to th~ $qua~s ~nd m~king them a Gontinuing part of the ~ergency Medical Services system and as~s eac~ citizen to recognize contrlbut~on made by the NOW, T~FOR~ BE IT RES0L~Q, that ~e ~t=rfiel~ May 19 - 25, 1991 as "voluateer Rescue Squad Week" and asks the citizens of Chesterfield County to participate in safety at home~ work, school and on the roadways. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Sullivan pre~ented the executed re~01uti0n to ~ Gilbert Elli0tt, representing the B~n~ley-B~uda Rescue Squad; Greg ~purlock, represmntlng ~he Forest View Rescue Squad; and M~. Jame~ Bailey, r~pr~senting ~e Manchester Rescue squad; ~anked th~ all ~or their untiring efforts and p~of~ionali~m in their wo~k; and recognized ~z. Ruth Ann Yo~g, volunteer K~orui%men% ashen=ion 7.J. RECOG~IZING..AP~IL22 - 28. 1991AS .EDUCATION W~K". On motio~ of the Board~ ~e following r~solu=ion ~S, Understanding ~he natur~ of c~edit, i~ ~ost and benefit~ i~ necessary if o~r ¢itiz~D~ are to realize the full b~n=fits of ~ei~ i~dome; and ~S, Th~ dissemination of info,etlon regarding ~edit will help inform coasters of their rights. ~0W, TH~REFOR~ B~ IT ~SOLVED, that th~ ~esterfield County Beard of Supervisors does ~e~eby r~olu~ion to CWO: Credit Professionals of Richmond, Virginia, in ~cognition of "Natienal Credit Educatio~ April 22 - 28, 1991. Vote: Unanimou~ Cook, repre~ntativ~ of Credit Professional~ International, and ~a~ed the organization for their h~rd work. 7.K. ~ECOGNIZING ~AY 1. 1~1 AS nLOYALT~ DA~~ On motion of the Board, the io!luwlng resolution was adopted: WHeReAS, The cltizena US ~is County are extremely proud of this Nation's more than two h~dred year Heritag~ of Freedom, ~n~ are loyal to ~ ideal~, tra~ition~ and i~stltutlons which have made our Nation so ~eat; and priceless ~erican Heritage; and ~ER~S, ~ey will be proud to stand u9 and d%clare their dete~ina=ion toward actively and safe~arding our Sraedoms against any foreign or NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, t~at the chesterfield Cu~=y Board of Supervisors hereby calls on all their f~llow citizens to take full udvantuge of ~e special occa~ion k~own as "~yalty Day% cetebrate~ annually =hruughuut t~e ~ation on ~e first day of May, as an incentive for eve~ true ~erican to reaffi~ hi~ and heT lov~ of Flag and County. ~D, BE IT F~THER RESOLVED, ~an ~ Board Superv~=cr= urge~ a~l ind~vldual=, ~chools, churches, organizations, business e~tablish~t~ an~ hom~ wi~n ~e=terfleld County to dlsplay proudly the Flag of ~e States of ~rica and participate in public patriotic Day;~ activi%ien which arm to be co-=pcn=ored by ~e Veterans Of Forei~ Wars of ~e United Stat~s of ~rica, an~ o=her~, on "Loyalty Day", Eay 1, 1991. ~. Applegate ~tated the executed re~olutlon woul~ presented to a representative of the Veterans of Foreign Wars at a later time. EXCAVATION WORK,OR '~ SWIFT C~F~WATERP~LTR~TIO~ County had entered into a contract with Louis C. Collier, Inc. for the construction of improvements to the Ewift Creek Water Filtration Plant, in the amount of $383,000, which work has been completed and whic~ amount has been paid; and ~hat Collier is claiming $20,645.96 in addition to that amount for claiming he was not aware of its existence and is entitled to collier's responsibility to investigate the site and that bot/~ :he County staff and the engineer visited the site and that the rook was visible to anyone investigating the site; that the contract plans would have been no different even if there basis for the ulalm but that in an e{fort ~o avoid litigationr the County had ~ade an offer to Mr. Collier, in the =mount of $1O,000, which is approximately half of the amount of the claim but that Mr. Collier had refused the offer. He stated s~aff recommends denial of the claim. stating that rock re,oval wa~ net ~ddressed in the specifications and should have been addressed if it was intended to be inclnded in the bid price; and that if rock additional compen~atlon i~ ju~tifled. K~ ~tated that he and the job superintendent both had investigated the ~ite p~rsonally and had found no evidence of rock. /~r. Buck Buchanan stated ~e was =~e job superintendent and D~oeedure on a job of this ty~e woul~ be t~ base calculations could be use~ us fill and, in th~s instance, there should have He further stated that rock is a high-risk situation even when you ars aware that it exists on the }~T. Collier stated that he hsd entered into the contract in good faith; that he felt the un, incur was w~ll aware that rock existed on the site and deliberately did not inform bidder~ ~ince the presence of rock was ne~ included in the There was further discussion pertaining to t/us investigation or not any boring tests were done; the leg&llt~e= of the s~tuat~on; th~ five other bidders involved~ the engineer ~r~ Mica~ ~tated that, at thi~ point in tiao, it is a factual Inc., and Mr. Collier whether or not the engineer knew that rock existed at the site and advised th~ Boa~d that R. Stuart aware that reck did exist. ~r. A~plegate, ~he Board denied the claim of l~_r. Louis C. Creek Water Filtration $20,645.96. Vote: Unanimous Plant in the additional amount of on motion o~ the Board, the following resolution wa~ ~E~S, M~. Rookie Titcomb will r~tir~ from the Lucy Corr Nursing Home~ Chesterfield County, on April 1, 1991; and ~ ~. Titcomb has provided ~i~t~n years ~ual~ty ~ervice to the citizens of ~es~er~ield Co~nty; and ~E~ ~est~field County and the Board of will mi~s M~. Ti~comb's diligent se~ice; and ~ER~, ~s. T~tcom~, a~ a Nursing Assistant and residents under her ~aro a% ~h~ Lucy Corr ~urnlng ~ome; and ~EAS, On many occasions, Ms. Titcomb ha~ bee~ has demonstrated a co~itment to excellence in the ~ality of the N~slng ~ome. County Bo~d of Supervisors publicly recognlsas Ms. Rossie Titcomb and exten~ un behalf of its me~er~ and ~ of chesterfield county their appreciation for her semite the County. ~D, BE IT F~T~ER ~SOLVED, that a co~y of =his re~olution be presented to M~. Titcomb and that Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. ~. ~ullivan presented ~e executed resolution to Mr. Rick Willis, Director ~f ~uman Resource ManaCling, who ~tat~d ~m re~olutlon would be pre~ented tc M~. T~tco~ at a later date by Mr. Jacob Mas~, Direotor of the Nursing ~ome. S~ION 7.]-~. ~DE OF T~ ~ OF ~"r~I~, 1978, ~ ~. ~G ~ ~ ~TIO~ ~ B0~ES OF ~ OF ~G P~CE~ ~- Stel Par~emo~, A~istant County Attorney, stated that ~ Bo~d ~ required eve~ ten years, after th~ c~u~, to r~di~rict the County in order to ensure that ~e principle o~ one man, one vote is p~otected; and that thc Board hud previously hold two work sessions and a p~lic ~earing, on April 10~ 1991, w~ich Was closed und a decision deferred until ~e public hearing Qn Aprll 10. ~e ~tated ~a~ ~=aff had r~viewed the plans and found two problems wi~ the plans in the population is ~eyond ~e ~S percent d~viatlon allowable under federal law in the other and, therefore, the plans would have to be adjusted, ha orated that staff had also received th_rea additional plans in the past two days whloh were available today for review. Be noted that due to the General Aesembly's House of Delegates plsns, some adjustments would have to be made ts the plan that is adopted as the voting precincts would have to be split in order to Rrevent a situation where you might have two House of Delegates' races in the same voting precinct, however, thio would net change magisterial district lines ~dopt~d by the Board. Be stated all plans submitted are to be reviewed by staff at thio time. Hr. Bill Handley, Senior Planner, preoen:ed a ~eta~led overview of the nine pla~s proposed as to the precincts that would be split an~ the precincts that would remain the same$ the existing and new polling places; suggested name~ for the voting precincts; the existing and new redistricting lines; the required ~pllt~ of the pr~cln~t~ du~ to the ~cu~e of Delegates redistricting plan; the m~ne~ity voting percentage, population distribution, etc. and, further, stated Mr. Olssn'~ plan had been submitted too late for staff to map and mount it. Disouooion, questions, and comments ensued relative to concerns over the impact of the proposed plan~. ~hen asked, Mr. Micas indicnted that since the public hearing had a~roady ~een closed and based on the Justice Department's guidelines, it would affect the public hearing process if the Board were to receive additional public comment and ~t wo~ld be his recommendation to ready,trice this matter and start tho Discussion, questions, and comments continued as to the plans submitted and, it was generally agreed by the ~card, =hat the most recent plans submitted by the CAPAA~B and the NAACP ~uper~eded the plans ~ubmitt~ by the~ oB April I0. There also diss~ssio~ relative to the plans submitted; the problems a~ociat~d with th~ plaD~; the minority voting ~trength; the voting precinct~ effected; the pop~lation a~d the racial makeup of the magisterial ~istricto; and the meritz eS £ivo di~trict~ ve~o seven districts. Nr. Panini stated that it was his U~de~standing that it was the gameral consensus of the Board to ~emain with five districts; that Plan A was too slivered to allow communities to be compatible and included seven districts a~ did the ~Olsen ~lan" and, in addition, One of the districts wac statlstloally out of balance; that he felt Plan P wa~ al~o a ~livere~ plan and that communltieo were too split and not oontig~cu~ and did not present a positive approach; that Plan E was also slivered, the districts w~re not contiquou= and lacked continuity in the neighborhoods. He stated that he fult Plan B Modified m~t all of the fundamental criteria outlined by law as he indioated on April 10; maximized minority voting strength and inquired as to whether there were any legislative or court requirements stating that th~ Board ~ust omDand a level o~ government or create dlotrlcto to adhere to an arbitrary distribution that was in existence ten years ago and has now changed internally. Mr. Micas stated that hs ~d not know of any legal req~iremenb that would requlr~ the Board to pick a historical baEe~ine and ~he~ to draw lines %o achieve that historical baseline but that th~ 8card is obligated to draw lines to prevent dilution of the existing minority voting strength. Mr. Daniel mtated that he felt it was unrealistic to change four districts and leave one district unchanged totally and, that i~ why he felt Plan D should be set a~ide. Therefore, he supported Plan B Modified because he felt it mst all objectives and requirements; that the Board had taken steps to maximize the existing, minority voting mtrength; and that it achieved good representation for all the district~ and continuity cf neighborhoods. ~r. Mayas stated that in view of all the plans s~b~itted~ he felt that seven districts and the slivered presentation would bring balance and a good distribution of the rural area since he felt the rural area currently does not receive its equitable distribution of the remources; but that since it was the general consensus of the Board not to have seven districts, he would support Plan E in that it Met the requirements of the Justice Department; and that his third choice would be Plan D. Mr. ~pplegate ~tated he proposed Plan D as he felt it would be less disruptive to the County; =hat Plan E displaoes three ~i~ting Sup~rvlsors; and if it is the general con~ensus of the Board to have five districts v~sus seven districts, he would be comSortable supporting either ~lan D or Plan B Mr. Currin ~tated that since Bermuda District would be acquiring more citizens than any other district he had reviewed the plans ~xten~ively. He stuted he kupt i~ mind mlnor~ty vo%~n~ s~rength and £alt that Plan E lacked continuity for Bermuda District and that Plan B Modified addressed the minority voting strength. Hs further stated that ba~ed on the information received today and in consideration of nontlnuity~ which he felt could no~ be accomplished with either of th~ ~ven district plans, he would support Plan B ~odiflnd. Mr. Sullivan stated he wished he had more time to review the Plans suhuitted last night but did not feel any new information submitted was substantial enoug~ to change hie view and that at the April 10th meeting he had ~upported Plan D an his first choice and Plan B Modified as his second choice. He stated, however, that since ther~ was a ~trong desire for Plan B Modified he could supper% it if it amended to place the Shenandoah precinct in the Mi~lothian District and to place the Smoketree precinct in the Clover ~ill District which should not ~mpact the required standard~ of populatlon distribution to insure the principle of one man, one vote. ~a indicated that as to sDlintinq the the Registrar will ha~e time constraints to deal with and in that regard, he felt Plan B Modified would be lens difficult for her to addremm. ~m commended mtaff for their work in preparing for this meeting. Mr. Daniel stated he agrned wlth ~r. Sulllvan~n comments. Mr. Daniel then ma~e a motion, ~econde~ by ~r. Currin, the ~oard resolved to adopt Plan B Modified with Mr. Sullivsn'~ amendment to include the Shenandoah precinct in the Mi~lothian District and to include the Smoke=tee precinct in the Clover Hill District. There was some olarlfloation of which 9reelects would be moved Mr. Mayas offered a substitute ~etion to approve Plan D since he felt it woul~ k~ the least disruptive and was similar to what o~rently e~ist~ and that Plam B Modified give~ Matoaca District more rural area than what it cu~rently has and inquired as to the minority voting ~tr~ngth between the two Plans in question. ~r. ~an~ley stated that in Plan B Modified, the minority voting strength would be ~0.95 percent and in Plan D, the minority voting strength would b= 22.83 percent. 91-2~2 4/2~/91 Mr. Hayes stated that since Plan D had the greater minority voti~q stren~h percentage, he would u~ppoz4= Plan D, as st0ted in him motion ag he felt the Justice Department would be more in favor of Plan D as well for thi~ reason. There was no second ts the motion ~nd Mr. Sullivan state~ the Coffin, to adopt ~lan B aodified, which would include Hr. Hidlothi~n District and =0 include T/la smoketrec precinct in the Clover Hill District. (A copy of Plan B Modified, as adjusted, is £iled with the papers of this ~oard.} Aye=: Mr. Sulllvan, Mr. ~rr~n, Mr. A~Dl~gate and ~, Daniel. It was generally agreed to recess for five minutes, 9.G. TO ~ON$1D~ANORDINANCETOAH]~ND-~'U~ _~.~E.OF mn~COONTY ~A~ING SE~rlONS 20--Z3. 20--37. 2~-69 ~ ~--~ Mr. Sale stated the Board had held a work ~o~io~ O~ A~ril 1991 a~d had also deferred this matter from it~ April 10, 1991 public hearing until this da=g an~ tia~. se stated ~hat work s~ssion had focused primarily on the u~e~ fee portion and the Capital Improvemen~ Program (CIP) relating to connection Utilities Department, the sewer co~ection fee on a singlm family ho~e wo~ld decrease from $2180 to $1465 ~us a reduction of $71~ and the water connection fee from woul~ increase from $1877 to $2825 thus an additional $~48 which would be a co~ined gain uf $2~3 or a~pruximately 6 percent. ~e stated that unde~ th~ D~oDo~ed water e~ansion program it unit~ or their equivalent which would include al~O conneotion~ for businesses in ~e ~unity over a period of Mr. David Welchons, Director of Utilities, pre~ented overview of th~ p~ojectm affected by the CIP. (A copy of the projects is filed wi~ th~ pap~r~ Of 9hi~ City of Richmond marring Chemte~field; wh~t the increase would reserve; sale of bonds and cash flow; 9roject~on~ ba~ad connection fees; how th~ CI~ would be affected if the conneotion f~= was ~layed ~his year and made up next year; availability of funds; wafer re~trictioR~ that Wo~ld combining water/sewer ~oney; Uun~tng ra~es; existing fees; growth e~ectations; water ~upply; contrm~t with City Richmond and sapacity ~t th~ Appomattox River ~ater Authority; impr~vements and over~izlng line~; time frame relating to the connection fees; bonds; interest; debt servio~ and the operating budget; etc. deferred until Juno 26, 1991 consideration of connection fo~ and adopted the following ordinance addressing user fees: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COD~ ~F~COU~TY OF CKE~T~RFI~LD~ 1978~ AS AMERDED, BY ~DI~G ~D REENACTIN~ SECTIONS 20-23, 20-37, 20-69, ~Q-106 R~TIKG TO C~ES FOR WAT~ ~D WASTEWATER S~VICE BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfiel~ (1) Chapter 20 of the Code of the County of Che~%erfield~ 1978, a~ amended, iz amended by amending and reenacting th~ following sections: A3~TICLE I In General o o o sec. 2~-23 Ef~estive Date o£ service c~a~e The service charges for wa=er and wastawator shall apply %o all service rendered after ~ay 1~ ~991. ARTICLE II Water 20-37 Water Rotes. I~ all cases ~ot ~overed by contraot made ~y tho ~oard o~ Supervisors prior to July 1, 1977 the consumer e~all Day charges in accordance with the following schedules: (1) ~onthly Serui~e Char~os The monthly service 0barges ~hall be as follows: (a) Customer CoEts Charge: $0.99 per account per monthe (b) Commodity Costs Charge: $1.06 per h~ndrod cubic feet (caf) (c) Capucity Cost Charge: Customer Class Dwelling, Single Family, In=luding ~/8 Townhousos Dwelling, Two Family (**) 5/8 1.00 ~welling~ ~ultiple 0.85 Family (***) Trailers (per unlt) (***) 0.8~ All Other Customer Classes: t~u~ber Monthly ~e~er Size o~ ~RUs Ca9osity (Inches) ~er Unit Cost Charge $1.88 1.88 1.60 ~/8 and 3/4 1.00 $ 1.88 1 2.50 4.70 1-1/2 5.00 9.40 2 8.00 15.04 3 16.00 30.08 4 ~5.00 47.00 4/24/9~ 6 50.00 94.00 8 80.00 150,40 (*) Conbined ~rvice, If w~er only account, $1.98 per menth. (**) Per unit for a dw~lllng reaidenoe with a 5/8-inch meter. Dwellings served by larger ~ze m~ter~ pay in accordance with ~he schedule shown for Ail Other Customer Cla~$e~. See Chapter 21 for definition. o o o ~TICLE III WastewaCer uppllcable chargR~ a~ foltow~: (a) Monthly Service Customer Costs Charge: S0.99 p~r acco~t per month ~nifo~ Volune Charge: $1.04 per hundred cubic fe~t Meter size Customer Cla~ Dwelling, Single Family, Includinq Townhousms (**) 5/8 Dwelling, Two Family (**) 5/8 Dwelling, Multiple Family (***) Trail=rs unit) (***) All Other Customer Cla~e~: 1 1-~/~ 3 6 10 (*) Combine~ per month. Number Monthly of ERUe Ca~aoity Per Unit Cost Charge 1.~ $ 6.52 1.~ 6.~ 0.~5 5,54 0.~5 5.54 1.00 5.00 32.60 16,00 104.32 25.00 163.00 ~0.0O 326.00 115.00 749.80 91-265 4124/9i (2) Per unit for a dwellinq with a 5/8-inc. h meter. Dwellings served by larger size msterm pay in accordance with the schedule s~o~%~ for Ail other Custemer CIa~ses, except where virtual ~t~r size policies apply. See Chapter 21 for deflnlt~on. (***)Per unit, the per unit charge is based on .85 of the meter charge. See chapter 21 for definition. Ancillary char~es Strong Waste Sursharge (see Chapter IV, Section BCD Surcharge (*) = ~BOD-~0X (62.4xV] 1,000,000 $~ ~urcharge (*) - fS$-240) (62.4xv) 1,000~000 BCD = Bioohamioal sx!;gen dsmand in parts per million of the industrial waste. SS - SusDenaed solids in parts per million e~ the indu~ial waste. V = Vol~Lme of the industrial waste in cubic feet. b. Account Initiation c~a~ge c. Late Payment charge d. Bill collection Prior to Di~conn=¢t $15.0e 5% o~ $1.50 minimum · l%/me. Charge only aepliss when calculatlou~ result in a positive number. (**) Apl01ie~ to accounts having wastewater servic~ only. W~nerc ~esidential Dremises a~e connected to the county wastewater system hut not the county water system, the ~ervi=e charg~ shall be $~7.86 per month; ~or all users, the consumer will be required to in,tall meter at his e×pen=e and the service charge will be based on thc meter reading or at the sole discretion of utiliti$~ department, a monthly service charge will be set. The location! size and manufacturer of ~he meter shall be as approved by th~ u~ilities ~epartment, Chapter 20 - Articl~ iV In addition to the charges provided for in sestion 20-6~, a strong waste sursharge for the higher cost shall be rendered to any person ~isoh~ging strong B0D Surcharge = (~0D-24~) (62.4xVI 1,000,000 SS Surcharge ~ (~s-~0] ¢6~_.~4XV] 9I-~66 4/24/91 BOD ~ Biech~inal e×ygen demand in parts per million of ~he industrial waste. Suspended solids in parts per million o£ the industrial waste. V Volume of the industrial waste in oubio feet. regular bill rendered to the prope~ ~e~son ~y the director of utilitle~. The dischargers shall pay for pe~rmenh of regular wastewater charges. o o O Mr. Sullivan, ~r. Currin, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Daniel Mr. Mayes 9.D. STREET ~-IGHT ~EOUEST DEFEIkRAL On motion o£ F~r. Mayes, oecond=d by Mr. coffin, the Enard approved obtaining a eo~t e~ti~ate fo~ the i~tallatio~ of a street light at the end of Ealls Run Road in the ~atoaca Nagist~rial District duo to health, safety and welfare situations. ~r. Mi~as stated thi~ dut~ and time had been advertised for a publio hearing to consider an ordinance ~o amend 15.1-22 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, ~97~, amended, by rem~opting S~ction 15.1-22.5 relating to nuzzle loading rifles which is required ~ach y~ar. Mr. Denny Quaiff stated he had attended ~e public hearing last year with a representative of the Department of Ga~e Intan~ Fisheries; that he is in favor Qf the ordinance; lamt year was the f~rst mpecimt meamon which Was very suoo~ful and that 49,000 people had Dartioipated ~roughout There being no one else to addremm thim o~dinance, the publio adopted ~e following ordinance: ~ 0~IK~C~ TO ~D SECTION 15,1-22 OF ~= CODE OF ~ CO~T~ OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, Chesterfield County ~at th~ Cod~ of th~ COU~t~ of Chesterfield, i978, a~ amended, is amended by adding a new section 15.1-22.5 as follows: 4/24/91 Sec. 15.1-22.~. Muzzle ~oadin~ Ri~les. (s) It shall be unlawful for any person to hunt deer during the special muzzle-loading season. {b) FO~ purposes of this section a muzzle-loading rifle is defined as a single shot flintlock or side lock percussion weapon with no t~legcopic sight, forty-five caliber or larger, f~rlng a single projectile loaded from the muzzle of the weapon and propelled by at least fifty grains of black powder. ~s) Agy person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. For state law as to authority of the county to adopt this section, see Section 29.1-$28, Code of Virginia, 19~0, as amended. Vote: Unanimous ll.A. ~rr~Nr LIG}{~ I]~STAT~ATION COST on mo=ion of Mr. Daniel, ~sconded by MT. Maym~, the Board approved tho ~treut light installation coEt of $1,2§6 for the intersection of $. Jessup Road and E. Denny Court with ~aid £un~s to Ds expen~ from ~he Dal~ District Stre-t L~ght Vote: Unanimous ll.B. A~POI]~T~NTS On motion oX F~r. A~plega~o, ~eson~ed by ~r. Daniel, the Board nomin~te~ General Willi~/~ D. C~rry for re~ppointm~nt to the John Tyler Co~ununity College Board, as am at-large representative, whose formal appointment will be mede st the May 8, 1991 meeting. Vote: Unanimous 11.C.~. C~ANGE ORD~}K~BER! T~ICO. XNC. On motion o~ ~. Currin, ~econd=d by Mr. aayus, ~h= Buard approved Change 0~der N~er 1 to HIC0, Inc., in th~ ~o~t of $22,700, for the removal o~ asbestos from fha Ben Air Library. (I% is noted said funds come from the 1~88 Bond Referenda.) Vote: Ununimou~ 11.C.2. A~ ~NC~G BEST~~ ~CE On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Mayem, the Roard authorized the County Administrator to execute a Best Management Practice Maintenance A~reement with the owner o~ the Sherwin Williams Store, with the County's only involvement being to a~nu~e that the ~aintenenoe ApTe~me~t i~ followed ~y the owner. (A copy cf said Agreement is filed with the papers o~ thio Board.} Vote: Unanimous 11.C.~. AuTuORIZA~ION FOR TUK ~OU1FI'Y ADMII{I~H'Ih~T~[~_~O .EXEcu,rg AN~G~ CONU}~,N~NG '£~ CONSTi~UCT]ON AND U~E_.0F betwsem Henries County and Chesterfield County sonserning the cenmtruetion and use of the Henrico County Fire Training Facility. The $75,000 co~t of this contra~t will be eb~orb~d within the Fire Department's current FYgl adopted budget. Funds are available becaus~ equipment which was budgeted in the FY91 adopted Fire Depart~ent,s b~dget will be charged to the IPSS bond account to free up the $75,000 nee~s~ to fund thi~ contract. (A copy of said Agreement is filed with the papers o£ ~his Board,) Vote: Unanimous Om motion of Mr. Currln, seconded by ~. Mayes, t. he Board authorized =he County Treasurer to undertake short te~m borrowing not to exceed $4 million for the purpose of meeting the cash flow requirement~ of the General and School operating funds, during the low revenue rese]D~ months of April through May, 1991 pursuant to Section 15.1-545 of the Code Of Virginia, as a~ended, and ~he rata of interest as determined is in compliance with Section ~.~-3~6-%. The fund~ will be repaid upon receipt of tax revenues. Vote: Unanimous 11.~.5. DONATION OF ~3.000 TO 'J'~ ETTRIC~ ¥0U9~{ 0s motion of ~. Currln, s~conde~ by ~r. ~ayes, ~m resolved to rever~e appropriations ~de on ~ovember 14, 1990 and aDpropriate~ $3,000 from =he Matoaca Three C~nt Read to enable a direct donatio~ to be ~ade to the Ettrick Youth Sports Association which previou~ ac%ion approp~iated to the Parkm & Rmcreation Department to purchase unifo~s for the Ett~iek Youth Sports Association. Vote: Unanimous 11.C.6. REQUEST TO AuT~OI~IZE u"H~ BO~]~) OF ~UmKRVi8ORE TO On motion of ~. C~in~ seconded by Mr. Mayes, ~e Board authoriz~ the filing of Mrs. Will~a~ W. Walte~ a~d Eolly TraCe Lund ~ust, with the ~oard of Zoning Appeals for a variance from ~ rear yard ~tbaok requirement with the $770 application fee being waived. Vote: Unanimous 91-269 4/24/91 ll.D.1. PUI~LIC ~IllC 9'{) CONEID]~R ~ ORDINANCE TC, VA~'I'I~ A ~r. ~ale s~a~ad ~his da~e a~d ~a ~d ~an advertised for a public hea~ing to con~i~e~ ~n ordinance to vacate a portion of a 13~ drainage a~d ~ew~r aa~a~nt in D~ar Run Subdivision, NO one oame forward ~o spsak in favor of or against ~e ordinanoe. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. ~pplegate, the Board CHE~TE~IELD, VIRGINIA, ('~G~TOR~') vacata~ to MICHEL E. RED~ and TERESA F. RED~, (,,~EE,,), a port~on of a 1S * drainage and ~ew~r easement acro~ Lot 10; Block Gt Deer Chest~rfigld Co~ty, Vizginia, as ~ho~ on a pla~ =~e~eof duly recorded in =he clerk'~ Office of the Circuit Court of ~esterfi~ld Lc% lQ, Block G, Deer Runt Section 5, Natoaca Magisterial Di~rio~, Chesterfield County, virginia more pa~ioularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of said county in Plat Book 70~ Pages 42 and 43~ made by E. D. Lewis a A~ociates, P.C., dated H~rgh 6, 1989. Th9 portion of eas~ent petitioned to be vacated are more fully described as follows: A portion of a I~~ ~ralnage an~ ~wer fully shown on a plat by Potts, Minter and copy of which is nttach~d hereto ~d made a advertising; and, of the portion of easement sought to be vacate4. WOW ~EREFORE, BE IT O~AINED BY THE B0~ OF SUP~VISORE OF CHESTERFIELD CO~TY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Cod~ of Virginia, 1950, as ~ended, the aforesaid portion o~ easement be and is h~r~y vacated. Thi~ Ordinance ~hall be in full force and effect in accordance wi~ section 15.1-4S2(b) of the Code of Viruinia, 1950~ a~ a~ended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attache~ hereto, shall b~ reoor~e~ ~o ~oo~e~ tha~ ~irty days hereafter in the Clerk's office of ~e Circuit Court of ~sterfi~l~ ~oun~y, virginia pursuant to SeotiOn 15,1-485 of the Code of viruinia. ~0, as amended. 91-270 4124/91 is to destroy the fores and a£fact of the recording of tha portion of the plat vacated. ~i~ Ordinance shall vast £~a slm~le title of the portion of eassment h~reby vacated in the Drepe~ty owner of Let 10, Block G within Deer Run, Section free and ~lear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, thi~ Ordinance ~hall be indexed in the na~ss of the County of Chesterfield a~ grantor and th~ ~ichael ll.D.2. CONStanT 11.B.2=~. CONSTD~R R~OU~T ~OR A_~EXTENSION OF ~ On motion of ~. Applegate, seconded by ~r. Currin, ~e Board approved a re,est for a time extension on refunds, in amount of $13,9S8.11, for Project 86-79~8, Windsor Hills subdivi~ion off~it~ sewer Extension to the develoDer, Frad J. Swearlng~n, Jr. ~nd Fred J. Swearingen, Sr., provided the extension is fo~ one (1} year with the sniDulation that further time e~ensions ~ granted. Vote: Unan~ou~ · ~.D.9.b. A~E~TAN~ OF PARCEL ALONGHTr~ST~T~O~D~N WOODR(XiK ASSOCIA.~. On motion of ~Lr. ApDlegate, seconded by Mr. Coffin, the Board accepted on behalf of the County, the conveyance Of a ~ strip of land along Hull Street Read from Woodrock Associates Limited Partnership, A Virginia Limited Partnership, and authorized the County Admlnlst~ator to execute the ~ece~sary deed. (A copy of ~aid pl~t is filed with the papers cf this Board.) Vote: Unanimous 11.D.2.c. ACCEPTANCE OF PA~C~LALONG FROM P~~~ On motion of ~. Applegate, seconded by ~. ~rrin, the acc~t~ un behalf of the Co~y, the cunveyance cf a Prillaman Chemical C~pany~ an~ authorized ~he County Admln~s~rator to execute the necessary deed. (A copy of ~lat is filed with the paper~ of thi~ Board.} on motion of Mr. Ap~legatu, seconded by Mr. Currim, the Board accepted on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a 0.113 acre parcel of la~d along Pro, ideate Road from Parker, and author~ze~ th~ Co~ty Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (A copy o~ sai~ plat is filed with the pa~ers of Lnis Board.) 91-271 4/24/91 ll.D.2.e. ACCEf~ANCE OF '1~o p~qCELS OF LAND ALONG OLD S~AGE ~ROAD ~ NES~ RUNDR.ED ROAR FROH ~R.. AND ~5. on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board accepted on behalf of the County, the conveyance of two parcels of land containing ~.024 acre and 8.093 acre! along Old Stage Road and West HunOzed Road from Laverne C, Cole and Mary W. Cole, and Alex B. Sadler, Jr. and Earbara C. Sadler~ and a~tho~ized the County Administrator to execute the necessary d~ed. (A copy of said plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr, Applaga~e, seconded by ~. Currin, the Board Richmond A~hb~O~ Limited Partnership and authorized Co~ty Administrator to ~ecute any necessary documents. copy of the plat is filed with the ~a~s~s of this ll.D.3. It~'PORTS water and sawer contracts executed by the County Administrator. 11. E. REPORTS ~r. Ram$oy presented the ~oar4 with a statu~ report on General Fund Contingency Account; ' G~neral Fund Balance; Reserwe for Future capital Projects; Distri=t Road and Light ~nds; and Lease Purchases. Mr. ~ms~y stated ~e Virginia D~partment of Trun~portation following roads into the Stat~ Seconda~ ~D~T~ ~G~ ~E~ ESTATES - P~SE I - (Effective t-3-91) Ro~t~ 929 (Chesterfield Meadows Drive) - From 0.14 mile East Route 10 to Route 4~g0 0.18 Ro~t~ 9~9 (Chesterfield ~adow~ Drive) - ~rom Rout~ 44S0-North to Route 4880-Sou~ 0.30 Route 4880 (old Wre~ Road) - From Route 145 to 0.03 mil~ Sou~ Route 929-South 0.25 0.04 mils Wsst Route 4880 0.04 Mi Route 488~ (01d ~re~ Place) - From Route 4880 to 0.04 mile West Route 4~80 0.04 Mi Route 4883 (Homelan~ Court) - From Rout~ 92~ ~o 0.05 91-272 4/24/9~ ROCK CASTLE BUSINESS P~_RK - reflective 3-!5-91) Route 965 (Castle Rock Road) - From Route 360 to mile South Routs %60 O.11 Mi On notion of ~ir. Daniel~ seconded by MS. CU~in, the Board went into ~x~¢utive session, pursuant to section 2.1~34~ (a) (7}, code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for consultation with legal counsel pertaining to 9roba~le litigation re~arding the claim of Arburg, Inc. Rnonnvening: On notion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. coffin, the Boerd edop~e~ ~e following resolution; WHEREAS~ the Board of Supervisors has this day adjourned into E~ecut~ve Se~ion i~ accordance with a formal vote of the ~oard, and in ac=ordanoe winh tR~ provisions of the virginia F~eedo~ of Information A=t; and SF}{~RA~, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act ef~eo~ive July ~ I989~ provides fo~ certification that such Fxecutive Session was conducted in conformity with law. ~OW, T~ER~FOR~, B~ IT RES0LV~D that the Board of County S~perviso~s does hereby certify that to the best of each m~0r'~ knowl~4ge, i) only 9ublio business ma=acrs lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements ~nder thc Freedom of Information Act were discussed in the Executive Session to which this certification aDplieu, and ii) only such public business matters as were identifis~ in the ~0tion by which the Executive Se~si0~ was convened were heard, discussed or certification. Th~ Board being ~olled, the vote was as follows: Nr. Daniel: Aye. I~r. Mayes~ Aye. Mr. Applegate: Aye. ~r. currin: Aye. Mr. ~ullivan: Aye. ll.F. L~N(]{ The Board recessed at 1:00 p.~ (DST) to meet for lunch with the "~od~l County Government Day" ~tudent~ to disous~ county government and to answer questions from students. Researching: On motion of Mr. Applegete, $=conded by }ir. Currln, the Board suspended their rules to amend the agenda to include Iten 11.%., Approval of Agreement to Settle Claim Of A~bu. rq, Inc. Vote: Unanimous 91-273 ~/24191 added Item I1.1., Approval of Agreement to ~ettle Claim of krburg, Inc. to the agenda. ll.I. AITROV~L OF A~P~9~TO ~£xg ~u~%II~ OF ~, INC. Mr. Jeffrey L. ~in~s, Deputy County Attorney, state~ that ~is it~ h~d been added to mddre~ a clai~ filed by Arburg, Inc.; thnt the Bo~d had bu~ ~de aware of ~he te~ of a settlement proposal; ~nd re~e~t~d ~at the Board approve ~ settlement proposal and authorize ~e co~ty Administrator to County Attorney. H~ indicated that ~burg, Inc. had prevlously r~sted the claim to come before the Board but On motion of ~. Daniel, aeoondad by ~. Appleg=t~, t~e Board appruved an agreement =o settle ~e claim of Arburg, Inc. and authorized the County Administrator to ~eoute ~e Settlement Agre~man~ containing the following te~s an~ s~bje~t to a~proval by eh~ County A%~ormey: 1. The County would pa~ ~burg one-half of %he oo~t of would pay the remai~de~ Of t~ ~pair co~t. Arbur~ would be r~quired to compl~t~ t~ a~phalt and concret~ re~airs. 3. The County would a~gn to ~burg ~e original construction perfo~ance bon~ for the fu=ility, 4. ~burg would release ~hg County from all liability ~elating to the facility. 5, ~bu~g would be ~equi~ed to occupy and operate ~e facility. ~burg woul~ return to the county any money i~ recovers under the band that represents a double r~covery. Votm: Unanlmou~ I1.G. .~ZOUF~TS FOR MOBILZ HOS]~ 15~2~TS AND I{Z~ONING 91SR0167 In Bermuda Magieterial Di~t~ict, ~ A. M~ ~equested renewal of ~obile Home Pe~it ~6S077 to park a mobile home in a Re~idential (R-7) District. The density of the proposal is approximately 2.~7 unit~/acre. The Comprehensive ~lan d~iqnat~s th~ property for residential u~e of 4.01 to 7.00 units/acre. This property fron=s the south line of Dwight Avenue, approximately 340 feet east of J~ffarson Davis Highway, and is better ~o~ as 2527 Dwight Argue. Tax HaD 67-12 (4) Bellwood Addition, Block B, Lots 22 und 23 (Sheet 23). ~e firs~ 9e~it was issue~ on April 23, 1956. staff reco~ended upprovul. ~. Ri~ard A. ~oor~ ~tat~d ~ reco~endation was acceptable. On ~otlon of ~. Currin, ~econded ~ ~. ~ye~, th~ Board approved Ca~e 91SR0167 for sev~ (7) years, subject to the 91-274 4/24/91 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant ef the mobile home. 2. NO lot or parcel may be rented or leased for u~e a~ ~ mobile hume site, nor shall any mobile hume be uaad for rental property. Only one (1) Mobile home shall be permitted to Be parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimum lot elza, yard ~etbaoks, required front yard~ and other zoning requirements of the applicable $oning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located cloner than 20 feet to any existing 4. No addlt~onal permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile hone. Ail mobile homes shall ~e skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Psi'mit, the applicant of th~ Building Official. Thi~ shall be done prior to the installation or relo~tiun of the mobile home. A~y violation of the above conditions shall he grounds for revocation of the ~obile Home Pek~it. Unanimous ~9~R0333 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, DR. CUSTI$ requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to R~id0~tial (R-i~). Residential ~avelopment of up to 2.9 units per acre im permitted in a Residential (R-15) District. The Comprehensive Plan dasignatem ~he property for residential use of 2.2 traits p~r acre o~ less. This re~e~t li~ O~ ~ sore parcel fronting approximately 1,260 feet on ~he south line of Gemito Road, appro~i~tely 2,000 feet west of Woolridg8 Road. Tax Map 46 (1) Parcel 57 (s~eet ~e Pla~ing Co~ission raco~ende~ approval subject to conditions and acceptance of th~ M~. Custis Coleman, J~., representing the applicant, stated the re=o~endation was acceptable. There was no O~ mOtiO~ Of M~. Applegutu, seconded by Mr. C~rin, the Board A fifty (~0) foot ~uffer strip, exclusive of required perpendicular through the buffer, ~hall be established area of ~s buffer ~t~ip shall either be left in it~ natural state, if sufficient vegetatio~ exists to provide adequate screening; or be planted and/or beard in Depar~en=, if sufficient v~g~tation do~s not exist provide edemata screening. Prior to approval of any final ~ite plan o~ ~eco~datio~ of any plat, the developer shall fla~ this bu~er strip for inspection, and shall ~OSt a bo~ to Cover the implementation of th~ l~nd~o~pe plan, if such plan is required, only access(ss) approved by the Transportation Department shall be ~rough thim buffe~ strip. ~is buffer shall be noted 91-27~ 4/24/91 any final site plans, and any final check and recordation plat~. (P & T) And farther, the Board accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. In conjunction with recordation of the first subdivision plat or upon request by the Transportation Department, whichever occurs first, forty-five (45) feet cf right of way on the south side of Genito Road, measured from the cent~rlins of that pert of Genito Road immediately adjacent to the property, &hall be d~dioated, free and ~Bre~tricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. Road at the approved accemm to provide left- end right-turn lane~. 4~ lots add, tAe developer shall be reaponsible for the followin~ road improvements. A. P~eperation of road con~tructlon plans far the Arterial Standards I50 MPH), am datelined by the Transportation Department, for the entire length of th~ road adjacent to the ~ubject property. The oon~tructlon plane shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department prior to final 0heo~ plat approval ef any residential lots. B. Dedication of all right of way necessary for the reconstruction of Genlto Road as identified in Paragraph "A." Such dedicatlen shall occur in ~onjunc~icn with recordation of the first the eastern property llne of the ~ubject property and the western property line of the subject proper~y. The exa¢~ location of the section shall be t~ VDOT Urban Minor Arburiul Standards Department. The developer shall not be required to make any such improvements b~yea~ these that can bm constructed for a cost not to exceed $67~00 (excluding the coat of right of way ac~uieltion an~ construction of left and right turn lanes at the Department. Thi~ reconstruction =hall be completed as d~ternin~d ~y the Transportation Department prior to final cheek plat approval of mere than 1D lot~. exclusively to provide water an~ sewer service on the property. /~_r. Sullivan noted that in lieu of a cash preSSer, there was proffer of $1500 per lot for transportation, Vote: Unanimous In clover Hill Magisterial District, FINAN~I-%L F~'£~XSES II requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9). Residential use of up ts 4.~4 units De= acre is permitted in a Residential (R-9) D~strict. The Comprehensive Plan deeignate~ the propmrty for residential uae cf 2.2 un~t~ per acre er 91-~76 4/24/91 leas. This request lies on a 22s.~ acre parcel fronting approximately 5,664 feet on the north line of Genito Road, also fronting approMimately 3,400 feet on the east llne of Otterdale Road, and located in the northeast quadrant of the interaaoti=n s~ thane funds. Tax Map .44-6 (1) Parcel 26 (Sheet that the Planning Cc~mieeion reoe~ende~ approval subject a condition and acceptance of the proffers. Hr. Ashby Stinsen, representing the applicant, stated the recommendation was acceptable; that there was a proffer to make transportation improvements; that they had proffered Community A~so~iatlon in agreelnq to a 100' ~uffer on Road. He also noted that the maxlm~ density would be ~0 and not 350 a~ ~ho~ 0n ~s paqe 5 in the scarf reco~endation. There was no opposition present. There was brief discussion relative to transDortati0n. A 100 foot buffer strip, eKclusive of re, ired yard~ and easements which dQ not run generally ~rough ~e buffer, ~hall be established and maintained (50) foot buffer s~ip exclusive of required yards and ~as~men=s whic~ do no~ run generally perpendicula~ through the buffer, shall be establlshed and adjacent to Otterdmle Road (Route 667). The area of ~e~e buffer ~%rlps ~ha~l eider b~ l~ft i~ their natural state, if s~fficient vegetation exists to provide add,ate mcr~un~ng; or h~ planted a~d/or b~ed aoG~rdanc~ with a landsoap~ plan ~pproved by the Planning Depar~ent, if sufficient vegetation do~s not exist to provide adequate screening. P~io~ to approval cf any final si~ plan or recordation of any plat, the developer shall flag these b~ffer strips for inspection, and shmll post a bond to cover the implementation of ~ plan, if such plan is required. Only acc~mm(e~} approved by the T~an~por~ution Depar~ent ~hall ~e p~ittsd ~ro~gh the~e b~ffer ~trips. Thes~ buffers shall noted on any final site plans and any final che~ and recordatiom plats. And further, the Bomrd accepted the followiDg proffered oonditiens: 1. Prior to final =beck plat approval, n revised eenterline for Otterdale Road, based on VDOT Urban Minor Arterial Standards (5O MPH) Road, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Transportation Department. At the time of recordation of a subdivision plat for any lots a~Jacent to Otterdal~ Road, a minimum of forty-five feet of right of way on th= east side of Otterdale Road, part Otterdale Road immediately adjacent to the property, shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and ~or the benefit of Chesterfield County. Tn conjunction with recordation of the first subdivision plat or upon request by the Transportation Department whichever occurs first, forty-five (45) £e~t of right of way on the north side of Genlto Road~ measured from the ad)acent to the property, shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield county. 91-277 4/2%/91 3. Additional pavement shall be const~cted ato~q 0tterdale Road and Ganlto Road at each approved access to provide left and right turn lane~. 4. The ~ximum density of this development shall not ~xceed Z50 lots and the developer shall be responsible for the following road improvements: A. Preparation of road construction plans for the reconstruction of Otterdale Road and Genitc Read to VDOT Urban ~ino= A~te~ial Standards (S0 ~!~H), as d~termined by the Transportation Department, for the entire length of the roads adjacent to the subject p~ope~ty. The construction plan~ shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation prior to the recordation of uny residential lot~. D~di~i~n of ~11 right of way necessary for the identified in para~apk "A." S~ch dadication~ ~hall subdivision pl~t- VDOT U=ban Mino~ A~terial S=anda~ds (50 tho~e putts of ~e roudu adjade~t t0 t~e accordance with road con~t~ction plans which ~ave adeo~dance with paragraph "A." ~ r~con~truction shall be ~om~lete~, a~ astatine4 Transportation Department, prior to final check plat approval of mor~ ~an 83 lots. T~e ~eveloD~r shall not be required to recon~t~ct any portion of such roads beyond those se~nts whi~ can be (excluding the oos~ of right of way uoqui$itlon and construction of left and right turn i~ne$ approved access locations) as datelined by the Transportation Department. Vote: Unanimou~ In Dale Magisterlal District, ~OffAS R. ~dI?x,~ requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Neighborhood o~f~cs (0-1). The density of ~uch ~endment will be controlled by zoning cenditione or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan de~iqnat~ the property for residential u~e of 1.~1 to 6.OS units per acre. This request lles on a 1.65 acre parcel lying approximately 670 feet off the east line 0£ Iron Bridge Road, approximately 310 feet north of Willswhranch Drive. Tax Map 66-9 (1) Part of Parcel 29 and Parcel 43 (Sh~ct Mr. Jacobsen presented a smmmary of Case 905N0~06 an~ stated the PlaHHi~g Co~ission reco~nded approval and acceptance of the proff~5, ~. Tho~a~ R. Miller ~tated the rec0~ndatiun was There wa~ no opposition The~ wa~ b~ief dimeu~ion ~elative to signage on Route 10 and zoning Ordlnanoe remitments. On motion of ~. Daniel, seconded by ~. ~yes, ~e Board conditions: 91-278 4/24/91 1. Prior to obtaining a building pernit, One of the following shall be accomplished for fire protection: A. For building permits obtained on or before June 30, 1991, the owner, developer er assignee(s) shall pay to the County $150 per 1000 square feet of gross floor area. If the building permit is obtained after June 39, 1991, the amount of the payment shall be adjusted upwar~ or downward by the sa~e percentage that the Marshall Swift Building Cost Index increased or decrease~ between June 1991, and the date of payment. With the approval of the county's Fire Chief~ the owner, developer or assignee(e) shall receive a credit toward the required payment for t/~e cost of any fire ~uppr~ion ~y~t~m not otherwi~ required by which is included as a part of the development. OR B. The owner, de, eloper oi assignee(s) shall provide a fire supDression system net otherwise required by law which the County's Fire chief detei~al~es substantially reduces the need for county facilities 0therwi~e necessary for fire protection. The applicant ~tlpulaten and agrees that the need for the additional fire protection meaeure~ reguired by this proffer is qenerated ~elely by thi~ rezoning. =. Prior to the i~uance of any o=cupancy perxait fur any pertaitted or restricted ~eighborhood office (o-1) use, addlt~ona~ pavement ~hall b~ ~om~rue~e~ along Route lQ at the approved access to provide a right-turn lane. Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Cu3crin, ~r. Daniel and Mr. Ab~tention: /dr. Appleg~t~ a~ h~ wa~ no~ pre~ent during cf the discussion In Matoaea Magis%erin1 Distr~et, 'r~ VIRGINIA ~TATE UN~ITY PEDERAL CREDIT UNION Ze~este~ rezoning from Residential (R-7) to N~ighborhood Bu~n~ (C-2). T~e density of such amendment will be co,trolled by aching con~ition~ or Ordinance st~dard~. The Comprehensiv~ Plan designates ~e property for residential use of 4.~1 to T.~ units per acre. Thi~ r~que~t lies on a 1.11 a~e parcel fronting approximately 24~ feet on t~e mo~wemt lane of Second Avenue, ~1~o fronting sea,west quadrant of the inter~ectlon of these roads. Tax M~p t8~-10 (1) Paroel 8 (sheet 53). M~. Jacobsen pre~ented a sugary of Case elaN0139 and stated ~e mla~ing co~ission reoo~ende4 approval and accaDtanoe os the proffers, Mr. Boone, r~pre~entin~ the applicant, stated the recommendation was acceptable. There was no opposition pre~ent. On motion of Mr. Mayas, me=ended by Mr. Curr~n, the Board approve~ case 91SN0139 an~ accepted the following proffered condi~icnm~ Uses shall be restricted to the following: (a) 0ffises: hualne~s, governmental, medical, er professional. (b) Libraries. 91-279 4/~4/91 ........... [ ................. Ji ....... l; ,L~ I ........... (c) Brokerages. Convalescent~h0~e~, nursing homesr rest homes. (e)Nursery schools, child or adult day care and kindergartens. (f) Travel agencies to include travel arranging and transportatlen tluket services. (g) Under,round Utility UZeS Zxe~pt az provided in Chapter 21.1, Section 21.1-132 (g), when such uses are located in easements, or in public reads rights of way. (h)Medical facilities or clinics. (i)Optometrist sales and services. {j) ~harma¢ies provided that the us~ shall be located in a building containing other medical services; and shall not have a separate entrance to the outside. (k) Philanthropic and charitable uses. (1) Banks, savings and loans end/or credit unions with or without drive-i~ windows. 2. Prior to obtaining a building permit, one (1) of the following shall ~e a=¢s~lis~e~ for fire protection: A. For building Dernits obtained on ur be£0re June to the County $1~0 per 1,000 nguare feet of gross floor area. If th~ buildlng permit is obtaln~d payment shall be adjusted upward or downward by the same persentage that the Marshall swift Building 1991, and the date of pa~ent. With the approval Of the County's Fire Chief, the owner, developer or assignee(s) shall receive a credit toward the required payment for the cost of any fire which is included as a part o~ the development. B. The ewner~ developer or assignee(s) sBall provide a fire suppression system not otherwise required by law which the County's Fire chief ~ub~tantially reduces the need for County facilitie~ 3. Prier to issuance of an occupancy permit, additional Beisseau Street and Seaond Avenue for the entire property frontage to provide an adequate typical seotion for both constructed al0ng Boisseau Street for the entire property frontage. In Matoaca Hagieterial District, JA~S S. RITC~IM, requested amendment to a previcusly granted rezoning [Cum= 8~S027) relaaive to ~u~a~ requirements in a R~si~e~ial (R-15) District. Residential use of up to 2.90 ~nits per acre is permitted in a Residential (R-iS} District. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for residential of 1.51 to 4.00 units per acre. This request lies on 1.0 acre fronting approximately 800 feet on the north llne of River Roa~, across from Magnolia Avenue. Tax Map Gilritchle, Section 1, ~art of Lots 1, 3 and 13 and Tax Map 187-2 (1) Part of Parcel 2 (sheet 53). 91-280 4/24/91 Y~. Jacobsen presented a summary of case 91SN0140 and stated the Planning Conunission recommended approval subject tc mcdlfiad buffer conditions. Kr. James S. Ritohle, Jr. stated the reoo~endation was acceptable. Kr, George Beadles voloe~ opposition to the prepo=ed request. Mr. Sullivan stated that since there was opposition to the request it would be placed in its regular sequeno~ on the agenda. Zn ~teac~ ~giaterial District, BI~iKWOOD DE%~]I~]I~EJIT COMP/LNY reqltested amendment to u previously granted rezoning (Case 89SN0104) to pe~it additional Hs~s. The density of amen~ent will be con,oiled by zoning conditions or ordinance office use wi~ density to be dete~ined by develoDment repletions. This request lies in a General Business Distriot 0n 9.18 acrem fronting approximately ~95 fea~ on ~h~ Tax Map 95-12 (1) Parcels 45 and 48 (Sheet 31). ~, Jacobsen pzes~nt=~ a ~ary of Ca~e 91SN0156 and stated the Planning Co~issio~ reco~nded approval and acceptance of =ha 9roffer~. ~. willis ~lac~woo~, r~presen~ing the applicant, stated reco~endation was acceptable. Mr. George Beadle~ voiced O~posi=ion ~0 =~ proposed re~e~. ~. Sullivan stated that s~nce ~ere was opposition to the request it would be in it~ regular se~ence on th~ agenda. 91~'1~0177 In Midlothian Magiaterial District, B~T~-~ADE ~OMPAI~Y~ L.P. ~e~e~ted a~e~dment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 88SN0202) relative to 9arkin~ sD~ce size retirements. The density of ~uch amendment will be controlled by zoning con~i=iunm or Or~inanc~ standards. The Comprehensive Plan de~ignate~ the property for residential of 7.01 units Der acre or mere, and office and publlc/s~ -p~lic u~ with densit~ to be dete~ined by development =e~lations. This requsst lies in Residential Multi-family (R-MF] and Office Bu~ne~ (0) Districts On 76,3 frontinq approximately 2,250 feat on the northwest line of ~u~enot Road, ulso fronting approxi~at$1y 1,2~0 feet on ~e north line o~ ~obious Road~ and approximately 800 f~t on the ~ntersection of these roads. Tax Map 8-1~ [1] Parcel~ 18, ~1, ~, ~3 and ~4; Ta~ ~p ~-16 (I) Parcels 19 and 20; and Tax Mr. Doug wuulfolk, reDrementln~ ~he applicant, Eta=e~ the reco~endatlon wa~ acceptable. ~r. George Beadles voiced o~position tO ~e proposed request. Mr. sullivan stated that slnc~ there wa~ opposition to the request it would be placed in i~ r~lar sequenc~ on the agenda. 91~N0140 In Matoaoa Magisterial District, J~ S. P~TTCHIE, JR. requested amen~ent to a ~reviously granted rezoning (Ca~e ~6~0~7) relative ~o buffer requirements in a Residential (R-15) District, Residential use of up to ~.90 unit~ per acre 4/24191 ..... L ..... LL L, [ L is permitted in a Residential {R-lB) District. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for residential use of 1.B1 to 4.00 units per acre. This request lies on fronting approximately Road, across from Magnolia Avenue. Tm Map 187-2 (9) Gilritoh~e, Section l, Part cf Lots l, 3 and 13 and Tax Map 1~7-2 (1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet 53). Mr. Bill Poole presented a ~u~nary of Ca~e 91gN0140 and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to modified buffer conditions. Mr. James S. Ritchie, Jr. stated the recommendation was acceptable. Mr. George Beadles stated and h= fait th= request should ge before the Board of Zoning Appeals as a variance. Mr. Rit~hiu stated ~hat i% was an eversigh= and not realized until a building permit had been applied for and that Virginia Electric and Power Company has tho buffer if any work needs to be done. On motion of ~r. ~ayes, seconded by Mr. Applegat~, the Board approved Case BPSN0140 subject to the following condition: A fifty (58) foot buffer strip, exclusive Of required yards, shall be established and maintained adjacent to River Road (Route 36). Other than n ten (10) foot Virginia Power easement, no easements which do not run generally perpendicular through th~ buffer shall be permitted within the required buffer area. The area of this buffer st~i~ S~all be a~eordan~e with P~rimeter Landscaping "C." Prior to recordation of the amended plat, the developer shall pout a bond to cover th~ implementation of the lan~soap~ plan. Only ~¢¢e$$(ea) mpproved by the Transportation Dep~rtment shall be permitted through this buffer strip. This buffer ~hall be noted on any flna~ ch~ck and recordation plata. (NOTE: This condition amends end supersedes the condition cf zoning imposed in conjunction with approval of Case 868027.) Vote: Unanimous requested a~enda%ent to a previously granted rezoning (Case E9SN0104) to permit addlt~onal u~eE. ~e density ~f such amendment will be cuntrolled by zoning condition~ or 0rdinan¢~ ~t~ndard~. Th~ Comprehensive Plan designate~ the property for office use with ~en$ity to be determined by development regulations. T~is request lies in a General Business (B-3) District on 9.18 a~re$ fronting approximately 895 feet on ~ we~t llne of Iron Bridge Road, across from Centrali~ Road. Tax ~ap 95-1~ (1) ~arcels 4~ and ~ (Sheet 31). ~. Bill Peele presented a ~u~ary of da~ 91~N0~6 and ~tat~d the Planning Co~ission re~o~ended approval and acceptance of the proffers. ~. Willis Blaokwood, representing the applioant, sauced ~e ~eco~endation was acceptable. 91-282 4/24/91 Mr, George Beadles stated he was in opposition to the proposed request b=cuuse the property should be re~oDed to a new zoning. ' Mr. Black-wood stated that he would agree with there had been some substantive changes made to the property but that the request was mino~ a~endme~ts und not a complete rezoning. Nr. Mayes mtat~ that he felt the apDllcant had proffered to the applicant had satisfied the request for approval. Discussion, 9uestions~ and comments ensued relative to the area in quos=ion; the type of zoning existing on ~he property; how it i~ determined what class of zoning is recommended; the consistency of the determination of zoning Classes; and amendment of p~0ffe~s and new uses; etc. On motion of ~. ~aye~, ~conded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board a~proved Case 9i$N01~6 and accepted the following proffered condition: Actual uses will be limited to B-1 uses and the follewlng a. Gas station (no repairs}; b. Tire store with automotive r~pair provided the bays are positioned so as not to be visible from public road~; c. Health club; d. ~rinting ~h0p; e. Pet grooming shop; f, Veterinarian clinic, provided t~e~e is no overnight boarding or outside g. Department stsro; b. Outdoor cafe or patio dining in conjunction with a ~estaurant that ~c~s not have a drive-through window; i. Restaurant with ~rive-threugh ~indsw; J. Hardware and/or craft center with the o~tdo0r garden display and/or stora~s, provided the outdoor display/storage area ~s screened from view of adjacent properties and public riphts of way; k. Repair ~ervice~, except of motor v~hicl~s; 1. schools - music, dance and business; Tool ~n4 ~quipmen= ren%ml, provided all items are stored in~ide buildings; n. Liquor store; p. Indoor recreational establishment except pool hall and video gameroom; ~tored on the parcel and all are parked in the rear of the center out of sight from ~u~lic righ=~ of (NOT~: This ~ondition supersedes of Case ~95~0104.) vote: Unanimous 9~N~77 In ~idlethian ~sgi~terial District, B~:~,~,ADE Dm¥~UOP~ENT ~OMPANY, L.P. re~u~ted amendment to Conditional U~e Planned retirements. The density of s~oh amendment will 91-283 4/24/91 controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinamns standards. comprehensive Plan designates the property for residential use of 7.01 units per acre or more, a~d Office and public/semi -public uses with d~nsity to be determined by development re~ulaticns. This request lies in R~sidential Multi-family (R-MF) and office Business (0) Districts on 76.3 acres frontiDg approximately 2,250 feet on the northwest line of Huguenot Road~ also fronting approximately 1,258 feet co the north line of Robious Road, and approximately S00 feet on the east line Of Robio~s Cross~ng Dr~ve~ and located at the intersection of these reads. Tax Hap 8-12 (1) Parcels 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24; Tax Map 8-16 (1) Parcels 19 a~d ~0; and Tax Map 9-9 (1) ~aroels 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 (~h. ets ~ and Mr. Bill Peele presents4 a summary of Ca~e 91S~0177 and stated the Planning Commission recommended Mr. Doug Woolfolk, representing the applicant, stated the recommendation was aooepCable. stating he f~lt the parking requirements under the old zonin~ =her~fere, the appli¢~nts would not have two ordinances to pick and choose from. He stated he felt it would be better to modify and ¢ombiae the two ordinances with th~ end result would he derived from the request. ~r. Wcolfslk stated that he was not changing the u~e; not changiag the size of the building; that he me,ts the sr4~nance; and that a~proximately 25 spaces were in consideration. On motion of Nr. ~ullivan, ~conded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved Cass 91S~0177. vote: Unanimous In Dale Magisterial District, %'~ON ~. LAP~AD~, .TR. requested ~ezcning from Agricultural (A} to Residential (R-9) on 118.21 acres plus Conditional ~se on approximately 4.0 acres of the R-9 tract to permit an eutdoa~ rscreanienal facility. Residential use of up to 4.~4 unite per Residential (R-9) District. The Comprehensive Plan desig~ato~ the property for public/semi-public uses with density to be determined by development regulations and residential uses of 1.el to 4.0~ un,ts per acrs. This request lies on a 118.21 acres fronting approximately 500 feet on the north line of cogbill Road, also fronting approximately ~,594 fee= on the east line of Belmont Road, and located northeast of the intersection of th~se raa~s. Tax ~D 65-1 and 12 and Tax Map ~5-9 (1) Parcel 3 and Part of Pamcel 2 (Sheet 22). Mr. Bill Pools presented a summary of Case 89SN0344 and stated that staff recommended approval based on the applicant's amendments an~ profferz but that the Planning co--it=ion race--ended denial. were acceptable. Ms. Arlene Brandt expressed the co~uni~'s concern and oppo~iti0n to the request ~tatin9 that thuy fult had done very l~ttle to make the project compatible to the 91-284 4/24/91 neighborhood; that there wore major concerns over transportation relative to Belmont Road; that thc area was o~perieneing severe drainage problems~ that the additional six acre tract added was not a part of camh proffers; that the only amendment offered by the applicant was the deletion of storage areas from the minimum square footage of the homes but that the lot and home sizes had remained tho same; that the request was not compatible with the adjacent homes; and that there ie not s sufficient marRet for these typ~s of homes in this area. Hr. LaPr&de s~ated he ha~ attended ~any meetings with the neighborhoods and staff and that he had agreed to all requests It was noted that approximately twelve citizens stood in opposition to tho request. There was discussion, q~estions, and comments relative to the proposed read improvements; condemnatlens if necessary; the number of condemnations in tho pa~t; road acquisitions and dedisations for drainage and sewerage easemeat~; the zonln~ of the surrounding properties; the existence of public utilities; and buffers; etc. the lots if necessary. Mr. Daniel stated that the request had bemn in existence for some time; =hat he did no= £eel %ha~ marketing should be a factor for zoning; that th~ request was not compatible with the surroundln~ neighborhseds and area; that there were too many unresolved issues pertaining to the road i~prev~m~nts; and tha~ Be had concerns over tho existing drainage problems on Belmont Road. ~ further $~ated =hat he felt there were JRmt too ma~y health, safety, and welfare concerns that n~d~d to be addressed and resolved. There was brief discussion relative to R-9 versus R-12 zoning and whether or not the applicant hsd consider changing the lot Mr. Sullivan stated he did not feel the request was sompatible with the surrounding area; that there were transportation and drainage concerns; and that he also ~elt these hsalLh, safety and welfare is~us~ needed to be addressed and considered, On notion of Mr. Daniel, xeconded by Mr, $~llivan, ~he Dsard Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, M~. Applegste and Mr. Daniel Abstention: Mr. ~urrln and Nr. ~aye~ In Clever Hill Magisterial District, WIT~B. DU%-A~ AND GEN~ Development (Ca~ 80~S) to permit use and parking ~xc~%i~ns. A tu~ing salon and travel arranging and transportation ticket servic~ bu~in~ are pla~d. The den~ty of su~ amendment w~11 be ~on~olled by zoning desi~ates the property for general co~ercial with density to in a Residential (R-7) District on a 0.94 acre parcel fronting Road, approximately 30 f~st north of Provincetown Drive. Tax MaD 28-~ (1) Paroel ~1 and T~x Map 2~-3 (9) Providence Green office Complex~ Units I through 12 (Sheet 9}. 91-285 4/24/91 (~OTE= Ail other and effect.) Mr. Bill Peele presented a sumk~ary of case 90sN025~ and stated the planning CQ~missic~ r~co~mended denial of the tanning ~alon; approval of the travel agencies; and ~ecommended a two parklmg space exception. Mr. E~ward wil!ey, Jr., representing ~he appliQant/e~r of five of the unit~, Far. and Mrs. William Dural, a~d ~tated they were in agreement with ~he re~o~endation of the Planning Cedi=sion. ~. D~nni~ Mann, owner of t~ B~O~Z~ a~d Beautiful Salon, stated h= had p~ohased =he unit; was n~v~r i~formed ~hat ~y wore ~ot coati,tent with ~e Zoning O~dinance; that =here was ~ mistake ~de on the building pe~it; that ~ay had gone through thm zoning appeal proce~ which had been denied; t~at t~e ~alon i~ a respectable and professional bu~ine=s prominent cllentele; that he felt the o~er occupants in the buildinq were not ~appy with the salon b~ing there; ~at is a misconception concerning th~ parking ~ince they work on an appointment basi~ only; and ~at ~e will be a ~ardshiD placed on ~e ~Dloyees and clients i~ th~ request ~ not ~ranted and asked the Board to qive favorabl~ consideration his that =he feel= the ~alon serves the public wi~ and quali~y s~ice; that mo~= of ~e clients are business people; that ~he ha~ never e~erienced any parking and ~at s~e felt M~. Mann wa~ an honest businessman a service to the Dub!lo; ~at he has also contributed to "M~e a Wish Fo~dation" ~upporting ~e co~unlty in whioh works; and ~qu~d the Board to give favorable consideration to the request. M~. Allan Ri~ ~ta~ad he ~ th~ mini~t~ at St. Luke'5 United Methodist Church; that his wise and daughter both work for the ~aloR a~d, t~eEefoEe~ he has visited ~he ~alon on many occamion~ and has never had a problem with parking; that the business is a respectable, professional operation; ~ann entered into =~e business in good faith; and also asked the Board to give favorable consideration to thc ~. Robert ~deE~ owner of one of ~e units and president of the Association r~presenting five of th~ o~ar o~ers, stated that %h~r~ ~iB co~o$r~ wa~ th~ p~rking nituatlon but that they did not have any 9roblems with ~he usage. T~e~e was discussion relative to the ori~inal zoning of the property; the parking; wh~er ~. Mann o~d ~r rentsd ~roperty; w~e~er t~e ot~er D~operty o~e~s ~ad any problems regarding the use of the unit; and wh~th~r ~ r~qu~$t was on motion of Mr. Applegnte, ~econded by ~. Daniel, the Board In addition =0 the use& p~rmitted on this site ~rough condition i of case 80s155~ t~e following uses ~hall A. Tannin~ ~alon; B. A ~=x~m~ of two (2) travel arranging and A four {4) par~ing sDaoe exception s~all ~e ~anted the minim~ nu~r of parking space~ re. ired zoning Ordinance. (BOS} 91-286 4/24/91 Vote: Unanimous In BermUda Magisterial District, VIRGINIA ~]~-x~C AND POWER ~O~PANY re~luested rezonlng from H~a~ Industrial (M-3) to ~ea~ Industrial {I-3) with Conditional Use to p~it an el~o~rio power g~nera~ion plant. The density of such am~n~n~ will b~ controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designate~ ~e property for re~l~tion~. Thi~ request lies on three (3) parcels, located in the northeast quadrant of ~e intersection of Cox~dale Road and Old ~tage Roa~, and two ~2} fronting approximately 3,076 feet on the sou~ line of Coxendale Road, approximately 430 feet east of Old Stage Road. ~ and 2 (Sheets 24 and the Planning Co~ission reco~ended approval ~ubject to Mr, Greg B~ooks, ~epresenting the applicant, state~ th~ reco~enda~ion was ~S. carolyn Powers~ coordinator for chesterfield Citizens for ~e ~nvironment. stated that she was not in oppo~itiO~ re,ms=; woul~ l~k~ the Beard to consider that the ~lectric and Power Company (~PCO) facility iS th~ number one air Doll,=er i~ the State; and would like to request VEPCO to con~ider establi=hlng a c~t~ze~$ advisory ocli=tee in which to meet with VEPCO to review ~nvironmental standards, she felt would educate citizens abo~t ~e environment. ~. George Beadles stated that the original r~e~t had been slightly ~ange~; that the proposal shoul~ =all ~cr new power generating unitx and not r~p]acement unit~; and supported th~ ~. Currin ~tated that he had received info~ation frcn him Planning Co~ission representative informing hi~ that h~ had me= with these involved and supported the staf~ condition and that VEPCO hud addressed citizeD ¢oncern~ in that =hey already have a citizens a~visory co~i==ee in ~. ~aniel stute~ ~t VEPCO was re~lated by the Stat~ relative to air and water ~al~ty ~tandard~. On motion of Mr. Currln, ~oou4ed by Mr. Appl=gate, ~m Board approved Case 90SN0907 ~u~ject to the following conditions: 1. A 100 foot buffer shall be maintained along the James be retained unle~ r~o~al is approved by the Director Plannlng. The removal of vegetation within this buffer to acco~odate utilities, archaeological i~pectio~, and ~e Director of Planning. (P) 2. In conjunction wi~ ~ite plan mubmi~ion for any new entire property whic~ is the s~ject of ~im application shall ~e ~mitted tO ~h~ Planning Depur~ent. The Dist~bance Assessment ~hall determine the potential for 91-287 4/24/91 the existence of culturally significant resources, as defined by the standard~ o£ the National Register of Historic Places, on the property. This Assessment shall b~ prepared by an archaeologist acceptable to the Virginia Department of ~istoric Resources. subsequently, in conjunction with site plan su~missisn far any new facilities on any portion of the' property deemed by the overall Disturbance AsSessment to have the potentiai to contain culturally ~ignificant resources, a ~ha~e archaeological survey, prepared by an archaeologist acceptable to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, shall be submitted to the Planning If thc survey reveals any potentially significant cultural resources, the site plan shall be taken to the Planning Co~mission for approval at which time conditions may be imposed to either protect significant f~nds or provi~ for their removal to an acceptable location. (P) 3. Within setbacks along Coxendale Road, landscaping shall be accomplished. Such landscaping shall consist of a species having an altlmste mature cruwn sprea~ of greater than thirty (30) feet and a minimum caliper of three and one-half (3 1/2) inches at the time ef planting. required landscaping may be installed in pha~. The exact spe~ies~ loeatien and ~pa~ing of landmcaplnq and the phasing of installation shall be approved by the Planning Department at th~ time of ~ite plan review for any new facilities. (NOTE: This landscaping is in addition to that required within required setbacks along Coxendale Road for any n~w ~acilitie~ adjacent to ~uoh road.) And f~her, ~e Boar~ a¢oapted the following condition: ~rior to site plan approval, thirty-fiwe (35} feet of right of wmy along Coxe~dale Roa~, west of its i~tsrsection with Old Stage Road, and thirty (30} feet of right of way along Coxendale Road eas~ o~ its ~ntersection with Old Stage Road, measured fro~ the oenterline of that part Of Ccxendale Road i~ediately adjacent to the property, Ehall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield county. vote: Unanimous 91~0124 In Matsaca Magisterial District, WILLIA~ B. ~ G~NE H. D~VA3~ ~equested rezoni~g f~om Residential (R-2S) to Residential (R-9). Residential use of up to ~.S~ units p~ acre ~ permitted in a K~sidential (R-9) District. The Comprehensive Plan da~ignate~ the property for residential u~e of 2.2 ~it~ Der acre and co~uni%y mixed use with density to be determined by d~velopm~t r~tations. This re~e~t l~es on u ~.0 acre parcel ~ronting approxima=~ly ~73 f~et on the east l~n~ of Ner~ Spring R~ RO~, approximately 780 feat north of Mu~nnally Road. Ta~ Map 75-6 (1) Par~l 12 an~ T~ Mmp 75-7 (1) Parcel ~ (Sheet 20). ~. Jacobsen pre~ent~d a ~ary of Ca~e 9~NO~ and ~tat~d the Pla~ing Co~is~ion reoo~ended denial. ~. Delmon~ ~wis, representing =he applicant~ ~tated the request was an extension of th~ Deer Run Subdivision project; that Deer Run has a yield of le~ ~an 2,0 dwelling units De~ acre an~ Triple Cro~ has a yield of less ~an 2.O; ~at public wate~ a~d ~ewe~ is available; thut ~ey hud dedicated u 91-288 4/24/91 35' widening strip on Spring Run Road; that the road access would be te ge throuqh Deer Run S~bdivision and not to Spring upper Swift Creek Plan. He ful~ther ~tated that ~r. Kidd, an adjacent property owner, has no publlo road frontage but an easement to get to Spring Run Road and that he felt they were not in opposition to the request. There was brief discussion relative to road access to sprinq RUb Read and Triple Crews Subdivision. ~rs. cindy Kidd stated she is an adjacent proper~y owner; tha~ she is not in opposition to the request; and that her concern i~ that her driveway goss through the planned co~u~nity but that the appllcant hud agreed to work out a ~utu~lly agree&bls understanding at the appropriate time. Mr. Mayes expressed concern ove~ the ingress/up, ess agreement. Mr. Lewis stated that t~e ingress/egress would be considered during the tentative subdivision process and that F~. and l~rs. Kidd's easement was recorded in the Clerk'~ Office. On notion of Mr. Kayex, seconded hy Mr. Appleqate, the Board approved Case 9!aNal24 subject to the following condition: A £1Sty (DO) foot ~uffer strip, exclusive of required yards a~d ea~e~e~t~ w~ich do not run generally perpendicular through the bu~er, s~a~l be established and maintained udjacent to North Spring Run Road (Route 70~). T~e area e~ ~is buZZer strip s~all either ~e left in its natural ~tate, if sufficient vegetation exi~t~ to · n accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Department, if 8~fficient vegetation does not exist to provide adequate ~creening. ~rior to approval of any final site Dian or recordation of any plat for lots adjacent to said buffer, the developer shall flag this buffer s~rip for inspection, and ~hall post a bond to cover the implementation of the landscape plan, if such plan is regui~sd. Only access(os} approved by the Transportation Department shall be permitted =hruu~h %his buffer strip. This buffer shall be noted on any final site plans, and any ~inal chuck ~nd recordation pla~s for lets adjacent to said buffer. (P&T) And further~ the Board accepted condition: A maximum of 30 lots shall development. For Lots 18 the following proffered be permitted with this thru 30 the applicant, subdivider, or assignee[s) shmll pay the following to the County of Chesterfield at the time of building application er within two years of ~ene~d plat r~cordatlon~ whichever ~hall occur first, for infrastructure i~prcve~ents within th~ ~ervice district for tho property: a. $2,000 per lot, i£ ~aid prior to July 1, 19~1; or b. The amount apRrsve~ by the Board of Supez~isors not to exceed $3~000 per lot, if paid between July 1991 and June 30, 1992, inclusive; or In Clover ~ill Magisterial District, SYD~ ~J~l"x ~O~"~RATIO~ requested rezcning from Residential (R-7) to Neighborhood 4/24/~m Office (O-l). The density 0£ eueh amendment will be oontmolled by zoning oondition~ or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designatso the property for residential uoe of 1,51 to 4.00 units per acre. This request lie~ on a 0.7~ acre parcel fronting approximately ~8~ feet on the oouth llne cf Knightsbridg6 Road, also frontin~ approximately ~6 feet on the west line of North Arch Road, and located in the southwest gnadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax ~ap ~-l Paroel 12 (Sheet ~)- Mr. Jacobsen presente~ a su~n~ary of Came 915N0131 and stated the Planning Commission recommended denial and staff had recommended approval. Mr. Glen Moore, reprementing the applicant, ~tated that the property would bu developed with a one story residential style building devoted to one or more of the uses permitted; that the request represents tt~e ~igAe~t and be~ use of the limitations; that the traffic concerns had been satisfied; that additional dedicated rig~-ef-way ~cr read~ had g~ven; that he feels the request ~ets a positive precedent for development for the balance of the lan~ south of the property by limiting the development density an~ th~ height limitation of the building; and rec/~e~ted that the Board give favorable consideration to the request per staff's recommendation. There wa~ brief discussion relative to a rec~nt request heard hy th~ Board fe~ thi9 Ms. Patricia Creed, adjoining property owner~ 6tared that the nelghborhoo~ does no~ want commercial zoning and submitted petition; that there is office space readily available in this ar~a; =hat %~ere would be additional traffic; and further of the neighborhood. Mr. Moore stated that he under~=eo~ the nelg~bor~oods' concern regarding the commer=ial use b~t that the property was located on a major arterial roadway; that the request is for transitional type of u~e; and that although there was office space available in the area~ he felt there was a reasonable Mr. Applegate stated that a mere in~ens~ request had and, therefore, felt the applicant had satisfied the ~oard's previous concerns, On motion of Mr. Applegut=, seconded by Mr, C~rin, t~e Board approved Case 91SR0131 and accepted the follewing proffered conditions: shall be l~mited to the followln~: (a) offices: Business, governmental, medical or professionul. Brokerages. (c) Ch~rche~ and/or ~unday Schools. (d) Nursery schools, child or adult day care centers, and kindergartens. (e) Travel agencies. (f) Medical olinic~, prey±dad tsar neither t~e bueineoo nor the building is designed to acco~dabe ambulance traffic. 91-290 4/24/91 (g) Optometrist ~sles and service, provided that~ Optometrist as an ameessory USe in conjunction with a medicul prucbice$ and (ii) Not more than fifteen percent (1~%) of the gross floor ares may be devoted to such sales and service. (h) Pharmacies, provided that: (1) The use shall De in a building containing other medical services; and (ii) The use shall not have a separate entrance to ~he outside. (i) Temporary construction trailers/buildings, provided that: (i) The temporary structure shall be devoted seclusively to con~tructio~ activitie~ On the premises; and (ii) The temporary structure shall be removed upon completion or abandonment of construction activltiss. {j) Veterinary offices, provided that: (i) NO board i~ ~ermitted; (ii) Nc subside run~ are permitted; and (iii) No overnight care is permitted. Hei*ht Limitation. NO building constructed on the property ~hall exs~d ode (1) story in height. V~hioul~r Access. ~y vehicular access drive bmtween the Property and Knight,bridge Road will be designed in a ~a~ to minimize vehiclms l~aving ~e Property from m~ing a left-hand turn onto Knight~b~idge o~e~ise required by any governmental Mody ~aving O~dication o~iqh~of-Wav. Prior to building p~mit, additional right-of-way ~hall be dedicated to and for the County of ~e~terfield along ~urth Arch Roa~ and Knight,bridge Road~ ~ follows: (a} Dedication of property to provide a ~iqht-of-way muasuring forty-live (45) feet from ~he c~n=erline of Nor~ ~ch Road to t~e p~ope~ty lin~ abutting ~orth Aroh ~oad. Dedica=ion of property ~o provid~ a m~urin~ thirty (30) feet measured from the centerline ~f Knightsbri~ga Roa~ to the Dr~er~y line abutting Knightsbridge Road. Completion of Roadway Improvements. Prior to obtaining a the ~operty, an additional lane of Wi~h O~rb and g~tter~ shall be installed along the Nor~ ~cb Road frontag~ of ~h~ Property, in accordance wi~ plan~ approved by governmental aut~orities havin~ 91-2~1 4/24/91 6. Prior to obtaining a building permit, one (1) of the following shall be accs~plished for fire prot~otion~ A. For building ~ermits obtained un or before June 30, 1991, the owner, developer or a~ignee(s) shall pay floor area. If the building permit is obtained after June 30, 1991, tho amount Of the ~equired payment shall b~ adju&ted upward or downward by the same percentage that the Marsho]l Swift Building Cost Index increased or deorease~ between Uune 50, 1991, and the date of payment. With the approval of the CountyTs Fire Chief, the owner, develQper or assignee(s) shall receive a credit toward the required payment for the cost of any fire suppression system not otherwise required by law which ie included as a ~art of ~he development. O~ B. The owner, developer or assisnee(m) shall provide a fire suppression system not otherwise required by law which the County's Fire Chief determines substantially r~duces the need for County fa¢ilitie~ otherwise necessary for fire protection. Vote: Unanimous X2. AD~O~ On motion of M~. Apglegate, adjourned at 4:45 p.m. (DST) High school a~ 7:00 p.m. Vote: Unanimous seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board until May 1, 1991 at Tho~ae Dole L-~rfe ~. Ramsay County Administrator 91-292 4/24/91