06-26-91 MinutesBOARD OF
Su~or~ in Attendant:
Mr. M. B. Sullivan, Chairman
)hr. G. H. Applegate
M~. Ha~ry G. Daniel
~, Lane B. Ramsay
County Administrator
Staff /n Attendance:
~r, N. ~. C&r~i~hael,
Co~miseioner of Revenue
E~t~nslen Agent
H~. J. Amy Davis,
~rs. Dori~ R. DeHart,
Aee~. Co. Aomin.,
Lagi=. ~vcm. end
Intergov~rn. Affa~
MS. ~oan ~. Dolezal,
Clerk to ~hc Beard
~Lr. ~ra4for~ $.
Deputy Co. A~in.,
~. William ~.
Dir., General
~. Thomas E.
Dir., Planning
Dr. Burr Lowe~ Dir.~
Ms. Mary LO~ Lyle,
Dir., Accounting
~r. Robert L. Masden,
Deputy CO. Admin.,
~. R. Jo~ McCracken,
Dir.,
~. Ri=hard M. M~Elf~h,
Dir., ~nv. Engineering
M~s. ~line MoGuire,
Cuun~y A~torney
D~r., News & Public
Info--etlon Systems Tach.
Mr. William D.
Chief, Dev. Review,
Planning
~. Richard F, Sale,
Deputy CO. Admin.~
Co,unity Development
Dir., Budget &
M~. M. D. sti~, Jr., Dir.,
Dir.,
Sheriff Clarence Williams~
~heriff~ Department
Hr. Frederick Willis,
Mr. ~. Louis Za~ett, Dir.,
I~tu~al Audit
~r. Sullivan called the regularly scheduled meeting to order
at 9:05 a.m. (DST).
~OCATION
Sullivan introduced Y~. Pauline Mitchell, Director of
and Publlc Information Services, who gave the invocation.
Mr. Ramsey led the ~ledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the
3. A~PROV;t~OFNIN~E$
on motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Beard
approved the minutes of June 12, 1991, as submitted.
Vo~e; Unanlmcu~
Mr. Daniel introduced 1T~, Larry Lurid, Coordinator of
counties (VA~). M~. Land stutsd ~at VACO representatives
were visiting co--ties in ~h~ S=a~e as ~ey felt it would
provide valuable infection relative %o the diversity Of each
Association's lagislmtiv~ pro,am, cited ~ignlficant changes
i~ the program and briefly reviewed ot~== VACO activities.
~. Daniel stated c~e~terfield's key l=9i~lative items had
been submitted to VACO and were presently at th~ cedi=tee
level. Mr. Ramsey noted that ~. Daniel i~ th~ Eecond Vice
President mud that ~. Currin is on the Boa=d of Director~ ~or
VACO a~d that both are v~ry much ~nvolved in county related
issues.
~. Masden introduced Dr. ~urt Love, Executive Director cf
Mental Meal~/~ntal Retardation/Substance Abuse; Dr. John
Morgan, Clinical Director of Mental Health; and ~. Patrlc~a
Cullen, Prevention Service~ Mana~er~ a~ stated the Department
~as Dee~ rec~ized ~tlonally by the ~rican Psycholoqical
~sociation Co,unity Psy=holo~ Division with the Henry V.
McNeill Award. He stated this Award r=cognizes co~ity
programs for fostering e~ceI~enc~, iDDovation and co~ity
participation in mental heal~ and, particularly, in
for all of the Departm~t'~ effo~t~ and outstanding se~ice %o
the County.
Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate and Mr. ~ullivan stated they had
attended the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission
(RRPDC) meeting in which the Commls~ion had voted to accept
the recommendations of the Water Resource~ Ta~k Force and that
they felt that thio was a pc~itlve ~tep towards creating an
interj~rl~dlct~onal water a~thority. Mr. sullivan further
~tated that in addition to attending RR~DC, he had attended
several meetings with representatives from the Counties of
Richmond, to discuss the establishment of a water authority
and that the issue is presently un,er very native discussion.
91-423 6/26/91
mr. Daniel and F~. Applegate stated they had als0 attended the
Capital Region Airport Commission meeting and that although
there was a slow down in the economy it was felt that the
Commiseion was strong and that they were monitoring the
changes in activity such as the decrease in passenger activity
Applegate further stated the C~m~iesion had announced that Air
wisconsin is going tc take the gate vaoated by Eastern
Airlines ~nd will increase Se~viee to Washington and Dulles by
Xour flights pst day. Mr. Daniel also stated that he had
attended a School Board reception honoring Mr. William Goodwyn
far his service to the school ~oard.
Committee for the Council on Information and Management.
Hr. Daniel requested the County Admlni~trator to obtain the
report from the City of Richmond regarding the discussion
pertaining to the establishment of a water authority and to
analyze ~ame An detail.
6. R~QU~STS TO ~T~ON~ ACTION, EM~ENCYADDITIONS OR
~G~ IN 'r~ O~ OF ~ATION
On not~cn of ~. Applegat~, ~econd~d by ~. ~rrin, ~e Board
deferred Item 7.C., Resolution Ra=ognizlng Ms. shirley Laynu
Upon ~er Retirement from IST until July 24, 199t; deleted Item
ll.F.3.d., Authorization to Exercise ~inent Domain ~or the
Ac~i~itlon of Perman~nt/Tempor~ and/or Con,traction
Eam~mnt~ for th~ Jamem RAver T~ Sewer Project Across
Property of Mr. and Mrs. ~o~s W. Strotmeyer, 4120 Old G~
Road East; a~ed Item ll,E,17., Adop~i0n of a Re~olutlon
Approving Richard A. Curdle as the Authorized Eignato~ for
County Checks; and added Item ll.J., to follow Item II.G.,
~xecutive Sos&ion ~ur~ant to Section ~.~-344 (a)($), Cod~ of
Virginia, 195~, a~ amended, to Di~au~ th~ Condition,
Relating to the E~ension 0f Route 288 to Route 60 and,
adopted the agenda, as amende~.
vote: Unanlm~u~
7. RF~OT~3TIONS AND S~CTA~ R~COGNITTONS
been ~resented to Hr. Gocdwyn et a School Beard reception in
hi~. honor. Mr. Currin apelogi~ed ~ha~ due to a prior
and stated that he and ~. Good~n had maintained a
hi~ ~ervio~ on the School Board.
Chenterfiel4 County ci~iz~n~ ~ince 19S7 a~ a m~b~r of
District; and
school Board in 1990-91 demonstrating his leadership abilitie~
an~ the high e~te~ in whi=h he i~ held by hi~ f~llow Do,rd
m~ber~; and
91-424 6/~6/91
~q{EREAS, Mr. Goodwyn and his daughters graduated from
Thoma~ Dale High School and he ha~ followed in the feotsteps
of his father by serving on the school Board; and
W~I~K~AS, Mr. Goodw~n has served diligently and sincerely~
helping to quide the Chesterfield County Public School System
through £our years cf ~henomenal growth by adding a calm and
~teady influence to the decision-making process which would
affect the gual~=y of education of all County StUdent~.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLUED, that the Chesterfield
County ~oard ef Supervisors wishes =o t~an~ ~Lr. William ~.
Gocdwyn, Jr. for sharing his knowledge and skills with his
fellow citizens as a member of ~e Chesterfield County School
follows be prs~enbe~ to Mr. Gcodwyn:
~. Ha~6r stated that M~. MoG~ire was retiring from her
position as Treasurer; ~hat she ha~ ~en ~is~inguished
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was
~ER~S, Mrs. Mary ~line ~cGuire will retire ~ro~
Treasurer's Office, ~sterfi~ld Cou~tyt o~ J~ly 1, 199~; and
~ER~S, ~ring ~s. HoGuire's fo~y-thres yea~ of
~ervice to th~ ~iti=en~ of ~es~erfield Co~ty, ~hu has
role model in providing uncompromising co,toner service of the
highest degree; and
~S, From Mrs. McGulre's initial emplo~ent by
Treasurer William Dance, her emplo~ent with Treasurer
Hoore, and t~oughout h~ o~ tenure as Treasurer of
Chesterfield County, she h=~ been u catalyst for
~S, ~s. ~cGuire has taken the responsibility
duty, from the office envlro~ent into evm~ facet
9ermonml llfe. This was exenplifie~ by her 1976 Co~ty
~ployee of the Year Award, by her $ervi=e as Dust President
Treasurer of th~ Year, and by h~r e~en~ive involvemmnt
many oo~uni=y service orqanizmtion~; and
~ER~S~ M~s. MoG~i~e's s~rvice, professionalism, and the
a measure by which constitutional o~f~cers ever~here should
and lon~im~ ~mployee~ ~. McSuire will certainly b~ missed
in the rank~ of ~e County's work force. ~ut it is with grea~
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors p~blicly r~co~plize~ MT~. Mary
citizens of Chesterfield Country their appreciation for her
presentation of a plaqu~ inscribed a~ follo~:
~RESE~TED T0~UkRYAB~IN~ ~CCUIR~
IN RECOGNITION OF OVER FORTY-T~EE Y~S OF SERVICE
TO TEE PEOPL~ OF CHEST~I~LD CO~Y AS D~P~Y
~I~F DEP~Y TR~S~R, ~ T~M~ER FROM
~CH 1, 1948 T~OUGH ~ 30, 1991
J~E 26, 1991
Vote: Unanimous
~r. Sullivan presented th~ executed re~olution to
MuGuire, accompanied by me,ers of her family, and thanked her
~ood fortune, and ~ lu=k ~n her
Mrs. Mc~uire a~ressed her appr~oia=i0n to her family,
staff, to ~e Board, to the County A~ini~tration and to the
ta~ayers for ~eir support ~d cooperation over the years.
7.D. RECOGNIZXNC D~... P~'~'DfO!4~Z~ D. B~D~O~C ~DON ~I~ ~ETII%~T
FRO~ T~UTILITIES DEPAR~T
thirty-two year~ of d~dlcated ~ervlce to ~ Co~ty an~ that
the Utilities Department wo~ld mass his dedication and
knowledge.
~S, ~. Ra~ond D. Bird~ong will retire from the
util~tle~ Department, Chesterfield cowry, o~ July 1, 1991;
~AS~ ~, Birdsong ~a~ p~ovided t~irty-two years of
~ality service to ~e citi~en~ of ~e~erfield co~y; and
~AS, ~. Birdsong was ~ploye~ with Chesterfield
Co~ty i~ Ap=il of 1959 a~ a Draftsman and currently is un
Engineering Supervisor of the Support Section, which maintains
the oent~al file area for all project files as well as the
mapDing of ~e 2,4~7 miles of water and sewer facilities; and
~ER~S, Mr. Birdsong helped to implement an
oom~u%erized mechanioal ~awing~ which will soon be available
tS~o~gh a ~etwork for viewing by the Department as well as
R~lic; ~d
f=cilities to the City of Ri~ond as result of ~e January,
197~ annexati0n~ and
was invaluable in giving a~slmtance to ~intaining aoc~ptabl~
p~plng facilities; and
~ER~S, ~esterfimld County and ~e Board of Supervisors
will mi~ Mr. Birdsong's diligent service.
~1-426 6/26/B1
~QW, THEREFORE BE IT RESDLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Raymond D.
Bird~ong and extend~ on b~half of its mea~ber~ and the citizens
Of Chesterfield couaty their appreciation for his service to
the County.
· /~D, BE IT FURTHER ~ESOLVED, that a copy of this
resolution be presented to Hr. Bird~eng and that this
resolution be permanently ~eeorded umong the papere of this
Board e£ Supervisors of chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
~r. sullivan presented the executed resolution to Mr.
Bird~ong, accompanied by members of his family, thanked him
for him ded~cate~ mer~io~ to the county and wished him well in
bis retirement.
s, HEAR1NG$ OF ~ITIZENS OH BNScn~IU~_4~)~Aa-r~2S OR ~
Ther~ were no hearlnq~ ~ched~led for citizen~ on unscheduled
matters or claim~.
9. DEF~
P~BLIC ~G TO CDNSI~ER CONVEYANCE OF A LFt~]~OT~
I~T~ST ~ ~ ~T ~T~N ~ OR P~C~ OF ~
~A~G 2.691 ~0~ ~0~ OR ~
~T~ ~A~ ~ F~STATION ~2
~r. ~ica~ ~ated ~is date =nd time had been advertised for a
p~lic hearing to =on~id~r ~$ conveyance of a
containing 2,691 s~are feet, mere or less, to~mth~r with
~a~ement of ingress and e~ess, looated tn Clover Hill
Magisterial District, which parcel is a~jaoent to ~ire
f2. Ha ~tated that the lease would provide for the access to
the site as well as a tweaty year lea~e ~or Ric~ond Cellular
to build and use the tower facility and that in ~xcha~q~ for
the lease, Ric~on4 cellular has agreed to allow the County to
u~ the tower as its o~ antenna and have also agreed
remove an exlstln~ tower that is in need of maintenance. He
further stated %hat Ri~ond Cellular ha~ n~w suggested
have the agreement r~structured to provide for a 5~00 per
annual
Mr. Edward Willey, Jr., representing Richmond Cellular
Telephone Company, req~este4 ~= ~ourd to give ~avorable
~onsiderat~on to the re,est ~der the te~s outlined in the
Kr. ~rrin returned tu the meetln~.
Th==~ b~ing no on~ else %o u4~ress this matter, the public
O~ ~otio~ of ~. Applegate, s~monded by ~. ~yes, th~ Board
au~orized the County AdminisZrat~r to execute an agreement,
as amendedf be%ween the County ~nd Richmond Cellular Telephone
Company~ uonveylng a leasehold interest in all that certain
tra~ or parcel o~ land ~ontalnlng 2,691 squar~ f~, mor~ or
less, toge~e~ With a~ easement of ingr~s~ and ~gre~, located
in Clov~r Hill Magi~ttrial District, which parcel is located
adjacent to Manchester Fire Station No. ~ on Hull Street
91-427 6/26/91
Road. (It is noted a copy of the Lease Agreement is filed
Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate~ Mr. Da~iet and Mr. Mayas.
Abstention: Mr. Currin as h6 was not present to hear all of
the discussion.
~.B. AMEND SECTIONS 20-3~ AN]) 20-68 OFT HE COD1T~Y
Mr. Sale stated the Board held a work session on June 12w 1991
regarding the adjumtment in water and sewer connection f~em;
had held a publio hearing on April 3, 199L; and had deferred
action at the April 10 and April 24~ 1991 meetings to this
date and time. He s=atsd that the ordinances woul~ increase
the water connection fee and d=crea~= the s=wur connection fee
which would result in a no n~t increase in the combined
On motion of Mr. C~r~in, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AliENS TBE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF C~ESTEBFTELD,
1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 2~-34
AND ~O-6B RELATING TO CHARGES FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE
BE IT ORDAINED, Dy t~e Board of supervisor~ of Chesterfield
Cuunty:
(~1 Chapter ~ of th~ Code of the County of Chesterfield,
1978, a~ amended~ i~ amended by amending and reenaotinq the
following sections:
ARTICLE II Water
20-34 W~e~CDJ~n~C~jOn Fa~e. ~EJ~f~sctive J~lv 1. 1991.
The connection fee for water in the County shall he the
capital cost recovery charge plus the meter installation
charge based on the meter size and type of installation
in accordance with the following schedules.
(1) The cap~tal Recovery chargee shall be as follows:
Meter Number capital Cost
size of
C~stemer Class (Inches) Per unit Charge
Dwelllng, single
Family, Including
To%~/houses 5/E 1.00 $ 2,592
Dwelling, TWO (*)
Family ~/8 1.00 ~,59~
Indivldual Trailers or
p~ Traile~ unit in a
Park (**) 0.85 ~,203
Ail Other Customer Classes:
1.00 2,592
91-428 6/2~/91
1--Z/2 5.00 12r960
3 16.00 41~472
4 25.00 64,$00
6 50.00 I29,500
8 80.00 207,360
12 155.00 40%,?60
Above 12 inches - to be negotiated at the time of
application based upon ERU~$.
Per ~nit for a dwelling with a 5/8-inch meter.
Dwellings served by larger size meters pay in
uccordance with the schedule show~ for All Other
~s~s~er Classes. See Chapter 21 for definition.
Per unit, the per unit charge is ~a~ed on .85 at the
5/8" meter charge. Re~ Chapter 21 for ~efinition.
The meter installation charges shall be as follows:
a. Service tines {without meter)
5/8" $ 465
1" 610
1-1/2" 900
2" 1000
b. Meters Only (wit~sut service line)
5/8" $
1" 90.00
1-1/2" 200.00
2"
(3)
FOr all installations not specifically oove~ed in
(2) ubove, the charge shall be the co~t of the
installation Dlus 25%.
ARTICLE III Wastewate~
Sec. 20-68 Wastewatsr connection cha~. {Effective July
The conneotlon fee for wastewatmr in the county =hall be
as follows:
(x)
Existing residences already having a ~eptlc tank
system or a new residence ~onn~ing to a sewer
installed by the developer of the 10~, three
thousand six h~ndred dollars
provided, however that the connection fez rate set
forth in Emotion 20-68(2) mhall apply to e~i~ting
residences that obtain wagt~wa=er ~ervice through
the formation of sewer ammemmm~nt or development
{~)
For all other classes, the connection fee shall be
the capital cost Recovery Charge ba~ed on the water
meter size as lists4 below.
Customer Class
Nu~r capital cost
Meter of ~U*~ Reco¥~l~y
(Inches) P~r Unit Charge
91-429 6/26/91
Dwelling, Single
Family, Including
Townhouses [*) 5/8"
Dwelling, Two
~amily (*) 5/8"
Dwelling, M~lltiple
Family
Individual Trailers
in e Perk (**)
All Other Customer classes:
1.00 $ 1,465
1,00 1/465
0.~5 1,245
0.05 1,245
5/8" 1.00 1,465
! 2.50
1~1/2 5,00 7~325
2 8.00 11,720
9 16.0~ 23,440
4 25.00
8 SO.OQ 117,200
10 115,00
12 155.O0
AbOVe 12 inches - to Ds nego=ia=ed at the time of
application ba~ed on projected ERU's.
(*) Per unit for a dwelling with a 5/8-inch meter.
Dwelling lines served Dy larger size meters pay in
accordance with the ~chedule shov;n for All Other
Customer Classes. see Chapter 21 for definition.
(**) Pe~ unit, the peM unit oha~ge is based on .85 of the
5/8" meter charge, see Chapter 21 for definition.
(3) Pot any dwelling or lot where wastewater service is
available but nc lateral has been constructed to
serve %he proper~y, ~he connection ~e~ will be
red,ced by $S00.00 from the fee Ghown in (a) above.
The responsibility to con~truc~ a lateral will b~
that of ~he applicant.
or property oth~r then residential as li~ted in item
(a) ~hall ~e the responsibility of the u~er.
Vote: Unanimou~
On motion of Mr. Apple~ate, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board
reappolntment at this time of Colonel Joseph J. Holicky,
representing e!over Hill District, to serve on the Camp Baker
On motion of Mr. ADplegata, ~edonded by Mr. ~urrin, the Hoa~d
reappolnt~d colonel Joseph J. Holicky to serve on ~he Camp
w~ose term is effective immediately and will expire April 7,
Vote: Unanimeu~
On motion of M~. Mayer, ~a~ond~d by ~. C~rin, %he Board
suspen~e~ its rules to allow slmultaneous nomina~ion/
raappointment a~ ~is ti~e of ~, William F. Se~our,
representing Midlo~ian District, an~ ~. C. ~r=is D~e,
Development Authority.
Vd=e: ~animous
On mo~iun of ~. Mayms, seconded by MT. Sullivan, the Board
reappointed Mr. will'am F. Se~our, r~pr~=ntlng Hidlothlan
District, and Mr. C. ~rti~ ~e~ re~re~e~ting Matoacu
Distri=t, to ~rve ~n th~ Indu~trlal Dmvelopm~ Authority,
w~o~e te~ms a~e effeotive July 1, 1991 and will ~ire June
Vote: Unanimou~
9.C-3- (!E~4]J~__~INIA WA~TENANA~M~T~LAN-- C~]~I~E~
ADVISORY ~
On motion of ~. Coffin, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ th~ Board
r~appuinted Ms. Judy Du~, representing the County at-large,
~o s~ on ~e Central virginia Waste Management Plan -
Citizen A~viso~ Co~ittee, whose te~ i~ effective July 1,
199I an~ will e~ire J~e 30, 1992,
Vd=e: ~animou~
~0.
~e chesaDeuke Bay ordinance, the Board had
o~dinance, on an emergency ba~i~, un 3un~ I~, 1991
control plans. He stated this ordinance, in order to r~aln
in effect, should bs readopted at th~ tine.
There was no one present to address this ordinance.
On ~OtiO~ of Mr. C~ri~, S~con4ed by ~. Applegate, ~e Board
adopted the following ordinance:
~ O~IN~C~ T0 ~ THE CODE OF THE CO~T~O~
Chesterfield
(1) ~ Section 7.2-9 of Chapter 7.2 of th~ Cod~ of the
County of ~e~terfield~ ~978, a~ amended, is amended and
A pro,am a~ini~ation fee of eight
dollars ($~00.00) shall b~ paid to the county at ~e time of
~o ~l~n ~ha11 be accepted for review unless auuompunled by
~is fee.
91-431 6/26/91
(2] This ordinance shall be effective through June 30,
1991, in¢luslva.
Vote: Unanimous
10.B. TO OONSID~ .£a~ CONWEYANCE OF TWenTY YEAR ~EA~E~O~
O~ONS BY O~ ~ION ~ ~. INC.
Mr. Mica~ stated ~is dat~ and tim~ had ~e~ adv~i~d fo~
public bearing to consider awarding a contract for fixed based
operation se~ice~ at the County Ai~ort and that the Board
ha~, in response to a Nove~r, 1990 consultant's report,
directed staff to solicit proposals in order %o provide
~he pr~vatlzat~on ~f m~ny of the me.ices at the Ai~o~, He
stated staff had received five proposals and narrowed it
and the service~ ~ontract to Dominion Aviation S~vices~ Inc.
~, Cu~in disolomed to ~e Board ~at ~i~ oomDany i~ in ~e
proce=m o~ =elling Co~onweal~ Air m~er~hip in ~e River~
Bund Country Club, t~t although he has financial interest
Rivers Bend, he has no fin~oial interest in any of
ccmpunies bein~ considered and had be~n udviued by the CO~ty
Attorney that it was not a conflict of interest.
~. ~ee ~es, oo~sel for ~he ches%erfie!~ ~ilots
Association, Inc., stated the Association is the
non-oo~eroial us~r of services a~ %n~ Ai~or~, in~r~u~e~ ~.
Janice Midaleto~, President of the A~ociation, and ~tated
they would like ~o ~resent the Board with a resolution passed
by th~ A~ouiation relating t~ th~
M~. Janice Middleton, President of ~e Chesterfield Pilot~
Association, In=., stated ~a% the Associ~tiom, at its regular
meeting, adopted a resolution (which sh~ pr=~ent~d) supporting
the privatization of fixed based operations at the Airpo~ and
felt that the implmmenta~iun of this 9roposaI would ~st meet
~e needs of ~e users of ~e facility and ~e citizens of the
Co~y.
Mr. Pail Evans, ~air~n of %~ Ai~or= A~visory Board, ~a=~
~=y felt County ~taff had done an excellent job in regards to
~e Amsociation's resolution.
Mr. Roger Burns stated he i~ a pilot and own~ an aircraft at
~ A~rDor=; that he is a m~ber of the Airport Adviso~
Board; that he is not associated with or has any business
relationship with Old Dominion Air ~arter or any subsldla~
companies; ~at he i~ f~iliar with th~ pro~e~ followed and
had reviewed ~e process luadln~ to staff's r=co~endatlon;
thut ~e Airport Advisory Bo~d supported the consultant's
Director of Aviation for the Ai~ort was o~e X~ whX~ i~
~e~s=oo~ wo~t~ b~ wi~h F~o s~rviu~ an~ not as it currently
exists; that h~ was on the Selection Co~ittee and it was
thulr un~imous deck.ion :o award th~ FB0 Agreement to Old
Dominion Air Charter who would then operate a~ Dominion
Aviation Servlc~, Inc.
~. D~ck Ro~e stated h~ operates a business locateO
Chesterfield County; ~at he also operates several aircrafts;
that he felt ~at 01d Dominion Air ~arter would best serve
the needs of the County; and re~ested ~he Board to give
favor~le con~idera%ion ~o the request.
91-432 6/26/91
Fr. Mike Michaels, founder and President Of 01d Dominion Air
Charter, stated he ha~ b~en in the general aviation business
for over fourteen years; that he has managed old Dominion Air
Charter in the Richmond area for the past 7 1/2 years with
of those year~ being at~ the Chesterfield county Airport; that
currently the firm menages and operates five aircraft and one
helicepter at the Airport; that he has in the past been e
recipient of FBO servlce~ a~ well as giving the service; that
different FBO'= are suited for different airports and that he
i~ already situated at the Airport and i~ familiar i=~ that
Old Dominion Air Charter will operate as Dominion Aviation
~ervlce=, Inc. at th~ Airpe%-t; and r~q~est~d the ~oard to give
favorable consideration to the proposal and recommendation.
aircraft currently based at Richmond International Airport;
re¢cmmendatlen, he is considering basing his aircraft at
Airport contract to Dominion Aviation Services, Inc. based on
Aviation Services, Inc. in tbs Tri-Cities area.
~r. Vivian ~il=en ~t~ted he i~ an aircraft
representative for a me3or FBO Organization with office~/
facility located in Norfolk; that he has known ~r. ~iuhaels
for approximately eight years and found him to be a nan cf
charter, Inc., stated that he ~new t~ere were several people
pre~ent who were going to speak against the proposal and
Sullivan indicated he could not honor the request,
Chesterfield, Ins., which is the flight school ~ide to
fixed be=ed operation of the Airport; that they graduate the
approximately $~0,000 to $1~0,000 fu~l from the County; that
they currently employ nine people which ma~es them the largest
private employer at the Airport; that they support the
privatlzatlon of the Airport and Old Dominion Air Charter,
In¢. a~ the FPO; and requested the Board to defer =etlon of
contract and would like to have an opportunity to review
M~. S. B. Thomas stated he is a life-long resident of the
County; T-hat he is in support o£ turning the Airpor= over to
privut~ enterprise; and that he is in support of Mr.
Fre~srlok, Marylan~ an~ is also representing Air Chest~fleld,
employer at the Airport, the largest flight school in Central
Virginia and one of the largest consumers of aviation fuel at
the Airport; that the county Air~ort has a good reputation
with pilots as one of the finest general aviation sirport~ in
the mid-Atlantic region~ of the United States~ that Air
Chesterfield, Inc. does nat oppose the ~olisy decision of the
there concern was that they did not have sufficient time to
result, after reviewing the Agreement~ he did not have
sufficient time to confer with Air Chesterfield, inc. and,
therefore, requested the Board to defer action of the request
in order for them to review the agreement to determine hew Air
Chesterfield, Ina. would Be
Mr. sa~ Johnson stated that he has,arm ~hrss a~rplanes at the
Airport; that he knows Mr. Michaels personally and
prOfeSsionally; that he i~ considering bringing to the Airport
a much larger plane that is not ¢~trrently hangared there and
that he felt M~. Michaels would be an attribute to the County.
Mr. Edward Willey~ Jr. stated he was in favor of privatization
advertised appropriately; that the dec,meats pertaining to the
lease were not available for review when rec!uested; that ho is
selected in the finals who did not receive the Selection
the criteria list provided to tke applicants only weighted six
out eight Of the facto~c; that because of thic~ one item of
pre£erenoe received three times ~ts weighted factor and that
there was nething noted in the bid to indicate that was the
been =en=acte~ by the s~lection Committee; that due to these
process again.
There being ne one else to address this matter, th~ public
~esring was closed.
followed and that he felt it had been followed properly; that
review and analy~i~ for profe~=ional Requests for Proposals;
that this process was the came process that has been used in
Doninion Aviation Services, Inc.; that the lease would be
cemtingsnt upon approval by the FAA and that was the reason
that %he ~ra~t agreement had not been available upon
operator subject to for~ by the County Administrator and the
Mr. Daniel inquired as to the concerns addressed by Mr,
Hundley in that Air Chesterfield, In¢, ~ould be impacted by
the agreement and that they have not had sufficient time to
review it. ~L~. Micas stated that the Board could defer this
matter for further consideration. ~r. Daniel inquired if the
Procurement Act had been properly £ollewe~ Mr+ Mica~ ~tated
PrQcurem~nt Act being properly followed? whether Bear4 members
~heuld take pa~t in the awarding of contracts ia general;
Dominion Aviation Services, I~c. being a responsible
operator; and the membership of the Selection Committee.
over to private enterprise and ceul~ support the award of the
contract to Dominion Aviation Services, Inc. but that he also
~ir. A~legat~ stated that ever =he years he has voted on in
s~aff had followed the Bnard'm direction as it related to the
ordinance had been properly ~ollowed; that the people epoa~ing
91-434
the privatization of thc Airport but also the recommended best
Request for Proposal; that the process u~e~ was the same
recommendation by the Csunty Administrator in its entirety.
Mr. Currln stated that he had ooncern reqard!ng t/%e hiring of
the Director for the Airport and the lack of Board involvement
due to previous polisies and that he felt that the present
Board =hould or-ate their own polisiee an~ no% necessarily go
by policies set by previous Boards and that h~ would like the
Boar~ to addres~ this iseue in general. He further stated
that he supported privatization of th~ Airport but that due to
the issues presented today, he did not feel ha could vote on
7~nere was brief discussion regardlng the Charter with
reference to the seleotion and hiring prooe~ for the County.
Mr. Sullivan stated ha strongly favored privati~atisn of the
Airport; that he supports Dominion Aviation Services, In=. ss
the recommended FBO but that he had concern~ regarding the
selection prooess end the materials being available for public
review and, therefore, felt the p~ece~ ~ho~ld be redone.
Mr. Daniel crated that he felt that the process h~d been
appropriately £o~l~wed and r_hat t~ero were astions readily
available for review for thos~ who did not feel the
Procurement Ac~ had not been £ollOWed.
Mr. Hayes stated that he ha~ ns~ been contested by any of the
FBO applioants; thut he felt that staff had done their Job
appropriately hu~ that there were unanswered quant±one that
should be addressed and, therefore, ~euld not support the
request at t-his time. Mr. Currin stated that he at~o f~lt
that staff had done a good job.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by F~. Daniel, =he Board
awarde~ the fixed base operator services agreement and leases
at the Chesterfield County Air!0ort to Dominion Aviation
servioas, Ins. subjeot to approval by the County Attorney and
th~ Fk~,
Ayes: Mr. Applegate and ~. Denial.
Nnye: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Curri~ and Mr. Mayas.
Discussion, comments, and questions en~ued relative ~o Board
direction regarding the process to be used; whet~er the
seleotion Co~itte¢ should remain tbs sa~e~ whether or not a
Boar~ member should partioi~ate in the discussions of the
Selection Co~Lmittee; whether the recommendation made by the
seleotion Committee hud been improper and if the p~oees~ was
repeated, whether the result would b~ ~i£ferent; and the time
On motion of Mr. Sullivan~ ~eeonded by Mr. Applegate, the
Boars directed the County A~mlni~trato= ~o readverti~e
~onslderation of the award of an agreement and leas~ for fixed
ba~e operator ~vioe~ at t_he Chesterfield County Airport for
a public hearing on July 24, 199I at 9:00 a.m.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel requested that there be no dlscussio~ regardin~ the
process being followed properly at the ne~t hearing.
It was generally agreed to rsee~ for two minutes.
91-435 6/~6/9I
10.C.._._'~:O '{~-~IDJ~.~']'_~ ~
APPRO~E_~_Sl2_300 I'N ~N ~ ~N~E ~ ~L
~. Myron Sale, A~ni~ra~or ~f ~e Finance Depar~n~ ~o~
~chool A~ini~ration, ~t~%ed %he School ~ard wa~
tha~ their budget be in~reased by $1,812,300 due to
signifioant increases in State school uid funds us u result Of
th~ 1991 General Ams~ly action in ~he amount os $1.3 million
and the additional $500~000 in revenue from State and federal
grant money.
Mr- Ra~ey ~tated that thi~ r~est would bring the
budgut adopted by t~e SO~OOl Board and t~at this date and
~a~ been a~v~r%i~ed Sot a public hearing.
There was no on~ pre~nt to address thie issue.
on motion o~ ~. Daniel, ~con~a~ by ~r. AD, legate, the Board
appropriated additioRat f~d~ for ~d~cation, in the amount of
$1,812,300, and amended
budget as follows:
Local
State
Federal
General Fund
General Fund, UnapDropriated
Total School Budget
E~penditures:
Instruction
Ac%mlnistration, Attendance
and Health
Pupil Transportation
.operations and Maintenance
Debt service
Food Service
Total Appropria%ions
Instruction, Unappropriated
Total School Budget
Vote: Unanimous
$9,177,800
7~.$~6,850
5,481~150
98.813.000
5~000~000
S21~,755.800
$143,387,150
~t~3g~00
~&~6,000
22t337~400
~2,~4,~00
8,~9~.250
211~755~800
5,000.000
S216.755.800
/~r. H~er ~tat~d ~hat ~. May~ had requested that
impl~entation of the $2 landfill cha~m be addressed at
me,ting.
me,ting of the Board to provide an oppo~unity for citizens to
if ~e f~a would also be defe~ed. ~. Rammmy stated that ~m
$2 landfill cha~ge wa~ ~dopt=~ in ~ Dodger and would
im~l~ented on ~ly 1, 1991 unless ~e Board took ao~i0n
%oday~ therefore, deferral of the item would not delay
implicate=ion.
6/2~/91
Mr. Mayas sSated that citizens in him DiEtrict ware totally
eppe~ed to the $~ fee and requested that the Board con~ider
deleting the $2 landfill charge fro~ the adapted Budget.
Mr. Daniel stated that he, teed had received numerous
complaints from the citizens in hie District regarding the $2
landfill charge and that d~e to all the other items in the
Budget, he had overlooked this item and that he felt if the $2
fee was not implemented, other items would have to be cut from
the ~udget and/or the Budge~ amended.
Discussion, Oo~e~s, and questions ensued relative to it~ns
adopted in last year'~ Budget; items deallng with recycling
activities; the number of landfill attendants end their
Mr. Daniel inquired if there were another way to identify
reeyolingz as a separate i~sue, and then identify a funding
mechanism, other than the $~ land£ill charge, to administer
t~e recycling activities. ~r. Ramsay stated that du~ to the
financial projections of the economy, there was no other
anticipated revenue ~er~tces available, at this point in ~ime
and that the only source available would be tc possibly
readdress items from the Budget.
fee; the munner in which ether lo¢alities were addressing
~%eir recycling activities; the process used at the landfills
for bringing trash and recyclable~ te the l~ndfi11; and
whether T2~e fee applied te citizens bringing only recyclable
item~ to th~ landfillS.
Kr. May=~ stated that he felt citizens should not bn charged a
paying for the county's recycling ~regram and that the $~
and, therefore, requested the Bear~ to rescind the $2 landfill
pclisy.
K~, C~rin stated tha~ he hsd alee received numerou~ inquiries
from constituents in hi~ District regarding the $2 landfill
=harge but he f~lt that 5he ac~ui~itlom and development of the
landfill was paid for by real estate taxes and that the
operation of the landfill should be self-supporting and since
a basic public health a~d sa£~ty requlremen~ and should be
provided for through taxes and that the $2 landfill charge had
~omehow it was added back into the Budget.
Hr. Applegate inquired as tn item~ that woul~ not be funded if
the $~ landfill charge were not implemented; if there were any
if the $2 1andf±11 charge were rescind=d; and stated he ~elt
~hould renaln a~ adopted,
Nr. Sullivan stated that the use of the landfill has been a
free ~ervlea and that he felt the citizens who were paying for
private trash service were in essence subsidizing the cn~t
g~nerated to ~$e the landfill; that ~eoyeling Costs money and
other projects already approved, such as th~ Recycling
91-437 6/26/91
Program, and that since the Board voted for the Budget, he
felt it should remain as i~.
Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relative to the
cost of private trash pickup versus the landfill charge. Mr.
Ramsay noted that a sticker could be purchased in order to
have unl~ited use of the landfill for one year at a coot of
M~. Mayas stated that he felt a policy should be established
to address trash removal and requested that the $2 landfill
charge be rescinded an~ made a motion £or the Board to rescind
the $2 landfill ch~ge a~d that ~taff be directed to bring
back to the ~oard a reQommended County-wide 9olicy regarding
the safe disposal of solid waste. For lack of a second, the
motion failed.
Mr. Daniel offered a substitute motion, seeonded byMr. Mayas,
to rescind the $2 landfill charge-
Ayes: F~r. Daniel and F~r. Kayos.
Nays: MT, $~llivan~ Mr. Curtis and Mr. Ap~legate.
Mr. Currin excuse~ himself from the meeting.
ll.B....~N.S~D3~R~%~ON OF APPROVALOF "NON-S~OOL" OR
"NON-EDUCATIONal# USES OF C~Z~STE~FI~D CODNT~ R~OO~
Mr. Hines stated the ~oard CZ Supervisors and ~he school ~oard
last year had approved a policy in which non-school ~ses of
C0u~ty school facilities should net inappropriately compete
with free enterprise and that all non-school uses or
categories of non-school uses must be a~provcd i~ advance by
both the School Board and the Board of ~up~rvi~or~ each year.
He briefly reviewed t~s School Board'~ recommendation,
Mr. Curtis returned to the meeting.
Mr. Daniel and Y~. Curtis Acquired if representatives from the
Chesterfield Day Care Association and the YMCA were in
agreement. Mr. Mayas inquired if the Board of
Superviser~/sohool Board Liaison committee had made a
recommendation on the i~S~. Mr. Da~ial orated that the
Liaison Committee addressed the issue and that it wa~ his
understanding that all parties were in agreement.
0~ motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the following llst of acceptable non-educational uses
for schools:
Non-School Use Catsgorles for Use/Rental of Facilities
A. Parks and Recreation:
- departmunt sponsored recreation activities
- co-sponsored recreation activities
- latch-key programs
C. ~omeowner ~ssociation Meetings and Activities
D- Civi~ Club Meetings and A~tivities
- constituent meetings
- peptic hearings
- plannin~ workahopm
91-438. 6/25/91
- award and recognition actiwities
- religious servlcee
- recreation
G. Governmental Agencies:
Community er S~rvice clubs:
- meetings
- recreation activities
- ta~o~-~ey programs
- awards and recognition of e~ployses
J. Youth Athletic Associations:
- meetings
- awards and recogniUion activities
K. Political Asti¥iti=s (require local sponsor)
StatistiCS ~elating to use cf the "latch-key" progr~
the ~ for ~991-9~ is limited to ~e follow~ng:
In accordance with the agreame~t between th~ ~CA and
Chesterfield Child Care As~ooiat~on~ child ca~e ~rogram~ will
~ ~liminat~d at Curtis, Harrowgut~ and salem ~urch
El~ntary Schools for the lg91-9~ ~chool year and beyond;
that th~ yM~ ha~ re¢~ive~ apDroval to continue c~ild
Gordon, Ettrick an~ Matoaca ~lementary Schools for th~ 1991-9]
~ohool yea~; ~hat the p~o~u~ ut Falling Cre~ and ~ordon
will be eliminated at the ~d of the ~991-92 ~chool year;
mid41e school progr~ at Ch~star ~iddle school.
Ayes: ~. sol!ivan, ~. Currin, ~. Appl~gate and Mr. Daniel.
Abstention: Mr. Mayer.
ll.C. A~POINT~ENT~
11.~.~. ~A~D OF ~*PP~ FOR ~GINIA U~/FOI~ STATEWIDE
On motion of Mr. Applegate~ seconded by Mr. May~, the Board
nominated foT reappointment Mr. J. Van Bowen, Jr. and Mr.
David L. Cartt both representing the County a~-large, te the
Board of Appesl~ for V~rginia Unifor~ Statewide B~ilding Code,
whose formal ap~olntments will be made at the July 24, I991
meeting.
Vote: Unanlmou~
11.C.2. ~%NSPOR~ATI~ON SAFA~"f COMMISSION
On motion of Mr. Mayes~ seconded by Mr. Danlel~ the Board
suspended its rules to allow simultaneous nomination/
apDointment at this tine of Mr. Samuel O. Smith, representing
%h~ County at-larg~, to ~orv~ on th~ Transportation Sa£~y
commission.
Vote; Unanimous
912439
On motion of 5rT. Mayem, m~conded By Mr. Applegate, the Board
appointed Mr. Samuel O. Smith, representing the County
at-la.ge, to serve on the ~ranspertation safety Commission,
WhOSe ter~ is effective immedlatsly and will be at t. ha
pleasure of the Board.
On motion of F~. Applegate, ~econdsd by Mr. Mayes~ the Board
approved obtaining cost e~timate~ for the installation of
street lights at the inturs¢ction of Partridge Lane and
$oottingham Drive, in Clover Hill District, and at the
intersection of Chesterfield Meadowm Dr~ve and Old Wrexh~m
Reed and ~he Entrance to Tomuhawk Ruri%an Club, 4101 Bailey
Bridge Road, in Matoaca District.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.O.~. ROuT~ ~$~NORTHDESICNp~BI~TCHEARIN~STAT~
Hr. Sale ~=a=e~ ~a~ ~e virginia Depar~en~ ~ Tran~or=a~i0n
(~} would be holding a public hearing regarding ~e design
of ~xt~nding Route 288 no~ and that staff had prepared a
fur~e~ ~tated that following ~e public hearing and based on
~roposals submitted by others, staff would 90~$ibly ~u~it
additional co~ents.
After brief disCuusion, O~ ~otio~ Of ~. Daniel, seconded by
~. ~yem, the Board deferred the Rou~e 288 North De~i~n
Public H=uring star--ant until th~ end of the ugunda.
Vot~: Unanimous
After brief discussion, on motion of ~r. kpplegate, ~econded
by Mr. Daniel, the Board waived the requirements for filin~
zoning disclosure a££idavit$ for zoning application 0£ the
Chesterfield Airport Industrial Park, Zoning Case 91SNOreS, in
order to further the Co~ty'$ economic development program.
11.B.2. C~%PITitLl~ION TAXICAB ADVISORYB~A~DPJ~OL~TIO~ OF
0n motion of ~. ADDlegata, ~cund=d by ~. Daniel, the Sour~
~S, Th~ Capital Region Taxicab Advisory Board was
established by the Ric~ond R~g~onal Planning District
Henricu County, the City of Ric~on~, Metropolitan Chambsr 0f
co~e~oe~ Rio~o~d Metropolitan Convention and To. ism Bureau,
91-440 6/26/91
and the Capltel Region Airport Commission to address area
taxicab ssrvie~ issues on the multi-government level; and
WHEREAS, The capital Region Taxicab Advisory Board has
deter~ine~ tb~t HO~e Bill 2011 recently enacted into law,
creates e new class of pa~eenger carrier (executive ms~a~$)
which may adversely affect ~he taxicab industry in the
Richmond area; and
WHEREAS, The Capital Region Taxicab Advisory Board agreed
at its March 22, lggl, meeting ~st it should pursue the
following strategies to address the impact~ cf the bill:
o Mak~ know~l to the Governor, state CorDs=etlon
Delegation, including sponsors cf the b~lI, the
coneel~ks of the Board, local governments and area
taxicab industry.
o Explore with t/ms State Corporation Commission staff
and local government legal staffs the feamibility Of
the $C¢ promulgating regulations to minimize major
deficiencies of the legislation.
o Explore with local governments add their legislative
liaisons and leto! mtaff, ap~roprlate legislative
initiatives to address the apparent de£ioieneies in
the legislation.
o Investigate, if necessary, various strategies with
the Capital Region Airport commission, area tourism
taxicab companies, which may minimize potantlel
classification; and
W~EREA$, The Chairman of the Capital Region Advisory
strategies.
NOW, T~EREFORE BE IT RE$OLVED~ that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervi~or~ supports the strategies adopted by
the Capital Region Taaioab service Board at its March 22~ 199~
meeting.
Vote: Unanimou~
Jl.~.3. ltI~UESTFOR BIN:COIDAg'M.t.,~:pERMLT
On motion of ~. Appl~gater seconded by ~. Daniel, the Bourd
approved a bingo pe~t for Mi~-Citi~ civic Assooia~ion~ Inc.
~or ~alendar year 1991. (It is meted ~ut u pe~it for
Mid-Cities Civi~ Association, Inc. ~ad ~reviously be~n
apgrowed to cold.ct bingo on ~onday nights. This re.est i~
for a 0hangs in t~ei= uxistln~ b~ngo permit to allow bingo
play on Saturdays as well.)
Vote: Unanimous
11. g.4. ~TE-OFF ~N~LLE~I~/BLE ACCOUNTS ~ - ~r~
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the ~card
au~orized ~e write-off of uncoll~ctibl~ accounts ~eceivable
- o~er fees and chargam for thm ut~llt~es Department in the
amo~t of $142,439 and fo~ ~ M~ntul ~lth/~ent~l
R~tardatlon/Submtanoe Abuse Depar~ent in the amount of
$118,514. (It is noted ~t ~e accounts wilt be turned over
to ~ Co~=y Attorney's office for fu~the~ action or turned
91-441
over to a collection agency and ~hat staff will also attempt
to ~ake recoveries of som~ of these bad debt~ through the
State'~ Set-off Debt PrcpTam.)
Vote: Unanimous
After brief discussion, on motion of ~r. Applegate, ~cond~d
by ~. Daniel, ~e Board authorized the Co~ty Adm~n~mtrator
to execut~ a contract b~tween ~e County an~ Enviro~t~l
Sy~tam~ Research Institute (ESRI), in an amount not to exceed
$166,852, to provide software, training, doc~entmtion,
delivery, installation and maintenance for the ~C/Info
between the County and IB~, i~ an ~o~t not to ~oeed
$~3u,508, to ~ruvi~ ~ardware network, decantation, delivery
and installation for the Geographic Info--erich Syst~.
Vote: Unanimous
ISSUANCE OF BONDS NOT TO EXCE]~ ~55~000r000 TO
Hr. Daniel in,ired if there was a maximum on the number of
Industrial Development Authority Bonds that could he issued
ea0h year and as to the priority list and uses permitted.
~_r. sale stated that this reguest was within the maximum
allowable and that ther~ was sufficient funding available for
additional projects and that the uses were regulated by the
federal goYerr~t, ~r- R~nsey ~tat~d that the County ha~ not
established priorities within the categories allowed by law in
which the rpvan~a bonds wc~ld b~ u~e~ for.
Mr. Daniel ~tated that he felt the u~e of Tndustrial Revenue
Bonds ware not appropriate for thia req~eat.
On motion cf Hr. Apptegate, s~¢omded by Mr. Currin, the Board
adopted the following rosolution~
WHEP~EAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the
Ceunty of Chesterfield ("Authority"), has considered the
a~plication of Senior Livin~ C~oiees, Inc. ("Company")
requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an
amount not to exc~e~ $~5,000,000 ("Bcn~s") to assist in the
financing af the Ccmpany'a acquiring, constructing and
e~uippin~ a facility for ~he residence and care o~ +_he aqa~,
co~isting of a 68-bed n~rsing facility, 60 assisted living
units and approximately 200 independent living %L~its to be
located at 14311 Brandermill Woods Trail, Midlothlan, Virginia
]311~ ("Project~') in the CounUy of chesterfield, virginia, and
~as held a public hearing thereon on Jun= 17, 1991.
WHEREAS, Section ~4?(f) of the Internal R~venue Code of
19~S, as a~e~ded, provides that =he ~overnmantal unit having
jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and
ever t. he urea in which any facility financed w~th the
of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance
of the bonds.
W~F~RF~, The Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the
County of Chesterfield, Virginia ("County"); the ~rcject is
located in the County and the Board of supervisora of the
County of Chesterfield, Virginia ("Board") constitutes the
highest elected governmental unit of the county.
91-44~ 6/26/91
WHEREA$~ The Authsrity has recommended that the Beard
WH=RKA$, A copy of the Autherity's resolution a99rcving
the i~eance of the Bonds, ~bject to the te~m~ to be
upon, u certificate of the public hearing and a F~scal ImpaG=
NOW~ T~FORE, BE IT RESOLED BY
Au~ori%y for ~e benefit of the Company, as required by
Section 147 (f) and saotioR 15.1-t378.1 of the Code of
2. T~e a~p~oval of th~ issuance of the Bonds, as
re~irmd by Zecti~n ~4~(f) of th~ Code, does not constitute an
endors~ent to a prcspectiv~ peruser of the Bond~ of th~
creditworthiness o~ ~h~ Project or ~e C~pany~ and~ as
shall 9rovide that neither the County nor the Authority ~hall
be obligated to pay ~e Bonds or the interest on ~em or other
co,ts incident to th~ ~xcept from ~e revenues and money
pledged for =heir pa~ent, and nei~ur th~ faith and credit
nor ~e taxing power of the Co~onwealth, ~e cowry or the
Au~ority shall be pledged to ~eir
~. Thi~ re~olution shall tak~ effect i~edia%ely upon
its adoption.
Ayes: ~. Currin, ~. Appleqate and ~.
Abstention: ~. Sullivan and Nr. Daniel.
I1.E.?. ~HA~GE OI~DER TO W~LIT~PTN~ ROAD ~)IT~ND~D, I~%SE TTT
0n mu%ion of Mr. Applegata, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard
authorized the County Administrator to approve a Chan~e 0r~er,
in the amount of a $39,903 decrease, fo~ ~itepinu Road
E~ension and appropriated $~00,000 in developer contributions
for ~itepin~ R~ad E~en~ion e~end~ture~. (It i~ noted fund~
from ~e Industrial ~ark Resets Account w~e transferred to
f~d Whltepin~ Road Extension, Phase III, and ~at fund~
the decrea~ in ~e Change 0rd~r will be ret~ned ba~k ~o this
funding source. )
Vote: Unanimous
ll.R.8. ~a~ ~ ~9~T~F?~ RO~D F~NCTION~L (~kSSrFICATION
On motion of ~. Appl~gate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
a=opt~d th~ XQllowing
~S, The construction of Route 76 (Powhit~ Pa~way)
NOW, THE~FORE RE IT R~$0LVED, that the ChesterEimld
County Board of Supe~isors re~e~t~ the Virginia Department
of Transportation (~0T) to delete from the Federal Ai~
Sy~tem~ 2.17 naive of 01d Coalfield Road (Route 754) f~om
relocated Coalfleld Road (~oute 7~4) to Geni%o Road (ROute
604~.
~D, BE IT F~THER RESOLED, that the Board r~ests VDOT
to add a 2.08 mile section of relocated Coalfield Road (Route
75~), from 014 Coalfield Road (Route 754) to Geni~o Road
91-443 6/26/91
(Routs 604), to the ~ederal Aid Secondary System and classify
it a~ a ma~or collector.
11.~.9.
On motion of ~. Applegate, ~conded by ~r+ Daniel~ the Board
au~orized the county A~inimtrator to make applioatlon to
Virginia Division of Litter C0~t~01 and R~cycling, Department
of Wast~ Management, in ~e amount of $10,0~8, for use by
K~p Che~terfiel~ Clea~ Corporation under ~e coordination
the ~en~i~n Servic~ to conduct public eduuatlon prorating
on ~he County's solid wa~t~ i~ ~nd adopted th~ following
~EAS, Th~ Virgi~ia Waste ~anagement Act
through th~ b~partment of Waste Nanagement, Division of Litter
Control and Recycling, for ~a allocation of public f~
the form of ~ants for the p~rpon~ of ~ancing local 1liter
and ~e Application covering a~inistration and use of maid
f~nds as outlined in ~- Guidelines (Fo~ DL~-i).
C0~=y Board of SnD~rvi~r~ h~raby endorse= an~ supports such
a program for Chesterfield County as i~ indicated in
~aoh~d Applioasion FO~ DLCR-2.
approved, will be u~ed to f~d said Pro,ran and hereby
re~e~ts the Department of Waste M~ageme~t, Division of
regulation~ ~ov~ning use and e~endit~e of said fund&.
filed with the papmrs cf this Bcurd.)
ll.E.10. F~Pl YF~%R-~DBUD~K~ADJ~ST~ENTS
On mo~ion of Mr. Applegate, ~e~ended Dy Mr. Daniel, th~ Board
approved th~ following FY91 y~ar-~nd Budget adju~tment~:
Reduced Exmenditure~
Police D~partment
TOTAL
Additional ~un~s Needed
county A~terney
s~eris£'s Department
TOTAL G=N=P~L FLrND
95,000
23~.000
$(350,000)
$
s~ool o~_ra~in~ Fund
Debt Service
Operatlonm & ~ai~tenance
TOTAL
$940,000
($940.000)
$940,000
$ 0
1LJ~.ll, GPu~NTFROMSTAT~F~PECIAL~RUG PROSEC~TIO~S...FOR
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by ~. D~i~l, ~he Board
approved submission of a g~ant applicution, in the ~mount of
$~,~00, from tb~ Stat~ for special d~ug p~usacutions f~r FY92
w~io~ grant will ~ used to create two full-tlme positions for
Program ~nd fur~er appropriate said fund~, if approved.
i~ not~ that continuation of =~a Pro,am ~s con=ingent upon
from ~e Stat~ in fun=re year=, ~ positions and ~he
will be te~nat~d or an alternate funding source will have
b~ identiflad.)
Vote: Unanlmou~
On motion of Mr. Appleqata, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
authorized the Couaty Administrator to execute a Chang~
i~ the ~o~t of $43~489~ for replacement uf the existing roof
at the Bon Air Library to viking Enterprise,
noted said funds will oome from the 1988 BoD~ R~ferendu~
Account.)
~ote: unanimous
AT ~E P~ ~N O~ ~ OP~TE
~N~SION~ AT ~Ou'x~ FACILI~
On motion Of Mr, Applegat~, seconded by ~. Daniml, the Board
set ~he date of July 24, 1991 at 9:o0 a.~. for a publlc
h~aring to consider the convayanc= cf a lems~ of real property
nt Iro~ridge Park in order to operate food concessions at the
youth facility.
Vote: ~animous
COUNTY AND '~'~ I~IC~OND A~F~.,.AS~OCIATION OF
On motion of Mr. Applegat~, seconded by /(r. Daniel~ the ~oard
set the date of July 24, 199I at 9:00 a.m. for a public
hearing to consider an amendment to the lease between the
County add the Richmond Area Association of Retarded Citizens
for C&mD Baker.
OF ~P~ ~R ~SION OF D~ ~ ~AT ~
On mc%ion of Mr. A~lu~=te, seoonded by ~. Daniel, ~e Board
agre~ent ~etw~en ~e County and Tarmao Mid-Atlantic, Inc. for
approximately .74 acres Of p=op~ty adjade~t to ~e axizting
Dut~ Gap Boat Ramp facility which proporty is Dropo~ed for
construction of additional boat launches and a loop road f~O~
=~e r~ps up ~o the 9arking area and is a coop~ra=iv~ effort
between the Virginia Division of Gam~ an~ Inlan~ F~sheries and
the County's Pa~ks and R~creation DeDartnmnt. (Ia is noted
that said funds will be transferred from ~e Goyne Park Bond
Fund, in the amount of $~500, and from ~e Pain= of Ro~s
~ark ~on~ Fun~, in the amount of $8,000, to a new ~tch Gap
11.E.15. I~OUESTSFOR FIR~WORK~ bi,LAYS
On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~acon~ed ~ ~. Daniel, the Board
appr0ve~ a request for a per,it by ~e Chemterfield County
Parka and Recreation Depu~ent ~o stag~ a flr~works ~isplay
a= the County Fairgro~n4s on July 4, 1991, which request i~
s~jeot to approval by the Fire Departmen~ and ~he county
Attorney's 0ffi=e.
Vote: Unanimous
11.E.15.b. i%EEDms LANDING ~U~DI¥18ION
On motion of /~r. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
Subdivision's Community Association to stage a fireworks
display at the Co~muni=y'~ recreation area on July 4, 1~91,
which request is s~ject to approval by ~e Fire ~epar~ent
and ~e County At=orney~s o~fice.
AWARD OF
~AINT~ANCE $~OP AT IRONBF~IDGE PA~K
On motion of ~. Appleqate, eeconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to enter into a contra~t,
i~ ~e a~ou~t of $116,500, wi~ KBS, Inc., the Iow bidde~, for
contraction of a parks maintenance shop at Ironbridge Park.
(It is noted said f~nds for construction are available in th~
1988 Parks Improvements Bond
Vote: Unanlmou~
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APT~DVING ~ICMAR~ A. CORDLE
A~'r~AO'£mORIZEDSXGNATORYFORCOUNT~( C~ECF~
On marian O~ F~. Applegate, se=ondod by Mr. Daniel, the ~oard
reso!vxd thut the depositaries of the County change the County
91-44~ 6/26/91
TR~ TO T~ CO~Y 0~ CH~$T~I~D by Richard A. Cordle,
All b~s honoring Chesterfield Co=nty checks are re~ested to
sand future state,rite and paid c~ecks to Richard A. Cordle,
Central Fidelity Bank
P.O. Box 5?602
Ricbmond~ VA 23261
BkNqfACCOUNTS
ACCOUITPNL~4BER$
7911228100
7911203841
7911006747
I~$T CK. NOS.
SIGNED BY
ARLINE MCGUIR~
7911008798
7919325563
1106698600
Payroll - 1671~3
Voucher - 555399
RefUl~d - 843109
Treaeurer-610~I
special - 45545
08554
Special welfare-
5782
~0~
c~n=ral Yi~eli=y Bank
cen=ral Fidelity Bank
Consolidated Bank
& Trust Co.
P.O. ~ox 10046
Richmond, VA
crestar Bank 1005~42 517
Richmond, VA
Dominion Bunk 74860~36~ 221
P.O. Box 26627
Richmond, VA 23261
R & M BAD]( 6090011700
177~ staglss Mill Road
Richmond, VA ~3~30
First Virginia Bank (Col) 20904193 1042
~.o. ~ox ~7346
Richmond~ VA
3~ff~r~o~ National ~ank 3~2069127 486
P.O. Box R6362
Richmond~ VA 2~269-6362
Peoples Bank of Virginia 100~9087D~ 1036
P.O. Box 34877
Rice, mend, VA 23234
Signet Bank 5719520503 471
P.O. Box 25339
Richmon4, VA 23260
Sovran Bank~ N.A. 02069586 1101
P.O. Box 27026
Rio~lond, VA 23261
A certified copy of thi~ re~elution shall b~ nent to all
C~unty d~positorie~ and other banks honoring Chesterfield
County drafts.
91-447 6/26/91
Thi~ re~olutien shall he effective on July 1, t991.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.F.1, pu~cm~i~c'zo C(IN$IDI~I/'i'ItdIC~NVEYANCE
Mr. ~ale ~tate~ ~is dat~ and tim~ had ~ advertised for a
public hearing to consider a re,est fro~ BNE L~d &
D~v~lopment and Breckenridge ~sociates to convey
right,-of-way at the en~ces of Breckenridge Shopping
Cent~.
Thee was no one present to address ~i$ matter.
On motion CZ ~. C~rin, seconded by ~. Applegate, the Board
approved a request from BNE Land & Development and
entrance~ of Breckenridge ~hoppin~ C~nter and au~orized
(It is noted a copy of ~e plat is filed with ~e paper~
this Board.)
vote: Unanimous
ll.F.2. CONSID~ REOUEST FRO~ T~INITY ~I'r~ ~&~ODI~ ~
~. sale stated ~at Trinity United Ke~odist Ch~ch
~o~t~cti~g a~ additio~ to ~e ~c~ which, ~de~ the
~i%~ty Ordinance, would re~ire the ume of public sewer
unites a vuriunc~ is grmntud by thc Board of
~. Daniel in~red if th~ Board of zoning Appeal~ was ~le to
hel~ the Ch~ch wi~ their request. ~. Sale ~tate~ =hat
under ~e ~idelines of ~e Ordinance, the granting of the
variance was with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Daniel and
~. May~ ~tate~ they bo~ ha4 receive~ n~erou~
regarding the
~at the existing crit~ia under =he utili=y ordinance in
granting tRe variance.
previous and simila~ request addressed by the Board;
policy having been developed in conj~cticn wi~ that previous
United ~ethodi~t ~ch.
Mr. Daniel inquired as to the cost for installing the sew~.
Mr. Bill Peele, representing Trinity United Methodist Ch~,
install th~ sewer but that the finan~iai issue was not ~e
~=t existed ~uch as ~e ~idelines of %he Utillt~ Ordinance
r~irad that if you ar~ wi~n two hunted fe~t of public
sew~, you must tie into it~ ~at their Church bu~ldlng i~ one
hunted ~d thirty feat away from the existing ~nhole and
that when the building was built, public sewer was not
ava~l~le; t~a% the d~sign of the plying tie~ into a ~eptio
and p~p systen on ~e ~ck of the property and that
plying drains approximately three h~d~ed feet off line and
~at the Church ts fifty p~cent f~ther away th~ what
re~ired; ~at the ~c~'s system hud been designed to tie
91-446 6/26/91
in~o public sewer but that it would require another manhole
and that they feel this could possibly lead to low sewage
flows; that the location of the p~opnsed manhole would bo
located adjacent to a propQsed urea that acts as the Church's
main eongreqatlon point; that the C/~nroh has a v~rbal
agreement with the dsvaloper of the propsrty south of the
Chu~rch in that when the developer e~tends his sewer line
south, he would be willing to install a stub in which the
Church could then tie into~ that the Church would like to tie
into the public sewer system at that point in time; that the
Ch~eh is eilliaq to execute a contract with the County
stating that if the waiver was granted, the Church would tie
into the sewer system if their system was to fail; and
re0/uee~ed the ~oard to give favorable consideration to their
request.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the waiver was tied into t~e
of the developer extending the sewer line south for the
Church to tie into the public Sewer eye%em. Mr. Peele stated
that the t~ustees of the Church would have to make the
decision but that he felt tho Church woul~ hs willing t~ tie
into the sewer ~stem at that
Mr. Daniel stated that he wa~ in favor of the waiver being
grante~, provided that the trustses supply t~he County with the
proper documentation that if the neighboring property was
developed, the church would tie into the sewer system within
reasonable period of time.
Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relative tO
amending the ordinance and the proper verbiage to use; the
basis for the granting of the waiver; and the time llmits
placed on the waiver.
On ~oti0n of Mr, ~ayes, seconded by ~. Applegate, the Board
approved a request from Trinity United Hethodist C~urah Sar a
variance in oumplianee with the current Utility ordinance from
the requirement to use public sewer finding
physically impracticable to ma~e the u0nnection to public
Vote: ~nanimous
lJL.~3~u'rnOP~IZATION TO ~CXS]~ ~D~J~AIN FOR '~'~
On motion of ~. Sullivan, ~ocond~d by ~, ~rrin, the ~o~rd
authorized th~ County Attorney to proceed with eminent do, in
on an emergen~ ba~i~ and e~eroi$~ i~diate right of entry
pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of ~e C~inia for the
acqui~itio~ of a Re,anent sewer an~ temRora~
~i~if~, 1071o Cherokee Roa~, Tax Map 3-6(2)~-10, for =he
J~es River Trunk Sewer Project and authorized the County
A~inis~ra~or %o notify %he o~er by certified mall on June
27, 1991, of the Co~ty~s intention to take possession of the
easement. (I~ is noted a copy of ~e plat i~ file~ with the
91-449 6/26/91
On motion o£ ~r. Sullivan, seoon~e~ by ~r. Currin, the Beard
authorized the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain
on an emergency basis and exercise immediate right of entry
pu~csuant to Section i~.i-~S.1 of the Code of Virqin~a for the
acquisition of pennant slope, sewe~ a~d
Oonntr~ction ~a~nt~ acro~ the prope~y of Paul M. Specter
and ~n= T. Spa=tot, 10760 Cheroke~ Roud, Tax ~p
for th~ Jam~ River T~ ~w~r ~roj~ct and au~orized the
County A~in~strator to notify the o~er by c~tified mail on
Jane ZT, 1991, of the Co~nby'~ intention to =~ke posse~sio~ of
~e easement. (It is noted a copy of ~e plat is filed with
~e ~apers oS ~his ~oard.)
Vote: Unanlmou~
4200 O~ ~ ~ ~T
On ~otion of ~. Sullivan, seconded by ~. CHrrln, ~e Beard
On an emergency ~sis and ex~roise i~e~ia%~ righ% of entry
pursuant to Section XS.i-~3~.X of th~ Code of Vlrqlnla for the
ac~isition of a variable wid~ sewe~ and water easement, 5'
temporary const~ction easement, and ~ ~ainage eas~nt,
across the ~vo~e~y of ~ichael P. Me, ney and Kamen E.
MoRaney, 4200 Old G~ Road East, Tax ~D 3-S(1)20, for the
Jam~s River T~nk Sewer ~oject and authorized ~e County
Administrator %o notify ~h~ o~=r ~y oer%ified mail on J~e
27, 1991, of the County's intention to take possession of the
easement. (It is no~e~ a ~opy of ~ pla~ is filed wi~h the
papas of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
ll.F.3.e. A~O~B P~OPEF$1"~ OF ~. AND HANCRL ~. ~ADON. 10_.7__40
.~KO~ROAD
on motion of Mr. Sullivan, ~econded by F~c, Cwrri~, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain
on an emergenoy basis and exercise immediate right of entry
pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of t~e Co 0 '' fO~ tile
acqui=ition o~ a D~rmanent sewer and t~mporary construction
casement acros~ the property of Mantel W. and Betsy S. Bradon,
10740 Cherokee Road, Tax Map 3=6(2)B-?, for ~h~ Jame~ River
Trunk Sewer Project and authorized the County Administrator to
notify the owner by uor~i£1~ mall on June 27, 1901, ef %-~e
County's intention to take possession of the ea~ment. (It is
meted a cody of the plat is filed with =he 9aper~ of this
Board.)
Vote: Unani~eu~
ACROSS ~ROPE~ OF ~. AND ~. ~HARD C. H~LAIR~
40~0 eYeD ~N ]~O~D F~
On motion of Mr. Sullivan~ seconded by ~r. Currln~ the Board
nuthorlzad the Coumty Attorney to pro,ced with eminent domain
pursuant to 9action 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia far the
acq~isitlon of a variable width sewer an~ water end temporary
construction easement across the property of Richard
McClain and Martha ~. McClain, 4010 Old Gun Road East, Tax
3-~(1) 17, for the James River Trunk sewer Project and
aathorized the County Administrator to notify the owner by
certified mail on June 27, I99I, of the County"s intention to
91-450 6/26/91
take possession of the easement. (It is noted a copy of the
plat is filed with the papers of this Board, )
ASSOCIATION. 1~61 ~~
On motion of Mr. sullivan, saconded ~y ~. ~rrin, ~ Board
authorized the County Attorney to proceed wi~ eminent d~ain
pursuant to Section 1~.1-~.1 of the ~.ode of Vlrq~n~a for the
Ta~ Map 3-6(1) 3, and authorize4 the county A~inisura~or %o
notify the owne~ by certified mail on J~e 27, ~991, of the
County's intention to take possezsio~ of th~ ~a~ement. (I% is
~oted a copy of the plat i~ filed w~th ~ papers of this
STAFI~ORD. 10680
OX motion o£ Hr, ~llivan~ seconded by F~r, CUrrin, ~he Board
authorized th~ County Attorney to proceed with eminent
on an em~gency basi~ and exercise i~ediate right of entry
pursuant to Section 15.1-~.1 of the~inla ~or the
Phyllis S. Stafford, 10680 Cherokee Road, Tax ~p
cowry A~ini~trato~ to notify the o~ur by certified mail on
June 27, 1991, of ~e County~ ~ntention to tak~ possession
~e eam~en:. (It is ~oted u copy of the plat is filed with
Vote: ~anim0us
ll.~,3.i...A~OSSPROPERT~OF~R. ~i_ND{ilU. S. ~(~%ELA. MAGLI$.
On motion of Mr. Sullivan, ~econded by ~. C~rin, the Board
authorize~ the Co~y At~o~ey to procee~ with eminent
on an emergency ~i~ and exercise i~ediate right of entry
pursuant to Section 15.1-~.% of the ~inia for
acquisition of a pe~nent s~w~ and t~po~a~y oon~t~uetion
easement acro~ ~e property Of Michael A. ~aglls and Suzanne
S. Magli~, 10690 Cherokee Road~ Tax ~a~ ~-6(2)B-1R, for the
Administrator to ~otify the o~ by certified ~il on June
27, I991, of th~ County's intention =o t~e po~em~io~ of
Vote: Unanimous
ll.F.3.i. ~1%O~ I~OP~TYOF~. AND I41~. SAhu~uC. EP~S.
10700
On ~mt~on of ~. S~lliva~, Seconded by Mr. currin, the Board
mu~orlzed ~e Co~ty Attorney ~o proc~ with e~inent ~omain
on an emergency basis and ~xerci~% i~ediate right of entry
pursuant to S~otion 15.1-23~.1 o~ the code of viruinia for the
acquisition of a pe~anent sewer and t~porary
Epee, 10~o6 Cherokee Road, Tax Map 3-6(~)B-1I, for the ~amas
River Trunk Sawer Project and authorized the county
Administrator to notify the owner by certified mail on Juno
~7~ 199I, of the County's intention to take possession of the
easement. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with t-he
paper~ of thi~ Beard.)
Vote: Unanimous
11.F.3.k. A~O$$ PROP~T~ OF ~I~. A~D ~P~. GEORGE
on an ~ergency basis and ex~cise i~ediate right of entry
pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Cede of Virginia for the
ac~isition of a pe~anent sewer and tempora~ construction
ea~em~t acros~ th~ property of George W. St. Clair and M.
Carol Y. st. clair, 10720 cherokee Road, Tax ~ap
for the James River Trunk Sewer Project and authorized the
County Administrator to no=iEy ~e o~er ~y certified mail on
the eamement. (It is n~ted a cody of the ~lat i$ filed with
the papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
11. F · 3 · 1 · A~ROS$ PROP~RI~f OF }~R. A~D }{P~. P~I~%RD H.
yOI~T~BLOOD, .TR., ~0730~,:11~()1~E ROAD
On mctioa of Mr. Sulllvsn, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain
on an emergency basis and exercise i~ediate right ~f entry
p~suant to section ~5.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia for the
ac~isition of a pe~ sewer and temporary oon~uction
easement ae=osu thc property of Richurd H. YoungblOod, J=.
Judy D. Xoungblood, 10730 C~ro~e Roa~, Tax ~ap 3-6(])~-~,
for the Jame~ River T~ Sewer Project and au~orized the
County A~ministrator to notify the c~er by certified mail cn
~e ~7, 1991, of the County's intention to take possession of
~e easement. (It is noted a dopy of the plat is file~ with
~e papers of thi~ Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
ll.F.4. CONSENT ITI~L~
O~ ~otion Of Mr. Applegate, seconded by ~. Mayer, the Board
authorized the Co~ty ~ministrator to ex~cut~ a Change order,
in ~e amount of $10,750~ fo~ the Enqinee~inq
Proctors Creek Wastewa=er Treatment Plant =~ansion (Project
]880163E) with R. Stuart Royer and A~sooiate~ fo~ additional
design services associated with relocation of ~e pipeline
f~om t~u plant site to the J~ River. (It is noted said
funds for t~is p~oject ar~ appropriated in ~e c~rent capital
Improvement Budgst.)
~i-452 6/26/91
on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. ~aye~, the Board
approved a request from Whitlow Propertiea, Inc. to quitclaim
~ 16~ drainage easement acro~s it~ property adjacent to
Moorefield Park Drive and authorized the County Administrator
to ~xecute the necessary deed. (It is noted a copy of the
plat is filed with the paper~ of this Board~)
ll.F.4.c. ACCE~TANCN O~f~EL OF LAND AI~G t~)]~DkL~ ~0~b
On motion of ~. ApplegaUe, seconded by Mr. Mayer, ~e Board
accepted, on behalf of ~e Oo~ty, ~h~ conveyance of a 0.27
acr~ parcel of land along Coxendale Road f~om Virginia
Electric and Power Company and au~orized ~e Co~ty
A~n~strator to execute the nece~sa~ de~d. (It i~ n0te~ a
copy of %he plat is filed with the papers of ~is Boar4.}
Vote: Unanimous
11.F.4.d. APPrOVAL OF W~rKK..~CTFOR BEI~ONT~Oi~i~FATER
On ~okion of ~. Applegate, seconded by Mr. May~n, ~e Board
a~proved ~ater Contract for B~lnont Road Water Line ~en~ion
- F~is Property - Proj~c~ N~ber 91-0083~ a~ follow~, which
project includes 355 L.F. ~ of 16" water line extension where
330' ~ of ~he ~roj~t is u~site which will provid~ service to
~= adjoining properties ~nd authorized ~e Cowry
Administrator to ~xecu~ any necessary doo~ents~
Developer: ~om~s L. and virgie C. Faris
Contractor: Boo~an Conmt~ctio~ C~pa~y
Contract~o~nt: E~tlmated Total - ~10,24~.50
Total ~mtimate4 Co~ty Cost:
Water (Overm~zinq) - 6,769.80
(Cash Refund)
Water (Offsite) - 1,927.00
(Refund thru connecUiuns)
Esti~ted De~elope~ Coat: - 1,545.70
Co~e: IOversizing) 5H-5724O-89S20OE
(Offsite) 5H-58350-89D731E
F~. sale preeented t~e Board with a report on the developer
water and ~ewer eontract~ executed by the county
Administrator.
ll.G. P. EPOR'TZ
~r. Ramsay presented the ~oard with a atatue report on the
G~neral F~d CO~ti~qe~Cy Account; G~neral Fund Balance;
Light Funds; Lease Purchases; and School Beard Agenda.
l~r. Ramsay stated th~ Virginia Department of Transportation
has formally notlf~ed the Cettnty of the acceptance of the
91-453 6/26/91
following roads into the State Secondary system:
ADDITIONS
~RATFI~LD PL~C~, S~TION T~R~ - (effe~tlve 6-6-91)
Route 4930 (Stsoey Creek Parkway) - Prom Route 144
to 0.39 mile Northwest Route 144 0.39 Mi
RID~ POINT - [~ffect~v~
Route 4310 (Ridge Point Drive) - From Route 3600 to
0,19 mile East Route 3600 0.19
0,09 mile South Route 4310 0.09 Mi
Route 4312 (Ridge Point Court) - From Rents 4310 to
0.08 mile Northwest Route 4310 0.08
SALISBURY, LEAPIELD -
Route 1039 (~rangewood Road) - ~rom 0.07 ml]e West
Rou~e 1Q3~ ~e 0.1~ mile West Route 103B
Route 379~ (Leafleld Terrace) - From Route 714 to
0.29 mile Southeast Route 714 0.29 Mi
ll.H. LUN~
The Board recessed at 12~30 ~.m. (DST) to meet for lunch with
the Committee on the Future in Room 502 of the Administration
Building.
Mr. Sullivan introduced Mr. Paul Cox, member ef the Coim~ittee
on the Futura, who introduced members of the committee who
Mr. Cox outlined t/%e co~ittee's co~m~on thermos and stated the
Committee had Socuse~ on t~e quality c~ li£~ in ~he county ss
the central issue surrounding their report. ~e state0 that
~ ~eur major issue~ ex.mined by the committee were
education; nat~al envirorn~ent; transportation; and goverr~nent
s~rueture and that these four areas served as a frame of
reference for citizen input. ~e stated that the need for
increased public participation and simplification had been
addr~n~d and that the ¢c~itte¢ had determined that the
public wanted to be mo~o awa~e cf issues and wanted timely
information cf the facts. He ad~ressed six common themes,
derived ~rom the previously stated £eut major issues, which
were public awareness and education; neighborhood councils;
~egiamalizatien; land use/comprehensive planning;
public/private partnerships; and technology. He stated that
T_%e CC~nittee was recommending that a network of neighborhood
councils be implemented to D~ovide fo~ the ~xchenge e£ ideas
and positions on specific issues between the ~uparvisor~ and
constituents and to enhance public awareness; that it was
recommended that the Board implement regional approaches and
solutions in areas such as transportation, the natural
agencies in order to eliminate duplication oS services; that
the ~rre~t CCmpreh=nsive Land U~e Plum be ~xtended to include
natural environment considerations, transportation systems and
public facilities, and infrastructure; that the recommended
comprehensive plan ~nable both density and location to be mote
easily predictable into the future by obtaining site
ao~luisitlon planning for ~ublio facilities, with an emphasis
on educational and multi-purpose facilltles and roaas; that
means ~e established for land banking to assure compliance
with the comprehensive plan later; that a foz~al m~cha~ism be
created to evaluate th~ specific areas of potential
privatization within the government structure determining
benefits and ~omts, both short and long term~ for advantages
9t-4§4 6/26/91
of efficiency and coat effectivsnsss; and that a mechanism be
developed to enable the County in staying abreast of
Me furthe~ ~eviewed the Overall visions for education; natural
environment; ~rane~ortation$ a~d government etr~cture issues
and i~dieated what the implications would be if no action was
taken and stated that the Comities had dealt with these
i~sues by creating a vision for the future and ~etel-~i~ing
Which issues would have a strong affect and which ite~ needed
change for Chesterfleld in the future.
Discussion, comments, and questlcns ensued relative to city
fo~m of geverD3~ent versus county fo~ of government. ~.
Ri0~o~d'S f~t~re's report ~n conjunction with ~e County's,
S~pe~visors ~hould have th~ first opportunity in reviewing
their report a~4 now ~a= they had, ~e Co~itte~ would go
public wi~ ~n and ~at the info--atica provided in th~
sugary r~ort woul~ ~ distributed to all who had
participated i~ the process as well as in~ivldual
organizations who had supplied the Co~itte~ with info.atica
a~d that their next step would be to address ec0~o~ic
devslo~ent issues.
C~ittee on ~ ~uture for the oppo~unlty to mem~ and r~view
Reconvening:
SUlliVan called the meeting to order at 2:15 p.m. (DST).
11.I. P~O~'~SPOR NOBII~HOMEP~ETSANDI~ON~NC
91~0201
In Be~uda Mapi~ter~al District. D~ B~ r~t~d
renewal of ~obile ~ome Permit ~Zl~6 to park a mobile home in
a Residential (R-7) District. The d%nsity of ~e proposal i~
approxi~t~ly 1.~ unite/acre. The Compr~nnslve Plan
desi~ates the property for light industrial Use with density
to ~ con.oiled by zoning cunditlonm mr ordinance standards.
This property is located a~roximately ~00 feet off the south
line of Helba ~tre~t at Ramona Avenue, and i~ better known a~
~05~6 Ramona Avenue. Tax ~ap 98-1 (~) B~lme~de, ~loQk 5, Lots
9 ~rou~h 13 an~ 39 (Sheet 32).
that staff race--ended appr0vml subject bo standard conditions
fact that ~e greater Rout~ ~oI/Jeffer~on Davi~ Highway
area's proximity of Rout~ 288.
M~. D~ane Bra~Iey ~tated ~he agreed to all of the standard=
year pe~it. ~re wa~ no opposition p~esent.
~. currin ~tated that t~e site in que=tion w~$ b~ing used for
a mobile home now, the w~ole area was zoned residential, and
the proposed Plan would affect th~ ar=a =~ally, therefore, he
felt a sev~n year permit wa~ warranted.
91-455 6/26/9!
On notion of Hr. Cu~rin, seconded by Hr. Applegate, the Bea~d
approved Case 91~R0~01 for seven (~) years, subject to the
following standard conditions:
1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the
mobile hone.
2. No lot or peroel mey be rented or leased for use as a
mobile home site, nor shall any mobile h~me be u~ed for
rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be
permitted to be parked on an individual lot or
3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning repuirements of the applicable zoning
distri¢~ shall be complied with, except that no mobile
home shell be loeeted elome~ than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
4. ~o a~ditional permanent-:lrpe living space may be added
onto a mobile home. All mobile homem mhall be mkirted
but shutl not be ~la=m4 on ~ ~e~unmnt Zo~datlon.
they shall be used.
6. Upon being ~ant~d a Mobile Home P~it, the applicant
shall then obtain the necessary pe~it~ from the office
of ~e Building Official. This =hall be done prior
t~e in~tallation o~ ~elocation of the mobile
~y violation of the above conditions shall bm grounds
vo=e:
91~T018~
In Bermuda ~a~i~terial District, B~RGE A~0~IATF~9 requested
rezoning from General B~siness (B-3) to General Business
(C-5). The density of ~uch ar~ndment will be controlled by
zonin~ condition~ or Ordinanoe ~tandards. The Comprehensive
to be determined ~ develo~ent ~e~lations. ~is request
lies on a 2.2Q acre parQel ~ron=in~ apDroxi~ely 220 fee~ on
the west li~e of Burgc A~e~e, approximately 1,080 fu=t north
~ Willi~ Road. Tax ~ap 82--1 (1) Paroel ~4 (shes= 23).
the Plunning Co--lesion reco~ded approval.
~. N~al Farm%r, repreaenting the applicant, stated the
On motion of ~. Currin, seconded by ~. Applegate, the Board
approved case 91SNQ182.
vote: ~n~imous
In Clover Hill ~agisterial District,
TK~.~ON~ C~MPANY re~emted a Conditional Use Planned
Development to pe~it a co~unicatlons tower plus an exception
to height limitations in an Agricultural (A) Distriot. The
density of such amen~ent will be cogtroll~d by zoning
conditions or ordinance standards. The comprehensive Plan
designates the proper~y for public/semi-public use with
d~nsity to be detained by development ~c~latiun~. Thi~
91-456 6/26/91
request lies on 0.3 acres lying approximately 400 feet off the
south line of Hull Street Road, measured from a point
approximately 1,050 feet east of P~c~shock Boulevard. Tax Map
40-1 (1) Part of Parcel $ (Sheet 1§).
Mr. =acobeon presented a summary of Case 91SN0t97 and stated
the Pla~ing Co~mission recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Mr. Edward Willey, Jr., representing the applicant, stated the
reco~mendatlon was ~cceptable, There was no opposition
present.
on motion cf Mr. Applegate, ~ecoaded by Iifx. Currin, the Board
approved Ca~e 915N0197 subject to ~he Sollowing. oonditimns:
· . The plan prepared by Jordan Comsulting Engineers, P.C.,
dated April 9, 1991, and submitted with the application
shall be oon~id~red the plan of development.
2. There shall ~s ns signs pel-mltted to ~dentify th~s
(~)
The base of thm tower and associated equipment shall b~
secured to preclude trespassing. The exact method of
securing the site shall be approved by the Planning
Department at the time of site plan review.
4. Any ~uilding or mechanical equipment ~hall comply with
Section ~l.l-~4~ of the ~oning ordinance relative
a~chitectural treatment of bnildtng exterior~ and
~creenlng of m~ehanical ~quipment. (P)
(NOTE: This condition would require the scrmanlng of
mechanical equipment located on the building or ground.
Screening woul~ not be required for the tower or
t0we~-~ou~ted equipment.)
5. Prior to release of a building permit for the tOWed,
copy of F~ approval shall be submitted to the Planning
Department. (~)
6. The tower and equipment ~hall be designed and installed
ss as not to interfere with the Chesterfield County
Public Safety Tr~ked System. The developer shall
perform an enqlneer~ng study to determine the possibility
of radio frequency interference with the County system.
Prior to release of a building permit, the stndy ~hall be
. s~bmitted to, and approved by, the Chesterfield county
Co~%%~ications and Electronics staff.
7. The developer shall be responsible for correcting any
frequency problems which affect the Chesterfield C~unty
Public Safety Trunked Syste~ caused by this use. Such
corrections shall bm made ~mmediataly upon notification
by the Chesterfield County Communlcatlonm and
staff.
Vote: Unanimous
Im Clover Hill Nuglstarial District, ~0~GA~ ASSOCIATES
requested amendment to Conditional Usa Planned Development
(Case 89~N01~9) relative to uses. The density Of ~uoh
amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance
~and~ds. The comprehensive Plan designates the pro,arty for
office use with density to he determined by development
regulations. This request lles on a 4.2t a=re parcel fronting
approximately ~ feet o~ the south lln~ of Arboretum Parkway,
91-457 6/M6/91
also fronting approximately 550 feet on the east line of North
Arch Road, and located in the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of these roads. Tax Map 2~-1 (1) Parcel 25
(~h~t 8).
//r. Jacobson presented a summary of Ca~e 91~N0~19 and stated
the Planning Co,mission recenmendad approval subjest to
conditions.
Hr. charles Hae~arlane, representing the applicant, stated the
redommendation was acceptable. There was ne opposition
present.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~=cended by Mr. Curtis, the Board
approved Case 91SN0219 subject te the follewing conditions:
1. Uses shall be restricted to all Office Business (0) uses
plus one (1} cellular telephone installation and repair
business. Installation and repair of cellular telephones
shall be restricted to vehicles not exceeding 4,000
pounds net weight and two (2) axles. (P)
(NOT~ This ~ondition $~per~ede~ the approved Textual
Statement for Came 89SN0199 relative to uses pez~itted On
thc request property only,)
2. The pisa submitted with the application shall be
considered the Master Plan for purposes of defining
external site improvements to accommodate tbs cellular
telephone installation business. (~)
(NOTE= Pti09 to installation of i~provem%nt~, ~ite plan~
must be submitted for rnvi~w and approval.)
3. This use shall not exseed 2~500 square feet of ~ross
floor area, to include a maximum of two (2) service bays.
4. All a~ivitie~ a~soeiated with this us~ shall be confined
to within the building and shall be screened such that
t~e view Of installation activities shall not be visible
fr~ adjaaent properties an~ public rights of way, (~)
§. Overhead doors shall be designed and installed so as ~0
ensure COmpatibility with the existing architectural
treatment of ~he building. Compatibility may ~e auhieved
through the use of similar or complime~%tary materials,
colors ao~ architsotural trim ~aatures. Th~ ~act
treatment of over~e&d doors shall be approved by the
Planning Department at the time of ~ite plan review. (P)
within r2~e require~ fifty (§~) foot k~affer along the
· eutherm property boundary, additional land~eaping ~h~ll
he installa~ to minimize the view of overhsad doers and
Day areas from adjacent re~id~nces. Detaile~ lands¢aping
plans depicting ~his requirement shall De ~uDmitted to
the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with
site plan review. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
91~0146
tn Mat=ace Nag~terial Distriot, ~w~.~.~.n FRA'r~m~L
=FlY,aidE, ~E 47 requested renewal of Conditional Use
~5S08~) to pe~it a frate~al organization in an Agricultural
(A) District. The density of ~uch amendment will
con~olled by zoning conditiuns or 0r~inance ~tandard~.
Cumpr=hen~ive Plan designates th~ pM0perty for ~esidentiaI use
91-458 6/26/91
ac~e parcel fronting approximotely 400 feet on the south line
of B~ach Road, approxinately 1,990 feet southeast of Brandy
Oak~ Drlvs. Tax Map t09-12 (1) Parcel 1 (Sh~t 29).
Mr. Jacobsen presented a sit, mary of case 91SR0%46 and stats~
staff had originally recommended denial but the Planning
commission had ~eao~ended approvul subject to conditions and
acceptance of the proffers.
since the applicant was not present at this time, the Board
moved Came 919R0146 to the end of the agenda.
In Dale Magisterial District, U~U~OPS SUPERK~RK~TR, INC.
requested rezoning from office Business (O) to Community
Business (C-3). The de~sity of such amendment will be
controlled by zoning conditisns or Ordinance standards. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property for residential
of 4.0 tu/its per acre er 1ems an~ o~ioe use with density to
be determined by development regulations. This request lies
on a $.02 acre parcel frentlng approximately Sd~ feet on the
south line of Courthouse Read, also fronting approximately
1,170 feet on the nert~east line of Halls Run Road and
approximately 600 feet on the west line of Iron Bridge Road,
and located in the nertRwest quadrant of the intersection
Ir0n Bridge Road and Halls Run Road. Tax ~p 79-1§ (i) Parcel
32 (shee~s 22 and
~r. Jacobsen pressn=ed a summary of Case 91SNO161 and stated
the Planning Commission reco~unded approval subject to
acceptance of the proffers.
Mr. A~dy Seherzer, representing the applicant, ~tated that the
applicant has had nunerous meetings regarding their request
with interested neighbors, Plunning Commission me.abets and
staff and had addressed their concerns. Ha presented a brief
slide presentation regarding the subject parcel amd stated
that they felt this was a good transitional use of the
property with regards to the neighborlnq residential area;
that the architectural ~roffer was tied into the development
at the existing Centre Court project; that the fast food uses
would only he permitted on the Route 10 frontage and that they
had agreed to provide and maintain buffer areas; that the most
likely uses ~or the site would b~ for ~hopping center~ such as
a convenience center, fa~t food restaurants, and a veterinary
hospital and noted that many of the C-3 us~ had been
~[r. Daniel inquired which allowable uses would be developed.
M~. scherzer stated the market would dictate what the site
would be a~ed for but t_hat it was anticipated to ~e developed
for a fast food restaurant, a bank, and possibly a =it-down
restaurant,
Hr. Richard Kedrio~, representing the o~er, stated that
although those were the desired uses, they would lire the
pro~srty zoned with some flexibility in order to
market i~sues and stated that they felt they had addressed
health, safety, an8 ~ublis welfare issues regarding traffic
access, architectural proviniOnS,
Mr, Edward Willey, Jr., regresenting Restaurateurs, Inc.,
stated they were the owner of a one acre parcel located next
to the subject property and that although they were not in
opposition to the request, they had concern= regarding their
Conditional Use ~lann~d Development to Duild a quality Arby's
fast food restaurant. ~e stated that they wo~ld like the
Board te consider changing the Central Area Land Use Plan from
Office to any intense se~mercial or strip shopping
91-459 6/26/91
capability, gasoline stations, crc. based on the fac=
their property had been zoned Business for e number cf years
and was modified two yearn ago for the Conditional U~e Planned
Development in order for Arby'a to build a brick and glans
structure which they felt was a different request than the
rsques~ being proposed presently.
Hr, Skip Gellantly stated he was affiliated with
Restaurateurs, Inc., and felt that they had followed the
currant Master Plan sad reguested the Board to consider all
factors necessary before changing the Plan.
Mr. Daniel inquired as to the Zaster Plan isnue. ~r. Jacebnon
outlined the central Area Plan and 8-~arized the recent
decisions in the area.
There wan brief discussion regarding traffic patterns and
access points of the subject site. Mr. Daniel stated that he
wants~ to ensure that there would be shared access a~ong the
properties and ~ngui~ed if an a~endment could be added t~ the
previous conditional use request. Mr. Micas noted that the
request could be a~nded to a conditional ~se and the
conditions added.
There was discussion regarding conditions and the proper
verbing~ needed to have the uses narrowly defined to include
to d~ny the re~oning and approve a conditional usc permit
subject to the fsllow~ng
1. The a~chitestu~al style of all buildings shall be similar
to and equal in ~uality to Centre Court Office Building
Architectural plans shall be submitted ts the Planning
Department for approval in conjunction with site plan
review. The Developer shall notify all adjacent property
2. The following uses shall be permitted:
a. Bank.
b. Fast-food restaurant.
Direct access to Route 10 ~halI be limited to one (1)
entrenoe/e~it. This access shall be designed and
~on~tr~eted to be shared with the adjacent property
Relocated/Route 1~ Intersection. Access eaaem~nt(a)
To provi4e for an adequate roadway system at the time of
for the ~olle~ing.
a. Construction of a~dltlcnal pavmnent and curb and
complete the third through lane across the entire
property frontage plus a separate right turn lane at
b. Construction o£ a concrete sidewalk along Routs
installation of pedestrian crosswalks/signal at the
Courthouse Road relocated/Route 10 inter~ection by
others.
c. Construotion of additional pavement along , the
~astboun~ lanes of Courthouse Road relocated at the
approved a=c~zz to provide a right turn lane.
d. Construction of a left tul'n lane along the westbound
lanes of Courthouse Road relocated at the approved
e. The developer ~hall dedicate, free und unrestricted,
to and for =he ~enesit o£ Chester=laid County, any
additional Right of Way (or easement) required for
the improvements identified above.
f. Prior to any site plan approval, a phasing plan for
the required road improvements shall be ~ubmltt~d te
and approved by the transportation department.
Prior to obtaining a building pe~mit, one of the
following shall be accomplished for fire protection:
A. For building permits obtained on or ~efore June 30,
1991, the owner/developer ~h&ll pay to the County
$150.00 per 1,000 ~quare feet of gross floor area.
If the ~uilding per~it is obtained after Jun~ $0,
1991, the amount of the required pa~rment shall be
adjusted ~9ward or downward by the same ~ercentage
~hat th~ Marshall Swift Building Cost Index
increased or decreased between June 30, 1991, and
the da~ e£ ~aymant. With the approval of the
County's Fir~ Chief, the owner/developer shall
reeeiv~ a ~re~it toward ~he required payment for the
cost of any fire suppreEEion Ey~t~m ~ot eth=rwlse
reclulrad hy law which is included as a pa~t of the
development.
The owner/developer shall provide a fire suppression
syete~ ~ot otherwise required by law which the
County's Pire Chi~£ ~e%ermines substantially
the need for Coumty facilitie~ otherwise for the
~. There shall be no fast food restaurants located along
Courthouse Road.
6. Fast food restaurant u~es shall be limlt~d te the Reute
10 f~ontage.
After brief discussion regarding the u~es of the ~ite, the
applicant requested a thirty day d~£~rral, therefore, Hr.
Daniel withdrew hie motion.
that he had be~n eon=acted by the petroleum industry who
expressed ¢o~eerns re~arding the truffic flow on Route 10 and
that they would llke to have a meeting with staff and/or the
Board to discuss this
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Curtis, the Board
de~erre~ Case 9iSN0161 until July 24, 1991.
Vote: Unanimous
91~R017~
In Bermudm Kagisterlal DisCrlct, T~OM~S B~ r~q~ested
a~e~d~e~t to Conditional use Planned Development (Ca~s 86S094)
relative te buffer requirements. The density of such
amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance
91-461 6/26/91
general commercial uss with density to be det~rmine~ by
development regulations. This request li=~ in a General
Business (~-3) District on a $.5 acre paroet fronting
approximately 280 feet on the west line of Jefferson Davis
Highway, also fronting approximately 365 feet on the south
l~ne of Drewry~ Rluff Road~ and located in the southwest
quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 67-3 (1)
~arcsl ~l (Sheet 25).
F~r. Bill Pools presented a Summary Of Case 91SR0175 and stated
that the applicant wa~ ~eque~tlng amendments to delete the
required land~caplng along th~ ~outh~rn property llne; to
reduce the widths of the buffer along the northern and western
property lines; for pe~missi0n to install a fence which has
already bssm in~talls~ within the existing buffsrs; and to
delete the required landscaping within the buffer areas along
the northern and western property lines. He stated the
Planning Commission recommended approval of a portion o~ the
request, along the southern property line, ~nd reCOmmended
~r. Charlie Beddows, representing the applicant, presented an
overview of the request and stated that the Planning
Commission's recommendation did not permit ~he applicant to
develop the site as requested. ~e reviewed the natural
vegetation and stated that the site plan mubmltted regulred
the installation of pine tree~ which they felt would not
provide the bufferlmg a~ well as the fence provided from the
adjoining residential ~reas and, therefore were requesting
that the in~tall~tion and maintenance of the ~clid board fence
bs approved. He provided the Board with letters from the
nelghbor~ in the urea imdi=uting that they do mot oppose the
fence which ham been installed and requested the Beard to give
favorable consideration to the overall request.
Mr. Cu~rin stated that prior to being a member on the Board of
Supervisors, he had met wi~h the applicant and reviewed his
proposal, that he had visited the property, and the Board at
that time did not grant the re.est. He inquired as to the
applicant being in violation of the conditions of coning and
the court result~ of the County's a~ti0ns against th~
applicant.
~r, ~eddows stated that the a~plicant currently has complied
with every condition he had hee~ charged ~ith violating with
the exception of the fence and that at this point in tame, the
conrt case hsd been continued in o~der that the applicant
could make this application for consideration to the Board to
request the modification~ in zoning.
parts of the existing fence that were in violation.
~r, Curtis stated that the ease ha~ been in existence for a
long period ef time and inqmiDed if thm applicant Would be
willing to ~efer the cass for thirty day~ in order that they
¢0~ld meet and review the case further in detail. /4r. Beddows
stated that they were agreeable to t/~e request and ~ndlcated
that there were citizens pre~ent who would lake to add~e~ the
issue.
Fir. Chuuk Waters; ~r. John Gregory; Mr. B. D. Layne, Jr.; amd
F~r. ;tnd~ew Sledge stated that they were ~11 neighbors of Fir.
Beck; t. hat they felt he wes a good neighbor; that he hem
maintained ~he f~nc~ and hi~ yard; and that they were in favor
of the existing fence versus the required landscaping and
would like the fence to remain as is.
91-462 6/26/91
on motion of Mr. Ceftin, seoanded by ~ir. Applegate, th~ ~oard
defe~ed Case 91SR~17§ until July 24, 1991.
In Matoaea Magisterial District, CHE~i'~FI~ FRA'£~A~
0F ~, ~E 47 roque~tgd r~newal of conditional U~a
85sos3) to pe~it a fraternal organization in an Agrlcult~al
~A) Di~triot. ~e ~ensity of such ~en~en~ will
controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance ~tandards. The
comprehenmive Plan designates t~e Dru~erty for residmnt~al
of Beach Road, approximately 1,390 feet southeast of Brandy
0ak~ Drive. Tax Map 109-12 (1) Parcel 1 (sheet
~. Jaoobson Dresented a ~aTy of Came 91SR0146 end stated
tha~ staff ha~ originally r~oo~ended denial of the
approval subject to conditions and acceptanca of the
~. To~y Gordon, representing ~e applicant~ mtated that the
oonditions in order =o n~e the request compatible with the
approved Ca~e 91SR~46 subject to the following cond~t~on~:
1. ~xcept as stated herein, development ~hall Co~ply witk
emerging qro~h standards for co~ity Busine~
Districts adjacent to residentially ~d
2. A 500 foot setback shall be maintained adjacent to ~each
Road. Within ~i~ s~=~ck, a seventy-five (75) foot
buffer ~hall be maintained adjao~t to Beach Road. The
width of this buff~ ~hall not be re~uced through
(NOT=S: (a) Within required setbacks, ex~st~ng trees
eight (8) ~nches ~n caliper o~ ~eater must be retained
(b) within ~e r~i~ed buffer, landscaping mu~t
provided where existing vegetation i~ insufficient
seventy-five (75) foot buffer.)
3. All structures ehall have an archltect~al ~tyle
com~atlble wi=h area nelgh~rhoods. Compatibility ~ay
achieved through the use of ~imilar building
Leading docks an4 drive-in doors shall be prohiblt~.
4. with the exception oS maintenanue actlvitie~, hour~ of
p.~., Sunday t~ough Thursday; and between 8:00 a.m. and
12:08 ~idnight, Friday through Saturday.
system.
Activities shall be limited to tha following:
a) Fraternal or other mimilar organized activities,
when restricted to the interior of a building;
Passive recreational Zacilities, such es picnic
c) Jogging and exercise trails and equipment;
d) Playgrounds and/or athlatlc flald~ provided that
91myfield~, courts or other similar active
feet from adjacent propertieg and the 100 foot
setback shall be landscaped per Section 21.1-228 (a)
(4) of the Zening 0rdinanos,
~guare feet ia area and ten (10) feet in height, shall be
permitted to identify the use. The area of t-he sign may
be increased by thirty-two (32) square feet if an
interchangeable copy sign is incorporated. This sign
~hall comply with section 2~.1-266 Of tlle Zoning
ordinance, where applicable.
And, fur=her, ~e Boar= accepted the Zollowing
conditions:
1. Prior to ~ite plan approval, forty-five (4~) feet right
of way on the south aide o~ Beach Road measured from the
ceuterliae of that part of Beach Road immedlately
adjacent to the property ~hall be dedicated free and
unre=tricted to and for the benefit of Chesterfield
County.
2. The ditch elonq the south ~ide of Beach Road shell be
relocated to provide an a~equa~o shoulder for tho
property frontage. Such relocation shall occur
conjuncUion with development of the property.
$. Prior to obtaining a building ~ermit, one of the
A, For building permits obtained on or before June 38,
1991, t~e ew~, developer or assignee(s) shall pay
to the County $150 per 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area. If the building pernit ia obtained
payment shall be adjusted ~l~4ard or downward by the
same percentage that the Marshall swift Building
assignee(s) shall receive a credit towar~ the
suppression system not otherwise required by law
which is included aa s part of the dev~lol~m~nt.
fire suppression syeten not otherwise required Dy
substantially reduces the need £or County facilities
otherwime necessury for fire protection.
On motion cZ N=. Applegate, seconded by Mr. coffin, the Beard
went into ~xecutiYe gessto~, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a)
(3), Code of Virg~nla, I9~0, as ampnd~d, to discuss the
conditien, acquimitio~ and use 0£ real property for public
pu~po~e~ ~elating to the e×t~sion of Route 2~8 to Route 60.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Applegate, =econded by ~. ~ayes~ ~he Board
adopted the follow~ng ~e~olution:
into Bxe~utlve Session in accordance with a formal vot~ of the
W~J~R~A$, th~ Virginia Freedom of Info~a=~nn Ant
effent~ve July 1, 1989, provides for certification that ~uch
Executive Session wa~ conducted in conformity with law.
NOW, ~E~FORE, D= IT ~SOLV~D that the Board of County
~tification.
~. Applegute: Aye.
~. Currin~ Aye.
~. Sullivan: Aye.
11.D.2. ROUT~ 288 NOR'f~ D~I~ PUBLIC~{E~/~G STATeMeNT
On motion of ~he Board, the Boa~d approved the Route ~ North
Design Public ~earing Statement, as amende~, to include the
~mpor~ance of the need for the interchange at Route 2~$ and
Statement is filed w~th the papers of this Board.)
On motion of ~r. Daniel, seoonded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
adjourned at 5:00 p.m. until JUly ~4, 1991 at 9:00 a.m.
Vote: Unanim~us
91-465