Loading...
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