08-28-91 MinutesAU~UST ~8,
Mr. M. ~. Sullivan, Chairman
Mr. ¢. F. Curr£n, Jr., Vins Chrm.
Mr. G. H. Apple~ute
Mr. Harry G. Daniel
Mr. Jease J. Mayaa
~. Lane B. Rankly
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Commissioner cf Revenue
Ms. J. A~y Davis,
Asst. to Co. Admin.
Mrs. Doris R. DeHart,
Asst. Cc. Ad~ia.,
Legiz. Svcs. and
In=ergovern. Affair~
Ms. Joan S. Dolezal~
clerk =o the ~oard
Chief Robert L, fanes, Jr.,
Fi~e Department
~fr. Bradford ~. ~arAmer~
Deputy Ca. Admln.,
~anagement
Mr. William ~.
Dir., Planning
Mr. R~chard Leonard,
Admlnistr~tive Analyst,
Env.
~+ Ma~ Lou Lyle,
nlr., Acuountlng
Deputy CO. Admin.,
Coun=y A=torney
Mr~. Pauline A. Mitchell,
Dir., ~ews & Public
Information Services
Col. J. E. Plttman,
Police Department
Ch~f, Dev. Review,
Planning
~s. ~aria R~y~oldn, A~t.
Di~., Budget & Manag~ent
~. Richard ~. sale,
Deputy Co. Admi~.,
Co~uni~y Development
~. M. D. ~tith, Jr., Dir.,
Park= & Recreation
Dr. Robert
Dir., Librar~e=
Mr. David H.
Dir., utilities
Mr. sullivan called the regularly scheduled me,ting to order
1. I~P;OC~ATION
Mr. sullivan introduce~ir. Arline W. Rosa, District Pastor of
~ou~e of ~rayer, who gave the invocation.
2. I~?.KDGE O1~ i~?.T.~GIANC~ TO TR~ FL~G OF 'z~ UNITED -~TATES OF
M~. ~. D. "Pete" Stith, Jr., Director Of the Parks and
Reereatlea Department, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag of the United States of America.
3. APPROFALOF~UTE8
om ~otion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board
approved the minutes of July 24~ 1991, as amended.
Vote: unanimous
Mr. Ramsay stated the Sheriff's Department had received aB
award from the Division of C~ild Support Enforcement,
~epart~ent of Social Services, commending the Depar~t for
their caoperation and support for child ~upport enforcement
within the County, ~e noted the Sheri££~s Department was one
of five departments in the State to rec~iv~ the award. He
furthe~ stated ~r. Daniel had been appointed to serve as a
member of the Advisory Group studying the Trust Fund
Allocation Formula for the dimtribution of ~ighway funds for
the State. Mr. Daniel stated Ftr. John McCracken had also been
appointed to serve as a member to the Advisory Group and
requested the Co~ty Administrator to prepare a llst of
suggestions to submit for consideration ts the Advisory Group.
5. ~OARD
Mr. Daniel stated he had attended the Virginia Association
Counties (VAC0} Board of Directors meeting in which th= druft
legislative p~ckage had b~c completed and would be
forthcoming, He further stated VACO NOUld bo lobbying for the
General Asmembly to address such items as the "Dillon ~ule"
and some of it& constraints; t~e Barring and taxing mu~ority
for legal governments~ ~nd funding of State mandateu.
Kr. Applegate stated he had attended ~e monthly memting for
Social Se~ices and noted th~r~ ~a~ a n~d for additional
~pace for ~e Department, He furor stated he also attended
the Capital Region A~o~t Co~ission meeting and noted that
al~ough ther~ had been a decline in passenger enplan~ment~,
it was an improvement o~ur lust month.
~. ~rrin stated he and ~r. Daniel had attended ~e Rchool
Boa~d Liaison Co~itt~e meeting in which teacher morale
~. ~ullivan stated he and Mr. C~rin had attends4 a ~alth
Care Co~itt~e meeting in which additional pro,ams and
changes ~n ben~fltm had b~$~ discussed for County and School
6. REQUESTS TO P0ST~0N~A~TION. ~A~0ITIORS OR
~G~ rN T~ O~ OF P~S~ATION
On motion of M~. Appleqate~ seconded by ~. ~aye~, the ~oard
added Item ll.M., Executive Sesslun P~suant to sect{on
~.1--3~(a)(7), Code of Virginia, 19~07 a~ ~ended, for
Consultation with Legal Counsel Regarding County of
Chesterfield versus J. J. Jew~tt to follow Item ll.i.; added
It~ 11.G.23.~ Resolution Relating to John ~lsr Co~unity
College to follow It~ 11.~.2~; and, a~opted th~ a~nda, as
~ended.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of ~e Board, ~e following r~solution was ~dopted:
~$, Mr- William Gray, Sr. retired from the
Magi~trate'~ Office~ Chesterfield cowry, on June 30, 1991;
~S, ~r. Gr=y wa~ hired in the Sheriff's Departm~t
and
service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and
~R~, ~. ~ray was one of the original appointe~
the Maglstrate's Offioe on July 1, 1974 serwing ~e
Judicial District; and
~S, ~r. Gray has ~en inst~ental in the
i~pl~entation of new t~chnolo~y to record and process the
ever-ln=rea~ing worklomd;
~S, Chesterfield County and the board of Supervisors
will mi~s ~. Gray'~ diligent service.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that ~he ~est~fi~ld
County Board of Supervisors publioly reou~ni~s ~r. William
Gray, Sr. and extends on behalf of its members and the
servic~ to ~ County.
~D, BE IT F~ RESOLVED, that a copy of
re~olution be Dresented to ~r. Gray an~ ~a= this
be pe~anently recorded among the papers of this Board
Vote: Unan~ou~
~r. Sullivan stated the executed resolution had been
to ~. Gray at his rmtirem~t reception in July by ~r.
7.B. ~E~NIZIN~ '1'~ w~ OF AUGUST 26 -- SEi~I~B]~ 2. 1991
"NATIONkLUOBTRA~N/N~PARTNER~{IP Ac'TALU~NI
~r. Kas~en stat~ 5h~ re~olution r~cugnizing the we~k of
Au~t ~6 Sep/e~er 2, 199~ a~ "National Job Training
Partnership Act Alumni W~k" w~ par~ of ~ national e~ort
entering the wo~kforee. He f~rther stated participantm
consi~tu~ of high school dropouts, welfare reclpient~,
un~killed adults or those ~employ~d who do not have
marketable ~ills, ~i~located workers, veterans, an~ others.
On motion of the Board, %he following resolution was
Act (~PA) is an effective program for seels%lng school
dropouts, welfare reciDients, unskilled adults, dislocated
workers, veterans and o~rs who face Eerious barriers
emplo~t; and
~AS, The me,ers of congress, the virginia General
Assembly, the pre~s and our co,unity should be info--ed of
~he 9o~i=ive impact JTPA ~as 0n the lives of our fellow
citiz~s; and
91-540 S/2B/91
WHER~A~, All cf the partI~ers in the JTPA ny~tem
consisting Of federal, state and local gowernments, business,
providers mu~t a0~um~ en active role in effectively
sommunieat~ng tho ~uccess of ~e program; and
~s, JTPA Ai~ a~e i~divid~al~ who have
successfully completed th~ pro~am, have overcome their
oo~uni~y and th~ bee= advooa~e~ for the progr~.
August 2~ =hxo~g~ S~D~mber 2, 1991 a~ "National Job
~artner~hip Act Alumni Week" in the County of
v~rg~n~a, by recognizing the a~iev~ents of ~PA Alu~i,
supporting the program an~ calling it= ~ignifioanoe
Vote: ~animous
~n~ M~. Eosalyn Key, Director of Capital ~ea Tralnin~
Conmortium, and ~a~ed them for their effo~t~.
for her untiring efforts and co~i~men= to =he Pro~am.
~. Mioa~ ~a~ed an accident had occurred between Officer G.
L. Netherland, a County police officer, and ~. an~
Richar~ Schaffer a~ ~ i~t~rseo~ion of P~ovide~oe Road and
~idlothian Turnpike. He further stated ~e accident had
occurre~ when Officer Netherland wa~ p~oceeding through
g~e~n light; that it had be~n established by an
reconstruction expert that offioe~ Netherland ~n~ not
exceeding ~ np~ed limit; and that the Schuf~erm wera
passengers in a car which was cro~sing M~dlothian Turnpike on
Providence Ro~d in which the drivar of the car was legally
intoxicated. He noted the ca~ in which the Schaffer$
passengers ha~ ~n through a red light which controlled ~eir
direction of travel and Officer Neth~r~a~d Wa~ not negligent
in his autions, therefore, staff was re=o~ending denial
the olai~.
T~e~e WaS no one prement to address this
On motion of ~. Appl~gate, seconded by ~r. Dani=l, ~ Board
deRied ~e claim of Mr. and ~s. Richard Schaffe~ fo~
injuries sustained in an automobile accident wi~ County
Doli=e officer, Officer S. L.
9. DEFE~d~ED IT~
9.A. A~P/kOV/~L OF AWARD OF WA'r~L~NE ~ONTRACT TO ~ & E
~ONSTRU~TION COMPANY
On motion of ~ir. CUrrln, seconded by Mr. Ap~legate, the ~oard
awarded u waterline contract te T & E Construction Company, in
the a~c%k~t of $~0,198.40, £er the installation Of 700 feet cf
16 ~n~h waterline from Route 10 to a point aDp~oximately 100'
feet north of Krause Road ~eet, which waterline is required to
provide sufficient fire suppression flow to the new Kental
9t-541 8/28/91
Healti~/Mental Retardation/Substance ~J0use Building and =o the
£uturs sites cf the Public Safety Training Buildlng and the
Utilities Building. (It i~ noted funds are available f~ tt~e
Drojects and wall be char~s~ as follows~ ~ental ~ealth/
Mental Retardation/Substance Abuse Bnilding - 5NA, in the
amount of $32,179 and Utilities Building - 5P-SB3~0-BB0162R,
in the amou~t of $18,020.)
Vote: Unanimou~
GREA'r~u~i[fAHMONDT~%NSIT CO~P~BOARDOF D~
O~ ~otio~ of ~. Daniel, seconded by ~. ~ye~, the Boar~
reapDolnted ~r. Daniel K. Smith, ~. David W. Mathew~, and ~.
Harry I. Schutte, ~eD~e~enting ~esterfield County, to ~erva
on the Grea~er Richmond Transit Company Board of Directors,
who~e terms are effective Ootober 16, 1991 amd will e~ire
Octobe~ 15, 1~D2.
Vote: Unanimous
conveyance of a leasehold interest in property located at the
constructing a community center had been deferred from the
J~ly ~4, ~991 I~eeting. }{e further stated staff wa~
deferral of the publi~ h~aring until September
On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~. Applagate,
of a leas~old intreat in property located at the ~u~enot
~0. PUBLIC HEARING~
10.A. TO CONSID~ '£~ COnveYANCE OF AN O~TION TO ~3~C~aS~
~3~I~A~N TRA~T OR P~C~ OF ~ ~G 2.~91
~. Mica~ stated t~is date and time ~ad bean advertis~ for a
p~lic hearing to consid~ the conveyance of an option to
in. ess and e~ss, located in Clover Hill
District a~jacent co Fire station 92 to Ric~mon~ cellular
Telephone Company. ~e f~er ~tated ~e Board had previously
comveye~ a lon~-te~ lea~e to Richmond C~llular
Company to construct a teleco~unicatio~s tower ~hind the
p~lic safety co~unication wi~in the County and ~ey were
$25,000.
91-542 8/28/91
Hr. Edward willey, Jr., representing Richmond Cellular
Telephone Company, requested the Beard to give favorable
hearing was closed.
On motion of 5~r. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, ~he Board
authorized the county Administ~ato~ to execute an agreement
oonv~ying a two year option to Rio~und Cellular Telephone
containing 2,691 equate So~t, more or less, together with an
Magisterial District of Chesterfield County, Virginia,
adjacent to Fire Station $2 for use as a telecommunicatlons
lO.B. TO CONgID~AN~i~ARC~TOAM~D TRg~ODR OF~M
~ SE~ION 12-22.~ ~-RTING ~ D~INO~
~. Mi~a~ ~tat~d thi~ date and time had been advertised for
publi~ hearing to consider an ordinano~ rela~ing to delin~ent
whi~ ~e ~eneral ~s~bly had approved option~ for loealitle~
would re.ire the applicant, prior to the i~ance o~ business
l~c~nm~s, to pay all delinquent bu~ine~ license,
the County as a pre-condition to i~uance of a
collectlon of business license taxe= during cfi=leal
Ike Ca~ichael, Co~issioner cf R~v~nue, stated the
collection of business license taxes wam imperative and felt
~m re~trictionx of th~ ordinance would not only increase the
Workload in hi~ office but the court docket as well and~
After ~rief discussion, O~ motion of Mr. ~ay~, seconded by
Mr, Daniel. the ~oard tabled ~nd~fin~t~ly an o~dinance to
emend the Code of the CO~y of Chesterfield, 197~,
amen~e~, by adding a new sec=ion 12-22,1 relating to
delinquent b~siness license~ and per~onal property
Vote: Unanimous
10.c. T~ CONSIDER AN OPJ~INANCE TO AMEND '£H~ CODE OF THK
public hearing %o consider an ordinance relating to ~ingle
~ing sent to ~ach taxpayer. He noted the Treasurer and ~
the current computer software package generat~ individual
bill~ and they ~it ~hanglng the ~y~tem would be ~o~tly and
time consuming.
No one came forward to speak in favor e£ er against tJn~
ordinance.
Di~ssien, comments, and questions ensued with ~r. Iko
Car~ichael, Commissioner of Revenue, relative to the
initiation of the ordinance; the sapab~lity of the present
whether mere than ems tax bill ta the same owner was mailed
individually or together; a~d the present mccounting system
On motion of Mr. ~ayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, tee Board
tabled indefinitely an ordinance to a~end the Code of the
County Of chesterfield, 1978, a~ amended, by amendln~ Section
S-12 by adding a new sub-p~ragraph (e) to allow a single real
property tax hill and a single tangible personal property tax
bill to be sent to each taxpayer.
Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, ~r. Daniel and Mr. ~ayes.
Nays: ~r. C~rrin and ~. Applegate.
30.D.
TO CON$ID~ AN ORDZNABr~ '~0 ~ ~ P.E~ACT SECTION
8--13.3, ,,?ODE_O.~ ~ ~/~ ~ ~%~X~L~, 1978,..A~
a~DED, ~ATING TO T~ ~aSSIFICATION FOR....~RSONAL
~. Micas stated ~is dat~ and tim~ ha~ ~en adv~ti~ed for
public hearing to consider an ordinance relutln~ %0
=la~sifioation ~or personal property tax purpose~ of motor
vehicles owned by a~iliary police officers and uped
auxiliary police duties, ae ~u~er stated the or,inmate
would allow the B0a~d tO met a l~e~ p~rz~nal property tax
rate for auxiliary police offi~ and ~at the Board had
pre~iously adopted u lower tax rate f0~ vol~tee~
6~a~u an~ vol~r zire ~epartment personnel. He note~ the
or~n~n~$ wo~ld be eff~ct~v~ for the 1992 tux year i~
the ra=e would be se~ in the ~dge~ proo~6s an~ ~ potential
loss of revenue would be approximately $3,000.
No omc c~e fo~ard to ~peak in favor of or against the
ordinance.
~. ApDlegate inquired as to where to draw ~ lin~
~an=in~ ~e~e t~e~ of re~es=~ and ~ta=e~ he ha~ received
of benefits.
~ief Pittman stated he supported any benefit~ for
auxiliary police officers who are volunteers to ~e
and work many lon~ hard hours. He further stated ther~
currently thirty-five auxiliary police officers and
ordinance would au~orize uP =o ~i~ty officers to receive this
M~. Cu~in inquired as to t~e t=aining ~eoeived by volunteers
an4 whether vol~nteers ar~ =ompensat~d for it, ~ief Pit~an
stated volumtesr~ receiYe extensive training in which ~y arc
not Com~enmate~.
ve~ hard and in, ired if there was another means in which
Pittman stated ~is t~e of re.est had been initiated because
rescue squads and vol~teer fire.an.
was minimal to ea~ ~ecipient and suggested t~e f~d~ could
91-544 8/28/91
instead be appropriated to the Police Department to be used to
support volunteer efforts. Me further stated he felt this was
a way to ~ay thank you .t~ volunt~r~ for making a valuabl~
contribution to the CoUnty and alss' felt tha~ without
volunteers, the County would most ii~eiy be paying overtime to
policeman.
Mr. Currin stated these typos oZ situations have been
addressed by the General Assembly which is now
· oca~i~ies to ~ant these re~uests and he felt mince the Board
had already granted the sa~ consld~ration to tke volunteer
~escue squadm and volunteer fireman, it ~hould also be granted
~o the volunteer auxiliary police officers and moved adoption
of an ordinance to amend and reenact 8=etlon 8-13.3, Code of
the County of Chesterfield, 1975, a~ a~endcd, relating =o
olassifieation for per~onul property tax purposes of motor
vehicles owne~ ~y auMiliary police officers and use~ for
a~xiliury police duties.
Mr. Apple~ate stated he felt the Board should develop a policy
llmlting these ~es cf requests and restrict consideration to
those who provide direct service to the County.
The~e was b~ief discussion relative to developing a polley;
where to draw the line on these ty]~es of rec~lestsf and
authority of the General Assembly in allowlng the Co%l~y to
approve these ~ypes of requests,
Mr. Maye~ made a ~eti0~ to defer the ordinance until September
~5, 1991 to give ~taff an opportunity to provide alternative
reco~nendations to compensate the volunteer auxiliary police
offlcerm.
l~r, ¢urrin stated he already had a motion on the floor to
recommend approval of the ordinance. Mr. Daniel seconded the
motion.
[ir. Sullivan asked if the~e Was a second to the ~ub~tit~te
~otie~, M~. Applegute seconded the substitute motion.
Mr. Sullivan called for the vote on the ~ub~tltute m0tio~
by Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Appls~ate, to defer an ordlnanee
to amend and reenact Section ~-15.$, C0~e of the County of
chssterfleld, 1978, as amended~ relating to the classification
for personal property tax purposes of motor vehicles owned by
auxilia~y police offlcere and used for auxiliary police duties
until September 25, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. in order to give staff
an opportunity to provide alternative recommendations to
compensate the volunteer auxiliary police officers
Ayes: Mr. Maye~ and Mr. Applegat~.
Nays: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Currin and Mr, Daniel.
M~. Sullivan ~alled for the ~ot~ on ~r. Currin~s motion,
seconded by Mr. Daniel, go approve the following
~uN ORDINA/qCE TO AMEND CblA~TER 8 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
O~FC~ESTER~IELD. 197~, AS AMENDED, ~¥ AMENDING
REENACTING SECTION ~-13.3 RELATING TO THE TANGIBLE
PERSONAL ~RO~KRT¥ TAX CI~$$IFICATION OF HOTOR VEHICLES
OWNED BY MEMBERS OF VOLIJNTEER RESCUE SQUADS, MEMBERS OF
VOLI~TEER FIR~ DEPARTMENTS AND AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICERS
BE IT OF~DAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County:
(1) That Chapter 8 of the Code of the...County of
Chesterfield, 197~, a~ amended, is hereby amended by amsn~ing
and reenacting Section 8-13.3 as follows:
(a) Motor vehicles owned by members of a volunteer
tenglble personal proper~y ~axa~ion, subject to the standards,
conditions and requirements provided in this section.
(b) For any tax year, only one (1) motor vehicle per
owner may bE separately classified pursnant to subsection (a).
(o) To qualify for ~eparate classisicatisn under this
section, the motor vehicle must:
(1) ~ cwne~ by a member of a volunteer rescue
appointed to serve as an auxiliary police officer pursuant to
(~) Be used regularly by ~he member to ~mpond t~
call~ or used by a member who r~gularly performs other dutle~
for ~he re~oue ~uad, fire department or pulice department;
(]) R~ used for such calls O= tO p~rfo~ such other
duties more often then any other motor vehiole owned by the
member.
auxiliary police off,car pursuant to Section 1~.1-159.2, Code
¥~isle separately classified for a tax year under this
organization or department, tsar:
(1) The member is a member o£ ~he organization or
(2) The member regularly responded to emergency
calls received by the organization or department or regularly
during the previous calendar year;
(3) T~e motor vehicle for which a separate
classification is sough~ was regularly used tQ respond to ~u~h
often than any other vehicle owned by the member.
Vote: Unanimous
~r. Mica~ ~tated this date and time had been advertised for a
~ublic hearing ~o con~ider an ordinance relating to the
classification for personal ~roperty tax purposes of motor
the estimated loss of rewenue would b~ $4,200 to $5,700 per
year.
Reverend Tony stated he was u retired disabled veteran, a
resident of the County, and was als0 a volunteer auxiliary
police officer, and that he supported the ordinance ~or all
~. Ike Car~ishaet stated he was a veteran and supported the
ordinance but felt the ~e~rd should be aware there weul~ be an
impact on the Co~iss~oner of Revenue'~ office and the Office
There being no one else to address this ordinance, the public
hea~ing was closed.
Fnf. Mayes stated he felt the ordinance wa~ clearly defined
and, therefore, made a ~otien, seconded by Mr. $~lliva~, to
adopt an ordinance to amend Chapter 8 o~ the Code of the
County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amendsd~ by enacting Section
8-~3.4 relating to the classification for personal ~roperty
tax ~urposes of motor vehicles owned by veteranz with
service-connected dis~bilttle~.
There was considerable discussion regarding the Board's
discussion on limiting those types of requests; restricting
consideration to tho~e who provide direo~ service to the
county a~ previously discussed; the ordinanc~ being
restrictive ~n te~$ O~ veteraas who would quallfy; whethnr
the ordinance would help those in nemd of this type of
¢en$ideratlen; the line being ~rawn limiting the~e types of
requests; whether the ordinance going beyond the County's
responsibility in prcvidin~ the~e benefits; the ordinance
providing for those who were disabled and tho o¢on0mio
requirements; and the ordinance being an opportunity to thank
and recopnize the contributions of otherm to the County; etc.
~hen a~ked, ~r. CarmichaeI ~tat~d tbs ordinance would require
considerable ti=e depending on the number Of Veterans who ~ade
application. Mr. Curtis stated since several concerns had
~een expressed, he could not vote on the ordinance at this
time.
Nr, Mayes called for the question os the motion he mado~
seconded by Mr. Sullivan, to adopt an ordinance to ameDd
Chapter 8 of ~he Code of ~he Count~ of chesterfield, 1978, as
a~ended, by enacting Section 8-13.& relating to the
vehicles owned by veterans with servlce-co~-nacted
disabilities.
Mr. Daniel state~ since the Boar~ had concerns about the
ordinunce, he felt the motion should b~ for ~e~erral or some
ether action other than adoption.
Mr. Currln offered s substitute motion, ~econded by Mr.
Applegate, to defer an ordinance to amend Chapter ~ of the
Code of the County of Chesterfield, 197~, as amended, by
enacting Section $-1~.4 relating to the classification for'
personal property tax purposes of motor vehicles owned by
veterans with service-connected diszbilities until September
~5~ 1991 at 9:00 a.m.
Vote: Unanimous
91-547 8/28/91
TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ,TO..AM~N~_C~%Pj~ 8 OF T~E CODE
OF T~ COUNTY OF ~H~STE~FIE~D. 1978. A~ AM~NDED~
ERACTIN~ SECTI~ 8-13.~ R~TTN~ TO '1~ CLASSIFICATION
FOR ~O~ P~P~ T~ P~SBS OF H~R
~. Micas stated thi~ date and tim~ had be~ advertised for a
classification for personal property tax purposes of motor
vehicles o~ed by certain elderly a~d h~dlcapped persons and
would allow a lower tax rate to be set fo~ all elderly and
handicapped persons who met economic requirements. Me f~ther
tm~ayers would qualify and the potential loss of revenue
would be $178,200. He no%e~ th~ Co~issioner of Rev~ue felt
~e ordinance, if adopted, would require an additional
position for his office in or,er to handl~ the increase
workload.
No one came forward to speak in favor 0f o~ aqainst the
o~dinance.
th~ ~oar4 had already d~ferred and felt a deferral of this
ordinance wa~ also in order.
personal property tax pu~oses of motor V~hiolem owned by
certain elderly and han~icappe~ persons until $ep~e~r
1991 at 9:00
Vote: Unanimous
~ION 7.1-2 ~T~C ~ ~ ~ OF ~G
~. Hicas ~%ated ~is date and tim~ had been advertised for a
public hearing to oo~i~e~ an o~dinance relating to the
bo~daries of vo~in~ precincts and location of polling places.
~e f~the~ ~tated that d~e to th~ State ~enatorial
redistricting, it was necessary for th~ ~oard to split the
Skin,after, Ettrick, and ~toaca voting 9~ecinot~ and to
shifu a portion o~ Brande~iI1 voting 9re=in=t int~
voting precinct. He noted the ordinance had b==n adopted,
an emergency ba~, an~ the Justice D~Da~ment had been asked
to approu~ the splitting of the precincts on an expeditious
ba~i~ but have not approved i~ a~ of ~i~ time an~ bmcau=e
th~=, the Registrar would have to direct voters to separate
voting booths in two of the pr~clncts fo~ t~e p~i~ary election
~. Robert Harvey, Chairperson of Voter Registration in the
County ~f ~ssterfleld for the N~CP, stated thsy objected to
the ordinate ~plltting the votlnq precinct~ of Skinquarter~
~toaoa, and Ettrlck; that the redlstrlctlng plan s~mittad
thm Justice Department would not be approved until
Scot--mr 24~ 1991 and~ ~efora~ they f~lt th~ Board ~houl~
not con~ider =hanges ~n ~e votlng ~recln=ts until after that
time; and ~at splitting ~e vd=lng precincts was a violation
voting strength.
~. Daniel in, ired if the voting precincts being split were
~. Mica~ ~tated that was correct. ~. Daniel stated that
ninoe th~ s~natorial ~istrict lines were dra~ by the Stat~
and the ~eneral A~e~ly, redress wa~ wi~ the~ a~d ~ot with
91-~48 8/28/91
the Board of Supervisor~; and that the Board cf Supervisors
had a legal obligation to provide voting praulncts that are
Currin concurred.
Mr. Mayas stated he felt it was tho responsibility of the
Board of SUpervisors when they adopted the redistricting plan
and made Matoaca District two-thirds of the county in land and
that the need for the split wa~ generated by that pian~ that
the Justice Department has not yet approved the redistricting
plan submitted by ~he County and, therefore, felt no action
should be taken by the Board regarding the ordinance until a
decision was rendered by the Justice Department.
~en aoke~, ~lr. ~i~a~ stated the ordinance wa~ generated ~y
State action to redraw tbs Senutorial district lines and
requested by the Registrar aD~ WaS ~nrelute~ to the
Medi~trieting ~len which has been approved by the Justice
Department.
~o. Diane ~orn~er~er stated she had been transferred into the
Matoaca District and felt the District Was too large to be
re~resented by one supervisor, she added when she went to
vote at the Republican Caucus, she was informed she could not
vote at that precinct because her name was not on the votinq
list as did other citizen~ and =his was unfair,
There being no on~ el~e to address this ordinance, the public
hearing wes olosed.
Mr. Daniel ~ade a ~otion to readept, on a permanent basis~ an
ordinance tO a~end the Code of the County o£ Chester£ield~
1978, as amended, by a~ending S~ctien 7.1-2 relating to the
boundaries of voting precincts and location of polling places,
Mr. Applegate seconded hi~ motion.
~lr. Applc~atc inquired if the ~enito voting precinct line~ had
been draw~ by th~ state er the Registrar. M~. Micas stated
the lines h~d been drawn by the Registrar but were drawn in
response to ~ne Sta~e senatorial d~striet lines.
D~scuss~on, comments, and questions ensued relative to the
cost effectiveness of ~mal] voting
F~r. Mayas inquired if citizens who disagreed with the
redistricting plan could f~le eu~t in federal court to seek an
injunction against implementation of the plan. Mr. Kites
~tatsd any person who felt their, constitutional rights had
been violated could file suit in federal court.
Mr. Ramsay stated he would followup with the Registrar
Mr. Daniel requested the County Administrator and the
ensure more effective ways for next year's election by
consolidstin~ as many common voting precincts as possible in
an effoz~c to make the system more cost-effective and
~fflolent.
Mr. Sullivan called for th~ vote on the motion ~ade by
Daniel, seconded by F~r. Applegat~, to raadopt the following
ordinance on a per~anent basis:
AN ORDINA/qCE TO A~END THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of
Chesterfield County that the Code of the Countv
91-549
of
Sl~Slgl
Chesterfield, 197~, a~ amended, is amended by amending section
7.1-2 as follows:
sec. ?.1-2. Precinct...bp.%~da~i~s and polllnq~laces.
The following shall be the precinct boundaries and
polling places for magisterial districts in the county:
o e o
~{ATD~C..A MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
.ETTRIC~ ~OTING PRECINCT:
Beginning at the intersection of oldtown Creek with th~
boundary line between Che~terfleld County and the City cf
Colonial ~eightm; thence along the ee~ter line of 01dtowll
Creek as it meanders in a sou~hwemtwardly 41rectioa to its
point of intersection wi~ Hicko~ ROad {State Route 628)
thence southea~twardly at~ng t~e center line of Hickory
Route 36); thenc~ ~astward!y along Rive= Road (state Route
ts its intersection wi~ the Seaboard Coast Line ~ilroad
r~ght-of-way; thence southwardly along said right-of-way
bounda~ line between chesterfield county and th~ City of
~etersburg; th~ce eastwardly along said bo~dary llne as it
follows ~c Appomatto~ Rive~ to frs intersection with the
boundary line between Chesterfield County and the City
Colonial He~gh%~, the point and place Of
The voting place fo~ Rttrick Voting ~ecinct Shall
~ick El~tary school, ~0910 che~t~rfi~ld Avenue.
B~NCMES VOTING PRECIN~:
B~ginning at =he intersection of swift Creek with the
boundary li~e betweeD ~esterfield County ~nd t~e City
Colonial Heigh=s; thence along ~e o~n%~r lin~ of swif=
as it meanders in a n~r~westw~rdly ~ir~ction to its
intersection with the center llne of Bradle~ Bridge Road
(State Route 65~); then~ proceeding gouthwardly along
center l~ne of Bradley Bridge Road (State Route 631) to
proceeding southeastwardly along the o~ter line of Woodpecker
Road (S=a~e Route 625) to its intersection with th~
sou~wes~wardly alon~ the center line of sandy ~ord Road to
its inter~ction wi~ Hickory Read (state Route 6~8); thence
suutheastwa=dly along the center line of Hickory Road (State
Route 6lB) to its intersection with Oldto~ C~ee~; thence
northeastwardly to it~ inter~ection wi~ th~ boundary line
~ence along $u=h bo~dary li~e i~ a nor~wardly direction to
its intersection with Swift CreW, ~hm point and pla~e
beginning.
The voting place for Brun~em Voting ~ecinct shall be
Ma~oaca High s~ool, 6001 ~icko~ ~oad.
~TOA~ VOTING PRECINCT:
Beginning at the point of intersection b~twe~n the
Virginia Power Company easement and the Appomattox River;
=h~noe northwaTdly along said eas~en~ to its
with Hickory Road (State Route 628); thence westwardly along
~e center line of Hickory Road (State Route 628} =o
intersection with Graves Road (State Route 630)~ thence
91-550 B/2S/91
sout~westwardly along the center line of Gravee Road (State
Route 630) to its intersection with the center line of River
Road (State Routs 602); thence leaving the center line of
River Road ($tatm Route 602) in e straight line on a course
and Dinwiddie County; thence eastwardly along the boundary
line between Cheeter~iel~ COUnty and Dinwiddie County us it
follows the Appomattox River to the point and place of
beginning.
The voting place for ~atoaca Voting Precinct shell be
~%RDOLPR VOTING PRECINCT:
Beginning at the intersection of the Seaboard coast Line
Railroad right-of-way and the Appomattox River; thence
northwardly along said railroad right-of-way to its
inter,motion with River Road (State Route Z6); thmnce
westwardly along the center line of River Road (state Route
36) to its interceotion with Hickory R0a~ (State Route 6z8);
thence westwardly along the center line of ~iekery Road (State
Route 628) to its intersection with Ol~town creek; thence
eouthweatwardly along the canter line of 01dt0wn Creek to its
intersection with the Virginia Power Company easement; thence
~outhwa~dly along maid easement to its intersection with the
Appmma=tox River, thm boundary between Chesterfield county and
Dinwiddie County; t~enc¢ oastwurdly along the bo~n~ary line
bmtwmen chesuer~ield County an~ Dfnwi~ie county and the city
of P~tersburg us it follows the Appomattox River to it~
intersection wit~ ~e seaboard Coast Line Railroad
right-of-wuy, the point and place of beginning.
The voting place for Randolph Voting Precinct ~ha11 be
Ettriek/Matoaea Library, 45~1 River Road.
coo
SKINOUARTER VOTING PRECINCT:
Ce~encing at the center line of Ctterdale Road (State
Route 667) with the center line of U.S. Route ~60 (Hull Street
Road); thence westwardly along the center line of U.S. Route
360 (Hull Street Road) to its intersection with the Appomattox
R~ver, the boundary line between Chesterfield and
county; thence along such boundary line in a weetwardly and
northwardly direction as it follOW~ the Appomattox River to
its intersection with skinc!uarter Creek, the boundary line
between Chesterfield County and Powhatan County; thence
continuing northeastwardly along said boundary lime te it~
intersection with the center line of Swift Creek; thence
eastwardly along the center l~na of Swift Creek to its
interEec%ion with Otterdale Road (s~ate Route 667); thence
eouthweetwardly along the cente~ line of Otte~dale Road (State
Route 667)} to it~ inter,motion with U.S. Route 360 (Hull
Street Read)~ to the point and place of beginning.
The voting place for Sklnquart~r Voting Precinct shall be
Mt. Hermon Baptist Church, 1el00 Gsnlto Road.
~V~RCR~N ~OTING PRECINCT:
Commenclnq at the center llne of 0tterdale Road (State
Route 667) with the center linc of Swift Creek; thence
westwardly along the center line of Swift Creek to its point
of intersection with the boundary line between Chesterfield
County and Powhatan County; thenGe along such boundary line in
a eastwardly and northwardly direction to its point of
intersection With U.S. Route 6~ (Midlothian Turnpike); thence
eastwardly along the center line of U.S. Route 60 (Ki~lothian
T~rnDike) to its intereection with 0tterdale Road (State Route
667)~ thence mouthwardly along the center llne of ohter~ale
Road (state Route 667) ~o itc intermeotlon with the Virginia
Power Company easement; thence montheastwardty along the
center llne of said easement to its inter~eotion with
Coalfield Road (State Route 75&); thence ~outheamtwardly along
the center line of Coalfield Road (State Route 754) to its
intersection with Hiners Trail; thence eastwardly along the
center line of Miners Trail to its intersectlun with Lucks
~anc (State Route 7~0); thence eastwardly along the center
line of Lucks Lane (state Route 720) te its intersection with
courthouse Road (State Route 653); thence southwardly along
the center line of Courthouse Road (state Route 653) to its
i~tersec=ion with Powhite Farkway ($~ate Route 76); thence
we~twardly along the center line of Powhite Par~ey (State
Route 76} to its intersection with old Hundred Road (State
Route 652); thence northwestwardly along the center line of
01d ~nndred Road (State Route 652) to its intersectien with
Otterdale Road (State Route 667); thence southwardly along the
center line of otterdale Roa~ (S~ate Route 667] to its point
Of intersection with Swift Creek, the point and place of
beginning.
The voting place for Evergreen voting Precinct shall be
at ~vergreen ~le~entary SchcoI, 1701 ~vergree~ Eaet Parkway.
CLOV~R ~iLL M~CIST~RIAL DISTRICT
GENITO VOTING PRECINCT:
Beginning a= =~e center line of Powhi~e ~arkway (~tate
Route 761 with the center lin= of Courthouse Read (state Route
65~); thence southwardly alo~g the center llne of Courthouse
Road (State Route 653) to its intersection with the center
llne of U.S. Route 360 (Hull Street Road); then~
southwestwardly slang the center line of U.S. Route 360 (Hull
Street Road) to its intereection with the center line of old
~undred Road (State Route 6§1); thence northwardly on the
center line of Old Hundred Read to it~ intmr~ection with
Powhite Parkway (state Route 76)~ thence eastwardly along the
center line of Powhite Pa~way (state Route 76) to its
ia~ersaction with Courthouse Road (grate Route 65)), the point
and place of beginning.
The voting place for ~enito Voting Precinct shall De
Providenae Elementary School, ll001 w. ~revideooe Road.
BRANDER~ILL VOTING PRECINCT:
Beginning at ~e center line of old Mundred Road (state
Route 65~) where it inter.ecrm with Little Tomahaw~ Cree~;
~outhwardly to its intersection with Genito Road (State Route
604); thence eastwardly alon~ the center line 0£ Genito Road
(Share Route 604) ho its intersection with Old ~unclred Road
(State Route 652}; thence northwardly and westwar~ly along %he
center line of Old Hundred Road (State Route 652) to its
intersection Little Tomal~aw~ cre~k, it~ point and place of
beg~nnlng.
The voting place for Rrandermill Voting Precinct shall be
Swift Creek Elementary School, 13800 Genito Road.
Ayes: Mr. Sullivan~ Mr. Currin, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Daniel.
Magisterial Dis=r~ct ~sve been done 5 qreat injustice in this
91-552
It was generally apTeed to recess for five minutes.
11.
~. Ha~er stated ~e Board had directed ~taff to explore thc
management i~ue~. He fur~er $~a~ ~%az~ was
the Board change the Re=ycling Co~ittee to a Board appointed
~olid Wast~ Advi~o~ co~itt=e. He note~ ~e change was in
rmco~ition of ~e overall i~ues the Recycling Co~ttee hav~
ulrea4y ~een s~udying.
~. Mayas state~ he was ~n fauor of the paper as p~esented by
staff a~d felt it would give the existing Recycling Co~ittee
an opportunity to address broader areas o~ recyci~ng an~
~, Maye~ made a motion to approve rede~i~ating the Recycling
co~i==ee as ~e Solid Waste AdVisory Co~itt~e and e~anding
the Co~ittee~ responsibilities. Mr+ C~rrin ~conded the
~. ~rrin ~tated he felt the iss~e~ in the paper were items
request was to put it into m formal Dian. ~. Ha~er stated
he felt it would give the Rucyullng co~itta~ the opportunity
to b= involved in the Solid Waste Regional Plan which deals
with landfills an~ o~her solid waste
Management Authority would dictate th* Re*yoling
~elng involved in landfill operatlon~. ~. Ha~er
~at was correct.
Mr. Sullivan inquired as to the study including the assessment
of ~e need for ~e County to remain actively involved
waste disposal versus privutizing disposal services. Mr.
Ha~er ~tated this was in reference to an option which had
process i~ which staff indicated there was some interest in
landfills and privatize those operations as opposed to
a~e o~ently partially privatized.
Mr, S~lli~a~ culled for the vote on the motion made by
resDonsibilitles are a~ follow~:
these
2. Examlne e~i~t~ng wamte collection syztemz in the Cowry,
~th ~ubli= and ~rivate, and make a
regarding the role of the ceunty in tats area.
De~ mon~ trash ~ervic~; the feasibility of expanding
~1-553 8/zs/91
vote:
eliminating county collection services; t2%e role of the
private haulers; an assessment of user fees and/or
increased taxes as funding mechanisms for County
collection services.
Examine existing waste disposal systems in the Co~h~ty an4
make a recommendation regardinG the role of the County in
this area. This study would include: assessment of the
ne~d fe~ t~e County to remain actively involved in waste
disposal versus privatizing disposal services; review of
regional waste di~9o~al plans being developed by the
central Virginia Waste Management Authority, and level of
County involvement in the implementation of these plans;
an assessment cf user fees and/or increased taxe~ as
funding ~echanis~ for County disposal services.
Examine alternatives to landfilling ~u~h a~ waste to
energy and municipal ~olid waste oomposting and ~resent
the~e findings to the ~oard for con=ideraticn.
Unanimous
Management, state~ staff had been directed to proceed with the
County'~ R~cycling p~ogram and to recommend to the Board
alterna~ive~ for funding the Program. She further stated
~taff was recommending tO fU~d th~ Recycling Program by using
operating funds budgeted for that purpose to be transferred to
the Extension Serviue Budge~ for operation of a household
hazardous waste facility at the Northern Area Landfill. She
noted if f~ were established to cover recycling costs, some
or alt of the funds taken from capital Reserve could be
the Program.
~ir. Hayes inquired if the Recycling committee had input into
thc development of the proposal for funding the recycling
program~. ~r. Hammer stated the Recycling committee had input
their position on fees- Mr, Ramsey stated the Recycling
involved in the reeommendation~ regarding the funding. Mr.
r~cycling programs which involved the propo~ul to eliminate
the County's mont~hly trash collection program or as a
substitute to eliminating the program, charging e fee for the
t~ash collection and that tho Committee had el~o nndcr~ed the
raised through recycling programs, the program should then he
founded with tax ~upport~d fund~ a~ opposed to fee ~upported
I4r. Horace $ims~ a member of the Recycling committee, stated
he had ~ubmitted his own r~¢ommendation to the Recycling
Committee which he felt had be~t addressed the issue; that the
County had a mandate by the state to recycle e certain
percentage of waste and felt in order to de this, the County
needed to establish control of the waste stream; that he did
not feel recycling should be based on a voluntary effort; and
that an effective recycling ~rogram should be baaed on the
development of a department of waste management which would be
remponsible fur th~ sure dispom~l of eoli~ waste and recycling
in the County.
Mr. ~ammer clarified that Mr. Sims had been the only me~ber of
the Recycllng Committee present who had voted against
elimination of the once a month trash collection program as a
way of funding recycling and would prefer the County initiate
solid waste pickup th_roughest the county and totally sUpport
thc collection program. He further stated the committee fei%
the beet method of funding recycling was through tax mupported
sources end the paper presented would do this. He noted he
felt the paper was consistent with the Recycling Committee's
direction. Mr. sims concurred.
Mr. Mayas stated since he had not attended the last Recycling
Committee m~etlng, he did not feel comfortable supporting the
paper as presented without discussing it with the other
members of the Recycling Co~mmittee.
Mr, Mayas made a motion to defer consideration of the source
of funding for county recycling programs until September 25,
%991 at 9;00 a,m. Mr, Applegate seconded the motion.
Mr. ~m~ey Glarlfied the aotlon taken previously by the ~oard
had dlrsctsd staff to proceed with the improvementm at the
of funding.
M~, Curri~ stated he felt th= method of funding wee the issue
stuff's reco~endetion. ~e noted if, et some point in tlme~
T, he Recycling Committee derived a different method of funding~
the funding could be readdreeeed and felt there was a need to
resolve the issue of ~he funding in order to accommodate the
improvements at the Northern Area ~andfill.
Mr. Daniel stated he supported the reoo~endation on the
source ef funding but had concerns about the Recycling
Coordinator pomition and felt careful consideration shoul~ be
given to the number of job opening~ in general and, therefore,
would support the paper as presented by staff with the
exoepti0~ of t~e ReCycling Coordinator position which could be
handled with an interdepartmental ~ranmfer.
Mr. Curtis stated he alma felt the funds for the Recycling
Coordinator position should be eliminated from the pr0pegal.
Mr, Sulli~an stated he felt staff had GO,plied with the
Board's direction which would expand the cu~bside Recyoling
Program to include an additional 10,000 or better hommm ~nto
the Program and, therefore, supported the recommendation for
the source of funding but also felt the Recycling Co0r4inator
~esltlon ehoul~ be eliminated from the fnnding.
Mr. Applegate inquired as to e~he statue of the Future Capital
~rojac%~ Account. Mr, Ramsay stated currently there was $4.5
mil]~on that wam not Committed. F~u. Applegate stated he would
llke to see recycling containers provided in some of the
County's parks. Mr. Hammer stated thi~ i~ue wam being
considered.
Mr. Bullivan made a substitute motion, seconded by Mr. Daniel,
to approve the funding for County recycling programs with the
exception of the $45,000 in funding for the Recycling
Coordinator position as follows:
1. Appropriation of $31~,000 from the Re~erv~ for ~uture
Capital Projects and transfer to the Northern Area
Landfill Construe=ion A=sount.
2. Transfer Of $315,000 from the Northern Area L~fill
Construction Account ts the Sanitation Budget for
recycling.
3. Transfer of $60,000 from the ~xt~nslon Service FY92
Operating Budget to the San~tat{en Budget for racy=ling.
Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. C~0:rin, F~. Apple~ats amd Mr. Daniel.
Nays: Mr. Mayos.
]l.C. CASH PROFF~ POLICY BONDING PROV/SION
Mr. Ramzey stated the Board had hal0 several work seas{cna on
cash proffers and ~r. Daniel hsd requested tho Board
reconsider t~e Cash Proffer Policy to eliminate that port{on
of the policy which deals with the submission of a surety bond
to in~ure puymcnt of the 9rof£ers within two years of the date
cf subdivision recordation and instead have each pr~ffar~ 0us
at the time of building permit applicatiom.
Mr. Daniel ~tated he felt under certain conditions~ the cash
proffer ~aymmnt was being Dai~ at ~i~erent :imes durin~ tho
from the Home~uilder~ As~oc{aticn resummanding t~e cash
proffer payment be due at the time of building permit
application and from MoGuire, Woods, Battle and Booths; W.$.
issue.
Mr. Applagate inquired am to the cash proffer ~aym~nt being
due within two years of plat recordation. Mr. Micas etatod
the n~plicant had two years after recording 5is plat to pay
the cash proffer payment. Mr. Applegate inquired as tc where
Proffer Policy had been interpreted that the cash proffer
paymmnt wam due at the time of m~bdivi~ie~ approval but if the
applloan% post=d a sure~y bo~, ~e could pay the cash proffer
at ~he timo of buildiDg permit application.
Mr. Applegate stated the concept behind t/~e Cash ~roffer
Policy was for gtc%rrb to pay for growth ~nd that County
~srvice~ were not ~mpacted untll the astual time of occupancy
at that time.
Mr- Daniel inguirsd if a new rate for cash proffers was
payment would be due. Mr. Micas indicated that if a euroty
time e~ su3o~ivisisn approval.
F~. Secky Thomas, Eiscal Impao~ Analyst, indicated that under
the current policy, the cash proffor payment was due at the
t~ms sf building permit a~lication and that the per let
in time. she also stated =hat =here may be a difference in
made at rezoning and the time actual cash proffer payments are
applicant could possibly bond £or a lesser amount than they
may end up owing.
Discussion, co--ants, and questions ensued relative to the
not be obtained~ the applicant would be required to pay the
Mr. Dan{el stated he would like to ha~e a clear policy
established and also felt the cash proffer payment should be
due st the t~me of building per,it applioa%ian.
91-5~6 8/28/91
Mr. Currin stated he felt occupancy and not building permit
application triggered ths impact on Caunty services.
Mr. Apple~ate in~uire~ ~s to canh proffer payments collected
for the yea~. Ms. Thoma~ stated the amount which had been
proffered for residential lots was $1.5 million and the cast
p~offer amount which hus uctually been collected was
Mr. Duniel made a motion, seconded by ~r. Applegate, to
approve a change in the Cash Proffer Policy to eliminate the
bonding provision and the requirement that proffers be paid
within two years of recordation and instead proffers would
have to be pai~ no later than building permit application.
Mr. Ramsey indlca~ed ~his change in the cash Proffer Policy
would not affect those applicants who have already offered the
cash pro~er an~ agreed to furnish the 6urety bond and pay
within two years of plat recordation. Mr. Daniel requested
th~ County Admlni~trator to prepare a list of those applloantm
and options available to address the situation to be brought
back to %he Board at its next meeting on September ~l, 1991,
Mr. Sulliwan called for the vote on the motion made Dy Hr.
Daniel, seconded by ~tr. Applegate, to approve a change in
Cash Proffer Policy to eliminate the bonding provision and the
requirement that ~roffers be paid within two years of plat
recordation a~d instead proffsrs would have to be paid no
later than building permit application.
Vo~: Unanimous
ll.D. COUNTY CAPITAL 1MPRO~TT
~. R~mey stated the Board had been informed as to th~
· imi=ati~ns of ~m County's ~mmuanc~ on ~nds for County
projects and the County was anticipating the mal~ 0f DP~M
~ove~er which would leave approximately $9 million in County
projects that would have to be d~ferrmd u~til another
of ~onds was sold. He fur~er ~tated ~taff was
direction from the Board as =o which ~rojects should
forward or b~ delayed a~d staff was reco~ending proceeding
with the Central Libra~ E~ansiun Project~ Uhe E~on ~ramch
Library Project and a phase of the Public Safety
Center Project.
Mr. Mayes stated ~ th~ Smtoaca/Wemt Branch Libra~ was a
the E~om Branch Libra~ had been moved up to be f~ded now
when it was originally scheduled to be uum~lete~ in 1~3.
would be completed; ~e orlglnal s~dule on the sompletio~
p=oj~ogs fo~ %h6 librario~ on ~he Ma%oaca/West Branoh Library~
~ Midlothian Library E~an~ion and th~ ~non stanch ~ibrary
Mr. ~y~ inquired if that was a change from the Bond
Referend~ and state~ the Matoaca/West Branch Libra~ was
be completed in 1991. ~. Ram~y ~tated it wa~ not a change.
~. Sullivan ztated he had zent to ~e Board a
re~arding ~e libraries and, specifically, the Midlothian
Library E~an~ion which he not~ wa~ the m0~t utilize0 library
in the Co~ty. H~ requested th~ Board to con~ider
the priority order on the projects as he felt ~e public would
91-557 8/28/91
benefit more by having the library expansion ra%~er %hen Ss
clearing and grading pha~c on the site for the Public Safety
Training Center and reco~endsd approval of the Enon
Library, the Central Library Expansion, and the Hid!othian
Library Expansion and d~ferral of the Public Safety Training
center.
Mr. Keyes stated the librery issue was voted on in the Bond
Referendum and he felt Matcaea District ~hould not be denied
their request for additional facilities.
Mr. Currin stated prior to becoming a ~ember on the Boa~d of
Supervisors, there had been n~merou~ requests by citizens in
th~ Enon area for a libra~. ~ fur~er ~tated Enon was
located in a manufacturin~ and industry ar~, which was
p~ominant tax ba~e for the county, and the ~itlzen= residing
=here have a~apte~ and ar~ willing to have ~is indumt~ in
frum residents in the Enon area outlining ~eir cones=ns for a
library and noted the residents currently eider use the
App~ttox Reqional Libra~ which is located in Hopewell, the
~ester Branch L~brary which is ove=or0wde~, or the
use the school libraries; that ~%andardized ~esting ha~
fndioat~d ohildren ~n ~e Enon area are below the l~vel for
test~n~ in Language ~ts~ and felt ~e library could also
serve as a facility in whi~ older c~t~zens could usa as a
m~eting place and requested ~e Board to go forward ~i~ th~
Enon Branch Library.
~. Hayes inquire~ if 15 was illegal ~ use fund~ allocated in
the ~ecord to ~how that the Matoa~a Distriot ham be~ denied
~r. Daniel stated he felt %he controversy was whether or not
to comp19%~ ~= ~i~lu=hian Library ~ansion. Ke ~ther
stated he felt there was n great n~sd for libruries and did
not f~l Matoaca Dimtri=t was beln~ ~inglad out and ~hat there
wa~ also a need for a libra~ in the Bale District in
of the project; and the timeframe in which =he
including the bid proues~, ~1~ be ~tarted and completed.
~. Daniel requested staff to bring to ~e Board a
outlining the advantages and disadvantages of the
Librery ~xpansion versus ~e Public Safety Training Center and
~. Applegate ~t~ted there was alxo an it~ on the Agenda
regarding problems eno0unt~rad at ~a Ben Air Library; ~mt he
would like to support all of the libraries ~a~ have been
schedule4 b~t felt =he ~blic safety Training Cent~ was an
important i~ue and the p~oject should be ~tarted~ that ~e
capi=al Res~ve Fund could be used for the library
t~e Capital Resale as an al=ernative =o some o~ funding
Mr. Daniel ~de a motion ~c defer the County Capital
order to allow ~e Co~ty Administrator to develop funding and
a~ o~iqinally proposed in the $4.1 million proposal with $1
million %o be ~Dent now ~o~ ~a clearing grading Dha~ o~ the
~ito and for e time analy~i~ be developed on th~ Public Safety
Training Center in regards to delaying the project if the Si
million was not funded mt this point in time.
There was bri~£ disdussion relative to deferral of the
Safety Training Center and addressing the capital Reserve Fund
am a ~ource of funding for the projects in general.
Mr. Daniel amended his motion, ~e~onded by ~Y. Applegate, to
11, 1991 at ~:$0 p,m. in order to allow the County
Ad/~inistrator to develop fundi~ and timeframe requirements,
to ineludo addressing the Capital Reserve ~und as a source of
funding fo~ ~oJect~ and for the Public Safety Training Center
as originally proposed in the $4.1 million proposal with $1
million to b~ spent now for the clearing grading phase of th~
sit8 and £cr u time analysis be developed on the Public Safety
Training Center in regards to delaying the project if the
million wes not funded at this point in time.
Vote: Unanimous
1~.~.~l. ~'~i' L~G~ ~ST~T~ON COST
On motion of Hr. Ag~l~g~t~, ~=ond~d by Mr. ~ayes, ~e Board
approved the co~t~ for ~treet light in~allatio~s/~pgr~
1. Q~i~fOrd BouleVard and Willis Road, Be~uda Magisterial
District, $237.00;
~giuturial District, $~,079.00; and
3. Chesterfield Meadows Boulevard a~4 Old Wre~mm Road,
~toaca Magisterial District,
And, f~er, ~e Board app~o~d the cost cf $980.00 for the
following upgrades in the Ratoaca Magisterial
Intersection of Dupuy Road and Oakland Avenue
I~tersectio~ of Dupuy Road and Roosevelt Street
Intersection of Oakland Avenue and Pma=htree Street
4. Intersection of Oakland Avenue and Pl~t~ee Street
Intersection of Plumtree S~reet and Roosevelt Street
On motion of Hr. App~egat~, neoonde~ by Rt. Mayes, the Board
app~eved obtaining Dost estimates for the installation of
=treet llghts at the intersection of ~eli~=a Mill Roa~ and
~ueen Elizabeth Avonue~ in Olov~ Hill Magisterial District,
~nd at the int~re~¢tion of Court Street an~ Main
Matoaca Magleterlal
And~ fkt~ther, the Beard d=nied obtaining cost estinates for
the installation of street lights at 2~407 court street, 21409
Court Street, and 21413 Co~t Street,
Distri=t.
On motion of Mr. Sullivan, ~conded by Nr. Applegate, the
Board nominated Mr. C- F. Currin, Jr. (Business
representative) and Mr. Jesse J. Mayes (Board representative),
bo serve en the Appomattox Basin Industrial Development
So,potation, whose formal appointments will bm made at the
~pte~be~ 11, 1991 meeting.
VOte: Unanimou~
ll.G.1. ~I~R~A~OFLf~%N~O~IDLOT~IANVOLI~F~E~FI~
D~ART~N~ TO ~AY OFF BANK~OAN
On motion of Hr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Carrie, t/~e Board
appropriated $45,~00 from the General Fund Balance to the
Midlothlan Volunteer Fire Department for the purpose of paying
off a relatively high intsres~ bank loan =hat was obtained to
complete an ad~itloe to the M~dlothian Fire Station and which
loan will be paid back over a five year period with no
inter~t.
~EFFROP. XZ~ ~EaqNNING~O~4ISSIONTO CONSIO~ZONING
ORDINANCEREOU~R~NT ~OR~I~A~ ~
On motion o~ ~. Applegate, seoon~e~ by ~r. curri~, th~ Board
referred to ~e Planning Co~ission for consideration and
r~oo~nda~ion of zoning ordinance re~ir~ent for new
coordinate syste~ which will improve the coo~di~atio~ of
non-resid~tial si~es into the County's developing geogra~hlc
system,
Vote: ~nani~ous
11.G.3. APPROPRIATION_O~ C~ BOAD FUNDS FOR STR~'
i~EPi%~i~S XN WOODFI~.n eUBBM$ION
On motion o£ Mr. Applegate, seconded by l~r. Currin, the Bsar~
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, citizen~ have requeut=d thc County bo ~epai~the
s~reeta in the Woodfield Subdivision.
NOW, T~EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that ~h~ Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Dspartm~nt
of Transportation (VDOT) to provide a plant mix overlay
these streets with the cost not to exceed $12,000.
AND, B~ IT ~URT~E~ ~$OLV~, that the fund~ for
overlay be provided from the Clover Hill District Three Cent
Ro~d
Vote; Unanimous
11.~.4. F'/'92 ~.uERAL ALCOHOL. DRUO~J~II~ ~ MEI~AL
On motion of ~. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currin, ~ Board
accepted and ap9ropriated an FY92 Federal Aloohol~ D~g
and ~ental Heal~ s~vices Block Grant, in the amount
~52~789~ f~om t~e State to ~e Chesterfield County co~unity
Se~tces ~oard for ~e ~rovi~icn of ou~patlent services to
ref~al~ f~ the Criminal Justic~ System end uuthori~=d the
91-560
establishment of one (i) senior Clinician position in order to
provide i~te~ive t~eat~ant for those referred. (I~ is noted
funding fo~ the new position is for F¥92 only and funding for
the position beyond the surrent fiscal year will be contingent
upon the continued receipt sf federal fund~ for this type of
prcgr~. If federal fun~ axe not available in ensuing years,
the pos~tlon would be eliminated or alternate fnndinq would
have to be identified by the department. The funds are
categorical in naturet thereby, preventing the departmsnt from
using these funds in other MH/~L~/$A areas.}
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of MZ', Appl~gate~ seconded by Mr. Coffin, tl~e Board
increased appropriation for School Capital Projects fro~
$1,061,401; decreased appropriation for ~chool Ca~i~al
Projects fro~ 1988 bond proc~d~ by $~,6~,000; decreased
1988 bond proceeds by $~,85~,595; and aDpropriated for School
Capital ~roject~ $49,~00 in VPSA incentive funds.
11.G.6. CORREC'~IONSTOMTNI]T~R~ D~ER 13, 19~9,
~ ]7~ 19~. ~ ~E 12, 1~91 ~.%T~G ~
On motion of ~. Applegate, ~eoo~d by ~r. Coffin, the Board
oo~ected t~e ~i~ut~s of D~cember 13~ 1989, ~r~ 27, 1991,
~OM:
"Thi~ day th~ County Enviro~ental Engineer, in acoordaDoe
hi~ exa~i~atio~ of B~ckhorn Road, Trophy Lane and Trailbrook
Drive in Dee~ood, Section C, Matoaca District.
~o~ co~side~atio~ W~eruof~ ~nd on motion of Mr. Daniel,
~econded by ~. Currin, it iS re$olve~ that Buc~orn Road,
Trophy ~ne and ~ailbrook Drive in Dee~ood, Section
Matoaca District, ~ and they hereby are established a~ publi~
~d be it further resolved, ~at ~ V~inia Department of
Transportation, be and it h~ruby i~ r~e~ to take into the
Buc~orn Road, State Rout~ 3000, and going southerly 0.Z2 mile
sou~erly 0.04 mile to tbs intersection wi~h Trailbrook Drive,
then continuinq southerly 0.~1 mile to end in a
Trophy Lane, beginning at =h~ in~rs~c%ion with Suc~orn
and go~ng easterly 0.07 ~i]e to end in a temporary turnaround;
B~e~O~ Road a~d going Westerly 0.06 mile~ then turning and
going southwesterly 0.18 mile to end in a tempora~
t~rnaro~d.
distance and designat=d Virginia Department o~ Transportation
drainage
These roads serve 38 lots.
And be it further re~olved, that the Board of
~uarsntess to the virginia Department o£ Transportatisn a 20'
right-of-way for all of th~e
Thi~ section of bentwood is recorded a~
$¢¢ti0~ C. Plat Book 29, ~age~ 77 & 78, October 2,
Vote: URanimous~
TO:
"This day the County =nvirenmental ~ngineer, in accor~anc~
witt~ direetion~ f~em thi~ Board, made report in writing upon
his exax~inatlon of ~=ckhorn Road, Trophy Lane and Trailbrook
Drive in Dee~wco~ Section s, Matoaoa Distriot.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel,
seconded Dy ~r. currin, it is resolved that Buck2%orn Road,
Trophy Lane and Trailbrook Drive in Deal*wood, Section C,
Matoaca District, ba and they ~ere~y are established as public
And be it further r~molved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to taka ~nto the
Secondary System, Buckhorn Road, beginning at existing
Buckhorn Road~ state Route 3000~ ~nd going southerly 0.2~ mile
to the in~er~ection wit/~ Trophy Lan~, then continuing
somtherly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Trailbroo~ D~ive,
then continuing ~outherly 0.11 mil~ to end in a cml-da-sac;
end going easterly 0.07 mile to end in u temporary turnaround;
and TTailhrook Drive, beginning at the intersection with
Buckhorn Road and going westerly 0.06 mile, then turning and
going southwesterly 0.18 mile to end ~n a temporary
This request i~ inclusive O~ =he a~jacent ~lope, sight
distance and designated ~irginia Department of Transportation
guarantees to the ~irginia Qepartment o£ Transportation a ~0'
right-of-way for all of these roads.
with directions £rom this Beard, made report in writing upon
hiu examination of Huntgat= Wood~ Road in Oak Spring~, Clover
Hill District.
~econd~d by Mr. C~rrin, it is resolved that Huntgate
Road in oak s~ringm, Clover Hill Dimtriot, he and it hereby is
established as a public road.
8/28/91
And be it further resolved, that the virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
secondary system, Hnntgate Woods Road, baglnninq at eximtimg
~%tgate Wood~ Road, State Route ~94, an4 going northwesterly
0.05 mile to the imtersaotlon with itself, then continuing
northwesterly 0.12 mile, then turning and going westerly 0.04
mile, then turning and going southerly 0.03 mile, then t~ning
and going southeasterly 0.il mile, then turning and going
easterly 0.09 mile to end at the intersection ~it/~ itself.
This re~uest is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight
distance and designated Virginia Department o~ T=anspur~atlon
drainage easements.
guarantees tn the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50'
right-of-way for this road.
This section of Oak Springs is recorded as follows:
Plat Book 64, Pages 91 & 92, ~anuary 4, 1989.
hie examination of ~un~ga%e Woods Road in Oa~ Springs, Clova~
Nitl District~
~pon consideration whereof~ and on
Road in Oak Springm, Clever Hill District, be and it ~ereby is
established as a public road.
And be it further re~olved~ t~at the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the
secondary system, Hnntgate Woads Road, beginning at existing
Runtgate Woods Road, State Route 2S94, and going northwesterly
0.05 mile to the intersection with itself, then continuing
northwesterly 0.1Z mile, then turning and going westerly 0.04
mile, then turning and going southerly 0.0~ mile, then turning
and going southeasterly O.tl mile, then turning and going
easterly 0.09 mile to end at the intersection with itself.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent Slop~, sight
dis~anoe an~ designated Virginia Departmen= of Transportation
This read serves 49 lots.
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50
right-of-way for this road.
This section of Oak Springs is recorded as follows:
Plat Book 64, Pages 91 & 92, ~anuary 4,
Vote: Unanimous'~
with directions from thi~ Board, made re~ort in writing upon
hi~ exsminstie~ of srighton Drive in Brighton Place,
~idlo~hian Di~rio~.
Upon considers=ion whsrso~, and on motion o£ Mr. Applsgate,
seconded by ~ir~ Daniel, it i~ renolved that Brighton Drive in
Brighten Place, Midlcthian District, be and it hereby
sstabllshed as a public road.
And be it ~urthsr resolved, that the Virginia Daparkmant
Transportation, be and it hereby ia requested to tak~ into the
secondary system, Brighton Drive, beginning at the end of
existing Brighton Drive, State Routs 2~05, and going
northwesterly 0.05 mile, t~en turning and going northerly 0.11
mile to end in a cai-de-mac.
This request i~ inclusive of %h~ adjacent slope, sight
distance and designated Virginia Departnent of Transportation
This road serves 16
And be it further resolved, that the soard of suDervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department ef Transportation a 50'
right-si-way for this read.
Brig~ton Place is reeer~ed as follows:
Plat ~ook 66, Page 3Q, ~ay 3,
Vote: Unanimeue"
TO:
"This day the County Environmental Engineer~ in accordance
with direction= from this Board, made report in writing upon
Bis e~amination of B~ighton Drive in Brighton Place,
Midlothlan District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on mo~ien of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Bri~hton Drive in
Brighton Place, Midlothian District, be and it hereby is
established aea pnbtie read.
And b~ it further re~olved, that the Virginia Depar~ent of
Transportation, be and it hereby ~e requested to take ~nte the
Secondary System, Brighton Drive, begiru~ing at the end of
existing Brighten Drive, State Reute 210S, and going
northwesterly 0.OS m~le, then turn~ng and going northerly
mile ~o en~ in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent elope, sight
distan=e and demignated Virginia Departmen~ of Transportation
~rainage eassnents.
This road serves 16 tote.
And be it f~rther resolved, that the Board of Supel-~isers
guarantees to the Virginia DeDartment of TransDortation a
right-of-way for this road.
Brighton Place is reoorded au follows:
Plat Book 66~ Page 30, May 3, 1989.
vote: Unanimous"
11.G.?. STAT~ROADACCEPTANC~
This day the County ~nvlron~ental Engineer, in accordance with
directio~ from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Abbot's Mill Way, MoAllen court and Pomfret
Cou~ in ~bot's Mill, Section ~I, Clover E~ll Di~tri=t.
~1-564 8/~8/91
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
se¢oDded by Mr. Curtis, it is resolved ~hat Abbot's Mill Way~
McAlles Court and Ps, fret ~curt in Abbot's Mill, s~cti~n II,
Clover Mill District, be and they hereby arc established as
public roads.
And be it further reeolwed~ that the Virginia Depart~ent of
Transportation, be an4 it hereby is requested to taka into tho
secondary system, Abbot's Mill Way, buginning ut eximting
Abbotls Mill Way, state Route 3971, and going southeasterly
o.0~ mile to the intermeetion with ~eAllen Court, then
continuing southeasterly 0.04 mile to :ha ~nterssctlon with
Pomfret Court, then continuing southeasterly 0.08 mile to end
in a cul-de-sac; MoAllen Court, beginning at the intersection
in a cul-de-sac~ and Pomfret Court, beginning at the
intersection with Abbot's Mill Way and going northeasterly
O.07 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Again~ Pomfret Court,
beginning at the intersection with Abbot's Mill Way and going
southwesterly 0.09 mile to end in a cul-de-sac.
dis~ance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation
d~aina~e easements.
~d be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an
unrestricted right-of-way of 40' with necessary ea~ement~ for
Mial Way which has a ~O~ to ~0' variable width right-of-way.
This ~eotion of Abbot's Mill is recorded as follows:
section II. Plat BOO~ 66, Pages 94 a~d 95, June 27, 19B~.
Vo~e: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
d~rections from this Bcsr~, ma~e rsgsrt in writing npen his
exeminatie~ of Chestnut Bluff Roa~, Orchard ~rove Drlve~
Chestnut Bluff Terrace and chestnut Bluff Place in Chestnut
Bluff, Clover Bill District.
Upem consideration whereof, and cn motion of ~r. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Curtis, it ~s resslved that Chestnut Bluff
Road, Orchard Grove Drive, Chestnut Bluff Terrace and Chestnut
Bluff Place i~ Chestnut Bluff, CloVer Hill District~ be and
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Secondary System, chestnut Bluff Road, b~glnning at the
intersection with Lakebl~ff Parkway, State Route 4335, and
going northeasterly 0.11 mils ~o the intersection with orchard
Grove Drive~ then turning and going northerly 0.07 mile, then
turnin~ and going northwesterly 0.02 mile to the intersection
with Chestnut Bluff Terrace, then continuing northwesterly
0.06 milo to the intersection with Chestnut Bluff Place, then
oontiDuing northwesterly 0.06 nile to end in a cul-de-sac;
O~ohard Grove Drive~ heqinnlng at the ~ntersect~on with
Chestnut ~lu£f Road and going northwesterly 0,02 mile to end
at Orchard ~rov~ D~VS, Orchard Grove Subdlvlslon~ State Route
number to be assigned; Chestnut ~luff T~rraoe, beginning at
the intersection with Chestnut Bluff Road and going northerly
0,16 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Chestnut Bluff Pla=~,
beginning at the intersection with Chestnut Bluff Read and
going northerly O.Q9 mile to and in a cul-de-sac.
8/~$/91
·his request is inclusive dE the adjacent slope, sight
distmnce and designated Virginia Department of Transportation
drainage easements.
The~e roads serve 73 lots.
A~d be it further resolved, that the Board of supervisors
guarantees to the virginia Department oE Xransportatien an
unrestricted right-of-way Of 50' with necessary easements for
outs, fills and drainage for all of these roads.
Chestnut Blmff is recorded as follows:
Plat Book 66j Pages 31 & 32, May 3, 1989.
vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in ac¢ordan=e with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of orchard Grove Lane, 0rchard Grove Cou~ and
Orchard Grove Drive in Orchard Grove, Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of M~. Applegate,
Lane, Orchard ~rove Court and Orchard Grove Drive in Orchard
Grove, Clover Bill District, be and they hereby are
established a~ public
And b~ it further re~olv~d, that the Virginia Department Of
Transportaticn~ be and it hereby is requested to
Secondary System, Orchard ~rove Lane, beginning at the
intersection with Lakebluff Parkway~ state Route 4337, and
going northeasterly 0.07 mile to the intersection with Orchard
Grove Co%~3rt, then continuing northea~t~ly 0.02 mile, then
turning and ~oing northerly 0.0Z mile to the intersecfio~ with
Orchard Grove Drive, ~hen continuing northerly 0.04 mile to
end in a cul-de-sac; Orchard ~rove Court, beginning et the
intersection with orchard Grove Lane and going ~eu=heasterly
0.0S mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Orchard ~rove Drive,
beginning at the intersection with O~chard Grove Lane and
going southeasterly o.lo mile to end at Orchard Grove Drive,
Chestnut Bluff Subdivision, State Route number to be a~signed.
Thi~ request i~ inclusive of the adjacent elope, sight
distance and designated virginia Department Of Transportation
drainage easem~ts.
Theme ro~ds ~rv~ ~9 lot~.
~ be it further resolved, that the Roard of gupervi~or~
guerantees to =~e Virginia Department of Transpor~ation an
unrestricted right-of-way cf §0' with necessary easements for
cuts, fills and d~alnage for all cf these roads.
Orchard GrcvR is recorded as follows:
Plat Book 64, Pages 42 & 43; December 14~ ~988.
vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions f~om thi~ Board, made report in writin~ upe~ his
examination of sugar creek Way in sugar creek, Phase l, clover
Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof~ and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Curtis, it is resolved that Sugar Creek Way in
Sugar Creek, Pha~e 1, Clover Hill District, be and it hereby
is estahlishe~ ae a public road.
91-566 8/28/91
And be it f~rther re~olved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take inte the
intersection with evergreen East Parkway, State Route 3970~
and going ~o~thwe~te~ly 0.06 mil~ to end ut proposed ~ugar
Creek Way, Sugar Creek, Phase ~.
This reques~ is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight
distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation
drainage easements.
This road serves 30 lots.
And be it further remolved~ that the Board cf Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department s~ Transportation an
unrestricted ~ight-of-way of SO' with necessary easements for
GUts, £illS a~ drainage for this road.
This ~hase of Sugar Creek is recorded as follows:
Pha~e 1. Plat Book SP, Pages 67 & 68~ December ll, 1987.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Envlrcnmental Engineer, in aGcordanoe with
directio~ frs~ this Board, made report in ~iting ~pon hie
examination of O'Kalley OriYe in Stonehridga, Ss=rich 2, Dale
District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of ~r.
seconded by Mr. Currln, it is resolved that O'Malley Drive in
S%oncbridge, Section ~, Dale District, ~e and it hereby
established as a public road.
And be i~ ~urther resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Trun~portation, b~ and it hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary system, o'Malley Drive, beginning at the end of
existing O'Malley Drive, State Route 9952, and going
southwesterly 0.06 mile, then turning and going northwesterly
0.06 mile to end in a
Thi~ request i~ inolu~ive of the adjacent slope, sight
distance and designated virginia Department of Transpo~tatio~
drainage easements.
This road serves l~ lots.
And he it further resolved, that the Board of supervisors
~larantees to the virginia Department of Transportation an
unrestricted right-of-way of 5~~ with necessary easements for
cuts, fill~ and drainage fs~ is ~oad.
Thi~ ~eotion of ore,abridge is recorded as follows:
Section 2. Plat Book 64, Page 60, December ~2,
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from thi~ Board, made report in writing upon his
exsmlnst~on of Get,bridge Road, Gatcbridge Court, Gatebridge
Place and O'Malley Drive in Stonebridge, section 3 an~ a
portion cf Irongate, Section ~, Dale Distlist.
Upon c0~ideratio~ Whs~e0f, ahd un motion of Mr. Appleqate,
seconded by Mr. Currin, it is resolved that Gate,ridge Road,
Gatebridge Court, Gatebridge 91ace a~d 0'~alley Drive in
Stenebridge, Section 3 and a portion of Ircngate, Section 1,
Dale District, be and they hereby are established as public
TransRurtaSicn, b~ and i5 hereby is requested to take into the
Secondary System, Gatebridge Read, beginning at the
inter~otlon wi~h Irongate Drive, State Route 3025, and going
westerly 0.06 mile, then turning and going northerly 0.lc
mile, than turning and going westmrly 0.10 mile to the
inter~ction with Gatebridge Court, then continuing westerly
0.07 nile to the intersection with Gatebridge Place, t/ten
continuing westerly 0,08 mile to the intersection with
o'~allsy Drive, then continuing westerly 0.07 mile to end in e
cul-de-sac; Gatebridge Court, beginning at the intersection
with Gatebridge Road and going northerly 0.03 mile to end in a
dead end; Gatebridge Place, beginning at the intersection wlCh
Gatebridge Road and going northerly 0.03 mile to end in a dead
end; and 0'Malley Drive, beginning at the intersection with
Gatebridge Road and going southerly 8.05 mile to the
intersection with Koufax Drive, State Route 3951.
distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation
These roads Serve 52 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervi~er~
guarantees to tho Virginia Department of Tran=portatlom an
unrestricted right-of-way of 50' with necessary easements for
cet~, filI~ and drainage for all of th~ue road~.
This section of Stonabridge is recorded as followe:
Section 2. Plat ~ook ~4, Pag~ 6?, beeemb~ 22, 1988.
This section o~ Irongate is recorded as follows:
Section ~. Plat Book 36, Pages 38, 39 & 40, June 19, 19S0.
VoUe: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental ~nginm~r, in accordance with
direotion~ from this ~oard, made report in writing upon his
examination of Sterlingheath Drive, White )Ianor Court, White
Manor Lane and Gable Way in Misty Glen, Matoace District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applagate,
seconded by F~r. Curris, it is resolved that sterlingheath
D~ive~ W~ite Manor Co~t, White Ma~or Lane and Gable Wa~ in
Miety Glen, Hatcaea District, be an4 they hereby are
established au publi= roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
T~ansDortation, ~e and it hereby ia re~ues%e~ to ~eke into the
Secondary System, sterlingheath Drive, beqinning at existing
Sterlingheath Drive, state Route 312~, and ~oing southwesterly
0.04 nile to the intsrsection with White Manor Court and White
~anor Lane, then becoming white Manor Lane and going
northwesterly 0.01 mile to tie into existing white Manor Lane,
State Route 3~27; white Manor Court, beginning at the
intersection with SterlingheathDrive and Whit~ Manor Lane and
going sou~e=ly 0.93 mile to and in u cul-de-sac; and Gable
Way, beginning at existing Gable Way, State Route ~370~ and
going southeasterly 9.04 mile to and in a sol-de-sas.
This re~usst is icelusive of the adjacent slope, sight
distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation
drainage samement~.
These roa~s =ervm 17 lotm.
And b~ it ~Dr~ re~olved~ that the ~oa~d of ~u~e~-~i~or~
guarantees Co the Virginia Department cf Transportation un
~nre~tricted right-of-way of 50' with necessary ~a~ments for
cute, fills and 4rainage for all of these roads.
Misty Glen is recorded as £ollews:
Plat Book 73, Page 64, November 21, 1990.
~ WA~ ~ SY~ Dwr~ON ~ FOR
On =etlon of ~. Applegate, seconded by Mr. currin, ~e Board
au~orized the County A~inist~ato~ to execute a Sto~ Water
Managemen= System Maintenance Agreement with th~ ~eveloD~s of
Stei~a~ Festival at Midlothian, wf~ the County's only
involv~ent being to assure the ~ulntenance A~emen= i~
followed by ~e o~er as approved by th~ County Attorney. (A
GOp~ of ~uid Agreement is filed with the 9aDers of this
Board.)
On motion of ~. Applegate, ~eoD~ed by Mr. ~rrln, the Beard
~u~horized the County Admini~t~ato~ to e~eo~te ~ sto~ Water
Management System and Best Management ~ractice (B~} Facility
Maintenance and Imde~ification Agreement with ~e owner of
Tract~ 0-~ an~ 0-$, Investors woodlake De~alu~m~nt
Corp0ra~i0~, with ~he County's o~ly i~volvem~nt being to
ass~e the Maintenance A~reement i= followed by ~e o~er a~
approved by the county Attorney.
Vote: URa~im0~s
11.G.11. GRANT APPLICATION._~ND APPROP~3ATION OF 1~$ FOR
On motion of Mr. Applegat~, ~ec0Dded by F~. Currin, the Board
authorized the Catltlty Administrator to make application to the
F~durul Aviation AdministratioD (~AA], in the amount Of
$76,500, and the State Depar=men= of Aviation, in the amount
of $4,250, for grant funds for an update of th~ ~98~ Airport
negotiate a fee with Delta A~nociate~, I~¢., for the Airport
Master Plan update and enter into a contract for tha work and
transfer $4,~50 from the Airport operating budget to thi~
Airport Ma~ter Plan Project as the County's 5 percent match
and, further apprepriate sa~d fund~, if approv0d. (It is
meted the County's matching funds for thi= grant will come
Airport budget.)
11.G.12. i~EO_I~.S~_TO.~i~PROVE PLAC~ OF A "NO-W~~ BUOY ON
On ~otion of 24r. Applegate, ~e~en~ed by ~r. currin, The Boar~
approved a request from Colonel William O. Antozzi to obtain
permission from the commission of Gama and Inland Fimheriee to
place a "no-wake" marker in t~e cove containing his property
91-569 8/28/91
and i~ easily eroded by beat wakes which oreate %h~afe
conditions for smaller vessels.)
Vote: Unanimous
ll.~.14......A~SIGNM]~TOFCONT~ACTFORC~U~TERLANDFIn~.(~OYm~
~EPAIR
0n motion of ~. Ag~lagate, seconded by M~. C~rin, ~e Board
reRalrs] for th~ closed Chester Landfill from E. T. Enmrg~es,
Inc. and Gen~y Well Work~, Inc. to Virginia Biofuels
Corpora%ion. (I~ is noted thi~ assig~ent is a t~nioal
detail of the contraGt administration and the work will be
comple=ed by =he same people and in aocordanoe wi~ the
original contract.)
Vote: Unanimous
on motion of F=r. Applegate, ~econded by Mr. Cu~rin, the Board
Uwurd=d a contract to APAC-Virginia, Incorporuted, in the
a~ount of $593,?$~, for improvements ~o ~he Publio Us~ Ar~a a~
the Northern Area Landfill which includes widening Warbro Road
existing public u~e area and interior road improvements. (It
~ noted ~aid fund~ are availabl~ in th~ Northern Ar~a
Landfill capital Account.)
WARD,S
On ~etion of ~r. Applegate, ~eoonded by }hr. C~rzin, the Board
appointed Mr. Donald L. Rose as Animal War~en and Mr. Walter
O. Graham, Mr. Tod H. McWhin~ey, ~. Gloria E. M~adows, F/r.
Fra~ I. ~ichalek, Jr., Ms. Su~an ~. Ralnes, Mr. Kenneth R.
Umholtz and ~[r. Wallace L. Clark as Deputy Animal Wardens.
Vote: Unanimous
11.~.18. R~h:[~/~I~_]~%~/N~. DATE TO CONSIDER ANORDINANC~
On motion cf Mr. Applegate, seconded by ~. ~rrin, ~e Board
sat ~e date of S~pt~ber 25, 1~91 at 9:00 a.m. for a public
s~dim~nt Control Act.
On notio~ Of Mr. ~pplegate, seconded by Mr. C~rrln, the Board
authorized the County Adminimtrato~ to ente~ into a contract
with Richard L. Crowder constru=tlon, Inc., in an amount no=
to exceed $24~500~ for oonetl~ctio~ of Providence Road Phaae I
Storm ~ewer Project and transferred $36,500 from the
~i~cellaneous Drainage capital Improvement Account for
installation of Providence Roa~ Phase ! Stor~ ~ewer ~rojeet.
(It is ~eted the County will be ~upply~ng the pipe through its
annual contract at an amount of $12,~G0, therefore, total cost
of the Phase I Providence Road Project tu include in~t~llation
and supplying o~ DiDe will be ~36,037.)
O~
0n ~otion of ~. Applegate, seconded by ~r. Currin, ~a Board
a~orized the Co~ty Administrator to enter into a
Wi~ J. K. Ti~O~S, a~ Associates, in an amount not to
$15,935; the Route 6Q/Po=oshock Creek Project - $17~365; the
Kai~wood (Eylton Park) Project - $3~,000; and the Quail oak~
Project $17,700; and transferred ~82~000 from the
Miscellaneous Drainage Capital Improvement Account. (It
no~ed ~ese funds are planned to be used on these individual
qon~ru~ion projects after the design process is
on motion of Mr. Ap~legaD~, s~oonde~ by ~. ~rrin, the Soard
u~proved an entertainment/musical festival permit, nubject t~
suoh oon~i=ions as ~e coun%y Attorney ~eems necessary, to the
Ric~ond Jayc~as for an outdoor nu~ica~ festival at the
p.m. (raindate - Septe~er 15,
Vote: Unanimous
on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Prior tu the establishment o~ the Virginia
community College system, Chesterfield County, along with
other members of the Apgouatto× ~asin Industrial Develspmen~
Corporation, provided leadership for reque~tlng the
establishment of a two-year technical college in the region;
WHEREAS, John Tyler Community College was founded in 1967
in Chester~ Virginia, as a result of 1964 General
legislation that established two-year technical
throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS~ In 1966~ the General A~embty expanded the John
Tyler Cer~munity College curricula to include liberal arts and
and universities; and
W~ERRAE, The service region of John Tyler community
College includes the Count/es of A~elia, Charles City,
C~es~erfield, Einwiddie, Prince George, Surry, and Sussex, and
the Cities of Colonial Heights, Hopewell~ petersburg) and
Richmond south of the James River; and
W~EREASt Dmmographi~ ~tudi~ clearly indicate that
~rowth leader Withi~ the Commonwealth well into the next
century; and
91-571
WHEREAS, The current chesterfield County population of
approximately 21~,000 represents one-half cf the John Tyler
Community College service region population; and
WHEREAS, John Tyler CoIm~unity College, after thirte,n
solely on it~ main ca, pus in Chester, in 19S0, extends4 its
presence in the Midlcthian area of Chesterfield County by
off,ring liberal arts and bagealaureate core transfer courses
at several churches, one high school, and two libraries; and
WI~ER~AS, In the Fall of 1984, the success cf these
offerings led John Tyler Community College to lease the
Watkin~ Elementary School Annex from the Chesterfield County
school Division am an official outreach location; and
WHEREAS, In the Fall of 1989, John Tyler Community
College leased space in the Feutherston¢ Professional Center
on Huguenot Road to accommodate the oon~inued demand for
liberal arts and baccalaureate core transfer courses in
northwestern Chesterfisl~ County; and
WHEREAS, Enrollment in these cfferinqs at the John Tyler
Community College Midlothian Outreach Center has in~reased
d~amatically durinq each academic year since the Center
WHEREAS, The John Tyler Community College Midlothian
Outreae~ center now serves approximatel~ 1,700 st~de~ts~
twenty-five percent of the College's total headccunt
enrollment and seventeen percent of the College's full-time
equivalent student enrollment.
NOW, THER=~OR= ~= IT RaSOL¥~D, that %he chesterfield
County Board Of Supervisor~ u~ges t~e State Community College
Board to designate John Tyler Community Collegs as a
multi-c~npus institution ~nd to support tbs developmsnt e~ an
of£ioial second campus in northwestern chesterfield County.
Vote: Unanimous
National Organization of the Tri-city chapter The 555th
~rachute Infantry Association, declare~ a potential conflict
of interest pursuant to the virginia Com~ret~ensive Conflict of
Interest Act, and excused himself from the Board.
~. ~ayes, representing the Trl-Ci~y Chapter - The ~55th
~afflc permit to raise ~unds ~or mcholarmhip purposes ~nd ~at
~ policy of the Assooiation is to award scholarships to
ne~4y high school and college graduates.
On motion of ~. Applegate, seconded by Mr. C~in, the Board
The 555~ parachute Infant~ AssoGiation and for ~h~
Ayes: ~. ~u/livan, Kr. ~rrin, Mr. Applegate and ~. Daniel.
~. ~y~ returned to ~e B~ard.
· 1.~.1~. ALLOCATION OF X~3%~D$~0ROPERATION OF NEW FALL
for operation of a n~w ~all Baseball/Softball Program were
91-572 8/28/91
addressed during the Budget prooe~ and due to limited fund~,
some of the Pa~ks and Recreation program~ had not been funded
and felt thio Program would bo an engoiag Program and would
also be costly in the future. He noted that he had discueee~
thio iseue with s~a££ and indloated slqn-nps for the Program
had already taken place without t~e funds being approved. Ho
otatod if the Board approved this re~uest~ the notion not
include fu~ds from the Clover Hill District Throe cent Roa~
Fu~d.
Di~cusslon, co~u~ont~, and q~estions ensued relative to the
r~ost and ~he funds neede~ and th~ use of Three Cent Road
to support the Pro,ram for %h~ year, Mr. Applegate
reconsidered and consented to the use of Clover Hill District
Three Cent Fun~m although he did no% feel it an appropriate
~ean~ of f~ds for this request.
After considerable discussion, on motion of M~. Daniel,
of ~e five Di$trict'~ ~ree Cent Road Fund and $5,000 from
anticipated ravenue~ to the Parks and Recreation
Pr~ram coots. (It is noted no ~und~ hav~ bee~ b~dqet~d in
ea~ District ~ree cent Road ACCOUnt will bx required
sources of funds must be identified.)
Ayes: ~. S~lliva~, ~r. Currin, ~. Daniel and Mr. ~ayes.
11.G.16. ~I~%0~RIATXON O~ ADDTTIONAL FIF~DR FO~ B0N A~
LI~RAPa~_~X~N$ION
After brief dlscuooien, on motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by
Mr. Applegate, the Board appropriated $275,5~0 from tho
Reoerve for Future Capital Projects to the Ben Air Library
Expansion Project to cover project shortfall caused by defect~
discovered in the demolition portion of the renovation of the
Ron Air Library Project.
request and the bene~ite w~io~ would be received by the County
After considerabl~ discussion, on motion of Mr. Daniel,
ooconde~ by Nr. Currin, the Board deferred indefinitely (t~ be
reconsidered at th, County Administrator'~ dieerotion)
npproval of participation in the Regional Sports Marketing
l~rogram which i~ tQ include chesterfield County, Hanover
County, Henri¢o County, and the City of Richmond for
implementing a oporto marketing program for the Richmond
region.
Mr. Daniel ex=usad himself from the meeting.
11.H. ~TILIT~ES DEPARTH~T ~'r~S
~1-~-1- PUBLIC ~N~S
ll.H.l.a. TO ~ONBIDER AN O~DINANCB T~ VACATE A 16 FOOT
URAINAG~_AND $~ER_~ASE~T AND A X0 FOOT
~ONST~/~CTION ~ IN ~NG ~E
SE~ION E
Mr. Sale stated ~i~ date an~ tiaa had been a~verti~ad for
fou~ drainage and sewer easement and a ~en foot temporary
construction eus~ent in Spring Truce Subdivision.
No one came forward to spe~k ~ f~vor of or ~g~inst the
ordinance.
on mo~ion of ~. ADDle~ate, ~eoonded Dy ~. ~rrin, ~e Board
adopted the follow~ng ordinance:
~ O~IN~C~ whereby the CO~Y 0F
CHESTERFIELD~ VIRGINIA~ ("G~OR"} vacat~
tO PATRICIA A. ~ITTS, RObeRT J.
DAVID W. BOS~GE and P~L~ L. ~OS~GE,
(husband and wife), and ~E~D HO~S, INC.,
("G~T~"), a 16' drainmge and ~ewer
ea~e~e~t across ~ts 8-11~ Spring Trace
subdi~ision, Section E, Matoaca Magisterial
District, Chesterfield County, Virginia,
shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the
Cl~rk~s office of th~ Circuit Cosrt
Chesterflald County in Plat Book 72, Pages 4~
and ~.
~R~S, Dalzer and Associates, In~., petitioned the
Board of supervisors of ~esterfield County, Virginia
~esterfield Co~t~, Virginia more particularly sho~ on a
said County in 91at Book 72, Pages 44 and 4~, made by Balzer &
Associates, Inc., date~ July 2~, 1990. ~e
pe%itloned to be vacated are more fully des=rlbed as follows:
A ~6' ~ainag~ and sewer easement ~nd a 10'
t~m~orary con~%ruotlon easement, aoros~ Lots
8-1t, SDri~g T~ace Subdivision, Section
the location of which is Note fully shown, on
a ~lat made by Balzer and Associates~ Inc.~
dated August 2, 1991, a co~y of which
Ordinance,
~S, not~ce ha~ ~n given pursuan~ ~o
u4vertimlng; and,
~S, no public necessity ~xists for ~e continuance
of the easements sought to be vacated.
The Co~ty hereby re~rveg all of it~ right, titl~ and
~ntere~t in any t~porary construction easement which
~e 20' ~ew~ and drainage easem~n~ acro~ ~t 11.
NOW ~EFOR~, BE IT O~AI~D BY THE BO~ 0~
OF ~EST~FI~D CO~TY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section 15.1~482(b) of the
~ir~inia, 19~0, as ~nde~, %he aforesaid easemen=s be and are
he~e~ vacated.
91-57~ 8/28/91
This ordinance shall Ds in full force and effect in
accordance wi~h Section 1~.1-482(b) of the Code of VirGinia.
1950, az amended, and a c~ifi~d c~py ~f thi~ Ordinance,
together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no
sooner than thirty days he~eafte~ i~ the ~le~'s Office of the
Circuit Cour~ of Chesterfield County, Virginia p~hrsuant to
Section 15.1-4S5 of the Code of Virginia, 19~0, as emended.
~n~ effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-4~
is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the
portion of the plat vacated. This Ordlnanoe shall vest fcc
m~mDle title of the easements hereby vacated in the propel~ty
owner of Lots 8-11~ w~thin ~pr~ng Tr~ce Subdivision, Section E
free and clear of any rights of public use.
Aooordi~gly~ this OEdi~a~ee shall be indexed in the names
of the County of chester£i~ld as grantor and PATRICIA A.
FRITTS, ROBERT J. BENFANTI, DAVID W. BOSARGE and PAMELLA L.
BOSARGE, (husban~ and wife), and ~ERALD HOMES, INC., or their
successors in title, a~ g~ante~.
Ayes: Mr. ~ullivan, Mr. Currin, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Mayos.
Absent: Mr. Daniel.
Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting.
11,~-1.b. TO CO~IDER AN OFJ)INANC~ TO VACATE A ~0 FOOT
~. Sole ~tated thi~ date and ti~e had been ad%erti~d for
~ublio h~arlng to considmr an ordinance ~u vacate a fifty foot
wide right-of-way within Chesterfield Manor Subdivision.
O~ ~o~io~ of ~r. ~rrin, s~conded by ~r. ADDlegate, the Board
adopted ~e following ordinance:
~ ORDIN~CE whereby the CO~TY
~EST~FIE~ VIRGINIA~ ("G~TOR"}
to ROB~T LEO J0~S and 0TTIE ~ JONES,
(husband and w~fe)~ J~ES T. WILLIES and
~0~ L. WILLIES, (husband and wife), R.
WA~E ING~ and ~0~$ W. BRI~ and ~NETTE
D. BRI~, (husband and wife), ("G~TEE"),
Avenue, in ~esterfleld Manor Subdivision,
Be~uda District, Chesterfield County,
Virginia, a~ sho~ on a plat thereoS ~uly
~co~ded in the Clerk's office of the Circuft
Pages 254 and 255.
~ER~S, ~. and ~s. Robert L. Jones, petitioned the
Subdivision, Be~uda ~agist~rial Di~rict, Chesterfield
County, Vlrgln~a more pa~t~oula~ly ~hown on a ~lat dated
Court of ~aid Co~ty i~ Plat Book 9, Pages 254 and ~5. The
portion of the road petitioned to be vacated is more fully
described ~s follows:
A poEtion of a 50~ ~oad ~0~ as Prince
G~urg= Avenue ~ location of which is more
fully ~hown on m plat by W. W. LaPrade
which im attached.
91-575 8/~8/9I
WHEREAS, notice ham been given pur~ant to section
15.1-431 of the Code of _~.~ginla., i950, as amended, by
advert/sing; and,
~ERPJ%~, no public nee~mmity exi~t~ for the continuance
of the portion of the road sought to be vacated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOt%S
OF CHESTE~FIELD COUNTy, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section lS.l-482(b) of the Code of
V~cinia, 19§0, as amended, the aforesaid portion of the road
ba an~ is here~y vacated.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in
aocordane~ with Section 15.1-~(h) of thc Code of Vlrqinia~
1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance,
together with the plat att~0he~ hereto shall ba r~corded no
sooner than thirty daym hereafter in thc Clerk's offic~ of the
Circuit Court of Chesterfleld County, Virginia pursuant to
Section 15.1-485 ef the code of Virqinie~ 1950~ as amended.
The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to se=fish 15.1-483
is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the
portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee
simple title of the oenterline of the portion of the road
Caester£ield Kaner Subdivision, ~ree and clear oS any rights
of public use.
Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names
of the county o~ chesterfield as grantor and ROBERT LEO JONES
and 0TTIE ~L~E JONES, (husband and wife), JAMES T. WILLIAMS and
NORA L. WILLIAMS, (husband and wife), R. WAYNE INGRAM, and
THOMAS W. BRITT and ANNETTE D. BRITT, (hugband and wlf~), or
their successors in title, as grantee.
Vote: Unanimou~
i~TG~T--0F-WAY~T2T!~MS
AC~FfSITION OF A 16 F~{Y~h3~/_EAS3~ 10 FOOT
TEMPOP~AR¥CON~TRUCTIONEASEMENT~0R'r~B~NA
AI{SENA~W~alL~FNE PROJECT
On mction of Mr. Sullivan, ~econded by Mr. Applegate, the
Board authorized the County Attorney to proceed with ~mlnent
domain on an ~mergency basis and exercise immediate right of
entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of vlr~inla
for the acquisition of a 16~ water easement and 10' temporary
construction easement eores~ the ~roperty of Walter M.
Waterline Project and authorized the Co~ty A~inistrator to
notify the owner by ~rtifi~d ~ail on August 29, 1991
County's intention %o ~ake possession of the easement.
noted a espy o~ the plat is file~ with ~ papers of =his
Board.)
Vote: Unanlmou~
11.H.2.b. Au'rnORIZATION TO EXERC~S~ EMiNenT DOMkTN~
ACOUISITION OF A 2~ FOOT PEP/~%N~T DPutINAGE
authorized the County Attorney to procea~ with eminent domain
8/25/91
pursuant to Section 1~.1-2~8.t ef the Code~of Viru{n~a for the
ac<luiBition of a ~0' permanent V00T drainage easement across
and 14, Block 6, Tax Map ~98-5(2)13 & 14, needed in
conjunction with the read improvements along Ramona Ave~¢ and
Mayweod Street and authorized the County
~otify the o~e~ by certified ~ail o~ Au~st 29, 1991 of the
County*s intention to t~e possession of the
~oted a copy of the pl=t is filed wi~ the papers of ~is
Vote: Unanimous
~4r. Daniel disclosed he the ~oar~ that his empleyer, Philip
Merris Incorperated, was affected by the pumping ~tation that
serve~ this plant, ~eolers~ a petential cenflict of interest
A~t, and excused himself from the Board.
On motion of Mr. Coffin, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
from Philip Morris, Incorperated and authorized the County
copy of the p/at i~ filed with the papers of thi~ ~oard.)
Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Currin, ~r. Applegate and Kr. Keyes.
11.~.3. CONSENT ITE~E
~.H.~.b. ~ROVALOFWAT~ONTRACT FO~ S~FRNT~DA¥
OB ~otioB of Mr. Applegate~ seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Boar~
ap~rovRd Water Contract for Seventh Day Adventist Church,
Contra=t Number 90-0§64, as £ollow~, which project includes
the extension of 339 L.F.f of 16" wateT lines, which wet~
linea will be ov~rsized to provide service to the adjoining
propertiee and authorized th~ County Aiministrator to e~eoute
amy necessary docum%nt~:
Develeper: ~otomae Conference corporation
contraeter: John Marshall, Inc.
Total E~timated County Cost:
water (Oversizing) - $ ~,9~.s0
(Estimated Cash ~fund)
Estimated Developer Cost: $ 9,543.00
Code: (Oversizin~ - Cash Refund) 5R-5?~40-895200Z
VOte: Unanimo~
E~TENSION
On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~econ~d by ~r. ~ayes, the Board
awarded Water Contract 87-6178 for Bellona Arsenal Water
~t~n~ien to T &.~ Construction, the low bidder, in the amount
of $187,599.~5, fo~ the constructien of 8" and 1~" water lines
91-577 8/~8/91
along 01d Con Road and Bellona Arsenal Drive and autho~iz.d
the County Administrato~ to exeoute the necessary de,/masts.
(It is noted funds for thi~ project are apprepriato~ in the
current capital Improvement Budget.)
Vote: Unanimous
On notion of ~. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Hayes, the Board
Otterdala, Section ~ ag follows, which project
additional work to acco~odate so,ice to ~e ~t~ng homa~
a~Joining this developa~nt, and authorized the Co~tF
A~inistrator to execute a~y necessa~ doc~entsz
Developer: ott~rdale Development Corporation
Contrao~or~ James River ~goava~ing,
contract ~ount: Estimated Total - $94,627.00
Total Est~ated co~ty cost:
Wastewmter (Additional Work) $ ~,~4.50
(Estimated Cas~ RaZUnd)
Estimated Develop~ Cost:
Code: (Additional Work - Cash Refund}
authorized the County Administrator to execute Change Order
NllmSer 1 for Project ~9~-0528 ~ch Road - emergency 16" water
line repair, in the amount of $%2,000.00, for rock removal to
southern Construction Company, Inc. and authorized the County
Administrator to execute any necessary documents. (It ~
noted said funds for t~is project are appropriated in the
current CaDital Improvement Budget.)
vote: Unanimous
1%.~.3.$. A~/tO~AL OF C~ANGE ORDERS FOR ~I~GIN~P~N~ CONTRACTS
FOR ~RO%~9~PS TO FALLING
TREAT~E~TPL~NTWTT~
On motion of ~. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Hayes, t~e
au~orlzed ~e County A~nistrator to ~xecut~ change
for ~ginsering contracts for imDrovements to the Palling
~eek Wa=tewat~ Treatment ~lant with slack and Veatoh
(890553R) and ~i~an Re~ard~ and Associates (900119), in
~ount of $40,000, (th~ estimated cost of additional services
for each p~ojeot is $20,000) for additionul engine~ing
s~ices and authorized the Co~ty Administrator %o execute
~y necessary documents. (I= is noted said funds for
projects are appropriate~ in ~he Capltal Improvement Budget.)
Vote: Unanimous
XX.H.3.~. AWARD_O~ CO~I~ACT FOR D~OLTTION OF T~
notion o~ ~. Applega~e, ~econded by ~. Hayes, the
awarded the contract for demolition of the Palling Cre~ Water
Treatment Plant to Herbert A. Philllngane and Son, ~e
bidde~, in ~e amount of $39,600, for demolition of
facility and authori=ed the county Administrator to execute
the necessary documents. (It is noted said fund~ are included
in the Capital Improvement Budget.)
Vote: Unan~mou=
ll.H.3.h. AWAPd) OF CONsTR~3CTIONCONTR~OR SANXTARY S~
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Nmyes, ~ Board
transferred $~5,ooo from ~9-8601R ~ew~r ~ystem
Rehabilitation and awarded ~e Construction Contract for
b~ddar, in the amount of $~08,374.¢0, for replac~ent of sewer
llnes and authorized the County A~inistrator to execute the
necessary documents. (It is noted said funds a~= avuilubl~ in
~e CaDital Improv~ent Budget.)
Vote: ~animous
PA~XIALLY FOND~ BY A I~OPE~TYOWN~
On motion OS Mr. Applegate, ascended by Mr. Mayes, r2~e Board
authorized staff to extend sewer to property owned by
James =. ~rigge subject to the owner paying bhe amount t-hat
would huYe been hi~ share under the sewer district
in ca~h upon completion of ~he project. (It is noted the
estimated cost of the project is $10,000 - $1~000 and f~ding
w~ll be from Capital Budget contingencies.)
Vote: Unanimous
11.~.3.%. ACCEi~T~2~CE OF P~C~__O~__I~ND~J~ONG GRO~ROAD ~OM
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayer, th~ Board
ao¢~pted, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a D~rcel
of la~d co,tailing ~.02 acr~ along Grov~ Road f~om Douglas G.
Conner, Jr. and Jean C. conner and authorized the County
A~ni~t~ator to ~c~te the n~c~sary deed. (It is noted a
cop~ of the ~lat is filed with the papers of thio Board.)
Vote: unanimous
FROM Tn~TRUSTEES OF B~OWNG~OVE BAPTIST t~u~
On motion of Mr. ApDl~gnte, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board
accepted, on behalf of the County, th~ conv~yan~ of two 30'
strips of land along Ba~ley Bridge Road from the T~stees of
Brown Gr~v~ Baptist Church and authorizm~ th~ County
A~i~t~ato~ to execute the nec~mary deed. (It is noted a
Vote: Unanimou~
On motion of Mr. Applegate, oeconded by Mr. M~yes, ~e Board
a=cepted, on behalf of th~ County, the ~onveyan~ of two
parcels of land~ Parcel A containing 0.95 acr~ and Parcel B
containing 4.05 corec, at th9 in~r~c%ion of Bethia Road and
Winterpo~ Read, from Sprinq Run Associates, A Virgln~a
General Partnership and authorized the County Administrator to
execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a copy of the plat
is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
l%%_TLROAD C~OSSING AGREEMENTS BETWE~ COI~fY AND C~X
on motion cf MT. Apptegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
authorized the County Administrator ~xecut~ three (3) Railroad
Crossing A~e~ents between the County and CSX Transportation
~or construction and future ~intmnance o~ gravity lin~s and a
force main under the "B~rmuda Hundred
wit~ t~e papers of thi~ Board.)
Vote: Unanlmou~
ll.H.3.n. I~EOIIES-'T ~ OUITCLATM PORT~T~O3~ O~TT~O 16 ~ ~
On motion of ~. Applegate~ seconded by ~. Mayes, the Board
to execute a quitclaim ~eed to vacate portions of two 16~ and
variable width sewer easements across DroDe~ty on Sol,land
Drive, Tax ~D ~116-7(1)13, owned by Partnmrm Four, Inc. (It
Board.)
Vote: Umanimou~
approved a request fro~ John $. ~rkham Enterpri~e~ to
cons%root a parking lot over an existing a"
to the execution of a lioense agre~ent. (I= is note~ a oopy
of tbs Dlat is filed with t~e pa~e~ of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
B~RPLUS P~ OF ~ ES~A~R
~. Currin dimclom~d to the Board ~at he o~s a parcel of
land adjacent to tki~ requemt in which ~ere are some legal
problems and rm~emted that County counsel conmult with h~m
~ounsel, deolared a Dotential conflict of interest pursuant
the Virginia Compr~ensiv~ Conflict of Intsremt Act, and
~xcused h~self fro~ the meaning.
~. ~ioas statu~ in discussion with ~. c~rin, he had
indicated thmre was a legal dispute involving him which
a~Z~C=S ~is par=ml and was requesting a deferral so ~at the
two counsels could meet and d~ter~ine the nature of the
On motion of Mr. Applega~e~ seconded by ~. Daniel, the Board
deferred setting a date for a public h~aring to con~ider the
sale of a surplus parcel of real emtate,
approximately .340 acre, on Route 10 for legal
seDtm~er ~5, 1991 at 9:00
91-5~0 $/25/91
Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayeg.
Absent: Mr. Coffin.
Mr. Currin returned to the meeting.
Mr. Sale presented the Board with a report on the developer
Administrator.
ll.I.
M~, Ramsey ~ese~tcd the Board with a etatms report on the
General Fund Balances Re~rve for Future Capital Projects;
District Road and Street Light ~unde; Lease l~urcha~eg; and
School ~oard Agenda.
~r. Rumsey stu~ed 92ne Vi~glnia Department of Tren~po~tat{on
ha~ fe~ally notified the County of the acceptance of the
~DITIONS
Rou~e 2099 (Courthouse Road - Prom Route 10 ~o
Rou=e 604 0.18 Mi
IRONGATE - SECTIONS 4 & 1 - fEffectiv~ 8-9-91%
Rout~ $0~8 (Gateline Drive) - From Route 3029 to
Route 3961 0.05 Hi
Route 3029 (~ra~o~ Road) - From Route 30~5 to
~OU~9 ~0~$ 0.11 Mi
Route 3960 (Gra~o~ Court) - Prom Route 3Q2~ =o
0.06 mile South Route 3019 0.06 ~i
Route 3961 (Misty Hill Road) - Prom 0.0~ mile ~a~t
Route 1133 - Section ~ of new location,
Project 0001-0~0~1tl, RW201 0.O3 Mi
Route 647 - Sactlcns 7 and 8 of new location,
Proje¢t 0678-0Z0-174, C504 0.36 Mi
Project 0678-0~0-174, C501 0.17 Mi
DISCONTI~CES
Project 0001-020-111, RW201 0~0~ ~i
Route 647 - Section 4 of old locatlon,
Proje=t 0678-020-174, C504 0.~8 Mi
Route 678 - Sections 1 and ~ of old location,
Project 067~-~20-17~, C~04 0.17 Mi
REN~B~iNG
Route 849 - 8eotio~ 3 of old Route 647~
Project 067~-020-174, C~O4 0.2~ M~
ASHTON WOODS SOUTH - reflective 7-18-91~
Route 4~90 (Timbercreek Driv=) - From Route 642 to
0.44 m~le Eamt Rout~ 642
91-581
0.44 Mi
OUEENSPAR/{ - SECTIONS D & G - {Effective 8-9-91~
Route 4084 (Prince Brian's Court) - From 0.04 mile
Nest Route $32 to 0.0~ mile West Route $32
Route 4085 (Lady Marian Lane) - From 0.04 mile West
Route 832 to 0.27 mile West Route
Route 4086 (Nicholan Trace Court) - From Rout~
te 0.13 mile Southwest Route 4085
Route ~0~7 (Lady Marian Court) - From Route 4095 to
CSESTERFTELD DOWNS -
Route 4870 (Derbycreek Lan~) - From Route 828 to
Rou~e 4873
ROUte 4871 (wi~ers circle) - From ~outo 4570 to
0.0~ mile
Route 485~ (Furlong Terrace) - From Route 4870 to
o.os mile North Route 4870
Route 4873 (Back Stret~h Co~t) - From 0.04 ~ilm
North Route 4~7~ to 0.03 mile South Route 4870
WOODS NORTM -
0.05 Hi
0.23 ~i
0.13 Mi
0.27 Hi
0.0z Mi
0.05 Mi
0.07 Mi
Route 4009 (Sir Dinnadan Drive) - From Route 4004 to
0.05 mile North Route 4004 0.0~ Mi
on motion of M~. Daniel, ~ecended by M~. ADplegate, the Board
susDen~ed its rules and amended the agenda to move Item
Executive Session Pursuant to section 2.1-344 (a)(7), Co~e of
virginia, 19~G, es Amended~ for consultation with Legal
CO%~Sel Regarding County of Chesterfield versus J. J.
until the end eS tho Agenda.
Vo~e: Unanimous
ll.J. LIIR(~
The Board recessed et 1~:30 p.m. (DST) to meet with Rear
Admiral John Rekman~ commander of the Defense General supply
C,nt~r, for an informal me,ting and lunch a~ B~llwoed for
in=reduotion~.
Reoonvenlng:
ll.K. P~OfF~ST8 FOR ~OBII~ HO]4~ PER2~ITS ~ P~EZONING
Mr, Jacobsen stated there were no mobile hone
scheduled at this time.
91~01S7
tn ~atoaoa Eagisterial District, axa~ E. FITZGE~J6D, III
requested a Conditional U~e t~ pe~it ~ r~reational facility
(tot lot) in a Residential (R-12) District. The ~enslty of
such amendment will ba controlled by zoning conditions or
Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan d~signates
property fo~ residential use of 5.~ ~its p~ acre or less.
This re~es~ lle~ on a 0.62 a~re parc61 fronting approxi~tely
17~ feet on the south line of South Happy Hill Road, also
fronting approximately 170 fa~t on the east line of Old
intersection of t/%ese roads. Tax ~ap 13~-t0 (4) H~/~pstmad
Place, Section 1, LC% 69 (Sheet 41).
Mr. Jauobsen presented a sa~t~ary of Case 91S~Q187 and stated
the Planning Co~mis~ion recommended approval s%abject to
conditions.
Mr. Herbert Fitzgerald stated the recommendation was
a~ceptable. ~here was opposition present. Mr. Sullivan
stated since there was opposition to the request, it would be
placed in i~s regular seguense on ~he agenda.
In Midlothian Magisterial District, C~ESTERFIELD CO~T~T~
PLANNING COM~ISSION r~quested a Conditional U~e to permit an
aboveground public utility ~tr~otur~ in a Residential
District. The d~nsity of ~u~h ~mendment will be aontrolled by
Plan designates the property for ramldential use of 1.5 unit~
appToxlmat~ly 3,600 feet off the northeast li~e of Robious
of Eas~ Brig~tock Road, Tax Map i (1) Part of Parcel 27
(Sheet 2).
t~e Pla~i~g co~ission race--ended approval subject to
conditions.
reco~endation was acceptable. There was no oppo~itio~
On m~tlon of Mr. Sullivan, s~oonded by ~. C~in~ t~e
approved Ca~e 91~NQ~0] n~bj~ot %o the following conditions:
1. Th~ plan submitted with the application shall
considered the plan of d~velcpment.
Zonin~ Ordinance for uses within office, co~ercial, and
industrial districts in Emerging Gro~h ~ea~.
3. In addition to the a~c~itecturul retirements of the
~erglng Growth Distrlct~, =he odor control structure
equal in quality to, the= m99rova~ for the Riverton Tract
schools. Detailed elevations depi~ti~g these
retirements shall be submitted to the Planning
(N~E: This condition would ~ot preclude ~he use
staff will approve the type of s=curity ~encing.)
Vote:
In Clover Hill ~agisteriat District, RALPH H. ~ ~-~I~ s.
DILI2~RD requested Conditional Use to permit a two-family
dwelling in a Residential [R-?) District. The density of such
a~endm=nt will b~ controlled by zoning conditions or 0rdinanee
standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for
residential use of 1.51 to 4.0 units per acre. This
lles on a 0.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 180 feet on
the south line of Glass Road, approximately 270 feet west
DUn~avan Road. Tax Map 49-12 (3) Mayfair Estates, Section A,
Block G, Lot 4 [sheet
F~r, JaCobsen presented a summary of Case 915N0211 and skated
the planning Corami~gion reconmend~d approval subject to
uonditions.
M~. Ralph and Elsie Dillard stated the reconmendat~on was
acceptable. There was no opposition
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currin, thm Board
approved Case 91SN0211 subject to the following conditions:
1. Os~npanoy of the ~essnd dNellin~ unit shall bo limited to
the occupants of the principal dwelling unit, their
family members and Sally Taylor. (P)
~- Within thirty (90) day~ of the approval of thi~
a deed rez:rlct~cn shall be resorded ind~catlng the
requirement in Condition 1. The deed book and page
number of ~ueh reztrie~ion and a copy of the
shall be ~ubmitted to the Planning Department.
Other than noz~al ~aint~a~ce, there shall b~ no
additions or alterations to the existing structure to
accommodate the second ~wslling.
Vote: Unanimous
In Midlothian ~i~t~rial District,
r~qu~t~ amendment to Sondi~ional Use (Sase 79SS44) relative
to hours of operation of a private school. The density of
such amendment will he controlled by zoning oondition~ er
Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive ~lan deslgnate~ the
property for residential uae of 1.51 units per acre or less.
This request lis~ ~n an ~gricult~al (A) District oD a ~.~
sore parcel fronting approximately 480 feet on the southwest
llne of Co~house Road, approximately 140 feet no~w~st
Kei~wood Parkway. Tax MaD 27-2 (1) Parcel 2 (S~eet 8).
~. Jacobsen 9ra~ented a sugary of Case 91SNOR14 and stated
the Planning Co~ission reoo~endad approval subjeot to
~. Edward Willey, Jr., representing the applicant, ~tatad the
reco~endation was acceptable. The~e was opposition Dr~ent.
~, Sullivan stated ~incm there w~s opposition
it would b~ plao~d in its regular sequence on the agenda.
91SN0215
I~ Bel~hHda Hagisturial District, I%T~RD ~. a~J.RN requested
rezoning from Community susiness (B-2) to Nei~h~orhos~
Business (C-2). The density of such amendment will be
controlled by zoning conditions or ordinan~m standards. The
C~pr~ensive Plan designate~ the property for neighborhood
co~ercial usa with ~n~ity to ~e ~et~in~d ~ ~ev~lopment
regulations. This request lies on a 1.1 a~e parcel fronting
approximately 400 feet not,west of West Hundred Read. Tax
Ma~ 115-6 (6) Nunnally'm AOdi%ion, Lot 15B (sheet 32).
8/28/91
~4r. Jacobsen presented o sugary of ~ese 91SR0215 and ~tated
Faf. Richard Allen StaGed' the ~ecomnmenda~ion was acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Currin, se¢0nde~ by Hr. Applegate~ the Board
approved Case 91SN021S and accepted the following proffered
condition:
There shall be no carry-out restaurants.
Vote: Unaninona
In Bermuda Magis~orial Distriot, JAMES V. DANI~ requested
rezoning from General Industrial
The density of such amendmen~ will be controlled by zonln~
designates the property for light and general industrial uae
with density to be determined by development regulatlens.
This request 1les on a 9.8 a~re parcel fronting approximately
110 feet on the east line sf Bermuda Triangl0 Road,
approximately l~sP0 feet north of West Hundred Road. Tax Map
117-~ (1) Parcel 15 (Sheet
On notion of ~r. currin, seconded by M~. ADDlegate, the Board
In Dale Magisterial District, T~ ~STE/%FIELD ~OURT~
SUP~FISOt~S requested rezoning from Ligh= Indu~trial (M-l)
Light Industrial (I-l) w~th Conditional Use to pe~it out~id~
storaqe on ~98,~4 acre~ and rezonin~ from Light Industrlal
(M-l) to Light Industrial (I-l) with Conditional U~ Planned
Develo~nt tO permit use ex=e~tions and outside ~torag~ on
101.63 aore~. The de~si~y of such a~e~d~ent will
controlled by zoning c0~ditio~ or ordinance standards. Tho
Compr~ensiwe Plan de,ignores the prop~r~y for light
regulations. ~is request lisa on a total of 300.1~ acre~
~ronting in two (2} places fur 6~570 feet on th~ north lin~ of
Route 2SS, approximately ~00 feet we~t of Iron Bridge Road,
al~o fronting approxi~ely ~,900 f~e~ on the north and south
line~ of ~it~pin~ Road, approximately 1,6~0 feet ~outh
Airfi~Id Drive, al=o fronting the east and we~t line9
~a~ 6~-13 (4) Chesterfield Airport Industrial Pa~k, Lot 1; T~x
Nap 79-1 (2) Chesterfield Airport In~umtrial Park, Lot 1; Tax
N~D 79-1 (4) Chesterfield A~rport IndustriAl Park, Lots 1,
6 and 7; Tax Map 79-2 (~) Chesterfield Airport Industrial
Park~ ~ts 2 through ~7 Tax Map 79-2 (3) Chesterfield Ai~0rt
Industrial Park, Section A, Lot l; Tax Map 79-2
Chesterfield Airport Industrial Pa~k, Lot 1~ Tax Map 79-] (4}
Chesterfield Ai~or~ Industrial Park, Section B~ Lo~ 2; Tax
Mmp 79-5 (2) Chesterfield Albert Indum%rial Park, Lot 1; Tax
Nap 79-6 (3) chesterfield Airport Industrial Park, Lots 3
t~ough 12, 15, ~0~ ~1, ~, $0, 92 through 3S~ 42 through 47,
91-585 8/28/91
79-6 (3) Che~terfleld Airport Industrial Park, Section A, Lot
2; ~ax H~p 79-6 (4) Cox Airport Condominiu~ A, Units 1
through 4; Tax Map 79-10 (2) Chesterfield Airport Industrial
~ark, Lots 6 and 7; Tax Nap 79-1~ ($) Chesterfield Airport
Industrial ~erk, Lots 1, 2 and 50 (sheets 21 and 22).
Mr. Jacobson presented a summary of C~se 91SN0222 end stated
t~e Planning Commission recommended approval subject to
CODdition~.
~r. Lane Ramsay, r~pr~enting the applicant, s~ated the
recommendation wa~ acceptable. There wa~ no
present.
After brief discussion, on motion of Fir. Daniel, seconded by
F~r. Applegste, the Board approved case 91SN0~ subject to
~. Uses on that portion of the property zone~ Light
Indu~iat (I-1) with Conditional Use Planned Development
(Tax Map 79-~ (4) chesterfield Airport Industrial Park,
a. Any pe~itted or restricted Light Industrlal (I-1)
b. Dairy product~ manufacturing
O. Elaotrioal transmission and dis~ib~tion e~ipment,
~ipm~nt and supplies
d. ~rnituru and fixtures ~anufaoturing
e. Ioe. manufactur~ng
~annfa~turing
g, O~mr fabriQated m~tal products manufacturing not
o~erwise listed
h. o~er food Drmparations manu~act~ing
i. Petroleum products cr fuel (gos or li~id)
or c~ic f~t
j. Si~s and u~v~rti~ing d{splays manufacturing
k. ~atellite dishes for co~unication purposes.
2. ~tside storage shall be psrmitted, as accessory to a
a- Snob storag~ shell be sore~n~d from view of all
adjacent propert~, privat~ roa~, and publio rca4
rights of way. soreening devioe~ t~at a~e visible
from publi~ rights 0f way 5hall consist of ma~erial~
an~ colors that are compatible wi=~
ar~itectural freedent of the principal buildings.
~ ~xact method and treatment of screening shall
approved by the ~lanning Department;
D, NO more ~an ten (10) percent of the gross floor
area of the prinoipal ~se on any zoning lot may
u~ed for outside storage, p~ovided that a minim~ of
300 square feet an~ a maximum of ~,0OO square feet
of outside storage shall be pe~itted fo~
~oning
outside storage shall not exceed ten (10) feet
height; an~
ar~as and shall observe the minim~ ~e~ire~
setbecks for parking ar,as.
Vote: Unanimou~
8/28/91
In Matoaca Magisterial Dimtrict, VI~CXN--~A PAI~ CO.ANY
requested amendment ~0 ,a previously granted zoning (Cas~
89SN0179) to permit radio, televisi~n and other home
entertai~ent sales and ~ervice. The density
amen~ent will be controlled by zoning ¢onditi~nz or Ordinance
standards. ~ Comprehensive Plan de~ignate~ the property for
development re,elations. ~is request lie~ in a Convenience
~usines$ (B-l) Distri:t on 4.3 acres fronting
450 feet on th~ south line of Mull Street Road, approximately
and 4 (Sheet
the Planning Co~ission race,ended approval and acceptanc~
the proffered condltiong.
Rinc~ there wa~ no one present to re~resent the applicant at
th~s time, the request was placed in it~ regular science on
91~i'02~$
In Matoaca Magisterial District, APPOMATTOX ~ Wkr~
~u'xaORIT~ requested amendment to Conditional Use (Casa
90SN0294) r~tat~va to buffe~ requirements. The density of
~uch amendment will be con~rolled by zoning conditions or
Ordinanc~ standard~. The Comprehensiv~ Plan designates the
to be detect,ed by development re~lations. This request
lies in an Agricultural (A) Di~tr~ct on 1.7 acres lyin~
approximately R00 feet off the south line cf Chesdin Road,
the Planning co~is~ion r~o~ended approval subject to
conditions,
reco~endation was acceptable. There wa~ opposition p~e~ent.
Mr. Sullivan stated since there was opposition to the ~qu~t,
it would be placed in itl ~gula~ ~equence on the agenda.
91,SNOI~7
In Ma~caca Magisterial Distrlotr ~ERT M. FITZGERALD, III
requested ~ Conditional U~e to permit s recreational fecillty
(tot lot) ~n a Residential (R-i~) District. The density of
such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or
ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the
property for residential use of ~.~ units per acre or le~s.
Thi~ request lies on a 0.62 acre parcel fronting approximately
lTo feet on the =oath line of $ou=h Happy Hill Road, also
f=o~ti~g approximately 170 feet on the east line of Old
Hampstsad Lane, and located in the southeast quadrant of the
interse~tion of these ~oads. Tax Mu~ 132-~0 (4} Hampstead
Place, Section l, Lot 69 (Skest 41).
Mr. Jacobsen presented a sur~mary o~ Case ~l~NOl~7 and stated
the Planning Commission recommended approval ~ubject to
conditions.
acceptable.
approved in the county were required to have conditional use;
and felt since thi~ tlrpe of activity was being authorized by
the County, the County ~houl~ consider providing liability
insurance or requesting outdoor recreational facilities to
have liability insurance.
Colonel Mayas inquired if consideration of the zoning case was
related ts the coDoern~ about )lability insurance. ~t~. Micas
stated the zoning case was a land use issue.
On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved Case 915N0187 subject to the following conditions:
1. A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained along
t/~e southern, eastern and western boundaries of the site.
· ~nese buffers shall be land~caped in accordance with
Article 4, Division 4, Sedtions 21.1-226, 21.1-227
~hrough (h) and 21.1-228 of the zoning ordinance.
(NOTES:
(a) Conditions cZ zonin~ r~ire a fifty (~0) ~oot
~ffer along South Happy Hill Road. The proposed
U~eS mUSt conform to this buffer.
(b) The recorded subdivision plat establishe~ a ten (10)
foot setback from =he fifty (50) foot buffer along
Sout~ Ha~y Hill Road. ~e p~oDosed use~ mu~t
confo~ to this setback.)
~. The playg=oun~ ~quipm~nt ar~a ~h~ll b~ ~nolo~d by
fence, the exact height, design and location of which
of site plan review. The fence, however, shall be
(P)
equipment, excluding any paved playing courts or
5, within ~irty (3Q) days of the approval of this request,
site ~la~s depicting this ~e~ir=munt shall be submitted
=o the Planning DeDartm~nt for approval.
Vote: Unanimous
91~NO214
In Midlothian Magisterial District, L~DOLF W.
requested amendment to conditional Use (Case 79S044) relative
to hours of operation of a private school. The density of
suc~h amendment will be controlled By zoning conditions or
ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the
property for residential use of 1.51 ~nits per acre or less.
This rcquust lie~ in an Agricultural (A) District O~
acre parcel Srontinq a~proximately 450 feet on the southwest
line of Courtho~ Read, approximately 1~0 feet northwest of
KCithWOOd ~arkway. Tux Map 27-2 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet
~r. Jacabson ~resented a summar~ of Case 91SN0214 and stated
th~ Planning Co~%mission racom/sanded approval subject to ~
uondltisn.
~r. Edward W~lley, Jr., representing the applicant, stated the
recommendation was acceptable and that he had spoken with the
aDDo~ition present end felt the objection was a matter of
91-~$$ 8/25/91
prinsiple and was not an ~bjection to this particular case
and, therefore, requested the Board to give favorable
~r. George Beadlem stated he felt the Board ~h0uld relinquish
authority in zoning cases regarding Setting the hours of,
operation.
On motion of F~. Sullivan, seconded by Hr, Currin, the Board
The hours of operation shall be limite~ ~u between 7:00 a.m.
a~d 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. No Saturday or Sunday
operations shall he
(NOTE: Th~ osnd~tion supersedes Cendition ~ of case 79S044,}
Vote: Unanimous
91SN0226
In Ha~oeoa ~s~i~terial District, APP0~AT~0X ~
~u'rn0RITY requested amen~nt to Conditional U~e (case
90$N0294) relative to baSSet requirements. The density of
such amendment will b~ controlled by zoning conditions or
property for park~, ~ec~eation or op~n spuce use wi~
to be determined by development r~gula~ions. This request
lius in un Agricultural (A) District on 1.7 acre~ lylng
approxi~a;ely ~00 fe~= o~f =he ~outh line of Chesdin
measured from a point approxlmate~y ~,~00 feet so~th of River
Road. Tax Map 185-7 (1) Part of Parcel M (sheet 52).
N~. Jacobson presented a ~u~ary of Came 918N02~6 and stated
oondition,
Hr. Riahard Hartman~ representing the applicant, stated the
and in, ired a~ to th~ underlying reason for cane~ beiRq
a~d al~o i~ired a~ to the progress of the study on th'~ water
~ality of Lake chesdin.
N~. Mayes i~qui~ed if Mr. ~aadle~ wa~ nwaFe of anything out
the ordinary pertaining tO this particular =a~e even though
aware of anything.
On motion of Mr. Mayer, ~co~ded by Mr. Appl~gatm, th~ Beard
appToved Case 91SN0226 subject to the following condition:
~oept a~ noted hereib, the ~ev=nty-five (75) foot buffer
r~i~e~nt~ of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4, Division
3. sludge lagoons, utilities, and soll ;tockp~le~ ~hali
be pe~itte~ within th~ buffer. If utilities and
~tockpiles are locat~ in %he buffer, the exact placement
shall be approved by the Planning Department.
if ~h~ area is used ~or atockpiling~ at such ti~
th~ adjaeent property to the north i$ ~evelope~ for u~e~
such as, but not limited to, a water treatment plant, the
buffer shall be l~n~cape~ in accordance with the
re~irements~ as sp~cifled here~n unless modified t~ough
(NOTE: This condition supersed~ Condition 3 of Case
90SN0294 fo~ the ~egue~t property only.)
Vote: Unanimous
8~SNU3~4
(Amended) In ~idlothian Magisterial District, %~//~INTA ~
PARTNERS requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to
Resid~ntlal (R-lS). Re~id~ntlal u~e of up to 2-9 units per
acre i~ parmltted ~n a Resident~a~ (R-15) District. The
Comp~e/lensive Plan designates the property for residential use
of 2.2 units per a~re or less. This ~equest lies on a 256.8
acre parcel fronting approximately 1,637 feet on the we~t line
Of 01d Hundred Road, approximately 3,700 feet northwest of
Otterdale Road. Tax ~ap ~4 (1) Parcel ~1 (Sh~t~ ~, 6 and
~. Jacobsen pre~nted a ~um~ary of Case 895N03S4 and ntated
the Planning Co~mlssicn had originally reco~nded denlal
deferred ~is casa for ninety days to give ~e applicant an
opportunity to meet wi=h adjacent property o~er6 and since
that time an additional amended proffer ha~ been received.
f~the~ stated st~ff recommended approval subject to the
acceptance of the proffered conditions.
~. A~pl~qate inquired as to where ~e development would tie
~nto the p~lic ~awer sy~%~. Mr. ~ardner stated
development would ti~ into th~ publi~ sswer ~ystem ~t did not
y=% know wh~re or at what point in time.
~. Maye~ mtated t~e~e was no condition or proffered condition
·tating ~e applicant would tie into the p~lic sewer system.
water and smwer mystem but was not a ~roffere~ condition
the ~ounty, although, they had agreed wit5 the adjacent
property owners ~hat public sewer would be
~en asked, ~. Hicam indicated t~ oas~ would ~av~ =o
deferred in order to accept a written proffer from the
applicant.
Dimcu~ion, oo~ents, and questions ensued relative to the use
of public water amd mewer for th~ requegt.
~. Gardner stated that although the intent wa~ to tie into
th~ public water and sewer ~ystem~ he would almo t~e to ~ave
th~ option of s~lling a pi~c~ of the paroel if the site was
approved for a well and septic
Discum~ion, co~ent~ an~ questions en~ued ~elative to
d~ferring th~ case for thirty days and the proper manner in
which to uddrass the wa~tewater
development should hav~ public water and sewer and would
race,end deferring the case for t~i~ty days.
~. Gardne~ indicated ~e wo~ld be willing to proffer that
oondiBion but was concerned with the cos~ ~o mak~ muc~
p~offe~ a~d ~tated the mdjacent property owners were present
for ~is reques~ for ~he public wa~er and ~ewer ~ystmm if the
applicant was to proffer that condition; ~e timeframe
which a Zoning Ordlnanu~ amen~nt r~garding fee~ would
considered by the ~oa~d; and the proposed fee to be
reco~en~e~ by ~ Planning Commission.
~r. }high Woodle etate~ he was representing the adjacent
property owners; that the neighborhood originally was oppesed
applicant; that the zoning fee for proffers was one of the
p~oblems that had been addressed by the neighborhood and they
eupportnd the request du~ to the applicant's agreement with
oonsidara~ion to tho ra~uest.
~r. Mayas ingulred if the zoning case was approved as
submitted with the appllcant~s iotont to tie into the public
applicant be permitted tO install well and septic tanks. Fa:.
Jacobsen stated staff wo~ld have no ability to require the
felt the nature of the soil and the qeolo~y of the area,
basically required the use of public water and sawer.
Nr. Applegate stated there was an agreement between the
applicant and the adjacent property owner~ stating he would
tie into the Dublis water and sewer system and~ therefore,
felt the request could bs approved, F~r, Gardner indicated the
agreement was contingent upon approval of the zoning case,
drainfields and the prapossd lot sizes for this request, ha
need to be proffered. Mr. Jacobsen stated that if large
enoug~ lots wore developed in the subdivision and p~oper well
and septic ~y~t~m ~t~m were provided, ~hen staff would ba
required to approve the subdivision.
Mr. ~oorge Boadle~ ~tated he had concerns about approving the
request if the developer ~or some reason wa~ unabl~ to ~ro~eed
and transportation needs in this area.
the lot sizes on the perimeter of the eastern ~ide of the
proper~y which woul~ be recorded.
Mr. ApDlegete stated he could support the request as
submitted.
Mr. Sullivan stated he had concerns about the proposal not
receive any cash proffers as the request hsd been submitted
world be an impact on County services such as adOitianal
g~n~rate appro×i~at~ly 250 suhool children; and that there was
Mr. Gardner stated that although h~ did not know when th~
property would Ds develope~ he felt he had satisfied the
concerns of ~oth the County and the surrounding neighborhood,
Discuseion~ comments, and quu~tions ensued relative to the
23, 1991. For lack of a second, the motion failed.
l~r. Daniel inquired as to the need to zone the property at
this point in time zincs it Was not known when the property
would a~tually be d~velcped.
Mr. Currln stated he fel5 an opportunity was being taken away
from the applicant by delaying the zoning of the property and
91-591 8/28/9~
t~at the applicant had the right to develop the property
within his own tlm~fra~.
~r. Danisl stated he did not £eel the applicant's right to u~e
the property was being denied but rather the public had a
regarding the request.
Mr. Gardner stated the request had been existence for an
e~6en~ed period of tim~ and that although the economy has had
an impact on the dewelopment of the site, he did not feel r2~e
zoning provide~ th~ u~ of publi~ water an4 ~ewer wa~
addressed.
original concern~ of the s~rcunding neighborhood regardin~
the Zoning Ordinance, which sets minimum lot size~, wo~ld
pe~it th~ aDpliaant to craat~ larger lot ~iz~ and ~f th~ lot
Daniel inquired if the zoning was approved wo~ld the app~iGant
be required to provide public water. ~. sohmel~ indicated
without the use of public wat~.
Mr. Daniel stated since the ~e~est provided for an
upper=unity to provide ~or wells, he oould noZ ~uppor= the
the applicant wo~l~ %i~ in~o ~e publi~ water ~ys~ wo~l~ b~
appropriate.
Dimcussion, co~ents, and questions ensued relative to the
applioant submitting an additional proffer and ~. Micas
indicated State law restricted the ~oard from accepting
proff~r~ a= ~is ~im~.
~. sullivan restated he had concerns about =he proposal not
bein~ ~eveloped for ~ev~rat years; ~a~ the County would not
befor~ the Cash Prsffer Polioy was imDl~ente~; and that the=e
on motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Appleqate, the Board
deferred Case 89SN0354 until October 23, 199~ in or4er to give
Zonin~ Ordinance and to give the applioant an opport~i~y to
a~dre~ an additional prsffer regarding the use of public
Ayes: ~. Currin, ~r. ADplegate, ~. Daniel and ~. Keyes.
Nays: ~. sullivan,
In Dale Magisterial District, CHARLES DOUGLAS SP~C~ AND
· ~/~INIA F. SP~C~ requested rezoning from Light Industrial
(~-1) to Co.unity Buslnass (c-~) w~ conditional
relative to out~ide ~to~aqe. The density of such ambient
will b~ controll~4 by zonin~ conditionm or Ordinance
standards. The Ccmprehenslve Plan design~tem the prep~rt~ for
light commercial use with density to be determiaed by
parcel fronting approximately 278 feet on the west lln~ of
Turner Read, approximately 180 feet seuth of Bel~o~t Road,
also fronting approximately §7 feet on the south linc of
located sout~hwest of the intersection of these roads, Tax
4~-15 (1) Parcel 6 (sheet
~. Jacob~on presented a s~ary of Came 919N014~ and stated
~4, 1991 in order to allow the applicant to amend a
further stated the Planning Co~ismion ~ad ~iginally
reco~ende~ approval and acceptance of t~
conditions which was based on thc five year restriction of the
more intense use~ and staff was reoo~endin~ d~nial of the
~. Oliver Rudy, representing the applicant, ~tat~d the
proffer had be~n amended an~ that th~ applicant was a~reeabl~
to all of ~ condition~ with th~ e~ptio~ of the five year
~. Daniel eta=ed =he business opera~lo~ had been in existence
and located at ~is site ~or ~ long psriod of time and the
r~es= WoUl~ bring the applicant in compliance with th~
Zoning Ordinance.
On motion of Nr. Daniel, ~eoo~ded by ~r. Appl~ga~e, th~ Board
appreved Ca~e 91SN01~9 and accepted the following proffered
oon~itions~
U~e~ shall be restricted ~o any pe~it~e~ ur r~trlcte~
Neighborhood Busine~ (C-2) use; provided, however, th~
a. Ca, enter and cabinetmakers' of~ice~ an~
b. Contractors' offices and display rOO~S;
c. Electrical, plum~ing or hea~ing supply sales,
semite and related display
2. Prier =o issuance of an occupancy permit for any
redevelopment that would ~enerate a significant
in traffic above the traffic generated by the
use, as determined by th~ Tran~portation Department,
additienal pavement shall be constructed along
Road at ~ approved aC¢~S~ %o provld= a left turn lane.
~. Other than the improvements specified herein an~ no,al
maintenance, there shall De no additions or alterations
cablnstmak~rs' offices and display rooms; contractor~
o~fice~ mn~ dj=play roon~; and ~lectrical, plumbing
heating supply sales, servlce and re~ated display
Outside storage shall be permltt~d for the following
enly:
a. Ca, enter and cablnetmak~rs' office~ and
b. Contr~ctcr~' offices and display rooms;
Electrical, plumbing er heating sugply sales, and
related display rooms.
91-593 ~/2~/91
5. Outsi~e storage shall be cenfined to the north~nmost
pa:kin~ area and the existing fenced area en the south
side of the existing building. Outside storage areas
shall be s~raensd from a~ja~ent properties and Duello
rights of way. The southernmost outside storage area
~hall bs ~ore~ned with a solid hoard fence. The
northernmost outside storago area ~hall be ~¢reened by a
combination of a solid hoard fence, the building, and
landscaping. ~psoifieally, a solid board fence shall be
installed from the northeast corner of the building
around the eastern and northern boundary of the northern
outside storage area. Further, additional landscaping
shall be installed along the western boundary of the
outside storage area. The height of fences ~hall be such
that the view of vehicles, ether than those specified in
the note under Proffered Condition 6~ shall be minimized
and such that all other equipment and materials do not
exceed the height of the fences, Ail gates to outside
storage areas shall remain closed at all times =hat the
outside storage area is not being accessed.
6. Con~tructlon equipment and construction vehicles ~hall be
par~ed within outside ~torage areas.
(NOTE: Au~o~obiles, station wago~, light va~s and
pick-up truck~ designed primarily a~ passenger veh~clus
~hatl ha eEoi~ded from this requirement.)
(NOTE: Prior to commencing any improvements, site plane
must bm ~ubmitt~d to th~ Pia~ni~g Depar~ent for
~pproval.)
Vote: U~a~i~on$
9~SN0200
In ~a=oaca ~agis~erial District, H~NI~Y ~. H~I~ Jla.
rc~oning from Agricultural (A) to Com~ity ~in~s (C-3),
T~e density OX such amendment will be controlled by zoning
conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the property for office u~e with density to b~
determined by development regulatlon~. Thi~ request li~ on
~.0 acres fronting approximately 700 feet on the southwest
1ins of Iron Bridge Road, across from centralia Road. Tax Map
95-12 (1] Part of Parcel 44 (Shee~
Mr. Jaoobson pre~ented a ~a~ of Case 91SNO~00 and stut~d
~ ca$~ h~d been heard at the Board's meetin~ on July 24,
1991 a~d Was Carri=d over to this m~sting due to a tie vote
and ~hat the applicant had su~mi~=~ an a~di%~onal proffer
which would provid~ for right~of-way dedication for a ~ird
lane o~ Davemant on Route 10. Ha ~urth~r stated the Plannin~
Co~i~sicn and ~taff recommended approval and acceptance
the proffered cundltionm.
~. ~ers stated the reco~endation was acceptable. Thor= was
no opposition p~e~ent.
After b~iaf discussion, on motion of ~. ~yes, s$~o~d~d by
~. Applegate, the Board a~p~ove~ C~s~ 91SN020D and
t~e followin~ proffered conditions:
1. The followinq uses shall be excluded from th~
C-3
a. C~:ktail lounges and ni~htolub~
b. Fraternal uses
c. Mo~pital~
e. LaboraSories
91-594 8/28/91
Pawn shops and second-hand shops
Taxidermies
Theaters
Commer=ial ksnnel~
The architectural treatment of all buildings shall be
$imilur to, and equal in q~ality to, Chesterfield ~eadow$
West Shopping center. De~ailed renderings depicting
these requirements shall be nubmitted to the Planning
Department for approval in conjunction with the site plan
review,
Public sewer shall be used.
Prior t~ obtaining a building permit, one of
following shall be accomplished for fire protection:
For building permits obtained on or before June ~0,
199i, ~he owner/developer shall pay to the County
$150.00 per 1,000 s~are feet of gross floor area.
I~ the building permit is obtained after June 30,
1991, the amount of the required payment shall be
adjusted upward or downward by the same ~ercentage
that the Marshall Swift Buildlng Cos= Index
increased or decreased between June 3~, 1991, and
the date of payment, With th~ approval cf ~he
County's Fire Chief~ the owner/developer shall
receive a credit toward the required ~ayment for the
cost of any fire suppression system not otherwise
required by law which is included am a part of the
development.
OR
b. The owner/developer shall provide a fire suppression
system not otherwise required by law which the
County's Fire Chief determines substantially reduces
the need for County facilities otherwise for the
protection.
Acce~ to Iron Bridge Road shall be limited ~o the
existing site road that ~erve the Chusterfield Meadows
W~st Rhoppinq Center located towards the ~outhern
property llne; a right-turn-in only on Iron B~idge Road
located approximately ~50 feet north of the site road's
intersectlen with Ir0n Bridge Read; and ene (1)
additional entrance~exit located approximately midway
between Iron Bridge Read'~ inter~eotiens ~ith Centralla
and Krause Roads. Th~ exact losatlon of accesses shall
be approved by the Transportation Department.
TO provide for an adequate roadway ~yste~ at the tim~ of
complete developmen~ the developer shall be r~ponsible
for ~-h~ following:
a. Construction of additional pavement and curb and
gutter alon~ the ~0~thbo~nd lanes of Iron Bridge
Ro~d for the entir~ property frontage to provide a
t~r~ lane.
b. Construction of additional pavement and curb and
gutter along the e~isting slue aoce~a road at it=
i~terseetion with Iron Bridge Road to improve the
radius along the in-bound lane {i.e., northwes~
corner of intersection).
c. cloming the existing Crossover on Iron ~ridge Road
adjacent to the property, unless otherwise approved
by the Tranmportatio~ Department.
91-595 8/28/91
Full cost of any traffic signal modifications
warren%ed by the proffered improvements, eXCludin9
relocation of tho polo or upgrado to mast arms, at
Road
the Centralia Road/site road/Iron Bridge
intersection.
7. Print to any site plan approval, a phasing plan fsr
required road improvements shall be submitted to, an~
approved by, the Transportation Department.
S. The existing spring site may be renovated and restored~
The existing spring site shall not bo oliminatod by the
development of this property.
9. One hundred (100) feet of ~ight of way on the went side
of Routs 10, measured from the oentertine of that part of
Route l0 i~L~ediately adjacent to the property shall be
Chesterfield County. This right of way shall be
dedicated in phases, as approved by the TranaDortation
Department. The right of way dedication across the part
of ~e Droperty currently devoloped as an office shall
occur at ~uch t~ne the property ~ ~ignlficantly
rede~eloped c~ ex~anded~ as determined by the
Transportation Department-
Vote: Unanimous
90~N0~5
rezonlng from A~ricultural (A) and Communlty Bus~nasm (~-2) to
Community B~siness (C-3). The density of such amendm~nh will
be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards.
~e Comprehensive Plan designates th~ property for mixed
indus~al uses wi~ dens~ty to be determined by
approxi~tely 550 feet on the northeast line of Bast Hundred
Road, approximately 1,380 feet northwest of Enon Church Road,
and ~1~o fronting along th~ western terminus of ¢01~
Tax Map 135-4 (2) Rivermont Hills, Lot 52 (Sheet 42).
~r. Pools pre~¢nted a ~umm~ry of Came 90SN0~5 und stated th~
proffered conditions and staff hud originally had reco~ended
approval subject to the applican~ submitting proffers
to road improvementm and although proffarm had bmen
~. Jeff collins, reDresenting the applicant, stated
applicant hud met with %he ~urrounding neighborhoods ~n th~
area; ~a~ ~h~y had submi~te~ ~roffere~ conditions res=rio~ing
the uses and relating to ~xtensive buffering mhd
around the ~erimeter of thm ~arc~l; an~ felt the f~ll lame of
wld~nlng on Route 10 was ads,ate in addressing
and ~ere would be no left hand turn movement into the =its
be considered at the time of site plan approval and not
this time. There wa~ no oDDo~ition
~t~ brief discussion, on motion of ~. Currln, seconded by
the following p~offer~d condlt~cns:
1. ~i~r to obtaining n building pe~it, one of the
following shall be accomplished for fire protection:
A. The owner, develope~ Or assi~ne~(s) shall pay to the
county $150 per 1,00~ square feet of ~os~ floor
percentage that the Marshall Swift Building Cost
and the dat~ of payment. With the approval of the
assignee(s) shall receivm a credit toward th~
required De~munt for the cost of any fire
suppression system not othar~isc repulred by law
which is included a~ a Dart of the development.
law which the County's Fire Chief OeteL-mines
nu~stantislly reduoes the nee~ for county facilities
Prior ~ite plan approval, one hundred (100) feet of fish%
centerline of that part of Route 10 immediately adjacent
tc the property, shall be dedicated, free and
unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield
County.
Access to Route 10 shall be limite~ to one entrenoe/exit
location of this access shall be approved by th~
and const~cted to be shared with the adjacent properties
Department, acces~ ea~ment~ acceptabi~ to the
4. To provide for an ads,ate roadway system at ~e time of
for the ~ollowing:
addltiunal ~rough lane (i.e,, third through
lan~) for the ~ntire property frontage.
B. Dedication to the County of Chest$rflel~, free
and unrestricted, of any ~ddi~ionnl right of
way (or e~em~n%) requirsd for =he improvements
identified above. T~is dedication shall occur
prior to any ~it~ pla~ approval,
approved by the Transportation Department.
7. The following usem shall b~ allowed:
A. All us~s permitted by right in the C-1 Conv~ni~no~
I. The following ~hsll not be pe~itted:
2. Variety ~tcre.
91-597 ~/2~/~1
II. The following USes shall be permitted suDject
Bar,ks and Savings & Loan Associations shall be
allowed, provided that out~id~ ~peaker ~y~te~s
shall not ex~eed e de=ihel level of 45 dec~el~
et a distance of 30 feet from the speaker.
Ail usaa permitted by right in the C-] Neighborhood
Business District except:
I. The following uses shall not b~ Darmltted:
1- Automobile self-service stations.
Department stores.
3. Jewelry stores.
4. Occult ~cie~ee~ s~dh as palm readers,
astrologers, fortune tellers, tea leaf
readers, prophets, etc.
6. Schools - music, dance and business.
7. Hospitals.
II. The following u~ shall be permitted ~ubjsot
to compliance with the following oondltion~:
that no out~ide run~ shall be allowed.
2. Veterinary clinics, provided that no
outside runs or overnight boarding shall
be allowed.
All use~ permi~e~ Dy rig~= in the ¢-3 community
Busin~ District ~xcept:
T. The following uses shall not be p~rmitted:
1. Automobil~ service ntatien~.
Cocktail lounges and nightclubs.
4.Hospitals.
Hotels.
7. Pawn shops and seoond-~an~ stores.
COmmercial-indoor.
9, Schools - commercial, trade, vocational
and training.
Taxidermiem.
11. Theater~.
12. Vatmrinary hospitals and/or os~eroial
kennels.
II. T~e folkowing uses shall be permitted ~ubjeet
to compliance with the following uonditluns:
l. Carpenter and cabinet maker offices and
display rooms, provided that all
fabrication is performed within an
enclosed building.
Laboratories, provided that no analysis of
toxic er environmentally hazardous
materials shall be permitted.
engine and tra~s~issio~ ~=puir, provided
that at1 work is p~r£ermed wit~him an
e~closed building.
4. Restaurants, provided that no fast food or
carry out restaurants shall be permitted.
5. Outside storage, as accessory to the ~$es
p~rmitted herein, provided that:
a. Such uses are screened fro~ view of
any adjacent properties on w~ich ~uch
uses are not permitted or do not
exist, and areas currently zoned
agricultural and designated an the
Gensral Plan for residential,
agricultural, office, or light
industrial uses and external p~bli¢
road rights o~ way; and
b. No more than ten (~0) percent of the
gross floor area of the principal use
may be used for outdoor storage.
· he existing virginia Power easement along the western
property boundary ~hall be maintain=d as a buffer.
Except a~ noted herein, bsrmlng ~hall be accomplished
within thim buffer i~ a¢cor4ance with the plan prepared
by Charles Towhee and Assooiates~ P. C., dated Zay 10,
~990, and title4 ~xhibit A-Buffer Plan. This buffer
shall be landscaped! the exact a~o~nt and sp~cie~ to be
approved by the Planning Department. With the exception
of utilltle~ and access that runs generally p~l-pendieular
through the buffer, Virginia Power facilities, harming
and landaQaping, there shall be no facilities permitted
within the buffer. If at any time Virginia Power
disturbs the buffer, the owlner/developer ~hall be
resp0n~ible for r~mtcrin~ the bu~er ~u its a~roved
condition.
Further, bek~ing shall be accomplished within the
seventy-five (75} foot ~u££er resulted by t~he Zoning
Ordinance adjacent to Residential (R-7) zoning. Except
as noted herein, thi= harming shall comply with the plan
prepared by Charles Town,s and Asso=iate$, P. C., dated
~ay 10, 1990, tltlsd EF~ibit A-~uffer Plan. The ~16DC~
of all berms shall not eXQ~od 3:1. All b~ffsrs, as
described herein, shall be installed p~io~ to the release
of th~ flr~t occ~pan=y permit.
91~N~227
In Bemuds Magisterial District, C- C. M00~ requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential {R-25).
Residential nme of up to ~.74 uni%~ per acre is pereitte~ in a
91-599 8/28/91
Residential [R-25) Die,rio%. The Comprehensive Plan
units per acre or less. This reguest lles on 14.4 acres
frenting approximately 103 fs~t on the east line of North Enon
Church Read, approximately 250 feet north of Meedowville Road.
Tax ~ap 100 (1) Part of Parcel 4 and Tax ~ap 101 (1) Parcels 1
and 3 (sheets 33 and
/(r. Peele presented a su~ma~y of Case 91SN0227 and stated
Planning commissien ~aoommended approval subject to a
condition a~d ~oc~pta~¢~ of th~ proffered condition a~d staff
had orlqlnally recommended spproval of the rec~est and
~e re.est. He noted that staff did not feel the proffered
condition was adequat~ to mitigate the impact, was not
consistent with the c~rent policy and, ~erefore, staff was
~. Jim ~ayes, repre~n=ing ~e applicant, s=ate~
applicant wa8 re~esting approval of one buildin~ pe~it on
~e site; tha~ due to ~he ~an~e in ~e subdivision
~e~ ha~e been re~ired to s~-divide to create the parcel;
=aah proffer but had ~ubm~ted a Droff~r to addre~ ~on=ern=
regarding future development of ~e elbe. There was no
After brief di~cussion~ on motion of Hr. currin~ s~oonded
~. Applegate, th~ Board approved Ca~ 9~SW0~17 ~ubj~ct to ~
following
A buffer shall be established and ~aintain~d b~twaen ~e
eastern property boundary an4 th~ ~eventy-fi~e (7~) foot
contour el~vat~on~ of ~e request ~ite. OtheT than ~
u=iliti~s which run g~nerally perpendicular t~ough ~e
buffer, no Xacilities shall be permit=ed in the buffer
a~ea, unle~ approved by t~e Planninq Department at ~e
=ime o~ tentative subdivision r~view. Seleo~ive ole~ing
for scenic vi~tus mhull be permitted provided, however,
the= ~e=e s~all be no disturbunc~ of root mat or
cover, removal of trees in excess of six (6) inches in
oallper or the removal of any tree s=umDs wi~in
buffer area. This condition shall not preclude
And, further, the Board accepted th9 following
If more =ham two lot~ are oreate~ as a result of
rezoning, the applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s} shall
pay the following to the County o~ Chesterfield for each
~uch lot at the time o~ building p=~f= application
within two ~enrs of record plat approval, whichever ~hall
ocour first, for infrastructure improvemen=s within ~e
service distrio~ for t~e property:
a. $2,000 ps~ lot~ if paid prio= to Ja~ua~ t, 1992;
b. The a~o~t a~D~oved by t~e BOurd of Supervisorm not
to exceed $3,000 Dar lo~, if pai~ Me,wean Janua~ 1,
1992 and June 30, 1992, in:l~s~ve;
c. The amount approved by the Beard of Supervisors not
to exceed $4,000 per lot, if paid between July
· 992 and June ~0, 1993, inclusive; or
d. The amOUnt approved by the Board of Supervisors not
to ~x~e~ $4,000 Der lot adjusted upward by any
91-600 8/2~/91
increase in the ~arshall and ~wift Building Cost
Index between July l, 1992 and July 1 of the fiscal
year in which the pa~ent is made if paid after June
30, 1993.
Prior to final subdivision plat approval, the applicant,
subdivider, or assignee(s) shall furnish to the ~oa~d of
Supervisors a surety bond, approved by the Cotsnty
91S~224
In Mutouca Magisterial District, VII%~INIA PAINT COD~AN~
requested a~dment to a ~reviously granted zoning (Case
89SN0179) to permit radio, television and other
entertainment sales and service. The density of such
a~endnent will be controll~ by zoning conditions or 0rdinanc~
~tandarda. The Comprehensive Plan debt,nates ~ property for
mixed us~ corridor with density to be determined by
development regulations. T~i~ request lies in a convenienc%
Business (B-l) District on 4.3 acres fronting
700 lest east of Deer Run Drive. Tax ~ap 7~-4 (1) Parcels
and 4 (s~eet
Mr. Peele presented a sugary of Case 918N0224 and stated the
proffered condition.
~. Robert Maddox, representing the apple=ant, ~at~
advertised and felt it wam not
After brief discu~mion~ on motion of ~r. ~ayes, seconded by
~. Apple~ate, the Board approved Ca~e 9~8N0224 and accepted
~e following proffered condition:
Ca~e 898N0179, the followinq ~hall be pe~itted:
RRdio, televizio~ a~d other home entertai~e~t sales
(NOT=: ~is condition ts in addition to ProffeTed
Condition I of Case
Vote~ Unanimous
· 1.~. ~XF~.~u~¥~ SESSION
MZ'. A~plegate disclosed to the Board that Mr, J~wett was a
business asssclat~, declared a potential eon~liot o~ interest
pursuant to thc ~irginie Comprehensive Conflict of Interest
R~t, and excused himself from the meeting.
On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconds4 by Mr. Kayak, the Beard went
i~to Executive Session, pursuant to Section R.1-344
Co~e of Virginia, lgmo, as amended, for consultation with
legal eounzel regarding County cf Chesterfield versus J.
Jewett.
Ayes: DLr. sullivan, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Dtr. Mayas.
Absent: Mr. App]egate.
Ra=onvening:
J~r. Applegate returned to the nesting.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Noyes, the Board
a~ep~e~ 9.he following re~o~u~iun:
into ~xecutive Session in accordance with a formal vote of the
Board, and in accordance with the provisions of the ViTginla
Preedom of Information Act; and
W~R~AD, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
effective July 1, 1989~ provides for certification that S~Oh
~xecutlve Session was conducted in conformity with law.
~OW, T~FOR~ ~ IT R~O~V~D, tha~ the ~oard o£ County
Supervisors does hereby certify that to the best of each
member's knowledge, i) only public bualne~s matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirement~ under the Freedo~ of
Information Act ware discussed in the Executive Session to
which this certification applies, and
ii) only ~uch public businass matters as wer~ identified in
the Motion by which the Executive Seeeion was convene~ were
heard, dlscu~sed or censldered by the Board. No member
dissents from this certification.
The Board being polled, tbs vote was as follows:
Y~. Dan/el: Aye.
~ir. ~ayes: ~ Aye.
Mr. Applegate: Abstention.
~z. Currin: Aye.
Mr. Sullivan: Aye.
]qr. Ramsay atatad tho County had ~een dealln~ wi~
the i~sue~ and options for Board review an~ ~onsideration.
f~ther stated there had been discussions with th~ Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT}~ ~a residents of
Queen,mill and other~, an~ tho ~evelopers in the area for
input into the proposed reoo~endation.
~. Jo~ McCraoken~ Director of Transportation, stated since
of Route 288~ ~taff had bee~ working closely with ~OT
londoners in the area. He 9resented an extensiv~
regarding ~DOT~s proposed design plan and ~e options and
reoommendation~ available including
alt~native~:
I. C~NTERPDINTE/COL~/~V~AG~E~E~I
CenterPointe
O
s
o
following
Dedicate right-of-way for interim improvements and
Coalfiald Road R~locat~d.
Dedicate right~ef-way for Puwhlta/Coa!flel~ Interchange.
D0dicate right-of-way for Lucks Lane/Route 288 and
Powhita Parkway/Route 288 Interchanges.
Reserve ultimate right-of-way for Route ~$~.
county
o
and construct Coalfield Road Reiocat~d/~ha~te~
Colony Parkway and connector road - begin construction
August, 1992.
Through VDOT/County a~ee~ent construct Route 288
extension and loops/ramps - beginning within three years
and complete within six yea~s.
Agrees certain CenterPointe zoning conditions satisfied,
2 million square ~eet 0$ ~cYelopment is permitted as a
result of dedication~ andVDOT/County road construction.
II. REYNOLDS/COUNTY AGREEmEnT
O Dedicate ~lti~ate right-of-way for Route 288, Coalfield
Road Relooated/Cha~te~ Colony Parkway and connector road.
County
o ~hrsu~h VDOT/County agreement construct Route 288
e×te~io~ and l~op~/ramps - beginning within three years
and ocmDlane wir~ain six years.
Construct ~oalfield Road Reloaated/c~arte~ Colony Parkway
and connector road - begin construction August, 199~.
I/L VDOT/COUNTY AGREEMENT
~DOT
O
O
Modify Route 288 plans.
Desig~ a~d Oo~ut~uct interim loop,/ramps and two lane
Route 258 extension.
o Construct northeast loon and ~outhwest ramp at
Powhite/Rcute 288 - begin Spring, t99~.
O Con~truot two lane Route ~88 (Powhite to Coalfleld
Relocated/Charter Colony), northeast ramp and ~nuthwe~t
loop at Pewhite/Route ~8~, two lan~ extension Luck~ Lane
- begin within three years.
e NO ~olls on Route 288 (Route 360 to Powhite).
n Recommend legislation to e~tend Powhite tolls to finance
future projectm.
County
o Design an~ Qonstruct Coalfield Road Relouated/charter
Colony Parkway and Oon~ector road - begin construction
o Provide Route ~ right-of-way to VDOT pursuant to
CenterPointe and Reynolds agreement~.
o ~gree that $14 million of $~ million for Powhite Project
be treated as advance toll payment.
5~r. ~¢Cr~=ken ~t~t~d the recommendation wa~ ba~ed on a three
agreement process where the landowners would agree to dedicate
the land, the County would have an agreement with vnet whereby
the County would convey the land for Route ~88 and in
91-603 8/28/91
roads as well as the County agreeing to build some of the
funding available from the state to cons=ruer the extension;
the value and the total right-of-way acquisition needed;
whether the landowners have agreed to the County's propesed
reco~endatlon; the zoning conditions involved; the proposed
VDOT/Ceunty agreement and the three agreements working
together; etc.
Fir. Daniel inquired as to the proposed fundlng, the tolls, and
whet~e~ bond holder approval was necessary. N~. Ramsay
indicated that bond holder approval was not necessary. Mr.
McCracken stated the current structure for the repayment cf
tolls was that YDOT would recoup funds for debt, maintenance,
and operation of Powhite, end then at that point the County
would hame an opportunity ts receive the repayment oS tolls.
timeframe for the repayment of tolls end whether the County
should agree tbs project ~e treated wi~h advance tell
payments; the Reynolds/County sgreement; and the best manner
in which to fund the extension; etc.
this eEtenslon; and Coalfield Road Relocated and interohange~;
M-~. Daniel requested that the agreement include am item
stating that when Coalfield Road was abandoned, the land would
construction of the southern lag of Coalfield Read at the same
time construction is ~tarted on new Coalfield Road.
There was brief discussion regarding the number of landowners
the cost of eliminating the tolls On Route 2SS.
with staff's proposed recommendation.
Mr. Daniel requested that an agenda item be ~repared for the
notifioation that the issue would be on the Agenda.
mtaff~ with a repr=~entativ~ from the Board, to go buck to
VDOT with the proposal.
Mr. Daniel inquired i~ there wore assurances from all parties
involved that they wa~a in aq~e~ment with the p~oDosal. F~.
Ramsay stated there was ess r~ght-cf-way i~ue with on~ ~f =he
develeper~ i~volved which was still not resolved. Mr. Damiel
sta~ed ha would rather s~a£f resolved that issue before
approaching VDOT.
Fir. Appleg~te stated he would support adopting the re~olution
supporting the ~ro~osed recommendation.
~r. Currin returned to the meeting.
Fir. sullivan stated he als0 would support adopting the
Mr. Daniel stated he wouSd prefer to adopt the reooluti0n in a
91-504 8/28/91
It was the general consensus of the Board in directing staff
t~ continue ~e~otiatio~ ~ith VDOT, the landowners, the
developers and others involved and to prapare an agenda item
outlining staff's recommendation to be brought back to %he
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by ~r. Mayes, th~ Board
a~journed at 5:~0 9.m. until seDtember 11, ~991 at 2:0o p.m.
vote: Unanimous
County Administrator
~hag~.~ an
91-605 S/28/91