Loading...
09-25-91 MinutesMr. M. B. sullivan, Chairman ~r. C. F. Currin, Jr., Vice Chrm. Fnf. G. H. Applegate ~. Marry ~. Daniel Kr. Lane B. Ramsay County Administrator staff in Attend~mce: Mr. N. E. Cml-mlchael, Commissioner of Rav~nua MS. J. Amy Davis~ Asst. to Co. Admln. M-rs. Doris R, DeHart, Asst. Ce. Aclmin,, Legit. Svcs. and Intergovern. Affairs Ms. Joan S. Dolezal, Clerk ko f_ha Boar~ Fire D~gartment Deputy CC. Admin., Hr. William H. Hewell~ Dir., General Services Chief, Employee R~latlun~ Mr. Thomas E. Jacobsen, Dir.~ Pla~ing Mr. Robert L. Depu=y Co. Admin., H~an Smrvice~ Dir., Tran~or%atlon Dir., Env. Engineering County Attorney Mrs. Pauline A. ~ttch~ll, Dir., News & Public Mr. Richard Nunnmlly, Extension Agent Police Depar~ent Chief, Dev. Eevlew, Pla~in~ Dir., Budget & Management Dir., Utilities ~. ~ufs Wendell, Staff Asst., Co~. D~v~lopment Mr. Sullivan called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at 9:0~ a.m. 91-625 9/25/91 1- INVOCATION Mr. Snllivan introduced Dr. ~arvin ~acobs, Baptist Church, who gave ~he invocation. Pastor of Salem A~AICA Mr. Ramssy led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. 3. APPRO~L~I~OF ~iINUTES On ~OtlOn Of M~. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Bourd approved the minutes of SepDe~ber 11, 199~, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous received awards from the National Association of Counties. ~r. Sullivan presented awards to the utilities Departanent for the Produce and Design Review Committee; thc Extension Service for the Recycling Drop-off Program; the Police and Pire Telephone System; and General Services for construction of the new Courts Building. ~ir. Ram~ey introduced M~. Beverley DowDey, the 1991 Colonial ~eights/Chesterfield christmas ~othsr. MS. DowDey expressed cheeK, in the amount of $4,003, from the Board of Supervisors ~nthusia~ti¢ individual ~erving the County with 9ublio service in various ways and thanked her for all of her efforts. Ther~ were no ~eard 6om~ittee reports a= this time. 6. ~O~F~TS TO1K}~TFONEACTION. ]~ERG]~C~DITIONS ~ 0n motion of ~. Mayes, seconded by Mr. ~rin, tho Soard Vote: Unani~o~ 7. ~S0~UTIONS AND ~PE~IAL ~EC0GNITIONS 7.A. ~? ~0~ W. ~ON, ~. ~N HIS ~ ~ 'r~ ~. David Weloho~, Di~eetu~ of Utilities, stated ~. ~d~son was retiring wi~ thirty-six years o~ service to the County; thut he wu~ u dedicated ~ployee and the Depar~ent would miss ~is dilig~nt service; and wished him well in his retir~t. On motion of ~e Hoard, ~e following resolution was adopted: ~S, ~. Harold W. ~d~rson, Jr. will retire from t~e Chesterfield County Utilities Departm~t on October 1, 1~91; and 91-626 9/25/91 quality m~r~ice to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County Board of supervisors and all fellow employees will certainly miss Mr. A~derson'e diligent service; and WHERF2%$, Mr. Andersen was employed as a Meter Reader in May, 1955. Through his willingnes~ to aooept now responslbili:ies, his initiative and his ability ts work with and supervise staff, he has held v~rtually every position in the Water Distribution Section of the Department of Utilities; I4~{ER~AS, Mr. Andersom, in 19~0, wm~ instrumental is the development and implementation of a meter routing and customer account system that is still in use today; WHEREAS, l{r. Anderson, using his extensive knowledge of the public water system has been a guiding force du~ing major system expansions durin~ the s~tlse and ~eventies when such ext~ansion was further complicated by llmlted treatment and pumping facilities; amd W~REA$, Mr. Anderson, by virtue Of ~i$ experience and past performance, was promoted to Water Zuperintendent in Marsh, 1977 and has served wit~ integrity in this position since. Through his leadership the Water Distribution Suction has evolved into an efficient, well-trained and motivated operational staff7 and WI{RR~AM, ~r. Anderson, by continuing to share his expertise and knowledge of the p~bli¢ Water system with all facets of the utilities Department, has thus mede a significant contribution towards providing quality service to the citizens of ches~e~£iel~ County. NOW, THeReFORE BE IT RESOLED, that the Chesterfield Co~ty Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Karold W. Anderson, Jr. and extends on bahal~ e~ its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his ~ervice tu the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLV~D~ that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Ande~son and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers cf this Board of ~upervisor~ of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vo~e: Unanimous A~dsrson, thanked him for hi~ dedicated s~rvice to ~he County, an4 wi~he~ hi~ well in hi~ retirement. ~. Maye~ in~roduced Revermnd Tcn~y and mtated he has been a devoted individual in helping others and ~mprovi~g their lives. On motion of th~ Board, the following resolution was adopted: ~S, ~. Albmrt L. Ten,y, S~. ~ed in ~e United States ~my ~or twenty yearm ~n v~oun vooa=i~nal and technical co,ands providing leadership and training to our 91-6~7 9/25/91 WHEREAS, ~ir. Teeny served im the Karean Conflict etd vietna~ War distinguishing himsal£ ~or valor and service to the Ar~ed Forces; and WHERF~%S, Mr. Toney worked in the Federal Correctioms System in Petersburg for twenty years serving in vocational and tach_nisei capacities; and W~F~, ~r, Toney was the first black Auxiliary Police officer, Badge #178, to serve the County from 1974 - 1978; ned WI{EREAS, Mr. Toney has served in ministerial capacities at Lee's C~apel end Shiloh Baptist Church in Chesterfield and is presently serving as Paster of the Unity Baptist C~ure~ of Petersburg, and has also been of great assistance and help to the Baptist Children Home; and ~EREAS, Mr. Toney received Outstanding Citizen Awards in 1963 £O~ Religious, ~dueational mhd Community Ssrvi=es; the Korean Good Neighbor Award in 19~4-65 for work with Orphanages and the Big ~rothers; the D~s~in~uiehed Instructor Award in 1969-g0 at Fort Lee, Virginia; the U.~. Army Comm~ndatlon Medal in 1971; and Father-of-the-Year Award from Shiloh Baptist Church i~ ~977 as w~ll as m~ny eth~r awards and letters of appreciation. NOW~ THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby ~eoognize Mr. Albert L. T0~ey, S~, o~ his rutirement from goverr~nent und community Vote: Unanimous thanked him for his dedicated service to the government and community, and wished him well in hie retirement. 8. ltl~hll~t~$ OF ¢~Z~N$ ON UNSu~uULEDNATT~S OR (~A/MS There were no hearlng~ ~chedul~d for citizens on unscheduled matters or claims. public hearing to consider the sale efa surplu~ paruel August 28, 1991 meeting for legal purposes. He ~urther staff was recommending the dat~ of O~tob~ ~, ~991 public hearing. Mr. Carrie disclosed to the Boar4 that he owns a parcel of land adjacent to this ~eq~est, declared a potential conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia comprehensive Conflict of on motion of Mr. Applegate, ~econded by Hr. Daniel~ the Board is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Boar~.) Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Absent: Mr. Currin. TO CONSIDER Alt' 0P/II],IANGg TO ~ CI{AI~I ~ OP -~ FOR ~ON~L PRO~]~XY TAX PURPOSES OF MOTOR_ ~r. Micam stated consideration of an ordinance relating to the classification for personal property tax purposes of moto~ vehicles o%med by certain elderly and handicapped parsons had been dsferred from the Board's Aug~s~ 2~, 1991 m~etin~ in which & public hearing had bean held. ~e further stated it had been estimated approximately 1,500 taxpayers would qualify and that the potential loss of revenue would be $~?~,200, Se ~Ote~ the Comisslonar of Revenue had indicated the ordinance, if adopted, would requlrm an additional as~e~o~ ~osltion ~or his office in order to handle the increase in Workload. There war rome discussion re~ardin~ new programs working within the existing organizational S~ruc~ure; the County's ~inaBcial ~tat~s and future outlook on revenues; how ir asressed which may be ownsd by elderly persons and in ~enaral; and an existing provision for tax relief fo~ the elderly; etc. tabled until the next budge% year, discussion of an or~inancs ts emend Chapter 8 of the Co~e of ~he County of Chesterfield, 1978, ar a~ended, by enacting Section 8~13.$ relating to the classificauion ~or personal property tax purposes of motor Vehicles ownud by certain elderly and handicapped Vote: Unanimous ~G 8~ION 8-13.4 ~T~G ~ ~ ~~ FO~ ~N~ ~OP~ T~ P~$~ OF H~R ~.mq for per~onal property tax pu~oses o~ mo%or vehicles o~ed by th~ previous ordinanuu end it had al~o been ~ferr~d ~ro~ the Boardrs August ~8, 1991 meetin~ in which a public hearing had bean h~ld. H~ furth~ stated the potential lams of revenue would be $5,700. Mr. Daniel inquired if %h~ disability had to occ~ t~ou~h ~ili=ary action. ~. ~icas ~tated v~terans would have to be certified by the Department of veterans Affairs as being disabled with service-connected disabilities. approving these t~es of r~ests and, ~efore, made a motAo~, secon~$~ by ~. Daniel, =o deny an ordinance =O amend ~apter 8 of the Code of the County of Chest~fletd, 1978, as ~nded, by sheeting Section 8-13.4 relating to the Sullivan, to table until the next budget year, dizcu~ion of an ordinance to ~ond Chapter ~ of the Code of the County o~ Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by enacting Section 8-13.4 purposes of motor vehicles o~ed by veterans with service-connected disabilities. for tm relief prognTam~ and that the crdlnance wam a way fo show appreciation to veterans for their service and felt the ordinance should be reconsidered during the next budget process and, therefore, called for the vote on the ~ubstltute motion made by Mr. F~ayes, secendsd by him, to table until ths next budget year, discussion of an ordinance to amend Chapter by enacting Section s-i3.4 relating to the classification for personal property tax pu:posss of motor vehicles owned by Ayes: ~. Sullivan and ~. Nays: ~. Currln, ~. Applegate and Mr. Daniel. ~. Sullivan called for the vo=e on ~e motion ~a~e by Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, to deny an ordinance ~end ~apter 8 of the CO~ of the County of 1~7~, a= ~ended, by enacting ~ection 8-1~.4 r~lat~ng to the classification for per~onat property tax pu~oses o~ motor v~hiol~s ~n~d by veterans with Nays: ~. Sullivan and ~. count~ ~d ~at reco~endation~ could ~ ~ade by the County Administrator at th~ appropriat~ time. INT~$T IN PROP~ffY LOCATED AT '&nn H~GUENOT PARK TO T~ ~IDLOT~IAN ROTARY CLUB ~0R T~E P~R~0SE OF CONSTR~CTING A /~r. Micas stated the publlc hearing to consider the conveyance of a leasehold interest in property located at Huguenot Park to the Midlothian Rotary club for the purpose of const~cting a do~i~ Center hud been d=f~red from the ~oard's Augur 2~, 1991 ~ee=ing. He further ~tat~d ~e co--unity c~nt=r wo~l~ be managed by the County's Parks and Recreation DeDartm~t and in return would be used by ~e Rotary Club for short periods of rea&reed time each week. would like specific information regarding ~ co~uni~ center much a~ ~a location. He fur~er s~a~ed ~e Park was an attraction for th~ p~ople who had bought Dheir homes ~n the neighborhood and is use~ re~larly; ~a= they ~ad been info~ the ~unity o~nt~r woul~ take away a go~ part of the exi~tlng jogging trail and would lik~ ~e T~as~nrance that the j~ging trail wouI~ be relocated; ~at Hu~enot Park i~ very small perm a~d i~lred as to the reason it was chosen instea~ of another park; that ~e neighborhood would like =o ~ee the plat showing where =he oo~ity building would be located; and ~at they would like to see the integrity of the Park r~ain ~e same. ~. Doug H~t stated he is an adjacent resident to the ~hat h~ is not oppose~ to the oo~uni~ center but also ha~ ~ome concerns; that the Park is comprised of fifty acres which twenty-five acres are ~eavily u~a~ and the t~enty-five acres are not u~ed; that there was not an ~xecution plan available at this point in tlm~; that he ~elt a larger pa~k with a bett~ location might be more f~a~ble for this t~ of project; ~at it wcul~ uost $50,000 to the trails; etc. and su~itted to the Board a memorandum regarding th~se concerns. When asked, Fnf. Micas ~tated it had not been detersined at this ~olnt in time whethsr tbs re~uest would go before the ~lanning Commission for site plan r~vlew. ~r. Sullivan crated he would like ection taken by the Board to ensure that the request would go before the ~lanning Commission for site plan review in order to ad~ems ~e concern~ c~rently d~in~ the relocation of the jogging trail and the co~uni~ c~ter; although, the proposal wam f~r ~ark due to the accesslbility of publi~ water and sewer ana for seourity purposes. ~a fur~er stated ~e concerns of nature and jogqlnq trails by the co.unity would be and staff was not anticipating the cost to be $50,000 for relocating the Jogging trail. Club a~d inquired if the re,est presented a conflict. Mica~ ~tated since he did no~ have any financial inte=est in the building, it was not a conflict. Mr, Joe Owens, President of th~ Hidl0thian Rotary Club, they wer~ r~sting approval of t~e concept prior to proc~ding with the details; ~at the Club was interested ~ein~ good residents; and ~at most of th~ m~bership of Club resides in the Park area~ the Park was public; ~mt he felt ~e req~9~t Was for the to b~co~e a p~]ic/privat~ facility in which at luamt one ~t~cture would have a certain amount of private control~ there were concerns by the area residents which should have been addressed; ~d that th~ nat~ and jogging trails should ba r~located prior to construction of the co--unity center. There being no 0~e else to address this issue, ~e After brief discussion, on motion ~f ~. Sullivan, secnnded by Mr, Applegate, the Board authorized the County to execute an agreement conveying a leasehold interest to Midlothian Rotary CI~ in a co--unity center to be constructed by ~e Club at Hu~not Park subject to a public hearing on ~ite plan ~vi~w by [he Planning Co~i~sion in order to Vote: ~animuus appreciation to the Hidlothlan Rotary Club for offering to have u~e of the building for short periods ~f time each On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. F~yes, the Board QueensDar~, Section F, off~ite ~ensicn, as follow~, whi=h project include~ the additional refund fer the additional OversiZing; a cash refund for the oversizing costs; an4 s Charge~ will be collected to make t-he refunds for th6 offsitc costs) to include other properties adjoining this sewer e×tension and authorize~ ~he County Administrator to execute 91-631 9/25/91 Developer: Queensmill corporation c0ntracto~: castle E~uipment Corporation C0ntractAmount: Estimated Total - Total ~etimated County Cost: Wa~tewater (Overoizing) (Cash Refund) Wastewater (of£site) (Refu/ud thru connections) Estimated Developer Cest: Code: (Oversizing) (Off,ire) $ 7~471.QQ $41,644.9~ $35,579.05 5P-§8350-89O733E CONTROL ~. Micas stated ~is date and time had been advertised for a and sediment control which would bring the ordinance in ~mpliance with State law and wo~ld e~and the potential ~at~gori~ of r~poD~ibl~ parti~ who are r~red to comply wi~ the erosion and ~edi~ant control ordln~e~ to in~tud~ property. H~ noted there is no increase in ~e. No one cams forwar~ to spe~ in favor of or a~ainst ~ Mr. Daniel in, ired if the persons involvedr such as the ~o~ebuilders Association, wore aware o~ th~ ordinance. ~r. Mr. Mayes =tared he felt the parties involved should ~e aware of tn~ ordinance. ~en asked~ ~. M~c~ ~tat~d ~ ~n~lu~ion of t~e different On motion of ~. Danlel, seconded ~ Mr. Applegate, the Board C~ESTER~IE~, 1978, AS ~DED, BY ~DIN~ ~D RE~NACTI~ ~est~field Count~: (1) Thut Sections 7.2-I and 7.2-7 of Chapter 7.2 of the Section 7.2-1. Definitions. ~apt~r, shall have ~e respective meanings set forth below, ~i~ chapter: 91-632 9/25/91 AoDlicant. Any person submitting an erosion and sediment control plan for approval or requesting the issuance 0£ a pormlt, wh~'~ re~ired, autho~i~inq land disturbing a~tivitie~ Erosion Impact A~, An area of land not associated with current land disturbing activity but subject to persistent soil erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment cato neighboring properties or into state waters. This definition shall not apply to any 10t er parcel of land of one acre or less used for residential purposes or to shorelines where the O O O Land disturbing activity. Any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind an~ the movement of sediments into waters cT onto lands in the county or adjacent jurisdictions, including, ~ut not !imite~ to, c/earing, grubbing, gradlnq, o~cavating, transporting and filling of land, an~ the in,tailing of water, sewer, gas or oil 1lass, draiaago pipes and ~torm sewers, unless ocou~i~g o~ a hard not include: 0 0 0 (~) Tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, Rorticul~ural or forest crops or livestock operations, including ~nginoering operations as follow~ son,traction cf terraces, terrace outlets, chock dams~ do~ilting basins, dikes, ponds, ditches, ~trip cropping, lister furrowing, irrigation. (12) Shore erosion control projects On %i~a] waters when the projects are approved by local wetlands boards, the Marine Resources Conmissi0n ur the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer~. Owner. The owner or owners of the £re~hold of the premises or lesser estate t~eretn, a mortgage or vendee in possession, assignee of rent~, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee or other person, firm or corporation in control of a property. Psrnitt~. The person to whe~ the permit authorizing land dlstu~blng activities is issued o~ the person who certifies that the ~ppr0ved erosion and sediment control plan will be followed. o o o State Waters. Ail waters on the surface and un,or th~ ground wholly or p&r~ially within or bordering the Co~onwealth or within ira jurisdiction. Subdivision. The term subdivision shall b~ defined as ~a~ forth in Section 18.1-3 of tho Code of Chesterfield County, Virginia, 1978, as a/~en~ed. Sec. ?.~-7. Exemption for land di~turbin~ activities invq. lvin~ more than one 9uri~dicti~n. 9/2S/91 Any person whose land disturbing activities involve lands which extend into the jurisdiction of another local erosion conservation plan approved by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board shall notify the environmental engineer of such plan approval by the Virginia Soil and Water Consarva~iun Board. The environmental engineer shall accept much approved plan as fulfillment of the requirements of sections 7.2-8 and 7.2-9. such approval notwit~mtanding, a land disturbance permit must still be obtained from the county. (7-27-8s, section 1) O O O Vote: Unanimous 10.B. /~r. ~icas state~ ~is ~ate and ~ime ~a~ been a~ve~%i~ed for a of refuse tu sDs~i£ied ~isDosal facilities. ~s further stated County to adopt an ordinance which would allow localities to control the wast% ~t~&~ by ~equiring waste be disposed at csrtaln faoilltles as datemlned by thn County to bn~t m~t the leng te~m ~eeds of the County subject to certain findings such as th~ ~aoilinies in %~e county ar~ no~ awailabl~ or adequate to meet ~e anticipated long te~ nged$ or to en~ur~ ~e availability of ads,ate financing for the construction, ~an~ion or closing of the Co~ty's facilities. He noted at ~i~ time it has not ~en d~termined whaler ~ County could follow the threshold findings which would allow the Coun=y to control ~e waste stream and, t~e~efo~e, felt there was limi=ed practical significance of ~e ordinance. ca~delled. Mr. Ma~es stated he felt the Board should hold ~ public hearing. T~er~ wa~ dis~s~ion regarding ~e Recycling Co~ittee being changed to the Solld Wast~ Advisory Co~ittee and ~elr 0n motion of ~. Daniel, seconded by ~. Ourrin, the Board r~ferr~d a~ ~rdinano~ to am~n~ ~ap%er 10 of the Cede of ~e coun=y of Chesterfield~ 1978, as amended, ~ulating to diSpOSal of r~fuse to sp~oifi~d disposal facilities to ~e Solid Waste A~visory co~ittee for a reoo~endation. Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, ~. Currin, Mr. Appleqate and ~. Daniel. ~tention: ~r. May~m. 10.C. TO CONSID~RANORDINANCR TO A~D B~"TION~ 1-6, 4-35. 4--45. 6--6.1, ?.01--12, ?.2--16~ 9.1--7. 9.1-10.3. 10--37. 15.1--~1. 20-109 A~D 20-138 ~A~ING T~_~ O~IN~ ~, ~ioa~ stated ~is date and time had been advertised for a ~axln~ fine and impriso~ent whi~ may be imposed for violation o~ County ordinano~s. No on~ came forward to speak in favor of or apain=t ~n notion of Mr. Appl~gate, seconded by Mr, CurTis, the Board adopted, the following ordinance: AN O~DIN~CE TO ~D THE CODE OF T~E COWRY OF CEEST~FIELD, 1978, AS ~E~DED, BY ~DI~ ~D ~E~A~TING SECTIONS 1-6, 4-35, 4-45, 9.1-7, 9.1-10.3, !0-37, 20-109 ~D ~-1~ RE.TinG ~ENE~LY TO THE ~XI~ FINE ~I~ ~Y BE I~SED FOR THE VI0~TZON OF COWRY O~IN~CES ~E IT ORDAINED by the Board of Superviaors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section ~-6 of C~apter 1 of the Cede of ~he County of Chesterfield, 1978~ as amended, i~ amended and reenacted a~ follow~: CR~t~T~ 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Wherever in this Code or in any ordinance of the G0~ty, or rule or regulation or order p~omulgated by any officer er agency of the county under authority ~uly vested in him or it, any act is prohibited or i~ declared to be unlawful or an offense or misdemeanor or the doing of any act is require~ or the failure to do an~ act ~ deelared to be unlawful er an offen~e or a misdemeanor, ~nd ns specific penalty i~ provided for ~he violation thereof, the viola=ion of any suoh prevision of this Code or any such ordinance, rule, rsgulatiO~ or order shall be punished by a fine net ~xeeeding two thousand five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in t-he county jell net exceeding thirty days or both such fine and imprisonment. Each day any v~olation of this Code or any such ordinance, rule, regulation or order shall continue shall constitute, except where otherwise prsvided, a separate offense. (2) That Seotiuns 4-35 sad 4-45 of the Chapter 4 of the Code of the County of ChesteFfiel~, 1978, a~ amended, are ~ended and reenacted to read as follsw~: CMAPTER 4 Article IV. Bin~o Games and R~f~les eeo It shall be unlawEul for any person er uny shareholder, agemt~ membe~ o~ e~ployce of uny volunteer fire department, r~cus squad or organization to violate any provi~io~ Of this article. Each violation of any provision shall be punishable either by a fins of not more ~han two thsumand five hundred dolla~ ($2,550.00) or by confinement in the county ja~l for not more than twelve (12) mnnths, or DOT21. A violation of ~ection 4~31(a) by any person or any ~hareholder, agent, member or employee of any volunteer fire department squad or organization ~hall be punishable by imDrinenment not lens than one (1) year nor mete than five (5) year~, or by a fine of not more than two thousand five hun4rs~ dollar~ ($2,500.00) er confinement ~n the county jail for not more than twelve (12) months or both. 91-635 9/25/91 Article V. Gamblin~ Sec. 4-45. Peneltiez. Any person violating the provisions of this article Shall he guilty Ct a misdemeanor, punishable by a tine Ct not more than two thousand five hundred dollars or imprisonment in jail tot no more than twelve months, er both. (~) That Sections 9.1-7 amd 9.1-1O.3 of Chapter 9.1 of the C~de__of~the County o~C~esterfield, 197S, az amended, arq CHAPTER 9.1 FI~M PEQTMCTIOM A~tiole I. In General sac. 9.1-7. same of this Code or the Virginia Storewide Fire Prevention Code, or who shall violate or fail to comply with any order made thereunder, or who shall fail to comply with such an order as e£firm~d or moditie~ by ~he board o~ supervisors or by a court of oo~petemt jurisdiction shall ~everally for each and every such violation amd noncompliance respectively be g~ilty of s class One misdemeanor~ punishable by a fine of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) or by imp~±~onment of not ~o~a than twelY= (12) months Or by both such fine and imprisonment. The imposition e~ one penal~y for any ~lngle violation shall not excuse the violution or permit it to continua and oath day that such viulatlon continues shall constitute a meparate off~nse. o o o ~3~e II~ Smoke Detectors in ~otels and Motels o o o ~oc. 9.1-t0.~. Enforcement and ro~res~ntatlves are authorized to administer and enfercs the requirements Of ~ecti0ns 9,~-10.1 ~o 9.1-10.5. ~ailure to c~mply with the requirements for the installation and maintenance of ~mcke d~tecters shall constitute a violation of this chapter and shall he a misdemeanor, p~ishabl~ by a fine of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($~,500.00) or by imprlson~ent of not more t~an thirty (30) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. O 0 0 (4) That section 10-37 of chapter lo 0£ the Code o~ ~he Ceuntv of C~e.s~erfleld, 1978, aa amended, i~ amended and CHA~TER l0 REFUSE ~ND WEEDS Article Sec. 10-37. Penalty. 0 0 0 Dispos~ o~_D~brls Waste O O O In addition to the o~her remedies prov~dnd in this article, it shall be unlawful to violate any of the provisions of this article, and any p~rson whe violates any of the ~rovisions of this article shall also be subject to a fane net exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($~,5~.o0). o o o (5) Tha~ Sections 20-109 and 2~-138 of Chapter 20 of the ~ode of the County of Chesterfield. 197s, as al~snded, are amended and reenacted to read as follows: CHAPTER 20 WATER AND o o o Artlole IV. Industrial Waste Dischar~ o o e bec. 20-109. Penalties. Any person violating the provi~ions of this article shall be guilty of u misdemeanor punishable by s fln~ of not ~ere that two ~housand five hundred dnllar~ ($2tD0O.00}. Article V. Cross-connection and ~e~low Prev~ntlon. Sec. ~0-1~8. Penalty. The owner or authorized agent of the cNner responsible for the maintenance of the plumbing syetem~ in the building who knowingly permits a violation to ~emain uncorrected after the expiration of time sa~ by the d~reeter of utilities shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to a f~me of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) for each violation. Each day of failure to oo~ply with the retirements Of this ~rti¢le, after the specified t~me provided in section =hail oenst~tut~ a separate wiolatien. 10.D. TO CON~E~_AN ORI)INANCE TO AMEND ~A'Jf.,~t ~0 OF ~ M~. ~icus ~tated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to con{ider an 0roinano~ relating to the connection of fi~e suppression ~y~t~n ~O thP public water to th~ adoption and a~in&$tration of the ordinance an~ ~taff time a~ the Utilitie~ an~ Fire Departments can dateline ~e on ms,ion or ~r. Daniel, se¢onde~ By ~r. Hayes, the Bs~r~ Chapter 20 of the Code of the County of Chestsrfleld~ 1978, as amended, relating %0 the connection of ~ire suppression systems to the public water supply until such time as the Utilities and ~ire Departments can determine the effect of the ordinance. 11. G~AY~O~LOLLYCOM~ANX FOR 21~ A~ FOR xn~LAK~ Pkr. Micas stated the Gray Loblolly company has offered to sell th~ County approximately ~8 acre~, for $1,000 per acre, for the crsation of the Lake Chesdin Park. Be further stated the Uompany plans to dsvelo~ a residential subdivision adjacen~ to the planned Park and the contract would be contingent upon the Loblolly company obtaining the necessary rezonimg approval £or ob~igatlsns on the part of the County to construct an ao~e~ roadway and waterlines through the park by December 31, 1994. assist is the cost of construction for the acces~ road and the co-ts a~ociated with site acquisition, road and waterline improvements wore approximately $900,00Q of which $~60,000 wa~ currently available under =he Lake Chesdin Park capital Improvement Project. He al~c noted =he project may necessitate the aeq~isitio~ of a small parcel of land in order to provide adequate access at the entrance of t~e Park and staff was re~e~ting ~e Board to approve th~ r~al estate sales contract. bisc~ssion, co--ants, and questions en~ued relative =o ~e recreational access funds and l~d a~ wager conservation funds for this project; utility costs; ~e cost to the County a~ter the activities o~ the land; th~ grant funds avail~la; ~e purchase of ~e adjoining parcel of land for access to ~e Park~ and the contract being contingent upon ~e Gray Loblolly Co~pany obtaining re~oning approval for ~e adjacent propose~ resides=iai and oo~ercial develo~ent. de~elopmen~ and ~he contingency relating to t~e p~oposad ~r, C~rrin ~uestioned if zoning should ~ obtained before =on,ideation of this re,est ~ the Board. Mr. Mayas stated and ~. Micas oonc~re~ that no co~itment had been made regarding the ~oning. ~. Daniel stated he felt there were concerns reg~ding ~e contract su~ as the access road, th~ waterline improvements, the funds available~ and ~e contingency on zoning whio~ should be a~r~$pd, H~ fu~ state4 although he ~upD~rted ~e land ac~isition fo~ the creation of t~e Pa~, he felt ~e p~oha~e contract should ad4ress ~e purchase of the land, On motion of ~. Daniel, ~conded by ~. Hayes, the Board LoB1olly Company fo~ 218 aore~, $1,000 per acre, for the 91-638 9/25/91 Vote: Unanimous DROP--OFF ~ On me, ion of ~. Dani~l~ ~conded by ~. Appl~g=te~ th~ Board ~t the dat~ of October 9, 19~1 at ~:~0 p,~. for a ~ubllc hearing to oon~ider ~n a~eement between the C~tr~1 Virginia Wa~t~ ~anagement Authority ~d Chesterfield County ~or se~icing of approximately six re~oling drop-off point~ in the Co~ty. Vote: Unani~o~s ll.B.2, tWARO OF ~GIN~tING DESIGN CO}~I~ACT On motion of ~. Daniel, seconded by ~. Applegate, ~e Board t~an~ferred $17,500 from the MiscellaneoUS Drainage Capital Improv~en~ Account and authorized the County Admlni~ra~or enter into an engineering de~ig~ CO~DXaCt with Jordan Consulting Enginee=~, in an amount not to exceed ~17,500, for revisions %o the construction plans, bid documentm, plats, and cunat~ction staking ~0 ~he Jify Winters Drainage Project. Vote: Unanimou~ ll.B.3. A~AR~ OF CONTRACT AND APPROPP~TATE F~NDS FOR A~S~ ROAD TO RUFF/N MI*-~- ~5~DU~TRIA~A~K On motion cf Hr. Daniel, Seconded by Mr. AD,legate, the Board a~thorized the County Administrator to enter into a oons~ructlon contrast with W. E. Duke and sons, Inc., =he Iow bidder, in the a~o~t of $277,437, for a ~ew accel= road to the Ruffin Mill Industrlal Park off Ruffin Mill Eoad~ appropriated $~42,800 from developer contributions £er the sanitary sewe~ and water line installation; and to execute any necessary con~tructio~ agreement~ with the Virginia Dsgartment of Transportation/developer ~ubjeo= to approval a~ to for~ by the County Attorney. Vote: Unenimou~ ~. Applegat~, the Board amended an aruhlt~=tura~ and engineering ~rvices contract with the ~oseley Group, Inc. and ~'Utilities Building", with a new fee ~ed~le ROt ~0 ~¢$$d a Vote: Unanimous 91-639 9/25/91 On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board transferred $11~500 from the 60/147 Drainage Dietrict Account and authorized the County Administrator to enter into a contract with J. K. Timmons & Associatee, in an amount net to exceed $11,$00, for the engineering dceign, cons%ruction plan~, bid documents, ~urve¥ing, easement plata, and sonstruction staking for the 6Q/147 Drainage District. vote: Unanimous FOR A PIlL ~GE AT ~ ~3 On m~tion of ~. Daniel, ~mconde~ by ~. Ap~l~gat~ ~e Boar~ approved a three year "no-cost" lease with ~e Co~onweal~ of virginia fo~ ten lanes of ~e twenty lane Ca~ 13 Pistol Range for exclusive u~e by the Chesterfield Departments in which the co~ty will provid~ ~ range in an ~o~nt not tQ exceed vote: Unanimous on motion ef Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board awarded a waterline contract to T & E Construction Company~ in the amount of $7~t198.40, for the installation of 1500 fe~t of 16 inch waterline from Route 10 to a point near the north and of the track i~ the Government Center which waterline is required to provide ~uffi~ient fire suppression flow to the new Mental Health/Mental Retardation/Srfostance Abuse Buil~ing, the future Utilitiee Building and the Public safety Training Building. Vote: unanimous This day the Count~ Envlronmental Engineer, in accordance with directlcoa from ~h~ Board, made repor~ in writing upon his ex~/aiuatio~ of Winbury Drive, Sanbury bane, ~inbury Court, Portmrs M~ll Roa~ an~ UpperDury Terrace in a Portion of Exbu~y, Section 2, Clover ~ill ~istriet. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. ADplegate, it ~s ~esolved that Winbury Drive, Sanbury La~e, Wink~ry Court, Porters Mill Road and Upperbury Terrace in a Portion of Exbury, Section 2, Clover Hill District, be end they hereby are established as public roads. ~d be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Winbury Drive, begi~i~g at the intersection with Exbury Drive, State Route 4~60~ and going ~outheasterly 0.06 mile to the int~r~e~tion with Sanbury ~aee, thee turning and going ~outhwesterly 0.18 mile to t~e intersection with winbury Court, then t~rning and going southerly 0.06 mile to the intersection with Porters Mill Road, then continuing ~outherly 0.04 mile to end in a ~em~urary turnaround; Sanbury Lane, beginning at the intersection with Winbury Drive and going easterly 0.02 mile to end in a dead end. Again, SenSory 9/25/91 Lane, beginning at Winbury Drive and going westerly 0.~1 mile tn ~nd in a cul-de-sac; Winbu~y Court, beginning at the intersection with Winbury brlwe and going aoutheasterly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Po~t~s Mill Road~ beginning at the intersection with WinD,fy Drive and going Westerly 0.03 mile to tie into existing Porters Mill Road, ~tat~ Route 3341. Again, Porters Hill Road, beginning at the intersection with winbury Drive and going southeasterly 0-09 mile to the inter~ectlen with U~Derbury Tarrace~ then continuing ~outheasterly 0.~3 mile to end in a dead end; and Terrace, beginning at the intersection witch Porters Kill Road and going southerly 0.03 mile to end in a d~ad This request is inclu~v~ of the adjacent sleds, distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage The~e roads ~rv= 71 lots. An~ be it further rasolva~, =hat =he ~oar~ of S~pervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Trensportatlon unrestricted right-of-way of ~0' with necessary easements for C~tS, fills and drainage for all of th~e ~Oads. This section of Exbury i~ ~edo~ded a~ follow=: Section 2, Plat Book 64, Yages ~ and ~$, December 19, 1989. Vote: Unsnlmous Xi,~.s. S~TDATE FOR~LICHEAR/NGTOCONSID~ANO~D~ANCE ~.O,,,,AM~D ~-n~CODE OF TR~ 0n ~o~ion of ~. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Apple~at~, ~Ae B~ard aet the date ~f October ~3, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. for a publia hearing to consider an or~inan~m to amend the C~e of the Countx of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending and reenacting sm~tlons 7.01-I2 and 15.1-21 relating gene~ally t0 the p~ohibition of diSOrderly conduct in publig plao~s and the radiation ~f dealer= in precious metals. Vote: Unanimou= On motion of Mr. Daniel, socondad by Mr. Applegate, =he Board appTOVed bi,go/raffle per~it~ for the J~nio~ Federated Women's Club and th~ La ~ociete De~ 40/S voiture 1530 Sot calendar year 1991. Vote: Unanimous After brief discussion, on motion of Mr, Daniel, eoconded by Mr. Appl6gate, t~ Board authorized the County Administrator to apply for an~ acoep~ Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant~ in the a/aount of $166,366, and Virginia Depurtment of Aviation grant, in the amount of $9,243, and to enter into expenditure of said funds subject to approval a~ to forla by the county Attorney; to e~fe~ into a contract with Delta Associates, InC. for the 1991 Airport Improvement Project (AIP) to relocate Airport electrical vault and add required taxlway/runway signage, subject to approval as to form by the County Attorney; to enter into a contract with the lowest responsible bidder for completion of thi~ work; to transfer $12,243 from the Airport Industrial Park Reserve the five percent County matuh, in the amount of $9,243, (including the additional $3,800 for mom ~-I9 in~urance); and furthsr appropriate all Pe4eral and state funds allocated ~cr this project. Vote: Unanimous On motion of ~. ~ye~ ~eoondsd by }~. ~rln~ the Board deferred obtaining cost estimates for the in~t~llatiun of street lights b~hind 3304 l~ain Street amd an ingress easement Ootober 23, 1991 at 9:DO Vote: Unanimous 11.D. UTILITI~ DEPAI~T~T ITEIIB ll.D. ~. POB~IC HFJ~2~NG ~ ~SID~ ~ ~IN~ ~ VA~ A ~ION OF A ~J~ ~D~A~E~ ~ A ~ION OF A ~00 Y~ ~ P~N ~. Wel~hons sta~ed ~is date and time had been adv~tlse~ for a public hearing to oon~ider an ordinance to vacate a portion year flood plain. No one =~e fo~ard to sp~ in favor ~f or against the ordinance. on motion of ~. Applegate~ seconded by ~. currin~ the Board adopted the following ordinance: ~EST~IELD, VIRGINIA, ("G~TOR") vacates to ~E R. GRINNAGE and KIM D. GRINNAGE~ (husband and wife), ("G~{), a portion of a 16~ orainag~ eastman= and a po~ion of a 100 year flood plain across ~t ~, Sunrise Bluff s~division~ clover Hill Magisterial Di=trict, Chesterfield, Virginia, as ~hown on a pla= =hereof duly recorded in ~e Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Pie= Book 50, Page 32. ~S, KYLE R. an~ KIM D. GRI~AGE~ p~tltloned the Board of $~pe~isors of Chesterfield Co~=y, Virginia to vacate a portion of a 16' drainage easement and a portion of a 100 year flood plain in S~rise Bluff S~ivision, Clover Hill Magisterial Did=rio=, ch~s~erfield co~ty~ Virginia more partiality sho~ on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of ~a Circni% court of said co~ty in Plat Bosk 50, Page 32, por~ion~ of ~as~%s petitioned to be vacated is more fully de~crlbed a= follow~z A portion Of a 16m ~rainag~ eas~en= and a ~, Ru~i~e Bluff ~ivision Clover sill Distr{ct, Chesterfield, Virginia, as sh~ on Inc., dated Au~st 9, 1991, a ~opy of which Ordinance. 9/25/91 15.1-431 Of the Code of Viruinla, 1950, as amended, by ~5{EREAS~ no p%%blic neoe~ity e×ists for the continuance NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOA~D OF S~ERVISORS 0P CHESTE~IELD CO~Y, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.1-48~(b) of %h~ Code virginia. 1950, as ~endad, the aforesaid port~on~ of easements be and are hereby This 0r~inanu9 ~ha11 be in full fur~ an~ e~feo% in acco~danoe wit~ Sedtion 15.1-482(b) of ~e Code o V inia, · 9~O, as ~mnded, and a o~ifi~d oopy o~ thin Ordinance, together with the pla% attached hereto shall be recorded sooner than ~irty 4a~ hereafter in ~e Clerk's office of ~e Circuit Court of ~est~rfield County, Virginia p~a~t tO Seotion ~S.1-48~ 0f ~h~ Code o~ V{r~in~a, 1~50, as amended. Th~ eSS=ct of thi~ Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 i~ to d~troy the force and effec% of the recording of ~ ~ortion of the plat vacated. ~is ordinance ~h~ll ve~t fee ~imple title of the portions of eas~ment~ hereby vacated the property o~er of LO~ 55, sunrise Bluff Su~ivision free and clear of any right~ Qf public of ~e CO~TY OF CHESTERFIELD a~ grantor and ~ R. and KI~ D. CRI~AGE, (husband and wife), ~r their in title~ as ~anteeg. Vote: Unanimous ll.D.2. CONSENT ITemS l~.D.2.a. RZO~ST FOR P~(ISSION~ A PORTION OF A DECK TO On ~otion of Mr. ~rrlne ~e~onde~ by ~. Daniel, ~e Board approved a re,est from ~. and ~. Donald C. Powell, Jr. ~o have a portion of a deck emcr0ach within an existing 16 foot dralnaqe ea~e~e~t Qn Lot 2, Blo~k H, in Baile~ Ridge E~tmtes, Section C, subject to the execution of a license agre~nt. (It i~ noted a Qopy of the 91at iu filu~ with the papers of Vote: Unanimous AC%~OSS PROP~Y OWNED BY ~. ~ ~. ~n~.rA~ ~. On motion of ~. C~rin~ seconded by ~ Danlel, ~e Board authorized %he Chai~n of the Board and Cowry A~inis~ator an~ l0 foe% t~porary construction ~asement across Lot 6 and the retention pond i~ Ram~gate, Section 1, o~e4 by ~. and Mrs. William G. ~anake, mubject to the ac~ition cf a new papers of thi~ Board. ) Ye=e: ~anim0us · ~.D.2.C. lt~O~T ~OM ~'~r~ U~I~I~IES. INC. FOR TO ~RCROA~{ 0N C0~ On motio~ uf ~. C~rln, =~uon~e~ by ~. D~niel, the a~ro~ a r~t from Lyttle Utilltle~, Inc. ~o work on coun=y property in an area designated a~ an a~cess d~ive and ~ulti-purpo~e field for th~ Riverton School site which area necesmary for sto~pil~ng and burning of clearing debri~ left ov~ after riveting ~e ~asement area for ~e James River T~nk Sew~ Project, ~ubject tc the execution of a license cody of the Dl~t is ~iled with the papers of ~is Board and River TT~ Sewer Project and would clear areas that would need to be clewed at County m~en~e fur th~ cunstructiun of ~e school and adjacent facilities.) Vote: Unanimous 11.D.2.d. ~ROVA~ OF ~N AGP~E~T B~ ~1~. DA~-~D B. servlca for =wo parcels of lan~ in Bermuda Distrist, located Highway, with the condition that if either parcel is sold, Mr. ~nnally agrees to apply for a separate service and have an additional meter ~et to serve the other property. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with %he papers o~ %his Board.) On motion of Mr. Cttrrin, seconded by Mr. Danielr the Board Road from Virginia Electric and Pow~ Cempany and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a copy of thc plat is filed with thm papers of this ~oard.) Vote: Unanimous 11.D.2.f. Afl, PrANCE OF A PARCEL OF LAND_AI~N~__~KINQUA~r~ ROAD On motion of ~. c~rin, ~eoonded by ~. Daniel, the Board aooep~ed~ on behalf of ~e cowry, the conveyance of ~ parcel of land containing 0.~11 aor~ along skin~art~ Road from Lola M, HOUSe~ and uu~orized ~e County A~int~tr~tor to execute ~e neoess~ d~e~. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed wi~ the papmrs of this Board. ) Vote: Unanimous 11.D.%~,2. ~R. A~D ~S. ~OB~T T. FLo~q) On motion of Mr. Currin, ~ond~d by Mr, Daniel~ ~e Board accepted, o~ behalf of the County, the co~veya~c~ of a parcel of land c~ntalning 0,034 acre along skin, after Road from ~. 91-644 9/2~/91 and Mrs. Robert T. Floyd and authorized the County A~mi~strator to ~xe¢~te the necessary deed. (It is noted a Vote: Unanimous ROAD On motion of ~. ~rin, seconded by ~. Daniel, accepted, on ~ha~f of th~ County, th~ conveyance of a Run A~o~iate~ a~d authorized the county A~inistrator execute the n~cessary deed. (~t is noted a copy of ~he pla~ i~ filed with the papers of ~is Board.) Vot~= ~animou~ On ~otion of Hr. Currin, seconded b~ ~r. Daniel, the Board accepted, on behalf of the Co~ty, the COnVeyance of a parcel of land =ontaining Q.115 acre along Hull $~reet Road B~andee~ La~e Partnership and authorized ~he County Administrator ~e exeo~ t~e necessary deed. (It is noted cop~ of the plut is Filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous ll.D.Z.h. CONVEYANCE OF ANEAS~ENTTOWII~INIART~p..A~D POWER CO~AN~A~TH~ B~O~O)~D~O~d)FX~E ~TATION On notion of Mr. Currln, seconde~ by ~. Daniel, the Boar~ authorized the ~ai~an of ~e Boa~d and the County Administrator to ex~Gute an easement agreement wi~ virglnfa Electric and Powe~ Co~pa~y to install overh~ad cable with a ~0 foot and variable width easement ~% the Bu~or~ Road Fire Statio~ for service to ~e For~t View Re~e Squad. (It i~ noted a copy Of ~he plat is filed with the papers of thi~ Board.) Vote: Unanimous ~=. Sal~ pr~senLud tho ~oard with a raper= on the developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. General Fund Balance; Reserve for Future Capital Projects; District Road and Zt~eet Light SChOOl Board Agenda. Xx.F. LU~CH The Hoard recessed at 10:30 a.m. (DST) to travel to The Olive Garden Restaurant for lu~oh. In Hatoac~ Magisterial District, ~S L. ~ requested renewal of Mobile Home ~e~it 83SR~05 to Dark a mobil~ home a R~id~ntial (R-T} District. ~e density of the proposal approximately 5.8S un~/a~r~. The Comprehensive Plan desi~ates ~e proper~y for residential use of 1.~1 units/aore. ~is proper~y fron~s ~e no~ line of south Street, approximately 2~0 f~t east of James Street, and is better kno~ as 350~ south s~ee~. Tax Sa~ 182-5 (3) Laurel Branch Farms, Blo~ ~, Lot ~ (Sheet located on %he prop~ty since Afte~ brief discumsion, on motion of ~. ~ayes, seconded by years, s~ject to th~ following ~taRdard conditions: 1. The appllcant ~hall b~ ~e owner and occupant of the ~obfl~ home. 2. NO lot or parcel may be rented or leased fo~ use as m~bile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. 0nly one (1) mobile home shall be pe~itted to be parked on an individual lot ur ~arc~l, ~a ~i~i~ lot size, yard ~etba~k~, re~irmd front yard, dis=riot shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to ~y residence. 4. NO auoitiona~ p~an~n=-=ype living spaoe may ~ onto u mobile home. Ail mobile homes shell be skirted ~=re D~l~c (County) water and/or sewer are available, ~ey shall be used. 6. UpOn beiAg granted a Mobile Home Pe~it, the app~icaat shall then obtain the necessary perm~t~ fro~ th~ of the Building Official. This ~hall b~ ~one prior ~e installation or relocation of ~e mobile home. 7. Any viola=ion of the above conditions s~all ~ ~ounds Ayes: ~. Su11ivan~ ~. Currin, ~. Daniel a~4 ~, ~smnt: ~. Appl~gate. 91~No~5 In Bermuda Magisterial District, '£~ A~XCAN TO~ACCO ~OMPANY r~=ed rezoning from A~icultural (A} to Hea~ Industrial (I-F). The density of suoh ~en~ent will be controlle4 by 91-646 9/25/91 Plan dealgnates the property for general industrial u~e with density to be determined by development regulations. This 2,700 fast west of Discovery Drive. Ts2 Map 119-14 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheet 34). Mr. Jacobsen presented a summary Cf Case 9XS~O]~ and sba=ed tbs Planning Co~mis~ion recommended approval and acceptance of the proffered conditions, ~rr. Daniel disclosed to the Board that The American Tobacco Company is a ma~or competitor of ~hillp Morris, ~eelared a potential conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia from the needing. ~r. Beverley trump, representing t~e applicant, ~tuted the recommendation was acceptable. The~e was no oppo~itlcn pre~ent. After brief discussion, on motion of ~. curri~, seconded by ~r. Mayas, the Board approved Cas= 91SW0225 and accepted the fallowing proffered conditi0n~: 1. Prior to obtaining a building permit for construction on Tile SuDjeo~ Property, one of t~e following, nt ths own~n~/developer'~ option, ~ha11 be accomplished for fire protection: A. For building ps,mits obtained cn or before June 30, 1991~ the o~ner/d~v~loper shall pay ts the County $150.00 par 1,000 square feet of qress floor area. If the building permit is obtained after J~ns 30, 1991, the ~o%%nt of the required payment ~hall he adjuet~ upward or downward by the aam~ percentage that the Marshall Swift ~uilding Cost Index ~ncreased or decreased between June ~0~ 1991, and the dute of palrment. With the approval of the County'~ Fire chief, %he owner/developer shall ~eceive a credit toward the required payment for the cost o~ any ~ira suppression system not otherwise ~equired by law which i~ included a~ a paz~ of the development. B. The owner/developer ~hall provide a fire suppression ~ystem not otherwise reguired by law which the County's Fire Chief date=mines substantially reduces the need for dounty facilitis~ otherwise for the p~eteetion. 2. Prior to approval of a ~ite plan for the Subject Project, the owner/developer shall dedicate, £ree and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County, forty-five (45) fee= of right of way on thm north side of Bermuda Hundred Road measured from the centerline of that part of ~ermuda Hundred Road immedla~nly adjacent to the prope~ty. 3. In Conjunction ~ith the initial development in accordance with an a~provad ~it~ plan for the subject Property, the owner/developer shall (a) relocate the ditch along the north side of Bermuda Hundred Road ta provide an adequate shoulder for the entire frontage of the Subject Property; and (b) construct left and right turn lanes, if warranted, as de%ermine~ by the Tran~portatio~ Department, along Bs~muda Hundred Road at each approved access from ~ermuda Hundred Road to the subject Property. Ayes: ~r. Sullivan, Mr. Currin and Mr. Mayas, Absent: ~r. Applegate and ~r. Daniel. Mr. Daniel returned to the mestlng. ~N0232 In Hidle~hian Magisterial Dis%ri¢~, C~anr.~q W. HAP. TIN requested rezoning from Office Business {O) to Corporate office (O-2). The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or 0rdlnanee standards. The Cemprehensive Plan designates the property for residential uae of 1.51 to 4.09 units per acre. This request lies an a 2.71 acre parcel fronting approximately 730 feet on the ~o~th line Road. Tax Map 9-9 (1) Parcel 9 (Sheet 3). Mr. Jacobsen presented a summ~y of Case 91SN0232 and stated the proffered oendition~. Mr. Sullivan stated he was aware of opposition present to tho request and, thorefore~ it was placed in its regular sequence on the agenda, In clover Hill Hagisterial District, PARA~ON ~ROIIP requemtsd to permit a boarding kennel in a Community Business (B-2) District. The density of such amendment will be controlled by de~sity to be datelined by development repulatlons. This re,est lies on a 2.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 f~et on the northeast line of G~nito Road, approximately 550 f~=t northwest of Hull stree~ Road. Tax MaD 49-9 (I) Parcel 33 (Sheet 14). ~. Jacobsen pre~ent~d a ~u~ of Case 91SN0~33 a~ ~tated the Planning Co~i~ion race--ended approval s~jac= A g~ntlemen repre~tlng th~ applicant stated reoo~endation was .aooep%able. ~ere was no opposition approved Cas~ 91SN0233 subject to the following conditions: 1, I~ addition to those uses p~mitted in Genito Crossing mhall be p.~itt,d. (~) (NOTE: This condition amends the Textual Statement for dame ~4S135; sugary of Parcels and zonin~ Districts, I. Tract A: B-2 (Co--unity Buminem~ Dimtrict), Permltt~d.) There shall be no outside pen~ or run~ to acco~odat~ ~arding km~el ume. (~) Ayes: Mr. Sulliv~, ~. ~rrin, Mr. Daniel mhd Mr. Mayer. ~sent: ~. Appl~ga~e. In Midlothian Magisterial District, ~1~/~ W. NAIkTI~ requested rezeeing from Office Business (o) to Corporate Office (0-~). The density of $~O~ ~mendment will b~ controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The ComprehensiYe Plan deslgnat~ the property for residential use of 1.51 to 4.00 units per acre. This request lies on a 2.71 of West ~ug~enct Road~ approximately 380 feet east sf Cranbeck Reed. Tax Map 9-9 (1) Parcel 9 (Sheet ~). the P15nn~ng commission recommended approval an~ a¢¢ep[ance of the proffered conditions. recommendation was acceptable and that they had ~t with those involved and felt ~hey had ~eveloped a favorable site for thc neighborhood. ~e noted the applicant was ready to star: construction contingent on approval by the Board and requested the Board to act expeditiously i~ giving favorable consideration to the req~lsst. Discussion, cemments~ and questions ensued relative to the zoning and whether the applicant could have applied for an amendment to the existing zening to include the day care center. Cranbeok area and she had not been notified as to the zoning request. She further stated ~he had various safety hazard concerns regardin~ the request and outlined her concerns about the roads and the railroa~ cro~sing ia the Hu~uenot/Rebleus area; that ~h~ £elt the s~te for the day care center was inappropriate due to the excessive traffic and high speeds travele~ on the roads; that she felt the children's safety should be placed flr~t; that Bh~ was aware of others w~0 felt ~he ~a~e as she did; and requested the Board to ~efer the zoning ease for ~hirty days in or,er =c give ethers an opportunity to ~eet and/or to come and speak. M~. Sullivan submitted a l~tter from Mr. Conley Edwards cf Cranbeck Terrace stating he would llke to be notified at site ~lan r~view and instructed staff to notify him of the date. Mr+ Sch~rzer stated that ordinarily they would be happy to meet with the citizens but felt the timing of the request was critical and the concern~ e~pressed were is=us= in which they could not change such as the ex~st~ng t~affic. He further stated trainz wet% restricted to twenty ~ile~ per hour in this area and the centerllns of the railroad was a Rini~%h~ of fifty-lice feet away from the prcpesed site; that th~ proposed site development was Ie~ den~e than the existing zoning; that the proffer ~nb~itted addle~sed the traffic requirements by providing an add~tlonal lane of pavement for a turn lane; t~at they felt the turn lane woul~ provide a safe transition from the e~ist~ng tsa~way into ~he ~ite; and that the decision as to whether it wa= an appropriate ~ay care center size should Hr. B. K. Katherman stated he was the developer and had tried to keep within the overlay dis=rict when developing the site; that he felt t~e~e was a demand for day care in the area; that the center was conveniently located; =hat mosf of the traffic during the early morning hours would b~ stopped at the light at the intersec=ion ef Rohlous Road and Route 147 which would allow easy access onto Huguenot Road; that h~ alGQ felt the safety issue should be ~ecided by the parents; and requested the Board to give favorabl~ consideration to the re~ueet aBd Mr, Sullivan indicated he ha~ been working to have traffic ~ignal~ installed on Huguenot Road and had recently been advised a traffic signal would be installed at the intersection of Old Gun Read and ~uguenet Road. 91-~49 9/25/91 Discussion, =omments, and questions ensued relative to the additional lane of pavement for the turn lane; the traffic signal tO be installed at Belgrade as well the interseetlon 01d Gun and Huguenot Roads; the retention pond at Belgrade; the drainage situation in the area; whether this request would negatively impact the property downstream; and whether the site plan was available for review and addressed the road grade~ F~. sullivan stated he felt the request should be approved with the under,tending th~ traffi= ooncern~ would be addressed at site plan review; that the transpertatlcn problems would be resolved with the inotallation of the two traffic signalo; tracks and; therefore, made a motion, seconded by ~_r. Carrie, to approve Cane 91SN023~ and acceptance of the following proffered conditions: 1. All building~ ~hall be con~trueted in a traditional, colonial, or victorian architectural style and of a quality level equal to, er better than, the Huguenot Place and]or Huguenot Commons projects. The following u~e~ ~hall b~ ~xolud~d from th~ p~rmitt~d (b) Funeral homes or mortuaries. (d) Post offices. (e) soberly/colleges - public and pri~at~. (f) Schools - business. (g) Telephone exchanges. 3. The density shall not exceed 9~000 square feet per acre. Re b~ilding shall exceed 9,000 sgu~re feet nor shall be higher than one story. There shall be no more than two buildings on the parcel. 4. To provide for an adequate roadway system a: =he time of complete development, the developer shall be for the following: a. Conotr~c~ien os additional lane along the northbound lanes of Huguenot Road from the approved access to approximately 400 fae~ sou~h of t~n apDrnved This improvement shall be provided prior to the ~ssuano~ cf any ooeupaney permit. b. Dedication, fre~ and unrestricted! to and for benefit cf Ch,~terfield County, any additional right of way (or easement) required for t~e improvements identifi~d above. This dedication shall occur prior to site plan approval. 5. Prior to obtaining a building p~rnit, one of the following shall be accomplished for fire protection: a. For building per, its obtained on or before June 30, 1991, the owner/developer shall pay to the county $1§0.00 per 1,0~0 ~quare feet of gross floor area. If the building permit is obtained after June 30, 1991, the amount of the required payment shall be adjusted upward or dow~war~ by the same percentag~ that the Harshall swift Building Cost Index increased or decreased between Uu~e 30, 199~, and the date o~ payment. With the approval of the Co~lnty'~ Fire Chief, the owner/developer shall recelvs a credit t~ward the required payment for the coat of a~y fire suppression system not otherwise required by law which i~ included as a part of the 91-650 9/25/91 or The owner/developer mhall provide a fire ~y~tem not otherwise required by law which the County's Fire Chief detel-mines substantially reduces the need for County facilities otherwise for the protection. ~Lr. Daniel stated he did net feel COmfOrtable with the request as proposed and felt a thirty day deferral WOUld ensure that the concerns expressed regarding public safety would be addressed. Be requeste~ Mr. Sullivan to reconsider his motion and defer the request for thirty days as he felt he could not support the regucst at this time and that the zoning request Mr. Sullivan stated he felt the representatives ~e the applicant believed they would rick loaing financing for the project and felt the deferral would not resolve thc safety concerns expressed. Mr. Daniel restated he felt it was inappropriate to consider e¢ono~i¢ impaQt~ and that health, safety and welfare reasons should he the basis when deciding zoning Mr. Mayes made a substitute motion to defer Case 91SN0~32 until October 23, 1~1 in order to provide an opportunity for the health, safety and welfare concerns expressed te be ~hen asked, 14r. Micas a~ated i~ tbs vote was a tie, the zoning ruq~ast would be carried over until the Board~ next zoning ~eeti~g on 0etcher 23, 1991. Mr. SullivaR called for the second on the substitute motion made by ~r. ~4ayea to defer case 91SN0252 un~il October 23, 1991 in order to provide an opportunity for the health, safety and welfare concerns e~pressed to ~ addressed. For lack of a seoond~ the substitute motion failed. Mr. C%lrrin inquired as to the original zoning request, whether the safety factors had been addre~se~, und whether there had been any input into the health, safety and welfare Mr. Jacobsen stated tho original zonin~ request was for a medical office building in which the Planning Co~mission had recommended approval subject to conditions and acceptance of the proffered conditions and the request was the~ approved by the Board subject te acceptance cf the proffered conditions. He fUZ~her stated there was ~0 reference recorded in the minutes r~la=ing to traffic issues er trains and that recommendation~ on zoning cases were made ~se~ On h~alth, safety and welfare reasons and, therefore, ~taff had recommended approval of the request. l~r. Currin stated he felt the health, safety amd welfare issues had been addressed and the owner could be permitted to piece another facility relatlng to children, such as a pediatric facillty, On the propert~ ~d ~hat. the economic Mr. Daniel stated there had been considerable discussion regarding the merits of the request at the original time of zoning an4 £elt with the concerns expressed, a deferral Mr. Mayes stated he r~speote~ the ap~llcant's right to have th~ opportunity to obtain the highest and best use of the property but also £el= that in establlshed neighberhQOdS, the surrounding property owners should have input and an opportunity to exeress their consume and, therefore, stated he could not support the request at this time. 9/25/91 Mr. Sullivan called ~or the Vote on the motion ~ade by him, seconded by Hr. C~rrinr to approve Case 91SN02~ and acceptance of the following proffered conditions: 1. All buildings shall be constructed in a traditional, colonial, or victorian arshitectural style and of · quality level equal to, or better than, the Ruguenot Place and/or Huguenot Commons projects, 2. The following uses shall be exsluded from the pe~itted 0-5 u~: (a) Art School, gallery or museum. (b) Funeral homes or mortuaries. Hotels. (d) Post offices. (e] Schools/colleges - public and private. (f) Schools - business. (g] Telephone exchanges. 3, Th= density shall not exceed 9,000 s~/uare ~eet per acrs. ~o building shall exceed 9,000 square feet nor shall bs hi~hsr than one story. There shall bs no more than two buildings on the parcel. 4. To provide for an adequate roadway system at the time of complete development, the developer shall be responsible for the'following; a. Construction of additional lane along the northbound lanes of Huguenot Road fron the approved access to a~proximately 400 feet south of the approved access. This improvement shall be provided prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit. Dedication, ~rmm and unrestrlc~ed, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield county, any additional right of way (or easement) require4 for the improvements identified above. This dedication shall occur prior to site plan approval. 5. Prier to obtaining a building permit~ one of the following shall be accomplished for firs protection: a. Sar buildihg permits obtained on or ~ofore June 30, 1991~ the owne~/develope~ shall pu~ to the County $1OO.OO per 1,000 ~quare feet of ~ross floor area, If the building permit is obtained ufter =uae 30, 1991, the a~ount of the required payment shall ba adpusted u~wa=d or downward by the ~ame percentage that the Marshall Swift Buildin~ Cost Index increased er decreased between June 30, 1991, and the date of payment, wi~h the approval e~ tbs County's Fire C~ief, the owner/developer shall receive a credit toward the required payment for the csst of any fire suppression system not otherwi~ required by law which is included as a Dart cf the develo~ent. er Thu owner/developer shall provide a fire suppression syst~ not etherwlse required by law which the County's Fire Chief determines sub~tant~ally redue~ the nuad fsr County facilities otherwise for the protection. Ayes: Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Currin. Nays: Mr. Deals1 and M~. Mayas. Absent: Mr. Applegate. 91-65~ 9/25/91 (It i~ note~ the vote was a tie with no decision made on Case 91S~0232 and, therefore, the request was carried over to the Beard's meeting on October 23, 91~]~0117 (Amendsd) In Midlothian Magisterial District. DON~DB. ~.w~ requested ~ezoning f~o~ Celerity Business (B-l) and Residentla~ tO M~ighborhoo~ B~siness (C~2) amd Light Indu~tTial (I-l). The density of su~ american% will be controlled by conditions or Ordinan=u stundurd~. The C~prehen~ive Plan designate~ the property for village shopping use with ~nslty ~he mou~ lln~ of Mtdlothian Turnpika, app~oxi~tely 500 feet we~t of Walton ~ark Road. Tax ~ap 15-9 (1) Part o~ ~aro~l (Sh~t 7). Mr. JaoobsoB p~esented a s~ary of Ca~ 91SN0117 and ~tated the Pla~ing Co~ission re=o~mnded aDproval of the rezoning from residential (R-7) to Neig~orhood Business but re~o~ended denial of thm r~este~ rezonin~ from residential (R-7) ~d co.unity business (B-2) to light industrial (I-l) as it did nut confo~ to the Midlo~an Co~uni~ La~d Use and Transportation ~lan. ~e noted Etaff had received two l~tsrs in opposition to the indus~ial ~ezO~ing Mr. ~dward Willey. representing th~ applicant, statmd proposal wam to develop a six acre parcel; that the p~rcel adjacent to a major ~hopp{ng ae~ter; that ~ey felt this was a re.est was now being addressed as to whether or not violates the Hidlo~ian Villagu ~lan; that M~dlothian Villaqe warehouses for ~ersonal ~rvice and the Pia~ called for the a~ea to be u villuge ~hopping district; that ~e applicant the property would not ba u~ed for retail/offioe in the foreseeable future; and Dresen~ed an o~erview of the request. He f~th%r ~tated he felt the requ~t wo~ld b~ the least int~iv= use and would not adversely ~pact the Midlothian V~llage b~t would enhance and se~e the co~unlty. ~. John ~ith stated he wa~ a neighbor of the property owner; that he felt many factors ~hould be considered; ~at th~ property owner has owned ~e site for over forty yaars; the coal mine located on the $it~; that the owners w~re be~ limited due to Route ~88; that Oonsideration should be would negatively i~act others a~d; therefore, requested ~e ~o~rd to giv~ f~vorable =on~i4eration to the property owner~ and were opposed to the re.est; that thsy felt a~ter the 9rop~r~y was ~eveloped it would ~ traffic gen~ating; that the re.est wa~ not th~ b~t land use for small ~usines~es ~n Midlothian Vitlage~ that ~e project ~x~stlng develo~ent in the area ~ch as changes in visibility; that zoning re. trim.ts ~hould protect as well as rsstrict; and re~est~d ~he Board to deny the ~r. Steve Heisler~ co.unity Aw~r~emm ~ai~an of the Walton P~rk Co.unity Asso=iation. stated the Hidlo~i~ village Plan had bee~ developed to ~nhibit the continuing encroa~ent 91-653 9/25/91 residential properties by industrial and heavy use husinesses; that they supported the Nidlothian Village Plan and this request was the first case in opposition to the Plan; that the re~uect would encroach on the Plan; that the £amilias in Walton Park and Btonehenge West were in favor of the Board continuing to support the Plumy that the rosommendations for changing the zoning in the ar~a do not neet the standar~ of the Plan; that they do not want co~erelal development on t~e~e typon of property and requested the Bear4 to support the Midlothian Village Plan by denying the proposed request. Ms. ~arle Struck, representing Queen,mill Civic A~nciation in her capacity as President, stated she was also a member of th~ Village Of Midlothian Volunteer Coalition; that the Coalition is involved in a landscaping pla~ that is designed'to beautify and improve the ~illage; that the Plan had been adopted Dy the Board for protection from inappropriate zoning; that the proposed request was in direct opposition to the PlaR; that the Planning commission and staff has recommended denial of the request for industrial zoning; that they do not want indmst~ial zoning in an area which hol~a historical significance; that the Plan ham an establimhed area for designated warehouses; that most of the developers hays tried to follow th~ gui~eline~ to the Village Plan and read into th~ record a letter in support of the Plan from Mr. Tom Garner, developer of The Grove; that the Plan~= goal and pollcy is to proses'ye the wno~ed character of Midlethian Turnpike whore ever possible; that the proposed indumtrial requemt does not conform to ~hs Plan; that the Plan was designed to protect what im left of an historic area; and requested the Beard to ~eny the zoning requemt. Mr. Brando~ MCCOrmaO~ stated he has been a resident of the County for fifteen years and resides in Nidlothiaa; that he felt the proposal was an ~napprop~iate land use fo~ the Village of Midlethian and could set a dangerous precedent with encroachment of industrial seals uses i~ tho Village; that the site was lower than ~idlothian Turnpike and once =he site was clewed of t~ee~, its depth Wo~ld draw attention to it; that the view would consist of looking down over a proposed seven foot fe~se a~d doW~ ~ows of war~houses =nd other stored items; that he had visited one of the applloant's other warehouse facilities and the facility was ~toring buses, garbage trucks, various =railer~ including tractor-trailers, construction trailers, boats, redreatlonal vehlcleE, wr~cked car~, crat~ of junk, stacked c0ments bl0C~, etc. and felt the proposal did not provide protection from =his type o~ storage; that variances would be required to develoD t~e site as p~oposed; that the areas around the site have been developed in consideratio~ Of the Well-being for Midlothian Village; thut the proposed request would net meet the architectural requirements Of the Plan and should be developed to comply with the Midlethian Village Community Plan; and requested thm Board ho deny the raciest. ~r. C~arles A~genzio stated he was an adjacent property owner and felt if the propoee~ reques~ was zoned industrial then he would also consider ~equestl~g his property to be zoned the sa~e and did not feel the request was consistent with the character of the s~r~eu~ding. F~. Peppie JOnes stuted he has been a lifelong resident of Midlothian village; that he is a member of the Midlcthlan Celebrity Action Plan, the Midlothian Beautification Plan, and a ~eunding member o£ the Chesterfield Historical Society; that the first railroad track and coal mine were in Midlothian; that he did not feel even though Midlothian Village started as industrial that it should remain industrial; that the Plan restricts commercial uses; that the request did not conform ts the Plan; and s~bmitted a petition to the Beard requesting denial of the request. 91-654 9/2~/91 Ms. Katherine McCormack stated she has lived in Midlethian Village for seven years, is President of the Four Seasons Project, and is the development leader foe the Village of Midlo~ian Volunteer Coalition; that although she was net speaking on behalf of the Coalition, she felt the Beard should funds to build a park in the Village of Midlothlan and were Turnpike which goes through the Village~ that ~-here ars tentative pla~s proposed for a privately owned cultural center; that ~he had net been informed or invited ts any meetings by the appl~sent; that the proposed request does not conform to the Plan; and requested the Board to support the ~lr. Smith stated that although those who ~poke wore in favor of supporting the M~dlothian Village Plan, he felt it wax inappropriate to deny the applicant the right to develop his property. F~. Sullivan stated he felt the request was not appropriate Plan and, therefore, he recommended denial of the request. Mr. Daniel stated he also felt the request wa~ inappropriate for the area and although owners have a right ts develop t~eir property, there was an appropriate land use plan in effect and, therefore, supported denial s~ the request. Mr. Mayea stated he felt t~ applioan= did not receive input fro~ the ~eSidents in the area, that the renid~t$ have established ineompatihillhy of the re,user in that it does net conform to the Midlothian Village Plan, and although he has respect for the owner's right for t~e highest and be~t ~so of the property, he did not support the request. Mr. Currin stated he felt the applicant should have attempted ts work with the community and address thei~ oenee~ns and the ~idlothi&n Village Plan ~hould b~ ~upported. On motion of ~r. ~ullivan, seconded by Mr. C~rrln, ~he Boar~ approved the requested rezoning from Residential (R-7) to N~ghborhood Business (C-2) and denied the requested rezenis~ from Residential (R-7) and Co--unity Business (B-2) to Light Industrial (I-l) for Case 91aN011?. Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. currin, Hr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Applegate. Qn motion of ~r. Currin, uacondo~ by Mr. Mayee, the Board adjourned at 4:00 p.m. until October 9, Ayes: Mr. ~ullivan, Mr. Currln, ~r. Danlel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Applegato. Lahe B. Ramsey _/ County Administrator