Loading...
01-22-1992 MinutesJANUARY 22, 1992 Su~imors ~ Attendance: Mr. Harry G. Dmnlel, Chalr~an Mr. Arthur S. Warren~ Vice Chrm. Mr. ~dward B. Barber Mr. Whaley M. Col~rt Mr. J. L. Mc~ale, III Mr. Lane B. Ramsey County Admlni~trator Staff Mr. N. =. carmiohael, ~ir. Richard Cordle, ~r. William Davenport, ~. J. A~y Davis~ Exec. Asst. to Co. Admin. ~. William D. Dupler, Fuil~ing Official ~ief Robert L. Eanes, Jr., Fir~ Department Mr. Bradford S. DeDu~y Cu. A4mln., Dir., General Dir., Purchasing Mental Health/Retard. M~. Mary LO~ Lyle~ Dir., Accounting b~puty Co. Admin., Mr. R. John ~cCrackmn, ~. Richard H. McEl~ish, ~m. Pauline A. Hibohell, Dir., New~ & Public ~, F. O. Parks, Dir., Information Syst~s Deputy Clark to ~e Board Chi%f, D~v. Review~ ~lannin9 Co,unity Development Dir., Budget & 92-45 Dr. Robert Wagenknecht, Dir., Libraries Mr. David H. Welchons, Dir., Utilities ~r. B. R. Wilkinson, shuriff clarunc= williams, Sheriff'~ Depar~ent Mr. Frederick Willis, Jr., Dir., Human R~source ~gt. Mr. Daniel called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. (EST]. 1. REO~TS TO PO~ONR ACk, ION. ~ER~;C~ ADDITIONS OR On motion of ~. Warren, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board ~u~pe~de~ its ~les to ~ove Ite~ 9., A~roval of ~i~tes Item 11., Board Co~ittee Reports to follow I=~ 2., Reco~ition of the Chesterfield Co~ty Employee-of-~e-Year for 1991; replaced existing It~ 3.D.4.a., set Date for a ~lic ~earing to Consider an Ordinance to ~end ~ticle II, Division 2, of ~a C~e of 'the County of ~esterfield, 1978, a~ ~ended, Relating to ~i~t~ric Di~tri~t~ a~d Lan~ark~; added Item 3.D.11., Re~e~t for a Bingo/Raffle P~= for to ~e Planning Co~on a Zoning Ordinance ~en~ent HomeE ~n B-l, B-2, B-3, B-T, M-i~ M-2 and M-3 zoninq Districts to follow It~ 1~., Behests for Mobile Home Ps, its and Rezoning; moved Item 12.C., Resolution Recoqnizing Dr. Robert B. Stroube, ~tate Health C0~issi0~er, to follow Item Re~asts to Postpone Action, ~erg~ncy Addition~ or Changes Vote: Unanimous 12.C. I~ESOL~TIOW R~-~)GNIZIWG DR. ~. ~sden stated Df. Stro~e had demonstrated leadership and had recently ~n ~9~ointe~ a~ th~ Co~i~sioner of ~eal~ for the S=~tR of V~glnia. ~e fu~th~ stated Dr. Stroub~ had be~n inst~tal ~n helping plan and constr~ct the Human services On mo~ion of %h~ Board, the following resolution was adopted: ~S, The Honorabl~ Robe~ ~. ~troube, H.D. was appoin~e~ s~a%e Heal~ Co~issione~ on Deoembe= 1, 199~; and ~s, Prior to his uppoin~ent as Co~issiomer, Dr. majo~ responsibilities including Deputy Co~issioner for Co~uni~ Health Services, ~aaical ~idemiolo~i=t, Director of Health Hazard Control and Director of Preventive Medicine; and ~S, Dr. Stroube served ~e citlzen~ cf Che~terfleld from M~ch 1, 1986 to September 16, 19~7; and ~S, Dr. Stroube was inst~ental in h~lp~ng pIan and construct o~ H~n Services Building which curr~tly house~ the ~esterfleld County Wealth D~part~e~t; and 92-46 1/22/92 in health services delivery in Chesterfield County and throughout th~ S~ ~f ~irginim. NOW, THER=FORE BE IT RESOLe'ED, that the Ch~st~rfleld County Board of Supervisors hereby commends Dr. Robert B. Stroube for his outstanding services to the citizens of Chesterfield County and the state of virginia. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED~ that the Board of ~upervisors ~×tends it~ h~artlest congratulations to ~r. Streube on his appointment to the high office of Commissioner of Health for the State of Virginia. vote: unanimous Fur. Daniel presented the executed resolution to Dr. Stroube and thanked hi~ for his 4edieated service to the County and the State. Dr. Stroube presented Mr. R. M. Spencer, Admini~trati¥~ Manager for the Health Department, with the f£r~t a~nual "Cn~is~ioner'~ Award" recognising the Chesterfleld County Health Department for their support of public health activities within ~e County. Iq~AR FOR 1991 Mr. Willis introduced the 1991 nominees for the Chesterfleld County ~m~loyea-of-the-¥eer Award~ who were as follows: Mr. Barry Arnold M~. Joyce Bellamy l~r. Perry Bornbarger Ms. Wanda Jenkins MS. Jo carol Mayton Mr. David Phillip~ H~. Janice Rasn~ke MS, Bhari Rumble Hs. Ann T. Smith Mz. A. Marie Smith Hs. Deborah stone ~e. Kamen Thompson l~r. Willlam Wrlqht Sheriff N~rsing Home Library Pe~k~ and R~ereation Pu~ohasinq ~ntal ~ealth/Mental Retardation Accounting Buil4ing Inspection Police Utilities Mr. Ramsny congratulated all those nominated and announced Ms. Janice Re, hake had bee~ selects4 a~ the 1991 Employee-of- the-Year. Mr. Daniel congratulated M~. Raenake and presented her w~th a framed resolution, an engraved silver Revere ~aw1, a $~0 saving~ bond, a r~erved parking space for the yea~ and a gift certificate to the ~wlft Creek ~iI1 Playhouse fr~ the Chesterfield County Employee's Association. O~ me,ion of the Board~ the following resolution was adopted: W~EREAS, M~, Ja~fc~ P. Rasnake has been selected by her fellow empleyess to represent the Department Of Real Estate ~sessments as th~ 1991 Employee-of-the-Year nominee as a person 9oa=e~slng the ~ual~tie~ of superior performance and dedication to excellence in public ~ervic~ required of the recipient of thi~ coveted award; and W~REAS, During four years of servioe which begun in 1987 as an Appraiser until ~. ~a~nake's current position as Senior Appraiser, nar enthusiasm, professionalism and responsivene~ have gained w~de~pr~a~ respe~ from her peers, superiors and citizens alike; and 9Z-47 it~2/92 E~ployee-of-the-Year in 1989 and 1990; and W~AS, Ms. Re,hake has recmived acclaim for her co-work~rs ~d County citiz~n~; and out~tandinu manner while dedicat~nu t~m to var{ou~ professional ~o~ittee~ a~ ~ member o~ the Virginia ~ER~S, MS. Ras~a~a wo~s to build the ~orale of department co-workers within her department by observing birthdays, annivers~ie~ and family losses; and ~ER~S, Ms. ~s~ake'm enthusiasm, dete~i~ation and cooperative spirit are evident in her work as a volunteer coordinator for the United Way Campaign for the past five y~ars, her role as ~r~sid~n~ of the chesterfield County ~ployees' Association for 1991 and countless other civic and charitable activities. NOW, T~FORE BE IT RESOLVED, ~at the ~este=~ield superior perfo~ance and dedication of Ms. Janlce P. Rasnake for 1991. On motion of Mr. colbert, seconded by Mr. McHale, approved the minutes of January 8, 1992, as amended. Vote: Unanimous the Board Mr. M~Hale stated he~ Mr. Daniel and Mr. Colbert had at~ended the opening ceremony for Route %-~9~ between Route 10 and op~a am scheduled. He further stated he had attended a social meeting the needs of thome affected by the downtu=n in the scheduled for February 3, 1995 in which the %opic would focus on an overview of the ~cahool and th~ g~n~ral County budget~. Mr. Daniel stated he had attended the Virginia Association of court,ism (VACO) Executive Committee ~eeting in which a general ammes~ment of m~r~hlp in the g~n~ral Assembly had been discussed. He noted ~e Beard would be requested ~ VA~ to S~rve on ~everal co~ittees and he had reco~ended various staff persons to participate in general activities of VAC0 as well. ae further stated he had a~=endeR a Ric~ond Regional Virginia Waste Manag~ent Au~ority and its ~oals had been di~cums~d a~ wall as the study for a regional ai~ort. He Organization m~eting in whi~ they had reviewed various aspects of the Transportation Efficiency Act and as it r~lat~d to the Environmental ~oteatlan Agency. Mr. Daniel noted he had been contacted by citizens residing in eetabliehed eubd±Vi~i0n~ who were concerned about lower quality housing standards and, spe¢ifieally, smaller hemes being b~ilt and ~equested the County Administrator to add quality development issues to the agenda fo~ the Board's weekend work ~ession ~chedeled in Pebruary. ~r. $al~ ~Sa~ ~taff had prepared thio agenda it~ at th~ request of the Board for the Planning Co~i~io~ to an~ r=oo~end approRrlate watershed studi~s for Upper Swift Creek, Lake Che~din and Falling Cre~k. Mr. Barber stated ~ere was a case before the ~upr~ Ceurt regarding waSer quality standard~ and wetland~ and in,ired the proposed reco~endation would be affected by the decision before ~e Supreme Ceurt was r~lat~d to vested right8 relating to the applicstion of Chesapeake Bay to existing d~velop~e~t reco~end~tion wa~ different, the Board could to th~ Planing Mr. Warren stated he supported th~ reco~endation ms he felt ther~ was a need for prut~ction of water ~ality standards and, particularly, for driving water resources. On motion of ~r. Warren, seconded by ~. Barber, the assessment and reco~endat~on for co~sfd~ratlon by the Board ~ sup~isors to ~dentlfy needed info~mati0n, studies and qnaltty strategies -- one each for 8wilt ~=~k Reservoir, Lake Che~din and Palling Creek vote: Unanimous 3.R. STR~ETLI~a. INSTALLATION OOSTA~ROVAL~. On ~o~io~ Of ~r. Warren, seconded by ~. M~ale, the Beard approved the gtreet light in~tallu~ion cost oS $2~4S5 for th~ intersection of Tall ~cko~y COUrt and Tull ~ickory Drive, Clover ~ill Magisterial District, with sai~ ~nd~d fTom the Clover ~ill Di~%rict Street Light Account and th~ street light tns~allation c0m= 0f $770 at 1591~ Gary Argue, in Bermuda Hagisterlml Dimtrlc%, with said e~end~4 fro~ the B~a Die,riot Street Light Account. APP~OPI~IATTON OF FONDBFO~]~EPAIi~S TO ~~G~ ROAD brio~ discussion, on ms,ion of ~r. cold,t, ~eoon~od by McHale, the Board au=horized t~ county Admin{~trator to =dvmnce funding of $1,uoo ~rom the FY-93 Matoaoa District Cent Road Fund for repairs to C~dar Springs Road. Vote: Unanimous 92-49 1/22/92 This day the County ~nvironmental ~nginaer, An accordance with directions from this Board, ~tade report in writing upon his examination cf He, lin Terrace, Hamlin Circle and Hamlin Way in Hsmlin Estates, Bermuda District. Upon consideration whereof, and 0H motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Fir. Colbert, it is resolved ~hat Mamlln T~rrace, Hamli~ Circle and Hamlin Way in Hamlin Estates, Bermuda District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And bo it further rosolved~ that ~he Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested tc take into the secondary System, Hamlin Terrace, beginning at the southern end of existing ~amlln Drive, ~tate Route ~5~6, and going southeasterly 0.05 mile, then turning and going easterly mile tc the intersection with Hamlln circle and continuing easterly 0.08 mile to end at the intermeotion with He, lin Way; Hamlin Circle, beginning at the intersect/on with Ha~lin T~race a~d going southerly 0.05 mile to end in u cul-de-suc; and Hamlln Way, beginning at the intersection with Kamlin TerraCe and going ~outherly 0.10 nile to end in n cul-de-sac. Again, Hamlin Way, beginning a~ ~.he in~ersectlon with Hamlln Terrace, and going northerly 0.03 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request i~ inclusive of th~ adjacent ~lope, ~ight distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of ~neme roadm merve 49 Lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to t~e Virginia Department of Transportation an unres~rlcted right-of-way of 40~ with necessary easements £or c~te, fills and drainage for all of the~e road~ except ~amlin Terrace which has a 5~' right-of-way. H~_mlin Estates is recorded as Sollowo: Plat Book 64, ~age ]9, Dscs~ber 7~ 1988. Voto: ~nsnimnus Thi~ day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made r~per~ in writing upon his examination of ~ine 0ru~ard Drive in Branch'~ Trace, Phase Dale Dietr~ct. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, it is re$olvod that Pin~ orchard Drive in Branch's Trace~ Phase 3, Dale Di~t~ict~ he and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the virginia Depart~uent of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Pine Orchard Drive, beginning at the intersection with Lori Road, State Route 655, and going northerly 0.13 mils to smd in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of Transportation ~ainage eamementm. This road se~ves am aeoesm to multi-family units. ~d bo it further resolved, ~hat the Board ef Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an ~est~i~ted ~iqht-of-way of 6~' with n~c~s~ry ea~emente for cuts, fills and drainage for this road. This phase of Branch's Traoe is resorfled as follows: Phase 3; Plat Book 63, page~ 18 & 19, sept~mb~ 29, 1988. Vote: Unanimous ~.D.2. AG~IE~ENTFOR~'x~AN~OF A..~TOF~WATK~DFa%INAG~ ~Y~T~[AI~D B~T ~AG~~ICE FACILI~ ~R ~ On m~ion of Hr. ~cHale, ~econ~ed by ~. Colbert, ~he Bo~d a~thorized the County A~mi~trator to exeo~te ~ ~to~uter Man=gem~t Syst~ and Best Management ~actice Facilitie~ Maintenance and Indemnification Agroom~ with Cro~ Central Petrole~ Co, oration, with the County's only involvement being to a~ur~ the ~alntenanc~ Agreement ts roll.we4 ~y ~e o~er, as approved by the County Attorney. (It i= noted a cogy of the Agrooment is file~ wi~ the Da~ers of t~is Board.) Vote: Unanimous On ~o~ion of Mr. ~cHale, ~econded by ~. Colbert, the Board relied to the 9lan~i~q Cotillion, for a p~lic hearing an4 recu~enda~iun~ an or~inmna~ to amend the code of the County of Chesterfield, 1~78, as amended, by a~$~Oing and reenacting s~ot~on~ 18.1-9~ ~1-9, 21.1-17 ~d 21.1-280 ~lating to appllca%ion fees in co~ection wi~ land use and ~ev~10pment. Vote: Unanimous refe~ed to the ~lannin~ Co~ismion, for a public hearing and relating to historic ~i~trlcts and lan~ark=. Vote: Unsnimous 3.D.4.b. TO CONBIDER.r~Oh¥~ANC~ OFLF-%~F~F 0n motion OS Mr. ~cHmle, ~econ~ed by Mr. Colbert, the Board ~et ~e date of February 1~, 1~9~ at 7:~0 p,m, for a public hearin~ to consider the oonveyanoe of leases of real proDert~ in t~e Chesterfield parkn sysD~m for operation of ~oo~ co,cessions by athletic associations. (It is noted a list of the curr~nt 1~ hold.rs an~ a copy 0f the ~a~e are filed w~th ~ papers of ~is Board.) #AllEIIOU~E on notion of ~ MoHale, seconded by M~. colbert~ the Board approved a Utilities Con~ract for Conner Office Warehouse, Project Number 89-0837, as follows, which project includes the extension of 1373 L.F. ~ of sewer mains; lI~O L.~. ~ water lines of whick 165 L.F. ~ of the 8 inch water line is off-site and authorized the County Administrator to execute any Developer: Douglas G. and Jean C. Conner Contraotor: Excalibur construction'corporation Contract Amount: Estimated Total - Total Estimated County Cost: Water (0f£site) - $ (Refund thru Estlm~ted Developer cost: - Code: (Offsite) 5H-58~50-8907~E Vote: Unanimous approve~ a tttilitie~ Co~tract for De~r Run~ S~tion 7, ~roject Number 91-~201, a~ follows, which project includes the extension of 1~,906 L.F. ~ u£ ~ew~r main~; 9,~50 L.F. ± of water lines of which 140 L.F. ~ of 16 inch ~ater oversized and authorized the County Administrator to execute Contractor: Coastline Cont=aotor~, Inc. (Sewer) Bookman Consti~ctien Company (Water) Contract Amount: Estimated Total $368,477.00 Water (Oversizing) $ (Refund thru connections) 3.D.?. AWARD OF ~N~Y~O~TON CT~NTT~ FO~ WATER P~HABILX~ATION. PHASE II On mo~ion of Mr. MoHale, seconded by ~r. Colbert, the Board awarded Construction contract for Water Rehabilitation - Pha~e II, ~roject ~89-0~1~, to Richard ~. crowder construction, the low bidder, in the anount of $298,952.00, for ~eplaoemsnt of old water lines located in' wake Avenue, Hilo Road, shop Streat, Werth Street, C=ntral A~enue and tile Che~terwood oreo, wni~n are not of adequate size %0 provide fire protection and are frequently failing causing interruption of service to customers and autherized the County A~inietrator to execute th~ necessary doc~ent~. (It is noted this project is part of the approved Capital I~rovemest Program and fund~ have been appropriated.) Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board 92-52 1/22/92 ' I permission for a portion of a garage to encroach on an existing 8 foot alley easement on Lot 11~ Block A, Marlboro ~ubdivieion, subject ~e ~he execution of a llcon~e egree~ment. (It is noted a cody of the Plat is filed with the pnper~ of thi~ Board.) Cote: Unanimous on motion of Mr. No, ale, ~ezondc~ by Mr. Colbert, the Board with the Ja~es River Trunk Sewer Project. (~t i~ noted a copy of the Plat is filed with ~he papers of this Board.) Unanimous ~.D.IO. AC~TANC~ o~ ~ ~ OF LAND F~R ~"LDERO5E On motiom of ~. HcHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board accepted, O~ behalf of the co~ty~ the conveyance of a parcel extension of wylderose Co~t f~o~ 01i~e~ D. Rudy, Trustee authorized the Co~ty A~inlstrator ~o ~xeou~e the necessary de~d. (It i~ noted a cop~ of the Plat is filed with the Vote: Unanimous 3.D.11. ~O~ FOR BINGOIRAFF/~EPER~(IT On ~otion of M~. ~cHale, re=ended by Nr. approved a bingo/~afflc permit for ASsociation, Inc. for calendar y~ar 1992. Vote: Unanimous Colbert, the Board Bensley Athletic On motion of Mr. ~cHale~ ~eaonded by Mr. Warren, the BOard order Item i~.B., R~fer to Planning conn~i~sion a Zoning Ordinance Amendment Relative to ~obile Home Exisbin~ ~obile Home~. Mr. McHale ~tated =he majority of mobile homes were located in Bermude District and ther~ were approximately twenty-four mobile homes looated in areas previously zoned Business and Industrial, He further ~tated the new Zoning Ordinance would prohibit the Board from renewing p~l~mit~ for t~e~e mobile homes without rezoning the properties to remain consistent with the new zoning ordinance Or a~e~ding the Zoning Ordinance. ~e indicated he felt tho ~urrent prosess would County and, therefore, requested the Board to refer this ordinance amendment to tbs Planning Cs~mission £or their On motion of ~4r. McHale, seconded by ~4r. Warren, the Board referred to the Planning Commission, for a public hearing and recommendation, a zoning ordinance amendment which wo~ld allow consideration of mobils homs ~ermits for exis~in~ mobile homes in B-l, B-2, B-3, B-T, M-l, M-2 end M-3 zoning districts. Vote: Unanimous On motion of ~r. McBale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board simultaneously nominated/appointed Mr. Phillip G. cunningham to serve as the Planning Commission representative on the Ric~mond Regional Planning District Commission, whose term is effective immediately and will eXl~ire December 31, 1995. ~ot~: T3nanlmoun CAPITAL AI~EA T~AININ~ ~ONSOI~TIUN On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. colbert, the Board deferred consideration of nominations to the Capital Area Training Consortium until February 1~, 199~. on mo=ion of Hr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Warren, the ~nerd deferred consideration of nominations to the Co~ittee on the Future, representing Clover Hill District, until February 1~, 199~- Mr. Micas stated the Board had appointed Ms. Brenda Johnson to serve on the Community Services Board at its meeting on January 8, 1992 and confirmed her term, representing Clover Hill District, would be for one year ex/0iring December ~1, 1992. simultaneously nominated/appointed Mrs. Pamela M. Womack to at-large, whose teI~ is effective immediately and will expire P~ONRE~ APPEAL~ BOAR~ On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by }ir. colbert, the ~oard 1/22/92 : I simultaneously nominated/appointed ~r. David B. Harrln~ton to serve on the ~sreennel Appeals Board, reprmsenting the County at-large, whose term is effective immediately and will exDire December 31, 1994. on ~otlon of Mr. BarDer, ss=ended by ~r. Warren, the Board deferred Consideration of nominations to the Solid Waste Committee, representing clover Hill and Midlothian Districts, Vote: Unanimous TRANSPORTATION O~ ~otien of F._r. Barber, seconded by Mr. deferred consideration of nominations ~o the Transportation safety Committee, repre~entin~ the County at-large, until February 12, 1~92. Vote: Unanimous AIRPORT ADVISOR¥ On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board ~eSerre~ consi~eratlon of nc~inations to the Airport Advisory Board, represmnting MidlothiaD Di~triot, until February 12, 1992. ~ (~q~ST~RFT~T~D ~maN COR~Oi~ATION On notion of ~r. Barber, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board simultaneously nomlnated/~ppointed Mr. Luther Strlngham to ~erve on th~ Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation, representinq ~idlothian District, whoze te~ is effective January ~0, 1992 and will expire January 31, 1993. Vote: Unanlmous .C]~ISSION ON ~OX~ AN~ FOI]NDATIONS On mo%ion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bmrbe~, ~ Board ~imultaneou~ly nominated/appointed ~. RU~ell Matt, representing Dale Di~trlct, to serve on the co~i~sion on soil= and Foundations, whose term is effective i~edi~tely will ~ at the pS~a~ of the Board. on notion of ~. Mc~ale, mecond~d by ~. Warren~ the Board simultaneously nominated/appointed. Mr. Wolfgmng web~, soils and Foundatlon=, whom~ ter~ i$ ~f~ective i~ediat=ly will be at th~ Dleasur~ of the Board. reqardlng the Co~i~ion on Soils and Foundati0n~ and has fo~arded ~s ~nformation to fha County A~inis~ator for his response. Ke indicated the five district representatives weuld b~ making reeemmendatlons for members to serve on the Con,mission. It wao indioatod the Board needed to suspend its rules to allow oimmltaneou~ nomination/appointment at this time for all the previously named and all other oommituee appoletm~nts. On motion of Mr. McHate, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Beard suspended its rules to allow simultaneous nomination/ appnintment at this time for all the previously named add all othor committee appolateonts, Vote: Unanimous On motion of F~r. ~arber, seconded by Hr, NeWels, the Beard simultaneously nominated/appointed the following ps, sons to serve on tho Commission of soils and Foundations, whoso terms are effective immediately and will be at the pleasure of the Boazd: Mr. Russell Fmit Vote: Unanimous District Clover Kill Dale Midlothian Matoaoa he ~ad attended a neighborhood representative council meeting sponsored by the Brandermii1 Neighborhood Association in which Mr. Phelps~ Mr. Olean a~d Mr. Karnos word present and noted tho Commission was actively gathering input. Mr. Denial stated he felt it should be the intent of ~he Board to have the district representatives meet csllectlvely and organize au agenda for the establishment of the Commission. with the district representatives~ provide direction as to the para~eters o~ the commission and discuss available County There was brief discussion relative to meeting with the district roprosontatlves. Mr. Daniel stated ho Solt the cummission needed ti~e to organize and establish its agenda and meeting with the Commission at this point in time, could be inter~retad ss direct involvement and perceived as t~e Board guiding t~e Commisoion. Mr. colbert sta~ed he felt r~e Board should allow the Commission to establish its guidelines amd organize before moo~ing with them. Mr. KcNale stated he felt the Board ~he~ld net become i~volved the Commission to formally report to th~ Board. Mr. Daniel ~tated the Commission should be allowed muffieient time to develop their issues and noted they would have re~ourc~ available to them s~eh as holding public hearings and work ses~ion~ as well e~ other resources from County staff. Mr. Barber stated ho felt the Board should uonsldor setting wider parameters for the Commiz~ion'~ functien~ am ~e had Docs 92-56 1/22/92 : I ~xoludlng certain industries could impact the end result. Mr. Daniel stated any information received f~c~a individuals or groups who feels they ere being excluded, would be documented and forwarded to the County Adlainist~at0r and the comission. It was =he general ooneensus of the Board, the Commission on Soils and Foundations would formally r~port to the ~oard of Supervisors, as to the status of ~e Co~i~s~on~ no late~ tha~ May 1, 1992. ~fI'FX)~OLITANECON~C After brief discussion, on notion of Mr. Daniel, ~econde~ by Mr, MoHalk, ~ Board simultaneously nominated/appointed on ~e Metropolitan Economio Development Council Operating e~ire F~ruary 5, 1994. A~%/~AN~/~TTOPTRGIR~A ~TOFFDEBT ~ON A~ On notion of Mr. McHule, seconded by Mr. Colbert~ the Board simultaneously nominated/appointed ~, Richard Cordle, Treas~er, and Ms. ~ry Leu Lyl~ Director ~f Accounting, to serve on th~ App~al~ ~anel P~r~a~t to ~irglnla Set Off D~t Collection Act~ whose =e~ a~ ~ff~c=iv~ i~diatety and will be at the pleasure of the Board. ~, further, the ~oar~ deferr~ con~eration of mominations =o the Appeal~ Panel ~rs~ant to Virginia Set Off D~t Collection Act fur citizen Mr. Daniel ncte~ it was the intent of the Board ~u appoint a ~itize~ representative to the Capital /h/aa Training Consortium and instructed the County Administrator to aaviss the Consortium as to zuch. Mr. Ste~ier stated conmideratlon Of a~ a~gl May ~, 1991 Board meeting. He reviewed Policy including the definition of cash proffers; the la,al constraints regarding cash profferg; pollcy considerations and ~ methodology used when developing the c~ent Ca~ P~ff=r ~olicy. Discussion, co~an~s an~ ~e~tionm ensued ~ela~iv~ ~o l~al ~e~i~ement~ regarding delaying capital improvement plans and Inf~a~t~uotu~ Co~ittee; the Co~ty~s ~ility to collect Mr. Steamier fu~er rmviewe~ rmve~e~ g~era~ed by gro~ a~d co~t~ of p~oviding ~ervices for new r~nid~t$; ~en~a~e4 by ~o~ of~e~%ing operating costs; the ~thodol~y Used when calculating comtm Of p~lic facilities related ~u gr~h lnclu~in~ dmmun~ generatorm, service level ~tandards, gro~ cc~t, credit~ and net =cst and other adopted policy items; consld~ratlon~ ~of adjustments in ~he cash proffer amount for future years; credits ~sed on ~m turret methodology; ~ecommendations for adjustments and the effective date of such adjustments being July 1st ef each fiscal year; the net cost calcula~ioss for FY92 for all facilities in the proffe~ program including roads; road cost calculations and south e£ Route 36~; and cash prof£ers for residential There was brief discussion relative fo average net cost calculations per dwelling units and whether ~hs revenue generated per dwelling unit paid the costs of providing services. When asked, Mr. Micas stated the Board could adopt a different policy regarding %he payment of ca~h proffers for rezoning proffers both below and above the current policy ameu~t. Mr. etegmaier also reviewed cash preSSers for ce~arcial development including the previ~ion for a fire suppression sys%amnot required by law. Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to r_he provision of fire suppression mystemm am it related to credits and ~ew t/ua pr~vision applied tu ~han~ing cumm~rcial uses existing building~ per the Cash Proffer Policy; the differene~ in coats and credits for read~ south of Route 360. verau~ nort~h of Route 360 and other roads within the County; and raY,mum ~enarated by gasoline taxes as it related to the County's Six Year Road Plan; etc. Mr. Daniel ~ated he felt the Beard should consider moving to the next step aa contemplated by the Cash P=offer Policy from $2,00~ to $3,0S0 per dwelling unit. Mr. Colbert stated he felt due to the financial situation the County, the cash p~offer paltriest should be i~er~a~ed as recommended. ~r. Warren staued he felt =he existing oas~ proffer pa~rment wa~ inadequat= to meet the co.ts of development us development ~r. Berber' stated he agreed with the comment~ expressed. ~r. McfaCe ~tated he agreed with the con,apt of the Ca~h Proffer Policy and clarified the methodoloqy need ~ega~ding the uni~ormit¥ of cost. On motion of the Beard, the cash proffer a~eunt was increased fre~ $2,000 to $3,000 p~r dw=lling unit effective immediutely. vote! Unanimous (It is noted a copy of the Cash Proffers. -~re~ent Adopted Policy is filed with the papers of this Board.) Mr. Rummey prement~ the Board with a statu~ report on the General Fund Bslanos; Reserve for Furze Capital Projects; District Road and Street Light Fund~; and Lea~e ~urcha~e~. ~r. Ramsay stated the Virginia Department of Tr&nspor~ation has formally notified the County of the acceptance of the following roads into the State Secondary System: ADD~?~ON~ I~GTH Route ~000 (Buckhorn Road) - From Route 3001'to 0.44 mile South Route 3001 0.44 Mi Route 3746 (Trophy Lune}- fr~m Route 3000 to 0.07 mils East ROUte 3000 0.07 Mi RU~e 3747 {Trailhrook Drive) - From Route 3000 to 0.~4 mils Southwest Route 3000 0.24 Mi Mr. Ra~sey pre~snted the Board with a report on the developer On motion of Mr. McHels, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board rses~ssd at 5:15 p.m. (EST) to the Ad~iDistratlon Building, Koom .502, fqr dinner. ?. IRVOCATION Mr. Daniel introduced Reverend Dennis E. Tucker, B~thl~h~m Baptist Church,~ who gave th~ i~vocatlon. Pastor of 8. pLR~GE OF ~L~.RGIARCR TO 9~{E FL~g OF '~n~. ~NTTED ~TI%TE~ OF A~EP~CA Members of Boy ~c0ut TrsoDs B19 and 880 led the Pledge of Allegiance to th~ Flaq of the United ~tat~ of A~erlca. 12= ~OLUTFONSi%ND ~ECIALI~O~N~TIO~ chief Pittman stated Lieutenant Shulton had been a loyal and de~i~ted ~ployee and the Polic~ Department would sincerely mis~ hi~ diligent service. On motion of the Board~ the following resolution was adopted: ~S~ Lieutenant Herbert N. Shelton retired fro~ ~ ~s%erfleld County Police Department on January 1, 1992; and ~ali%y service to the citizens o~ ~esterfield counuy; and ~R~S, Lieubenan% ~helton ha~ served the County in ~e =a~uclty of Patrol Off~ce~ Deteotive, ~ergeant and Lieutenant; and ~R~$, Lieutenant Sheltun has, for ~e la~ ~everal years~ overseen ~e investigation of ~any major cri~e~ including homicides; an~ ~E~S, Li~ut=nant sheldon ~as significantly impacted =he safety of ~a co,unity ~y arresting ON =auslng ~e arrest of major criminals d~ing his lon~ tenure as a Superviso~ and 92--59 Co~mender in the Crimes Against Persons Unit within the Police D~Dartaent;and WHEREAS, Lieutenant Shelton bas provided t~e C~esterfield County ~olics Department with many years of loyal and dedicated service; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of supervisors will miss Lieutenant Shelton's ~iligsnt service, NQW~ T~EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the chesterfield Co~nty Beard of Supervisorm publicly recognizes LieUtenant Herbert M. S~elten and extends on be~alf of. its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his service to the County. ~D~ ~ IT F~ER R~SOLV~D, ~hat a copy of this re,Diaries be presented to Lieutenant Shelton and that thi~ Board of Supe~i=orm of Chesterfield Co~ty. ~. Daniel presen=ed the executed resolu=ion to Lieutenant his dedicated se~i=e to the Co~ty an~ w~=he~ him well in retirement. contribut&on toward providing quality ~ice to the citizens of Chesterfield cowry and ~ Ut{litie~ Department would m{~ hi~ diligent On motion of the board, the following resolution was County Department of Utilities on Janua~ 3, ~991; and ~E~, ~. Wyatt has provided ~8 year~ of quality ~S, The ~e~t~field Co~ty Board of Supervisors and all fellow employees will certalnly mis= Mr. Wyatt~= service; ~E~AS, Mr. Wyat~ was employed as one of ~ree Con~u~tion Insp~=tors and started working with the County ~arch of 19s3; and ~S, Nr. Wyatt has inspect%d many o~ ~e major col!~ctor sewer linem, p~ping stations, water lines and water t~ in all sections of the County; and ~S, M~2 Wyatt has been instrumental in training new ln~pector~ and supervising these ~plQy~e~ a~ ~a Coumty has ~S, ~. ~att by ~is continued interest in ~is an~ ~ertise and ~owledge o~ the wa~e~ and sewer syst~s the Utilities Dupa~munt ham ~us mad~ a contribution towar~ providing ~ality sur~iue %o the citizens of ~=sturfield County. NOW, ~RREPORE BE IT RESOLVED, that ~m ~esterfield Boar~ of Su~erv~or~ Du~lioly reoogniz~s Mr. John L. Wyatt and ext~nd~ on b~alf of its me. ers ~d the citizens Chest~flel4 Coun=y =heir appreciation for ~his service to 92-6~ 1/22/92 AND, BE IT PURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this re~lution be presented to Hr. Wyatt and that this resolution Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Hr. Daniel presented the executed re~olutien =c Hr. Wyatt, aecomDanied by his wife, thunked him for his dedicated ~erviee to the County and wis~e~ him well in his retirement. Mr. John Long, reDresentative £or r~o Southern Christian Administrative Officer for tho County's General Services Dep~rt~ent~ who coordinated the activities. He ~tat~d recognition of FebrUary as "S!auk His%dry ~onth" highlighted opportunity to e~ucat~ and entertain others. He e~pre~$ed appreciation to Phillip Morris, USA; C & P Telephone; Virginia Power; and the Board of Supervisors for thei~ donations to the On motion o~ the Board, the following res01utiun was adopted: W~R~AS, In 1991, Che~terfi~l~ Co~ty, with the generous eup~or= ef local b~sinesses and institutions, was the only local government in the C~O~W~alth %0 hold a month~long ~R~AS, African-~e~icans have ma~e significant contributions to the bUildin~ of ~erica from pre-C~l~u~ to the space age; and ~E~, ~e Co~nty is cognizant of the contr~but~on~ of African-~ericans to the building of thi~ CO~n%ry and Che~temfi~ld cu=n~y; an4 ~ative Virginian, se% aside Feb~ary as a time to focally ac~owledge the tremendou~ ~ontributions o~ African-~e~icans to the world and OUr ~ation'~ heritage; and . ~A$, Dr. Woodson~s dream to co~emorate the history, become the largest ethic ¢~l~bration im ~rica; and ~, Che~ter~i=l~ Co=nty wishes to again provide a the role of African-~ericans in shaping ~rlcan history. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT R~0LVEO, ~at th~ Chesgerflel~ the "Celebration of Heritage and Aehievem%nt" t~o~g~o~t the Pollard and stated the Board wa~ O0~itted to providing 92-61 1/22/9~ methods which would help others expe~ien0e oultural diversity ~ith~ ~a C~un~y. Reverend Pollard expressed appreciation, on behalf of the NAACP, for the County's recognition of "Black History Month". 12.E. BOX $CO~TSA~"~AININ~i%ANKOF ~A~ 12.E.1. ~. ~ J. DA~B. ~P 880 On ~o~cn of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: ~E~S, ~e Boy Scouts of ~erlcu was inco~o~ated ~. Wi11iam D. Boy=e on F~bruary ~, 1910; and ~E~, The Boy Scouts of ~ica w~ fo~n4~d to pro~ot~ oitiz~ship training, personal' d~v~lopment and f~tnes~ indlvi4uals; an~ ~R~S, 'A~ter earning a~ lea~t twenty-one merit in a wide ~arlety of fields, se~ing in a leadership in a truoR, carrying out a se~ice project beneficial to his co~uni~, b~ing active in ~e ~oop, demonstrating s~irit an~ living u9 to ~ Suu=t Oa~ and Law; ~S,' Mr~ Mat~aw J. Dav~, B~ul~ unite~ Church, Troop ~0, ha= accompllshed those high standards of co~itm~n~ and has reached ~a long-~oug~t qoal of Eagle Scout which is received by l~ns than two percent of those individuals entering the. scouting mov~nt; and ~EREAS, 8rowing through hi~ experiences in Scouting, learning ~ 16sgon~ 0f responsibl~ citizenship and priding himself on the qreat accompli~ents of his County, Mat~ew ~ndeed a m~er o~ a new generation of.prmDare~ young citizens of whom we can all be very proud. NOW, T~FO~ B~ IT R~S0L~D, ~ut the ~e County to have ouch an outstanding young man a~ on~ oS citizens. ~0te: ar, Daniel presented ~e ~x~d r~solution to ~. Davi~ and 12.~.2. MR. JOS~ T. "T~" ~/~, III- TROOP ~80 On motion of the ~card, ~he following ~eoolution wac =doDtod: WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts c~ ~e~ica was in=or~crate~ by Mr. Willi~ D. Boyce ~n Feb~ary 8, 1910; and ~ER~Sr ~e Boy Scout~ of ~erica wa~ founded to promote citizenship ~aining, personal development and fitness of individuals; and in a wide variety of 'fleldo, serving ~n a lead~shlp position in a troop, car~ing out a se~ice project beneficial to his co~unlty, being active in the t~oop, demonstrating Scout spirit and l~ving Up to the Scout Oath and ~w; an~ ~$, ~. Joseph T. Schmlerer, III, Beulah Uni~ standards of co~itm~n= an~ has reache~ ~e long-sought goal those individuals entering the Scouting movem~t; and WHEREAS, =rowing through hi~ experiences in $¢suting~ learning the les~ens of rsse0nsihl~ citizenship and pri~ing indeed a member of a .new ~eneratlon of pr~pare~ young cltizen~ of whom we can ali b~"very'proud. ' ' NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its congratulations to ~Lr. Joseph T. $ohmie~er~ III and as~owledgcs the good for%uns o~ the County to have such an outstanding young man ae one of its citizens. Vote: Unanimous F~r. Daniel pre~ented the ~cuted resolution to Mr. Scl~mlerer and congratulated him on his outstanding achievement. I~-E-~. ~fR- i~ANDY JOHNSON. TROOP On motion of th~ Board, the following reselution was WHEREAS, The Bey Scouts of America was incorpora%e~ by M~. William D. Boyce on February 8, 19~0; and W~EREAS, The Boy Scout~ of ~erioa wa~ founded to promote citizenship ~raining, personal 4eveloement and fitne~ of individuals; and ~EREAS~ Afte~ earninq at least twenty-one merit ~dgem in a wide variety oS fiel~, serving ~n a leadership position in a troop~ ca~yinq o~t a ~urvice project b~efioial co.unity, being active in t~ ~ruop, ~emonstrating Scout ~pirit and living up to the Scout Oath ~nd Law~ and ~EREAS, Mr. Randy Johnson, ~t. John's Episcopal Ch~ch, and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scou~ which received by less than two percent of ~ose individuals enter~n~ th~ ~=out~ng movement; and ~, Stowing ~o~gh his e~eriences in l~arning the lesson~ of re6ponsible =itizenskip and pridinq himself on the grP~t accomplishments of his County, Ran4y indeed a m~ber of a new generation of prepared yegg c~tizen~ of whom we can all be very proud. NOW, TKEREFORE BE IT ~SQLVED, ~a% =he County Boa~d of SuperViSOrS hereby extend~ its con~atulations to Mr. ~ndy Jo~son and acknowleOg~s ~e good fo~e of the County to hove ~uch an outstanding young man a~ one of it~ citizens. Vote: Unanimous Mr. McHale pre~ented ~e executed resolution to ~. Johnson O~ ~otion of the B0a~d, t/~e following r~solution wus adopted: %~HEREAS, The Boy Scouts of ~erica was incorporated by Mr. wi11iam D. ~oyce on February 8, 1910; and ~s, The Boy Soouts of America was fo~ded to promote citizenship training, personal development an~ fitness of individuals; and ~/22/92 WI~RFAS, After earning et least twenty-one 'merit badges in a wide variety of fields, ~e~ving in a leadership position in a troop, carrying cut a service project beneficial to his community, being active in the troop, demonstrating Seo~t spirit and living up to ~he 8coat Oath and Law; and WI{ERKAS, ~r. Na~ew J. Thysell, St. John's ~iscopal Church, Troop 819,. has accomplished those hig~ standards of cor~itment and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout which is received by less .than two percent of those individual~ ~ering th~ Scouting mordent; and ~S, Growing ~ough his e~arienc~s in Scouting, learning the l~ssons of responsible citizenship and priding himself on ~e q~eat accompli~hment~ of his County, Mat=hew i~ of wh~ we can all be very proud. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Boar~ of SuDe~isors hereby extend~ its congratulations %o ~. Mat~ew J. Thysell and uc~owledges the good fortune of ~e County %o have sush an outstanding young man as one of its citizens. Vote: Unanimou~ and congratulated him on his out,tending achievement. Mr. Oaniel recognized Mr. Art mallory of Phillip Morris, USA check in support of the "~lack ~istory Month" celebration. The Board expressed app,=statism to F~. Nallory for thei~ generous contribution. Mr. Davenport stated he had recently been appointed to the Governor's Commission addressing the Dillion Rule in th~ 8~ato an~ woul~ be coordinating his efforts with th~ Board. ~e for Drug and Alcohol Abuse and he would be appointing an advisory COuncil to a~ist in addressing drugs within the future, to appoint a representative from each district ts form this advisory council and felt the input received from various school groups such aa the ~TA's would be beneficial. ~a also stated he would represent the County to t~e beet of ~ie ability and looked forward to working w~th thR Board. .13 ... IIF~%~NGS OF C~TIZ]~S ON UNS~U~..~ ~A'rr~ ~R ~-RT~ ~ ~ HOUS~G ~. Dyke, ~re~ident of Endico=t Construction Company, Inc., ~tated he has been a builder width ~e County for approximately tw~y-seven y~rs a~ w~ll a~ a ~e~ident; that he had recently sent a letter to the County A~in~=trator ae~res~ng ~Ue~ of affordabili~y in new housing relating speclfically to ~e n~w~oil a~ footing r~irem~nts and s~i%ted a copy of his lette~ to ~e Board; t~t he had applied for a b~ildlng p=~it and hud concerns as hm fmlt the implementation of the new footings policy had resulted in delay~, extra costs an~ ~estioned whether any benmfits were being derived for ~e customers t~ough the proce~; ~at he felt ~ere were o~e~ methods available which woul~ costly and as effective; that h~ f~lt ~oil COncerns should be addressed by the Co~is~iQn cn sails and Faundatices~ etc.; and ~d aDp~eeiatio~ to the Board for the opportunity to address his concerns. Mr. Daniel stated he.would forward Mr. DyKe's lettsr =o the Co~ission on Soils and Faundatione. ~- Barber stated h= ha~ talked to Dr. Gary zavik~ ~e repre~tative fo~ the veterinarian~, and hud ~en info,ed they w~r~ in c~nta~t w~th the appropria~ ~taff and would not be p~ese~t to address their concerns at this time but rather e~ressed a desir~ ~o wait an~ a~e~ the Boar~ at a later On motion of ~. Morale, n~oo~ded by ~. Daniel, the Boar~ collection of revenues when applying for a busineSS license, under ~earings of Citizens on Unscheduled Matters or Claim~, until F~ruary 12, 1992 a~ 7:00 p.m. Vote: Unanimous 14. P~LICHF~%JLINGS Mr. Micas state~ ~t~ date ~n~ tim~ had b~n advertised public h~aring to consider ~e sale of property located 3~1~ Logandate Aven~, Ri~ond, Virginia, to ~e Coun=y to ~ati~fy a debt for services received at the Lucy Corr Nursing ~e when a fo~er paPient was retroactively ~eclared ineligible for Med~cald. ~e noted due to a pre-existing debt~ th~ COUnty would receive There was no ~ne pre~ent to address thi~ On motion of Mr. Warr~, z%conded by M~. Colb~, th~ Board approved the ~al~ of property locat~ at 5415 Avenue, Ri~ond, Virginia, to Romeella ~atter$o~ ~n the amount of In Bermuda Mag~turlal ~ietrict, C~qL D. AD~NA~ requested a Community Business (B-2) D~strict. Th~ density Of =~ proposal ~ approximately .9~ units~acre. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for general commercial use. This p~eperty fro~ts the west line o£ ~effersan Davi= Righwa¥, approximately 600 feet south o~ Fore~= LaJ~ Road~ and ~s better known as 13900 Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax Map 135-7 (2) Mid City Farms, ~look A, Lo= ~2B ($~ee% %1). In Bermuda Magisterial Distr~ct, H~fY AD~Au~K requested renewal of Mobile Ho~e Permit 86S060 ta park a mobile home ~n 92-65 1/2~/92 a Travel Trailer Park (B-T) District. The density of the pr0po~al i~ approximately .2~ uni~/a~re. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for residential USe Of 2.51 to 4.0G units/acre and general commercial use. This prnperty fronts the west line e~ Seffersen Davis Highway, appruximately 625 feet south of Forest Lake Road, and is better known as 1390Z Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax Map 133-7 (2) Mid City Ferns, Block A, Lot 12 (Sheet 41). In Bermuda Magisterial District, ~. THO,/AS r~bL~' AND BT.RTR R. HAL~=i-&' requested renewal OX Mobile Home permit 865R170 to park a ~obile ho~e in a Community Business (B-2) District. The density of the proposal i~ approximately .94 units/acre. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial USe. This property fronts ~he north line of ~ast H~ndred Road, approximately 350 feet west of Rivers Bend Boulevard, and is better known as ~10 East Hundred Road. Tax Ma~ 117-12 (4) Westcver Farms, Let 22 (Sheet ~). ~r. Jacobson presented a summary of Case 915R0254 and stated for mobile h~me pe~-mlts loon=ed within commercial areas currently zoned by the Old Zoning Ordinance and we~e affected by the earlier action of t/le Board to refer to the Planning Corm~ission, for a p~blie hearing and recommendation, s zoning ordinance amendment relative to mo~ile hQma ~r~its for e~fEting mobile homes and, therefore~ staff was deferral of all three requests. He noted all three requests would be readvertise~. There was no opposition pre~ent to the recommendation by ~taff to defer =he requests until such time as the Planning Commission would address ~he Zoning Ordinance amendment and the Board of Supervisors permitted to consider the request. on motion of M~. Mc~ale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board deferred Cases 91~R02~4~ 91~R02~ and 92SRO10~ until such ti~e us th~ Planning Commission would address the Zoning Ordinance amendment and the Board 0£ Supervisors permitted ~o consider these requests. Vote: Unanimous 91SN0~46 In Midlothia~ ~a~isterlal D~strlct~ [~A¥ BII6( requested ~mendments to Conditional Use Planned D~v~lo~m~nts (Cases 79S065 and 89~N0174) to permit ~e and bulk' exceptlon~, as ambient will be con,oiled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Co~pr~ensive Plan designates the property for residential use of 1.51 units per acre or less and ligh~ industrial u~. This request lie~ in office ~usiness (0) and a~proximately 282 feet on the south line Boulevard, approximately 850 feet east of Bran~way Road. Tax ~ap 17-13 (1) Pa~ of Parcel 12 an~ Tax ~ap. 17-13 (5) So~po~, Section 2, Lot 13 (Sheet Mr. Jacob~on pres~te~ a s~ury of Case 91SN0246 and stated to conditions. ~. Ray Birk stated the rec~endation was acceptable. There . 92-66 1/2~/92 Mr. Warren, t_he Board approved Cas~ 91SN0246 subject to the following conditions: In addition to the uses currently p~rmit~ed on the office Business (0) portion of the props~ty, ~he following uses shall be permitted; All Light Industrlal (I-1) (NOTE: This Condition is in addition to Condition S cf Case BPSN0~74, relative to uses for the subject property only.} 2. With the approval of thi~ request, the required twenty (a0) foot buffer along the Light Industrial (M-l) portion of the ~ubjeot property shall be deleted. (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 9 of Case 79~065 for the Light Industrial (M-l) portion ef this request.) 3. With the approval cf this request, a ten (lo) foot exception to the twenty (20) foot ~ide yard building sethaok requirement in 0flies susiness (o) Districts shall be granted. (NOTE: This condition is in addition to C0n0ition Case S9S~0174, relative to setbacks ~n the Office Busines~ (O1 tra~t.) (NOTES: vote; a. All other applicable conditions of zoning approval for Cases 795065 and 89SN017~ remain in effect. Condition 9 of cass 89~N0174 ~equires that ~ite and architectural plans be submitted to the Plannin~ Coi~ission fo~ approval.) Unanimous In ~ermuda Magisterial D~strict, ~-£~ A~D ~YNARD BOS~k~K E~e~ted Conditional Use to p~it a two-family dwelling ia an a~cultural [A) District. ~e dan~ty of ~nch a~en~ent will be con,oiled by zoniDg ¢0nditlon~ or Ordinance standards. The' Compr~en~ive Plan ~m~natem =he property for li~s on 1.03 acrem fron~ng ap~r0xi~=~ly 160 feet on the south line of Baldwin Road, approximately ~,~00 feet east of Happy ~ill Road. Tax Map 13~-8 (2) Grave~ Hill, Section A, th~ Pla~g c~i~io~ race--ended upproval s~Ject to There was no opposition present. On motion of ~. McH~le, =econded by ~. warr~, ~e Boar4 aDDroved Ca~ 91SN0~90 subjeo~ ~o ~e following conditions: 1. occupancy of the second dwelling nnit shall be limited to th~ occupantn Of the principal dwelling unit, thai: family m~b~ and quests. (P) 92-67 Prior to release of a building permit, a deed restriction ~hall ~ re,or,ed indi~a%in~ the requirement in Condition 1. The deed book and page number of such restriction and a copy of the restrict/on shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Vote: Unanimous In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ~.~N TAYLO~ WOOD requested rezoning from Agricultural (0-2). The density of such amendment will be co~trolled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The comprehensive Plan designates the property for office ume and stream valley slopes, floodplains and easements. This reguest lies on a §.9? acre parcel fronting approxim~tely $~0 feet on the east line of Turner Road, approximately 150 feet north of Cloverleaf Drive. Tax Map 29-1 (1) Parcel 17 (sheet 9). )fr. Jacobsen presented a s~a~ of Case 9I$N0304 and stated staff ~d ~e ~la~ing Co~ission race--ended approval and acceptance of ~e proffered conditions. He noted the re,est confound ' to ~e Turner Road Corridor Land U~e and ~. Bill Walden, repres~tlng the applicant, s~ated the reco~endation wa~ acceptable. ~ere wa~ no opposition present.. On motion of ~. Warren, meconded by M~. Colbert, the Board conditions: 1. Prior to obtaining a building permit, one of the A. The owns, ~eveloper or assignee(s) shall pay to the County $150 per 1,800 s~are fee% of gross floor percentage that the Marshall Swift Building Cost and the date of pa~ent. Wi~ the approval of the required pa~ent for the cost of any fire which i~ included as part of ~e development. OR B. The owner, developer or assignee(s) shall provide a fire suppression system not otherwise rGq~ired by law whiah the county's Fi~e Chief determines substantially reduces the need for county ~acilities otherwise ~ece~sa~y fo~ fire prot=ction. Applicants agree to accomplish A or B prior to obtaining a building permit. Prior to site plan approval, forty-five (45) f~et of right of way on the east side of Turner Road, measured £rum the centerline of that part of Turner Road immediately adjacent to the property, shall ~ dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. 92-68 1/22/92 Access to Ttt~ner Road shall be limited to one entrance/exit. The exact location of thle access shall 91~N0313 in Midlothian Magisterial District, aAS~.-r AHD COMPANY requested amendment to a previously granted zoning (Case 895N032S) to permit Community Business (C-5) uses within 150 feet of Robious Road. The density Of SUCh amendment will be controlled by zoning condition~ er Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive ~lan d~ignates the property ~or general commercial use. T~i~ ruquest lies in m Community Business (C-3) District on a 4.6 acre parcel frenting approximately 528 feet o~ the north lime of Midlothian Turnpike, across from Pocono Drive, also fronting approximately 5~7 ieet on the so~th line of Robious Road, approxi~ately 50 feet west of Old Ben Air Road. Tax'Hap 19-11 (t) Fareal 20'(Sheat 8). ~r. ~acob~on presented a mum~ary of Case 91MN0313 and stated staff and the Plannin~ Ce~i~ion race--ended approval. Mr. Oliver Rudy, r~pres~nting the applicant, state4 the recommendation was acceptable. I% was noted although there was opposition present regarding this request, it was the n~xt request to b~ heard per the regular sequence on the agenda. Mr. Jacobsen continued h~s presentation of Cuss 91SN0313 and stated the request conformed to the Northern ~.~ea Land Use and Trenspol-tation Plan. ~e further stated staff had received a proffered condition relative =o security concerns. Mr. Rudy stated the request was in asoordanoe wit~ the r=commendation hy staff and he had recently been r~q~e~ted by a representative o~ the Peecno Civic Association to consider submitting a proffered condition r~lative %o security concerns. ~e su~mlttsd to the Board two alternative proffered conditions regarding ~ee~rity measles and stated the applicant would accept either eonditi0n, He further ztated although the proffered condition had been submitted a~ter the deadline, he felt the Board should give consideration to the request since h~ had been notified at a late date am to the concerns e~prasse~ by the neighborhood association. Mr. Rcs Figs, representing the Poceno Civic Association, stated they had con,ems regarding security in the area of the proposed re91~est and had at a late data, addressed these concerns with the applicant. He Sur~her e~ated they would rathe~ have the proffered condition relating to a certified on-site police officer rather than a =ertlflad securi~y guard aceept=d as they felt a security guard would not have tho necessary training to quar~ agains~ all incidents which might ]~r. George Beadles stated he felt since the proffered condition had not been submitted in accordance with the guideline~ established by the Board, it would be inconsistent to accept the condition and indicat=d h= felt the request to delet~ the 150 foot line should require a unanimous decision by the Board ~ there was a purpose to the line originally bclng installed, etc. Colonel Joseph Pitt~an, ~hief of Police, stated he was concerned as to the proffered condition which would require aA on-site police officer as they are currently provld~ng service to approximately twenty-nine contracts, ~e further stated he 9~-69 1/22/92 felt they would not be able to meet this demand and was process. He noted State law required security officers to meet basic minimum training standards. Mr. Rudy stated they felt the circumstances regarding the requcs~ had uhanged whiuh wa~ t. he basis ~or the reo0~endatio~ by ~taff and requested th~ Bc~d to give favorable consiOeration to the re,est. ~ asked, he stated he felt ~e proff~r~d conditio~ relating to a seedily guard versus an on-site police officer was adequate ~t~ brief discussion, Mr. Barber mtated h~ felt it would not consider the submittal of the proffered condition as aDDlioan= had followed the aDDroDria=e procedure. He further ~tat~d when th~ Board had adopted ~e~r procedures, it had teen their ~ntent to protect citiz~s who may not have teen aware of zoning re~ests and did not feel that =oncern existed with this =e~est. He f~her stated he felt i= would ~e difficult to mandate ~e Police Depar~ent to assign an off-duty police officer to ~e area b~t in~tead re~sted them to monitor ~e area closely due to ~e activity which woul~ be taking On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Mohalk, the Board suspended its rules to allow for the consideration of the acc~ptanc~ of a proffered condition r~lative to Ca~.91SN0313. Warren, to approve Case 91SN0313 and to accept the following proffered oondition~ In th~ ~vent ~at four buslne~me~ and/or ~ivic a~mociat~onm located wi~in a on~-fo~rth (1/4) m~le radiu~ of the mite file bona fide co=plaints regarding a~y i~doo~ recreation use with th~ county police department concerning separate spmcific instances loitering and/or any c~er activity that ~y have detrimental ~mDact upon ~e co~i=y, ~e applicant shall provide a codified s~c~ity ~ard d~ing the hours of concern until ~uch complaints are Bo~d would need to rec0nsi~er its adopted policy regurdin~ the deadline for the submittal of proffered conditions. Mr. Daniel stated he felt ~e inter of the Beard had been to protect cltlzmns from requests moving rapidly t~ough the zoning process and the Board ~hould be fl~ible when conEid~ing ~usual tire,stances. Mr. Daniel called for the vote on the mu%ion ~made ~ associations lccat.d within a one-fou~ (1/4) mile any indoor recreation use with the County police ~m~a~ent c~ncernin~ ~e~arate ~ecifi= ~n~tance~ of !oit~ing and/or any other activity ~hat may have ~etrim~ntal imDao= upon the co~uni~, ~he applicant shall provide a certified security guard during the hours Vote: Unanimous 92-70 1/22/92 requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9). Residential use of up to 4.B4 units per acre is permitted in a Residential (R-9) District. The Comprehenmive Plan designate~ the prepay for residential use of 1.~1 to 7.00 units per 950 feet no~th of ~illewbranch Drive, also lying at the western tea~nlnus of Wimterleaf Drive. Tax Map 66-9 (1) Parcels 26 and 27 (Sheet 22). Hr. ~acobson presented a summary of Came 915~0265 and stated acceptance of the proffered ce~ditiens. He noted the request There was brief discussion relative to aucesm through Winterleaf Drive. Mr. oliver Rudy, representing the applicant, presented an overview of the request and s=ated the density wac comparable with Will~whurst Subdivision~ that ~hey had agreed tc the insreaeed amonnt for proffered condltionn; that they proffered all conditions required for transportation; that the drainage and erosion conceyBs had bee~ addressed; that they had but did not feel they could reduce the density of the request any further, crc.; and requested the BSa~d to give favorable consideration to th~ request. Mr. G. W. Dillion, representing the reeident$ OS Willowhur~t Subdivision, stated they were concerned u~ to the density of the request and had attempte~ to resolve ~heir concerns with the applicant; that they felt the integrity of the area should be maintained; that they ~elt the property on the north side of the request w0~ld not be buildable due to the location of the £1~od~lain; that they felt the ns~mting 2.2 units per ao~e as a m~n~mum lot size should be maintained and would help to S~bdivision; that the density Of t~he project had been should be considered when deciding the request, etc. pr~ent who ~re concerned as to how quickly %he decision had perception of others the request went through the process too quickly. Mr. Melvin Taylor stated he was an adjacent p~operty owner and felt th~ proposed density was =oo hig~ and, therefore, oppomed but rather the number 0£ proposed units per acre; and that he located in the floodplain. /~r. Tom Miller stated h~ was an adjacent property owner a~d was opposed to the re~ues~ a~ he fel~ ~he proposed density was too high ~inCe a portion of the property w~s located iR the floodplain. and the request was a land use decision; that the Planning as well as staff; that due to the wide floodplain, there was a 92-71 1/22/92 buffer between the smaller lots to be developed on the request · i~e and the lar~r le~ ms,th o~ the e~eek which vas an acceptable method in providing a land use transition; and requested the Board to give favorable consideration to the request. There wam ~rief discussion relative to the lotm located south of the creek and east of the request and their average lot sizes and the average price of the homes in the area. Mr. Daniel stated there had been numerous meetings among all parties involved including himself and the concerns were not based on the use of the land but ratchet the density. ~e further stated he felt the continuity of use for the property in ~he surrounding area should bs addressed and noted it was mostly large lot~ with ~ingle f~m~ly uae. Be indicated he felt the requested R-9 was tee intense but that R-15 Would be more feaslble and would permit approximately 1~ lots. He further stated he had concerns regarding' the proffered condition submitted which would permit the applicant, within fifteen days of tentative subdivision approval to pay, Der approved lot, ~igh~y-fiv~ percent of th~ prevailing cash service district p~r lot for the prop~rty~ ~e clarified this type of negotiated discount rate and the proffer payment should be received at the time of building permit application and, therefore, felt the pro£fered condition should not be accepted. on any form of zonlnq and, therefore, the ~oard should accept was approved rat~er than R-9. He further stated eighty-five percent provision was i~validated tentative subdivision approval had already escorted and indicated the Board could accept all proffered condltlon~ with ~he R-15 motion. Discussion, comn~ents and questions ensued relative ~o the acceptance of the submitted proffered ~ondi~ion regarding tho applicant, within fifteen days of tentative subdivision approval to pay, per approved lot, eighty-five percent of the prevailin~ cash proffer amount for infrastructure improvements within ~he service district per lot for the property and the acceptance of all the proffered conditions in general. Mr. Mica~ clarified th~ Board did not have the authority to either accept or reject per=ions of a proffered condO=ion hut its entirety. the proffered eonditxon which would permit the applicant, within fifteen days of tentative subdivision approval to pay~ per approved lot, eighty-five percent of the ~revailing cash service district per lot for the property and advised that nc such discounted proffers would be considered until the Board ad~ressed rheas types of'proffered conditions and established a policy for t~eir acceptance. 1. In con, unction with recordation of a ~ubdlvieion plat, one hundred (100) feet of right of way on the east side i~ediately adjacent to the property shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. 2. In order to~inimiz~ the traffic impact oh this project, the proposed development shall be limited to a maximu~ cf twenty-four (24) iDts, and there shall be no access from ' Route 10 to the proposed development. This shall not preclude u~e of the subject property for widening cZ the adjacent access located On Parcel~ 29 Tax Map 66-9 (1). 9. The applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall wlthln fifteen days of tentative subdivision approval pay, per approved lot, s5% of the preyailing per lot amount specified below for in~ras~ructure improvements within the service district for the property. If payment do~ not oooltr within fifteen days of tentative subdivision approval, the applicant, subdivider, or ammig~ee(S) shall pay ~he following to the County of Chesterfield at the time of building pmr~it application for infrastructure improvements w~th~n the service district for the property: a. $2,000 per lot, if paid prior to January t, 1992; or b. The amount approved by the Board of supervisors not to exceed $3,0~0 per let, if paid between ~anuary 199Z, a~d J~Re 3~, 1992, incluslve; or ¢. The a~ount approved by the Board s~ Supervisors net to exceed $4,~00 per.lot, if paid between July 1, 1~92, and Jgas 3~, 1993, inul6slve; mr d. . The amount approved by the Beard of Supervisers not to exceed $~,000 per lot adjusted upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift Building Costs Index between July 1, 199~, a~d J~ly i of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid after June Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to the number of lst~ under the R-15 zoning; whether the cash proffer payment conformed to the amount approved by the Board earlier not to exceed $3~000 per lot; and whether a deferral of the request would Rrovide an opportunity for the residents and the applicant to reach a compromise. Mr. Daniel stated there were petition~ on file with approximately one hundred signatures 'in opposition to the request and he did not feel a deferral would reach a different conclusion by either the applicant or the residents concerned. ~r. Colbert ~ressed eenoeTn as to the size Of the lots located on Winterleaf Drive and the impact of the floodplain on the lets and after some disoussion~ stated he felt if th~ floodplain was taken into consideration, the existing lots w~s basically the o~me size as the proposed lots. ];n-. Daniel called for the vote on the ~otion made by him, seconded by ~4r. ~arber, to deny R-9 zoning and approve zoning for Case 91SN0265 and to accept the following proffered conditions: 1. In conjunction with recordation e~ a subdivision plat, one hundred (100) feet of right ~f way on the east side of Route 10 mea~nrsd fro~ that part of Route immediately adjacent tO the property shall be de~i0ated, Chesterfield 92-73 1/22/92 Nays: In order to minimi=e the traffic impact on this project, ~hm promoted ~mvoiopmant shall bm limited to a maximum of twenty-four (24) lots, and there shall be nO access from preclude use of the subject property for widening o~ the adjacent access located on Paroel 29 Tax Map 66-9 The applicant, subdivider, or assignee{s) shall within fifteen days of tentative su]~ivi~ion approval pay, per a~roved lot, 85% of the prevailing per lot amount specified below for infrastructure improvements within the service district for the property, tf payment does not occur within fifteen days of tentative subdivision approval, the applicant, subdivider, er assignee(s) shall pay the fo%lowing.to the Coun=y of Chesterfield at the time of building permit application for infrastructure improvenento within =he service district for the property: a. $2,000 per lotI if paid prior to ~anuary 1, 1992; or b. The amount approved by the Boar~ of Supervisors not to exceed $3,000 pe~ let, if paid between January 1, 1992, and J~ne 30, 199~, inclusive; or c. The amount ap~roved by the Board of Supervi~or~ not to exceed $4,000 par lot, if paid betweem July 1992, and June 30, 1993, in=lus~ve; or d. T~e a]uoun< approved by the Board of Supervisors nat in~reass in the Marshall and swift Building Costs Index between July 1, 199~, and July i of the fiscal year in which the payment is mode if paid after June 30, 1993. Mr. Daniel, Mr. Warren, ~r. Barber and Mr. MeHale. l~r. Colbert. · n Midlothian Msqistsria~ District, ALeX J. AND C2~ROL BI~£~K requested Conditional U~e to permit a dwelling unit separated from the principal dwelling unit in a Reofdential controlled by zonin~ 'conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan d~ignat~ t/~e property for residential use of 1.51 to 4.0~ units per acre. Th{~ r~e~t l{es on a acre parcel lying at the northern terminus of ~elleau Drive at its {ntar~ectlon with Beau~et Lane. Tax Map 10-15 (6) Bonaventure, Section l, ~lock A, Lot 1 (Sheet F~r. Peele ~resentsd a s~unmary of Case 9~N0268 an~ stated staff and th~ Planning co~i~ion race,ended approval subject to conditions. He noted the request conformed ts the ~orthern ~ea Imnd Use and Transportation Pla~- W~en asRed, he stated location of the current drainfields to the existing home. ~. Alex J, a~d M~. C$r01 M. Bilter stated the recommendation w{th staff and had COntacted the adjacent property owners r~gardlng the request; tha~ the location o£ the dwelling had been seledted duc to in~¢ss/e~ress' of the ,lot as well other considerations; that the dwelling would be use~ for family men,herr und such a condition restricting the uss would be impose~ on the deed. ~ir. Harry simon stated ~e was a ~eaident of the nelghhsrhood and the entire nelghborh6od wa~ opposed to th~ r~q~e~t; 92-74 1/22/92 the neighborhood had submitted a petition to the planning Commission regarding thslr opposition; that he felt the location of the dwelling wag inappropriate and wcu~d property values in the area due to the size of the building; that the sis~ of the proposed dwelling was not c~nsistent with the homes in the area and would be a separate ~esidence fro~ the existing home; that he felt a sewer line Gould be installed to re~uire the applicant to connect to the public sewer system; that the main re~idence wa~ a large home and had a full bas.meat which could he utilized; that a business was currently b~ing oenduoted cut cf the home and he felt approval of the request would present an opportunity to generate other b~siness activity; that a deed restriction imposing use by only family ~e~ers of the proposed dwelling would be hard to enforGe; that he felt t~ objection of ~he entire'neighborhood should be a fuctor when deciding the request and, therefore, ~r. Joseph shobe state~ he was an adjacent propen~ty owner and presented a summary of B~audet Lane a~ it was originally planned; that there were drainage problems on Beaudet Lane and the runoS~ currently drained onto his property; that he felt onto his property; that he felt the proposed dwelling would be F~r. Kaith ~cCrea stated ha and his wi~e were adjacent property e£ ~hc provlcus Planning Commission meetings; that a petition had been submitted to the Planning Commission by those opposed to the request; that due to concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, he felt the' request had been approved o~t of £rustration; that he felt the proposed dwelling would oreate a new subdivision and was attempting to utilize a cul-de-sac setback; that the cul-de-sac was 0nly paper and did not actually exist; that h~ felt ~he request would property val~es in the arsa; that the proposed dwelllng would be located clo~er to his hume than the applicant's exlst~ng home; that he felt he wo~ld lose th= investment in his home, etO,; and, therefore, requested the Board to deny the request. ~s. Dorothy O*~ryant stated she was in agreement ~ith the not exist and she felt consideration should be given to Beaudet Lane as it did exist; that the proposed dwelling was net comparable to the homes in the area and would appear out regarding earing for their parents but felt that was a temporary situation as opposed to the .prep0~ed dwelling being a permanent situation; that she was opposed to the request and bad also signed the petition indicatlng such. that a ~etltion hsd been submitted ~o the Planning COmmission by all of the resldent= in the suk~ivision oD~osing the regu~t; that if the Board did approve tho request, h~ felt a re~trlctlon should b~ imposed which would a~ tho proposed deorease property value~; that he felt'an opportunity wo~td be provided for the applicant to run a business wlth~n the proposed dwelling; and requested the Board to deuide the request in the best interest of the entire Mr. and ~rs. ~ilter stated the feasibility cf the request bad the surrounding area; that if the proposed dwelling was attached to the existing he~e it would constitute a duplex and would De in violation of the County Code; that they had written to their neighbors advising them of the request and had asked t~em to contact them if they had any concerns regarding ~he ~e~uest~ %hat the prspoeed dwelling would be approximately 135 feet to the rear of their next deer neighbor's hem= und locuted at the end of the C~l-de-sao; that the proposed dwelling would only be slightly visible from Bellsau Drive and Besudet Lane; that they also had an investment in ~heir hems and fel~ the ~ropossd dwelling would be an improvement, to their property as well as their neighbors' property; that the proposed dwelling would not be located in the front yard but rather the side yard; that they have an office in their home but ds not operate any type of business from it and conformed to County restrictions ~eg&rding ~ueh; that the proposed dwelling would be used to care for their parents; that they had followed the ~etback requirements as requested by staff, etc.; and requested the ~card to give favorable consideration to the ~equemt. Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to the ~etition which had been presented to the Planning £om~ssion of those opposed to the request; the technical aspects of hhe ~l~nning Commission's recommendation; whether the deed restriction regarding only family members using the proposed dwelling was enforceable; whether the applicant could attach an addition to their existing hone or garage without approval by the Board of Supervisors; and the distance of the proposed dwelling from the sloses= property owner. Mr. Daniel s~ated the~e typem of repuests caused a lot of concern from ncighborho~s but felt there were availabl~ inteprated addition to the existing home which could be occnpied by family nembsrs and could provide the necessary facility. He further stated he felt a solution ccul~ be identified which would address the applicants' personal needs as well as the concerns ex'pressed by the neighborhood. When asked, Mr. Poole stated neither a duplex nor a separate dwelling Was permitted in this honing district and a request for either would ne~d to cone ~e£ere ~he Beard as a conditional us~. ~e ~fur~her stated this request had been advertised as a second dwelling on the property and, therefore, due to ~egal requlr~menhs, the ~o~rd would be re~trioted from approving a request for a duplex without readvertising the request. ~r, ~¢Hale stated hc fclt ~ue to the concerns ~xpressed by the neighborhood and a willingnes~ on behalf of the applicants to dis~ss the request further, a deferral' could provide an opportunity to allow the parties involved to seek a better solutlon. There was brief discussion relative to =he future development of two adjacent pa~eels of la~d and the d~sinage cemee~s which had been expressed by one of .the adjacent property FLr. Burber stated he also felt a de£erral world provide an opportunity for the partiem involved to seek a ~etter aclu=ion ~s currently styled.' He further stated he felt options such as am addition to the existing home and other te=hnical aspects such as investigating the cost of relocation of the proposed dwelling to the back of the property should be taken into consideration. Mr. Barber made a ~etio~, seconded by ~r. 'warren, to defer the proposed dwelling when the request cane 'back to the Board 92-76 1/2~/9~ merits. Hs further stated if there wa~ a desire to relscate the house, the request would need to be advertise~ as such. Mr, Daniel called for the Ye=e on the motion made by Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, to defer Case 915N0265 until March 22, 19~2. Ve~e: Unanimous In Dale Magisterial District~ SYLVIA M. R~BINSOM AND ~ S. T~m. requested rezonlng from Agrlcultural (A) DO General Business (C-§]. The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for general oe~merclal use. This request lies on a 2.48 acre parcel fronting approximately 175 feet on the east llme of Turner Read, alee frenting approximately 390 feet on the west line Of Goodes Bridge Road, approximately 600 feet north of walmsley Boulevard. Tax Map 40-2 (1) Parcel 91 (Sheet 15}. Mr. Pools presented a summary of Case 91SN~282. Mr. Daniel inquired if ther~ was opposition present to the request. No one came forward i~ opposition to t_he req=est. Mr. Daniel further stated th~ Planning commission had recommended denial of th~ request aa the appli=ant had not agreed to offer th~ cash proffer for fire protection b~t since =hat time, a letter of intent had been submitted stating the intent of one of the aDplioants to comply with the C~h Proffer Policy adopted by the ~oar~ earlier in the afternecn, addressing fi~e s~ppre~sion systems, ~ven though no proffer was actually made. ~ir. Micas clarified a letter £rem the tenant a~d ~ot tl%e applicant had been received ~tating they agreed to either build improvements tu comply with the proffered condition regarding fire service er to pay the proffer amotl~t. He sta~ed the letter cf intent was not technically a proffer and~ therefore, was not enforceable and ff th~ Board accepted the letter of intent, the zoning would be approved based on moral representation. Mr. Charles T~nnell stated the recomnmendation wa~ acceptable. There was nc opposition pre,eat. Mr. Warren inqnired if the letter cf intent was enforceable. Mr. Micas clari£ied the letter of intent was net enforceable but rather a moral obligation only. When aeked~ Mr. Tunnell stated he was the co-applicant and had agreed to the proffered condition regarding gire service and had s~bmitted the lette~ of intent, however, the ¢0-appiiGant wac the owner of the pr0per=y and was reluctant to agree to thc proffered condition. ~e clarified he would be the tenant OS the property. on motion of M~. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board approved Case 91SN0282 and accepted the letter of inte~ re~arding the proffered condition relative to fire service from the co-applicant. Vote: Unanimous 92-77 1/22/92 On motion uf ~r. HcHale, seconded by Fir. Barber, the Board adjourned at 10:30 p.~. until January 25, 1992 at 8:30 a.m. Vote: Unanimous Chairman 92-78 1/22/~2