04-22-1992 Minutes~pril 22~ i~92
~upervisors in Attendance:
Kr. Arthur $. Warrsn, Vice Chr~.
~fr. ~dward B. Barber
Kr. Whaley M. Colbert
Mr. Lane B. Ramsay
county Adminis=rator
Staff in Attendance:
Asst. to Ce. Admin./Olr,,
office on Youth
Mr. N. E.
Mrs. Doris R. DeH~rt,
Legls. Svcs. and
Intergovern. Affair~
Fire Deeartment
Mr. william a. aswell,
~r. Robert ~uebner,
chief~ Employment
and Dsv~lsemsnt
Dir., Plannin~
Ms. Mary Leu Lyle,
Pit., Auceunting
DeDuty Ce. Admln.,
Dir., Tran~portatlon
~r. Richard M. McElfish~
Dir,, Env.
Ceunty Attorney
M~s. Pauline A. Mitchell,
Dir., New~ ~ Publio
~r. Richard Normally, Dir.
Extension Service
Col. J. =. ~ittman, Jr.,
~olice Department
MS. Theresa M. Pitts,
Acting Clerk to the Board
Mr. Richard F. Sale,
b~p~ty Co. Adm~n.,
Community Development
Mr. Jame~ J. L. st~g~ai~r,
Dir., Budget &
Mr. Z. D. Stith, Jr., Dir.,
Pmrk~ & Recreation
Dr. Robert Wagcnknacht,
Dir., Libraries
Mr. David H. Wslehans,
Dir., Utilities
sheri~ clarence Williams,
Sheriff's
Mr. Daniel called tbs regularly scheduled meeting to erder at
3:10 p~m, (EST).
92-30D 4122/~2
On ~otion o£ Mr. MoRale, seconded by ~r. Colbert,
approved the minutes of April 8~ 199~, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
th~ Board
}ir. Ramsey introduced Nr. James Campbell, Executive Director
of Virginia Association of Co~Kbies (VAC0) who wac prenent to
update the ~oard un VACoTs activities.
Mr. Daniel recognized FL~. David ~aechele, a member os the
~ar~rlco County Board of Supervisors, who was present with Far.
Campbell.
Mr. Campbell presented an overview cf VASe's activities
including their i~¥olvement in the 1992 General A~senbly
session and the ~e~eral i~pact the bills introduced would have
on losal ~overnmente in the State. He noted rACe had
attempted to protect and preserve a majority of itc financial
resources during thin session and briefly reviewed the passage
of senate Bill 27~ relating to the time limit in preserving
ei~e plans =nd subdivision plans for dovelogere and Senate
Bill ~12 relating to the equalization of taxation powers of
Counties in ~eing able to generate reYenuas uimilar to cities
and town~; and various conferences which had been ~pensored by
VACo to assist counties in identifying ressurcee and
addressing future challenges. He briefly reviewed technical
and legal services offered to counties by VACo; that VACo was
currently exploring the formation of insurance pools; that
they were studying the establishment of a monthly magazine and
were planning to conduct various workshops and seminars for
Count~ Supervieor~ and staff in the near future; and that they
woul~ be ~i~¢u~inq the reapportionment of various districts
within the State to comply with the 1990 Ce~S~S COUnt. He
noted VACo would co,tinge it~ ~ffort~ to connolldate their
r=so~rce~ with similar organizatlcne and, in particular, with
the Virginia Municipal League, to maximize efforts and
the opportunity to u~date thee on rACe's activities.
Mr. Ramssy noted ~r. Daniel is President-Elect for the
Virginia Azzeciati0n of counties and Mr. Warren is currently a
member of the ~oard of Directors.
Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to VACo'm
efforts to consolidate services; the commitment by VACo to
structure a ~ormal legislative program; the newsletter
generated by ~ACo being info~atlve; and th~ good working
rslatlonship the County ~hared with VACo.
When asked, Mr. Canpbell~ rnviawed the status of the "Di]llcn
Rule" and itated VACo was ~till conducting public hearings and
noted there were approximately five mere public bearings %0 be
conducted within the next month. Be further ~tated counties
nhould express their concerns regarding this issue.
There wac brief discusnlon regarding the "Dillicn Rule".
The Board expressed appreciation to Mr- Campbell for attending
the meeting and updating them on rACe's activities.
Mr. Remsey recognized ~r. Mitch zemel, ~ewe Reporter for the
Richmond New= Leads=, and stated he w0~ld ~0t be covering the
County any longer bu% ins%end would ~e a=~ending law school.
The Board wished him success in his future endeavors.
9~-301 4/~/92
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Director of News and Public Information
services, stated at the April g, 1992 Bosr~ meeting, a group
of English visitors, who were observing how Baptist Cherches
work on both aides of ~he Atlantic, had visited the Courthouse
and had presented the County with a heraldic shimld from
Counsellor Ralph Sample, Mayor of 01d/~am Metropolitan Borough,
Laneamhire, England. Mr. Danlel ek~premged appreciation for
the gift and stated the County would reciprocate with a
~imilar gift.
~. BOARD
Mr. Daniel stated he had received a book from Mr. MeMale
titled "Reinventing Government -- Now the Entrepreneurial
Spirit is Transforming the Pnblic Sector from Schoolhouse to
Statehouse, city Hall to the Pentagon" and noted he was
looking forward to reading it. He further stated he had
attended numerous regional meetings encompassing a varlu~y 0£
subjects.
Mr. Morals ~tsted he had attended numerous meetings including
a social sarvi~ Boa~ m~ting an~ m~pre~ed appreciation
the Board of Supervisors f~r their sHpport provided during
budget proca~s in r~oqnizing t~a need~ of ~e social
Depar~ent.
~ Barber state4 he had participated on th~ "Co~ty Call-In
Show" ~n which ~e topic discussed had been zoning and
pl=nning. He further ~tat~ he would be holding hi~
~onda~" constituents meeting in which the topic would be
traffic and planning; ~at he would be holdlng a m~tlng
discuss the possibilit~ of the d=v~lopment of a YM~
Kidluthian District; and that he had attended the Metropolitan
Planning organization ~e~ting ~n which available so~ces of
fun~ing for variou~ ~affic oonoern~ had b~en
Mr. Colbert stated hs had attended numerous meetings and noted
a m~ting ~ould b~ h~ld with the Hands Across the Lake
organization regarding water quality.
Mr. Warren stated he had at~ended a ribbon-~utting card.ny at
Cloverleaf Mall regarding recycling and noted he and
Colbert h~d also recently toured the county jail.
~GES ~ ~E O~ OF ~S~ATION
On motion 0f ~r. Colbert, sec0nd=d by Mr. McHale, the Board
moved Item 14.S., Resolution Recognizing April 19-26, 1992
"National Secretaries~ Week" to follow Item 4., Requests
~os~pone AsSign, ~er~ency A~dltlon~ or Chan~ in %he Order
of ~resentation; added Item 2.C., County Administrator*s
comments -- $~o,ooo Donation from Friend~ o~ the Library to
follow It~ 14.A., R~ol~tio~ ReCogniZing ~. JOShua Jam~
A~ry Upon ~is At=almin~ Ra~ of Eagle Scout; added It~
6-B.l., ~ Ordinance to ~end the Code ~f %he County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as ~ended, by Amending and Ree~actin~
Sections 18.1-9~ ~%-9, ~1.1-17 and ~l.%-~g0 Relating to
A~lication Fees in Connection with Land Use an~ Development
to f~llow Item 6.B., Adoption cf an Ordinance, on an ~mergency
Basis, to ~end the Cod~ of the County of Ches=erfiel~, 1~7~,
Ordinamce~ and added Item 6.B.~., Adoption of an Ordinance, on
an ~rg~ncy sasis~ ~endinq section 15.1-22 of the co~e of
the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as ~ended, by Readopting
SeG~fons 1~.1-22, 15.1-22.4 a~d 15.1-~2.5 Rala~ing to ~e Use
of Firea~s while Hunting to follow Item fi.B.1.; and
~he agenda, a~ amended.
Vote: Unanlmou~
~r. Ma~den stated ~ecr~tarias must ~eet high standards of
p~rformunoe and provide invaluable assistance to the County
aad its ¢itizens and e~ressed appreciation to all
secretaries who work for Lhe County. He introd~o~ Mrs. Dale
~verhart, Exe=utiv~ Secretary to the County A~ini~trator, who
wa~ pres~n~ to a~c~p~ the resolution on behalf o~ all
co~y'~ secretaries.
on motion of ~h~ Roard, the following resolution was
~E~S, The inportance of professional secretaries
~erican public and private organizations has been
by %he d~signation of April 19 - ~6, 1992 as "National
Secretaries' Week";
~EREAS, Per~ons who serve Chesterfield cowry in this
job classification mu~t meet high standards of
through a combination of effective interpersonal abilities
technical clerical skills, responsive an~ ~ourtsous servic~
ci=izens and fellow employee~, and knowledge and application
of numerou~ County and departmental policies and
~S, Th~ A~mi~istration wi~hes to e~r~s its
appreciation to all County ~ecretariRs for their dedication
excellence in public ~ervice and for their con%ributions to
the County team.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that =he
CounUy Board of sup~rvisor~ hereby recognlze~ all its
its citizens.
Vote: Unanlmuu~
and expressed appreciation to all County sec~etaria~ for their
responsive ~nd courteous ~ervlue to citizsns.
'5- WORK ERSSION
o FY93 '£~O~C~ ~798 SECONDARY ROAD SIX ~ ~R~
~eview the Virginia Department of Transportatlon's (VDOT)
Secondary Improvemen~ Budget and th~ Rev~nu~ Sharing Pre,ram.
Ko reviewed thC Six Year 91an and noted a joint public hearing
np~recla~iun for ~ir e~ort in developing the six Xear ~lan~
re~o~enda~ion~ ~u~h a~ pr~ject~ being ~aseO on capacity and
sa~ty conoornn; and fund= designated for projects. He
further reviewed projeo~s ourr~n~ly being constructed, future
Drojeots and ~hos~ projeot~ which would e~end b~yond fiscal
from ~e Sta%e, it would take approximately an additional $33
projects a~ d~igmat~d. Ha reviewed options for available
funding sourcss suuh as the Revenue Skating 9rogr~ and
92-303 4/22/92
outlined the recommendation for funding for the Centre Street
ProjecE nnd %h~ loop/ramp for Powhlte Parkway/Route 288.
There was brief discussion relative to the Route 288 loop and
ramp and the ~undlng options available.
Mr. MoCracken 8tared staff would bring tn the Board~ each
year, their recommendations for the Revenue Sharing Program
and adjustments could be made am necessaz~; and, in addition,
to the Revenue Zharing Program, staff was recommending
transferring County funding, for Dreviou~ road projects, to
assist with the projects designated and identified in the Zix
Year Plan. Ee indicated additional funds were needed to
rebuild the curve and bridge on Hopkins Road fram Inca Drive
to ~hilcutt Road; to install a traffic signal at the
intersection of Wuudmont Road an~ Huguenot Road; to pave
Rhode~ Lan~; ~nd to improve the Centralia Road/Che~ter Road
wes reco~endlng the Board to also approve local funding for
Tnprove~ent Budget for FY93 and outllned the Rural Addition
Program; the limitations of State funding to five percent of
the Secondary Construction Budget; th~ llmltat~on~ of VDOT
received from citizens and current projects in which ¢iti~eD
input was still being received.
kvnen a~ed, ~ ~tared the public hearings scheduled wo~ld
include the S~x Year Plan which would identify all oX the
p~ojecta i~ the Plan a~d ~o~ld also i~eluds t~ FY93 Budget.
He noted there would not be specific public hearing= held on
each individual project but there would be desig~ hea~ing~ on
=he major~ty of the projects at tbs appropriate time.
Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to the
pr0jeet~ being prioritized and the criteria u~d in =aklng
recommendations.
6. NEW BUSINESS
After brief dizcussion, on motion of ~r. McHale, seconded by
Hr- COlbert, the Board ~pended it~ rules tO allow
simultaneous nomination/appointment at this time of Kessrs.
E~rr~ G. Daniel~ Arthur S. Warren and Edward B. Barber am
Board representa~ivea and Mr. Melvin Sheller as the citizen
r~presentative to serve on the Capital Region Airport
cammissicn.
vote: Unanimous
On mo=ion Of M~. MOHala, seconded by Mr. Colbert, t~e Board
nominut~d/uppointed ~s~rs. ~arry G. Daniel, Arthur S. Warren
and Edward B. B~rber as Board representative~ and Mr. Melvin
Sheller as the citizen representative to serve on the Capital
R~gion Airpor= Co~i~ion~ who~e te~ ar~ eff~c=~ve
i~diately and will e~ire Dec~ber 31, 1995 to be consistent
Vote: Unanimou~
§~_~.__~DO~TION OF ANORDII~A~dR. ONA N~ ~RXR, ~
THE ~DE OF T~ CO~ OF ~T~. 1978. Am
DATE ~OR A P~C ~NG ~ ~NSID~~ON 0~
Board adopted a revi~d ~chedule for building permit leap. He
92-304 4/22/92
further stated the FY92-93 budget had been adopted on the
pra~i~a of an effective date of July l, 1~92 But the ordinance
19~ and, ~f approved by the Board, the effective date of the
approval and the only amendment to the ordinance was the
effective date.
Mr. Barber stated he was concerned as to the proposed
amendment since the ordinance had been written to take effest
upon its ndoDtisn.
Mr. Daniel stated he felt it had been the intent for the
Budqet and the amendment ~auld clarify the date bein~ JUly
Pi~. Ramsay stated since the ordinance did net s~ecify the July
1~ 199~ date, by default it took effect upon its adoption and
indicated the fee would not he charged until the sel-~ice could
b~ delivered. When asked, he stated the service could not be
provided at this ~ims due ~o new ~nsDect~ons being added which
required the recruiting, hiring, and training of staff and had
been anticipated to be done in July.
the ~roj~Qt~ revenue ~hould be ¢olleete~ prier to the
the ¢rdiDanc~ at thi~ point in tire; tb~ projeetea annual
cash proffers such as =n increase in applications for building
permits could occur if the ordinance wa~ not implemented until
July; inspections bming volume ~riven; and adjustin~ ~he
staffing ba~ed on the volume of work.
te ~hoee obtaining building permits between now and July 1,
he also felt it had been the intent for the ordinance tn ~o in
support the amendment to the ordinance.
adopted, on an ~mergeney basis, %he following ordinance and
readeption of the ordinance:
Chesterfield County that:
amended, is amended by amending ~ec~ion 6-4 az
Sec. 6-4. Pe~it fees.
(a) Generally. Unless otherwise except~d~ no permit
statewide suilding Cede shall be issued until the
~ppro~ed un~il ~he additional f~e h~ been p~id. All such
permits shall bm issued hy the huildlng official on forms
approved and furnished by his office. The fees for permits
~hall b~ ba~ed upon th~ project coat for labor and maferials.
Coots oubmltted ~hall be no lower then those listed in the
Marshall and swift Index or other evaluation of building Casts
as approved by the building official. Minimu~ accepted coats
will be adjusted annually on July i to reflect changes i~ Coat
of eonstructien. The building official may assess additional
feem when a r~view of the permit application or plans
t/~a5 sufficient fees have not been paid. Fees will be charged
in accordance with the following
(1) P~ESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION
a. Finished square footage:
Minimum fee $185.00
Each one thousand dollars or iraction
thereof of the estimated constructien cost $4.25
b. Unfinished interior square footage:
~inimum See $50.00
=hereof of the estimated usnstruc%isn cost $4.25
c. Unf~n~ohed exterior ~quare footage:
Minimum fee $25.00
thereof of the e~timated ¢on~trnction co~t $4.~5
d. Interior remodeling and alterations,
acceosory buildings and sheds costing over
Minimum fee $25.00
~ach one thousand dollars or fraction
thereof of the estimated construction coat
Ca,ports, canopies, pole buildinqs, and
pavilions:
f. Mobile homes:
In mobile home parks
On privets property
occupancy ~ extensions
h. Residential request for refund
(adminiatrativ~ charge)
(2) CO~IERCIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION
a. Cc~eroial new construction:
Minimum fee $200.00
Each $1,O0O or fractian thereof of the
estimated construction cost $5.00
Estimated cost o£ $2,000 O~ lass $SO.OO
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
c. Tenan~ u~its:
E~timated co~t of $2,000 or le~
Each addltiunsi $1,000 or fraction thereof
of the estimated con~trnetion COSt
d. Mobile office t~ailer~:
Fixed rate $25.00
e- Commercial temporary certifieete~ of
c~upancy & extensions $50.00
f. Commercial refund (administrative.
charges) 20% of fee
AUXILIARY PERMITS
~. ~leotrioal: whon tho comt of labor and materials
involved in installation, alterationr replacement
and/or repair is:
$300 or l~s $35.00
$~01-500 40.00
$501-1,000 45.00
Each additional $1,ooo or fraction thereo£
of e~timated cost ~5.00
b, ~echanicaI: when the cost of labor and materials
involved in installation, alteration, replacement
~nd/or repair
$300 or le~ $95.00
$301-S00 40.00
$501-1,000 45.00
~ach additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
of estimated cost $5.00
Plumbing: when the co~t of labor and materials
inuo~sd ~n installation, alteration, replacement
and/or repair is:
$300 or les~ $25.00
$~01-S0~ 40.00
$501-11~00 45.00
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
of estimated cost $5.00
d. Gas: when the cost of labor and ~aterials involved
in inmtallation~ alteration, replacement and/or
repair is:
$300 cr 1~
$301-50o 40.00
$501-1,000 45.00
Eaoh additional $1,O00 or fra~t±on thereof
estimated cost $5.00
e. Active ~olar system: when the cost of labor and
materials involved in installation, alteration,
rep!acemsnt and/or rspair is:
$~00 or loss $35.00
$~01-500 40.00
$501-1,006 45.00
Each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
f. Fire/Sprinkler: when the cost of labor and
materials involved in installation, alteration,
r~placement and/or repair is:
$300 or l~s$ $35.00
$301-$00 40.00
$501-1~003 45.00
~ach ~ddition~l
~timated co~t $5.00
g. Septic taDk permit $50.00
h. Well permit: when the cost of labor and materials
involved in installation, alternation, replacement
$300 or less $35.00
$~01-50~ 40.00
$501-1,600 45.00
~aCh additional $1,000 or fractiQn ~hereof
of estimated cost $5.00
92-307 4/22/92
(s)
(6)
Annual serti~isate of compliance for
elevator~, escalators (per floor),
du~bwalters and manlifts: Payable sm or
before December ~1 for the followlnq year
$15.00
Demolition, moving or r~location of a
masonry and fireplace replacement/relining $26.00
swimming Pool:
~inimum fee $50.00
Each a~ditional $500 or Kraction thereo~ o5
Administrative permit only (ne
in~pe~tionn)
Kiddie rides
~ajer rides
Spectacular rides
$10.00
$15.00
$~.0~
Reinspectlon fee: Fee charged for each inspection
ma~e in excess of two, if such inspection is made
inspection when the request fur inspection is made,
Tradesman cards: journsyman or master $10.00
E~aminations:
Journeyman'~
Master's $45.00
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
1.
Code investigation fee= residential building/
auxiliary 20% of permit fee or
whichever i~ qreater
Code investigation fes: coEercial building/
auxiliary 20~ cf psrm~t fee or $50.00
whichever is
Permit amendments~ extensions,
transfers (administrativ~ fe~) $1~.~0
application for a permit is
csncelled by written request to
the ~uilding official within 6
months cf the application date,
or within 1~ months of th~ issue
The followinq administrative fees
will be deducted from the refund:
~esiden~ial building and
other related permits $25.00
Commercial building and
other related permit~ ~0% of fee
92-308 4/22/92
1. Mo fee shall Be required for b~ilding permits
for construction where the cost of such
construction is less than five hundred dollars
($500) and such oonstrueticn would not involve
securing any other permit aa required by
~ 109.0 of the Virginia uniform Statewide
Building Code.
2, No fee shall be required for permits for the
construction of buildings designed and used for
rsligious assemblies aa a place cf worship.
3. mo fee shall be reguired for building permits
for constr~ctlon by county departments funded
by the general fund.
(o) Disnosltion of fees. Ail permit fees regulred by this
section shall be paid by the applicant to the county treasurer
with the building official, and upon receipt of such foss, the
treasurer shall deposit ~a~e to the credit of the county
general fund.
(Z) This ordinance shall be eff~¢tiv~ on July 1,
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Warren, Mr. Colbert and Mr. Mc~ale.
Nays: Mr. Barber.
6.B.1. P~EP~R TO 'r~ PInG COM~4TMSION AN O~DINANC~ TO AMEND
~ CODE OF ~]{~CO~]~FYOF~STEI~FI~.n. 1978. ~
;~]9~DEDr BY ~I~G } P~4ACTIN~ ~CT~ONM 18.1--9,
21-9, Z1.~--17 ~ 21.1--280 I~EL~TING TO ~PPLICA~ON
conn~ctlon wi~h land use and dovelopm~nt had bee~ aduRte~ by
the Board at its April 8, 199~ meet{hq. Ne further stated the
intent of the ordinance had been to t~ke effect on July t,
%992 but had also taken ~ffect upon it~ adoption.
indicated to amend the effective dat~ eS the ordinanne, ih
would need to be referred to the Planning co,lesion for them
to consider a change in the Zoning ordinance. When amked, he
basis as it had as gu to the Plannlng Commission firs:.
When asked, Mr. Ramsoy skated if the Board's intent was to
effective date, then administratively the ~ee wo~ld not
~sar~ ~ook nc s~tisn, the fee would be implemented.
to the Plannlng Commission; the tlm~fra~e in which to work;
and %he appropriate method in which to address the agenda
item.
It was generally =gr~d the ~oard tabled action to refer to
County of Chesterfield, 1978, as anende~ by amending
relating to application fees in connection with land ue~ end
development.
CRESTE~F~ELD. 1978 AS A~DED. BY READOPTING SECTIONS
~, Micas stated the curren~ County coda prohibit~ th~ hunting
of deer wit~ rifles of a ~aliher lar~er than .~ rim fire hut
~all blaGk powder huntin~ sea~on wit~ muzzle-loading ri~les
~aving a caliber cr size larger ~n a .~. He further ~tated
t~e County has allowed tBis Special hunting season and State
law r~ir~d th~ consideration of this special muzzle-loa~ing
would ~ da~idad by th6 Game and Inland Fisheriam. H~
indicated ~e County had not received any complaints about the
muzzle-lo~din~ season last year or in previous years.
~isGussion~ co~enta and ~u~stions ensued relative ~o this
fo~m of hunting; the ~ifference between an antique and a
muz~le-loadin~ weapon; safety concerns; the length of ~e
special muzzle-loading season; an~ w~e~ t~e~e ~a~ ~ean any
citizen requ~t~ or input into the initiation cf ~
basis.
Board to adopt, on an emergenoy ba~i~ a ~pecial
mu~le-loadlng hunting season for ~e County ~n4 to set the
date cf June 10, 1~92 for a public hearing to consider
readoption of th~ ordinancm.
adopted, on an eme~qenoy basis, the following ordinance and
~ea~ing to consider reudoption of the ordinance:
~ ORDIN~CE TO ~END SECTION 15.1-22.5
~TING TO THE USE OF FIREA~S ~ILE H~TING
BE IT 0ROAINED by the Board of supervisors of
follows;
Sec. 15.1-22.S. ~uzzle-loadin~ rifles.
(a) It shall be unlawful fur any ~er~on to hunt d~r
with a ~fl~ of any caliber except for a muzzle-loading
rifle during the special muzzle-loading season.
(b) For 9urpo~s of thi~ section a muzzle-loadinq rifle
percussion weapon with no telesoop~c sight, foray-five
(45) caliber o~ la~ge~, fi~ing u singl~ pro~ectilx louded
from the muzzle of the weapon and propelled by a% leas=
fifty (50) grains of black powder.
(c) ~y p~rmon violating the provisions of this section
Vote: Unanlmou~
92-310
On motion of F~r. ~oHale, seconded by Hr. Colbert, the Beard
adopted the Chesterfield County Comprehensive Housing
Afferdability Strategy (C~L%S] and auth0ri~d the county
Administrator to submit thm document to the U.S. Department of
Heuslng end Urban Development (HUD} fer their review.
Vote: Unanimous
authori=~d %hs 5ransfer of the full budg=tcd amount of local
funding for education for FY92 by increasing the local County
tranafer by $1,S70,000 and increasing estimated State
revenue by $330,000 to the School Operating Fund. (It is
noted this is offset by a $2,000,000 reduction in state
revenue received for reimbursement of V.R.$. and group Life
receipts, therefore~ no increase in over ell appropriation
Vo~e; Unanimous
6.C.3. AU'£~ORIZATIUN FOR CO~IN~/AIIMI]qIST~ATOR TO EXECUTE A
On mo=ion of Mr. Mc~ale, seconded by Mr. Co~b~r~, th~ ~ourd
=uthorimud the CoUnty Adminiutrator to execute a contract with
P~rsonal Perfo~ance Consultants (~c) to implement an
e~euklve July 1, 1992. (It is noted ~ding fo~ one time
start-up costa, not to exceed $10,000, will be tranmfmrrmd by
the Coun=y A4mlnis=ra~or as n~m~e~ ~n ~ cu~ent fiscal year
from health care savings. All other cost~ of ~ Progr~
which begins July 1, 1992 (FY93) will be absorbed by
departments fro~ health care savings.}
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of ~r. M~i~, ~conded by ~. colbert, th~ Boar~
authorized the County Admihistrator to =xecut~ a contract with
Flexible ~eneflts Consultants to implement a Flexi~le spending
1992. {It is noted said on-going cesta of the Program which
wall begin on July 1, 199~ (~Yg~) will be offset by reduced
~Ot to ~ce~d $6,000, will be transferred by
Administrator as needed in the current fiscal year fro~ health
care savings.}
V~t~ Unanimous
6.C.5. ~EOUESTS FOR BINGO/R~FFLE
On motion of ~r. MoHale~ ascended by ~r. Colbert, the Board
approved reque~ for bingo/raffle permits for the following
erganizetiona for calendar year 1992:
Chester Moose Lodge
Tho~ns Dale ~usic Boosterm
Vote: Unanimous
Raffle
Bingo/Raffl~
6.C.6. REQIr~ST FOR ENTERTAIN~ENTFESTIVA~PERMTT
On ~etien of ~r~ McHale, seconded by Fir_ Colbert, the Board
approved an entertainment festival permit to the Children's
Miracle Network to raise funds for the Epilepsy Unit at MCV
which event will be held at the Mull Stre~% Price Club on May
21, 1992, subject to such conditions as the County Attormey
vote: Unanimous
6.C.7. AP!~ROVAL OF VIRGINIA 1~OWE1% CO~AN~ CONTRACT FOI~
19]1-1994
O~ ~otien Of ~, MeHale, seconded by Mr. ColbeFt, t~e Beard
authorized the County Administrator to ~e~ute a three-year
power service contract with Virginia Power Company for the
period July ~, 1991 to J~ne 30, 1994+
6.C.8. APPiq:OVALO~J'IGE O~DEI~TOFORTE~RACOI~PORATIONF~R
ADDITION ~ ~ATION TO ~E ~ LI~Y
0n motion of ~r. ~cHal~, ~conded by Mr. colbert, ~he ~oar~
authorized the County A~ini~trator to execute a Change Order,
in ~e amount of $12,700.72 to Fortexra Corporation for
addition and r~ncvation to the Central Library %o remove
unsuitable soil ma~eriai, ~rovid~ and place number 57 stone
over new fabric and the d~te of substantial completion being
~arch 25, 1993. (I~ i~ noted ~aid fund~ will co~ fro~ ~e
Central Libra~ Addition and Renovation Account.}
Vote: Un=nlmou~
6.C.9. SET DATE FOR A PUBLIC ~EAP~N~ TO CON~IDERTI{E
T~0RD~rFARE pLAN ~$ FOR 'xn~ D~ION OF ~U~
A~ ~SION~ n~ST-~ST" ~J.~OR
0n motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by ~. Colbert, ~e soard
set ~e date of June I0, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. for a public
hearing to con~ider th~ deletion of th~ SDruee Avenue
Extension and "East-west collector" from the Thoroughfare
Plan.
vote:
Mr. Colbert, the Board approved the installation of a
s~reetlight in the vicinity of 4024 Treely Read in Bermuda
District; the street light in=tallatlon cc~t of $1,4~9.00 at
the in%er~eotion Of Fo× Green (East and We~t) and Stable Gate
Road; and the ~tr~t light inctalla%ion cost of $239.OQ for
with ~ald fuDd~ ~o b~ expended from the Dale District Street
Light Account. (It is noted there was nc cost to install the
~tre~tlight is the vicinity of 4024 Traely Road.)
On motion of Mr. ~¢Hale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
authorized the county Administrator to execute an Agreement
for ~aintenanoe of a Stormwater Drainage System and Best
Manaqement Practice Facility with Vernon B. LaPrade, owner of
Irosgate, with ~he County's only involvement being to assure
the Maint~nanc~ Agreement is followed by the owl~er as approved
by the county A~tornay.
Vote: Unanimous
On mot~on of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
~lectric and Power Company ~o in,tall overhead and/or
underground cable for service to t~e Bermuda ~n~ed sewage
~mp S~tio~ off Be~uda Hundred Road. {It is noted a =opy of
6.C.13. AW~RD OF CON~P.~CT FOR TH~ BP-TGGS' PI~OP~ SEW~I~ LIN~
EXTENSION
On motion of Mr. ~cHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
awarded Contrao~ Numbsr ~1-8187 to Southern Con~tructlon
Co.party, the low bidder, in the amount of $27,834.50, for the
oonstr~ction of ~he Brigg's Property Service Line Extension,
which project includes the extension of 7~S L.F. ± of ~ inch
wa~tewater lines and appurtenances; transferred funds in the
a~ount of $~000.00 from the Contlngenay Fund 5ceount to tbs
Bri~q's Property - Route 1 and 301 Capital Preject; and
deou~ent~.
Vote: Unanimous
6.C.14. PdZOUEST BY JGS CONSTRUCTION. INCOP~POI~ATED FOR
P~q~IISSION FOR A PORTION OF A DRI¥~A¥ TO ~NCROAC~
On mutie~ of ~r. McHals, seconded by Mr. colbert, the ~uar~
approved a r~qu@st from JGS Construction to have a portion of
a driveway enuroaoh within an existln~ sight foot drainage
easement across Let lB, $edgefield Subdivision, subject to the
eEeeutien of a license agreement. (It ie noted a copy of the
vicinity mketch is filed with the pap~r~ of thin Board.)
Vot~: Unanimou=
6. C. ~?. APPROVA% OF I~PILITI~S ~ONT~SkC~ PaR ~OLIDA¥ ~I~AILE~
PA~K
on motion of ~r. ~cHala, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Boar~
a~D~oved a utilitie~ co,tract fo~ Holiday Trailer Park,
Project 90-0345, as follew~, which projsct include~ relocation
of ~93 L.F. ± of sewer line~ and authorized the County
A~ministrasor Lo execute any necessary ~ecumants:
92-313 4/22/92
Developer: Elliffe CsrparatieM
Contractor: T ~ E 0onstruc~ion, Inc.
Centract A~ount: Estime%sd Total - $58,900.25
Total Estimated County Cost:
Wastaweter - $29,450.13
Estimated Developer Cost: -
Funding Source: 5P-58350-898601R
B.C. lB. ACCEPTANCE OF A P/~qCEL OF /2~ND ~J~ONG I~AST I{I~ND~ ROAD
Mr. Barber stated he had recently been advised of situations
in whioh property was being doDated to th~ County which wa~
unusable but had been donated by the owner in an ~ffort te
eliminate tax payments on the land and inquired if thi~
applied to the~ parcel~ of land and haw it would appl~ to
o~her parcels of land.
N~. Sale state~ ~a acceptance of a par~s1 o~ land along East
Mundr~d Road was r~lated to ~eet~ng the ulti~at~ road widt~h as
shown on the Caunty Thoroughfare Plan and the accs~ance of
the thirty acre parcel of land wms part of ~ prOf£e~ed
Gondition for the Eivers Bend rezonin~ request approved by the
Board of Zup~rvi~or~ on 5uqu~t 1~, lPgg. ~ noted the
property had been reviewed and accepted ~y School staff.
flexibility of staff in designating specific parcels of land
for acceptance as proffered conditions; whether a meheol could
be built on this site; whether parcels of land being donated
to the County were researched and reviewed by staff to ensure
appropriate use of the property; snd the process followed by
staff in accepting these types of property donations.
On motion of ~ir. McHule, seconded by F~r. Colbert, the Board
of land containing O.lSO acre along ~ast ~undred Road fron
Trus~e~ of Bermuda Eun~re~ ~e~ho~ist ~urch and the
conveyance of a thirty acre parcel of land from 011vet D.
~xecute the necessary deeds. (It is noted copies of th~ plats
are filed with ~e p~p~rs of ~is Board.)
Kr. Ramsey outlined the composition of the Co~umission on ~oils
an~ Foundations and noted those nomina=ed a~ the April 8,
~is time.
Mr. Barbe~ ~tated he was withdrawing the name of Mr. Jay
for oonsideration for appointment to t~e co~ission on soils
and Foundations as Mr. Cants felt he would not b~ able
~evote the time necessary, due to him activm partlcipa~iua
the State Association of Soll Scientist~, to fulfill the
duties of the appointmmn~, He noted Mr. Con~a had offere~
me--ices as a consultant to the members on the Co~isslon
0n motion of Mr. Barb~, ~econded by Mr. McHate~ ~e Board
category of ~oils Scientist, to serve on the Comnieslen on
Soils and Foundations.
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded Mr. McHale, the Board
appointed Dr. Earold Mathews, in the category of Soils
$¢i~ntist~ to serve on the Commission on Soils and
Foundations, who :arm is effective immediately an4 will be at
the pleasure of the Board.
Veto; Unanlmou~
There was brief discussion relative to the defined categories
of the Commission and Mr. Barber withdrew the name of Mr. Art
Nelson from the category o£ citizen-at-Large and iBstea~
nominated ~r. Nelmon, in the category of civic Am~ociatlon
reDre~entatlve :o serve on the Commission.
Mr. Daniel in~ioated the Board had received a l~tter from Mr.
~ioha~l ~ll~y ~xpre~ing bi~ interest to ~rva on th~
Commission.
After brief dieemssi0~, Mr. Barber nominated MS. Grace Helms
i~ the cat~gory of Realtor/Developer and Mr. Ba~y Wilso~ i~
the category of Financial Community/Banker to serve on the
Commission of Soils and Foundations.
On motion of Mr. HcHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
suspended its rules to allow simultaneous nomination/
appointment at this time cf members to serve on the Commission
o~ S0il~ a~d Foundatiens,
Votx: Unanimous
On motion of Nr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
neminate~/appeinted Mr. Reber~ Talley as the citizen-at-Large;
Mr. Art Nelson as the Civic Association representative; Ms.
Grace Helms in the category oS Realtor/Developer; an~ Kr.
Danny Wilson in the category of Financial Community/Banker to
~erue on the Cammlamion on soils and Foundations, whose terns
are effective immediately and will be at the ptea~ure of the
Board.
Vote: Unanimous
8. H~A/%INGS OF CITIZENS ON ~H~S~ULED ~ATTENS OR C~AIMS
There were no hearings of citizens scheduled at this time.
Mr. Ramsay preue~ted the Board with u report on the developer
wate~ a~d sewe~ e0ntra~ts execute~ by the County
Administrator.
M=. Ramsay presented the Board with s status report on the
General Fun~ ~alanes; Reserve for Future capital Prej~ot~:
District Road and Street Light Funds; and Lease ~urcha~e~.
I~r- Ra~y ~tat~d the Virginia Department of Transporta~ion
has formally notified the County of the acseptanoe of the
following rea4s into the State Secondary System:
ADDITIONS LENGTH
CA~RISBROOK - {Effsctive
4462 (Bethe~da D~iv~) - Fro~ Rout~ 3532 tO
exis%in~ Route 44~2
0,03 Mi
4/22192
~INEOLA, SECTION B
BAILEY RIDGE ESTATES. SECTION C - (Effeotive 3-19-92)
Rout, 4101 (~arri~h Branch R~adl - Fr~m O.O~
Southwest Route 4104 to 0.02 mile South Bailey
Drive (Route 4108} 0.17 Mi
'Route 410S (~ew Forest Trail) - From 0.02 mile
southeast Route 4101 to Route 4105 0.21 Mi
Route 4106 (New Forest Court) - From Route 4105 to
Route 4107 {Parrieh Branch circle] - F=om Route 4101
to 0.10 mile Worthwa~t Rout~ 4101 0.10 Mi
Route 4108 (Bailey Woods Drive} - From 0.02 mile
southeast Route 4101 to Route 651
ROUte 4109 {Bailey WOODS Lane) ~ From Route 4108 to
~.0~ mi~e Southwest Route 410~ 0.03 Mi
Route 177] (Ben Air Station Lan~) - From Route 683 to
~.05 mile Southeast Route 3884 0,11 Mi
Route 3884 (Ben Air Station Court} - From Route 1773
to 0.10 mile West Route 1773 0.10 Mi
Route 4895 (Business Center Drive} - From Route 64M to
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.1-344{A}(~}. CODE
On motion of Mr, Barber, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
went into ~xe~tlv~ ~ionr pursuant ~o ~ctlen
~.1-344(a)(7), Code of Virginia~ 19SO, as amended, for
consultation wi~h legal counsel regarding the chesterfield
county Jail.
Vote: Unanimous
O~ ~otio~ Of M~, MoHale, uueended by Mr. Colbert~ th= Board
adopted ~he ~ollewing resolution:
W~=REA$, the Beard e~ Supervisors has =his day adjourned
into ~xecutive Session in accordance with a formal vote of the
~oard and in accordance with thn provisions of t/~e virginia
Freedom and Information Act; and
W~BREAS, th~ V~rginia Free~om o~ Information Act
offensive July 1~ 1989~ provides fo~ certifioation that such
~xecutlve S~sioD wee conducted in conformity with law.
NOW, THeReFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County
Supervisors dee~ hereby certify that to the best of each
m~m~er'~ knowledge, i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements under the Freedom of
92-316 4/22/92
which this certification applies, and
ii) only soon public business matters as were identified in
the Motion by which the Executive Session was convened were
heard, discussed or considered by the Board. NO member
F~T. McEale: Aye.
I~r. Colbert:
Fir. Daniel: Aye.
On motion of Mr. Colbert, ~e~on~e~ by }ir. ~arb~r, th~ Roard
recessed at 5±50 p.m. to the Ad~ni~tratlon Building, Room
~0~, for dinner.
Vote: Unanimous
Reoenvening:
1~. ZF~OCAm~R~
~4r. Daniel in;reduced Clyde Abell, Chaplain
Chesterfield County flail, who gave the invocation.
of the
13. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ~ '£~t~ F~AG OF '~R~ ~IT~D $~ATE$ OF
Nr. Ramgay lad the 91edge of Allegiance to the Flag of the
United States of America.
14. ~$OLUTION$ AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS
14.A. ~COGNIZING MR. COSUA UAMES AWTRY UPON HIS ATTAINING
P~ANKOFEA~LE
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, The Boy Scents of America ~a~ incorporated by
Mr. William D. Boycs on February 8, 1910; and
c~tlzmnshlp training, p~rsonml development and fitness of
individuals; and
~EAS, After earning at l~a~t twenty-one merit
co--unity, being actlv~ in the troop, d=monutrating Scout
~pirit and living ~ to the 8~o~t Oath and Law; and
~ER~S, ~. Joshua James Awtry, Brandermill Church,
Troop $90, has accomplished those high standards of
and ~am reached the long-~ought goal of Eagle Scout w~ich
receive~ by less than two 9ercen~ o~ ~ose individuals
entering the Scouting movement; and
92-317 4/2~/92
W~EREA$, Srowing through his experlences in scouting,
learning the lemsons of responsible citizenship and priding
himself on the great accomplishments of his County, Joshua is
indeed a me,er of a n~w generation of prepared young citizens
of whom we can all be very proud.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of gupervisors hereby extends its congratulations
to Mr. Joshua James Awtry and acknowledges the good fortune of
the County to have ouch an outstanding young man as one of its
citizens.
Mr. Warren presented the executed resolution to Mr. Joshua
Awtry, accompanied by members c~ hi~ family, and congratulated
him on his out~tanding achievement.
2.C. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'8 CO~E~TS
Mr. Ramsay stated the Friends of the Library have been active
in developing funding and support for library negus and
introduced M~. ~az~; Ann Harmon, President of the F~iend~ cf
~he chesterfield County Public Library.
Ms. Harmon stated the Friends o£ the Library was a volunteer
organization end ha~ been active in developinq funding
throughout the entire Library System. she further sba%ed the
$50,000 don&ti0h WOUld e~able the replacement of Obsolete
m~cro~iche catalog readers w~th new so~isticate~ equipmen~
which would allow patronE to r~queEt Eelection~ from a
user-friendly computer terminal that prompts them if they are
unsure of the title er author; that another s~rvlo~ funded by
the donation from the Fr~snd~ would allow public a~ceee to
reference data by computer which included various types of
~oftware programs; and, additionally, $?~500 had been set
~ide for the Family Su~er Reading Club which had attracted
over 13,000 members including children, teens and adults last
year.
Mr. Daniel and Dr. Eobert Wagenknect, Director of Libraries,
accepted, on behalf of the County, the $50,000 donation from
the Friends of the Library. FLr. Daniel expressed ~is sinoero
a~preoiation to the Friends of the Library for the donation
and stated they had significantly enhanced the oa~abil~tiee cf
the Library ~yste~.
~ 2 OF SI~CH OI~DIN~.NCI~ I~q~TING TO ~E I~kND USE
APPLICATIONS TO ~IC~ (~1~$ 21.1 AND 21, RESPECTIVELY,
AP~Y
Mr. Jacchecn stated this date and time had been advertised for
a public hearing to con~id~r an ordinance tQ amend the
ordinance adopted on April 12, 1989 enacting Chapte~ 21.1 and
amending Chapter 21 of the code of the coun=y of c~asterfiel~,
1978, as amended, by amending a~d fa=macring $=ction~ I(B),
i(C), and 2 of such ordinance relating to the land uae
ap~licatlons to which Chapters ~1.~ and ~, re~pectively~
apply~ ~ further s~ated the amendment would allow ownerz cf
mobile homes in existing bu~inem~ and manufaeturinq zoning
die,riots to apply for ~ew mobile home permlt~ on previously
zoned property without first rezoning the property to ~ new
zQning district under the ~uid~lin~ of th~' n~w Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. George Beadles stated although he felt the amendment was
ne¢oesary, the Board should consider allowing the Board of
Zoning Appeals to approve these types of renewals for mobile
homes as the requests were rarely denied. He further stated
he felt the Board should consider deleting Chapter 21 And
chapter 21.1 and revisiting the Qld zeuin~
There being ne one else to address this ordinance, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Daniel stated although there had been few denials for the
renewal of motile home permits, the requirements for the
renewal prooe~ had beco~ ~triet~r, and, therefore, ha
e~ppert the ordinance at this time.
When a~ked, Mr. Micas stated the ordinance, in it~ e~iet~ng
for~, would not feasibly allow requests for renewal of mobile
home p~rmitu tu be handled administratively.
Mr. Jacobson stated the Boar~ of Zoning Appeals reviews and
currently has the authority to approve the requests
renewal of mobile home permftz within agricultural diztricts
and the requests for renewal of mobile home permits which
needed approval by the Board were located in the more
suburban/urban areas of the Ceunt~.
}tr. ~oHala ~tate~ he felt the current ordinance created a
hard~hip on the~ who h~d economically been precluded in
obtaining rezoning and hi~ ~ntention in referring the
ordinance to the Planning Commission for their review had been
~O address the~e types of ~ituation~ and, therefore, he
supported the recommendation.
On motion of Nr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Mc~ale, the
adepte~ the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE ADOPTED
A~RIL 12, 1959 ENACTING CKAPTER 21.1 AND A~ENDING
cHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD,
1978, AS AMENDED, ~¥ AMENDING ARB REENACTING
SECTIONS i(B}, i(C), AND 2 OF SUCH ORDINANCE
RELATINS TO TEE LAND USE APPLICATIONS TO
WHICH C~IAPTERS 21.1 A~D 21, RESPECTIVELY, APPLY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Eoard of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County:
(1) That the ordinance adopted April 12, 1989 enaoting
Chapter ~1.1 and amending Chap%er 21 of the Cede of the County
of Che~tarfie]d~ 1978, a~ amended, i~ amended and reenacted to
read as follew~:
(1] That the Code O~ the COUnty of chesterfield,
1978! as emended~ is amended and reenacted as fellows:
fellew~:
filed with the County after April 12,
by the provi~ion~ of Chapter 2~.1;
Property for which a rezoning application iA
1989, shall be governed
provided, however, that
92-319 4/22/92
applications for permits for mobile hones existing
continuously in the sane location in S or M zoning districts
since on or before January 1, 1992, shall be governed by
Chapter
D. All property zoned 0, B or X on the effective
date of this ordinance, or after such date if a rezoning
application was file~ with the County prior to the effective
chapter
(2) That ~is ordinance s~all be effestivs on April
12, 1989.
(2) That thi~ ordinance shall be effective on the date
of its adoption by the Board of Supervisors.
Vote: Unanlmoum
In Midlothian ~agisterial District, SH~LT~t~IN~ ARMS HOSPITAL
requested rezoning from Residential (R-15) to Corporate Office
(0-2). The density of such amendment will be controlled by
~oning condition~ o~ Ordinance srandard~. The Comprehensive
Plan designates the property £sr office u~e. This request
liss on a 5.06 ac~ pa~c~l fronting approximately I80 fact
the ~ou~we~t lin~ of Tw~nridg~ Lane, also fronting
apprOXimat~ly 4o feet on North Providence Road, and located
the sou~west quadrant of the intersection of the~e roads.
~. Jacobson presented a sugary of Cas~ 92SN0112 and
the Planning Oo~ission and staff recommended approval and
acceptance of the pro~ered condition, ae noted the request
confo~ed to z~e Northern ~ea Land U6~ and Transportation
~lan.
~. Georg~ ~adles expressed conoern5 relative to th~ order
the agenda and stated he felt the agenda should b= amended at
this tine to b~ consistent wit~ t~e con~n% agenda o~fered by
tko Planning Department.
~. Brian Merrian, representing the ~pplicant, stated the
O~ ~o%io~ of Mr. Barber~ seconded by ~. Warren~ tko Board
oondi~ion:
Prior to obtaining a building permit fo~ the Property, one of
~e fo~lowing sh~ll be dose tQ ensure ~deq~ate fire protection
for ~he Property:
A. The owner or d~velop~r of the Property or th~ assignee(s)
of such parties shall pay to the catty $1~0.00 per 1,000
~quare feat of qross ~nolosed floor area of improvements
~ccated ~n th~ Prop6rty adjusted upward or ~o~war~ by
the same percentage t~at t~e Me,shall Swift Building cost
Index increased or decreased between June 30, 1991, and
the dat~ cf pu~=nt. With the approval of ~e Co~ty's
withheld, the owner and d~v~loper of ~e Property or the
assignee(s) of such parties shall receive a =r~di=
the required pa~nt ~et forth above for the cost of any
fire suppression system not othe~ rmquire~ by law
which is included as a part cf th~ d~velopme~t.
92-320 4/2~/92
Of SUCh parties shall provide a fire suppres~io~ ~yste2m
for the improvements located on tho Property not
Otherwise required by law which the County's Fire Chief
reasonably d~ter~ines substantially reduces the need for
County facilities otherwise neaeS~ry for firs
Vote: Unanimous
In ~idlothian Magistaria! District, JOS~i~H ~. C~A~G
rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to Community Business
(C-~). The density of such amendment will be controlled by
zoning conditions or Ordinance ~tandard~. The ComprehensiVe
Plan designates the property for general csmmercial use. This
request lies on ~ 1.1 acre parcel fronting approximately
feet on the north line of ~idlo=~ian Turnpike, approximately
150 feet east of Ruthers Road. Tax Map 1~-16 (1) Parcels
and ~0 (Eheat
~r. $aoobson presented a s~ary of Case 92SN0119 and stated
the Planning Commission and ~taf£ recommended approval subject
to a condition. He no,ed the request conformed to the
Northern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan.
Mr. Oliver D. Rudy, representing the appllcant, stated the
recommendation wa~ acceptable. There was no opposition
present.
On motion of ~Lr. Barber, seconded by ~r. ~cBale~ the Board
approved Case ~SN01~9 ~ubject to the following condlt~on:
A b~ffer shall be provided along the northern property
l~n~. This buffer shall comply with the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance, Sections 21.1-226 through 21.1-Z25.
Within this buffer, screening cr land~caping shall be
installed ~ as minimize the view of th~ improvements
from adjacent proper~y to the north. Prior to
installation of ~ers~ning or landscaping, a plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval.
RsGuired screaming or land~caping shall be inmtalle~
within sixty (60) days of approval of this request.
Vote: Unanimous
In Midlothian ~agisterial District, ~%~D L, A~D ~R/A~
HODDINOTT requested Conditional Use to permit a dwelling unit
separated from the principal dwelling unit in a Residential
(R-40) Distrist. The density of such amendment will be
controlled by zoning conditions o= ordinance ~temdards. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property for res~d~etlal ~$~
of ~.~0 units/acre or less. ~his request lies om a 6.15 acre
parcel lying at the eastern terminus of Young ~aner Drive,
approximately 2~0 Sset salt of Boswell Road. Tax MaD 2-16 (~}
Parcel 5 (Sheet ~).
Mr. Jacob~0n presented a ~%um~ary of Case 92~N0151 an~ stated
the Planning commission and staff recommended approval subject
tO Conditions. Me not~ the request conformed to the Northern
Area Land Use and Transportation Plan.
4/22/92
Ms. Diane Long, representing the applicants, stated the
recommendation was acceptable. There was no oppositien
present.
0n ~etien of F~. Barber, seconded by ~r. Colbert, the Board
approved Case 91SN0131 mubject to the following conditions:
1. Occupancy of the second dwelling ~it ~hall be limited to
the occupants of the principal dwelling unit, their
family members and quests.
2. Within sixty (60) days of approval Of this request, a
deed restriction shall be recorded indicating the
requirement in Condition 1. The deed book and page
number of such restriction and a copy of the restriction
shall be ~ubmittod to the Planning Department.
Vote: Unanimous
92SN0132 (Amended)
In Matoaca Magisterial District, ROB~I%T J. ~%/~TINI(O requested
Cen~itiona~ U~e to permit a recreational facility in a
Residential (R-~5) District. The density of such a~endment
w~ll be controlled by ~on~nq conditions cr ordinance
~tandard~. The Comprehensive Plan degignate~ the property for
residential use cf 1.5 units per acre or less. This request
lies on 5.0 aore$, lying appre~i~ately ~0 feet off the south
llne of ~en~ley Rsad~ approximately 4~400 feet west of Donegal
Road ~orth. Tax ~ap 10~-3 (1) Part of ~aroel 1 (Sheet
Mr. Jacobsen presented a summary of Case 925M0132 and
the Planning Co~issien and staff recommended approval subject
~ =onditions.
acceptable. There was no o~position
On motion of Mr. Colbert~ seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
appruvmd Caae 92S~0132 ~ubjec~ tu the folluwing conditions:
to 10:00 p.m., Sund=y through Thursday and %c between
8:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., Friday and saturday.
2. ~re shall be no outside Dubllc address system
i~provements and the property lines of the adjacent lots,
except that the access into the site may encroach into
the required buffer if adequate scr%enin~ and landscaping
is provided, This shall confo~ to the Zoning Ordinance,
sections 21.1-226 throug~ 21.1-228.
vote:
In Kidlothian ~agisterial District, G. D. PACKAGE ~AC~iN~RY,
INC. requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned
Developments (Cassa 79506~ and 895N0174) tala=ira =o uses,
buffers, Master Plan approval, p~an~ submission and depth of
development. T~e density of such amendment will be controlled
by zoning conditions or Ordinance ntandard~. The
comprehensive Plan ~esignates the p~operty for residential
of 1.51 units per acre or le~ and light indu~trlal u~. This
request lies in Office Business (0) and Li~h~ Industrial
Districts on 14.67 acres, fronting approximately 990 feet on
the south li~e of Somthlake Beuleva~dr across from
Read. Tax Map 17-13 .(5) ~ou~hport, Section 2, Lots 14 and 16
and Ta~ Map 17-14 (~) ~a~1%2 ($he~%
Ynf. J~oobson pre,anted a sit, mary ~f Ca~e 92SN0134 an~ state4
tbs Planning Commission and staff recommended approval
to
~. Damiel di~clos=d to the Board that G. D. Package
Inc. was a major supplier to h~s e~ployer, Philip Morris, USA,
declared a potential conflict of interest pursuant to the
Virginia Comprehensive Conflict cf Interest Aot, and ~xcused
himself from the
~-r. ~im Theobald, representing the applicant, state~
I~r. DO~ Dawes, ~epr~senting the ~ylton Park
Association, expressed a~preclation to the applicant
resolvi~g their concerns. When asked, he ~tated he wa~ not
opposed to the
After brief discussion, on motion of ~. Barber~ ~eco~ded Dy
Mr. Colbert, the Board approved Case 92S~0~34 s~ject to th~
~ullowlng condlt~ons:
1. The following condition~ nOtWithStanding, and ~xcept as
noted herein, th9 plan submitted with th~ application and
~e Textual Statement, as amended on March 5, ]99~,
be considered the ~as%~r ~lan.
Ca~e 89SN0174 for the Office Buslne=s
Master Plan approval.
The uriginal T~xtual Statement ~ub~itte~
wi~ th~ application fo~ case S9SN0174~
relative to architectural ~tyle, scale,
guallty and exterior treatment of
buildings, remain~ in ~ffect wi~ the
(c) This condlt~on modifies Condition 12 of
detention facilities within this buffer;
add to re,ire a fifty (~0) foot buffer
along the western edq% of the detention
(d) ~is condition ~uper~edes Condition 9
2. In addition to the usam ~u~ently permitted on the Office
Buslnem~ (0) per%ion of the pxop~r~y~ the following uses
shall be pe~itted:
All Light Industrial (I-l) unen.
(a) This condition is in ~4~itlon %o Con~ition
8 of Case 89SN8174 which, with
amendment, in ~pplic~ble to thm office
Business (O) per,ion of this
(b) This condlt~on mupersed%~ Condition 10 of
3. With the ~pproval of this re,=mt, =he required twenty
(~0) foot buffer along the Light Indus~ial (M-l) portion
of the mubjeot property shall be d~l=Sed.
92-323 4/22/92
(NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 9 of Case
79~065 for the. Light Industrial (M-l) per%ion of this
request.}
4. The public wastewater system shall be used. (U)
5. For any detention/retention facilities located within
required buffers, an easement approved by the County
Attnrney shell be recnrded, prior to site plan approval,
which provides for a fifty (5~} foot buffer along those
portions of detention/rete~tion facilities net located on
the request property. This off-site buffer shall comply
with Sections 21.1-226 through 21.1-228 of the Zoning
ordinance.
In the event that off-site easements cannot be obtained,
a twenty (20) foot buffer shall be provided along the
northern boundary of any detention/retention facilities
located within required buffers. This twenty (20) foot
buffer shall extend from the required 15o foot buffer
east of detention/retention facilities to the fifty (~0)
foot Duffer west of detention/retention facilities.
Further, thi~ buffer shall be provided with landscaplng
and/or other screenin~ devices as necessary to mininize
th~ view o~ development north of the buffer from
properties ~outh of the detention/reTention facilities.
A detailed plan depicting ~h¢~e requirements shall
~ubmitted to the Planning Department for approval prior
to final approval of grading and drainage plans for any
detention/retention facilities. (P)
detention/retention facilities ha~e been submitted to
E~vi~o~mental Engineering for review and
Imposition of this condition would require submission of
a plan depicting the treatment of the twenty (20) foot
grading and drainage plans.]
Any detention facilities within the fifty (~0] foot
buffer shall be located adjacent to the required lad foot
buffer along the eastern boundary of th~ Off,ce ~usiness
(0) tract.
7. A fifty (50) foot b~ffer ~hall be provided along t~e
southern property boundary. Except as not%d herein, this
buffer shall comply with Sections S1.~-~6 through
21.1-228 cf the Zoning ordinance. This buffer shall, at
a minimum, b~ land, caped at One and one-half (1 1/2)
time~ the requirement= of the Zoning ordinance for fifty
(50} foot buffers. Stormwater detention facilities shall
be allowed within this buffer subject to t~e provision of
additional buffering a~ described by Condition ~. Within
sixty (60) days of the approval of this request or in
conjunction with the submission of final planm for the
looation and design of detention facilities, whichever
comes first, a landscaping plan depicting
requirements shall he submitted to the Planning
Department for approval. Buffers shall be installed
within One (1) year after the approval of this
landscaplng plan, except that in ~o case chall b~ffers
in,tailed until the exact location of detention
facil~ti~ have been d~t~mine~.
(NOT~: Thi~ condition ~upersede~ the TeXtual Statement
(E.), relative to buffers.)
8. Facilities shall be deaiqned such that noise generated by
ectlvltie~ within new buildings erected on the
property produces no greater noise level at the southeast
corner of the request property than does noise generated
92-324 4/22/92
by activitiam within existing buildings at the time of
site plan r~¥iow, as measured at the seutheast corner ef
the time of site Dian review for any new construction, a
noise study aeceptabl~ to the Planning Department, which
documents existing noise levels and provides for noime
attenuation necessary to achieve the criteria outlined
herein, shall be submitted for approval.
(NOTE: This condition supersedes th~ Textual State,ant
(E.), relativ~ to noise attenuation.)
(MOTE: Ali other appllcable conditions of zoning approval for
case 7~s065 and 895N0174 remain in effect.)
Ayes: M~. War~en, Mr. Bar, er, ~r. Colbert and Mr. M¢Hale.
Absent: /~n~. Daniel..
~r. Daniel returne~ to the meeting.
In Midlothian Na~isterta[ Di~rlct, B. ~. [~ATH~IAN, INC.
requested amendment to Conditional Ume Ple~ed Development
(Case ~9SN0174) relative to Master Plan approval, traotsr
trailer access and plans submission. The density of such
amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance
standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for
r~idential ~s¢ o~ 1.50 units per aura or lams. This
lies in an office Business (0) District O~ a 4.1 acre parcel
fronting approximately 250 feet on the east line of Branchway
Rsad~ approximately 150 feet south of $outhlake Boulevard,
Tax Eap 17-15 (1) Part oS Paruel 12 (Sheet
~r. Jacobson presented a ~ummary of Case 9RSN0136 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommended app¥oval Subject
to conditions.
M~. Andrew M. $oherzer, representin~ the applicant, stated the
reco~endatlon wa~ a~ptable. There was nc
After brief dlsousslcn# on motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by
fallowing conditions:
The plan dated January 17, 1992, as a~ended, and the
Statement, dated February 25, 19~2, shall be considered the
~aster Plan.
(NOTES: (a) This condition ~upe~sedes Condition~ 1 and 2 of
(b) This condition supersedes Condition 9 of Case
895N0174.
(c) Condition 3 of Case $9S~O174 will ~quir~
screeninq of loading amens in accordance with
(d) All other applicable conditions of zoning
approval for Case 895N0174 remain in effect.)
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel ~t~ted a concern had b~en expressed abou~ ~he order
of the agenda an~ clarified the Board had followed t~eir Rul~
of Procedure calling the agenda iD order of ~os~ re,eats
whi=h the applicanL had a~reed ~o the case as pr~nted and in
which no opposition had been present.
,9OS1~O~59 (~2mended)
In Midlothian ~agieterial District, CHA/~LE$ ~. AND LOUIS D,
F~R~/u~l-r~ requested ~ezosi~g f~om Agricultural (A} fo
Corporate 0[floe (0-2) of $.34 acres and to Community Business
(C-3) of 21.16 acres, The density of such amendment will be
controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property for planned
transition. Thi~ request lies on a 26.5 acre parcel fronting
approximately 1,~0o feet on the south line of Midlothian
Turnpike~ approximately 270 feet east of Farnha~ Drive. Tax
Ma9 16-11 (1) Parcels 32, 33 and 34 [Sheet 7).
91SNO231 (A~ended)
In Midlothian Magisterial District, ~ONARCO
regueeted razoning from Residential (R-15) to Comm~nlty
Business (C-3) of 7.42 acres; to Corporat~ office (0-2) of
7,7~ acre~; and %o Reeidential-Townhouse (R-T~) OX 2~.16
acres. Residential use of up to 8.00 units per acre is
permitted in a Residential Townheuse (R-TH} District. The
density of the amendment within the Community ~uslness (C~3)
and Corporate Office (0-2) Districts will be controlled by
zoning condition~ or Ordinanc~ ~tandard~. T~ Comprehensive
Plan des~nate~ the property for a planned transition area.
Thi~ r~t li~s ua 39.$6 acr=~ fronting approximately
approximately 2,490 feet on th~ nor~ line of Farnh~m Drive
and approximately 2,910 feet on the south line of Farnham
Drive. Tax Map ~6-1B (1) 9art of Parcel 5 (Zheet
91SNDR31 and ~tated th~ Planning Cotillion and staff
r~co~nd~d denial of the original applications. ~ no~d
requests did not confo~ to the Midlothian Area Co,unity Lend
Use and Transportation Plan. Ha thmn =eviewe~ the amen~ents
submitted since the reco~endation by the Planning co--lesion
and the guidelines uf the ~idlothian Arma Plan.
Midlothian Area Plan and the major concerns expressed had been
related to ~affi~. He fur~er stated when th~ ori~i~al
had been discussed with the neighborhoods in the area, there
had been a significant amount of opposition to the request and
taken place between the representatives for the applicants and
the area neighborhoods and, at this point in time, he could
support sending the r%quezt hack to the ~lanning Co~iz~ion
received letterz from reprezentativa~ of bot~ applicant~
supporting th~ request being remanded to the Pla~ing
M~, Oli~r D. ~udy, r~pr~s~nting ~rles H. and Louis D.
re,eats being remanded to the Planning Co, imPish and
indicate~ their wi~lin~nmss ~ attempt to re=olvm the
Mr. ~dward Willey, representing Bonarco A=~oclat~, =tat~d
they also =up,or=ed ~ ~ocmmendation to remand the re~uests
to ~e ~lanning Co~i~=ion and ~ndlcated they w0~l~ mak~ every
ag[crt =o meet t~e ~idelines of the Midis%blah ~ea Plan and
address the concern~ ~pr~e~ by %h~ ~eighborhoods in
area.
~en asked, Mr. Micas clarified when a request for zoning
come~ b~foro the Board and the reco~endation is to deSar or
92-326 4/22/92
r~and the ces~ to the Planning Commission, the public process
would allow citizen comment an the recommendation.
~r. George Beadles stated hc f~lt the requests should be
deferred fo~ Sixty days to provide an opportunity for tho~e
invslvsd ts meet and attempt to resolve the concerns
rathe~ than remanding the requests to the Planning Co~mis~ion.
He £urther s~ate~ the requests had already been heard once by
the Planning Commission and if the Board was not satissiad
with the requests or did not Want to defer; ha felt the
requests should then be denied.
Fn;. Warren stated he felt in certain ca~es~ when ~ajor c~hanges
in zoning ~eq~=~ts have occurred during the tlm~ after the
Plannlng co~ission has h~ard the requee~ and before it comes
to th~ Board, there was validity in remanding thm reqttest to
the Plannin~ co~i~sion for further
~. Daniel ~tate~ he felt the chang~ in the r~emts had
~ignificnnt and the is~uem r~tating to the magnitude of the
change should be addressed prior to the re~sts being heard
by the Board.
Mr. Jim Harris, Pr~siden~ of Ston~enge Civic Association,
the Planning CocA.mien; ~a= their concerns had been the same
as ~ose expressed by the Planning Co~ission and mtaff; that
the original requests ha~ changmd significantly; and they were
willing to work with the developer to achiev~ ~ project which
woul~ act adversely affect their community and would be in the
~eMt interest to the County.
Mr. War~n mub~itted into the record a letter from ~. ~im
~arri~ and ~s. ~ary Ann ~armon ou=llning their concerns
r~qarding the requests.
representatives for the appli0ants and felt they were in
fur~mr mtatm~ he had received nu~e~o~ inquiries regarding
development on Midl0thian Turnpike and concernm had b~en
would llks the applicants to make amendment~ to the requs~t~
no later than May 18, 19~2, %o allow the request to be h~ard
by the Planning Commission at its mee=ing in July.
Discussion, co~ent~ and gua~tion~ ~n~ued relative to the
appr0pria~e process in remanding the requests to the Planning
co~ission and the timeframe in which the request~ could
addressed by the Planning co~ission.
date ~peoific public hearing at the Planning Co~ission level
and the Board ~ould request th~ applicants at thi~ time to
~ee to %he date of said public nesting.
~. Rudy and Kr. Wiltey agreed all amen~ents reg~r~in~ the
Mr. Barber mad~ a ~otion, s~conded by ~r. Warren, for
Board to remand Ca~e~ 90SN0259 and 91SN0~31 to the
the Co~i~i~n o~ July 21, 1992 and for ~ applicants to
submit to =he County, on their own a~oord, all amen~ents to
the requests no late~ than May 18,
Mr. Wa~en inquired if~ after the established
negotiations continued between the neighborhood~ and the
representatives for the applicants, and an agreement was
reached whether it would prohibit them from bringing forth the
p~po~al £o~ consideration.
Mr. Barber stated h~ did not feel th~ stipulations impo~d
would change the process followed by the Beard.
Mr. Daniel called for the vote on the motion made by Mr.
Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, for th~ Board to remand Cases
909N0259 and 91SN0231 to the Planning Commisoien which
requeeta would be scheduled ko Be heard by the Commission on
July 21, 1992 and for the applicant~ to ~ubmit to the County,
on their own aosord, all amendments to the requests no later
than Way.18, 1992.
Vote: Unanimous
92~0~04
Xn Bermuda Maqisterial Di~tric~, ~XX~J~%.N
COi~POi~ATION requested rezoning from ~eavy Industrial (M-3) to
Hea~ Industrial (I-3). The density of ~uoh amen~ent will
controlled by son~ng conditions or Ordinancm mtandardm. The
Comprehensive Plan d*signates the property' fo~ light
i~d~strial use~ Thi~ r~qua~t li~ on a ~.97 acr~ parcel
fronting approximately ~5~ fa~t on the south line of Old
R~blewood Read. Tax MaD 117-14 (1) Parcel 6 (Sheet
Mr. Jacobsen pr~z~nted a zu~ary of Case 92SN0104 and stated
th~ Pla~in~ co~is~ion and staff reco~endad approval
noted ~e Planning Co~isslon had reco~nded a fifty foot
b~ffe~ b~t staff had reco~ended a hundred foot buffe~.
Dis~ssion, cements and questions ensued relative to ~e
buffer; and wh~ther concerns had been expressed regarding
u~e of ~m ~rop~rty.
~. Doan Hawkins, representing ~he applicant, mtated
further stated the company had been at this site and o~erating
since the early 197o's; that the applicant wanted to rezone to
Ordinance to obtain a variance %o a setback along ~ front
par~ of the property to construct a~itional offic~ space;
~at the majority of the chemical~ u~%d wer~ household
chemicals and they harm nu~ experienced any ~roblems with
handling of the ~ate~ial~; and that they wo~ld like the
to remain the same and, thermfore, were in agreemen~ with the
~eco~dat~oa of the Planning Commission for a fifty foot
buffer.
Disoussio~,~ do~en%s and ~estions ensued relative to the
c~rent M-3; the ~ifSerence between ~-3 and I-3 u~e~;
wh~er the appli=ant had other option~ available in obtaining
~ variance.
Mr. George Beadles stated he felt the request should be
ordinance.
After brief di~cn~ion, on motion o~ ~r, ~oHal~, s~cond~d by
Mr. Colbert, the Board approved Came 929N0104 subject to the
following
A minimum fifty (S0) foot buffer shall bm maintained
along the ~outh property line of the request ~te.
buffer shall comply with the requiremen~ of %he Zonln~
Ordinance, section~ 21.1-226 t~ouqH 21.1-228. (CPC)
92-328 4/22/92
And, further, the Board accepted the following proff~re~
condition:
Prior te the issuance of any additional accnpancy
p~rmits, additional pavement shall be oonstr~cta~ along
Old B~rm~da Hundred Road at ~he approved access
provide a right tarn lane.
Vote: Unanimous
~.2b"l, IOll?
In Midlothian Magimterial District~ TS~USTH~$, ~
e~ansion of a private school in a R~e~tfal
p,rmitted in a Residential (R-~5) Di~riQ~. The ~ensity
~u~h amendEent will be controlled by zening conditions
Ordinance ~tandard~, The Comprehensive Plan ~e~i~nm%~
property for publ~c/~i-public u~e. This re,est lie~ on an
line of ~cRae Road~ al~o fro~tinq approximately 200 feet on
th~ north line o~ Rockaway Road, and approximately 250 feet
the northeast linc of Quaker Lane, and located at th~
inter~ection~ of N~R~e Road, Rockaway Koad, and Quaker
Tax ~ap 10-10 (4) Bon Air Pla%, Block 2, Lot 1; Block ~%, LOt
~; and Block 12, Lots 2A ~nd ~ (shmet 3).
Saint Miahael'~ Episcopal Church, d~cl~red a
¢onflic~ of interest pursuant ~o th~ Virginia Comprehensive
Co~flict of Inter.st Act, and excused himself from the
meeting.
~r. Jaco~son pre~ent~d a ~u~ary of Ca~ 92SN0117 and stated
Nr. Ed Prayer, representing the applicant, s~at~d the
demolishing an existing two-story buildln9 and addin9
additions onto the ~cho01 to allow them to enlarge existing
classrooms. H~ noted there would be no increase in school
enrollment and re~ested th~ Board to giv~ favorable
letter outlinin~ hie concerns regarding the request; that
fait churches, schools and ~ther non-profi~ organizations
~ho~ld enforce mandatory pumping of s~pti~ tanks every live
Mr. Daniel inatruatad the County A~inistrator to ~¢hed~l~
review of the Septic ~a~/Pu~lic sewer Polioy at an upcoming
approved Case 92SNQl17 subject to the followin~
92-329 4/Z~/92
1. Development shall conform to the requirements of the
Zoning 0rdinanca, A~ticla 6, Divisions 1 and 2~ (P)
The public w~stewuter ~ystem ~hall be used for all nmw
buildings and/or ad4itions to existing buildings on the
request site not appearing on the plan entitled "St.
Michael's site Plan, Schematic C,'~ dated 12-16-91. (U)
3. Except where adjacent to Riverside School (Tax Map 10-10
(4) Ben Air Plat, Block 12, Lots 2. §k and ~B), all
playfield~, courto or similar active recreational
shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from adjacent
properties.
4. Except where adjacent to Rivermide School (Tax Map 10-10
(4) sen Air Plat, sleek 12, Lots 2, 5A and PS) and
improved, publicly maintained roads, a fifty (50) foot
bu£~er shall b~ maintained around the perimeter of the
site. This buffer shall comply with Sections ~1.1-~26
~hreugh 21.1-~8 of the zoning ordinanoe.
(NOTE: This oonditien would allow ~he deletion of
buffers at ~uch time ~hat adjacent right= of way to the
north and west are improved as public roads that
maintained by the Virginia b~part~ent of Transportation.)
~ir. ~icas reit=ned to the meeting.
~I~N}IIN~ COMMISSION requested Conditional Use to permit a
wastewater pumping station in an Agricultural (A) District and
an access easement in Agricultural (A) and Residential IR-25)
st. Stephens Way and ending approxlma=ely one (1) mile
southwest of St. Stephens Way. The density cf such ~mendment
w~ll b~ controlled by zoning conditions or 0rdinanoe
st~ndard~. The Comprehensive 91an ~e~ignat~s the property for
1-1~ (11) Salisbury Hills, Section 2, Part cf Lots 5 and 6;
and Tax Map 6 (1) Part of Parcel 27 <Sheets ~ and 4).
the Planning Commission and staff recommended aD,re.al subject
to conditions.
recommendation was acceptable.
applicant for ~hese types of reque~t~ er if re~ained
approved C~se 92SK01~7 =ubject to the following conditions.
Development ~hall comply with th~ requirements of the
Zoning O~dinunoe (Chapter 21.1) A3ctiole 6, Divisions 1
and ~ for u~s adjacent to residentially zoned propsrty.
(?)
(NOTE: Inpomition of this condition will r~quire that
all off-site utility iinas, such as electric power line~,
92-330
which ~erve the proposed wastcwator pumping station
excluelvaly, be inst~lled underground.)
2. In addition to the architectural requlreme~tS of the
Emsrging Qrow~h Distrlots, the wastswaLer pumping station
structure shall have an architectural ~%yle ~imilar to
the elsYa~ions submitted with the u~lication.
3. chain-link type sscuri~y £ences shall he permitted on the
site until such time =hat adjacent property is
for rssidential use, at which ~ims the chain-link fence
shall be removed. D~ccrativo fsnoing, compatible with
rssidantial d~v~lopment shall be permitted. The type of
fsnclng shall b~ approved by the Planning Department.
(NOTE: This condition would not preclude the use
d~ooratlvs ~sncing with ~n~tlal construction of
facilities.)
4. In conjunction with site plan r~vi~w, a plan for
controlling dus~ from ve~iclos traveling along the
road shall be submitted to the Planning Oepar~ent for
approval. (P)
5. At such time as requested by the Planning Departmsnt, a
pedestrian access righ~ of way shall ~e recorded within
the buffers for public acca~ to Michaux Cree~. The
sxact location and width of the right e£ way shall be
approved ~y the Planning Department and the Department of
6. Buffer~ shall b~ provided around the perimeter of the
proposed wastewater pumping station in accordance with
the buffers ~epicted on the site plan dated Oetobe~ 1991
and submitted with the application. These buffer= ~hall
~o~fer~ ~u th~ reguirsmsnts eS ~he Zenin~ 0rdin~nce,
Saction~ 21.1-226 through ~1.1-~9~ (a) (1).
Vote:
On motion of ~r. McHale, ~e¢onded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
adjourned at 8:45 p.m. until April 29, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. a%
Bailey Bridge Middle School f~ a public hearing to consider
applicants f~r appointment as ~atoaca District school Board
representatiwe.
Vote: Unanlmeu~
County Ad~in~tratol~
~r~k~r9 -<f//genie 1
Chairmaq%