06-24-1992 MinutesEr. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman
Mr. Arthur $. Warren, vice Cb_rm.
Mr. E~war~ B. Barber
Mr. Whaley M. Colbert
Mr. J. ~. ~cHaler III
Mr. Lane B. Rameey
County Administrator
92-5~7
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. N. E. Ca~michaelr
Co~missioner of Revenue
Asst. Ce. Admin.,
Intergovern. Affairm
Building O£ficial
Fire Department
~. ~ichael Golden, Acting
Dir., Parks and Recreation
Deputy Co. Aclmin.,
~r. William H. Howell,
Dr. Burr LOwo, Dir.,
M~ntaI Health/Mental
Retardation
Dir., Accounting
~+ Robert L+
H~an Serv~ce~
N~slng Home
bit., Transportation
~ir., ~nv. ~nglneering
County Attorney
~s. Pauline A. Mitchell,
Dir., Newm &
Information
~. Richard Nunnally,
~. Glen R. Peter~on~
Col. J. E. Pittman, Jr.,
Police Department
Acting Clerk to the Boar4
~. William D. Peele, chief
Development Review for
Dir., Budget & Management
Mr. M, D. Stith~ Jr.,
Acting Deputy Co. Admin.,
Co,unity DeYelop~eBt
Mr. David H. Welchons,
Dir., Utilities
Mr. Frederick willie, Jr.
Dir., Human Resource~gt.
Mr. Daniel ualled t/%e regularly scheduled meeting te order at
3:00 p.m. (EST).
1. APP~A~
On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by
approved the minutes of June 10, 1992, a~ ~b~itted.
Vote: Unanimous
Board
2. ~OUN'PY AD~INISTRA~O~_8 ~OM~{ENT8
Mr. Ra~ey ~ta~ed ~e National ~0ciat~on of Counties (NACo)
ha4 notified ~e Cu~ty it had ~en ~elected to fete{ye twelve
1992 National A~sooia~ion of Countie~ Achiev~ent Award~. Ha
AW~ ~o~am gives national recognition to significant
effectiw~ activitie~ to improve ~e organization and
a~reciation to County departments a~d i~didated the awards
would be pr~ent~d to ~o~e departments in August.
conducted a thorough certification review of the State Board
of Corrections and had issued ~ ~e~f~eld Co.unity
Diversion Incentive ~ram an uncond~tlonal certification
~ Rpo~ a~ e~cellent perfo~anc~ level of 100 p~cmnt
comDliance. He introduced Hr. G~en P~er~on, Director of ~e
Co--unity Diversion Incentive P~r~.
~. Daniel pre~ented the certificate of compliance to Mr.
Petermon and co~en~ed staff fur ~elr efforts in u~plylng
MS. Ma~ Pa~e~ Executive Direotor of ~e Capital ~ea Agency
on Aging, ~ta=ed the Agency wa~ a joint ven=~e between
federal, state a~d lo~ak qover~ents to ~erve ~e special
need~ of ~e aging population and reviewed ~e operation of
~r at-large of ~e Agency, who was ~re~nt. $h$ th~n
reviewed the activities and service~ of ~e Agency, the
propo~ T~ee-Yea~ ~ea Pl~ for Aging ~ervices a~ the
budget for FY93-95. She noted the agency i~ a p~ivate, non-
profi~ organization and e~re~ed appreciatlon to th~ Boar4
for ~e opportunity to address the activities of the Agemcy.
~. R~sey recognized ~e minority interns who were present at
the meeting an~ wishe~ them success ~ing their inte~shi~
p~s with the county.
Mr. M~Hale stated he had attended a Budget and Audit Committee
meeting in which they had met with the Loudoun County Audit
6/~/~
co~ittee to di~cu~ is~ue~ of mutual ccnoerD. He fR%~the~
stated he had held his monthly constituents meeting with the
topic being the Southern and Western A~ea Plan, in which the
Jefferson Davis Highway Study and widening of ~he Appomattox
Mr. Barber ~tated he had attended the Taxicab Advisory Board
meeting and noted he had the opportunity tc attend the
He f~ther minted he had also represented the Board at the
"~ican Lung Association of Virginia Million Dollar
cel~rated its 30th anniversary and distributad baseball cads
to ~e Board on b~alf of Hu~enot Little ~ague. He not~ he
ha~ a4~esse4 th~ Virginia Depar~t of Transportation at it~
final allocation public hearing. M~. Daniel stated
represeneatives o~ the County woula be meeting wi~ t~e
Vi~inia Department of Transportation to review fut~ need~
of ~e County.
~. Warren ~tated he had attended graduat~on cer~monie~ for
Clover ~ill High School; ~m~ he had met wi~ the prm~id~t~
of civic a~ociation~ loca~e~ in Clover ~ill Die,riO= in w~io~
~ey had ~im=u~d varioum im~ue~ fa=lng the County mn~ would
b~ ~ol~ing ~i~ilar m~=ing~ in ~ future.
Mr. Daniel stated he had attended a meeting at ~e Ai~ort
Co~ission to meet with the l=ad~rship of ~h~ Ric~ond ~r
Internatlonal Airport and instruoted ~e County ~ministrator
Capital Region Airpo~ co~ission, ~u present ~e long te~
plan of the Airport to ~e Board.
4, REOUEBTS TO POBTPO~E A~IONo EK~GENCYA~DITIONO OR
On motion of )tr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Bo~rd
moved Item 7.A., Resolution Recognlzln~ ~. Joseph L.
Jail S~rvic~ Agre~t; distributed a~ditional info, arden on
It~ 6.H.7.b., Set Date for a Publlo Hearing to
1992 Grant Funds for Hom~ Day C~e Provider ~ain~nq
to follow I~em 6.E.. Re,est for ~ingu/~ffl~ ~e~it for
Poseidon Swiping, Inc. and Revocation of a Bingo/~ffle
~e~it for ~rla~uod of Richmond A~utic Club; a~ded Item
6.J., Adoptio~ of a Re~olution Supporting the Reorganization
and Redeslgaation of ~e Ri~ond ~ea Met=opolltan
Organization to follow It~ ~.I.; added Item 6.K., ~option of
Route 895 to follow Item 6.J.; and added Item
~option o~ a zoning ordinance ~en~ment to Eliminate
Incon=i~tencie= Involving Village Pl~ to fellow Item
6.H.15., Awar~ of Water Contracts and~ adopted'~e agenda,
amended.
Vote: Unanimous
~. WORK SESSIONS
There were no work sessions ~cheduled at this time.
B'~-. Mamden stated staff was recommending the appointment of a
rapidly changing health care en¥ironment while maintaining the
~ality of tong-te~ care available to citizenm of the county
~ou~h the N~sing Home; to Rrovide for the be~t intere~t~ of
County for op~rating funds; an~ to ensue effective operation
in ~e heal~ care ~vironment. H= noted the co~ittee would
comD1~t~ its work within approximately sixty to ninety days
October with a d~=ailed plan.
~. Daniel stated he fel~ ~e co~ittee should consist of
h~alth care /ndust~.
R. ~ap!an; ~. Dominic J. Pules; ~. Wayne L. ~d~; Dr.
and for ~e Board to include addi~ional n~ination~ a=
desired.
For lack of a se=and, ~e motion faile~,
Discussion. talents and ~estions ~sued relative to
m~ership of the Co~ittee; the timeframe in which the
tlmefrmm~ in which ~e Board could ~ke citizen
n~ination~/app~i~ment~ =o ~e co~ittee; an~ whether th~
Th~r~ wa~ brief di~ion r~lative to the n~er of citizens
to ~e~e on ~e Co~ittee.
appointeem ~ho~l~ have e~erti~e in t~e h~alth ~are ~ndum~.
m~r~hlp of the Co~ittee; the n~r o~ citizens to serve
on ~he Co~i~tee; wh~her me.ers could be in ~he advisory or
t~mi~al info.arian and~ it was generally aqr~d, ~he
Co~ittee would be c~pri=ed of ~even members.
~. Daniel nominated Ms. Bev~ley D~De~ to s~ve on th~
H~alth Care Co~i~slon Transition C~ittee.
On motion of ~. Daniel, seconded by ~. Warren, the Board
92-530 6/24/92
Co, lesion Transition Comittee, whose formal appointments
will be made at the July ~i~ 19~R meeting:
* F~r. Robert R. Kaplan
* F~. Dominie g. Pules
* Mr. Wayne .L. ~d~unde
* Dr. Edward C. Peple, Jr.
* NS. Beverley DowDey
* Mr. Michael Worthington
And, further. ~e Board d~f~ed one citizen nomination to
serve on the Heal~ Care Co~isslon Tran~itlon Co~ittee until
Catty A~inlstrator for ~ Servlce~ and ~, Jacob ~st,
~inistrator of ~e Lucy Cart Nursing Home, would provide
a~inistrative support to the co~ittee.)
Vote: Unanimous
6,B, I~PLE~E~ATION OF COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FO~ AT-RISK
Mr. Ma~d=~ ~tat~d th~ 1992 session of the General Assembly
enacted tho Comprehensive Services Act for at-rick youth and
families. ~e reviewed implementation of the Act and stated it
weul~ provid~ a new soncep= ~cr dealing with troubled youth
with emotionul or behuwiorul problems who are at-risk of
residential placement. Ho further stated nine categorical
funding stream~ were consolidated into a single fund pool
9rovi~ing greater ~lexibility in =he use of such fundm and
said funds could now be used to provide both residential and
nonresidential mos-sites to at-risk youth and their fa~illes.
Mr. Daniel e~cused himself fro~ the ~eeti~g.
Mr. Masden then reviewed the nine categorical fundinq streams
and the mandate to establish certain mtructures at both the
state and local levels BUC~ as the State's requirement to
establish an Executive Council consisting of human
agency heads, parents and private service providers to provide
program guidance.
Mr. Daniel r~turned to the meeting.
Management Team consisting of State and local agency
representatives to recommend policies to the Council, monitor
local pro~rnms and administer an innovative program trust
fund. He stated local governments were ~equired to appoint a
community Policy and ~anagement Team consisting Of
S~-vicae agency heads, a representative from the local
sy~tem~ Juvenile Court ~er~ioes, a parent, and a
provider and the Team would then astsbllsh one Or ~o~e family
a~e~ment team~ to evaluate each at-risk child for whom the
pooled funds would be ~sed to insure appropriate services are
provided at the lowest possible costs. He noted the community
Policy and Management Team would authoriz~ all expenditure~
from the pooled £uo~s. ~e then reviewed the antlc~pated
increase for the County to provide thi~ ~ervice. When asked,
Mr. Masden stated the County would measure the s~feo~ness
of the program by analyzing every at-risk child CUrrently in
residential ~la~ment and noted there w~re approximately 160
to 200 at-risk childre~ in the County and, in ~he long-term,
the Program would pay the administrative costs aeseciate~ with
the ~rogram.
92-531
eat~bliBhed a Community P01icy and Manag~en~ Team
1992 Session of the ~neral Amsa~ly~ ccn~istin~ of
fQllowing:
Chai~n
* Director, ~e~terfield Co~uni~ Service~ Board
* Director, ~euterfi~ld J~venile
* Director, ~esterfield Health Department
* Director, ~esterfield Depurtm~t of social services
Department
* Director, Chesterfield Juvenile Center
* Director, Chesterfield Office on Youth
* Representative of chesterfield P~llc
demi~ated by ~e Superintendent
* ~ivate provider - Janice M. Mmck, D~r~ctor,
ChAllenge Kome of Virginia Baptists
* ~rent R~p~e~en~ative - Mary Jo _L~ Retired
~emt~flel~ Co~ty School Teacher
* Repres~tatives desi~ated by Colonial H~ightm city
Co,nell
~4, further, ~e Board au~orizud ~= County A~inistrator to
proceed with the P~ogra~ on ~e assumption that Progr~
a~inistrative charges to respective prog~
no,ed =taSf will ~ke eve~ e~fort to recover costs within
existing budget. If savings are not achieved or recovery
from the Board later in the fiscal year.)
~ote: Unanimoum
6.~. ~DOPTION OF ~ MISSION STATEMENT FOR THE COUNTY
CHESTERFIELD
Hr. Nunnally stated last Fall, staff began working on the
development of a mission statement for the County and reviewed
the structure of the committee and the sources obtained for
suggastion~. Me further ~t&ted th~ Co~%¢ittee achieved the
statement of Provident a "First Choice*~ Ce~unitv Throuoh
Excellence in Public Service and indicated the committee wo~ld
now develop marketing strategy for the County using the
mission statement. When as3ced, he stated County employees had
been involved in the prouess fur developing the mission
state,eat-
Mr. ~amsey ~xpreemed appreciation to th~ Committee for their
e~ensive work in achieving a mission stateme~ for
County. He further stated he felt ownership of the mission
On motion of Fn~. Barber, seconded by ~ir. Colbert, the Board
e~opte~ the state,eat, Provldinu a "First Choice" Community
Through Excellence in Public Service, as the County'~ mission
statement.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Mica~ ~tated the Coumty was recently uotifled by the State
Board of Health that the Ta%rn of Dillw~ in Buckingham County
had applied for approval to dispose of the town'~ domestic
sewage sludge in the Shoosmith Brothe~, Ind, Landfill. He
further stated under State law, the Board is permitted to
c~ent on any applicatio~ [0~ land disposal of sewage sludge
wi~in th~ County and could co~ent on the aDplicati0n withln
thirty days of receipt of ~e notice. He noted ~e total
amount ~f sludge which would be deposited at ~e ~n~fi11 was
year and staff had reviewed the aDplioation an~ felt ~e
re.est did not present any enviro~ental ri~k~ to the County.
~e stated staff was reu~endlng the Board z~mit o~n%s
the Boa~d of H~al~ ~ot objecting to the proposal ~t
~nd~cating the T~ Qf Dillon only be pe~itted to deposit
as ~efined by Virginia Department 0f Waste ~nag~t
material.
~. Daniel miata4 =urrent regulations were being addressed
an effort to eliminate d~ping at indust~iul sit~s and in ~e
risks although a r~es~ o~ a l~er amount would best
ad~%~ in a diff~t fashion.
Aft~ brief dj=cup,ion, ~. Colbert ~de a motion, ~onde4 by
A~inistrator to respond to ~e Town of Dill~n's sludge
~isposal application and submit oo~ent~ to ~e Board
~%a]~ not objecting to the re~$~t b~t indi=ating the To~ of
Dil~ only ~ p~i%te~ to deposit sludge material in the
Shoo,mien Brothers, In=. Landfill which is =la~sified as non-
hazardous ~terial as defined ~ Virginia Department of Waste
Management re~lation~.
total of forty-six o~ic yard~ to ~ deposited in ~a Landfill
and the State identifies locations in whioh sludge material
shoo~mith Brothers, Inc. Landfill and %Re TO~ O~
would b~ l=gally r=sponsibte for the di~po}ul of the s]udqe
~terial.
~. Dani~i callud for %he vote on motion ~de by ~. col~r%,
seconded ~ ~. Warren, for ~% Board to authorize ~e County
A~inlstrator to res~on~ to the To~ of Dill~ms sludge
disposal application and s~mit co~ents %0 the Board of
Health not objecting to th~ rarest but indicating the To~
Dill~ ably b~ permittod to de~it ~ludge ~aterial i~ the
Shoo~i~ Bro~ers, Inc. Landfill which is =tussif~ed as non-
92-533 6/34/9Z
................ 1 I !__.__.I ........... [ __ L .............
INC. ~ REVOCATION OF A
Mr. Micas stated Poseidon Swimming, Inc. hud originally
submitted an application for a b~ngo/raffle pe~it in
0f 199~ and at that time, the appllcation was reje~ed as they
Se~ic~ (IRS) and, ~r~for~, they h~d obtained ~ ~e~it
thrOUgh the Bria~ood of Ric~ond A~uatio Club (B~C)
Poseidon ;wi~ing, Inc.'; approval by ~e !RS. ~e further
bingo/ruffle pe~it %o POs~idO~ SwiPing, I~C. fo~ calendar
~r 199Z and r~vooa=ion of a bingo/raffle De,it to ~C. He
an organization ;ubmi~s an a~plioatio~ for a bingo D~it
whil~ I~ t~ ex,pt ~tatus ~s Deeding, staff p~oDosed an
amen~en~ whi~ would ;e~i% %he local governing body to issue
status fr~ the IRS and noted ~ ~rugosm4 amen~ent had been
approved by ~e General Asse~ly.
On motion of Mr. ~arber, ~econded ~ Mr. Colbert, the Board
approved a binge/raffle ~e~i= to Poseidon swiping, Inc. for
calendar year 1992 and revoked
behalf of Poseidon Sw~ing, Inc.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. ~ioas stated John Tyler C~mmuni~y College has received a
199] ~rant from the State for a comprehensive, individualized
program to train home ~ay carm providers %o ~re~are "high
risk" children sociatly~ emotionally and cognitively for
public s~hools and, in the past, the pro~r~m has been
a~i~i~tered by the College. ~e further stated in order for
John Tyler to receive the ~rant, the Count~ must waive its
right to $49,718.00 of grant money and agree John Tyler can
administer the ho~e day care training program.
on motion of Mr. McHale, secanded by M~. Colbert, the Board
authorized the County Administrator to execute a waiver form
authorizing John Tyler Community College to edminister a home
day care ~ro¥ider training program for "high ri~k" children
and waivinq to John Tyler~ th~ County'~ right to 1992 ~rant
fun~s for the Program.
Vote: Unanimous
~ M~DESIGNATION OF TH~ ~IC~O~ ~-REA
Stith stated staff had prepared a resolution supporting
reorganization and redesigna~ioe of the Richmond
Metropolitan Planning O~a~i~tion (~0).
v~ted on at ~a ~0 meeting.
Warren made a motion, seconded by ~. Colbert, for
~ard to =dopt m resolution ~upporting the reorganization and
re~signa%ion of the Ric~ond ~ea He~ropolitan Planning
92-534 6/24/92
organizatien.
as be was concerned to the co~mittee beiag made part of the
Richmond Regional Plann{ng D~stric: Co~ission (RRPDC).
Mr. Daniel stated the Richmend Regional Plannin? Distlist
Commission did not manage the MPO an~ W~U~d re~n a l~cal
~ignificant peri--tags ~f ~ ~pula~ion on ~e ¢o~ittee
neted the two ¢o~ittees would ~n individual co~ittees.
Warren, seconded by ~. C~l~t. fo~ the Boar~ %o a~op~
foll~ing resolution:
~S, Title 23, Code of Federal Re~lation~, Part 450,
pruvldem for a aon=inuing, cooperative and oomDrehensive urban
trunsportution plunning process; and
~S, the r~a~tly ~a~te4 F~deral Inte~odal Surface
on the urban transportation planning pro=ess and e~ances the
authority of m~tro~olitan ~lannlng org~iza=ions; and
~S, section 134 (o) of IST~ provide~ fo~ the
e~tablishment of ~0 area ~daries based on the U.~.
Enviro~ntal Pre=so,ion Agancy's desi~ated nonattainment
area for crone air quality standards; and
~ER~S, Charles City County i~ within ~h=
Petersburg oz0~e nonuttai~t area ~d is not currently
me.er of ~e Ri~ond ~ea Met=op011~an ~lunnlng O~an~zatlon
(~O); and
~S, ~e Ric~ond ~ea ~O. i~ response to a re~e=t
of the metropolitan planning organization, took action on
~S, the Ric~ond ~a ~ ~1~ Dock ~=tion on
Z4, 1992. ~O ~ee~ r~desipnation to e~anoe policy involv~ent
of elected officials in the ur~n ~ansportat~on planning
~roces~ ba~e~ on the reco~endations of its Organization and
Structure Co~ittee; and
~S, the R~c~on4 ~ea ~0 r~Go~n~e~ that the
attached E~ibit to this resolu=ion; and
~S, Section 134 (b) (~) of the ~e4aral
re~esignation of a metropolitan ~lannlng organlzat~on shall
~de by agre~ent among the ~ove~no~ and units of general
purpose gover~emt which together re~re~t at lea~t 75
percent of ~e affected pop~lation wi~in a metropolitan
planning organizations' he--dories.
NOW, TH~EFORE BE IT ~SOLVED, ~at the Board of
Supe~isors of ~esterfiel~ County, thi~ twenty-four~ day
J~, 199Z, does hereby oono~ with ~e reco~e~dations o~
Ric~ond Area ~O and re~t~ the Governor of Virginia to
thi~ r~luti~n.
Ayes: /~r. Daniel, Mr. warren~ Mr. colbert and /~r. McHale.
Nays: Mr. Barber.
(It is noted a copy of the Exhibit for the prop0~ed voting
membership fo~ the redesignate~ Richmond Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization is filed with the papers of this Board.)
~.K. ~DO~TION OF ~ RE~OLUTION S~PPURTIN~ THE CON~T~U~TTON O~
the conat~ction of Route 2~8 aa a priority for Chesterfield
County.
There was brief d~Ecu~ion relative to whether e~al fun~ing
could be a~ured for Rout~ ~8~ and Rou~e 89~ and ~he Board
priority for the County and he felt the re~olutlon should not
consideration ~or Route 288.
~en asked, ~. Ramsey ~tate~ the i~te~t of th~ r~olutlon wa~
note4 co~2y repres~tatives would be meeting wi~ the Highway
funding for Route 89~ ~t does not addres~ funding for Route
288.
D~cu~ion, c~nt~ and ~e~tlon~ ~sued relative to
the Co~ty's priority ra~ing~; funding for ~e =onstr~ction
of Route 895; and ~e resolution addressing the County's needs
~. Daniel stated ha felt ~e resolution ~houtd ad. ess
should a~ess it as a high priority Sor the County.
Route 895; th= re~olution clearly d~fining the Board
~uDportlng f~ing for Rou~e 28~ as a higher ~riority~ and th~
a~ro~riate wording to includa in th~ rssolutie..
~. Bar~r stated although the County endorsed the
con~t~=%ion of Route 895, he felt the County should endorse
addressing the importance of Route 2S8 with nei~orln~
jurlsdic~ions; Route $9~ ~rre~tly being eligibl~ to receive
interstate funding as oppos~ to Rnute 288; ~e ~ntent of the
resolution being to ~ppQrt both proJ~ with ~ CQ~ty'~
top priority being ~e cons~ction of Route 288; fund~
available for the construction of Route 895; whe~er federal
funding woul~ be available for con~t~ction of Route 288; and
92-536 6/24/92
whether those funds 'would be in competition with the
donst~uetion of Route 895.
On motion of Mr. Barber, ~soonded by F~r. Warren, the Board
adopted the ~oll~wingresolution:
WHeReAS, in March, 1992, the Chesterfield County Boa~d of
Supervlsor~ adopted a priority list for highway projects; and
WH/LR~AS, tAe widehing of Route 360 is th~ Board's first
priori=y; and
~E~, the Route 360 widening is addressed
t~nta~iv~ FY-93 allocations and Six Year ~lan up,ute;
~E~, ~e construction of Route 288 fr~ ~e Powhite
Parkway to Route 60 i~ ~econd on the Board'= priority list;
~ad~essed p~io~ity; and
~ER~S~ the const~ction of Route 89~ from Chippenham
of years the construction of both Route ~8 am~ Route 895; and
~S, Route 288 re, ins che~ter~iel~ mos= ori%ioul
unaddressed ~ansportation ~eed; and
~S~ ~OT*~ Six Year Plan must b~ revised to include
ac~uisltion and construction can begin i~diately.
~OW, T~FORE BE IT ~SOLVED, that the
County Board of Supervisor= mu~or=s a VDOT Six Ye~ Plan
which ~nclud~z ~q~al f~ding for bo~ Rou%e 288 and Route ~95.
~D, BE IT F~ RESOLVED, ~t if e~al fun~ing
Ayes: ~. Warren, ~. Barber, ~. Colbert an~ ~.
~stentlon: ~. Daniel.
6.F. /%PPOINTME~
On me, ion of ~{r. Ko~ale~ ~econded by Mr. Warren, ~he ~oar~
appointed M~, T~0~as A. Miller to serve on the School/County
Consolidation Committee, as the ~oard o~ Supervisors clt~sn
representative, whose term is effective iIm~ediately and will
so,Ye at the pleasure of %ha DearS.
Vote: Unanimous
6,F.2. AP~OINTMENTB TO BO~RDB ~%ND CoM~XTTE~8 WITR TE~9
Mr. Warren withdrew from nomination Mr. Michael Worthington,
representing the County at-large~ to serv~ O~ the ~o¢ial
Services Board.
92-537
appointed Mr. William Soott, representing the County at-large,
to serve on the ~oard of Appeals for the Virginia uniform
statewide Building code, whose term is effeotive July 1, 1992
On motion of ~. McHale, ~uconded by M~. Colbe~t~ the Boa~d
reappointed ~s. ~v~ Ri~ley, representing ~e county at-
large, to serve on the Capital ~eu Agency on Aging Boa~d of
Direc~or~, whose te~ i$ ~¢~ive ~ly 1, ~992 and will
~i~ ~ 30, 1995.
vote: Unm~imoU~
On motion of Pm. M~Hale~ eeoonded by l~r. Colbert~ the Board
reappointed Ms. Judy Dunn, representing the County mt-large,
to serve o~ the Citizens T~ansportation Advisory commit~ee~
who~e ter~ is effeotive ~uly ~, 199~ and will expire June 30,
1993.
CITZ~ENB TRANZPOHTATIUR ADV~BORY ~OH~ZTTEE
On motion of Mr. ~eBale, ~ecended by ~r. Colbert, the Board
reappointed Mr. ~erbert Richwine, r~presenting th~ County at-
large, to serve cn the citizens Transportation Advisory
Committee, whose term is effective July 1, 1992 and will
ea'piTe June 50, 1994.
Vote: Unanlmou~
~OHN TYLE~ ~0~,~UN/TY COLLEGE LOCiqL EOA~D
On motion of l~r. McHale, seconded by ~. Colbert, ~e Beard
reappointed Dr. G~o~e R. Partin, representing ~e County at~
larg~, to ~e~ on the John Tyler Co--unity college Local
Boa~d, whose te~ is effective July l, 199~ and will expire
~ne 30, 1996.
reappointed ~r. Charle~ Quaiff, repres~ntlng the County at-
effective July I, 1992 and wil~ expire Juee 30, 199~.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. ~cHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert. the Board
appointed/reappointed the following per, one to ~erve on the
92-538 6/24/92
Youth Services citizen Board, representing the following
districts, whose term~ are effective ~ly l, 1992 and will
expire a~ indicated:
District Term
Miss Katie Johnson, regresenting
Thomas Dale High ~chool
Mr. Ma~el Hidalgo, Jr.
June 30, 1993
~e 30, 1995
Dale
Mi~m Batty Barrett, representing
Lloyd O. Bird High SC/~OOl
June 30, 1993
Nidlothian
Mrs. Marti Franks
Vote: Unanimous
CI~%TE~t ~L;~NNIHG DTSTRT~T ~DMMI~STON
On motion of )[r. ~cHele, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
a~ointed ~. ~. D. "Pete" St~th, Jr. as an alte~nat~ to ~e~ve
on ~e ~ater ~lanning Distr~ct Co~io~, who~e te~ is
On motion of Mr. HoHale, seconded by Mr. colbmrt, th~ Board
appointed Mr. M. D. "Pete" ~tith~ Jr. as an alternate to ~erve
O~ the Richmond Regional ~lanning D/strict Commission, whose
term ~s effective immediately and will expire December ~,
Vote: Unanimous
AREA METROPOLIT~N TP3~N~ORT~TTOH ~N~J[N~
0R~AN~ZA~ION
On motion of Mr. HoBBle, secon~e~ by Mr. colbert, the Board
appointed Mr. K. D. "Pete" Stith, Jr. as an alternate to ~erve
on ~he Richmon~ Area Metropolitan Transportation Planning
Organization, whose ter~ ig effective immediately a~d will be
at the pleasure of the Boa~d.
Vote: Unanimou~
~.~. 8TRBETLI~NT INSTALLATION COST APPROFAL8
0n motion o£ Mr. MoHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Beard
deferred the ~t~etli~ht ~n~tallatien ~o~t fo~ the
intersection of aoland View Drive an~ Roland View Terrace, in
Bermuda Magisterial District, ~til December 9, 1992. And,
further~ the Board approved t~aa atrmet 2igh~ installa=ion
costs for th~ following locations in Matoaca Magisterial
92-539 6/24/92
D~ntr~ct with na~d funde to be expended from the Matoaca
District S~r~t Light Account;
* Intersection of Sunfield Drive and Walnut Hollow
Court: Cost:
* Intersection of Hickory Road an~ Woodpecker Road
Cost: $551.00
* Intersection of Karo Court and ~h~ojan Drive
Cost= $1,716.00
And, the Board d~.nled th~ street light installation cost
the intersection of Helena Court and Trojan Drive, in
Vote: Unanimous
~.H.~. &PPR~VAL OF F¥9~ YEAR-END BUDGET
Al%ar briar discussion, on motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by
Colbert, the Board &pDrov~d the following revisions:
SOURCES
Ex~endi~ur,e,.Reduction:
~ealth Carm and Wcrker'~ ComDensation $460,000
Engineering 170~000
Police
Communicutions Center 115~000
FAre 100,000
Street Lights and other 50,000
Sanitation 100,000
Treasurer 152,000
Extension service ~5,000
Revenue for
TOTAL
$1;422~000
S~e~iff
Parka and Recreation
Acoountlng
County Attorney
Registrar
Com~aonweelth Attorney
437,000
394,000
140,000
120,000
70~000
60,000
56,000
45,000
35,000
35,000
30,000
$1,42~,000
Reduce T~portatlon by $~0,000 a~ operation~ and
Hai~tenance by $566~000 and Inoreaee Instruction by
$~70,300 and Administration and Attendance and Health by
~45~700.
Increase grants fund by approp~±ating federal revenue and
grant expenditures in the amount of $99,447.
II
3) Appropriate $137~5Q0 in bond interest earnings and
increase debt ~rvic~ to cover d~s~ount~ taken on bonds
and additional debt ae~ice e~penses.
O~HER CHANGES
1) Reapp~opriate f~o~ds in the amount of $50,000 in FY93 fo~
upon receipt of matching funds from the private ~ector.
Appropriation of funds in the amount of 917,148.11 for
the Chinaberl-f Boulevard project.
Cai-fy over f%L~ds in the a~ou/~t of $159,900 to FY9~ .to
cover the cost of the electrical system and replacing air
conditioning units at the ~ursing Home.
4) Transfer funds in the amount of $~77,300 fram the
Chesterfield/Meadowbridge water line ~rojeot to the
Reserve fo~ Rehabilitation and Replaoement.
5) Appropriate $91,000 in additional intreat ea~ning~ f~om
the 19~8 bon~s to Xund furniture for common areas and
conference room~ in the new M;{/MR/SA building.
6) Appropriute $70,800 of unspent funds turned back ia from
voting machine~ at the Registrar'a Office.
$.H.2. A~THORIS~TXON~O WRITE-OFF UNCOLSF~TIBLE A~O~8
Cn mo%ion of Mr. ~ar~sr, s~¢onded by F.r. Colbsrt, thc B~ard
authorized the write-off of uncollectible accounts receivable
for the Utilities Department in the amount of $149,~05.67 --
$8S,999.13 for wastewater service charga~ and $S0,206.54 for
water ~ervics chargs~ -- which charge~ r~rcs~nt .5 percent of
the total annual billin~ of the Department. (It is noted the
accounts will ~e turnsd ov~r to tbs County Attornsy'~ offlos
for further action Or ttt~ned over to a collection agency and
the State'~ Sot-off Debt Program.)
Vote: Unaninou~
~.H.~. ~PROPRIATION OF FUNDS FRO~ THE APPROVED ~H~NGH HN
O~ ~otion of Mr. Barber, ~conded by Mr- Colbert, the Board
app~oprlated funda from the approved chanqe ~n cable
tslevisien franehi~e fees, in the amount of $420,000, to the
Police and Fire Departments budgets fe~ the following:
Fire: Breathing Apparatus
Police: Personnel and Monthly Operating
Patrol Officers for six month~
in FY93 136,800
Fixed costs (vehicles, radios,
etc.) for the nine new Patrol
Office~s 183.200
$420,000
92-541 6t24/92
............. L.,..I .............. J .i [, L ..............
On motion of ~r. Barber, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
appropriated $40,500 in FY93 Compensation ~oard Revenue to the
Sheriff's Department FY93 budget to fund =we new positions for
jail deputi.~. (It i~ noted the nat co~t to th~ County for
b~dget an~ two existing, unfunded positions will be
tra~aferred to the jail.)
Vote~ Unanimous
approved renewal of the Coalfield Sonoer C~mplex l~ase by
appropriating $26,000 from unappropriated interest on 1988
Vote: Unanimous
6.H.E. ~LO~ION O~ F~NDB POR BA~EBALL;80~B/%L~ PZBLD
On motion of ~. ~urber, ~econd~ by Mr, col~rt, th~
t=ansfe~ed $6,000 from ~e Dale District Street Light
improv~ts to ba~e~ll/soft~ll field~ at Jacobs Road
zlemen~a~ so~ool. (I~ is no=e~ ~e Kun~s will De u~ed for
installation cf ~ideline fencing and for the
Vo~e: Unanimous
JAIL 8ER¥ICE A~REEMENT
On motio~ of M~. Barber, seconded by M~. Colbert, the Board
set the date of July 22, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. £or a publio
hearing to con~idar approval of a ~ervioe agreement between
the County and the Riverside Regional Jail Authority.
~e~vioe agreement is a long-tek~m Contract which ~e9%llates the
us, of ~e jail facility by the jurisdictions and establishes
~e pa~ents each j~isdlction will make to the Au~ori%y
issued by ~e Authority, a copy of which is filed with
Vote: Unanlmou=
~_.H.g~.b~_~.CONSIDRR ~MEN~M~T~ TO T~R ~ONIN~ ORDIFAN~R
R~LATIN~ TO BILLBO~
A~er brief discussion, on motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by
~. Colbert, %he Board set the date of ~ly ~ 1992 at ~:00
~.m. for a public hsartng to consider an ordlnan~e to ~end
92-54~ 6/24/92
amendinq a~d reenactinq sections 21-52, 21-163 and 21.1-266
r=luting ~unerally to outdoor advertising ~ign~.
Vote: Unanimous
6.H.?.a. TO CDH~ZD~;R RDOPZIOH O~._A~ ORDIH/~B ~.~;DZNG BECv~ZO~
14.1-10~ ~ ~ODB~ CO~ O~
1978,~8 ~ED, RB~ING ~O ~B
~TO~ v~ VZO~TIO~8 Z~O ~B
set ~e date of July ~2, 199~ at 3:00 p.~. fo~ a public
· 4.1-~ Of ~e Cod~ Of the CO~ty of Chesterfield,
~ended, relating to th~ incorporation of motor vehicle
violations into thm Co~ty Code.
Vote: Unanimous
On notion o£ F,r. Barber, seconded by Hr. Colbert, th~ Board
~et the date of J~ly 2~ 1992 at 3:00 p.m. for a public
facility at the Cl%este= Laadfill, which proposed facility will
u~e methane gas from ~he che~t~r Land£ill to create
electricity.
Vote: Ununimou~
6.H.7.e. ~ CON~IDER ~IE R~PURCHASE AND CONVEY;~NCE OF
APPROXiMaTELY ~ A~RE~ OF ~ ~T T~ ~IRPOR~
0n motion of ~, Barber, seconded by ~. Col~, th~ Soard
~e= ~e date of July 22, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. for a public
h~aring %o =on~ider the repurchase o~ pro9e~y from Alfit
~e~ica, Inc. for all that certain traot or parcel of .lamd
containing approximately ~x acres, located in the Dale
Airport Industrial ~ark, which ~arcel fron~s apDroxi~tely 47~
feet on ~itep~ne Road and located approximately 1,446 fe~t
northwest o~ west line of aeycan Roa~ and si=ca,ad i~ediate~
adjacent to a~d no~t~west of 8100~itepine Road.
Vote: Unanimou~
~,H.O. REOUE~TS FOR PE~Ta FOR FZREW(~ DISP~%Y~
~.~.~.b. AT ~Z SHELTER COVE CAUSEWAY
On motion u~ Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
approved a request for a per, it by ~. Cindy Baster, of the
Wo0dla~e Community Association, to sta~e a fireworks display
ut the Shelter Cove Causeway on the Woodlake side cf Swift
Cree~ R~sarvoir on July ~, I992~ which request is subject to
approval by the Fire Department and the County Attorney's
offloe.
92-543 6/24/92
~ L ! I ................... L_ J L ............
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the ~oard
epproved e request for a permit by BT. Robert D. Broomfieldt
chairman o~ the ~eighborh0ed Representative Council of
Brandermillr to stage a fireworks display at Sunday Park
Peninsula at Bran~ermi!l on July 4, 1992 (raindate of July 2,
199l), which request is subject to approval by the Fire
Department an~ the county Attorney's Office.
BUILDIN~ FOR MRS. CAP/tIE M. BOGERS
On motion of F~. Barber, seconded by ~r. Colbert, the Board
adopted the follewing resolution:
WHERF~, the citizens of Chesterfield County o~erwhelming
approved a bond referendun in Nove~er, 1988, to enlarge the
ov~r=row~e~ ~ntal H~alth/~ntal Retardation and Sub.tahoe
~u~e Cente~; ~d
~ER~S, this new state-of-~e-art facility has been
var~ty of quality mental health, mental retardatio~ and
substance abuse servlue~ for children and a~ults; and
~ER~S] the Chesterfield Co--unity Services Board has
given thoughtful consideration to naming this important
supported and enhanced services to person~ with mental
disabilities; and
~ER~S, Mrs. Ca~ie M. RO~e~ (1906-1~90) was recognized
d~ng her llf~t~me a~ a dedicated and fai~ful me.er and
former Chai~an of the comity Se~ces Board~ and
~E~S, ~s. Rogers was widely kno~ locally and
~roughuut the Co~onwealth for her co~itment and significant
cont~ibution~ to hu~n ~e~vicez p~oq~am~ in genial and,
~Daoi~cally, in the D~ovision of ~ual~ty mental health,
men~l retardation and substance ab~se ~e~ic~ to the
citizens of Chesterfield County.
NOW, T~EFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ~est~rfi~ld
c~ity Rervice~ Board hereby unanimously endorses naming
m~o~ of ~s. C~rri~ ~, Rogers,
~D, BE IT ~T~R ~SOLVED, that a copy of this
r~solu=ion be fo~arded =o th~ Chesterfield County Boar~ of
~up~or~ for their eon~d~ration.
Vot~; ~animou=
6.H.XO. STATE ROAD A~N2EPTANCE
This day the County Envlrenmental Engln~t i~ accordance with
directions from this Board, m~d~ report in writing upon his
e~amlnatlon of Leisure Lane, Leimure C0~rt and Leisure Terrace
in The Pmrk, Section 3, Dale District.
Upon consideratio~ whereof, an~ on motion of ~r. ~arb~r,
seconded by )t~. Celb~i-t, it is resolved that Leisure Lane,
L~is~re ¢ou~t and Leisure Terrace in The Park, Section 3, Dale
District, be and they hereby are established as public roads.
6/24/9~
And be it further resolved, that the virginia Departmen~
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to takm into the
Secondary System, Leisure Lane, beginning at the intersection
with Huntingcr=ck Drive, State Route 1913, and going southerly
0.11 mile to the intersection with I~eisure Ccu~t, then
continuing southerly 0.09 to' end at the inter~ection with
Leisure Terrace; i~isure Court, beginninq at the intersection
w~th Leisure Lan~ ~nd going southwesterly 0.10 mile to end in
a cul-de-sac; and Leisure Terrace, beginning at the
intersection with Leisure Lane and going westerly 0.06 mile to
end in a c~l-de-eac. Again Leisure Terrace? beginning at the
intersection with Leisure Lane and going easterly 0.03 mile to
tie into existing Lelsu~e Tek,ace, State Route 3653.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slop~, ~ight
distance, clea~ zone an4 4eeignate~ Virginia Department
Transportation drainag~ easements.
These roads serve 50 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
unrestricted right-of-way of 40' with necessary easements for
Lane which has a 50' right-of-way.
Thi~ ~ectic~ cf The Park is recorded as follow~:
Seotlon ~. Plat Book 75, Pages 19 & Z0, April 19, 1991.
vot~: Unanimous
· .H.11. AWAB. D OF CONSTR~CTiON CONTRACT TO NU-N~Y BUILb~R~ -
On motion of Mr, Barber, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
awarded a construction contract to N~-Way B~ilders, the low
bidder, in th~ amount of $67,567, for a 1300 square foot
addition to Phillips Fire Station Number 13. (It is note~
~ald fund~ will come frnm the Phillips Fire station Addition
account.)
~/~3~_~ONV~CE DF AN E~EMENT TO ?I~GINI~ ELECTRIC ~
POWER COMPANY
On motion of Hr. Barber, seconded by ~I=. Colbert, the Board
authorized the Chai~an of the Board and the County
~mtnistrator to ~xec=~e an easement agre~ent w~th Virginia
Electric and ~ower Company for ~e relocation of ~e preaent
overhead llne for =e~ce to the n~w Ches~erfiel~ County
Mental Heal,/Mental Retardation/Sub,tahoe ~ Building.
(It is noted a copy of the plat is filed wi~ the papers of
~i~ Beard.)
Vote: Unanimous
AUTHORIZATION TO EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN ~OB.,THE
T~O~Y OONS~OTION ~8~_~. PROPOSED WI~REE'8
authorlz~d th~ Cou~ty Attorney to proceed with ~inent d~ain
ca an emergency basis and exercise i~ediate right of entry
pursuant to Section 15,1-Z~5,1 of the Code of Virginia for the
acquisition of a sixteen foot sewer easement and ten foot
temporary construction easements acro~s th~ property of Berrie
J. P~e~to~, Nannie BU~tOn, Robert and Ella M. Jeffersen~ Queen
Jefferson, Oakley Jefferson, Jr.r Marvin and Mary Jefferson,
Francine J. snd Wayne K. Daniels and Mildred J~fferson, Tax
Map 116-13(1)23 and anthorlzed tbs County Administrator to
notify %he owners by certified mall on June 25, 1992, of the
County's intention tn take possession of the sas~ents. (It
is noted a copy o£ the plat is filed with the papers of this
Board.)
RESTORATION ~P~ FOR PUE5 OIL 8TO~E T~8
REPaCkS, P~E I
On motion of ~. Barber, seconded by ~. Colbert, th~ Board
awarded a constr~ction contract to Enviro~ental Restoration
company, the low bidder~ in the ~o~t of $41~020.00, for the
t~ and installation of fo~ abov~ro~ fuel oil
s=at~on {1}, Deerfield P~p sad=ion (1), Falling
Wastewater Treatment Plant {2], and Proctors Cre~ Wa~tewater
Treatment Plant (1 r~oved) and authorized ~he county
A~nlstrator to ere=ute the nece~sa~ documents. (It
noted said funds will c~e from ~e Capital Improvement
vote: ~animous
6.H.l$.a, ~OR THB ~ONSTRU~TION OF THE HOPKINS ROAD
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. colbsrt, the ~oard
awarded a water contract to T & E Const~ctio~ Company, the
low bidder, in the amount of $9~8,005.00, for the construction
of ~e Hopkins Road Transmission ~in. which will transport
water from the City of Richmond to the Co~ty pursuant to the
a~reement between the County and the City and authorizsd the
county A~ini~trator to ~ecute ~e neces~a~ documents.
is note4 sai~ f~s will c~me from the current Capital
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
awa~ed a water contract to R. L. C=owder, the iow bidder, in
the amount of $110,825.00 for the censtr~ctisn of the
Jefferson-Du~is Righway water Line Extension, which will
provide an adc~I~ately sised wate~ line to convey the City of
aichmond water to ths sellwood Tank for storage and
consumption and authorized the County Administ~ato~ to e~ec~lte
the necessary do=uments. (I~ is noted sa~d funds will ~ome
92-546 6/24/92
On motion of ~. Ba~beF,~ s~co~ded ~ ~. 'Colb~, the Board
adop%ed the following ordinance:
~ ~END TEE ~DE OF THE ~Y OF CHESTERFIELD. 1978~
AS ~D,~Y ~OI~G TH~ O~C~ ~OPT~D ~IL 12,
~IN~ C~TER 21 ~ ~0PTING C~TER 21.1 ~D BY ~ING
~D REENACTING SECTIONS 21-67.12, 21-67.25, 21-~7.2~, 21-
67.27, 21-67.28, 21-67.29, 21-67.30, 21-67.31, 21-67.32, 21-
67.33, 21-67.33.1, 2i-67.34, 2i-67.3~, 21-67.36, 2i-67.37,
67.38, 21-67.39, 21-67.40, 21.1-237.1, 21.1-255..5, 21.1-255.6,
21.1~2S5.10, 21.1-266, 21.1-267.1, 21.1-270.1, asd 21.1-281
ELIminATING INCONSI~T~CI~ BE~ C~TE~ ~I ~D ~1.1 ~
C~FYING WO~ING IN C~ER 21.1
(i) BE IT O~AINED by the Board of Supervisorm of
Chest~field County:
(1) That th~ Ordinance adogt~ April 12, 1989, amending
a~e~d~d, i~ amended and reenacted a= follows:
B. chapter 21, attached hereto, is hereby
amd reenacted.
C. Property for whick a rezoning application
filed with ~ Co~ty after ~p~il i~, i989,
~hal] be governed by the provialon of C~pter
D. Ail property zoned O~ B or M on April 12~ 1989~
was filed with th~ County prior to April 12,
1989, may be developed in accordance with
In those instances where ~apter 21 refer~ to
Chapter 21.1, the following =onvmrsion chart
shall be us~ to dete~ine ~he applicable
4evelo~ent s~andards. Ail o~r r~ir~ent~,
including uses, s~all be qove~ned by the
provi=ionm of ~agter 21:
Zonln~ Distri=~ in Re,mrs Zonin~ District in
Chapter 21 To ~apter 21.1
RT~ ........................................................ RTH
~ (if Zoning is O) .......................................... 0
B {~f zoning is B-l, B-2, B-3 or B-T) ....................... C
21-67.28, 2!-~7.29, 21-~7.~0, 21-67.]1, ~1-67,3~, ~-~7.~,
6/24/9~
21-67.3S.1, 2~-67.34, 2~-67.35, 21-67.~6, 21-67.37, 2~-67.30,
2t-67.39 and 21-67,40 of C~apte~ 21 of the Code of T/~e Ceuntv
o C ete 'e d, 1978, as amended, are amended and reenacted
as follows:
A~TICLE IIi. DISTRICT~ GENERALLY.
DIVISION ll.2. CORRIDOR O%rERLAY DISTRICT...
(a) The Corridor 0verlay District ~hall include all
land~ as specified herein:
(1) Ail p~eels of land located within 1,508 feet
of the oenterline of state Route lO (Iron ~ridge Road)
betwee~ the Chesterfield County/City cf Ri~mond line and
~he eastern property line of Tax Map 115-2 (1) ~aroel 1~
(said Tax Map Parcel being that shown on the Tax
Assessor's Map July 1, 1989}, and b~tween thm
Intermectfon of Route 10 and Tntermtate 95 and the
intersection of Route 10 and Intmrstute 295.
DIVISION 11.$, VILI~GE OVERLAY DISTRICT.
M~¢, 21-67,25. Area~ of A~mlicabilitv
The village Overlay District shall include all land~ a~
specified in Sec. 2~.1-255.2.
S~c. 21-67.=6. Oeveloument ~tandards
Refer to ~e applicabl~ m~ctionm of ChaDtar 21.1 fo~ all
special developm~t ~tandard~ ~or village di~triot~. All
po~i~ Of Chapter 21, including uses, that a~e not
specifically modified within village districts, shall r~aln
in full force and effect.
~D
2111--2~.10, Z1.~--2~6, 21.1-267.1, 21.1-270.1, and 11,1-2~1 of
as amended, are ~ended and reenacted aE foll~:
~OUME RESIDHNTIAL~..~TI-F~ILY RESIDE~IAL ~D
DIVISION 1. G~LY. D~PMENT
21.1-237 · 1. Heights -- A~i~lt~al.
· o~house Residential
Residential in Village Di~trictm.
(a)
(b)
Remidential.
Midlothian Villaqe Core, C~este~ Village Corridor
Ail other village Dis~riut Aream.
6/24/92
ARTICLE 6.
SeC.
D~VE~OPM~NT' R~OUIR~MENT$ -- OPFICE. COMMERCIAL AND
Set.ok Re~uirement~ for 0 and e District~,
Sec. 21.1-255~10~ Heights.
The msximum height of all buildings within any office,
~ommeroial or industrial district shall be as follow~, except
provided in ~ection
one-half
district,
dwelling.
(a) ~idlothian Village Core. Che~ter Village cerrido~
~ast. No structure shall e~eed a heigh~ of two an~ one-hal£
(~ ~/2) stories or thirty (30) feet, whichever is less.
(b) All 0thor Village District Areas. No structure
shall exceed a helgh% of three (3) stories or for~y-flve {45)
feet, whichever is less.
resiaential neighberhoo~ ~hnl~ excess a height of two and one-
half I~ lf~) ~tcrie~ or thirty (~0) feet, whichever i~ le~e.
if ther8 i~ an e~i~ting dwelllag more than two and
(l 1/~) storie~ in height within 100 feet of the
the height may be increased to the height of the
ARTICL$ S~
o~vIsIoN 1. COUNTyWIDE -- CEN~%~J~Ly.~
(a) Design concept.
(g) with the exception of outdoor edver~isieg signs, all
signs, including directional signs, shall be set back at least
fifteen (15) fe~t from all property lines, unless a ~Feater
setback is specified, or gDle~ otherwiEe specified by Section
21.1-270.1. However, nlong public rights Of way, tDis setDac]c
may be reduced to a minimu~ of twenty (20) ~eet fr0~ the' edge
of pavement or face of curD, but in no case shall the sign be
set back less than one (1) foot from the property lin~
provided the owner of such sign shall relocate the sign to
con£orm to the re~ulrements herein at s~ch tame ~at
adjacent road is wid~ed. Along reads which have
right of way e~an~ion a~ d~lineated in ~e comprehensive plan
located within ~e propom~d righ% of way ~rovi~ed ~e
~hsll relocate the sign in accordance with ~e
~]24/92
Sec. 21.1-267.1. Signs -- Villsoe District~ for ~. ~-~E, ~-
~F, and ~ Districts.
sigms shall be permitted within the Village District in
21.1-267; however, the following additional provisions shall
apply:
(a} Ali village District Areas.
S~¢. ~i.l-~?0.A~ $1qn~ -- Villaqe Oi~triot~ for O, C, and I
Districts.
Signs shall be pitted within the Village Distrlot in
all O, C, and I Districts in accordance with Sections 21.1-268
and 21.1-269~ however the following additional provieion~
~hall apply:
(a) Midlothian village core, Mi4lothian village ~ringe,
Chester Village Corridor East.
(h) All 'Other ~illage District Areas.
ARTICLE lO. DEFINITIONS
~sQ~,.,21.,lr2~l. Definitions.
Adopted plan(s). Sec ccmRrohenslve plan.
C=mDrehen~ive plan. The comprehensive plan adopted
pursuant to Title 15.1, Chapter 11 of the Code of virginia,
particularly Section 15.1-446.1.
(~) horizontal rails, ~nd perpendicularly crossed laths, no
less ~han one (1) inch wide, ~paced no farther apart than two
(2) inche~.
Fence. Pick~_ A wooden fence, with at least tw~ (2)
horizontal rails and vertical ~ichets. The pio~e:~ shall he
no more than four (4) inches wide and no farther apart than
their own width.
General Plan. See comprehensive plan.
Plan for Che~terfield. The. See comprehensive plan.
(It is noted a public hearing was held on this ordinance at
th~ ~ay ~, 1992 Board of ~u~ervisor~ meeting.)
92-550 4/24/92
~r. McHale in, ired a~ to the County c~rgihg a $~.00
would not ~av~ an impact on attendano~ for ~ ~v~t and would
and un,er would ~ admi%t~ free.
~here was brief discussion as to the a~ission fee not bein~
~en askS, ~. Gold~ ~tm=ed approxima=e]y 15,000 persons
attend the ev~t and th~ proposal would ~urg~ thos~ aged
twelve and over a $1.00 a~ission f~e. He noted ~e
Mr. McHale made a motion, seconded ~ Mr. Daniel, for the
display at the 15th Ann~al 4~ of July Extravaganza at the
is ~ubjeot to approval ~ the Fi~e Depar~en% and the county
A=torney~ office and for the ~oard to deny charging a
Discussion, come,ts and ~=stion~ ensued r~lutive to whether
an a~ission fee ha4 ~en charge4 in the past; .the
which would be generated if ~e ~fs~icn fee wa~ ~a~q~d;
cos~ to co11=0% ~h~ admi~slon fee; wh~er murroun~in~
a~is~ion fee~; f~ receive~ from priva=~ mour~
sponSO~ t~e eye,t; a~d w~ethe~ there wo~ld be an impact on ~e
sponsorship of th~ ~v~t if an a~insion fee was
~. ~arb~r ~a~ h~ ful~ if th~se ~ of events were to be
revenue or by u~er fees. He further ~ated he fel~
privat~ m~ctor donating to th~se types of events should be
activities to the citizens and~ th~efore~ he ~upported
$1.00 admission fee.
colleoted was minimal and would co~ a ~ignificant pot=ion
~u ~eve~e ~e~e~ated fo~ the COunty to collect the fee. He
indicated the Co~ty A~inistrator coul~ be instruote~
and, ~mfore, he did not support ~ $1.00 a~ission f~.
M~. McHale ~tated he felt the amount coll~cted would
insignificant and, therefore, he did not support the
~r. B~rber stated he felt reserve funds Gould not continue to
be used for ~uo~ requests and t~e Co~ty ~eeded to addr~ the
user fee concept for these types of events by considering
either funding the entire event or not conductinq the event~.
~. Colbert ~tated he had not ~pported ~e implementation of
~e ~port~ fee d~rlng th~ budget process u~ he felt it would
a~immion fee for thi~ event would bm charged to a~ul~s ag~
twelve und older, it would not impact those ch~l~en attending
~e event an~, therefore, he supported =he $1.00 a~is~ion
~. Daniel called for ~e vote on motion ma~e by Mr. MoHalk,
seconded ~ h~, for the Board to approv~ a ~e~est for a
6/24/92
~e~mit Dy t~e c~esterfield county ParKs and Recreation
Department to stage a fireworks display at t~he 15th Annual 4th
of July Extravaganza et the Chesterfield County Fairgrounds on
July 4, 1992, which reguest is subject to approval by the Fire
Depa~ament and the County Attorney'~ Office and for the Board
to deny ~hargtng a $1.00 ad~issien fee to the event.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel and M~. MeHale.
Nays~ Mr. Warren, ~r. Barber and F~r. Col~rt.
On m~ti~n uS ~. Warren, s~=on~e~ ~y ~. Bar,er, ~e Board
approved a r~est for a pe~it by th~ Chest~f~eld County
at ~e tSth ~nual 4th of July ~ravaganza at ~e
chesterfield County Fair~ounds on ~ly 4, 1992, which re,est
i~ ~ubject to approval by the Fire Department and the County
Attorney's Off,ce and approved charging a $1.00 admission fee,
for ~ose age twelve and over to attend the event.
Ayes: ~r. Warren, Mr. Barber and ~. Col~rt.
Nays: Mr. Daniel and ~. McHale.
7. D~TERRED IT~M~
On motion of F,-r. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
suspended its rules to allow ;imultansous nomination/
appointment/reappointment at this time of the following
Co~mittee appointments.
vote: unanimous
F~-. Warren nominated Mr. George Foresman, representin~ the
County at-large, to serve on the Board of Appeals for Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Cede.
On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. McHale, the ~oard
simultaneously nominated/appointed M~. George Fore,man,
representing ~he County at-large, to serve on tbs ~oard of
Appeals for Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, whose
term is effec%ive July 1, 1992 and will ex, ire June 30, 1995.
Vote: U~anlmous
Mr. Warren nominated ~. George A. Beadles, Jr., repres~tlng
the County at-~arge, to ~ve on ~e Citizenm Transportation
~viso~ Co~ittee.
On motion of ~. Col~rt, ~econde~ by ~ ~¢~le, the Board
s~ul=aneously n~inate~/appolnt~d ~. 8eo~e A. Beadles, ~.,
Boa~d deferred conslderat~on of nom~n~tion~ for two alternate
V~=e: unanimou~
Mr. Warren n~inated ~lr. ~il! ~ehr, representing Clover Hill
District~ to ~e~ve O~ the Industrial Development Authority.
, !
Mr. Barber nominated Kr. willie Lanier, representing
Midlothian District, ~o serve on the Industrial Development
Authority.
On motion of Mr. ColD~i~C, s~oonded by }tr. MoHale, the Board
simultaneously nominated/sppeinted Mr. Bill Mob=, representing
clover Hill Dis~riot, and Mr. Willie Lanie~ representing
Hidlothian District, t~ serve on the Industrial Development
Authority, whose tel-ms are effective July 1, 199~ and will
expire June $0, 1996.
Vote: Unanimous
YOUT~ SERHICES ClTI~E~ BOARD
On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board
simultaneously nominated/appointed~reappointed t~ following
persons to serve on the Youth Services Citizen Board,
representing th~ following districts, whose te~ms are
Clover Hill
~r~. Cheryl Ghorashi
MS. Wendy Parke~
Miss Rsbekah Tuthill, re~rsssn%in~
CloVer Hill High School
Mr. }b/ng Ho, representing
High School
Dale
Nis~ Sherlonda D. Clarke, representing
Meadowbrook High
Matoaoa
Mr. Joseph Lyons
~S. Jenni£er L- P~rry, r~pr~enting
Manchester ~gh School
Mi~s Lee Ann DuWell,
aat~aca High
Miss ~elanie Britton, representing
Midlothian ai~h School
Vote: Unanimous
Term
June 30, 1995
Jnne 30, ~994
USE OP PSBLIC S~OOLS ~OR THE 1992;93 BCHOOL YEAR
Mr. Micas stated consideration of t~e propose~ policy
r~qulatlng non-school use of public schools for the i99Z/93
~ohool year had been deferred from the Board ~eetin~ on June
10, 1992. He reviewed the policy and %he ~ropossd changes by
the School Board ~nd ~tated ~taff was reoo~endi~g three
amendments. Ha ~hen reviewed the school use which would be
p~r~itted by dance studios of school facilities fur recitals
and the fee charged and indicated recitals could be held after
the end of the school day, during the w~e~, and on weeksndx
and the normal fee would be charged if the schools were used
after 10:00 p.m. He stated if the dance studios obtained a
co-sponsor it WOUld allow them to charge an admission fee;
however, if no ¢o-spon~or wa~ obtained, the dance studios
could not oha~ge an admission fee. He noted a letter had been
92-§53 6/24/92
received from Encore Dance Studios requesting changing the
policy to allow dance studios to charge an admission without
the rag~irement of obtaining a co-sponsor. When asked, Mr.
Micas stated if a co-sponsor was obtained, revenues derived
from the admission f~ could be used to help offset actual
costs such as the rental fee and any remaining money woold
then gc to the co-sponsor.
Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to the
revenue collected tO be used to offset the rental cost~ the
requirements to obtain a co-sponsor; the difference between
school use for school plays ~nd dunce recitals; whethe= the
requirements for a co-~ponscr could be esltte~ iS tBe revenue
generated was designated for charity; and admission fees being
designated for costs.
Mr. Mc~ale made a motion, seccnde~ by Mr. Colbert, for the
Board %o approve the following revisions to the School Board's
recommehded policy:
1. Amend Section 1D to make it clear the County would
allowed to have a series ~£ meetings in the same building
without special authorization,
2. Amend Section 14A to provide the County will protect
against liability during its use through its $elf-
instrrance policy rather than third-party insurance.
3. Amend Section 14E to exempt the County f~o~ the
requirement to sign "hold harmless" agreements. The
County is legally precluded from entering into "hold
revenue is use~ ~o de~ruy exsansa an~ any additional
Department c0~ld act as the co-sponsor for these type~ of
actives. Mr. ~oldcn stated he felt a mechanism could be
implemented to permit the Parks and Recreation Department to
act as the co-sponsor of these types of activities and noted
these were other requirements which would have to he met as
well.
Mr. Daniel cello4 ~r the v~to on th~ motion of
seconded by ~. Colbert, for the Board to approve the
following revisions to the school Board's recommended policy:
1. Amend section 1D to ma~e it clear the County woul~
ullowed to have a series of meetings in the same building
wit/%ou~ special authorization.
2. Amend section 14A to provide thc County will protect
against liability during its use through its self-
insurance ~ollcy re=her than third-party insurance,
3. Amend Section IdE to exempt the County from the
County is legally precluded from entering into "hold
may be charged without a co~sponsor so long as the
revenue is use~ to defray exl~nse and any additional
?.D. BTREBTLIG~T IHSTALLATInN COST APPR0~L
The~e Wa~ b~ief dise~Sion r=lative to ~ ~lan~es in the
di~trict~ ~tree~llghti~allation oos~ ~u~ds ~ carrie~ over
from fiscal year to fiscal year.
On motion of ~. Colb~t, seconded by ~. Wa~en, ~e Board
approvals:
CLOVER HILL DISTRICT
* intersection of R~d ~estnut Court and Red Chestnut
Drive: Cost~
~TOA~ DIS~ICT
* Intersection of Fox Briar Road and Fox Club Parkway
* Intersection of Fox Ci~ Parkway and FOX Crest Way
Co~t~
And, fur~ ~e Board denied ~e followln~ ~treet llght
~LOVER HILL DISTRICT
* Mid-point of Red Chestnut Drive
~TOA~ DIS~ICT
~ Sparta D~ive, vicinity of ~13~9
Vote: U~nimous
Afte~ brief disou~ion, ~. Daniel instructed the County
A~ini~a~or to administratively carry over the balances of
~a dts~icts str~t light funds to the FY93
Mr. Ramsey presented the Board with a report on the developer
water and ~ewer contracts executed by the County
Admlnlstra=er.
Mr. R~sey Dresented =he Board wir~ a etat~s r~port on the
General ~ktnd Balance; Reserve for ~uture Capital Proj~ot~;
O~ VIR~INL%, ~SSfl, l~R ~M~NDED, FOR CONSULTATI~NI~ L~
PR08E~UTION OF ~O~IN~ ~O~TION8 ~T
0~ ~otio~ of ~. Wa~e~, ~eco~ded by ~. ~r,.the
went into Executive Session, pursuant to Section 2.1-
~4(a)(7), Code of Virginia, 19~0, a~ amended, for
consultation wi~ legal uounsel resarding ~ro~ble l~t~gat~on
involving ~e prosecution of ~oning violations ~t
K~convening:
Mr. Daniel stated the Board had reviewed the proe~tttion of
zoning violations at Woodlake; had discussed the matter of
92-555 5/24192
probable litigation, and bad received a briefing oh the
matter. He further stated legal action by the County would be
taken to enforce the condition in which a geotechnical
analysis shall be petrol-mod tn determine foundation design for
lots with high clay content.
on motion of ar. HcHale, seoonded by Mr. colbert, the Hoard
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has this day adjourned
in=o executive session in acoordance with a formal vote of the
Board amd in accordmnce with the provisions of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Freedom of Infornation Act
m££ective ~uly ~, ~959, provides for certification that such
Exeoutive Session was conducted in conformity with law.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board sf County
Supervisors does hereby certify that to the best of each
mentor's knowledge, i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from eden meeting requirements under the Freedom of
Information Act were discussed in the Executive Session to
which this certification applies, and ii) only such public
Executive Session was convened were heard, discussed or
co~sideicd by the Board. No member dissents f~om t~is
osr=ifioation.
The Board being ~olled, the vote was as follows:
FJ~, McHale: Aye.
Mr. Barber:
~ir. colbert: Aye.
F~r. Warren: Aye.
Mr. Daniel: Aye.
10. DIIqNE~
On ~otien of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
recessed at 6:~0 p.m. to the Admini~tr&tion Building, Room
502, for dinner.
vote: unanimous
1. Z 0~ATION
Mr. Daniel introduced
invoca=ion.
M~r. William D. Pools, who gave thc
~ERI~
~3, RESOLUTION8 ~ND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS
~,A. RECOGNIZING ~, JOSEPH L. BI~B. COMMITTEE ON THB FUTURE
a resolution recognizing Mr. $ossph L. Bigge for his service
M~. Daniel stated Mr. Bigg~ had assisted in forming the
Co~itbee on the Future which had been charged with
forecasting the county in the future and to e~eate the ~eans
by which the County could cope with future needs or problems
likely to ooou~,
On motion cf the Board, t-he following resolution was adopted:
W~RF~%S, The Co~ittee on the Future was authorized by
the Chesterfield County Cheer adopted on February 26~ 1957;
and
WT~RF~%S, The C~ittee on the ~ture was established to
forecast ~e condit~on of the County in the future an~ ~o
create th~ means by which the County can cope with future
~eds o~ proble~ that are l~kely to o~ and
~S, The co~ittee on the ~t~e ~ha11 ~e~k .tO
anticipate long-range ~roble~ an4 changes wiBhin ~he County
an~ develop ~olutlon~ that can be considered by elected
officials to lessen any ad~erse effect on the County ~cause
~ER~$, ~e Co~itt~e on the Future'~ "19~0 Vision ~0R0"
Report resulted in a plan ~at addresses both ~e broad vision
of ~e County in ~ year ~020 as well as strategic plans in
transportation and government structure; and
co~itment to ~e Co~ttee on ~e ~t~e while a me~r of
the ~oup.
NOW, T~EPORE ~E IT RESOLVED, ~at the Chesterfleld
County Board of Supe~isors hereby eXt~ds its single
Co~ittee on ~e Future for four ye~s and uc~owledges ~e
good ~or=une of the County to have such an outmtan~ing
gentl~an am one of its residents.
vote: Unanimous
~, Daniel presented the executed ~e~olution to ~. Biqgs,
a~companled by his wife, and ~xpr~ssed appreciation for him
Vota: Unanimous
.~4. HE,RING8 OF CITIZENS ON ~NSCHEDULED HATTERS
14..A.._~R~RDIN~ THE A~eE~SMEN~ OF BUSINESS LICENSE
VETERINARI~/~8
Dr. Owen ~cFadden abated he has been practicing
medicine in the County for approximately fourteen yea~s and
ha~ been actively involved in county activities such as the
rabies clinic; that the veterinaries
setDlement on the interpretation on the assessment of business
license taxes for veterinarians; that the veterinarians were
being taxed on professional and personal services; that they
have paid the taxss iB the oqtiined categories for an extended
period Of ti~e and had re0ently been audited. He reviewed the
outcome of the audit and stated they felt the division of the
professional services differed fro~ other localltlea and they
have complied with the guidellnes in the past and did not feel
they should be req%lired to pay back ta~e~ and ~enaltles; that
they would like the Commissioner cf Revenue*s Office to be
accountable to a county offi¢ial; and that the vmter~narians
intend to seek action to correct and clarify County
regulations and to rectify the taxation and penaltie~ the
the opportunity to add~ess the Board.
Dr. Mitch Tedeschi stated he ham been practicing veterinarian
medicine in the County and has been a resident for seventeen
years; that the veterinarians had expressed their Concernm to
the Bourd regarding the assessment of huminess lloanse taxes
and outlinc~ their concerns. H~ furth-r stated the
92-~57
veterinarians felt a committee should be formed to address the
implementation of an ordinance for a well defined code of
taxation, as well as a committee to r~earch the struotuze of
County government under a county manager system to be more
efficient and fair to industry and he felt an apology should
be made to the veterinarians. He indicated r_he veterinarians
wet9 willing to resolve the issue with the county.
After brief dissussion, Hr. Daniel instructed the county
Administrator to meet with the veterinarians und structure un
ordinance which would ~e equitable to all parties and then uo
initiate the process for the Board to set a date for a pnblic
hearing to consider the ordinance.
Mr. Rammey stm~ed staff has undertaken a CSmDrehen~ve review
of business license tax procedures and policies related to
such ordinances. He further stated tho Department of Economic
Development would be involved in tho process and meeting~
would be scheduled with bualne~s representatives to receive
input. He indicated the rate structure would also be
addressed and staff would bring to the Board the reo~L~ended
changes in the Fall. He noted the objective was ts review all
ordinanoe~ to determine whether they could be improved and be
made more flexible.
15, PUBLIC
15,~. TO CO~SIDER~N ORDINANCE TO ANteD TNB CODE OF TNE COUNTY
REEN~CTIN~ S~CTI~ 7,~-~ ~TIN9 TO ~E BO~IB9 0F
VOTING
public h.arlng to consider an ordinance relating to the
~undarie~ of voting precincts. He further ~ta~ed the Board
at its meeting on ~y ~, ~992, divided the ~no~ voting
p~ecin~ in the ~e~da Magisterial District into two voting
preoln~s -- Enon and Point of Rooks -- in order to ~ke the
voting p~eoi~ot boun~ies consistent wi~ %ha bo~da=y line
~tween ~e forth and seventh congressional 4istriots and the
~ounty had recently been info--ed by ~e Division of
~tween the congressional district bounda~ and the votimg
13, 1992. He Bored if ~e Board adopted the ordinance,
change would be ~u~itted to the Depar~men~ of ~stioe for
p=e-clea~a~ec under ~e Votinq Rights Act to dete~ine
effect of.~e propose~ o~ang8 on minority votin~ rights.
No one o~ So~ard to ~peuk in ~avor of or against
ordinance.
On motion .of ~. M~ale, seconded by ~. Colbert, ~e Board
a~o~ed ~e following ordi~nce:
~ O~IN~CE ~ ~ND ~E ~DE OF THE CO~TY
OF ~EST~I~DD, 197~, AS ~ND~D, ~Y
~D REENACTING SECTION 7.1-2 ~TING TO
T~ 80~D~IES OF V~ING
BE IT O~INED by th~ Board ~f Supervisors
read as follows:
~ followin~ ~Sall bC tho precinct ~darie~ and
pol!~ng place~ for magisterial districts in ~he county:
92-558 ~/~4/9~
BERMUDA MAGISTERIALDlS~RICT
RNON VO G :
Beginning at the point where the center line of Proctor's
Creek intersects the boundary llne between Renri~o County and
Chesterfield County; thence along said bounda~ llne as
meanders sou~wardly with the James River to its int~section
with the bounda~ line ~tween ~esterfield County an~ Charles
City Co~%y; ~ence along the bounda~ line ~tween
che~terfiel~ coun=y an~ ~=rtes city co~ty, ~ city of
Hopewell, and Prince George Cowry to it~ interse~ion with
U.S. Inter,tare 295; ~ence no~war~ along the center line
of ~.s. Interstate 295 to it~ intersection with ~non Ch~ch
Road (State Route 746); thence westwardly alone'the center
line of Enon Church Road (Miata Route 746) to its intersection
with the Seaboard Airline Railroad ripht-of-way; thence
northwardly and westwardly along the center llne of said
right-of-way to it~ inter,action with the smaboar~ Coast L~me
Raitromd right-of-way; thence westwardly along ~e c~ter line
(~tate Route ~17); thence mouth~amtw~dly al~pg the center
line of ~lmwood Drive (State Route 617) to its intersection
~long the cente~ line of Rebel Ridge Road (State Route
tu its intersmction with Wal~all Drive (st=t~ Route 1090);
~=e southeastwardly along ~e =~nter llne of Walthall Drive
(S~a=e Route 1090} to its intersection with ~fin ~fll
(State Route 746); thence southwe~twardly along the center
lin~ ~f Ruffin ~ill Road (State R~ute 746) to i%~ intersection
wi~ Amhton Cre~ thence along ~e center llne of Ashton
Cr~ us it meanders w~stwardly to it~ inters~ctlon with
Interstate 95 (Ric~ond-Pet~rsb~g Turnpike); ~ence
Proctor's Creek; ~enme eastwardly along ~he center line
Proctor'~ ~eek to it~ int~r~ection with the boundary line
~etwe~ ~enr~co county and Che~t~ield County~ the ~o~t and
The voting place for Enon Voting Precinct ~hall be Enon
Fir~ DepaT=ment, 1920 E. H~dr~d Road.
POINT OF ROCKS VOTTNG PRECINCT:
~¢ginning at the point where the center line of U.S.
Interstate 295 inter~ect~ with the boundary line between
Chesterfield County and Prince George County; thence
northwardly along the center line of U.S. Interstate 295 to
its ~ntarsaotion with Enon Church Road (State Route 746);
thence =outhwestwardly along the center llne of Enon Church
Road (State ROUte 746) to its intersection with the seab0a~d
Air Line Railroad right-of-way; thence northwardly ~d
we~twardly along said right-of-way to its intersection witch
the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad right-cf-way; thence
we~twardly along this right~of~way tc its intersection witch
R~blewood Drive (State Route ~l?); thence southeastwardly
along the center line of Ramblewood Drive (State Route 617) to
its intersection with Rebel Ridge Road (State Route 1093);
thence westwar~ly along the center line of Rebel Ridge Road
{State Route 1095} to its intersection with Walthall Drive
{State Ronte 1090); thence 6outheastwardly along the center
line of walthall Drive {state Route lOPS) tO its intersection
with Rnffln Mill Road (State Route 7A6); thence
southweatwardly along the center line 0£ Ru££in Mill Roa~
{State Route 746} to its intersection with A~hton Creek;
eastwardly to its intersection with U.S. Interstate 95
(Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike}; thence ~outhwardly along the
center line of U,$, Interstate 95 {Richmond-Petersburg
T~rnpike) tO its inte~eetion with swift CreeK, whi~ acts as
Ge boundary line between Chesterfield County and t~he city of
Colonial Heights; thence along said boundary as i: meanders
eastwardly to its intersection with the boundary between
Chester£ield County and Prince George County; thence along
the point and place cf beginning.
The voting place for Point of Rocks Voting Precinct
shall be the Maintenance Building at Point of Rocks Park,
(=) This ordinance ~haI1 take e£feot immediately.
Vote: Unanimous
15,B, TO CONSIDER TH~ CONVEYANCE OF ~N O~TION TO
P~RCHABE APPROXIMATELY 2.$ ~CRE~ AT THE
public hearing to consider the conveyance of an option to
Pharmaceutical Packaging Sexless and Supply, Ino. to purchase
a~proxi~ately 2.~ acres at the Chesterfield County Air~ort
was currently o~erating a manufacturing and distribution
facility at the Southport Business Center in Midlo%hian and
was ~lanning ts relocate their e~ietlng a~aratloa and build a
office/~anufacturing/distribution facility. He noted the
~otal ~nvastment ~n ~he project was estimated ts be $650,000.
NO one cane fo~ard t0 spea~ in favor 0f or against
On motion of ~. Colbert, ~conded by ~, Barber~ th~ Roard
oonveye~ all ~at ce~a~n tract o~ parcel of land
District of Chesterfield County, Virginia at the ~esterfield
Aider% Industrial Park, whi~ parcel fronts approxi~tely 410
feet on Reycan Road, approximately 700 feet we~t of the
intersec2ion of Rmycan Road and ~itepine Road, and
~ou~wes= by W.G. a H.J. ~indsey, and ~m mou~east by a line
sou~as~ corner of W.G. & H.J. Lindsey and authorizmd
noted u copy of the ~lat is filed with th~ papers of
Board.)
TO ~ON~TB~I~ ~/~~_T~HB...FYPL-9~ BUDSET TO
APPROPRIATE ~1,54g.000 IN ~v~UE ~ EXPEI~DITURES POR
T~XES Z~TK~ G~EB;~_FUNDAND UTILITIES FUND
Mr. Stepmaier stated this date and t~me had been advertised
for a public hearing to consider an amendment to the FY91-92
Budget to ap~rcprlate $1~549~8S0 ~n revenue and ek~f~ndittt~e~
for hydrant rental/fire pr~te~tlon and 9~yment in 1leu ~£
taxes in the general fund and utilities fund, He further
stated this increase to County revenue and expenditures was
incorporated into the FY93 adopted budget and staff was
requesting the change b~ include4 in the F¥9~ revised b0i%ge~.
He noted the increase to County revenue from Utilitie~ system
pa!~m~t~ in lie~ of taxes was offset by an ~qual charge for
fire protection ~vice~ and the change would increase the
C~i~ic~ on Local Government.
No one came forward to speak in favor of or against this
On motion of ~r. ~cHale, seconded by F~r. Barber, the Board
increased th= gcn=~alf~.d F¥92 appropriation and budgeted
revenues and expenditures as well as the U~ili~ies Pepar=ment
FY92 appropriation and budgeted rsvenuss and expenditures in
tbs amount of $1,549,O00 such.
Vote: Unanimous
In Dale Magisterial District, ~D~ ~. SMITH requested a permit
to park a mobils home in a Residential (R-7) District. The
density of the proposal is approximately 1.43 units 9er aure.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the p~eperty for residential
south line of Omo Road~ approximately 660 feet east of Old
zion Hill Road, and is in the vicinity of 5715 Omo Road. Tax
Map ~6-1 (2) ~p~ill Gardens, Section 1, ~ts 85 and 84
~taff reco~ended denial of the request due to the present and
potential for furze residential develo~ent in the area.
~. Troy Wayne smt~, sr., representing ~e applicant, stated
one ~arter mil~ of ~e 9ro~ty an4 he did not feel the
mobile home would negatively impact the residents in Kings
Forest Subdivision.
~. Guurge Beadles stated ha fult under the Zoning oidinan=e,
~. Daniel stated ther~ were two separate lots and ~e mobils
applicant indicated ~e house would ~ used for stprage only.
On motion, of ~. Daniel, seconded by ~. Wa~en, the Board
followlng conditions:
1. ~a applicant ~hall b~ the 0o~pant of the mobile home.
mobile ho~e site, ~or ~hall any ~obile home ~ used for
r~ntal property. Only one (1) ~obile h~e ~hall
Debitted to be parked on ~ individual lot o~ parcel.
zoning district shall be complied with, except ~at no
mobile h~ shall b~ located oloser than 20 fee= to any
4. No additional pe~nent-t~e living space may be
onto a mob~le home. All mobile home= mhai1 ~
but shall no,~ be placed on a p~anent foundation.
~. ~ere p~]{c (County) water and/or ~w~r are available,
~ey shall be used.
6. Upon ~ing granted a Mobile Home Pa~it, the applicant
~all th~n obtain ~e necessa~ permits from the office
6;24/92
of the Buildinq offioi~l, q~is ~hall ~e done prior to
the insta~latisn or re~ocstlon of the mobile hsme.
7. Any violation of th~ above oondition~ shall be grounds
for revocation of the ~obile Home Permit.
8. The.existing house on the subject property shaI1 be used
for storage only and shall not be inhabited. (BOS)
Vote: Unanimous
In Midlothian Magisterial District, ~LL~DE DEVELOPMENT
CO~Pim~Y# L.Po requested amendment to Conditional Use PlaNned
Develolument (Case 88SN0202) to permit a fast food restaurant
with drive-through window~ and outside storage in conjunction
with a permitted retail plant nursery and craft
business. The density of such amendment will be controlled by
zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehsnslve
~lan designates the property for residential use of 7.01 units
per acrs or more. This request lies in an Office Business
Die,riot on an ~.6 ~cre parcel fronting approximately 600 feet
on the north line of We~t H~guenot Road, approximately 450
feet west of Big Oak I~%ne, a~so fronting approximately 700
feet on thoeast line of Polo Parkway. Tax ~ap 9-9 (1) ParCel
I~ MidlOthiun F~gisteriul District, T~E ~EBTER~ELD
PLANNING ¢(~fl~IS$I0~ r~qussted amen~m~n~ ~o Condi~io~
Planned Developments (Cas~s 88~N0202 and 92SN0146) to re~trict
%he nu~er of restaurants wi~h ~ve-~hrou~h windows.
density of such amen~t will be controlled by zoning
con~{tions or Ordi~nce ~tandards. The C~prehensive Plan
demignatem ~e property for off,ce ume and rem~dentlal ume of
7.01 units per acre or more. Thi~ re~emt lles in an Office
Business (0) District on 20-6 acres fronting in three (3)
places for a total of approximately 1,250 feet on ~e north
line of Wemt Hu~ot Ro~d, al~o fronting approximately 250
feat on the e~mt and ap~roxi~tely 200 feet on the west lines
of Promenade Parkway, and approximately Z00 feet on the east
a~d approximately 1,200 fe~t on the west l~nem of Polo
Map 8-~2 (1) Parcel ~3, Ta~ Map 8-16 (1) Pa~eel 20 and Tax Map
9-~ (1) ~arcels 11 throuqh 15 and Part of Parcel 16 (sheets 2
and stated the Planning Cecil=ion and ~taff rec~en~ed
approval of bo~ ~e~ests subject to conditions.
~. Doug Woolfolk, repre~entlng the B~llgrade Development
There was no opposition
a~rov~d Cu$~ 92~N0146 subject to ~e following conditions:
1. In addition to ~e uses pe~itted in Tra~ H, a fast
food =~taur~nt wi~ ~ive-t~ough windows s~11
potion of ~act H.
(N~E: ~is condition modifies Condition 24 and T~tuml
Statist 5.8 of Case 88SN0202 relativ~ to uses
pe~itt~.)
2. In addition to the u~es permitted in ~act ~ out~ide
storage, in conjunction wi~ a plant n~ary and craft
6/2~/9~
business, shall be pal-mitred provided it is located on
the northwestern portion of Tract H.
(NOTE: This condition modifies Condition 24 and Textual
statement 5.8 of Cuss 88SN0202 relutive to uses
9er~itte~.)
3. Outside storage areas shall be screened in accordance
with Section 21.X-241 of the Zoning Ordinance. Further,
outside storage areas shall conform to the setbacks as
speeifis~ in Sections 21.1-246 through 21.1-247 of the
(NOTE: Except as stated ~erein, all conditions of
zoning approval for Case $~N0202 remain in
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel indicated the Board would conmlder Case 92SN0192.
Mr. George Beadles expressed concerns relative to the request
being double advertised and the process followed when
Mr. Woolfolk reviewed the original zoning and indicated the
developer had not anticipated building five fast-food
restaurants although the opportunity existed. He stated
current request was s negotiated agreement between the
Plarn%ing c~isslon and the neighborhood to allow only three
fast-food restaurants and the developer we~ in
Mr. Barber stated he felt ~o~ble advertising the request
~erved the neighborhoods in the a~ea and assisted the County
in funotlening effioiently. He further stated.the developer
and the residents in the area were in agreement with the
0~ ~otio~ O£ Mr. Barber, seuondcd by Mir. Warren, the Board
approved Case 92SN0192 subject to the following condition:
Withim Tracts D, G and the part of Tract H which is the
subject of Case 92SN0146, = maximum of three {3) restaurant=
with d~ive-up windows shall be p~rmitted. (CPC)
(NOTE: This condition is in addition to the Textual Statement
4.0 '~'o s o£ Ca~e 885N0202 and Condition 1 of
Ca~e 9~SN014~.}
~ote: Unemimous
In Dale Magisterial Di~t~ict, T~LLX~ WHZTAKER requested
Conditional Use to permit a private school in a Residential
(R-7) District. The density of such amendment will be
controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance ~tandards. The
Cumprehensivs Plan designates the property fo~ ~esidenfial use
o~ ~.5i to 4.00 ~nlts per acre. This requmet lies on a 1.94
acre parcel fronting approximately 190 feet on the ~outh line
of Co~ill Road, appro×imately 120 feet west of Benlka Drive.
Tax Map 52-11 (1) Parcel ~ (Sheet 1~).
Mr. Peele presented a summary of Case 92S~0160 and stated the
Plannlng Commle~ion and staff r~somm~nded approval ~ubject to
conditions.
M~. Tillle Whltak~r ~t~ted the recommendation was acceptable
and indicated she would like ta have the parkimg let remain
gravel ~til the ~irst of the year when the Zoning ordinance
w~s to be reviewed.
92-563 6124192
~r. George Beadles expressed concerns relative tO si~
displayed by churches and sign reo/~irements in gene~ral and
whether a conditional use was necessary to have a school
inside a church building.
When asked, ~. Poole stated the firet condition regarding
be met as the use continued a~d ~e a~lic~t could ~e~ a
variance Srom the Board of Zoning Appeals but could not for
parking. He noted ~e ~l~ing Depar~t was c~rre~tly
working on an ~en~en= to %he zoning or~inano~ ~ provide
flexibility for design stan~rds and indicated staff would
work wi~ the ap~lioan= ~urlng the ~hort-te~ basi~ un~il =~
ordinance smen~ent was addressed.
On' motion of ~. Daniel~ seconded by ~. Warren~ ~e Board
approved Ca~e 92SN0~60 ~ject t~ ~e following conditions:
Parking and driveway areas shall comply w~th the Zoning
Ordin~ce~ Chapter 2~.1, ~t~cl% 4, Divisions 2 a~d 3,
relatlve to n~ber~ of Rarking ~pace$, pavi~, and
landscaping of parking and driveway areas for
educational schouls. (P)
2. Prior to the issuance of any additional occupanQy
pe~its, additional pavement shall ~ constructed along
3. Any e~Dansion of ~e existing structure or ~ew
const~ction shall comply with the development etandards
of t~e Zo~inq ordinanoe, C~apter 21.1 for Neig~orho~
office (o-~) Di~trlct~ in ~glng Gro~h District
areae. (P)
4. A maxln~ of fifty (5O) children ~hall ~ enrolled at
say ~ne time. (CPC)
Hours of operation ~all be restricted to between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. (CPC)
Vote: ~animou~
In Dale Magisterial District,
requested Conditional Use to permit a child care center in
Agricultural (A) and Residen:lal (R-15) Districts. The
density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning
conditions or ordinance standards. The comprehensive Plan
designates the property for light co~ercial use. This
re~mz= 1~ on a 4.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 494
feet on the sou~ l~ne o~ ~ull Street Rcad~ also fronting
~roxi~tely 397 feet on the we~t line of Lynchester Drive,
and approximately ~ feet on the north line of Paulett Road,
and located ~n the ~nt~rsect~on of these roads. Tax Map 50-5
(1) Parcel 6 (Sheet
~. Poole presented a s~,~mary of C~S~ 92~0165 ~d Stat~ the
Pla~inq co~i~sion and staff reco~ded approval ~ubject to
=ondition~. H~ indicated the ~p~licant
sign, already 0n =~e property, ~ing in violation and ~a~ mede
th~ appropriate corrections.
~- ~ ~ullook, r~Dre~enting
r~co~endation was acceptable.
92-564 6/24/92
churches in general; the operation of day-care centers in a
chu~ci%; and the setback rsguire~ents.
On motion of ~Ir. Daniel,' seconded by F~f2 MCHafe, the Board
plan o~tlined i~ ~e applicatiom.
(NOTES:
(a} The application would restrict hours of
operation to betwe~ 9:00 a.m. and 1:00
p.m., ~on~ay ~rough Friday; restrict
enrollment to a maximum of seventy-two
children per ~y; and require that the ~ay
(b) Thi~ condition would restrict the day care
out,ocr pl~y mre~, as g~nermlly depicted on
~ite plan depicting the play ar~a an~ all
other pla~ed end,or re~ired ~mprovements
to the property must be s~mi~ted to the
In Bermuda Magisterial District, K ~T CO~PO~ATION requested
rezoning from community Busines~ (B-2) and General Bu~ine~
(B-3) to Co~t~unity Business (C-3). The density of such
amendment will be controlled by zoning conditlon~ or Ordinance
standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for
general commercial use. T~is request lies on a 10.68 acre
parcel front~n~ ~n two {2) places for approximately 217 feet
feet north o~ W~ir Road. Tax ~ap 116-6 (1) Part of Parcel 1o5
acceptance of ~he proffered conditions. He further state~ the
re,est confo~ed to ~e Chester Village Plan.
~. Jim Theobold, representing the applicant, stated ~e
present.
~. ~c~ale e~re=sed appreciation to ~. Theobold for working
wi~ ~r~a neighbors to resolve ~eir concerns.
On motion of ~. McHale~ seconded by ~. colbert, ~e Board
approved Case 92S~0169 and accepted the following proffered
1. ~e developer shall provide an accurate accost of ~is
drainage situation, showing exis:ing drainage and the
~pact this project will have on the do~t~eam a~ea.
The develoDer shall audit a oons~uction plan to
Enviro~ental Engineering Departm~t, and all necem~ary
easements shall ~ obtained ~rlur to any vegetative
dlst~bance. ~e approved plan may have to be
impl~ent~ Drlor to any ~egetat~ve di~t~noe. (Prior
Condition 1)
92-565
2. Prior to the relea~ of any occupancy permits, ownership
and ~aintenance of the pond(s) shall be established as
the responsibility of private entities. An
inde~t~ifioation agreement shall be submitted to the
Environmental Engineering Department to save the County
harmless ~f vectors, maintenance, any replacement
responsibilities, etc. Upon completion of construction
of the detention facility, it shall b~ certified by a
professional engineer. (Prior Condition 3)
frequency will not b~ increased after development. In
frequency after dovelopme~t shall be e0~trolled by the
on-site detention so as to maintain a mln~mum of one
foot vertical elevation and a twonty (20) foot
horizontal distance between the 100 year floodplain and
the finished floor elevation of any existing building
and maintain the flow over the d~c~ driveway =ea flow
d~p~ of four (~) inches. Final review of hydraulic
calculations and plane and specifications shall
considered at th~ ~ime of final sit~ plan review.
(Prior Condition 4)
The finished project shall be in keeping
with the quality of construction at Chesterfield Meadows
and/or Stoney Point. (Part of prior Condition ?(c))
§. On the wemtern property line, contiguous with t_he
de~a~ed single family proper=y (Gay Far. e) there will
with staggered evergreens (15' foot os center, 4* to
mieimu~ height) and at a minim%~, a 6' woo~ £mnc~ or
masonry wall. There w~ll be a 125' m~n~mum building
setback (noted as 'C'-'C' on the exhibit marked
Sections). (Prior Condition
6. on the zouthern property line, contiguoum with the
mobile home development, there will be a 15' undisturbed
evergreens (15~ on center, 4~ to 5~ minimum ~eig~t) and
6' wood fence. There will be a $0I Rinimum building
setback (noted ms 'D'-'D' on the exhibit marked
gection~). (Prior Condition 12)
7. In the event public transportation is ever made
available in the area of the proposed devolepment,
and located within the development may be utilized for
the pickup and discharge of passenger~. (Prlor
Condi$ien 17, as revised)
8. The Developer s~all be responsible for providing
signalization, if warranted, within five years afte~c a
final occupancy permi= is iesued~ at the Route 10
entrance to the shopping center. Said signalizatlon
will include preemptive capabilities by the Fire
Department on Route 10. (Prior Condition No.
9. The developer shall notify the ~ay Farms Civic
A~enoiation of the date and place of any sits plan
hearing. (Prior Condition No. 23.)
(NOT~Z:
(a)
These proffered conditions are similar to
Proffsred Conditions 1, 3, 4, 7(c), 11, 12,
13(e), 17 and 23, as accepted by the Board
of Supervisors with %he approval of Case
8~S15~, and address performance standards
92-566 6/24/92
£or drainage, ar=hltectural treatment,
buffers, transportation and notification of
proffered ¢ondltlons are 'in excess of
o~di~anoe ~equircments.
Conditions 5 and 6 above, ensure continued
compliance with buffe~ring requirements as
Mr, Warren recognized Mr. Russell Galley, Vice Chairman of the
Planning Commission and reeresentative for Clo¥¢r Hill
District, and Hr. P~illip Cunningham, representative for
bermuda District, who were present at the meeting.
~r. Bar~r stated many iSSUeS had been resolved at t. he meeting
due to the effort of citizen~ ~taff a~d the Board and he felt
th~ concern~ e~pressed by the veterinarians regarding the
and e£fort the ~oard has ~pent with ~he Ys~erinarians in an
attempt to ~eselve their concerns. Ke indicated when the
process wa~ followe~, the ~oard was and would ~ receptive in
On ~eticn of Mr. McHale, seconded by M~. Barber, the Board
adjournod at ~:0~ p.~. u~til June ~, 1992, at 7:~ a.m. for a
breakfast meeting with the C±tisens for Responsible ~ov~nment
at the King's Korner Restaurant located at th~ Ai~ort.
Vote: Unanimous
Lan~ B. Ramsey W~
County A~ministrato~/
~a~ry q. ~Ddniel' [
Chalrm~n ~