The URL can be used to link to this page

07-22-1992 Minutes,.l~l..y 22., 1992 Mr. Harry G. Daniel, C~ei~man 5Lt. Arthur 5. Warren, Vice Chrm. Mr. ~dward B. Barber Hr. Whaley H. Celbert Mr. J. L. McHale, III M~. Lane B. R~msey Co~ty Ad~inlstrator 92-569 MS. Ba~baTa Bennett, Dir., Office on Youth Ms. Jane Carter, Dir., Housing Ms. Maril~rn E. Cele, Exec. Asst. to Cu. Admln. M~. Richard Cordle Mrs. Doris R. DeHart, ASSt. CO. Admin., Legis. Svcs. and I~tergovern. A££~irs Chief Robert L. Eanes, Jr., Fire Depar~menu Major Ronnie E11iott, Jail Aulmini~rator, Sheriff's Department Mr. Thcma~ R. Fulghum, Superlntendent, School Board Hr. Michael Golden, Acting Dir., Pa~ku and Recreation Mr. Bradford S, Haim~er, Deputy Co. Admin., Management ~e~vioes Mr. William M. Howell, Dir., ~eneral Services Dir., Planning Mr. John Lilla~d, Dir., Airport MS. Ma~y L0U Lyle, Dir., Accounting Mr. Robert L. Masden, Deputy Cu. Admin., Kr. R. John McCrack~n, Dir., Transportation Mr. R~chard M. MaElfish, Dir., Env. Engineering Mr. Gary MoLaren, Dir., ~conomic Development Co~nty Attorney Mrs. Pauline A. Mitchell~ Dir., News & Public Information Service~ Dr. William Nelson, Dir., H~alth Department Mr. Richard Munnally, Extension Agent Col. J. £. Pi~tman, Jr., Police Depurt~ant Clerk to ~h® Hoard Assistant Director, Budget & Mmnagmmemt Mr. M. D. Stlth, Jr., Acting Deputy CO. Adnin., Community Development Mr. David H. Welchone, Dir., utilities ~. Mike Wes=fall, Acting Dir., Internal Audit F,~. Frederiok Willie, Jr., Dir., Human Resource Mgt. Mr. Daniel called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. (EST). After brief d±ecuesien, on motion of M~. Colher=, seconded by adopted Rules of Procedure. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.~. J~NS ~4r 199~ On motion of Mr. McHale, seoo~ded by ~. Colbert, approved the minutes of JUne 24, 1992, as submitted. Vote: unanimous the Heard 1.D. ~'~2~B ~5. 1992 On motion of Mr. Colbert, geconded by Mr. Mc~ale, approved the minutes ef June 25, 1992, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous the Board Kr. Ramsey stated there were no County Co~ents scheduled at this time. Administrator'~ 3. BO~RD COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Danlul stated he had attended the School Board Liaison Committee meeting; the Capital Region Airport Commission meeting; and the Richmon~ Regional Planning District Commission meeting. ~e further stated he had met with the Highway Commissioner regarding Route 288 North. Mr. Daniel than presented the Beard with a coin token from the toll clssing Of Inter,tats 95. Mr. Barber stated he had attended the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) conference which had bean h, ld in Minneapolis. REOn~STS TO POSTPONU ACTION. EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR ~ES IN THE ORDER O~ On motion of Mr. McHale, Seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board added Item 8.F.18.~ Approval for the Purchase of Land and Appu~tenant E~sements for the Michanx Creek Pump Station from Sue P. Rosefsky to follow Item 8.F.17.C., Acceptance of a Parcel of Land along U.S. Route ~ from =BM Limited ~art/~r~hiB; a~ed Item 8.F.I9., Applieatio~ for Bingo/Raffle Per, it for The Central Virginia Council of the Blind to follow Item 8.F.lS.; added Item 8.G., Appointment to Commieeien on Soil~ and Foundations to follow Item 8.~.19.; and re~laced Item 12., Executive session with anothe~ E~e~utive See~i0~, Pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a)(7), Coda of virginia, 1950, as ~2-570 7/22/92 Amended, for Consultation With Legal Counsel Regarding: ~rebable Litigation Involving the Location of the Boundary Line between Chesterfield and Powhatan Counties, Probable Litigation Regarding Shrink/Swell Soils, and a Criminal Investigation of Public Emplcyees~ Pursuant to section 344(a)(3), Regarding the Acquisition of Real Property for Public Purpo~us, and Pursuant to SaOtion 2.1-344(u)(1), Relating to the Assignment, Appointment, Per£0rmanoe, Removal or Resignation of Specific Appointees of the Beard; and moved Itmm 8.D., Reconsideration of Stree~ligh~ Xnstalla~ion COst Approvals, to follow Item B.F.19. and, adopted the agenda, as a~ended. vote: Unanimous ~BEOL~TION~ ;~ND E9EOIAL RBOO~NITIONB ~=AS, ~. Wilma P. ~ates will retire from th~ Juvenile Detehtion Home, Chesterfield Co~ty, on A~St 1, se~ice, has been a dedicated employee recognizing the importance of foo~ service, preparing and ~erving excellent ~ea~ da~ly; and ~ER~E, ~s. Bates' extra effort to m~e the holidays special occasion by preparing and se~ing excellant meals was always appreciated; and pleasant personality and positive attitude were reflected the quality of her work; and ~ER~S, ~s. Ba~es~ friends and ce-workers wish her good luck and good health in her retirement; and diligent mervi=~ to the =itlzuns o~ Chesterfield county. C0~ty Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes ~s. Wil~ Bate~ and extends on behalf of it~ members and the c~t~zenm chesterfield County thair appr~iatlon for her dedicated and diligent ~a~vlce to the County and e~ends be~t wishes to in her retlr~m~nt. ~Q, B~ IT F~TH~ R~SOLVED, ~hat a copy of this ~. Daniel stated the ~xecuted re~olution would be presented to Mrs. ~ates at a l=tmr dat~. 7/22/9~ Chief Pittman stated Lieutenant Green had been employed as Police officer in 1956 and had served in several capacities and areas within the Police Department during tha~ time. He fu3~ther stated Lieutenant Greene had provided over thirty-five years of quality service, had served with pri~e and distinction, and had received many letters of commendation. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: W~R~AS, Lieutenant O. E. "Duster" Greene retired from having provided over thirty-five years of quality service to the citizens of C~esterfield County; and WHEREAS, Lieutenant Greene has served the County in the capacity of Patrol Officer, Detectivey Detective ~ergeant, and Lieutenant and has for many years been involved in the investigation of many major crimes; and WH~P~AS, Lieutenant Greene has significantly impacted the sRfety of t~e community by causing the arrest of major ~riminals during hi~ long tenure as a supervisor and commander in the Forensic Unit within the Police Depal~ament and has provided the chesterfield County Police DeDartmen~ with many will miss Lieutenant Greene's diligent County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Lieutenant the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for resolution be presented to Lieutenant Greene and that this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous ~r. Daniel presented the executed resolution to LieU=chant and w~shed him well in hi~ retirement. Chief Pittman expressed appreoiattom ~or biz years of service to the County. MONTH" Mr. stith introduced Mr. Roburt Harvey, representing tho National A~so~iatien for the Advancement of Colored People christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). On metlon of the Board, t~e following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, the virginia State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement e~ Colore~ P~ople holds its Premiere Annual C~vll R~ght~ Nell ~f Fame in the City of Richmond, Virglni~, on Aupust l, 199~; and Wq{EP~AS, the r~ason £0r thi~ ysarw~ Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony is to recognize the ~any un~ung heroes and hero~ne~ in Virginia that p~ve~ the ~y toward "Deseg~egation"~ and 92-~72 7/22/92 W~EREA$, Virginia has bean the sleeping giant, ignored for decades, even though it was the center of the movement and the focal point of the struggle againet Maaaiva Re~ietance and Separate but Unequal; and W~EREA$, the purpose o£ the National Aaeoclation ~or the Advancement of Colored People is to suture unto all citizens the bleeeinge of liberty within the framework of the Constitution of the United States. NOW, T~R~FOR~ BE IT R~SOLVED, that the Chesterfleld County Board o~ Supervleors ~oea hereby recognize Aup~st 1, 1992 as "NAACP civil Rights Hall of Fame Day" and the month of Aup~st as "Civil Rights Month" and to reaffirm the total commitment of all of our citizens to the ideal of liberty and justice for all. vote: Unanimous ~r. Daniel presented the executed resolution tu Mr. ~urvey and ~tr. Long and recap~ized their commitment ~n ~eaffi~ing liberty and justice for all c~ti~en$. ~r. ~arvey and F~r. Long expressed appreciation to ~e Boar~ for ~ecognizi~g "N~CP civil Rights Hall of Fame Day" ~n~ August a~ "Civil Right= Mo~th" a~d stated they felt ~is recognition was an effort to ~nsur~ all ~iti~ns of ~h~ County r~o~iv~ their o~wil rights. 6. WOP~K ~E~SION ~r. ~a~er stated staff had ~ade a pr~$entatlon regarding reglonal and local jall needs to the Board at it~ meeting on ~ay ~, 199~ and had re¢o~n~ed %h~ County proceed with the regional jail project. Ne further stated a team comprised of Budget, Planning, ~eneral Services, and Sheriff's etaff had reviewed the o~tion~ presented to the Board to determine the mo~t economical end practical solution in solving the County's local jail needs and had addressed security is~nes, inmate population trends, adjacent land uses, construction and financing coats, site utility needs, and physical exercise and 9rogrammlng needs of the existing jail. He reviewed etaff'a recommendation to construct a pre-engineered metal building totaling 21,000 equate feet which would provide dormitory bed space for ninety-six inmates and fifteen confined cell~ for serious o~fenders and noted ~ne cost o~ t/~e project would be approximately $3,1 million. He indicated staff was recommending =he source of funds Sot t~he project he for a lease purchase for u term of t~n yearm with an annual debt service estimated tu 1~ $~g3,000. He then reviewed option two in which staff would request the Board to appropriate apprn~imetely $5~0,00~ to ~e used to finance architectural and engineering d~ign and start site clearing work for the cen~tructlon in January. ~e i~dioated if the Board decided to proceed with option two, staff would recommend the Board authorizing the County Administrator to enter into a lea~e purchase agreement totaling $3.1 million ~ur t/ua jail addition project and to set a date for a public hearing for August 26, 1992 to consider the appropriation of the $3.1 million. ~_r. Daniel expressed appreciation to staff fur their work on the jail addition project. Ne indicated the $500,000 ~eeded to initiate ~he design c~ the project could be funded through the Capital Reserve a~d at the time of completion, the final funds could then he addressed. Di~cussion~ comments and ~ue~tions en~ued relative to t~e 9ail addition project being a pre~ing need for th~ County; the cu~ent balance cf t/To capital Reserve Account; the option and current interest rates; short-term projections regarding the jail; and available funding for the lease purchase. appropriated $5~0r00~, from =he aeserve for Capital Projests to initiate the Droc~s for the jail addition project and for staff to bring back ~o the board an it~ addresoing the balunce of funding for the project in January. Far. Steven L. Myers, Aeelstant County Attorney, stated this date and ti~e had ~een advertised for a public hearing to consider the approval of a service agreement between t21e county and the Riverside Regional Jail Authority. ~ f~ther stared in an effort to fund a lon~-term solution to the jell needs of the County, Chesterfield joined with the Ccuutie~ of Charles City, Prince George and Surry and the Citie~ of Colonial ~eights, Hopewell a~ Petersburg to create the Riverside Regional Jail Au=hcrity an~ a planning sUudy had been completed last year which r~c0r~en~ed the Jail A~thority ccnstruc~ a facility in Prince George County having 804 bed~ a~d be designed to per~it expansion to e total of 1,~68 bed=. He reviewed the serviue agreement and it~ provisions and stated legislation which created the Jail Authority required a sarviue agreement between the Authority and it~ member jurisdictions. ~ noted four uf the ~articipatin9 j~risdieticns, the cities of ~opewell, Petersburg and Colonial Heights and the County of Prince G~orge have already approved Di~e~$Sion, comments and questions ensued relatlve to Section 3.i0., of the Service Agreement entitled, "~ajority Required for Authority Deois±on~"; Section 3.2., entitled, '~Commitment of Prisoners"; and the status of t~e other local j~risdictions who have not y~t approved the S~rvice Agreement. Mr. George Beadles stated he felt th~ creation of the Riverside Regional Jail was not a solution to the needo nf the jail and he felt other alternatives should be addressed such as a cooperative effort between Chesterfield County, the city of Richmond and the County of Henrlco. There being no one el~e to address this issue, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Mr. BarDo~, oeeonded by Mr. Warren~ =he Board approved the Service Agreement by and amoug the Riverside Regional Jail Authority -- tho Conntie~ of C~a~le~ city, ~h~stsrfield, Prince George and Surry an~ the Cities of Colonial Heights, Hopewell and Petersburg -- and a~thorized th~ County Administrator to ~xecute ~uch Agreement on behalf of the County. (It is noted a copy of the Service A~reement i~ filed with th, paper~ of this Board.) Vote: ~nanimou$ 7.B. TO CONSID~I~THB PROPOSED COMIiUNITY D~vm~Q_~I~NT_~OCK 9R~NT PRO~R~)i Mr. Stith mtated thi~ dat~ aud time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the proposed Community Development 92-574 7/22/92 ' I Block Grant Pro, ram. He further stated at the Board meeting ~n ~une 24, 1992, staff had presented the ohjectlve~ and recommendations of the Program. Mr. Lewis Wendell, Grants Administrator, stated ctaff had prepared a proposed Community Developmeat Block Grant Program in anticipation of a $1~060,000 entitlement g~ant f=om tl%c U.$. Department of Housing and Urban Development. He further stated the i~tent of the P~ogram was to benefit low and moderate income residents of the County and %0 meet the objectives of revitalizing and preserving exicting neighborhoods. Hc reviewed inpub which had bccn received ~r=m citizens at public hearing~ held in April regarding the Program and ~ke national objectives of t~e Program ~e~ng to benefit low and ~ode~ate income persons, aiding in ~e prevention or ~l~m~nation of slums or blight, meeting o~her urgent co~uni~ development need~ when existing oonditions impos~ serious ~reats ~o ~e health or welfare of ~e co,unity and where other financial resources would not be available to meet those nesd~. He then ~eviewed fundin~ options for the proposed Pro,am by =atego~ an4 outlined requested projects included in the Progr~ and project~ which from ~e work session the Board held on ~ne 10, 1992, including fun4ing ~he Zttrick Village Overlay Zone Project, red~oi~g the Utilities dorm=etlon fund by $5,000, reducing ~e the Health dud Humus Serwices Satellit~ office Project, whi~ fun4ing ~h~ ~ilo~ ~rogram f~r Drog-ou~ Prevention whi~ program is included in the c~rent proposal. ~e continued to for re~ested but unfunded projec%~; consid~ratio~ Of a wiBdoW of opportunity on the applications for the Nouslng R~habilitation Pxogram rubber %h~n a fir~t-oome, first-serve policy; revolving funds and matohinq f~ds with past Block Grant 9roj~cts; ~e demolition and clearance of vacant buildings; and the criteria which would be used in selecting the projects requested. There was brief discussion relative to the criteria used in selecting the ra~ested projects. ~. Colbert stated he had received a re,est from the YM~ in apartment complex which would be organized and supervised by he would reco~end ~10,000 be funded from the Co~uni~ Developm~n= ~1o~ ~ran~ Pro,ram %o assis~ in =h~ ini=ia=ion o~ the soccer pr~ram for the purchase of ~ifor~, shoes an~ at John Tyler Co,unity College and ~e Department of Parks assistance. Mr. Wendell stated this date and time had been advertised for a publiu hearin~ to consider the County's proposed Community Development Block Grant Program~ Discussion, ce~ament~ and questions .ensued re~ative te adjusting the proposed C0~u~unity Development Bloo~ Progra~ to assist in funding the soccer program requested by the YMCA. Mr. Gesrge Beadles expre~e~ cQnc~kns relative to the uniform provision of s~rviee$ such as fire prnteotion and recreation services within the County regardless of lsoatien. ~s. Wordy Cox stated she supported the request by the YMCA to initiate ~he soccer program for the r~sidents of t/aa Ben, da Run apartment complex; the= she felt the children in the 92-575 7/22/92 were committed to assisting with the program by coaching and assisting with fund raisers; that the Department of Parks and Recreation would b~ assistinq with transportation and the YMCA would be coordinating the use of fields with John Tyler Community College; and that ~he felt the program would teach the children a team concept and reduce crime in the area. She submitted into the record a proposal for the soccer pro, ram. There being no one else tc address th~s issue, the public hearin~ wa~ There was brief discussion relative to designating the necessary funds to initiate the soccer program at the Bermuda Run apartment complex. Mr. Barber stated Midlothian District would ~ot be any funds through the Community Development ~!e=k Grant Program ulthough sections of the District had been involved in the discussion of designating the fun~s for various projects. He furth%~ ~tated he S~ppo~ted the request tc initiate the soccer program at ~he Bermuda Run apartment complex and felt t~e~e types of progr~m= would be beneficial in neighborhoods such as Ben.da Run. Mr. McHale ~tated he ~npported the request to initiate the ~occer program at the Bermuda Run apartment complex as he felt rheem types of programs should be funded by the Community Development Block Grant ~regram. Mr. Warren ~tate~ he also supported the initiation of the soccer program for the Bermuda Run apartment complex and expressed appreciation to ~he residents for submitting their request. He further ~tated he felt citizens should be i~for~ed of th~e types of funding programs, ~he County should implement an application process in which to apply for funds from the pro.ram and the geographic distribution should be b~$e~ on low and moderate income areas. Ke also stated a study ~hculd be performed to ~eterm~ne the criteria, that administration costs should be held to a minimum, and the selectlcn criteria should be more comprehensive and include the criteria from the applioatiO~ pr0c~$s, which guidelines ~hould be implemented in the pro,rem for next year. Mr. Colbert ~tated ~e we~ld recommend decreasing funds to demclleh and/or secure vacant h=ildings fram $~0.00o to $70.000 and desiqnate the $10,000 diffa~enc~ for the initiation of the soccer program for the Bermuda Run apartment eo~plex. on motion of Mr. colbert~ ~eeonded by ~. McHale, the Board adopted the proposed community Development Block Gran~, as amended, and authorized the County Administrator to submit final ~tatement to the u.s. Department of Housing and Urban DeVelopment and to appropriate funds, in the amount of $~,060,00o, ~or the granu. (It is note~ proposed community Development Block Grant ~rcgram is filed with the papers of this DearS.) Vote: Unanimous p~blic hearing ~o consider an ordinance to vacate u portion of a variable width right-of-way within Bermuda ~lace Subdivision. S2-576 7/22/92 Stone and Mr. Frank Frazier, ~ubmitted into the record two the ordinance. Mr. Daniel requested all those present supporting or opposing the ordinance be recognized. It was noted approximately fourteen people stood in support of the ordlnanse and no opposition wac present. There being ns one else to address this ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Discussion, comments and questlone ensued relative to an additional twenty foot seetio~ of abandoned property and the process in e~tablishlng ownership and the unclaimed property being Dart of a state eamement with an overlapping of County and State easements. on motion of Mr. MoHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board adopted the following ordinance, subject to the retention of a ~hirty foot strip of land adjacent to Old Stage Road and water and drainage easement: A~ ORDTNkNCE whereby the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, ( "GRANTOR" ) FRAZIER, (~nsba~d and wife], DAVID CIBULA en~ LINDA S. OISULA. (husband and wife), MALCOLM D. STON~ and DOLLY S. S~0NE, ("G~%NT~"), a portion of a 50' and variable width right of way known as Bermuda Place Drive, in Bermuda Place Suhdi¥ision~ B~rmuda District, Chesterfield, Virginia, aa shown on a plat thereof duly reeerd~d in the Clerk's Office of the circuit court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 9, Page WH~R~AS~ ~r. Davi~ K. Cibula ct als petitioned the Board of ~pervi$0r~ of Chesterfield County, Virginia =0 vacate a pot=ion of a 50' and variable width right of way known Bez~nuda Place Drive, in Bermuda Pla~e Subdivi~ion, Bermuda Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly ~hown on a plat d~te~ January 2~, 1~3, recorded in the Clerk's office of the circuit Court of said County in Plat ~omk 9, ~age ~l- Th~ portion of right of way petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A per%ion of a 50' and variable width right of way known as Bermuda Place Drive, the locution of which i~ more fully shown on a pla~ by John H. Foster, ~u%e~ January 26, 1953, a copy of which is recorded in Deed Bock 9, Page WMEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to section 15.1- ~31 of the Code of~irqlnla~ I9§0, a~ amended, by adYerti~ing; W~{F2%$, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the portion of right of way sought to be vacated. NOW TM~R~FORE, BE IT O~DAINED ~Y TNE BOARD 0F OF C~ESTERPIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That p~rsuant to Section 15.1-48~(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid portion of right of way be and im hereby vacated. GRANTEE hereby conveys unto the GRANTOR and GRANTOR hersby reserves a 30' strip along Bermuda Place Drive to 01d Stage Road for road widening and utility extension and a water and drainage easement across the entire portion of Bermuda Place Drive to be vacated. This Ordinance shall he in full £oroe and effect, in accordance with Section 1~.1-4~l(b) of the Code of Virginia, lgso~ es emen~ed~ and a certified copy o£ ~his Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto, shall be recorded no ~ooner ~han t~ir~y days hereafter in the Clerk's OXfice of the circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Coda of ¥ir=inia. 1950, as a~ended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest faa simple title to the portion of right of way hereby vacated in the owners of the abutting lots within Sex, ada Place Subdivision, free and Blear of any rights of 9ubllc use. Accordingly, this ordinance shall be indexed in the na~es of the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD a~ ("GRANTOR") and PRANK FRAZIER and BETSY E. PRAZIER, (husband and wife), DAVID C/BULl and LINDA S. CIBULA, (husband and wife), ~ALCOLM D. STONE and DOLLY S. STONE, or their successors in title, as ( "GRANTEE" ) . Vote: Unanimous TO ¢0NSIDER A~ 0RDINANeE TO VACAT~ LOT~ 15, ~6 A~D ~7 PORTION OP ecamidez an ordlnanc~ to vacate Lots 15, ~6, and 17 and a portion of a thirty foot right-of-way known as Johnson Street within Popular Hills SuhlivimiQn. No one came £erward to speak in favor of or against the ordinance. adopted the following ordinance: AN ~RDINANCE whereby the COUNTY OF ("GRAnTeE"), lots 1~, 16, 17 and a portion of a Fight Of way known as Johnson S~reet in Popular Hills Subdivision, Bermuda Distriot~ Chesterfield, Virginia, a~ shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the C~a=terfield County in ~lat Book ~, Pagan WBEREAS, The County petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate lots 1§, 16, ~? and a port,on cf right of way kna~rn a~ Johnson street, in Popular Hills Subdivision, Bermuda Hagi~t=rial District, Ch~ter£ield · County, V~rginia ~ore particularly ~hown on a plat dated September, 1933, recorded in =he Clerk's offi=e of the Circuit Court of ~aid County in Plat 5ook 4, Pages 222 and 223. The fully described as follows: 92-578 7/22/~2 of which is more fully shown on a pla~ by J. W. ~ugh Engr., dated ~eptember, 193t, a copy of which is recorded in Plat Book 4~ pages 22l and 223. WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to section 15.1- 431 of the code o~_yir~inia! 1950, as amended, by advertising; and, ~REA$, nc public necessity exists for the continuance of the lots and portion of right of way sought to be vacated. NOW THEREFORE~ BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section l~.l-482(b) of the Coda of ~i~qi~ia, 1950, az amended, the aforenaid Iot~ and portion of right of way be and are hereby vacated. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect, in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Cod~ of W'r Joia, 1950, as a~ended, and a certified copy of this Ordinanoe~ together with the plat attached hereto, shall be recorded ns sooner than thirty days hsreafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pursuant to section 15.5-4B5 of the Code ~f Virginia~ 1950~ as a~ended. The effect of this ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-4S3 is to destroy the force and ef£ecf o~ ~e r~=ording of the ~o~tio~ of thc plut vucuted. Thi~ Ordinance shell vest fee ~impl~ title to ~he 9ortlon of right of way hereby vacated in the owner~ of ~/%e lots being vacated within Popular ~ills Subdivision, free an~ clear cf any rights of public use. Since the portion cf Johnson Street h~r~by vacated is on the periphery of =he aforementioned recorded subdivision plat, this Ordinance shall vemt free ~imple title in eh=ire width of ~he per, ion of Johnson Street being vacated in the owner of the three lot~ within Popular ~ills being Accordingly, this ordinance shall bs indexed in the names of the COUNTY OF C~=ST~RTI~LD a~ ("GRANTOR") and the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD~ or their successors in title, as Vote: Unanimous ?.~. TO CONSIDER ~N O~J~IN~N~E TO ~END THE OODE OF THE COUNTY Mr. J=cob~oa stated this date and time had been advertised to consider an ordinance r~lating generally to cut~oor advertising signs. He further stated the Planning CO~L~ission has reviewed %he County's billboard regulations and proposed amendment would substantially expand the area of the County in which billboardm ar~ prohibite~ by including all emerglng growth areas, village areas, river corridors and limited access roa~ ¢0rridor~ in the prohibited area. He then in which billboards are currently permitted or banned and the Richmond, Colonial N~ight~, Petersburg and the County of ~enrico have banned the construction of new billboa~d~. There WaS brief discussion relative to locations in which billboards are currently permitted and wh~her =hose particular billboards would be allowed Dy the proposed Mr. Philip DebRome, representing Lamer Advertising Company, stated Lamer was one of the largest billboard companies in the metropolitan area; that the proposed amendment would ban a form of commercial adverti~i~q from Binary-five percent of the County due to aesthstlce; that they felt billboards serve an signs were not entirely related to billboards and were created Over the y~ars by pr~vlou~ ordinances; that the existing ordinance contains a capfreplacement provi$isn as well am nad bee~' ~iled With TJne Coun%y since adoption ~"~/%e current ordinance last year; that ~mar Advertising Cempany and ~-~ Advertising Company currently controlled approximately eighty- £ive percent of existing signs within the County and woul~ not r~quest any additional billboards while the issue was under oonsideratlun; that the srdlnance would place the billboards located on Interstate 9~ in non-conformance; that the billboar~ ,could be restriote~ by repairing a conditional use permit r~r than a ban; that although they c~ u~der~tand concerns expressed abo~t billboards located o~ scenic routes, they felt billboard~ on Int~r~tate 9~ ~hould r~main a= is and, if banned, could require highway funds for removal of the billboards; that L~m~r Advertising Company and $-M Advertising a~ortization schedule on billbcar~; that they fnlt b~llboards should be addressed individually and he referred to an editorial in a local n~wspaper indicating the advertieement~ e~ billhoar~ geRerate~ busi~s~ ~or local patron~ and were a benefit to the community. Discussion, comments and q~e~tien~ en~ued relative to the current vacancy rate on billboards; the percentage of advertising on billboards for public service; the nu~%ber of billboards located on Interstate 95; which ~ocations were more valuable and desirable for billboards; the ban on billboards initiate~ by ~anrloo County; and the percentage of billboard Mr. Bob Ramsay, President of Ramsay Zanagement Group, an Association Management Firm located in Chesterfield Co~3~ty, stated his company focuses on providing association services for ~o~pitality related bu~inesses; that he i~ a resident of the County and Exsoutlvs Vice President of the Metropolitan Richmond Hotel/Motel Association representin~ Chesterfield County; that they were opposed to the p~opesed ordinance because the signs generated a significant amount of business for area hotels an~ motels; that the traveling industry relies on the infok-mation provided by the billboards; that the state has expa~..~Rd the Interstate Travel ~ervics sign ~ogram in an effort ~o ~on~ol the limited access prima~y routes where signs are not available in urban areas; and requested M~. Pa~l G~es=wicz stated he ha~ b~en a resident of th~ County for the past thirteen years; that he serves on the Executive Board of the Surreywood Subdivision consisting of approximabely five hun~rs4 households; that the Subdivision supported the proposed ban on billboards; that the County was ~ere urbanized smd lan~ uses needed to be consistent; that he felt there were et~e~ options available for advertising t~at would not have an adverse affect on local co~panies; that billboards, wbe~ ~ixed wit~ commercial districtS, with existing businesses far the attention of the motoring public; that they felt the County ~hould maintain and protect the image of t21e undeveloped portions of tho County; that although the County ha~ progressed in it~ r~trictlon~ on ~ign 7/22f92 adequately addressed; and that they not only supported the Planning Co, legion's reco~endatlon ~ut also a total wide ban and ~mortization schedule similmr to Henrlco County. ~lr. Tom O'Brlen, representing Watlonal Advertising, subsidiary of 3-M Advertising, stated they were the second largest billbaard company within the County; that they were opposed to the proposed ordinance as the current ordinance had already addressed billboard regulations; that the ordinance provided strict re~latlons and since its implementation, no new applications for billboards have been filed; that approximately eighty percent of their billboards advertise local bnsine~se~ and of that percentage, fifty-one percent were located within the County; that only five of their billboard accounts were national; that he felt an amortization schedule would not benefit the County; and re~ested the Board not to address the proposed ordinance as submitted. ~[r. Steve H~ghes, representing Colo~y Advertising, stated they were a small outdoor advertising fi~ with one billboard lo~ated within the County; that ~ey w~re opposed to the j~i~diction~ have banned billboards; that billboard~ were a highways, were pe~itted in ~e Co~nties of ~eliu, Dinwiddie Princ~ G~org~, and w~r~ permi=~ in Hanover County limit=~ a sise restriction; ~at ~ey felt Inter~tate 95 was industrial area an~ billboards ~hould be Debitted; ~at they would oppose a ban and amortization schedule on b~llboard~; and that =he U.S. Conference of Mayo~ recently voted for ~upport of just compensation for the remowal of billboardE and support for billbomrd~ and stated he felt the Kr. George Bea~les stated there were currently many vacant billboards within the County; that he felt a conditional use p~it should be require~ for each new application; and =hat h~ felt ~ere were advantages mad disadvantages to the use of billbuard~ and signs in general. There~ being no one el~e %o ad,ess this ordinance, ~e p~lic ~r. Daniel s=a%~ ~he issue o~ outdoor advertising signm has been in existence s~nce ~e 1980'x and ha~ not been r~solved ~upported the reco~endation of the Planning Co~is~ion and could al~o supper% an ~mort~zation schedule consis~en~ with the ordinance adopted by Henrico County, whi~ ~ould allow their b~llboards to re~i~ until 1999. ~. Barber stated the businesses lo~ated on Midlothlan ~rnplke d~rlvPd i~¢o~ from billboard~ located on their property and he felt he could not s~port a~ s~edule. He fur~r ~tated billboards on Inter~tate an ~rging growth area and, therefore, he felt billboard~ should be allowed on Inter~tate 95~ from Proctors Creek North to the city of Richmond Line, wi~ a conditional u~ regarding outdoor advertising signs and he felt the co,lesion ha4 appropriately ad~sed the issue and, ~2-581 7/~2/92 willing to consider an amortization schedule similar to H~nri¢0 County, F~r. Colbert stated he did net support the proposed ordinance regarding outdoor udvmrtising signs us he felt it would have an adverse imp=e= on the County, the advertising industry and ¢o~ty bu~in~e~ i~ general. M_r. Warren stated he has supported and would support a ban on billboard~ within %~he C0~ty and, therefore, ~upported the proposed recommendation. Board to'ad'Spt un ordinance to amend the Code of the CoUnty Of outdoor adwertislng signs and ts include amortization for removal of o~tdoor advertising $ing~ by the year 1999, ~onsi~t~nt with the ordinance adopted by ~enrlco County. Mr. Micas ~tated the notion should reflect th~ finding that the publlo necessity, convenience, general welf~r6"and proper t~he motion' was intended to reflect the recommendation cf the Pi=ruling Comanission and whethe~ it allowed, by conditional use in certain distrlct~, the erection of billboards or if it intended to be a total ban of billboard~ with a~ortisation. billboards upon adoption of the ordinance and to require the removal of all billboards by 1999. After brief discussion, ~r. Daniel called for the vote on the motion made by ~lr. MeHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, for the Board to adopt the following ordinance: Chs~terf~eld County: 65,~, 2i-6~.~ and 21-16~ of the code of the County cf Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted to read as follows: The following sign= =hall be permittad in the R, A and The following signs shall be permitted in the B-2 and B-T oistrio~s: 92-552 7/22/92 i I .S.e.c....21T.62. Same--B-3~ M-i~ MTn, and M-9 Distrie.t.~.. The follewing ~igns shall he permitted in the B-3, M-l, M-~ and ~-3 Distrists: o o o The following shall apply to all signs: obtained at the office of the building inspector. After the Building Official insures that the application complies with the requirement9 of the uniform Statewide Building Code, he shall forward the application to the Department of Planning, w~ic~ ~hall cheCk for compliance with the regulations of this chapter. Once compliance ie determined, the a~plication shall be returned to the Building Official, who shall issue the sign p~r~it. Each application shall be acsompanied ~y plans, shewing the size, loaation and property identification, in methods of anchoring and support shall be required. ~ach migB ~hall have the permit number and date of issuance affixed. o o o (g) All outdoor advertising signs shall be prohibited. All non-conforming outdoor advertising ~ign$ ~xisting on and after (July 22, 1992}, may remain in place after becoming non- conforming; provided that they are maintained in accordance with thi~ division; and providing further that after a si~n ha~ been non-con£or~ing fax seven (7) yearn it shall be Division 7.1 Smecial 9i~n_Districts. Sec. 21-63.1:3. General recL~l~ions for all The following ~hall ~pply to all signs: (a) Applicable State and Federal ~ign (b) Applications for permits shall be submitted on oDtaine~ a~ t~e o~io~ of the building inspector. After the Building official insures that the application complies with the requirements of the Uniform Stetewide Building Code~ he shall forward the application to th~ B~part~e~t ef ~lanning, which shall check for compliance with the re~mlations of this chapter. Once compliance in determined, the application shall be returned to the Building official, who shall issue the sign permit. Each application shall be accompanied by Dlan~, showing the ~ize, location and property identification. In the case cf projecting signs, complete s~eclflca~ione and methods of anchoring and support shall he r~quired. ~ach sign shall have the DerI~it number and date of issuance affixed. o o o Sso. 21-63.2. si=ns uermittadt~R, A, MR-1 an~ MH-2 Di~trist~. T~e following signs shall be permitted in the R~ A~ MH-1 and MH-] Districts7 and all o~her ~ign~ ~hall b~ prohibited= 92-~83 7/2~tg~ 21-~3.4. Same--~-2 and B-T Districts. The following ~igns ~hall be permitted in tho B-2 and Distr±ct~: O O O Sec. Z~-l~3. Permitted uses--By right. Within any B-3 District, no building, struoture! or premlse~ shall h~ u~ed or arranged or designed to b~ u~ed in any part'except fo~ one or more of the following'uses, subject to the previsions of division 11.2: [1] Any use permitted in the B-2 District. [2] Auction sales or salvage barns. o o a [2) That ~ection 21.1-]66 of the Code of the Count~.....Of. Choster£ield, 197s, as amended, is amended snd read as Bec. 21.1-266. (j) Outdoor advertising signs shall be prohibited. (k) Ail son-conforming outdoor advertising existing on and after [July 22, 1992), may r~main in place after becoming non-confo~ing; provided that they are maintainmd in accordancm wlth th~s d~vi~ion; and 9rovi~in~ further that after m sign has been non-conforming for seven (7) y~ar~ it ~hall b~ (1) ~ abandoned sign an~ all structural elements above the footing ~hall b~ r~ov~d by th~ OWner of ~e giqn or th~ ~ner or lessee of the ~rcperty. Any sign located on Droperty year~ or more mhali be ~eemed (3) This ordinance shall beoom~ ~ffective i~ediat~ly upon adoption. The Boar~ b?ing polled, the vote was a~ follows= Mr. Barber: Nay. Mr. colbert: ~ay. CONSIDER ~N ORDINANCE ~ENDTNG SECTION 14.1-1 OF THE incorporation of motor vehicle viol~tlons into the County adopts an amendment to section 14.1-1 os the County Code, adopting by reference into the County Code all state motor vehicle of£enses as a~ended at that year's General A~mbly. He noted the effect of the ordinance was to allow Co~ty police officers to charge vielator~ with County Code and to retain fines received in the County Treasury rather No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the On notion of ~. MoHale, sacun4u~ by Mr. cot~rt, the Board adopted th~ following ~ ORDIN~CE TO ~D THE CODE OF T~ OF CEESTERFIEL~, 1978, AS ~E~DED~ BY ~DING ~D REENACTING ~TICL~ I, S~CTIO~ 14.~1 R~TING T0 THE INCORP0~TION OF ~ DRIVING VIO~TIONS INTO T~ CO~TY COD~ Chesterfield County: (1) That Section l&.l-i of the Code of %he County of Code of Virginia, 1PS0, as amended, all uf ~h~ 9rovls~ons and article 2 of ~apter 7 of title 1~.~ and article 9 of ~rovisions and requirements which by their very natnre have no upplic,t~on to or within ~$ oo~ty, are hereby a~op~ and incorporated in =his ~ap=er by reference and made applicable within th~ county. The following articles o~ Title 4~.z of the Code of Virginia are specifically excluded from such adoption and incorporation: ~t~cl~ ~ of chapter highways and oth~r public ways within ~he county. Such provisions and requir~ment~ a~e hereby ad~pted, mutatis mutandis, and made a part of ~is chapter as fully as though person, wi~in ~e county, to violate or fail, n~lec~ r~fuse to com~ly with uny provision of title 46.l, n~ticl~ of chapter ? of title 18.2 or article 9 u~ chapter 11 ~ ~rovided, ~at in no even= shall ~e ~enalty ~m~osed fo~ the exceed ~e Denal~y imposed Io~ a similar offense under title ~ap=er 1~ o~ title 16.1 of th~ Cod~ of virginia. 7.G. TO CONSIDER ~N ORDINANCE TO I%MEND CF~%PT~R ~1.1~ ~RTI~LE III~ DIVISION 2~ 0P ~ 00D~ 0~ T~ 00~ O~ DIS~I~S ~ ~D~Ka ordinance acknowledges t~e interest of only u~ose individuals who own buildings within a proposed historic district und ~e um~dment would also includm o~ers of vacant lot~. amended. ~. Barber returned to the ~seting. ~ere being no one else to address this ordinance, the public hearing was closed. a~op=ed the following ordinance: chesterfield county: (1} The= S~=t~on 21.1-26 of ~e Cod~ of ~he County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is ~mende~ and reenaote4 as follows: 8eOtion 21.1-~6. Procedur~ for desi~atin* an hi~tori~ district, landmarks and landmark sites. Applications for the creation of an historic district, or with the director of planning, by t~e pAanning occlusion, (60) perce~t of the lots within a proposed historic district. The u991ication shall be in su~ foTm ~n~ contain such info,etlon a~ ~kall be prescribed ~ the director of Vote: Ununimous 7.N. TO CONSIDER A/~ ORDI}~ANOE TO ~/~END ~H~PT~R 10 OF THE ~ODE OF T~ COURTY OF ~HESTERFIELD, ~978. AS ~HENDED. BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 1O-~9.! RELATING TO SPECIAL TIPPING public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to special tippinq f~es at County Iandfills. He further stated staff recommended adoption of the e~dinanee which would ~rovide ~peoial ~ipping fees for specific clean-up situations. Mr. George Beadlee stated he felt the dounty should have one create additional work and confusion for s~aff and citizens. F~. Daniel stated the proposed srdinancs had hash rsco~mended to ShOO,rage the orderly and timely clean-up of vacant or occupied 10ts that have inadvertently and unintentionally been ~he recelver~ of unwanted domestic and commercial refuse. Mr. McHale s~ated ho Zelt t/la ordinance was an incentive for citizens to clean-up lots whicJa have been the receivers of unwanted refuse and the county should encourage this by not charging a fee. Mr. Hammer stated the proposed $5.00 tipping fee would cover the ~inimum amount to process the unwanted refuse under the County's agreement with the landfills. He noted, the fee was les~ tha~ the County's cast. On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by McHale~ the Board a~o~te~ the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER i00~ TH= COD~ 0F COUNTY O~ CHESTERFIELD, 1978~ AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A NA~ SECTION 10-29.1 RELATING TO SPECIAL TIPPING ~E IT ORDAINED by the ~oard of Supervisors of Chesterfiel~ county: (1) T~at Chapter 10 of the code of the county Che~t~rf~eld~ 1978, as amended, is hereby amended by adding Section 10-29.1 to read am follows= Sec. 1~-29.1. SPecial TioD~n~ Fee at County Landfills. a) A t~pplng fee of f~vs dollars ($5.00] per ton shall be charged for non-household refuse (other than tires, debris waste and material in existing landfills) deposited at a landfill owned by the county if the following criteria are satisfied: (1) The ~efuse was deposited illegally on property and the owner of the property has no knowledge of hew the refuse wa~ deDosited on the property; or (2) The refuse was deposited on property 1) which is eligible for couu~unity development block grant funding or ~) which lies within a redevelopment or =~ecial clean-up area as approved by thc Administrator. (b) The fee specified in subsection (u) shall b~ in lieu of any nther tipping fee in effast ~or oounty-owne~ (2) Thi~ ordinance shall become sffeotlva TO CONSIDER AN ~RDINAN~R TO ~MEND THE CODE O~ _~H~ COUNTY OF CHESTERfIElD. 1978. A8 ~ENDED, 8y ~NDIN~ ~REPTER 10 .B~_~ENDIN~ ARTICLE WII~ 8E,C~JON 10-40, RELATING TO SA~NS OP SOLID W~TS MANAGEMENT ~ACILITIES ~ ~DDING ARTTCLE VIII REL~TIN~ TO ~PPRO%~AL OF WAST~ MATERIAL N~N~ENT A~D DISPOSAL M~, Micas stated this date and t~me had been a~vertise~ for a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to siting of solid waste management facilities and relat{ng to approval oS waste ma:ariel management and disposal. Ke further stated in 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance requiring all sulid wast~ facilities to obtain a ~atlng approval permit from the County; ~at the Department of Wa~t~ Management and ~h~ $~a~ Water castrol Board regulate s~lid waste activities through a permitting process and an agreement process. He the~ reviewed the processes. Mr. George Beadles stated he supported the proposal and felt the public hearing process was bsneSicial to the public. Mr. Steve Baril, representing Reuse Technology, Inc., stated they were opposed to the proposed ordinance and were concerned about the amendment being contrary to the position taken by the previous Board and County staff and would not be beneficial from an economic development standpoint. He ~ub~itte~ into the rec0r~ five exhibits and r~viewcd the erdinance being amended last year and the recom~nendatiem made at that time hy County staff regarding t~e County's definition of certain types of materials being consistent with the definition of the State; that Reus~ had an agreement with the State exempting coal ash from the definition of these materials provided Rouse met certain conditions; that Reuse was not regulated but rather operated under an a~eement~ that they were concerned over the interpretation "not regulated"; that they felt they should De classified as ex.pt from any permitting requirements; that %he ordinance should be amended to clarify "not regulated" to mean "not regulated by permit"; that they felt their operation was similar to the operation of Shoo~ith Brothers, inc.; that they felt others were unaware of the propo~d 0rdinan0e b~ing considered by the Board; and that adoption of the proposed ordinance would negatively impact others recycling without a permit. He further stated they felt the proposed ordinance should be denied, but if adopted as proposed, would request the ordinance be amended to add a provision stating that this particular use of coal ash, which is not specifically regulated by State d~finitien, but clearly State that Reuse Technology, Inc., in regards to the Coxendale property was consistent with State law. ~e then expressed additional concerns regarding economic development within tho Count~ and the impact the ordinance would have on Reuse Technology, Ins. There was Brief d~oueslon relativ~ to Mr. Baril'~ reco~endation in clarifying th~ ordinance. There being no cna mlEe to address this ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Micas stated the 1991 amendment and the propoEed amendment were le~ restrictive than the regulations er~atedin 1990 and the intent of the ~ropesed ordlnanos wa~ to make it easier, ordinance. He further stated the previo~ a~d~e~ts to the ordinance had been initiated to make the economic development process easier and applied to activity regulated in any manner by either the state Water Central ~oard or the state Division of Waste Management. He noted the intent of the ordinance restrictive than the previous ordinance adopted in 1990 and the intent of the ~roposed a~endment was the same. Mr. Ramsay clarified it was the intention of sta£~ ho "regulate" a~d not "permit" and indicated the ~tate Department of Waste Hanagement not only regulates through permits hut regulates through agreements and contracts. When asked, Mr. Micas stated if the proposed ordinance was adapted, Reuse Technology Inc. would have to appear before Board of Supervisors for approval but would not need to follow tho public hearing process. He indicated the timeframe in doing se would be faster and not a~ costly. He iD~icated the proposed amendment had been initiated to make the ~r. Mc~ale ~tated the p~0pcmed amendment would reduce the fee, wonld be insraaeed and the applicant would still be required F~r. D~niel SteWed the ooncern$ expressed were regarding the definition of being regulated and he felt consideration of the ~rdinan=e should be deferred for thirty days in order to provide an opportunity for Connty staff to review the interpretation of the ordinance withMr. Bail. Kr. Barber stated since ~he proposed ordinance would make streamline the prooes$, he felt a deferral would not resolve regarding the interpretation of t~e o~dinance and how it ~pplied to R~use Te=hnology, shoul~ ba ad~e~s~d at this tine as a delay in the could also delay %he pending zoning appliGatlon of Reuse TasSeled, Ins. uould take the legal position of whethe~ the ordinance applied to them. ~. Colbert stated he felt consideration of the ordinance should ~ deferred to pruvidu an o99or~unlty ~or ~. Bail and ~en a~ked, Mr. Micas clarified the appli~atio~ by the ordinance wa= adopted, it would aoosl~ra~e ~e approval ~. Warren mtatsd he felt a d~ferral wo~ld provide an s~mitted by ~. Bail and noted the public hearing had of th~ County of Chesterfield, 1978, a~ amended, by amending Chapter ~0 by ~men~ing Artio!e VII, section 10.40, relating ~ating of ~olid waste management faoilities and addin~ ~ticle diSpoSal until Au~St 26, 1992. deferral. ~. D~iel calla4 for the vote on %he motion made by Warren, seconded by Mr. Colbert, for the Board to d~fer consideration of an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 197R, a~ amended, by amending Chapt~ 10 by amending Article VII, ~e=tiun 10.4o, r~la=in~ to ~itin~ of relating =o approval of waste material management and disposal until Au~t 26, TO CR]?,ATE ELECTRICITY M~. Ha~mer stated this date and time had been advertissd fo~ a cog~neration facili%~ at %kc Che~ter Landfill, which facility will use me~ane gas from the ~emter Landfill crcat~ =l~ctricity. Hc further ~tat~d ~t~ff reeo~e~ded siting approval of the solid waste management facility. ~. ~or9~ D~adl~ ~ h~ ~uppo~ ~h~ publi~ proces~ mince it is advertised in the newspaper and provides for ~ublic input although he was concerned as to ~e tlme~ which had ~een advertised for thlg public hearing and ~at he supported the project. hearing wa~ ~en a~ked, ~. Ha~er stated ~e County would receive a benefit by discounting t~e whole capital financing re~ulte~ in =applng the landfill and installing the me~mne system and, therefore, the capital was discounted by allowing the contractor to receive th~ benefit of th= revenue fr~ ~e proposed Chester Landfill cugen~ratlun facility. Vote: Unanimous ?.K. TO CONSIDER THE REPURCHABE OF PROPERTY FROM ALFIT ~(~R~r ~N~. ~R ~ ~3~T ~ERT~9~ T~T OR LAND CONTATNIN~ APPROXIMATELY SIX ~RES, LO~ATED IN THE VIR~INI~ ~T THE CHEST~PIELD ~IRPORT I~USTRI~ ~r. Stith stated this date and time had been advertised for a publio hearing to consider ~e reDur~ase of property from Alfit ~%rica, Inc. for a parcel of land containing approximately six acres at ~e Chesterfield Air~ort Industrial Pa~k. H~ furth~ ~tat~d pursuant to section nine of the Real Estate ~rchase Contract, Alfit ~erica, Inc. has faile~ compl~ wi~ ~e conditions set forth in the contract and provisions between th~ company and, in a~eement with County policy, allowed the County to repurchas~ ~e property on a ~irst-righ~-u~-refu~al basis. 0n motion of Mr. Danlel, seconded by ~. Warren, ~e Board authorized the Chairman of ~e Board and the County A~inls~ator to enter into a oQntra~t with Alfit Inc. for the ~epurcha~e of p~operty, in the ~o~t of containing .approximately six acree, located in ~e Dale Magi~t~ri=l District of Chesterfield Co~ty, Vlrglni=, at the Chesterfield Airport Industrial Park. Vote: Unanimous 92-590 7/~/9~ -I A~ROPRIATE ~27,428.000 IN ~7~ ~LT~TT~N ~ ~ I~EST ~NING~ FOR T~ CON~T~U~TION OF ~OOL ~PITAL Mr, Ramsay s~a=ed~i~ da=e and tim~ had b~n adver=ised for a p~blic hearing to consider an ~n~ent to ~e FYgR-93 budget to appropriate $27,23~000 in ~eneral obliga=ion bond~ an~ interest earn~ng~ for ~e const~ction of school cnpital improvement~ and debt service. He furthar sta~ed school has requested the appropriation of the r~ainlng balance of ~e 1988 Bo~d proceed~ to allow them to proceed with awarding the contracts for ~he two remaining projects -- B~tti~ W~aver t~e cash flow =ohedule would be ccn=i~tent with thu or~glnal ~ob~dule previously adopted. No one Ca~e ~orward to ~peak in favor of or against On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. McHale, ~e Board apDroprlated ~e balance of th~ 1988 ~ond proceed~ of $25,8]0~000 ~n4 interest of $1,416,00o for school capital pruject~ of $Z~,820,000 and debt s~rvic~ accounts of $I~416~000. Vote: Unanimous 7.K. TO CON~IDER TKE CONVET~NC~ OF RX~T~-O~-N~¥ ~LON~ HULL VIRgiNIA DEP~l%T~ENT OF TI%A~SPC~ATION Mr. at,th =tared ~his ~ate and tim~ had baen advertise~ for a publlc hearing to con~der the =onveyunce of right~-of-way alon~ Hull Str~t Road an~ Lockhar4t an~ Hicks ~oads to the issue. On motion of ~. MmMals, smcmnded by Mr. Warren, kh~ ~oard ~nche~%er ~igh S~hool for ~e considmra%ion of $41,~59.64 ~o th~ Virginia D~partment mf Tran~Ro~a~ion rot roa~ ~e County Attorney'~ Office. (It ~ noted said fund~ w111 be appropriated to the Transportat~on Project Account and will ~ available for futur~ tran~portati0n De~d~-) T.N. TO UON~IDE~ ~UTHORI~ATION TO CONVEY 13.24 ~CRB8 TO KiD- CITY FAR~8 SYNDXCATXON ~URfiUANT TO A Ri~HT-OF-WAY }Lt. ~tith ~t~t~ thi~ date a~d ~ime had bee~ advertised for a p~blie hearin~ tc consider authorization to ~onvey 15.24 acres ~o Mid-city F~rm~ Syndication pursuant to a right-cf-way No one came forward to speak in favor of or sga~nmt thle issue. authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County acres, being a portion of Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block E, Mid city Farms Subdivision, to Mid City Far~s Syndication. noted a copy of the plat is filed with t~e papers cf Board.) 0n MOtiOn of ~r. Barber, ~e¢onded by F~r. Colbert, the Board an Executive Session Pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a)(7), Code counsel regarding: probable litigation involving the location of the boundary line between C~esterfield and Powhatan Counties; probable litigation regarding ~hrink/~well soils; and a criminal investigation of public employees; pursuant to Section ~.1-344(a)(3), regarding the acquisition of real property for public purpose~; and pursuant to section 2.1- $44(a) (1), relating ts assignment, appointment, performance, be addressed during dinner end moved the remainder of the and Rezoning. Vo~e~ Unanimous ~DE_O~ VIRGINIA, 195~,_.~S...A~ENDBD, FOR CONSULTATION__W.!~ LB~L ~O~NSB~G~RDING= PROBABLE LITIGATION INFOLVIN~ LOCATION O~ TNB BOUNDARY LINE B~T~EEN C~EBTSRPIELB ~ ~OW~4~T~N COUNTIES; BROB~RL~ LITIgaTION REGARDIN~ PUBLIC EMBLOYEBS; PURSUANT TO ~ReTION ~.l-~(~) R~IN~ ~B ~COUISITION OF REA~ ~ROPERTY FOR 13. DINNER On motion of Mr. Mc~ale, ~econd~d by Mr. Barber, the Boa~d w~nt into ~xecuti¥s Session, pursuant to Section 2.1- 344(e)(7), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for eons~ltmtion with legal sounsel regarding probable litigation involving the location of th~ boundary line between chesterfield an~ Powhatan Counties, prs~abls litigation ~egard~ng ~hri~k/swell soil~ and a criminal investigation of public employees; pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a](3), regarding the acquisition of real property for public purposes; and pursuant to Section 2.l-344(a)(z) rsgarding the acquisition of real property for public pu/cpo~e~ and pursuant to Section 344(a)(1) relating to =he assignment, appointment, performance, removal or resignation of speolflc appointees of Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: on mo%ion of Mr. MCHale, seconded by Mr. Barbe~, the Board adopted the followlng r~olution: WH~=AS, the ~oard of supervisors has this day i~to Executive Se~si0n i~ accordance with u ~ormal vote of the Freedom and Informatlcn Act; and W~EP~TA~, the Virgini~ Freedom of Information Act effective July I 1959, provides for certification that Executive Session was conducted in conformity with law. MOW, T~R~FORE B~ ~T RESOLVED, tha~ th~ Board of County of supervisors does hereby certify that to the best of each m~mber'~ knowlpdg~, i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Freedo~ of Information Ast were discussed in the Bxecutlve Seselon to which this certification epplie~; and ii) o~ly s~c~ p~blic b~i~ezs matter~ as were identified in the Motion ~y which t-he E~ecutiYe Session was seasoned were heard, discussed or considered by the Board. ~o member dissents ~rom this certification. Th~ ~card being ~olled, the vo~e was as follows: ~r. ~oHale: Mr. Barber: Aye. Mr. Colbert: Aye. ~-r. Warren: Aye. Mr. Daniel: Aye. on mo=ion of Mr. CslheMt, seconded by F~. Burber, the Board suspended its rules to amend the agenda and added Item Appointment of Cls~ and Deputy Clark to the Board of Supervisors to follow Item 8.G., Appointments and adde~ Item S.I., Purchase of Castl~wood Historic ~o~e from the Resolution Trust Corporation ~o follow I~=m 8.H. Vote: Unanimous · 4. INVOCATION Mr. Daniel introduced Reverend Marshall 0. Dond~, Calvary B~tis~ Church~ who gave the invocation. Pastor of lS. P~DsE OF ~%LLESIANC~ ~..~NE...FdA~ OF THE W~ITED ~T~TES OF AMERIGA Mr. Ramsay led th~ Pledge of Allegiance =o the Flaq of the United States of Amerlca. On motion of Nr. MoHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board suspended its ~les to amend the a~endu by moving the consent agenda for Requests for Mobile Home Permits an4 Re~oning to he heard prier to Item 16., Publi~ ~ea~ings. Vote: Unanimous 17. REO~E~T~ FOR MO~ILE HCH~ P~R~IT~ /~ND R~SOWING reBewa] of ~obile Moms Permit 86~07~ tc park a mobile home in a ~eavy Industrial (M-3) District. The density of the 9:o~o~al is approximately .16 unit~ per acre~ The Comprehensive Plan de~ignate~ the property, for light industrial use. This property fronts the south llne of West Hundred Road, app~oRi~ately 430 feet We~t Of Ware Botto~ 92-5~3 7/22/92 R~ad, aDpr~ximately 40 feet east of Ramblewood Road, and is better known as %601 West Bundred Road. Tax Map 117-9 (1) Parcel 20 (sheet 33}. Mr. Jacobsen presented a sure,try of Case 92SR0203 and stated conditions and subject to an additional condition roqui~ing tho mobile home be screened from view Of all public rights-cf- way and adjacent properties since the mobile home is currently located on the parcel where it is temple=ely screened from view. Mr. gohn ~etchel, representing th~ applioant~ ~tated the recommendation was acceptable. There was no opposition pre~ent. On motion of ~r. Mc~ale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board approved Case 92SR0~03 for seven (7) years subject to the following conditions: 1. The mobile home shall be occupied by the security guard for the busines~ on the Droperty. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home slte~ nor shall any mobile hem~ be used for rental property. 0nly One (t) mobile home shall be ~ormitted to be parked on an ind~vldual lo= or parcel. 3. The minimun lot size~ yard setbacks~ required front yard~ and other zoning requirements of tho applicable zoning district shall ~e complied with, except =hat no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residencs. 4. NO additional permanent-type living space msy be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homos shall ho skirted b~t shall ~0t be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Whore public (County) water and/or sower are available, ~hey shall be used. 6. U~on beinq granted a Mobile ~ome Permit, the sDDlioant shall the~ obtain the necessary permits from the office of the Bu~ldgng Offlc~al. This shall be done prior to the i~tallation or relocation of the mobile home. 7. Any violation of the abov~ conditions shall be grounds for rovocatlon ef the Mobile ~ome Permit. The mobile home shall be =crooned from view of all public rights of way and adjacent properties. In Matoaca Magi~teriai Di~trio~, STEi~HEN AND BBLIT& BROWN requested rezenlng fro~ Agricultural (A) to Co~p0rate 0ffic~ (O-2). The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The comprehensive Plan designates the property for light commercial use. This re~ue~t ~ies on a 0.ss acre parcel fronting epDroximately 150 feet on the soot~h line of ir~n ~ridgo ~oad, also fronting approximately 190 feet on Krause Road, and located in the $out~hwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 95-12 (1) Parcels 8 and ~5 92-594 ?/22/92 Mr. Jacobson pre~ented a summary of Case 925N0171 and stated conformed to the Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan. MU. Dean Hawkins, representing the applicant, stated the recommendation was acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Wm. Colbert, seconded by l~r. Warren, the Board approved Case 92SN0171 and accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. Prior to obtaining a building pe~it, one o~ the following shall be accomplished for fire protection: A, The owner, developer or assignee(s) shall pay to the County $15¢ per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area adjusted upward or downward by the same percentage t~hat the ~arshall Swift Building Co~t Index increased or decreased between June 30, 1~91, cad ~he date of payment, with the approval Of the County's Fire Chief, the owner, developer or assignee{s) shall reoeiv~ a credit toward the required payment for the cost Of any fire suppression system not otherwise required by law which is included a~ a part of the d~v~lopment. OR B. The owner, d~vel0per or a~ignee(~) shall provide a fire ~uppres~on ~y~te~ ~0t 0th~ise re.ired by l~w which th~ Co~tyms Fire Chie~ d~termines substantially ~ed~cus tho need for County facilitie~ o~he~ise necessary fur fir~ protection. 2. 9he architectural treatment of uny new structur~ or addition to the exi~=in~ structure shall be Colonial, compatible with that of ~s Cour~ouse Co~on~ office Pork and ~e Chesterfield Meadows shopping Center. Vote: Unan~ou~ 92~N017~ In ~idlothlan ~aglstarlal Dis~riot, BARKER BNTERPRI~E~ requested amendment to Cond~tlonal U~e ~lanncd Development {case ~6~107) to De.mit a non-medical hair replacement business in an Office Bu~ine~ (0) District. The density such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standard~. Th~ Co~prehcn~iv~ ~lan designates the property for general commsrclal u~e. This r~quest lies on a 5.~ acre parcel ~yi~g approximately 4~0 feet off the north llne of Midlothlan Turnpike, ~ea~ured from a point across from Wadsworth Drive. Tax Map l~-14 (1) ~arcel 4 (sheet 8). Hz. Jacobson presented a summary of Case ~2SN0175 and stated the Planning Commission and staff reco~ended approval subject to a condition. ~a noted the request conformed to the Northern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan. Mr. N. Leslie 8~nders, representing the applicant, stated the recommendation was acceptable. There was no opposition On motion of ~r. Barber, ~co~$~ by ~r. ~cHale, the Board approved Case 928N0175 subject to the following condition: shall be permitted: Non-medioal hair repl~oement. (NOTES: Vote: 86S1~7. (b) All other ~endition~ of zen~nq approval for Cass 86S107 remain in effect. (o) ~arking £o: non-m~di~al hair replaGe~ent use for each 200 s~uare feet of gross floor area for that use.) Unanimous SERVICES reguested a Conditional Use to ~ermlt an electric power generating facility im an Agricultural (A) District. The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning designat~ the property for resi~entlal u~ of 1.50 unit~ per approximately 1,512 fee~ of~ the south line of Carver Helght~ West Booker Boulevard. Tax Map 131m3 (1) Part of Parcel 2 SERVICES requests siting approval for th~ facility pursua~= to the County's Solid Waste Hsnagsment Tacility Siting Ordinance, Chapter 10, A~tiole VII of the Code of the county of Chesterfield, 197~, a~ amended. The proposed facility will generate eleotr~c power utillzln~ methane gas from the County~ Chester Landfill. the Planning Commim~ion and staff recommended approval subject ts conditions. Mr. Bradford S. Hammer, D~puty County Administrator for Management Service~, ~tated the recommendation was acceptable. There was opposition present, l~r. Daniel stated since there was opposition ~o the reguest, it would be plac~d in regular ~equenee on the agenda. Mr. Daniel clarified after holding the public h~arlngs on Ite~ 16.A. and item 16.B., the ~oar~ woul~ ~hen hear Case Jim ~delin, and address the ordinances and zoning request simult&neously. Mr. Jacobsen ~tated this date and t~me had been advertised for a publio hearing t~ con~i~er ~n or~inmn~e amendment r~latln~ generally to pet~, stoc~ farms and zoos. He reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the three propo~ed a~end~eDts regardi~g the definitions of ~e~sehold 9~-596 7/22/92 meeting on July 21, 1~9~, another ordinance amendment relating to maintaining traditional atock {arms in aqricultu~al districts. , Discussion, comments and questions ensued relative to whether existing stock farms would be grandfatherad if the Board adopted this ordinance prior to considering the ordinance heard by the Pla~i~g Commission on July 21st and the appropriate process to follow if the ~card adopted the proposed ordinance but delayed implementation of it until September. Hr. Jim Andelin stated he supported the proposed ordinance a~end~e~t~ as he felt the amendments would b~tter define the definition of animals; would provide the county wit~ a better mechanimm to control non-domestic animals; and would require eac/l request to follow the conditional use process. ~s. Jennie Reynolds a~d Hr, Archie Booths stated they ~upported the recommendation of the Planning Commi~mion but felt the ordinance should be modified to include a pot-belly pig as a household pet in its definition. Mr. George Beadles stated he was opposed to the proposed ordinance az hs felt it would be difficult to interpret the definition of domesticated and undomesticated animals, ~s. Eaten ~aye stated she resided in R~ck spring Farm~ Subdivision and fait the ordinance was not in the be~t interest of the County; tha~ the proposed amendments would creat~ conflicts in land use; that the proposed ordinance d%d net provide security to ~hese residing in residential altered to accommodate the interest of one individual at the expense of others; and that a zoo in a residential distrlot would s~ a precedent. She submitted into the record e petition of ninety-two ~ignatures opposing the ordinance and stated there were also citizens present who opposed the ordinance. It was noted approximately thirty people stood in opposition. l~r. Jay Wood stated he resided in Huguenot Hundred Subdivision and they do not have protective covenants restricting or prohibiting uses for far~ animals or zoo animals; that he felt farm and ~oo anlmal~ did DOt belong in subdivisions; that he was concerned with the applicability ef these animals in single-family, multi-family, or townhouse zoning and the i~pact the amendments wo~ld have on property values and rights; that adoption of tbs ordinance ~endments would set a precedent; that he was concerned as to the available County he requested the Board to deny the proposed amendments. Ma. Vicki Temple stated she resided in Rook Spring Farms subdivision; that adoption of the ordinance a~endments would set a precedent; that citizens moving into neighborhoods would not be aware that farm and zoo animal~ would be allowed in residential districts; and that she felt the Planning animals. Er. Jay Lows stated ke was a residana cf the County; that he r~questcd thc ~oard to adopt the ordinance amend~enLs. There being no one else to address this ordinance, the public 16.B. AN ORDZN~%.I,lO'i~ TO A.MF'~1D THE COBZ OF THE OOU~TY OF CHE~T~IBLD~ 1978~ AS AMENDED, BY /~{ENDING ~ REENACTING ~rARIOUS SECTIONS RELA~IN~ GENeRaLLY TO U~ES Mr. Sacobson stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hea~ing to consider an Ordinance relating gan=rally to uses which may De allowed by conditional use and amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission in response current Zonin~ Ordinance. ~e r~vi~wed the proposed am~n~ent and stated the amendment would permit the consideration cf an application for a u~e that i~ not llut~d in the Zoning ordinance and e×plsined how th~ prances wn~ld work if =he Board adopted the ~mendment. ~e noted the Planning Com,±salon and staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment. Diacueeion, comments and questions ensued relative to whether the proposed amendment would affect the amending of the dsfinitlon of household pets; whether this proposed amendment would grant the Planning Director the authQrlty ~o ~mend, change or expand permitted uses; and whether Item 16.A., an ordinance relating generally ts pets~ stock farms and zoe~ and Item 16.B., an crdinanne relating generally to uses which may bo allowed by conditional use were similar. ~r. George ~eadles s~ated he ~upported the proposed ordinance a~e~d~e~t as he felt the conditionul use proCesS WOUld simplify the process and would no= require =he zoning Ordinunce to be amended each time a request is sought for Uss net specifically listed. T~ere being ne one else to address this ordinance, the public hearing wa~ clo~d. Mr. Daniel stated the Board would make its decision on the ordinances after hearing Case 9]$~8111~ Ji~ Andelin. In Dale Magisterial District, JIM ANDEL~N requested a Conditional U~e to permit a stock f~rm (the kee~i~g and display of various animals, to include, but not necessarily limited to, fowl, deer, llamas, primates and hoof stock) in a Residential (R-7} District. Residential use of up to 4.84 The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates ~he ~roperty for residential use of 1.51 to 4.0 units per acr~. This request lies on an 8.~l acre parcel lying at the western terminus of Gillin~ Road, appro×imately ~0 feet we~t of South Mslbeck Road. Tax ~ap 52-9 (1) Parcels 4 and 9 (Sheet 1SI. Mr. Peele presented a summary of Case 9~SN8111 and crated the Planning Co~i~io~ re¢om~e~de~ approval subject ~o conditlon~ and staff recommended denial since the request did not comply with the Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan and the land use was not compatible with existing and anticipated area residential development. He indicated staff had received petitions with approximately seventeen signatures in support of the request mhd approximately ninety-four signatures in opposition to the reducer. use would be required if the re~uest were for a duck pond and request and if the appropriate huildlng permits had been obtained for tho struoture~ which had been built since approval by %he Planning Cotillion. ~r. Barber returned to themeeting. Mr, 3fm Andelln stated the recommendation was acceptable; that after receiving approval by the Planning commission of case, he had built additional stock buildings and had obtained the proper permits to construct the structures; that he has resi~ed on the property for mine years and has owned the animals for eight years; that he is the father o~ ~ivm children and had star,ed owning the animals as a family hobby to teach his children respon~ibillty; that approximately fo~r years ago, at the request of several school teachers within the County, he provided tours to various schools and subsequently the School Board approved his zoo for school field trips; that over 11,000 students from the schools had toured the facility; that the zoo was not Open to the general public; that he was licensed by the United States Department of Agrlculture (USDA), the State of Virginia Fish and Oepmrt~ent, th~ Department of Inturior for Endangered A~i~ls~ a~ in~icate~ the U~DA license held stric~ requirements and quldellne~ and included random, unannounced ¥isit~ by the inspector~ regarding safety~ oleanlinsss~ cars of =he animals, otc.; that hi~ reports were favorable and reviewed th~ in which he was graded; that he maintained relationships with several zoo~oglcal institutions and had alee received inspections from representatives of the San Diego Zoo and Duke University 9rlmate Center; that he had taken steps te lessen the impact of owning the animals ts his neighbors such as leaving a wooded buffer around his property, and noted the property WaS mnrrnunded by a seven foot chainlink fence; that he ~id not own any carnlvor~s, ~wlne or hazardous animals; that he had installed a gravel drive for the school buses to park on; that the buses arrive at 10:00 a.m. and depart at 12:00 noon; that he had resaivsd 100 percent support of the reql~est by his adjacent n=ighbors who had signed a ~etition s~ating such; and that he had recsived numerous letters from tesobers end s~udents exp~esslng ap~rsclatlon ~QN the tours. ~e then pre~ented a brief slide presentation on the facility which hsd been filmed by a production company to ba used as a documentary on family values and s~b~itted to the Board a peri:ion si~oe~ by his adjacent neighbors supporting the request. Kr. ~alcolm Parrlsh stated he had not e~perieneed a~ problems relating to noise er odor eoncerns~ that he did net ~eeI =he request would begat±rely impact property values in th~ ur~u; and that the facility was a learning opportunity for the school children. Mr. Jerry Lows stated he was au adjoining neighbor bo the applicant; that his SO~ plays with the Andelfn children and had lmarne~ a lot about ~he mutuals; that he works s rotating shift and hum not experienced any problems with noise concerns; that he was familiar wi~h the property and although at tim~ there was an odor, he felt it was due to clogged septic my=tome in the area and net the an~mal~; that the applicant had attempted to address runoff concerns fro~ ~e~ghbor by dig~in~ a ditch on the neighbor's property; and ~hat the co,corns ~xpressed regarding the insects Was d~e to an increase ~n mosquitos from s~andlng wa~sr and not from the animals. There was brief dlscu~slon relative to the concerns e~ressed about Odo~ being caused by slo~md septic systems in the area~ Mr. Dick Nei~wander stated ~io property backe~ up =e the applicant's property; that he was aware of th~ animals 9~-599 7/22/~2 they bought their property in 1988 and did not feel the zoo n~gatively impact=d their prep~rty values; that he had not eEperienced any problems regarding noise, Odor or other concerns; and that he has enjoyed the animals and felt they were an asset to the community. Ms. Pat King stated she has been a resident of Gilling Road for up~roximately twenty-five year~; that she was no: aware the zoo existed until last fall when her dogs broke lose and in looking for them, discovered the zoo; and that she has not exp~ienced any problems with noise or odor. Elementary ; SChOOl and a resident of Meadowbrook Farms subdivision; that t~e applicant securely maintained =he facility and was concerned about being a good neighbor; that she rides her bike daily in =he summer by the ap~lloant's property and was not aware the zoo existed until she participated in a school flald trip last year; that she ha~ ~ot e~pe~ienced any problems with noise or odor; that she wa~ also r~e~entlng the other junior kindergarten and kindergarten teachers at Falling Creek Elem~nt~r~ School who have taken field trips to the zoo; that the applicant has provided a public service to the schools; that the facility was easily accessible and aosommodating; an~ that they felt th~ zoo was am asset to the students, Ms. ~elen Wall, representing the junior kindergarten and ki~dergarte~ teachers at Bensley Elementary School, stated they had taken field trip~ to the zoo £er approximately feur years; that the zoo provided a learning opportunity to the the zoo was the only opportunity available to the young children to learn about exotic animalm. Ms. Jean Hansel stated she was a teacher at Be~sley Elementary School and would like for the children within the County to continue to receive the learning benefit of tho zou. ~s. Klm Palmers stated she wa~ enplcye~ hy wsll~ Elementary School and had visited the zoo; that the children received "hands-on" ekTerience with the animals; and that she supported the request. Ms. Betty Bosher, representing the junior kindergarten teachers from Curtis Elementary School, ~tated they had taken field trips to the zoo for the past thr=a yearu; that the field trip was the most interesting and educational-field trip favorable consideration to the request. Mr. Rca Young stated he was the father of two ~mall children c~hildren within the School System; that the zoo wa~ an asset to the County and provided a learning opportunity to =he children; and that the adjoining prop=rty owners were in favorable consideration to the request. Mr. Warren excused h±m~lf fre~ the meeting. Mr. ~ohn Ruokart ~tated he resides in Roc. k Spring Farms Subdivision and his property backed up to the applicant's p~ope~ty and he also owns property in front of the applicant's pro~erty; tha~ he frequ/ently practi~es on the applicant's baseball field; ~nd that he enjoyed the animals and would rather have the zoo than more hom~s on the property. Mr. Warren returned to ~he meeting. 92-600 7/22/92 ~4r. Ruckart continued to ~tate that he ha~ not experiensed any problems regarding noise, odor or runoff; that he felt the concernE exl~res~ed regarding runoff was associated with the septic systems in the area and not the animals; and that the were not aware the soo ~xisted; and re~e~ted the Board to give favorable consideration to the request. Ns. Jackis Walters, representing Crestwocd Elementary School, stated they felt thc zoo was un exceptional facility, offered a learning oDportunity for the students and they would like to have the zoo continue. She requested the Board to favorable consideration to the request. S~ivision for approximately thirty-two y~ar$ and was longest resident of ~illlng Road; that he was an observant n-igh~r and had become familiar with the zoo; ~at he had not e~erlenced any problem~ regarding odor, traffic and cowry; and requested the Board to give favorable con$1deratlon to ~e request. Mr. Stanley ~ite stated h~ has resided in Rook sprin~ Fa~ s~ivision for approximately thirty years; that he was not awar~ ~h~ zoo ~xist~d until last year; that ~e ~elE ~hu zoo was an asset to the co.unity and, ~=r~fore~ suppovted the follow the ~e~i~e~entm of the zoninq Ordinance, the Ordinance indicated he felt any public visitation cf the zoo mhould ~. Beret ex~used himself from the m~et~nq. ~. Ed Snyder stated he was a resident of Rock Spring Fa~s Subdivision; ~at %he Planning Co~ission hud nut oppom{t~on to th~ request; that the zoo was not with ~ neighborhood; that ~he teachers in support of request did not remide in the 8ubdivisionf tha~ he was property should re.in resid~ntial; and recessed the Board deny the Dr. Herbert Har~ s~ated he was a resident of Rock Spring Fa~s Subdivision; that he was concerned as to runoff within neighborhuu~ as there were several septic systems in the area; and ~at hs had been rai~ed on a fa~ and currently owned a fa~, an~ fmlt ~he anlmal= ~omed m ~afe=y h=zar~. Mr. Barber returne~ to ~e and could b~ dangeroun; that he wa~ ~oncerne0 abogt drainage in the are~ and felt ~e ~noff in ~e water was oontaminatgd; that hg was oonoarned about 4iseases being' presented a danger to the residents in the area; and ~e Board to deny the re.%st. M~. Colbert ~xcu~d himself f~on t~e Ms. Vicki Temple utat~d she was a resident of Rock Sprin~ build~ng permits received by the applicant; that the land use Transportation Plan~ that ~h~ Wa~ ¢oncerne~ ~m to the impact 92-601 disposal of waste; that the applicant did not have a business license to exhibit the animals; that ~he request did not co~ply with the ~ening Ordinance; and ~equested the Boa~d to deny the request. Mr. Colbert returned to the meeting. Ms. Jean Pearrell stated the teachers who had expressed support of the request di~ not reside in thc neighborhood and were not as concerned about the request as those who did runoff fro~ the zoo and disposal of waste; that she was definition of a zoo animal; that she did not feel the applicant met the qualifications needed to be the ~e~per of existing laws to govern health and environmental concerns. She submitted to the Board a petition opposing the request. Mr. Joh~ Do'ney stated he was a resident of Rock Spring Farms Subd~vlslon; that he fel~ due to the runoff and traffic ConCerns, there was a potential danger to the children in t_he neighborhood; and requested the soard ts deny the request. ~r. Ray Hay s~ated he was a resident of Rock Spring Farms Subdivision; tha~ he wa~ president of Dale Civic Association; licensed by the Virginia Department of ~am~ and Inland family hobby Or an educational exhibit~ that he felt some of the neighbors ha~ ~0t e~p~essed 0ppo~ition to the request a~ they feared low cost housing d~velopment on the ~roperty; that secttrity of th~ animals when the applicant was away from home. He requested =he 8card to deny the re~uest and submitted a petition opposing the request. It was noted approximately ~hirty persons stood ~n opposition to the request. Mr. Wynha Gillespie ~tated he was a resident of Garland therefore, requested thc Board to deny the request. ~r. Andelin stated many neighbors who were in support of his request were pressnt and it was noted approzimately thirty- five persons stood in support of the request. ~u indicated he npighborheed ~nd stated he hoped neighbors in the Subdivision submitted ts the Board a petition and various letters in spring Farms Subdivision; that he had contacted th~ neighbors ~loee~t to hi~ propert~; that he had attempted to address the reques~ was for a con~itienai use permit an~ he felt he had followed the apprepriat~ guldel~ne~ in obtaining all the necessary lioenses and permits associated with the operation and construction of the facility; that a health department inspection had haan ma~e of ~he site; that the concerns the animals were dooile and well ~ared for; and that the zoo 7/22/92 Mr, Daniel expressed apprsciatlon to ~hcse who had participated and provided input into the procem~. resognized Dr. Willlam~Nelson, Dirsctor of. the Health Department, who had visited the site and had addressed concerns expressed by residents in the area. Dr. Nelson stated he ha~ visited and inspected the elte and had oon¢luded there were no existing dangers to the public's health which had been specifically created by the existence of the zoo. He further stated there were no health threat~ residents from the animals being exotic and he had conferred with the Htate veterinarian in charge of exotic diseases, the USnA vete~in&rian who previously had inspected the site and veterinarians for thc Center for Disease Control and hc did not feel there were any existing th~eat~ to =e~ident~ i~ the neighborhood. He noted he had analyzed water samples from the area and felt the contamination from th= drainage ditch provided to the residents cn h~alth and ~afety issues of the animals would be appreciated hy the resldentc and benc£iclal to all. When a~ked, he stated there had not been any report of illnesses of children who had come in contact with the Di~=us~ion, commsnts and qu~ctiens ensued relative to the numbe~ Of ~cheol children visiting the facility per year; Whe~Be~ a drainage inspection of the cite had b'een conducted and the results of the report; Wh=the~ the ~oad~ i~ the a~ea could aeeomm0date tho buses traveling to the site; the number of homes w~thin Rock Spring Farms Subdivision; whether wac cny method available tu ~amonstrate an adverse impact on property ~ales in the Subdivision; the maturer in which the animals were care~ for when %he applioant wa~ ne~ home; and whether there had been any insurance claims filed against the applicant as a result o~ thc zoo. When asked, Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commlcslon had initiated the ordinance a~endments to address this ~oning request but~ if addresced~ the ordinance Wo~ld apply coun=y- wide. He further stated he w~$ net awar~ of any other e~iating situations similar to this one, M~. 0aniel stated previous Boards of Supervisors have ~he position that toning inspections would be enforced on a complaint basis although he had felt additional inspectors s~culd have been a~ed to e~pand th~s practice. Ke further stated this particular site was our of sight and located elf a ~%in road and complaints about the stock farm had not been received until las% year and~ under county procedures, the property owner has a right to continue to operat~ until a decision is reached by the local governing body. He then stated after being cited for non-oonfornanee, the applicant had followed th~ legal process to have his request considered although the us~ had been in existence for approximately eight years. ~e further stated the proposed ~en~ng amendments had been initiated as a direct result of thi~ request, would reco~men~ tbs ordinance~ be denied County-wide and wonld also recommend approving the zoning request subject .ts the additional stipulations that the area will bu cleaned and made frae Of Waste daily; tha~ ~enditien 6 would be modified to stipulate that within thirty days of approval Of the the Building In~peotlsn Department shell inspect the site and accessory buildings for compliance with volume two of the Statew~de Building Code and within clx months o= the inspection, the owner mha~l make the necessary correations and comply with the findings; that Condition 6 should be modlflcd ts include inspection sf ~he septic system by the Health Department; that Condition 7 Would be added to stipulate that 7/2~/92 within thirty days of the re~uemt, the County Health Department shall inspect the property for compliance with the Health Code and the owner shall make any necessary corrections if there are any negative findings, and that this inspection be conducted annually; added Condition 8 to stipulate that the applicant shall file an annual report with the County's Health Department by July I of each year providing documentation of all ~edioaI evaluations, te~t results on animals including State, USDA and other federal and private inspections; and that Condition 9 be added to stipulate that if it is determined by any County or State department there has been a violation of the conditions stated herein, and if such violation is not corrected in a timely fashion to the satisfaction of the responsible department, the ~lamnlng Department shall proceed and process an application on behalf of the Board of Supervisors to conglder reg~nd~ng the conditional use permit. He clarified the conditional use would e~plr~ August l, 1995 and th~ use was primarily for the emjolrment of the applicant and his family and would only be utilized outside cf the family as cited in Condition 5. l~r. Daniel then stated after touring the site and viewing the operation of t~e facility, he felt it would be in the best interest of all concerned to address what e~rrently exists and to ~axi~ize to the fullest extent possible, the correction of concerns which had been expressed by the re~ideat~, and he had attempted ts recommend a solution to ensure proper controls in addressing this particular situation. He noted he had been advised by the County Attorney that in order to make a motion based on this recommendation, a ~emporary change in the zoning 0rdina~oe would b~ required by adopting an ordinance to amend the code oS the County o~ Chesterfield! 1978, as amen~ed~ by amending and reenacting various sections relating generally to psts, stock farms and zoos with a sunset precision ef 5:00 p.m. on July ~4, Discussion, conn~ntE and q~tionn en~ued relative to whether the sunset clause in adoptlnq the ordinance would change pending ~tock farm applications; the methods available in considering ether zoning request~ after th~ ~Un~et ela~e has ~xpired; the process the applicant would Col/ow when applying for a renewal or new zoning at the end of the four year approval; the existing stock far~ definition; and the options which would be available to th% Board in considering the re,nest at the end of the four year approval. Mr. Warren s~a~ed he felt ~he recommendation was site specific and specialized to addre~ this particular s~tuatlon and, therefore, he could suppor~ the recummendatlom. Mr. McBsle stated ha felt the recommendation had addressed an unintended situation which had occurred which was not situation that was intended to occur in the f~t~r~ and, therefore, he could support the r~commendatlon. Mr. Barber stated he had visited the site, had received letter~ regarding the request and he felt the recammendation had taken all of the factors into consideratio~ an~, ~erefore, he could support the recommendation. Mr. Colbe~-t stated he felt the issue~ ha~ been addressed amd! On motion cf Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board adopted the following ordinRnce: AN ORDINANCE TO A~ENB THE CODE O~QQU34TY OF C ~LD, 1975~ AS A~ENDED~ BY AFLENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 21-3, 21-77.17, 21-77.110, 21-169, 21.1--105, 21.i--113, 21.1-I34 AND 21.1-281 RBLATING G~NERALLY TO 9ET~, STOC~ FAR~ ~ND ZOOS B~ IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: {1) That Chapter 21 of the code of the county of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is ~ms~dsd and reenacted to read as follows: o o o Sec. 21-3. Definitions. For the p~rpos~ of thi~ chapter, the following ~ords and ~hra~es shall have the meanings respectlv~ly ascribed to the~m by thi~ ~eotion: ~et, ~ou~ehold. Aninal~ which ar~ customarily ke9t for ~ersonal use or enjoyment on ~he p~ises. Household pets shall include but not be limited to: dome~tlcated cat~; dome~t£cated b~rds; domsstioated rodents; domesticated fish; a maximum of two dome~tlcated dogs; a total of ~iX or le~ fowl~ b~rds or rabbits; and any trained animal that is k~pt to assist handicapped individuals. o o o Stock farm. A parcel of land On which are kegt one or more non-carnivorous, non-v~nomou~ animals that are not household pe~s. S~ch animals ahall ~nclu~e ~ut not be limited to: cows; sharps goats; ho~es; domesticated livestock or oma11 domesticated mammals; and a t~tal of more than six fowl, The following accessory u~e~ ~hall b~ Der~itt~d is the R- 88 District: (f) Household pet~. TH Dia%rlct: o o o 0 0 o 21-110. Same - Aoc=s~orv uses. The following accessory use~ shall be permitted in th~ R- e o o (h) Household pets. o o o 21-169. Same - Accessory uses. The following accessory uses shall be Dermitted in the B- o o o 92-605 7/22/92 o o o 21-197. Same - Accessory use~. MF District: (£) ~eusehold p~ts. -(2) That Chapter Chesterfield, 197~, as rear aa follows: o o o o o o 21.1 Of tho Code of the County of amended, iE a~nded and reenacted to o o o Seo. 21.1-46. A~cessory uses. 88 Di~t~iot: o o o [f) Household pets. (o) zoos. TH District: Sec. 21.1-97. Conditional uses. The following u~es may be allowed by oond~tional u~e in the R-TH dlstrict~ subject to the provisions of seotion 21~1- (e) Zoo~. 92-606 The following accessory uses shall be permitted in tho R- MF District: (£} ~ousehold pets. o o o Sec. 21.1-105. conditional The following uses may be allowed by conditional the R-MF district, subject to the provisions of saotion 21.1- 9: o o o S~O. 21 .1-113. Con01tlo~al The following usos may be allowed by conditional use in the M~-l district, subject to the provisions of section 21.1- 9: (a) Group care facilities. (b) Zoos. o o o ~ec. 21.1-134. Conditional uses. The following uses may be allowed by conditional use in the O-1 district, subject to tho provisions cf section 21.1-9; (u) Zoos. Sec. 21.1-281. Definitions. For the purposes o~ %his chapter, =h~ ~ollowing words and pb~ase~ ~hall have the meanings respectively ascribed'to them by thls section: P=t~ ~ou~ehold. Animals which are customarily kept for p~rsonal use or enjoyment on tho promises. ~ousehold pets shall include but not be limited to: domesticated cats; ~omsstioatod birds; dcmosticated rodonts; domesticated fish; a ma~inum of twa domesticated dogs; a total of six or lae~ fowl, birds or rabbits; and any trained animal that is kept to assist handicapped individuals. Stock farm. A parcel of land on which ure kept one or mere nan-carnivorous~ non-venomous animals that ar~ not household pets. Such animals shall includ~ But not be limited to: cows; s~eep; goats; horses; domesticated livestock or small domesticated mammals; and a total of more than six fowl, birds, or rabbits. o o o goo. A parcel of lend on which are kept one {1) or more animals that ere net household pets, and are net permitted on a stock farm, or in a kennel. (3) This ordinance shall be effective i~umedlately upon (4) This ordinance shall remain effective until ~uly 24, 199Z at 5:00 p.m. at which time the ordinance shall expire. Upon expiration of this ordinance the sections affected by this ordinance shall revert to that which was in effect i~medistely prior to the adoption of t~i~ ordinance. Any application for a conditional uae for a stock farm filed or pending between the effective date and ~xplration date of thi~ ordinance shall be considered pursuant to the previsions of this ordinance. Mr. Daniel made a motion, seconded by Mr. Warren, for the Board to deny an ordinance to amend thc Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending and reenacting Sections 21.I-47, 21.1-~4, 21.1-5I, 21.1-6s, 2!.1-75, 21.1-82, 21.1-89, 21.1--97, 21.1~105, 21.1--113, 21.1-120, 21.1-127, 21.1-134, 21.1-141, 21.1-148, 21.1-I55, 21.1-162, 21.1-169, 21.1-176, 21.1-1~3, 21.1-190 end 11.1-197 relating generally to uses which may Da allowed by con~itlonal use. Hr. MeHale ~tated he felt the ordinance was a general upplic~tion tool to use and should stand on its own merit without regard to the previous ordinance relating generally to pets, stock farms and zoos or this particular zoning request. Mr. Daniel ~tated hu f~lt th~ ordinanc~ should be denied a~ it would not benefit anyone at this point in time and could be addressed at a later date if needed. Mr. McHale stated although there was a motion to deny, he could s~pport adoption of the ordinance and, therefore, mad~ a s=bstitute motion, seconded by Mr. Barber, for the Board to adopt an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amendin~ and reenacting to uses which may bm allowed by conditional use. When asked, FLr. ~acobson stated the purpose of the ordinance was more general ~han =he ordinance relating to pets, ste~ f~l~m~ and zoos, end the amendment would permit an application similar to, but not specifically ~nu~erated as, a permitted use, restricted use, accessory use, conditional use of ~peclal exception provided th~ r~q~ested ~$e was not listed in another zoning district and would results the direeto~ of the ~lanming Department to make a written determination that the proposed use WaS similar in operating character tn and would present no greater impact than ether uses iht the district. There was brief discussion relative to the intent of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. M~. Daniel stated he would not support the substitute motion for adoption Of the ordinance and called for the vote un the substitute motion made by Nr. McHsle, ~ecsnded by Mr. Barber, for the Board to adopt the following ordinance: A/~ ORDINANCE TO A~Z~D THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ~HESTERFIELD~ 1998, A8 AI~ENDED, BY ARENDING AND R~ACTING S~CTIO~S 21.1-47, 21.1-54, ~.1-61~ 21.1-75, 21.1-82, ~1.1-~9, ~1.~-97, ~1.1-10~, 2l.l-l~0~ 21.1-1~7~ 21.1-134~ 21.1-141~ 21.1-1%8, 21.1- 1~, ~1.1~16~, 21.1-169, ~1.1-176, 21.1-193, 21.1-190 21.1-197 RZ~TING G~Y TO USES ~ICE ~Y BE ALLOW~ BY CONDITIONAL USE BE IT O~AINED by the Board of ~est~rfi~ld County: (1) That ~e code of ~he County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, i~ amended and reenacted to read a~ follows: 0 0 0 The following ~eD may be allowed by conditional use in the R-$8 district, subject to t. he provisions of ssa=ion 21.1- 9: o o o (o} Subject to the requlrement~ hereinbelow set forth, other uses which ars not specifically ~n%me~ated in thi~ specifically enumerated u~e~ allowed i~ thio district. Beform consideration cf am application to allow any u~e by oend~tlonal uss pursuant to this subsection, the Director of Planning mu~t find in writing that tho proposed uae's operating characteristics are substantially similar to, and its impact on neighboring properties no greater than, the operating c~areeteristics and impacts of the specifically en%u~erated uses allowed in this district, euuh finding shall be based upon an analysis of the proposed use which includes, among other things, consideration of the s~zn and proposed configuration of the site; the size, height and exterior architectural appearance cf any propusa~ structure or stru~t~re~; noise; light; glare; odors; dust; outdoor activities; traffic; parking; signage; and hours of operation. eeo. z1.1-5%, conditional uses. The following uses may be allowed by conditional u~e in the R-~0 district, ~ubje~t to the provi$ien~ cf sectie~ 21.1- 9: (a) Those conditional u~e~ permitted in the R-88 district. (b) Subject to the requirements hersinbelcw set forth, ether umem which ara not specifically enu~sratsd in this chapter and which are of the same general character as ths specifically enumerated uses allowed in this district. Before consideration of an sppllcati~n to allow any use by conditional u~e p~rcuant t~ this ~ubsection, the Director Planning must find in writing that the operating charucteristics are substantially similar ts, and i~s impact on neighboring propmrt~em no greater than, the operating characteristics and impact~ cf th~ ~pecifioally enumerated uses allowed in t~is district. Such finding shall be based upon an analysis of the propo~d ~e which includes, 92-609 7~22/92 among other things, consideration of the size and proposed ~nfigura~ion ~£ the cite; the size, height an~ exterior architectural appearance of any proposed structure or structures; noise; light; glare; odors; dust; outdoor activities; traffic; parking; signage; and heure of operation. Conditional uses. Th~ following usee may be allowed by conditional use in the R-25 district, subject to the provisions of section 21.1- (a) The;e conditional uses pernlttmd in the R-88 district. (b) Subject to the requirements hereinbelow set forth, ether uses which are not specifically enumerated in this chapter and which are cf the same general character as the specifically enumerated uses allowed in this district. Before consideration of an application to allow any use by conditional use pursuant to this subsection, the Director cf Planning must find in w~iting that the propoeed operating oharasterlstics are substantially similar to, it~ impact ca neighboring properties no greater than, the operating characteristics and impacts of the specifically enumerated uses allowed in this dis=ricO. Such finding shall be based upon an analysis of t~e proposed use wAio~ includes, among other things, oonzideratlon of the size and proposed configuration of the site; th= size, hmight and exterior architectural appearance of any Dropose~ structure etruotures; Roise; light; glarx; odors; du~t; outdoor activities; traffic; parking; signage; and hours of opera, ion. Sec. 21.1-68. conditional usaa. The following umes may be allowed by conditional use in the R-l§ dimtrlct, subject to th~ provision~ of m~ction ~1.~- 9: (a) Tho~e conditional uses permitted in the R-88 district. (b) Subject to the requirements hersimbelow set forth, chapter and which are uf the same general character s~ the specifically enumerated usee allowed in this district. Before consideration of an application to allow any use by conditional use pu~s~ant to this s~bseotion, the Director of ~lanning must find in ~riting tlPat t~e proposed us~'s operating eha~aoteristics are substuntially similur to, und its impact on neighboring ~roperties no greater than, the operating characteristics and impacts of the specifically enumerated uses allowed in this ~istrlct. Such finding ~hall be based upon an analysis of the proposed use which ~nclude=, among oth~r things, oon~ideration of the sizm and proposed configuration of the site; the size, height and exterior architectural appearance of any proposed structure or structures; mci=e; llght~ glare; odor~; dust; outdoor o o o Sec. 21.1-75. Conditional uses. The following ~ses may be allowed by conditional use in the R-I~ district, subject to the provisions of section (a) Thosu conditional uses permitted in the district. (b) Subject to the recfulremants hereinbelow set forth, other u~es which are not specifically enumerated in this ~pecifically end,abated uses allowed in this district. ocnalderatlon of an application to allo~ any use by conditional use pursuant to this subsection, the Director of Planning mus~ find in writing that the proposed one's up.rating characteristics are substantially similar to, and its impact on neighboring propertie~ no greater than, the operating characteristics and impac~ of the specifically enumerated uses allowed in thi~ district. Such findin~ shall be based upon an analysis cf the proposed use which in~ludes, among othe~ things, ~onsideDation of the size and proposed configuration of th~ site; the size, height and extezier architectural appearance of any proposed structure or structures; noise; light; glare~ odors: dus:; outdoor activities; traffic; ~arking; signage; and hours of operation. Sec. 11.1-8~. Conditioual uses. The following u~e~ may b~ allcw~ by conditional use the R-9 district, subject to the p~ovi~ions of s~ction 21.1-9: (a) Those conditional uses permitted in the R-$~ district. (b) Subject to the r~qulremente hereinbelow set forth, ot~e~ ~ses which are not specifically enumerated in this chapter and which are cf the sams general character as the specifically enumerated uses allowed in thi~ district. consideration of an appl]=a~ion to allow any use by conditional use pursuant to this subsection, the Director Planning must £ind in writing that the proposed operating oharacteristic~ ar~ substantially similar to, and it~ impact on neighboring properties no greater than, th~ operating characteristics and i~pacts of the specifically enumerate~ uses allowed in this ~istrict. S~ch finding shall be based upon an analysis of the proponed u~e which includes, among other things, consideration of the size and proposed configuration of the ~it~; the size, hslght and exterior archi%ectural appearance of any proposed ~tructure or structures; noi~e; light; glare; odors; dust; outdoor activities; traffic; parking; signage; a~d ho~r~ of operation. Sec. 21.1-89.... Conditional The following uses may b~ allowed by conditional use in the R-7 district, subjec~ to the prov~s~ons of section (a) Those conditional uses permitted i~ the R-88 district. (b) Subject to the requirements hereinbolow set forth, uther uses which ara not specifically ~numerated in this speoi£ioally enumerated uses allowed in this district. Before consideration of an applicatign to allow any use by conditionai use pursuant to this subsection, the Director of Planning must find in writing that the proposed use's operating characteristics are substantially similar tot and its impact on neighbcrlng properties no greater than, the operating characteristics and impacts of the specifically enumerated uses allowed in this district. Such finding mhall be based upon an analysis of the proposed use which includes, among other things, consideration of the size and proposed configuration of the site; the size, height and exterior activities; traffic; parking~ signaqs; and hours of operation. soo Sec. 21.1-97. Conditional uses. The following uses may be allowed by conditional u~a in the ~TH dishrlut, subjeut to the provisions of section 21.1- 9: (e) Subject tc the requirements hereinbelow set forth, ot~%cr use~ which are net specifically enumerated in this chapter and which are of the ~ame general character as the specifically enumerated uses allowed in this district. Before consideration of an appllcatlon to allow any use by conditional use pursuant to this subsection, the Director of Planning mu~t £ind in writing that the proposed operating characteristics ar~ substantially similar to, and op~z~ating characteristics and impacts of the specifically enunerated uses allowed in this district. Such finding shall be based npon an analysis of the proposed use which includes, among other things, consideration of the size and proposed eO~£igUration of th~ ~ite; the size, height and exterior arc~hitecturaI appearance of any p~opused structure er structures; noise; light; glare; odors; dust; outdoor activities; traffic; p~rking; signage; and hours o~ operation. Se~. 21.1-1~5. Condltlsnal u~ss. The following uses may he allowed by conditional use in the R-MF district, subject to the provisions of section 9: (e) 9tfoject to the requirements hereinbelow set forth, other uses which are not specifically enumsrate~ in this ohapte~ and which are of the ~ame general character a~ the speclflcally enumerated uses allowed in this district. Before consideration of an application ho allow any use by conditional use pursuant to t. his ~ubsec~iun, the Direstor o£ Planning must find in writing that the proposed use's operating characteristics are substantially s~ilar to, and it~ i~pact on neighboring properties no greater than, the enumerated uses allowed in this dietrich. Such finding shall ~e based upon an analysis of the proposed use which inolu~es, among other things, consideration of the size and proposed configuration of the site; the size, height and exterior a~tivities; traffic; parking; sign=ge; and hours of operation. Sec. 21.1-113. Conditional ume~. The following uses may be allowed by conditional use in the ~{-1 district, subject tO the provisions of section 21.1- (a) Group oars facilities. (b} subject to ~he requirements hereinbelow set forth, other uses which are not specifically enumerated in this chapter and which ars cf the same general character as the specifically enumerated uses allowed in this district. consideration of an application to allow any use hy condltlonal use pursuant to this sub~ection, bbs Director of Planning must find in w~iting that the proposed use's oDeratlng characteristics are substantially similar to, and its impact on neiqhboring properties no greate~ t/lan, the operating characteristics and impacts of the specifically separated uses allowed in this district. Such finding shall among other things, consideration of the size and proposed architectural appearance of any proposed structure or ~ructuree; noiss; light; glare; odors; dust; outdoor activities; traffic; parking; signage; and hou~s of operation. ooo ~ec. 21-~-1~6. Conditional uses. The following ~e~ may be allo~d by conditional use in the ~H-2 district, subject to the provisions of section 21.1- 9: dist~io=. (b) Subject to the requirements hereinbelcw set f01~th, other uses which ara nut sp~¢i£ioally enumerated in this chapter and which are of the same general character as the spseifically enumerated uses allcwud in this district. Before consideration of an application to allow any use by conditional use pursuant ~o this subsection, Planning must find in writing that the p~oposed Operating characteristics ere substantially similar to, and its impact on neighboring propertie~ no greater than, the operating characteristics and impacts cZ the s~e¢ifically e~um~rated u~e~ allowed in this district. Such finding shall be based upon an analysis of the proposed u~e which includes, among other things, consideration of the size and proposed oenflguratlon cf the s~te; the size, height and arohit~ctural appearance of any proposed structure or activities; traffic; parking; signage; and hours of operation. ooo sec. 21.~a~27. Conditional uses. The following uses may be allswsd by cundihional use in the A district, subject to the provision~ cf ~ectisn 21.1-9: (h) Subject to the requirements hereinbelow set forth, other uses which are not specifically enumerated in this chapter and which are of the ~am~ g~neral character as th~ specifically enumerated uses allowed in this district. Before consideration of an appllcat~on to allow any use by 9~-613 7/22/92 ~onditiontl use pursuant to thi~ subsection, %he Director of Planning must find in writing that the prcp0sed asa's operuting ckaracteristics are substantially similar to, and its impact on neighboring properties no greater than, the operating characteristics and impacts Of the specifically enumerated uses allowed in this district. Such finding shall among other things, eonmideration of the size and proposed configuration of the site; the size, height and exterior architectural appearance of any proposed ~tructure or structures; uoise; light; glare; odors; dust; outdoor activities; traffic; parking; signage; and hours of operatiou. Sec. ~1.1-13~. Conditional uses. The following uses may be allowed by conditional use in the 0-1 district, subject to the provisions of section 21.1-9: (e) subject to the requirements hereinhelow set forth, other uses which are not specifically ~numerate~ in this chapter and which are of the sane general character as the specifically enumerats~ u~es a11o~ed in this district. ~efore consideration of an aDplication to allow any use by conditional use pursuant to this subsection, the Director of Planning must find in writing that the proposed ume'~ operating characteristics are suhstan=ially mimilar to, and its impuct on neighboring properties no greater than, the opera~ing characteristics and impacts of =he specifically enumerated u~es allowed in this district. Such finding shall be b~sed upon an analysis of the Droposed use which includes, among other things, consideration of the size and proposed configuration of the site; the size, height and e}rterie~ architectural appearance of any propom~d structure or structures; noise; light; glare; odors; dust; outdoor activities; traffic; parking; ~ignage; a~ hours of operation, Sec. 21.1-141. Conditlonal uses. The following uses may bm allowed by conditional use in the 0-2 district, subject to the provisions of section (d) Subject to the requirements hereinbmlow s~t forth, ether uses which are not specifically enumerated in this chapter and which are of the smm~ g~neral character as th~ specifically ~numerated uses allowed in this district. ~efore consideration of an application to allow any use by conditional ese pursuant to th~ subssctien, the Director of Planning must find in writing that the proposed use'~ eperatlng characteristics are substantially similar to~ and its impact on neighboring properties RS greater than, the operating characteristics and impacts of the specifleally enumerated u~e~ all0wo4 in thi~ district. Such finding shall among other things, consideration of the size and proposed conflgurat~cn cf the mite; the size, height and exterior architecture! appearance of any proposed structure or structures; noise; light; glare; odors; dust; outdoor activities; traffic; parking; signage; and hours of operation. o o o ,S.e,c...,21.1-14~. Conditional ?/22/P2 ! ! I The following uses mey be allowed by conditional use in the C-1 dlstrictr subject to the provisions of section 21.1-9: (o) Subjeo~ to tbs'requirements he~'ein~loW set other uses which are not specifically enumerated in thi~ chapter and which are of the sams general character as the specifically enumerated uses allowed in this district. Before consideration of an application to allow any use by conditional use pursuant to this subsection, the Director of Planning must find in %rrlt±ng that the pr0po~ed operating characteristics are substantially similar to, and operating characteri~tlos and impacts of the speci{ioally enumerated uses allowed in this district, such finding shall b~ ba~ed upon an analysis o~ ~he propose~ use which includes, a~ong other things, consideration of the size and propone~ configuration of the sits; the sizs, height and exterior architectural appearance of any prcpome~ structure or structures; noise; light; glare; odorm; dumt; outdoor activities; traffic; parking; signage; ae~ hours of operation. The following uses may he allowed by oo~ditional ~se in the C-2 district, subject to the previsions of section 21.1-9: (h) Subject to ~he requirements hereinbelow set forth, other uses which ars not specifically enumerated in thi~ specifically enumerated uses allowe~ in thi~ district. Before consideration of an application to allow any u~e hy conditional use pursuant to this subsection, the Director of Planning must find in writing that the proposed m~e's opera, lng characteristics are substantially similar to, and its i~paet on neighboring properties no greater than, the operating charastsristics and impacts of the specifically enttmerated uses allowed in this district. Such finding Shall be ~ased upon an analysis o~ the proposed use wh~c~h includes, a~ong other things, consi~erstion of the size and proposed configuration of the ~it~; the size, height and exterior architectural appearance of any proposed str~cture or structures; noiss; light; glare; odor~; dust; outdoor activities; traffic; parkiRg~ ~gDage; an~ hours of c~erstion. The following uses may be allowed by conditional uss in the C-3 district, uub3ect to the provisions of section 21.1-9: (b) Subject to the requirements h.reinbelow sst forth, other uses which are not specifically enumerated in this specifically enumsrated uses allowed ~n thi~ district. Before consideration of an application to allow any use by Planning must find in writing that the proposed operating characteristics and impacts of the specifically enumerated uses allowed in this district. Such finding shall be based upon an analysis of the proposed use which includes, ~mong o~her things, consideration of the ~ize and proposed configuration of the site; the size? height and exterior architectural appearance of any proposed str~ctL~re or activities; traffic~ parking~ signage; and hours of opera=ion. c 0 c Sec. 21.1-169. Conditional ~ses. The following uoe~ may. be allowed by conditional use in the C-4 district, subje¢~ to the provisions of (f) Subject to th~ requirements her~inbelew se~ forth, ether use~ which are net ~pecifically enumsrated in this chapter and which ara e~ the same general character as the specifically enumerated uses allowed in this district. Before consideration of an application to allow any use by conditional use pursuant to this subsection, the Director of Planning must find in writing that the proposed use's operating characteristics are substantially similar to, and its impact on neighboring properties no greater than, the operating characteristics ~nd impacts of the specifically enumerated ~ses allowed in this district. Such findinq mhall be ~a~ed upon an anaSy~i~ of th~ propo~d u~e which include~, among other things, consideration of the size and proposed configuration of the site; the si~e, height an~ exterior structures; noise; light; glare; odors; dust; outdoor activities; traffic; parking; signage; and hours of operation. O O O 11.1-176. Conditional uses. The following uses may be allowed by conditional use in C-5 district, subject to the provisions of section 21.1-9: (g] subject to the requirements here~nbelow set forth, other uses which are not speolfically enumerated in this chapter and which are of the same general character as the specifically enumerated uses allowed in this district. Before consideration of an application to allow any use by conditional use pursuant to thi~ ~ub~ecti~n, the Director of Plarfl~ing much find in w~iting that the ep~ratlng characteristics are substantially similar to, and it~ i~paet on neiqhbering properties no greater than, the operating characteristics and impacts eS the specifically ~muncrated uses allowed in this district. Such finding shall be based upon an analysis os the proposed use which includes, among other things, consideration of the size and proposed con£iguration of the site; bhe size, height and exterior architectural appearance of any proposed structure or Structures; noise; light; glare; odors; ~ust; outdoor activities; traffic; parking; oignaqe; end hours of operation. The following uses may be allowed by conditional rise in the I-1 district, subject to the provisions of section 92-616 7/2~/9~ (d) subject to =he requirements horeinbelow set fiDrth~ other uses which utc not ~pecificully ~numerated in this ~pecifically enumerated u~es allowed in thi~ district. Before eonai~ura~tun u£ an i applicetlcn to allew any use by conditional u~ pursuant to thi~ subsection, the Director of Planning must find in writing that the proposed operating characteristics are substantially similar to, and its impact on neighboring properties ne g~eate~ than, operating ~haracteristies and impacts of the specifically enumerated uses allowed in this district. Such finding ~hall he based upon an analysis of the propomud uso which includes, among other things, con~id~r&tio~ of the size and proposed uon£i~r~tion of tho site; the size, height and exterior ar~hit~ottt~al appearance of any proposed structur~ or structures; noise; ligh=; glar6; odors; dust; outdoor mctivitie~; traffic; parking; ~ignage; and hours of operation. 0 U 0 Sec. 21.1-t90. Conditional uses. The following uses may be allowed by conditional use in the I-2 district~ subject to the provieien~ of Section 21.1-9: 0 C o (f) S~b~eot to the requirements hereinb~low set forth, other u~e~ which are not spuoisieally unumurats~ in this chaptu~ and which ur= of the ~ame general character as the specifically enumoxated u~ o11owud in thim district. Befurs ¢onmiderution of an application to allow any u~e by uondltiunal uso pursuant to this subs~ctlon, the Director of Planning must find in ~riting that the proposed operating characteristics ara substantially similar to, and opurating characteristics and impac=s of the specifically enumerated uses allowed in this district. Such finding shall be based upon an analysis of the D~cposed u~e which includes, ~mong or. her ~hing$, consideration of the ~ize and proposed configuration of the site; the size, height an~ exterior architectural appearance of any proposed structure or structures; noise; light; glare; odors; dust; outdoor actlvitle~; traffic; park~ng; ~ignage; ~nd hour~ of operation. See. 21.1-197. conditional uses. The following use~ may ~e allowed by uonditiena~ use in I-3 dist~iet, u~bpect to thc provisions of section 21.1-9: 0 0 ID (k) Subject to th~ requirement~ hereinbelow set forth~ other usss which are not ~peclfically enumerated in this chapter and which are of the sa~s general character as the speclflcally enumeratsd uses allowed in this di~trlct. Before consideration of an application to allow any use by conditional use pursuant to this mubsectiun, the Director of Planning m~st find in writing that the proposed uee'~ operating characteristics a~e suhstantially similar to, and its impact on neighboring properties no greater than, the operating charaoteristi~s and i~pacts of the specifically enumerated uses allowed in this district, Such finding ~all be based upon an analysi~ of the proposed u~e which includes, among other things, considora~ien cf the size an~ proposed configuration of the site; the size, height and exterior architectural appearance of any proposed structure or structures; noise; light; 'glare; odors; dust; outdiDor activities; traffic; parklng~ signage; and h~urs of Dperati~n. Ayes: Mr. W~rren, Mr. Barber, Mr, Colbert and Mr. MoHale. Nays: Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel them made a ~otio~, ~e¢o~ded by ~r. MoHale, to approve Case 92S~0III subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use shall be granted to and Son Jim A~delin, exclusively, and shall not be transferable nor run wi~h the land. (CPC) The a~i~al holding ar~a~ shall be cleaned and made free of waste daily to prevent odor and insect problems. The waste from the monkey area must be disposed of by installing a septic system or removing waste from the premises. This waste must be stored and hauled away in enclosed containers and not spread on fields at th~ site. (c~c) This Conditional Use ~hall be limited to ~e keeping cf the following: 41 birds and £0wl S deer 2 llamas 54 primates 11 kangaroos 2 camels 4 additional hoof stock. (CPC) 4- The plan ~ubmitted with the application shall be considered the ~lan oS operation. At s~eh time t~%at the livestock area is expanded~ as depicted on the pSan, the expansion area shall be secured with a fence and such fence shall be located at least seventy-five (7~) feet from the property line. The exact treatmen= of ~he fence shell be approved by the ~lannlng Department. (CPC) 5. In conjunction with this operation, the applicant ~hall be permitted to conduct field trips for schools, churches and other ~imilar organizatien~ provided there are no more than two (2) such trips condusted each day. F~eld trips shall be limited to Monday through Saturday between 9:00 a.~. and 5=00 p.m. (CPC) the Building Inspac~iun Department shall inspect the site end acsassory buildings for compliance with Volume II of th~ uniform Statewide Buildin~ Cs~e. within six (6) month~ of the B~ilding Inspection Department's findings, the owner shall make all necessary corrections to comply with the findings. (BOm) 6.B. Within thirty (30) days of the approval of this request, the Health Departmen~ shall inspect the e~isting septic system for compliance with all applicable codes. Within six (6) months of the Health Department's findings, the owner shall ~ake all necessary corrections to comply with the findings. (BOS) 7. within thirty (30} days of the approval of thie r~quest, the Health Department shall inspect the property for ~omplian~e with Health Codes and the owner shall make all necessary corrections to comply with the findings. Thereaftar~ the~e ins~ectio~ and a~y necessary oorreotion~ ~h~11 be m¢~mpllshed annually. (~OS) 8. The applicant shall file an annual r~port with th~ County ~ealth Department by July 1st of eac/% yea~ providing documentation of all medloal evaluations and %est results on his animal stock and all State, USDA and other Federal, and private inspections of the premises. 9. Tf determined by any County or State Department that there has be~n =a violation of tbs. conditions stated herein and such violation is not corrected in a timely fashion to the satisfaction of the department, the Planning Department shall process an applisation on behalf of the Board to consider rescission of the Conditional Uae. 10. This Condi=ional Use shall axeire on August 1, 1996. (BOS) I1. This U~e shall be primarily for the enjoyment of Mr. Andel~n and his family and shall not be open to the general public except an outlined in Condition 5. (BOZ) Mr. Daniel noted business license enforcement and monitoring was the responsibility of the Commissioner of Revenue and the License Inspector's Office and could not ~a csnsldered by the Board when deciding zoning requests. Mr. Barber inquired if it would b= in the be~t interest of the County to change the wordln~ of Condition l0 in order al~inatn the property owner from b~inq required to go through the applicatlon ~r~oess again. Mr. ~ioas stated the expiration date needed to b~ definitive nnd the current Board could not bind a ~utmre ~oard to such tlminq. K~. Daniel calla~ ~or the wore on the motion made by seconded by Mr. McHals, for the Board to approve Case subject ~s the follow,ag conditions: 1. This Conditional Uso shall be granted to and fo~ Andelin, excluslvmly, and ~hall not b~ transferable nor l~3n with the land. [CPC) 2. The animal holding areas shall be cleaned and made free of waste daily to prevent odor and insect problems, The waste from the monkey area must be disposed of by in~talling a septic system or removing waste from the premises. This waste must be stored and hauled away in ~nolo~d ~ontainer$ ~nd not spread on fields at the site. 3. Thi~ Conditional Us~ shall be limited to the keeping of the following: 41 birds and fowl 2 llumus 11 kangaroos 4 additional hoof stock. primates The plan ~ubmitted with the application shall be considered the plan of operatlon. At such ti~e that the livestock area is expanded, as depicted on the plan, the e~pansion area shall be ~ecured with a fence and such f~nce shall b~ located at least sevsnty-five (75) feet from the property line. The exact treatment of the fence ~hall be approved by the Planning Department. (CPC) In conjunction with thi~ operation, f-ha applicant shall b~ pel~mitted to co~d~ct field trips for schools, churches and other similar organiaations provided there are ns . more than two (a) such trips conducte~ each day. Field trips shall be limltsd to Monday through Saturday betwamn 6.A. within thirty (30) days sf the approval of thim request, the Duilding Inspection Department shall inspect the site and accessory buildinqs for compliance with Volume II of the Uniform Storewide Building Code. Within six months of the Buildinq Inspection Department's the owner shall make all necessary corrections to comply with the findings. (BAS) 6.B. Within thirty (20) days of the approval of this request, the Health Department shall inspect the existing septic system for compliance with all appllcable codes, within six (6) months of the Health Department's findings, the the findings. (BOS) Within thirty (30) days of the approval of this the Mealth Department shall inspect the property for compliance with Health Codes and the owner shall make all necessary corrsuticns to comply with the findings. 8. The applicant shall file an annual report with the County Health Department by $uly 1st of each year providing documentation of all medical evaluations and %est results on his animal stock an~ all ~tate, USDA and other Federal, and private inspections of ~he pre~iee~. (BOS) 9. If 'doterminsd by any County or state Department that there ha~ b~n a violation of th~ condltiono stated herein and ouch violation is not corrected in a timely fashion to the ~atis£aotion of the department, the Planning Department shall process an application on behalf of the SQard to consider r~soission of the Conditional Use, 19, This Conditionul Usu shall expire on August 1, 1996. CBOe) ~Z. This use ehall ~s primarily ~er %hs snjoymon% of Mr, genera~ public except as outlined in Condition 5. (BOB) Vote: Unanimous 1~. Daniel e×pres~ed a~precistion to tho~e who had provided XDpnt and partioip~te~ in the process. Reoon~ening: ~W0~77 In Bermuda Magisterial District, CHESTERFIELD ~OV~Y SERVICES requested a Conditional Uss to ~ermit an o]ect~ic power generating facility in an Agricultural .(A) Diserice. The density of such amendment will ~e controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards, The Csmpruhensive ~lan designates the property for residential uae of 1.50 units acre or less. Thi~ request lies co a 1.Q acre parcel lylng approximately 2,5~2 feet off the ~outh linc of Carver Drive, meazured from a point approximately 550 fee~ west of West Booker Boulevard. Tax ~=p 131-3 (1) Part of Parcel (Sheets 31 and 4~). In ad~i~ion~ CHESTERFIELD CO~TE SERVICES requests siting approval for the facility pursuant to 92-620 7/~2/9~ the County's Solid Waste Management Facility Siting Ordinance., ~, 1978, a~ a~endad. The propomed facility will generate electric power utilizing methane gas from the County's Chester Landfill. (It was noted the siting approval was granted earlier in the meeting as Item 7.J.) M~. George Beadles ek/0~eesed concerns relating to landfills and future use of these t!rpes of sites and build~ng~ stated he felt the facility should be required to be connected to the public sewer system. On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, ~hs Board approved Case 9ZSN0177 subject to the following oond~tion~: 1. Wit~ t~e exception of setbacks, development shall comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordlnanoa for Heavy Industrial (I-3) Districts in ~erging Growth Areas adjacent to properties zoned Heavy Industrial (I-3). (P) (NOTES: (a) Setbacks must conform to the require~ente (A) Districts. For the purposes of determining all other except where the standards of the Agricultural (A) zoning ar~ more re~trictlv~ th~ require~ent~ of zoning Ordinance for Hea~ Indust~iai (I- Fac~llties shall be designed such that activttie~ do mot ~inute~ during any hou~ (60 dB~L10(h]} between th~ hours uf ?:00 a.m. and 7:OO p.m., or ~bov~ ~0 ~a for more ~an ~ix (6) minut~ during any hour (50 dBaL10(h]) between the hours of 7:OO ~.m. and 7:QQ a.m., measured at any point along the south, east and west boundarie~ of Parcel 2 on Tax MaD 131-3 (1] (i.e., ChesLerfield County Chester Landfill). In ~ddition, facilit~s mhali be ?S dSa for more than six (S) ~tuute~ ~uring any hour (7~ d~aL10(h))~ mea=ured at any point on any other property adjacent t~ Parcel 2 on Tax Map 131-3 (1}. The noise levels mpecified herein are exclusive of ambient At th~ ~q~e~t O~ th~ ~l~nnlng D~partm~n~, owner/developer/operato~ ~hall provide noise ~o~pliance with the~e requirements. At the request of the own~r/developer, ~m Director of Planning may modify the ~eth0~ 0f quantifying ~e noise environment (the noise d~soriDtor) ou~line~ herein provided ~uoh m~ification achiev~ the intent of the criteri~ · ~ec~fle~ herein. vo~e: Unanimous ~.~. CLAIM OF M~TRIC CONSTR~CTORS, INC- FOR ~DDITION~L PAYMENT FOR UONS~EU~TIN~ THE UPPER ~WIPT C~EEK TRUNK Jeffrey L. ~inck~, D~puty CouDty Attorney, stated ~taff 7/22/92 was recommending denial of a claim by Metric Constructors, Inn. fer additional payment for construction of the upper On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board denied the claim of Metric conetructors, Inc., in tl%e amount of $785,000, for additionaI payment for construction of the Upper swift Creek Trunk Sewer Line. Vote: Unanimous RURC~%SE PROPERTY Fir. Micas ~tated ~taff was recommending approval of an agreement to relinquish rights to purchan~ Lots ~3, in Morrisdale Subdivision provided partial reimbursement for payment to the county is made for back ta~es for three yearn. On notion of Mr. McHale, seconded by F~. Warren, the Board authorized the County Adminietrater to enter into agreement invalidating the original sales agreement dated October l, 196~, in which J. L. Longest agreed to convey Lots 23, 24 exchange for partial reimbursement for payment to ~e County 8,U. REQUEST THE PLANNING COtillION TO BE~IN THE REZONI~ OF ~ROP~RTI~$ FROH THE "OLD" TO T~E "NEW" Z0~I~ DISTRICT~ F~r. ~effrey L. Minok~, b~puty County Attorney, ~tat~d ntaff was recommending the Planning comminnion be requested to prepare a comprehensive zoning amend/~an~ rezoning property fro~ the "old" to the "new" uoning districts. He noted staff would review the historical relationship between chapter 21 and 21.1 whe~ th~ recommendation of the Planning commission is brought back to the Board for ¢onaideration. On motion of ~. Warren, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board r~que~ted the Planning Commission to prepare, after appropriate public input, a ¢omprehennive rezonin~ amendment rezoning property from the "old" xonlng dlstrlct~ to the "new" sorting districts and authorized ~he Planning commission %0 variances in the "old" zoning dintriotn into t~e comprehensive rezoning amendment. Vote: Unanimeus on ~otion of ~r, Warren, se¢ond~ by Mr. ~oHale, the Board moved Item 8.D.~ Reconsideration of Streetlight Installation Cost Approvals to be heard after Item 8.F. 19., Application for a Bingo/Raffle Permit for the Central Virginia co~ncil of t~e ~lind. Vote: Unanimous ~.B. STREETLIGHT INSTALLATION ~08T ARPROV~LS on motion of Mr. McHal~, ~Conded by Mr. Warren, t~e Beard approved the following ~trect light ~nstallation oo~t spprovals with said funds to be expended fro~ the designated District $tr~et Light Aocountm: Bermuda District * Intersection =0f Happy Hill H~hd and Pheasant Hun Drive, ~o ¢o~; to in,tall light. * In~rs~ction of Hsmlin Drive and Walters Drive Cost to install light: $1,291.00 Clover Hill Di~triot * Intsrssctlon of Genitc Road and South Ridge Drive Cost to install light: $188.00 Intersection of Genito Road a~d ~hiloh Church Road Cost to install light: $201.00 Natoaea District * In=urseetlon o~ Trailwood Drive and Quells Road No cost to install light. Vote: U~a~imoum BIEE~FAY TO THB CENTER OF ~tH CLOVER HILL ~THLBTIC On motion Of ~%r~ Me.ale, ~econded by Mr. colbsr~, ~he Bsar~ adopted tbs fellowlnq re~olutien~ ~{~EAS, the Clever Hill Athletic Complex is owned and is to be developed by tbs County of Chastarfleld as a recreational facility serving tbs residents of Chesterfield County and adjoining localities; and WH~AS, the facility is in need of adequate ~ehioular and bicycle access; and WHEREAS, the procedure governing the alloca~ie~ of recreational access Zunda aa set forth in section 33.t-2~3 of ~e code of virginia requires joint action by the Director of ~AS, a statement of policy agreed upon betwee~ the maid Director and Boazd a~provem t~e ~se of ~ch funds for the con~tructlon of acc~ faoilitie~ to p~blicly-o~d recreational areas or historioal sites; and ~E~S~ the Board ha~ duly adopted a $o~i~g ordi~a~¢~ Title 15+i '0f the Code o Vir inia; and ~ ' the law have been me~ ~o pe~it the Direutor o~ the De~ar~ment of Conservation and R~creation t0 de~ignate the Clover Hill Athietlc Complmx Park as a Dublic rscraatlonal facility and further pe~it the Co~onwealth Transportation Board to provide fnnds for access to this public reoreatlon area in accordance wi~ Section 33.1-~3 of the Code of virq~n~; au~ ~ER=AS, ~ right of w~y of the proposed acce~ road and bikeway i~ provided by the County of Ch~sterfield at no cos~ ~ER~A$, the ~uar4 a=knuwl~dg~ that, ~ursuant to the 92-623 7/22/92 provlsicns of Section 33.1-223 of the Code of Virginia, thi~ road and bikeway shall be designated a "Virginia Byway" and re~om~end~ the Co~cnwealtb Transportation Boar~, in cooperation with the Director of the Departhent of Conservation and Recreation, take the appropriate action to implement this designation. FUrther, the Board agrees, in keepinq with the intent of Section 33.1-~3 of the Code of virqiDia, to use its good effic=s to reasonably protect the aesthetic or cultural value of this road and bikeway. ~OW, T~ERE~ORE ~E IT RESOLVED, that the ~uard O~ Eup~rvisors of Ch~mt~rfield County hereby r~qu~ts the Director o= the Department of Conservation and Reereetion to designate the Cl~¥er Hill Athletic Complex Park as e public recreational area and to recommend to the Co~o~ealth Transportation Board that recreational access funds be allocated for an access road and bikeway to serve said park and appropriated sai~ funds upon approval by ~he State. A~D~ mE IT FURTHER R~$OLVED, that =he Co~onwealth Transportation Board is hereby re~ested to allocate ~e acc~ road and bikeway a~ hereinbefore described. Vote: Unanimous ~UND8 TO ~LLOW COMPLETION O~ CONSTRUCTTON OF THE ~OCKWOO0 PARK NATURE CENTER AN~ TO CONTINUE PNASE DEVELOPMENT OP T~B CLOVB~ ~ILL ~TNLETTC COMPLEX On motion of ~r. McHale, ~e¢onded by Mr. Colbert, the Beard transferred funds in Clever Hill District prejects as fellows: PROJECT DECREASES: 1985 Bond 1. Davis Elementary school 1989 Bond 1. Chalkley ~lcmentary school Clover~ill ~lementary School 3. Providence Middle school 4. Weodlake Concession Total Decrease~ PROJECT INCREASES; Rookwood Park Clcv~r Hill Athletic Complex 655.44 ~,764.28 8,232.58 17~.40 22,775.04 $15,000,00 ?,778.04 22~778.04 (It is noted with the except~on of the Rockwood Natur~ Center a~d =he Clover Hill Athletic Complex~ ail o~her proposed Clover Hill District projects have been completed and the projects from which funds are requested have been completed umber budget, Funds designated for =he Rockwood Nature cea%er will be used to complete interior work to the shell of the rebuilt facility and will include painting, d=ywall, carpet, floor and ceiling work, etc. and funds designated for the Clover Hill Athletic Complex will be used fur £ootball amd On motion of ~r. McHale, seconded by ~ir. Colbert, the Board following projects to.-the Transportation. ~roject Account in anticipation of these funds transportation needs: Lori Road widening Route 10 through Chester Iron Bridge Recreational Acce~ Treely Road I~d~trial Access at Ruffin S~r Dinnadsn Drive Woolridg= Roud Repair ~amona Avenue Road off of Church Road ~slmont Ru~d Parker Avenue Ruffin Mill Road being designated fo~ future $ 29,724.04 297.90 43,848.97 3~.77 969.50 190.60 4~802.73 24,990.0O 13,765,00 8,704.95 5,355.93 17,790.18 ~7t~67.68 (~t is noted the projects listod have been =ompleted.) On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board Vote; Unanimous FOR ROOF REPLACEMENT POR T~E CENTRAL on motion of Mr. MoHale, SeConded by Mr. Colbert, the Board authorize~ the county Administrator to appropriate $141,000 in bo~d interest and uxecutm a Change Order, in the amount of $~41,000, to Forter~e Corpuratlon for replacement cf the e~xi~ting roof at the Central Library. W~TE~TER TREaTmeNT ~L;~N~ EXPANSION On ~otion of ~r. McHale, seconded by ~[r. Colbert, the ~sar~ authorized the County Administrator to execute a Change Order, i~ the amount of $217,167, to R. Stuart Royer and Associates for additional construction services associated with the increased scope of th~ project due to the necessity to increase the capacity of exi~ting facilities to comply with n~w regelatery requirements for nutrient removal. (I~ is 92-625 noted maid funds are available from the appropriation of this project.) Breekenbrough and AssoQiates; Draper Aden and Aaaooiate~; J. K, Tigons and ASsociates; R. Stuart Royer and Asscciate~; whitman, Requirer and Associates, which annua~ een~rao~ shall be for a period of two years with an option to renew for one t~rm o~ tw~ years and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO ~IGN A~ORIT¥ RECYCLING DROP~OFF AGREENENT On motion of Mr. McBale~ seconded by M~, Colbert, tl~e Board authorized the County Administrator to sign an addendum to the Central Virginia waste Management Authority Recycling Drop-off Agreement, which a~dendum will r~t~rn 50 p~e~nt of th~ total revenue to participating jurisdictions cna quarterly (It i~ nete~ approximately $5,~QQ in revenue will be returned te the County and will not increase the County'~ eha~e cf ~ontract Vote: ~nanimous ~UTKORT~ATTON ~OR T~ COUNTy ADHINISTRATOR TO ~NTER INTO ;~NA~R~EM]~NT WIT~ TEE CENTRAL UIR~INIA WASTE 0~ motion Of Mr. MeHale, ~e=onded by Mr. Colbert, the Board authorized the Csnnty Admi~i~tr~t0r to enter i~to an agreement with the Central Virginia Wa=to Management Authority for refrigerant r~cyeli~g due to recent a~end~ents to the federal Cl~n Air Ac~ r~guiring frees refrigerant recovery before an appliance is repaired, recycled or disposed in a landfill. (It is noted in anticipation of these regulations, funds for t~is service have been approved in the FY93 budget.} 8.~.9. AUTKO~IZATION.~O~ THE COUNTY ADKINI~TRATOR TO RENEW On motion of Mr. Mc~ale, seconded by ~_r. Colbert, the Board authorized the County A~ini~trater to renew th~ lea~ agreement with Mr. William Smith, in the amount of $2,000 per year, for %he operation of the WinterDock Dunpster site, located at the intersection of Wi~terpock end Coalfield Roads, for a perio~ of three years, with a provision ~or automatic exten~ie~ of three years. (It is noted said funds will come from =he Sanitation budget.) vote: Unanimous On motion of ~r. M~J{al~, ~econded by F....r. Colbert, the Board Plan and Demonstration Project. The principal greenway areas for Chesterfield that have been identified include the James River (Be~uda District), lower Falling Creek (Dale District), the Central Area of ~wift C~eek (Ma~0aca Distri:t), and the lower Appomatto~ River (Bermuda and F~t0aca Districts). (It is ne~od a copy o{ %ha Mission Stat~ent and Process is filed Nith the papers of this Board.] VOte: Unanimous TO OON~IB~ EXTENDING THE TE~MOF THE PARK CONCESSION ST;d~D CONTP~CT FORM ONE TO T~E~ YEARS On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by FAr. Colbert, the Boar~ set the date of August 26, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. for a publio hearing to con~ider extending %he term of the park concession stand contracts from one to three year~. ~.F.&0.u. ~O ~ON~IDER ~CaPTANCE OF PEDEP,~ ~D ~TATE ~RANT5 ~ND ~PPROPRIATION OF FUI~DS FOR ~TR~ORT ~O~EMENT On mo%ion of ~. McHale, seconded by ~r. Colbert, the Board set the date of August 26, I99~ at ~:~0 p.~. for a p~bllc appropriate $9,076,000 in revenue and exgenditures for improw~ents at the chesterfield County Airport. Vote: Unanimous Thi~ day the County Envirenm~ntal Engineer, i~ accordance with directions from this Beard, made report in writinq upon hie e~mination of ~temw~ll Boui~vard, ~temw~11 circle, $~. Drive~ st. Reqis Terrace~ st. Reqi~ Court~ Ste~well Lamm~ Falkirk Drive and Teaberry Drive in ~ex!ey West, ~ec~ion 1 an~ a pol~tion of Loch Braemar, Clove~ Hill District. Upon eonsideFatie~ whereof, and on motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, it is resolve~ that Stemwetl Boulevard, Stemwell Circle, St. Regis Drive, st. Regis Terrace, S~. Regis Court, S%omwell Lams, Falklrk Drive and Teaberry Drive in Bex!ey West, Section ~ and a portion cf Loch Braemar, Clo~er Hill Distrist, be and they hereby are establinh~d a~ public roads. And be it further resolved, that th~ Virginia D~partment of Tran~portabion, be and i= hereby is requested to take into the intersection w~th Providence Road, State Rout~ 678, and goin~ ~cutherly 0.0~ mile %o the intersection wi~ Stemwe11 Circle, then continuinq southerly 0.04 mile to the intersection into Ste~welt Boulevard, State Route number to be Again, $%~mw~ll Boulevard, beginning a~ the intersection 92-627 7/22/92 in~rsecticm with Stemwell LHn~, than turning and going northwesterly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Falkirk Drive, then continuing northwesterly 0.03 mile to tie into stemwell Bculevard~ State Route number to be Stemwell Circle, beginning at the intersection with Stemwell Boulevard and going westerly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; st. Regis Drive, beginning at ~he intersection with Stemwell Boulevard and going southeasterly ~.40 mile to the inter- inter,section with st. Regis Terrace~ then turning and going southerly 0.07 mile to the intersection with Stemwell Beulevard~ then continuing southerly 0.14 mile to the intersection with St. Regis Court, then continuing southerly 0.11 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; St. Regis Terrace~ beginning at the intersection with St. Regis Drive and going westerly 0.06 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. St. Regis Court, beginning at the inter~ection with Zt. Regis Drive and going northwesterly 0.0S mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Stemwsll Lane, be$inning At the intersection with $gemwell Boulevar~ and go,hq ~outherly 0.o~ mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Falk~rk Drive, beginning at the intersection with Stemwell Boulevard and going southwesterly 0.07 mile to tl~e intersection wit~ Teaberry Drive, then continuing south-westerly 0.04 mile to the inte~sectio~ with LOC~ Braema~ Drive, State Route 2386, Loch Braemar; and Teaberry Drive, beginning at the intersection with Falkirk Drive and going southeaste~iy 0.04 mile tn en~ ~n a dead end. Again, Teaberry Drive, beginning at the ihtersection with Falkirk Drive and going northwesterly 0.03 mile to tie into existing Teaberry Drive, Stats Route number to-be a~igned. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance~ clear ~one and designated Virginia Department Transportation drainage These roads serve 87 lots. And be it further re~olve4, that the ~oar4 of Supervi~or~ ~aranteee to the ~{rqin~a Department of T~an~portat~o~ an unrestricted right-of-way of 50' with necessary easements for cRts, fill~ and drainage for all of these roads except ~temwell Boulevard which has a ~0~ ~ 80' variable width right- of-way. Bexley West is recorded as S~tien 1. Plat Book 54, Paqe~ 45~ 46 & 47. september 18, 1956. Plat Book 23. Pags~ 54, ~S, 56t 57 & 58~ Dao~Nber 12r 1~74. Vote: Unanimous Thi= day the County Environnental Bngin~ur, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in %rriting upon his examination cf ~temwell Boulevard, ~t~mw~ll Terrace and Teaberry Drive in Bexley West, Section 2, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, ~ on motion of Mr, MoHalk, seconded by F~r. Colbert~ it i~ re~olved that SteP, well Boulevard, Stemwall Terrace and Teaberry Drive in Bexley West, S~ct~nm 2, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are e~tabli~hed as public =cads. And be it further resolve4, that the Virginia Department of T~ansportation, be and it hereby i~ requested to take into the Secondary ~y~tem, ~t~mw911 ~oulevard, beginning at existing ?/~l/~2 Stemwell Boulevard, Stats Route number to be aseigned~ Be~ley intersection with Ste~well Terrace, then centin~in~ 0.02 mile to tie into e~isting Stemwell Boulevard, State Route number to be aseigned~ Bexley West, Seetio~ 1; Stemwell Terrace, beginning at the intersection with Stemwell Boulevard and going easterly 0.05 mile to and in a cul-de-sac; and Teaberry Drive, beginning at existing Teaberry Drive, state Ro~te number tu b= assigned, Bexley West, ~eotion 1, and going northerly 0,22 mile to tie into existing Teaberry Dr~ve, State Route n~ber to be assigned, Bexley West, S~ctlon 1. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight d~stance, clear zone and desk,mated Virgln~a Department of And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors ~uarantee~ to t~e Virginia Department of Transportation an unrestricted right-of-way of ~O' with necessary easements onts~ fills and drainage for all of the~ Thi~ ~ection of Be~ley West is recorded as follows: Vote: Ununimous Thi~ day ~hc County Envlrenmental Engineer, in accordance w~th directions from this Board, made report in ~riting upon his examine%ion o~ S%emwell Boulevard, Stenwell Place~ Ste~well Point, Teaberry Drive and ~te~w~ll Court in Bexley West, Section 3, Clover Eill U~on consideration whereof, and on motion of M~. seconded by ~r. Colbert, it is resolved that S~e-mwell Boulevard, ste~well Place, Stemwell Point Teaberry Drive and etemwell Court in Bexley West, s~ctiua 3, clover District, be and they hereby are established a~ public And ~e it further ~e~olved, that the Virginia Depar~ent Secondary Sy~te~, 8temwelt Boulevard, beginning at existing West, Section 1, and going southwesterly 0.08 mil~ to the intersection with $t~w~ll Plau~ and StemweI1 Point, then turning and going southerly 0.12 nile to the inter~ectlon Teaberry Drive, t~en =urning and going ~ou~easterly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Stemwell Court, ~en turning and ~o~ng ~outh~rly 0.05 ~il~ to tie into axlst~ng Stemwell Boulevard, State Route number to be a~igned, B~xley West, ~temwell Boulevard and going ~outhea~t~rly 0.08 mile ~o end in a cul-de-sac; stemwell Point~ beg~nn~n~ at the with Ste~ell Boulevard ~nd going northwesterly 0.0~ mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Teaberry Drive, beginnin~ at the 0.10 mile to tie into existin~ Teaberry Drive, State Route n~ber to be assigned, Bexley West, Section 2; and Btumwull Court, beginning at the inter~ection with Stemwell Boulevard and going northeasterly 0.06 mile to mnd in a cul-de-sac. This re~umst is inclusive of the adjacen~ slope, sigh= distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of And be it further r~olv~d, thmt the Board of ~up~rvi~ors guarantees ta the Virginia DeDartment of TransDortatlon an unrestricted right-of-way of ~0' with necessary easements for cUt~, fills and drainage for all of these roads. This section of Bexley West is recorded as follows: Sa~tie~ ~. Plat Book 62, Pages 96 & 97I S~pte~her~ 1988. Vote: Unanimous This Scythe gounty environmental engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, ma~a report ie writing upon his examination of Mason Woods Drive, Mason Dale Drive, Mason Dale Place, ~aEon Dale Circle, Mamon Dale Court~ Mason Dale Terrace and Mason Dale Way in Mason Woods, Section D, Dale Distnict. Upo~ ce~ideratio~ whereof, and on ~otion of Mr. McHale~ seconded by Mr. Colbert, it is resolved that F~asoa Woods DriVe, Ma~pn Dale Drive, Maser Dale Place, Maee~..Dale circle~ Mason Dale Court, Mason Dale Terrace and Mason Dale Way in Mason Woods, Section D, Dale District, be and they ~ereny are established as public roads. And bs it further rcsulvad, that ~hu virginia Department of Transportation, be and it he~ehy is ~equeeted to take into the Secondary System, ~ason woods Drive, beginning at the northern end of existing Mason Woods Drive, State Route 4030, and going northerly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Mason Dale Drive; Mason Dale Drive, beginning at the intersection with Mason Woods Drive and going westerly 0.03 mile to the intersection with Mason Dale Place, then turning and going southwesterly 0.06 nile to end in a cul-de-sac; Again, Meson Dale Drive, beglr~ing at the intersection with Mason Woods Drive and going northeasterly 0.04 mile to the intersection wi~ Macon Dale Circle, then continuing northeasterly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Mason Dale Court, then turning amd going northerly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Manor Dale Terrace, then co,tin, lng northerly 0.05 ~ile to end at the intersection with Mason Dale Way~ ~ason Dale Place, beginning at the intersection with Mason Dale Driv~ and going northerly 0.13 ~ils to end ~n a cul-de-sac; Mason Dale circle, beginning at the intersection with Mason Dale Drive and going northerly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Mason Dale Court, beginning at the inter-int~rsmction with Mason Dale Drive and going southeasterly 0.04 mile, then turning and goin~ northeasterly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Mason Dale Terrace, beginning at the intersection with Mason Dale Drive and going easterly 0.10 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Mason Dale Way, beginning at the intersection with ~asun Dale Drive and going westerly ~.0~ mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Again, Mason Dale Wa~, ~eglnnlng at ~he ]nterseotlon with Maeo~ Dale DriYe and going easterly 0.12 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This requu~t is inelu~ivu of tho adjacunt ~lope, Eight distance, clear sane and designated virginia Department of Th~ road~ ~rvQ 1~0 lot~. ~uaranteee to the Virginia Department of Transportation an unrestricted rig~t-c£-way of ~0' with necessary easements for cut~ fills amd dfc{nags for all of these read~. 92-630 Section D. Plat Rook 5~, Page 20, A~q~st 27, 1987. Vote: Unanimous This day =he county Environmental Engineer~ in accordance with directions from thi~ Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Meadow Chase Road in Kesdom Chase, Matoaca Dimtrict. Ugom consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. HcHale, seconded by ~r. Colbert, it is resolved that Meadow Chase Road in Meadow Chase, Matoasa District, be and it hereby ~e e~tabli~hed as ~ public road. A~ld be it further resolved, that the Virginia DepartEent of Tr~nspor%u~ien, be an~ it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Meadow Chase Road~ beqi~ing at the intersection with Lake Bluff Parkway, State Route 4337, and going northerly 0.03 mile, then turnin~ and going northeasterly ~.03 mile to the intersection with itself, then continuing northeasterly 0.~4 mile, then turning an~ going northerly 0.08 ~ile, then ~ning and goin~ northwesterly 0.0Z mile to the intersection with ~ighberry Woods Lane, aighberry Wood~, Section ~, then turning and qoing westerly 0.04 miloz then turning and going ~o~th6rly 0.lo mile, then turning and going southeasterly 0.04 mile to end at the intersection with itself~ This request is inclusive o~ the adjacent slope, sight distance, clear Zun~ and designated Virgiuie Department of guarantees to the Virginia Department ~f Transportation an cuts, fills and drainage for this roa~. Deed Dock 70, Pages ~ & ~7, April 17, 1990. Vote: Unanimou~ This day the County Envire~antal Engin~e~, in accordance with directions from this Soa~d~ made report in writing upon his e~aminatien ef Roland View Terrace and Roland View Court in ~i!lcreek, Sec%ion 4, Matoaca District. seconded by Mr. Colbert, it is resolved that Roland View Terrace and Roland View Court in Millcrsek, section 4, Mat0aea District, be and they hereby are e=tab~imh~d am publi~ roads. And be it further r~molv~d, that the virginia Department of Transportatien, be and it hereby i~ requested to take into the Secondary Mystem, Roland View Terrace, beginning at the intersection with Roland view Drive, State Route 3455, and going easterly 0.07 mile to ~nd in a cul-de-sac; and Roland View Court~ beginning at the intermection with Roland View Drive, State Route 34~, and going easterly 0.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Thi~ reques~ is inclusive cf the adjacent slope, sight distance, clear zone and dssiqnated virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. And be it further resolved, that the board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an unro~triote~ right-of-way o£ SO' with necessary easements for corm, fills and drainage for all of these roads. This section of Zil!creek is recorded ae follows: Section 4. Plat Bock 63, Page 82, October 26, 1988. Vote: Uaanlmou~ This day the County Environmental Engineer, in aocordance with directions £r~m thi~ Board, made report in writing upon e~a~i~ation of Walker~ Cove Drive in Walkers Cove, Matoaca District. ~pon consideration whereof, and on motion of Hr. seconded by Mr. Colbert, it is resolved t~at Wal~er~ Cove Drive in Walkers Cove, Mateaea Dietriot, be and it hereby established a~ a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and i~ hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Walkers Cove Drive~ beginning at the inter~ectien with swist Creek Lane, city e£ Colonial Heights, and going northeasterly 0.~ mile, then turning and going northwesterly 0.O4 mile te end in a oul-de-eau. Thee recl~est i~ inola~ive of the adjacent elope, eight distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. This road serves 13 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantee~ to %he Virginia Department of Transportation an ~r~$tricted right-cf-way of 50' with n~ce~ary ~ase~e~t~ cute, fills and drainage for thio rued. Walkers Cove is recorded as follows= Plat Book 6Q, Page 1, December 31~ 1987. Vo~e: Unanimous Thim day the County ~nvironmeutal ~ngineer, in a¢oordan¢~ with dlrectlone frs~ thio Board, made report ~n writing upon his examination of $outhwick Boulevard and O1dbury Road in Buckingham, Sention 3~ Midlo=hian Dietr~ct. Upon consideration w~oreof, and on ~otion of Mr- MoHale, ·ecended by Mr. Colbert, it i~ r~olv~d that Southwick Boulevard and Oldbery Road in suckingham~ seotion 3, Midlothlan District, he and they hereby are established as And be it further resolved, that th~ Virginia Dep~rtmeet of Transportation, be and it hereby i~ requemted to take ~nto the Secondary System, Southwiek ~oulevard, beginning at existing Southwick Boulevard, State Route 1362, a~d going Northwesterly 0.05 mile to end at the intersection with Oldbury Road; and Oldbury Road, beginning at the intersection with $euthwick Boulevard and going northeasterly 0.11 nile to end in a 0al- de-sac. Again, Oldbury Road, beginning at the intersection with $outhwlok Boulevard end going southwesterly 0.06 mile, 7/Z~/92 Oldbury Road, Buckingham, Section 4. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, ~ight distance, clear zune and ~e~ignated Virginia Department Of Transportation drainage easements~ These road~ ~erue 28 lo~s~ And be it further re~olv~d, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an cuts, fill~ and drainage for all of these roads. This section of Buckingham is recorded as follo~: Section 3. Plat B0O~ 49, Page 61, June 7, 1985. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with direction~ fram this Board~ made report in writing upon ex~mlnation o~ Wyldro~e Drive and N. Otterdale Road~ Midlothian District. seconded by Mr. Colbert, it is resolved that Wyld~oge D~ive and K. Otterdal~ Road, ~idlothian District, bm and =hey hereby are e~tablished as public roads. Transportation, be and it hereby is requested %0 take into the Secondary System, Wyldrase Drive, beginning at existing Wyldrose Drive, 9tat~ R~ta 971, an~ going northerly 0.08 mile, then turning and going easterly 0.08 mile to th~ interzection with ~. otterdale Road, =h~n confirming easterly beginning at tbs intersection with Wyldrose Drive and going 0=~erdale Roa~, beginning a~ ~h~ intersection with Wyldrose Drive and going southeasterly 0,09 mil~ to en~ at existing Thi~ request i~ inclusive of the adjae~Dt slope, sight distance, clear zone and designated virginia Department of And bo it further re~olved, that the ~eard of Supervisors unrestricted right-of-way of 60' with necessary easemant~ for Dedication of Wyldro~e Driv~ and ~. Ott~rdal~ Road. Deed Book Vote: Unanimous Thi~ day the County Environmental Rnglneer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writin~ upon his e~inat~on of ~t. ~t~pheu~ Way and Michaels Ridg~ Road in Sal~bury Hills, Section 1, Midlothian seconded by ~r. CDlbert, it is resolved that St. Stephens Way and Michaels Ridge Road in Salisbury Hills, Section 1, Midlnthian District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Ds~artment Of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the secondary system~ st. stsphsos Way, beginning at the intersection with winterfield Road, State Route 714, and going mile to tie into Michaels Ridge Road, Salisbury Hills, Section This reguest is inclusive of the adjacent slops, sight distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of Transportation ~rainage easements. guarantees to the Virginia O~part~nt of Transportation an unrestricted rlght-of~way of 50' with necessary easements for cut~, fill~ and da~ainags for all of th~se roads. Thim section o£ Salisbury Hill~ is recorded a~ Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from ~his Board, ~ade rapor~ in writing upon his examination cf St. Stcpkens W~y, St. Stephens Place and Michaels Ridge Road in Salisbury Hills, Section 2, Midlathian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of M~. MeHale, seconded by M~. colbert, it ~ re~olved that St. Stephen~ Way, St. St~phen~ Place and Michaels Ridge Road in Salisbury Hills, section 2~ M~dlothian District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further rssolYed, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and i~ hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, St. S=eDhens Way, beginning at the intersection with st. stephens Pla~e and sa. stephens Way~ State Route nurd0er~ to bu a~=igned, Zali~bury ~ill~, ~ection 1~ and going ~outhwesterly 0.o9 mile to end in a st. Stephens Place, beginning at the inter~ectlon with St. Stephens Way and going nortb~esberly 0.0~ mil~ to end a~ a temporary turn-around; and Micha~l~ Ridgu Road, buglnnlng at e~isting Michaels Ridge Road~ state R~ute number to be assigned, Salisbury Hills, Section 1, ~nd going wssterly m~le to end ~n a cul-de-sac. Thio request is inclusiv~ of the adjacent slope, sight distance, clear zone and designated virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. These roads serve l? lots. And he it further resolved, that the Board of guarantees to th~ Virginia Departmen~ of Transportation an unrestri=ted right-of-way of 50' with necessary easements fe~ eut~, fills and drainage for all of ~hsse roads. This section cZ salisbury Hills is recorded am Zollows: Section 2. Pla% Boo~ ~4~ Page 52, December 19, 1988. 8.~.1~. ~3~ST~M~NT.,,,.TO MI~I~TES OF ~Y 13m 1992 on motion of Mr. ~cHale, gecond~d by Mr, Colb~rt~ the Board a~e~ded the ~inote~ of the ~ay 13, 1992 Board meeting as follow~: "0n ~otion of Mr. Warren, ~e=onded by ~r, McHale~ the Board ado~t%d t~ follo~ing r~olution: WHEREAS, the Ch~mterfi~ld County Board of Supervieor~ has reGeived roques=s Sram ~itizens to res=riot through truck traffic on Old ~undr~d Road (Route 65~) by any truck or truck and trailer er semi-tra~ler combination expect pickup or panel truckm; and ~E~A~, Genlto Road, Warbrc Road aD~ ~1i Street Road Dro~ide a r~asonable alternate route; and ~E~S~ =he Board has conducted a public hearing on the question. NOW, TN~EFORE BE IT ~SOLVED, that the Board of Sup~rvimors request~ the Virginia Department of Tran~portation to restrict through truck traffic on Old Hundred Road. Vote: Unanimous" "On motion ef Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. ~c~ale, the Board a~epted ~ £ollewing re~olu~ion: WHEREAS~ the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has received requests from cltizen~ to re~tri~t through tr~¢k traffic on Old Rundrad Road ~ by any truck or t~uck and trailer or semi-trail~r com~ination ~peot pickup or panel tr~oks; and WH~%EAS~ Geni~o Road~ Warbre Road a~d E~ll Street Read WHEREAS, the Board has conducted a public hearin~ en the question. euDe~visoro requ~uts ~he Virginia Department o~ TransDarta~ien Vote: Unanimous UTILITIES TO BRNI ~OMPONENTS AND On mo%ion of Mr. MoHalk, seconded by Mr. colbmrt, the Beard approved an application fro~ Fre~po~t T~u~t Partnership fo~ funds to ex~en~ 6,S00 L.F. ~ of 8 inch, 12 inch an~ Z0 ino~ wete~ lines a~d 1,900 L.F. ~ of 10 inch sewer lines to ~rni Comp6n~nt~ 5nd Blueprint Automation (Pro]~ct ~92-007S, Riverm Bend Industrial Park and Rivers bend Boulevard - Phase II), provided the County's share of the project does net exceed ~25~200.00 in wastewater and $139,664.00 in water, which is based on the estimated amount of taxes to be generated and repaid to the county within three (3) years and waived the requirement for Freeport ~rust Partnership ~o £urnish a Perfox~aanc~ Bond. (It is noted funds are appropriated for this project in the Fund for ~xpansions ~cr ~ccnomic Development and a copy of the application is filed with the papers of this Board.) 8.F.~4. REOUEST ~¥ ~omm~ ~. ~ND ~AYE H, ~AITLAND TO OUITCL~IM A RETAINING W~LL EASEMENT On motion of Mr. ~eHale, ~econded by ~r, Colbert, the Board authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute a ~uitcl~im deed to vacate tBe easement for the construction of a wall on property owned by George R. and Kayo H. Maitland. (It is noted a copy of the plat is field with the papers of this Board.) vote: Unanimous REQUEST TO DECL~R~ T~E ~LL LOT ~N SUBDIVISION EURPLUG ~ROPE~TY AND OFFER FOR On motion cf ~r. ~¢Hala~ seconded by Mr. Colbert! the Board declared the Well Lot in Lunswood Subdivision, located in Bermuda ~agistsrial District, surplus property and, in keeping wfth County policy, dlrect~d th~ Purchasing Department to offer the parcel for sale for sealed bids. (It is noted an 8 foot easemen~ in ~he rear of the lot will be retained and a ~opy of the plat is filed with the papers of thi~ on an emergency ba~i~ an~ e~sroise immediate right of entry asclulelticn of thm undivided on~ half in~erest in a Z0 foot the Bun Air Waterline Ruhabilitation Project, which is necessary to improve the service and ~eliability of the publio waterlines in Bun Air, and authorized the County Administrator to notify the owner by oe~tified mail on J~ly 23, 1992 of the County~ intention to take possession of the easement. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with th= papers of this Vot~: Unanimous authorized the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain on an emergency basi~ ~nd exercise i~mediate right of eat. fy pursuant to section 15.1L238.1 of the code of Virginia fo~ the acquisition of a 20 foot water easemenU from the heirs of Roy T. Home, Tax Map ~17-4(1)6~ for the construction of the Ben Air Wat~rlin~ Rehabilitation Project, which is necessary improve the ~ervlce an~ ~aliability of the publi~ waterlines in Boa Air. (It is noted staff will continue to at=empt to locate the heirs to neqotiate a settlement and a copy of plat is filed with ~he ~aDero c~ ~his Board.) O.R.17.a. ~LONG CaD B~RMUDA HUNDRED ROAD EHARPK On motion of Mr. Mc~ale, seconded by Mr. Colberti the Board accepted, on behalf of th~ County~ the conveyamce of a parcel of land containing 0.1&36 acre along Old Bermuda Hundred Road from Charloa~ E. Sherle and au~hcrised the county Ad~i~ist~ato~ to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a copy of the plat i~ file~ wi~h ~he papers of thio Board.) Vote: Unanimou~ 8,~,17,b, OF A 1.78 ACRR B~RCES..OF L~ND FROM VIRGINTa L.~.D, ~O~Pi%NY on motion of Mr. McHale, ss~onded by Mr. Colbert~ the Board accepted, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a parcel of land oontaining 1,78 acres from virginia L,A.D. Company for road widening and a~thorized the County Adninistrator to execute the necessary deed. {It is noted this conveyance is a Planning requirement for the Old Stage Industrial Center Development and a copy of the plat is filed with the pepero of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous 8.F.L?.=. ~LON~ U.S. ROUTE i FROK JBH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP on motion of l~. MoRale, seconded by M~. Colbert, the Board accepted, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a parcel of lend Containing 0.1234 ucr~ along U.S. Route 1 from JBM Limited Partnership and authorized %he County Administrator to execute the neceeeary deed. (It is noted a copy of the plat Vote: Unanimous FOR THE PURCIf-A~E OF LAND FOR MICHAUX CREEK PU~P BTATION FROM SUE P, R0$EFSKY On motion of ~r. ~cHale, ~eQended by F~.~'. colbert, the Board approved th~ purchase of a 1.506 acre parcel of land and appurtenant easements lying west of Wintersield Road from sue P. Rosefsky, in the amount of $30,0~0, for ~ichau× Creek ~ump Station and authorized the county Administrator ts execute the necessary contract and deed contingent upon approval of the 92-637 7/22/92 ..................... L ..... I ., L_ .... L this site and easements have been previously appropriated and are available through the James River Trunk Sewer Project, P~ase II end a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous approved a bingo/raffle permit for The Central Virginia vote: Unanimous After brief di~aun~ion, on motion of Mr. NcHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board rescinded the streetlight ins=allation ¢ovt of $3,657 previously approved at tho June 2~, 1992 Board meeting far the in~tallatlon ef a ~treet light at the inter~ectiun of Red Ch=stnut Court ~nd Red Chestnut Drive in the Nuttroo Subdivision located in the Clover M~ll Magi~terlel Dis%riot due ts concerns expressed froa affected land owner~ on Lots 60 and ~1 of the subdivision. (It i~ noted said allocated funds will b~ r~turned to th~ Clover ~111 District s~reetliqht Account.) 8.G. APPOINTMENTS O CO~4MISSION ON SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Mr. Ramsay stated staff had received the re~ignatlon of T~eodo~e L. Chandler, Esquire, representing the Chesterfield Bu~nes~ Council, ~ervin~ on t~ Co~u~i~ien on soils and Foundations and th~ Business Council was recommendinq t~e appointment of Robert L. Dolbeare, Esquire, as their representative on the Commission. on motion of Mr. Colbert, sacon~e~ by Mr. McHale, the Board accepted the re~ignatlen of Theodore L. Chandler, representing the C~esterfield Business Council, Co~ission on soils and Foundation and nominated Robert L. Dolbearu, ~=~ir=, representing the Che=t~rfiel~ council, to serve on the commission on soils and Foundations, who~e formal appointment w~ll be ~o~nid~r~O at the August ~4, 199~ Vote: Unanimous SUPERVISORS On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board sppointe~ ~rs. Theresa ~. ~it=~ as clerk %o the ~oard of supervisors and ~s. Joy D. Beava~ a~ Deputy Cler~ to the ~ar~ o~ ~p~rvissr$ for signature purposes in th~ ab~nc~ Qf the Clerk. (It is noted th~ Cl~rk'~ and Deputy Clark's 92-638 7/22/92 salaries and ~une£ite will be determined =brough the County's personnel practices. ) .TR~T COR~ORHTION ~r. ~amm~r ~tated staff was recommending the purchase, at a prlee not to e~cssd $~90,000, of Castlewood ~i~toric ~ouee from the Re,elation Trust Corporation. He further state~ staff was recommending the appropriatiom of $915,000 to cover the cost o£ the house, the closing costs and the cost of necessary painting r~pai~s. T~ere wa~ b=ief discussion relativ~ to the eoet of the right- of-way on Krause Road and Route lO. F~r. Ha~mer note~ th=t in a "worst case" scenario the right-of- w~y v~lue for road improvements of the Route 10 frontage wam $1O0,0O0. On mo~ion of Mr. Warrenz esconded by M~, McHalc, the Board authorize~ tke County A~ministretor to negotiate and approve m purchase centrs~t te aoq~ire Ca~tlcwood from the Resolution X~ust Corporm~ion, for use o~ o~ioee of a County department c~ tl%e offioas Of the Credit union, at a price not to exceed $~0,OQ0. The Board aDDropriate~ $3~,0~0 to include purchase a~d painting of the building. (It is noted that f~ndlng for thin pure.bane is available £:om ~e ~eneral Fund Capital Reserve.) Vote: unanimous ~r. Warren noted the curr~nt asssssn~nt of the property was $580,00~ and tbs ~ounty would be purchasing it at a much lewe~ cost of $~90,000. 9. DBFERRBD ITEHS 9cA. HEALT~ CE~ER COMMISSION TPJ~NSITION CONHTTTBB ~. Mssdan stated the Board at its meeting on June ~4~ ~99~ had no~inated ~v~ral p~r~ons iDclu4ing Dr. =dwar~ C. ~eple and Mr. Michael Worthington to serve on the Health Center Commission Transition committee bu~ since that tine, s=a££ had bee~ advised t~ey Would be unable to serv~ on the Co~ittee. Discussion, conunents and questions en~ued relative t~ those persons who had been p~eviously numinetc~ a% the Boar~ men%lng on June Z4, 19~ and the structure of tbs Co~m~ittee. Mr. Daniel no,inured Ms. Diane Roberts to serve on the Health Cea%er Commission Transition Committee. After brief discussion, on motion of Mr. Barber~ seconded by Mr, McMale, th~ Board appointed ~r, Robert Eaplan, Mr. Dominic Pulse, Mr. Wayne Edmonds and Ms. Beverley Downey to serve On the ~ealth Center Conmission Transition Committee, whose terms are effective immediately and will be at the pleasure of the Board. Vote: Unanimous Mx. Barber made a motion, seconded by Mr. Colbert, Sot the Board to nominate Mr. Joseph Barton, Mr. Thomas Cnllnhan, ~r. ~reston Holmes, ~r. Re,end Pa~erson and ~s. Diane Roberts ~o ~erve on ~ ~ealth C~nter Commission Transition Comities, 92-639 7/~/9~ whose formal appolntmen%~ will be considered at the A~gTlet 26, 1929 meeting, Mr. McHale requested an amendment to the ~otion for the Board to suspend its rules to allew simultaneous nomination/ appointment at this time of tho~e member~ to serve on the Health Center Commission Tran~itlon ce~i~ee. on me,ion of Mr. M~HaI~ ~ecende~ by ~4r. Barber~ the ~oard mu=pended its rules to allow simultaneous nomination/ appointment a% t~i$ time of members =o serve on the M~al~h Center Commin~ion Transition Co~itt~. Vot~: n~inated/appointed Mr. Joseph Barton, ~. Thoma~ Callahan, ~. Preston ~olm~, Mr. Ra~on~ Patter=on and Ms. Diana Roberts to serve on the Health Center co~ission Transition co~it=ee, at ~e p!ea~ure of the Board. Vote: 9.B. ~ITI~ENS TP~NSPORTATION ADVISORY COM2~ITTEE deferred considera=ion of nominations for two alternate appointment~ to serve on t~e citizen T~ansDortation Advisory committee until AUgUe~ Vote: Unanimous There were no Hearings of citizens on Unscheduled Matters or Claims scheduled at this time. 11. RE~ORT~ On motion of Wt. ~cBale, seconded by Mr. B~rber, the Board accepted the following reports submitted by t~e County Administrator: }fr. Ramsey presented tbs Board with a report on t_he developer water amd ~ewer oontract~ executed by the County Administrator. Mr. Ram=ey pre~ented the Board with a gtatug report on the General .F~d Balance; Reserve for Future capita~ Projects: bistrict Road an4 Street Light ~und~; an~ Leaee'Purchase~. Mr. Rameey stated the virginia Department of Transportation has fe~ally notified th= County of th~ ucceptance of the following roads into the State Secondary System: Route 4201 (B~oad~each D~iva) - F~om 0.13 mile ~oute ~20~ (offshore Drive} - From 0.11 ~ile Sout~ Route 4206 to Route a201 0.08 Route 4~07 (Breaker Point Lane) - From Rout~ 92-640 Route 4208 (~reaker Pointe Cour=)- From 0.05 mile North Route 4207 to 0.10 mile Southwest Route 4~07 BUF©P~D OA/fS - S~CTION A - Route 877 (Buford oaks Drive) - Fro~ Route 678 to Route 3421 Rout~ 3420 (Buford Oaks Lane) - from Route 877 to 0.08 mile ~outh Route 877 Route 3421 (Buf~rd Oaks Circle) - From Route 877 =o 0.04 milm South Route 877 0.04 Mi D~UI~ - SECTION 5 Route ~70~ (~pott~d Coat Lane) - From Route 4713 =o Route 4709 0.04 Mi ROUte 4709 (Spotted Coat Court) - From 0.07 mile West Route 4708 to 0.08 mile ~ast Route 4708 0.15 Mi Route 4744 (Key Door Drive) - From 0.02 m~le South- we~t Route 4743 to 0.la nile $outhwee~ Route 4743 Route 474~ (Key Deer Circle) - From 0.11 mile Route 461~ (Windy Ridge Road) - From Rout~ 4~7 Route 4616 (Windy Ridge Drive) - From Route 4615 to 0.23 mile Northeast Rout~ 46~6 0.23 Route 4617 (Windy Ridge Terrace) - Fro~ Route Route 4615 (Windy Ridge Road) - ~rom Q.04 mile Worth- Route 4617 (wimdy Ridge Terrace) - From 0.04 mile Southwest Route 461~ to Route 461~ 0.13 Mi Route 4618 (Windy Ridge Court) - From Route 4815 to Route 3501 (walton BluI~ Parkway) - £rom Route Vote: Unanimous 18. ADJOURNMENT Board to meet at 2:00 p.m, on Augus~ 26, 1992 for their regularly mcheduled meeting~ On motion of Mr. McHolo, seconded by ~r. Colbert, the Board adjourned at 1~:00 midnight until August $, 1992 for an executive session nt 5:00 p.m. and a dinner meeting with the 92-641 7/28/92 Building, Room 502. Vote: Unanimous Lane D. Ram~y ~' County Administrator 6~00 p-m- to th~ Administration 7/Z~/92