Loading...
02-24-93 MeetingBeAirD Off BUPE~VISORB Flhru~ry 24, 1993 ~. Arthur S. Warren, Chairman YLr. ~d~ard ~. ~arb~r, Vice Ch~m. Mr. Whaley M. C~lbert ~. ~arry G. Daniel ~. J. L. Mchale, III Co~ty Administrator staff ~n A~tendance: Ns. Barbara Bennett~ Office on Youth Mr. Hike Cale, School Administration Housln~ Ms. Mmrilyn E. Cole, Asst. to CC. Admln. Mr. Michael Golden, Dir. Mr. Bradford S. Ham~er, Deputy Ce. A~min., Dir.~ Planning Dir., Purchasin~ Ms. Hazy Leu Lyle, Dir., Accounting Deputy Co. A~mln., F~. R. Jo~ ~cCracken, Di~., T~ansportation ~. Richard M. McElrish, Dir., News & Public Dr. William Nelson, D~., ~ea]th col. J. E. Pittman, ~s. Theresa M. Pitts, Clerk to the Board ~. Davi~ A. Reeve, Dir., Juvenile De%enrich Home Mr. D. L. Rose, Animal Control Dim., Budget & Management ~. M. D. S~i~, Jr., Deputy Co. Admin. for Co~. Dev. Dir., Libraries Mr. David H. Welchon~, Dir., UUilities Grants CDBG office Mr. Warren called the re~stlarly scheduled meeting to order at 3:10 93-115 ~/~4/93 Om motion of Iir. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Ms,ale, Tile Board approved the minutes of February 10, 1993, as amended. Hampton, County Administrator of Prince Edward County, 3. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Barber stated the topic of discussion for his next "First Monday" meeting would be budget issues and the topic of discussion for Aprills meeting would be economic development. He oxp~essed appreciation to everyone for t/~ei~ thoughtfulness during the recent death Of his ~ather, M/e~ Daniel stated he attended the Capital Regio~ Airport Commission meeting and the Uirqinis ASsociation of COn.ties/virginia Municipal League Legislative Day which was Well at~sndad and very s~¢¢es~ful. Mr. Ko, ale stated he attended the African American Musical Heritage Presentation at Lloyd C. Bird High School an~ ~tated he felt the County shoul~ support this function if the opportunity arises next year. Mr. Warren stated hi~ monthly constituents meeting wo~l~ be held on March ~, 1~3, an~ t_he topic of di~cu~slon would be transportation and budget issues, ~e further sta=e~ tho Reqional suni% Would be hel~ March 18 - 20, 199~ and would include elected officials from the city of R~ch~ood and the Counties of Hanover and Cheeterflel~. He noted the ~ummit would provide an opportunity for the localities to continue to improve relations and promote regional cooperation. 4. ~EQUEST~ TO~.~O~ACTION. EMEP~NO¥~DDTT/ONS..0R IN THE BR~ o~ ~RESENTATIQN 0~1 motion of ~, ~cHale~ seconded ~ ~- Barb~ ~e Board added It~ 5.B., Work session on the St~dmrd$ for Private Wells and Public wate~ ~an~ions Policy to follew I~em 5., Work ~s$ion on ~e C~uni~ Developm~t Block Grant Dr~ram; Cunv~ya~ce o~ a Lease of Real property at the Iron Brid~e Soft~all Complex for Operation of a FOOd Concmm~ion by t~ Che~t~rSf~l~ SOftball Association Acceptance of u Parcel Of Lan~ Along south Providen~ Road and E]~a~t Road from ~ily ~ul un~ Q. $, Q~se~rry; replaced item 7.C.13., Re,est for Bin~o/~ffle Petites and ~o~ed Ite~ 6.B., Adoption of a Cable Franchise R~wal ~ch~dule, Consideration of Hiring a ~ble Consultant, a~d Con~deratlon of Condnc=i~g a Ca,la s~scri~er survey to i~edlately foll~ this item. Vote: tT'nanimou~ ' i ~C~ID~TIO~ OF CO~UCTI~ ~ ~BLE 5UBS~I~VEY ~. Mike Chernau, ~i~tunt County Attorney, stated adoption of a cable franGhi~e r~newal schedule, consid~ation of hiring a cable consultant and consideration of conducting a cable February 10, 1993. He stated the Cable co~ittee met and unanimously voted in fair of staff's re~endatlon to hire a cable consultant subject to certain conditions and adoption Co~ittee reco~ended the County decline to accept ~torur'z off~ to pay for a s~scri~r su~ey as ~ey fslt ~ufficient input from oi~i~ens was reoeive~ ~urln9 ~e ~ubllc hearings held in each Mr, Daniel stated the reco~endation wo~ld not p~eclude Storer Cable from conducting ~ir o~ su~s~ib~ s~vey. On mo=ion of Mr. Danlel, ~econded ~ Mr. Colb~r=, ~ ~oard au~orized %he hiring of a c~ble consultant subject to the following con~ition~: ~a consultan= be hired for a limited scope of services; the cost of the consultant not exceed oo~ttee; and ~e contract provide for a adopted ~e following c~ble franchi~ renewal schedule: ~a~ · - ~roh 1 co~ittee and staff present Boardwlth fran~i~e a~eeme~t and ordinance ~en~ents. Co~ittee and ~taff inco~orate co~ent~ of Board into franohime agr~ent and ordinano~ amendments. proposal showin~ how it will comply with requirements of agreement an~ ordinance. Nov~er 2~ Board holds public hearing to grant or deny CCI's franchise. Vote: Unanimous [It i= noted a copy of ~e Cable CoDsultant R~t for Proposal is filed with the papers of thi~ Board.) ~. Warren e~r~sed apDreoi~t~on to the C~ittee, ~taff, and Storer Cable for their ~ffort~. ~. R~sey introduced Mm. Susan Wieniecki, the new reporter assiqned ~ ~e Rio~ond Times-Dispatch to cover chesterfield County, and welcomed her to ~e county. 93-117 ~/24/93 ................. M__,ll I...--Li ........ [I ........... i L ................. ~.~ ~O~'U'~Z'~Z DEV~OPM~.NT BLO~K GRANT Community D~v~lo~t Uloc~ G~an~ (CDBG) Pr~ram inclu~ing~e improvements; housing r~hab~litatlon; ~e mortgage do~-pa~n~ School; the Ett~i~ Co--unity Center; =he Bens~ey Fire S~ation pro~a~; =~ u~ilities connection fund; d~olltion of vacant ~ildings; the ~ttriC~ overlay zoning; and~ITAS assistance. Ke ~en revlewe~ ~h~ bre~do~ of costs for the Priam; allocation. He ~tat~d an a~plication form and ~id~llnes ~ave criteria to assess the project~ that ara su~itted. He ~n revi~ed the rat~n~ criteria ~nclud~ng per==ntag~ of benefit co~unity'~ top priorities; ~ ~o~t of non-CDBG funds which ~e proj~ct~ inve~ent return as pro~r~ income; perfo~ance of the agency ~u~mi=~ing ~he re~s~; an~ the self ~ufficiency. He noted a review co~itt~e Woul~ consld~ing the projects for ~e~ y~'~ Pr~rsm. Ke then reviewed ~e C~unity Inve~ent Pool Propect wRieR woulO blen~ block gran~ zunds with private b~ fundm to mak~ loanm Davi~ corridor or ~trick an~ ~e =~n=a~ive s=hedule for 1993. Thera was brief discussion r~lative %o ~un~ funds being use~ residents and businass o~r~ when a~plyln~ to ~he Progr~. $TANDARD~ FO~ PRI~ATE ~LLS ~ND ~U~LIC WATER EXTENS~O~ POLI~¥ Dr. Nelson pressnted an overview of th~ County Heal~ D=~a~tment's ~fdelines for private well~ and reviewed ~e o~rent policy on e~en~ion of public water in developing area~ wells fo~ private ho~e~, non-co.unity public water wells, and co~ity public wells; ~e re~lutions regarding the ~se of wells; and additional County ~e~i=e~ent~. H~ then ~eviewed yields for a ~ropo~ed private hom~ well in a ~ivisio~. Discussion, co~ents, and~es%ions ensued r=lative to artesian wat~ supply for deep wells. $. DSFEP~.~D IT,S 6.A. ~ET DATE POP PUBLIC ff~%RING TO CONSIDER ~N ORDINANCE TO O~ THE COU~T~ Mr. Micas s=ate~ consideration of setting a date for a public hearing to consider nn ordinance relating to the restriction of dog~ in certain portions of the county was deferred from the Board meeting on January ~7, 1993 in order to obtain further existing and proposed no-burn areas and stated the Boa~d oo~l~ ~e£1ne other lines if adopting leash areas in eertai~ portions of the County. He noted if the Board decides to advertise the ordinance, the County san only contrast the Sdve~tisxdurea and ~ay not expand that area. Discussion, comments, and 9~es%ions ensued as to whether there were subdivisions in the County, through their restrictive covenants, that regulate dogs~ whether elvie associations enforce those tyl~es of covenants; and the County enforcing County regulations in areas governed by restrictive covenants. Mr. Warren stated he felt t~/ere was interest by some Board me, ers to refer the ordinan'=~ to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. F~. Daniel Concurred with Mr. Wa~en and ~tated be would support referring the ordinance to the Planning commission. He further stated the Board wnuld be limited to discussing only what is advertised and, therefore, h~ felt the ~lanning Commission should consider adYerti~inq th~ ordinance County- Mr. Danlel then mad~ a motion, ~eoondedby~r. Warren~ for the Board to refer to the ?ta~ling Commission, for their review and recommendation, an ordinance =e amend the Code of the County of (Ahe~terfield, 1978, us amended, by amending and Section S-6 relating ~e the restriction of dogs in certain portions of th~ County and for the Planning Coca, lesion to be directed ~o a~vertlee the Ordinance uniformly County-wide. Mr. Bar'er stated in 1988,. the ordinance had been referred to the Planning CommissiOn and.he felt the ~ublic bearing should be ~e: by t_he Board rather,than again referring the ordinance to the Planning Commission.' Ne further ~tated he felt referring the ordinance to t~e Planning Commission would delay the timeframe in which the Board could consider the Dis~u~sion, comments, and questions ensued relative to the manner in which to advertise the ordinance and the timeframe in which the ordinance ce=ld be considered by the Board and whether it was approp~iate to refer the ordinance to the Planning Commission since the ordinance had previously been considered in 1988 by the Commission. F~r. Daniel stated he felt the ordinance should be referred to the ~lanning commissie~ to allow for a ~ore broad-based, up-to- ~ate ~eview of the issue. ~e further stated he felt the Planning ¢o~ission woul~ bring a proposal fel~wazd that the Board could consider in an expeditious ~anne~r. Mr. Colbert stated he felt the timeframe in whloh the'ordinance cou]~ b~ considered by the PlaD~ihg Commission and the Board Was reasonable. Mr. Warren ~tate~ he supported referring the ordinance to the Planning Ccmmlssion and indicated d~ to the upcoming budget process, the ordinance may. net receive the necessary foc~e at this time. 'He further stated he felt referring the ordinance to the Planning Co~isslon would provide sufficient input from the public hearing~ and appropriate .reco~mendstlons fro~ the Planning Commission. Mr~ ~arber offered an a~e~dmen~ ts th~ motion for the ordinance to be double advertised in an effort to expedite the ordinance being considered by the Board after t~e public hearing is held by the Planning Commission. Mr. Daniel accepted the amen~l~ent to the motion. 93-119 ~/~4/93 Hr. Warren called for the vot~ on the motion made by Mr. Daniel, seconded by him, for the Board to refer =o the Planning Commission, for their review and recommendation, un ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending and teens=ting section 5-~ relating to the restriction of dogs in certain portio~s of the County; for the Planning Co~ission to be directed to advertise the ordinance ucifOZl~ly County-wide; and for the ordinance to be do%iDle advertised. ~.C. APPOINTMENTS ~tr. Colbert nominated)Ir. Frasier W. BrlcJchouse, representing ~atoaca District, to serve on the Mealth Center Commlmaion. Mr. McHale nominated Mr. Wayne E(~monda, representing Bermuda District, to serve on the Health Center Commission. Mr. Daniel stated he would defer nomination= of a member, repreaen~i~g D~le District, to sol-ye on th~ ~ealth center ~mmiseion un=il March 10, 1993. On motion Of Mr. MoHale, seuunde~ by Mr. colbert, the Roard suspended its rules at this time to allow simultaneous nomination/appointment of members to aarvo on the Health Center vote: Unanimous On motion of I(r. McHale, ~eeon4ed by Mr. Colbert, the Board simultaneously nominated/appo~ntsd the following persona to serve on the Health Center Commission whose terms are effectively i~ediately and will expire a~ ~nd~cated: Mr. Frasier W. Briekhouee Hr. Dominic J. PUlse Dr. William ~elson MS. Linda shaw DIariST BermUda 6-30-97 clover Hill Matoaca 6-30-95 Midlothian 6-30-96 (Advisory) 6-30-94 (Advisory) 6~30-95 And, further, the Board deferred consideration of nominations of a member, representing Dale ~imtriet, to serve on the Eealth Ce~te~ CO~a~i~sion ttntil March i~ 1993. ~.b. BTRBETLZCH~ IN~T~LL~TZON O0ST ~PPROVAL On motion of Mr. Warren, sooondad by Mr. Daniel, tho ~oard deferred consideration of a streetlight in~tallation cost approval for the uul-ds-sa¢ e£ Pecan T~rrace, in Clover Hill MagiGte~ial Diet=itt, until August 25, 1993. Hr. McHale =×cu~ed himself from thc muuting. 93-120 2/24/93 After brief discussion on motion of Mr. Daniel, ~e¢oDde0 Colbert, the Board suspended its rules at this time to allow simultaneous nomination/appoint~ent/reappointment of members to serve 0n the ~istorio Preservation colitis, Ayes: Mr. Warr~, ~. Barber, ~. Colb~rt~ and ~. Daniel. On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~econ~e~ by ~. colbert, ~he Boa~d simultaneously nominated/appointed/reappointed ~e following per~ons %o serve on ~e Hi~torlc Preserva%ion co~ittee, whoso te~s will be effective March 12, 1993 and expire March 1997: ~, Steve Bryant ~. Jim Danielm ~. J. Carl Norris ~. Bryan Walker ~. G.W. "Skip" wallace ~. Doug Woolfolk ~. Warren~ ~. Bar~ert ~. Colbert, and Mr. Daniel. ~. McHale returned ~o ~e meeting. 7.B. 8TR~ETLII~:HT XNST[q/,I~TION OOST ~RO%rALB Mr. Colbert, the Board approved the following ot~eetlight * Coalfield Road, at entrance to/exit to Watkins Elementary School; relocate oxistinglight. Cost to relocate light: $Z,958.00 * Interior entrance to Monacan High School parking lot Cost to install light: $4,060,00 (It is noted said funds will come fr~m the Central District Strse~ligh~ Fund.) ~love~ Hill Dists~¢t * Intersection of Elkhardt'Road and Meadow Farms Drive Co~t to in=tall llght: $18~.00 (It is noted =aid f~d~ will como from tho Clover Hill 8treetligh~ District ~nd.) Matoacm District * Cul-de-sac cf Colonnade Drive Cost to install light~ $1,OS0.OO (It is noted maid funds will ¢O~e from the Vote: Unanimous Dale District 93-121 On ~otion of ~r. Colbe=t, seconded by F~r. Daniel, the Board appropriated $28,1~6 of County Utilities Department funds to the Alberta E. Smith Elsmsntary SChool l~oject in the School c~pit=l improvements Program ~und to re-route a waterline along Bailey Bridge Road and increase the pipe size to a sixteen-inch llne. ?.C,4, ~WARD OF CONTRACT TO L~FOON PNTERSEN ABBOCZATES ~OR HOUSIN~ ~H~BILIT~TION ~0NBU~TANT S~RVICEG On motion of Mr. Colbert, seoondo~ by Mr. Daniel, the board authorized the County Administrator to execute a contract with Laffson Paterson Associatem, in the amount cf approximately $25,000 per year on =n hously basiS, to provide housing rehabilitation consultant services, subject ~o a~roval as to form by the County Attorney. (It is noted implementation of the Housing Rehabilitation mrogram is £unded through the Co~/lity ~evelopment Block Grant Program.) Vote: U~ani~o~s on motion of Mr. Colbert, ~ecended by F~. Daniel, the Board authorized the Libra=y Department to apply for $50,700 in grant f~mds f~om the State Library and to appropriate s~eh funds, if approved, which funds will ~usa~ for the purchase of library equipment -- CD-ROM public library cetalo~ atations at six ~chool locations and three library locations. (It is note~ maintenance costs of equipment will b e covered by the grant for the first full year and w~ll he absorbed into Schcc1 and Cnunty Library budgets for following years-) Vote: Unanimous ?.C. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR CO~TY ~DMINISTI~TOR TO APPLY On motion of ~. Colbert~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, ~e Board au~orizad the County A~ministrator to apply ~or ~e Youth Center Diversion Grant, in the amount of $65,O0~ for the first year from the Department oZ Crlmlnal Justice au~orized one ca~e-manag~ po~itlon; and ~e appropriation of grant fun4s, if ap~roved. (~ is note4, if app=oved, the~ant can b~ fully f~ded fo~ t~ee years by the Depar~ent of Criminal Justice Servi=es ~ inolu~ any administrative costs temporary basim with the und~standing ~91o~ent may funds a~e no lon~ 0n motion of Mr. colbert, ~ec0nded by Mr~ Daniel, the Board a¢oepte~, on behalf of the County, the oo~veya~ce of par¢~l~ of l~d containing 15.26 acres, more o~ le~, f~om Reeds ~nding A~ini~trator to execute the neoessa~ deed. Vote: UnanimO~ · O/N__~B~._Q~..THE.~TIL~?IE9 DE~RTME~T ~ONOMZC Du¥~OPMENT DEP~ BXT~BZON POLI~ Om motion of ~. Colbert, m~ccnded b~ Mr. Daniel, ~e Board redirect for repa~ent of infrastructure improvement funds for Ruffln M~11 Indu~trlal Park/Ro~lyn Fa~Co~oration for use Of ~h~ Utili~ie~ Depar~t E~o~o~i~ D~velo~e~ D~partm~nt Vote; ~nanimou~ on motion o£ Mr. Colbert, aeccnded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following resolntiom: W~E~EAS, the improvement Of Rebieus Road, from Huguenot from Rob~ou~ Road to ~ugu~not Road. are include~ in the Secondary Road Six Year I~provement Plan fe~ chesterfield County adopted bythe Board of ~upervisors on Hay ~3, ~99~; and W~E~EAS, the improvements to Robious Roa~ and Cranbeck Road are consistent with the Chezterfield County Thoroud~fa~ Plan adapted by the Beard of Supervisors; and W~ER~$, the virginia Department o~ TransDartation [VDOT} improvements. widening of Robious Rued and re¢onstruot~sn of Cranbec,k Road. to incorporate the following modifica~ion~ in~o th~ proposed Landscaping be provided on Robisus Road. sidewalk~ be ~r0vidad on both sides of Robious Road for the entire l~ngth of the project. The drainage ditch east of Huguenot Park passing 93-113 ~/2~/93 ]I:~IL I .IL~ I,I : L. . DEPARTME~ OF TRANSPORT~TION"B 1993-9~_~RIM;u~Y 0n motion o~ ~. Col~rt, seconded by ~. Daniel, the Bo=rd regarding Ch~terfiel4'~ prlma~ and interstate road co~st~otion meeds. (It is noted a copy of th~ Highway~oject Priority LUst is filed wi~ ~e papers of this ~oard.) ?.~.11..AW~R~_O~_~ONTR~CT TO AI;DOGGS FOR PROFE~SI~%L B/~OHITEOTu~L~ND~LA/~Hi~ DE~I~N 5~V~¢~ ~O~E~T~ On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by ~. Daniel, the Board authorized ~ co~ty A~inistrator to award a. contract to AI/~o~s, in the amount of $4S,000, for professional architect~rat a~ planning de~i~n ~vices to ~onduct Phase I of the Chester V~lla~e Area De~i~ Study (the area nor~ of Route 10 and ~urrounding proposed Centre street e~ended.) Vote: ~animou~ 7.~.1~. REOUEST5 ~OR BINGOIP~m. FF~E On motion OS Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Daniel, th~ Board approved bingo/raffle perm~t~ for the following organization~ for calendar year 1993: ORgaNIZATION ~YPE Rocky Mo~nta~n Elk Foundation Manchester High School Choral ~osster Raffle Chesterfield Lions Club Raffle Vote: Unanlmou~ ?.~,14. ~TATE RO~D A~EPTAN~E This day the County 1nvirommental 1ngineer, in accordance with dlreotisne from this ~sard, made report in writing u~en hie examination of Yellowleaf Drive in Kilmar, Section C, Dale Upon consideration whereof~ and on 'motion of Mr. ~elbert, e~oondedbyMr. Daniel, it is re~olved that Yetlowleaf Drive in Hilmer, section C~ Dale District~ be and it hereby is And be it further re~olved, that the'Virginia Oepartment of Transportation, be and ~t hereby ~s requested to take into the S~condary System, Yellowl~mf Drlv~, ~ginnlng at ~xisting T~llowleaf Drive~ State Route 3287~ a~d going ~aEterly 0.03 ail~ to ~ in ~ cul-de-sac. ~i~ request is inolusive of ~ adjacent slope, ~ight distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Depar~ent of Tran~po~a=ion ~ainage easements. 93-124 2124/93 And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees Ko the virginia Department of Transportation an u~restricted right-of-way of 50' with necessary ea~ents for This section of Hilmar is recorded as follows: section C. Plat Book 76, Page 41, septembe~ 5, 1991. Vote: Unanimous This day the County ~nvironmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Spring Trace Drive, Spring Trace Court and Holly ~k Drive in SprlngTrace, Section E, and Dedication of Spring Trace Drlvs and' a Portion of Holly View Parkway, Sateena District. upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. colbert, seconded by Mr. Deniel~ it is resolved that Spring Trace Drive, spring Trace Court and Holly Bark Drive in spring Trace, section E, and Dedication of Spring Trace Drive and a Portion of Holly View Parkway, Sateena District, be and they hera~y ara ~stablished as public roads. And be it further resolved, that ~he Virginia Department of Transpertation, be and i~ hereby is re~uestmd to take ~nto the Secondary System, Spring Trace Drive, beginning at the inte~rzection with Pointer Ridge Read, State Route 4719, and going ~a~t~rly O.l~ mile to end at propc~e~ Spring Trace Drive; spring Trace court, beginning at the intersection with Sp~ing Trace Drive, State route number to be assigned, a~d going southeasterly 0.04 ~ile to end in ~ cul-de-sac; and Holly Bark Drive, beginning at the intersection with Spring Trace Drive, State route number to .be assigned, and going northerly O.lS mile to end in a temporary turnaround. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance, clear zone and designated virginia Department ef Transportation drainage easements. These roads serve 31 lots. And be i% further re$olve~, that the Board of supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an unrestricted right-of-way of 50' with necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage for all of these roads. This =action of Spring Trac~ ia recorded as follows: Section E. Plat Book 72, Pages 4~ & 45, August ~l, ~990. Dedication of Spring Trace Drive and a Portion of Nolly V~ew Parkway. Plat Book 65, Page 52, March 6, 1989. Vote~ Unanimous Thlm day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with dirmctions frO~ this Boa~d, made repez~t in writing upon ~is examination or spring Trace Drive and chateaugay Lane in spring Tr~e, Sectio~ F, nnd Dedication of Spr~ng Trace Drive and ~ Portion of Holly View Parkway, Matoacs District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of M~. Colbert, se¢cnded byKr. Daniel, i= i~ resolved that S~rlng Trace Drive and Chateaugay Lane in Spring Trace, Section F, and Dedication of Spring Trace Drive and a Portion of Holly View Parkway, Matouca District, be and they hereby are established as public And be it further resolvedt that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take inter he Secondary System, Spring Trace Drive, beginning at sp~ng Trace Drive, state route number to be assignS, and going easterly 0.08 mile to end at proposed Spring Trace Drive, Deer Run, Section 8; and chateaugay Lane, beginning aD inter-section with Spring Trace Drive, State route number ts be a~igned, and going northwesterly Q.86 mile ~o tie into C~ateaugay Lane, beginning Traoe Drive, state route nu~er to bm a~mlgn~d, and going xou~euste=ly 0.13 mile to ~d in a oul-de-sao. Thi~ ~e~t ~s inclusive of the adjacent slop~, sight d~stan=~, clear zone and designated Virginia D~partment of unrestricted right-of-way of 50' with necessary easements for ~outheasterly section of Chat~augay Lane which ~as a 40' right- of-way. S~tion F. Plat Book 75, Pag~ 49, ~ay 14~ 1991. Dedication of sp~ing Trace Drive and a Portio~ of ~olly View Parkway. Plat Rook 65, Page 52, Marc~ 6, 1989. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordanse with directions from this Roard, made report in writing upon his examination of Kuguenot Rundred Road in H~9~e~ot Bundred, Midlothlan District. Upon consideration whereof~ and on motion of Fir. seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Huguenot Rundred Road in Huguenot Humdred, Midlot3aian District, be and it And b~ it f~tber r~o~v~d, ~at the Virginia Department of T~an~portation, ~ and it here~ is re~ested to tak~ into the intersection with Ruguenot Springm Road, State Route 607, and going northwesterly 0.0~ mile to tie into proposed This request i~ inclusive of the adjacent slope, ~is%an=e, clear zonm an~ ~signate~ Vi=ginia Department of Transpo~ation ~ai~q~ ~as~ent~. subdivision located ~n Powhatan County. ~d be it f~ther resolved, tha~ th~ Roard of ~restrioted right-of-way of 50~ wi~h necessary eas~entm for cuts, fills and ~ainage for this road. ~nguenot Run'red Road. Deed Book 21~9, Page~ 1970 - 1975, A~er brie~ dieoueslcn, on motion of [ir. Colbert, seconded by Er. Daniel, the Board authoriz~ the County Administrator to e~ecute an agreement for maintenance for Woodland Pond with Midlothian ~nt~rprises, Intel=rated. the vicinity ~ketoh is filed wit5 9,¢,~, ~R~E~$ FOK F~I~ZN~E OF STOI~W~TER D.I~IITAGE On motion of Mr. Col~rt, seconded by ~. Daniel, the Board au~ori=~ County Adminis=rator =o execute an Agra~nt for Maintenance cfa Sto~water~ainage ~raotioe Facility wi~ Patwill H~es, Incorporated, the o~er/developer, with the Cou~ty'~ approved by ~ County Attorney. (It i~ noted a copy u~ ~he plat is f~led w~th th~'pa~rs of ~is Boa~d.) Vote: Unanimou~ 7,C,~6,b, BIRKD~E On motion of Hr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Daniel, t/ne Board authorized the County Administrator to execute an Agree~e~ Maintenance of a Stormwater Drainage System and Best Mana~ement Practice Facility with F. H. Properties NO. 10, the own~r/dmveloper o£ ~irkdale, with the Coullty'~ 'only involvement being to assure the Malntenence Agreement is foil=wed by the owner as approved by the County Attorney. (It i~ noted a copy Of the plat ks filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimou~ 0n motio~ of Mr. Colbert, seconded by ~. Daniel, the Board authorize~ th~ ~airman o~ ~e Board and t~e County ~lec~rlc and Power Company for underground power to provide ~ervice to ~e nature c~ter at Rockwood Park. (It is note~ a cody of the pla~ is ~led with ~e paDers o~ this Board.) Vote: ~animous 7,C.1B, ~CCEPTANCE OF A PARC~ OF L;uWD~R01~_W~T ~TORES FO~ THE DBDI~ATIO~ OF W~T WAY On ~otion of ~. Colb~t, seconded by ~. Daniel, the Board acceptmd, on b~alf o~ the County, ~he conve~anc~ of a parcel of land containing 1.~776 acrem from Walmart Stores, Inc. for ~e dmdlaatlon of Wal~art Way and authorized ~ County Administrator t6 execute the necessary deed. (It i~ noted a ~opy of the plat is filed with the papers of thia Board.I Vote: Unanimous ROAD ~ND ELKU~RD~ RO~ ~ ~ILY ~O~ ~ ~- a. accepted, on ~half of th~ Coon=y, fha conveyance of a 0,416 Road from ~ily Maul and Q. 8. Quesenbar~ an4 authorized ~e noted a copy of the plat i~ filed with thg ~aDers of this 7.~0. BET DaTE FOR PUBLI~ ~F~%~XE~ TO ~ONSID~R.=~ONVEYARCE the dat~ of March 10, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. for = public hea~ing to Bridge Softball Comple× for the operation cf a food concesSiO~ by Chesterfield Softball Association. (It is no=ed =he term of the new lease would be through December ~, 1994.) Vote: unanimou~ ~__~.~ORI~TIDN DF ADVERTISEmEnT FOR TAX ORDI~OB8 FOR FYi4 BUDGET SET.D~TE PaR PUBLIC HE~IN~ TO CO~8~DER ~ ORDIN~E ~ ~E~ THE CODE O~TH~ ~O~Y OF ~HEBT~FIELD~ 1978. AS ~D~Y ~ING'~ ~. D~iel ~t=ted he and ~. ~arren had n~t wi~ representatives from various PTA's =o disou~ the ~ohool budg~ a~d the ¢onsensu~ of ~e group ~ey met with felt very strongly the~e ~hould be an increase in the ta~ rate t0 f~nd ~e indicated to him and ~. Wa~en, that it wa~ the perception of o~ers, that the budget public hearing ~gh~d~led for April ~e Board of Su~e~i~or~ ha~ always adve~is~ Dh~ public hearings on the budget to be held the fi~t Wednesday in April public hearing~ coincided. He further stated tn an effort provi4e an o~po=~unity to all citizenD, ha felt the Board ~hould ~-schedul~ all of th~ budget public hearings fr~ the ~a%e ~ April 7, 199Z ~o March ~4, 19~3 which he hu~u4 wo~ld take away the perception the Boa~d of Su~ervi~o~ had deliberately set a public hsa~ing during s~ring break. fur~er stated in ~ effort to avoid this type of scheduling conflict in the future, he felt the School Superintendent and th~ Coun%y A~inistrator should ~h~e calen~ar~ prior to ~al~ndars being established. Ke s~ated =he ohang~ in the public hearing date wo~ld also provide an opportunity for the Board ~o advertise a high, tax rate if so inclined. He then reviewed the reasons shared at the meeting not to increase the tax rate including the co~ercial/in~ust~ial tax base increaming; the County as a percent of~e total asse~ed value and from 1991-93, ~t has declined fram 25.5 ~erosnt to 21.8 percent; that the busine~ industry would feel high rates would Me a continued disincentive for b~sine~es to locate in the County; that the County was 11 cents above Henrluo County and a 10 cent bax-rate increase would bring the County in line wit~ Fair£ax County which is the highest tax-rate locality in the State; that there was a chance of federal tax Mates increasing; that the number of bankruptcies filed in the County has substantially increased; that the n~er 6f lo~t job~ has capita local ~ales tax receipt~; and that there has ]~en an increase in %he ~varage n,~-her of food-st~mp cases and an increase in the value of food st~ps issued. He stated he felt the Board should attest to provide a mechanism and if situation changed, the Board could respond accordingly. Me further stated the Board should continue to follow its course and reschedule the budget public hearing scheduled for April ]993 to March 24, 1993. M~. Daniel t~hen made a motion~ ~aconded by Mr, Warren, for the Board to rescind th~ date ~f April 7, 199~ s~heduled for the budget p~lic hearing~ and to ~et the date of Mar~h 24, 1993, at 7:OO p.m., at Lloyd C. Bird High school; to include the p~blic hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Che~terfleld~ 1978, as smocked, by am=nding and reenacting Section 1~, relating to business license taxation; ~nd to authorize an a~verti~ment for tax ordlnanoe~ for tho March 24, 1993 public hearing on the FYP~ proposed budget to Real Estate $1.09 and volunteer fire departments $0.96 Machinery and Tools $1.00 Airplanes $i.10 There wac brief di~uuesicn relative to echedullng Bird High school for the.public hearing. entre budget p=oceee --the perception the Board intemtionally ~ade, input from citizens should be received and in the process, the Uoard shoul~ be open and accessible. He fUl-ther stated he felt the Board should continue it~ course regarding consolidation.of School and County functions with some of the ~aving~ po~ibty ]~elng u~d i~ the ¢la~$room~; the Board con~d~ng reevaluat{ng revenue ~id-year; and the Beard of Supervisors and School Board contlnuihg to keep the lin~s of farms and the decline in the economy; and t-he tax rates which Mr. Warren culled for the vote on the motion made by F~r. Danlel~ seconded by him, for =he ~oard to rescind the date of ~st the date cf March 24, 1993, at 7:00 p.m., st Lloyd C. Bird ~igh School; to include th, public hearing ~o 0onsider an 1975, as anendud, by unending and reenacting. Section 12, 93-129 2/24/93 relating tO b~sineme lfeense taxation; and tn authorize an advertis6ment, for tax ordlnan=es for the March .24, 1993 publis hearing on the FY94 proposed budgSt tS consider the proposed tax rates es follows: Real Estate $1.09 Personal Property $3.60 Personal Property Tax for me. ers of rescue and volunte¢~ fire ~chinery and Tools $1.08 Airplanes Vote: Unanimous M~. Warren stated the Board o{ supervisors and School Board have been working on cooperative iSs~S~ ~U~h a~ consolidation and would continua to work together. Kr. Oani=l sta~ed he supposed moving ~h~ funds to ~e School made to th~ School Liaison Co~itte~ m~rs regarding ~e reco~d~d policy to ~courage efficiency and he supported the On motion ~f ~. Daniel, ~eoon~ed by,~r. MoHalk, the Board approved ~e transfer of $1,120,000 from ~e Instruc~io~ appropriation catego~to the Pup~l Transportation category in the S~ool Operating ~nd; the appropriation of $87,000 into Headst~ Grant i~ ~e $~hool ~rant~ ~nd; and the appropriation of $40,088 of miscellaneous revenue itnms into the School ca~ital Projects Fun~. Vote: Unanimous actions so this change will be rsflected in ~e School Board On motion of ~r. McHals, seconded by ~/r. Colbert, the Board ~r. Rameey pressnted tho Bnard with a ~tatee on the Gansral Road and Street Light Funds, Lease Purchases; and School Board Mr. Ramsey stated the Virginia Department of Transportation has formally notified the County of the acceptance of the following roads into the ~tate ~e¢ondary System: ~DZTZO~S F=al/LIN CI~K PAR/~WAY, ~HA$~ 2 - /Effective 1-29-93% Ro~t~ ~577 (Hamlln Creek Parkway - From Route 145 BEXLEY WEST, SECTION ~ - (Effective 2-8-93) Route 2347 (Lockshire Drive) - From Route 2636 to 0.04 mile Nerthweot Route 2~36 0,04 Mi MEADOWBROOK FAP~IS. SECTION B Route 4560 (Manor Lane) - From 0,01 mile Southwest Route 4S63 to 0.10 mile Southwest Route 4563 0.09 Mi Route 4566 (Country Manor Way) - From Route 4560 to O.0S mile Southeast Route 4560 0.08 Mi MEA~O3~B~QQ~ FAR~S. Route 4560 (Manor Lane) - From 0.~0 mile Southwest Route 4563 to 0.18 mile Southwest Route 4563 Route 4567 (Country Manor C~role) - Fro~ Route 4560 to 0.04 mile Rorthweet Route 4560 0,~4 Mi Route 4567 (Country Manor Tarraoo} - From Route 4560 to 0.12 mile Southeast Route 4560 0.12 Mi E~T - S~C~J~O~= RORTION OF LOCh BRA~ - cEffective 2-10-93% Route 5070 (SKemwell Boulevard) - From Route 678 tm 0.02 mile Southwest Route 5072 - North 0~14 Mi Route 5070 (St~well Boulevard) - From Route 5072 - south to 0.03 mile Northwest Route 2396.. 0.11 Hi Route 5071 (S~mwell Circle) - From Route 5070 to 0.04 mile West Route S070 R~ute 507~ (St. Begin Drive) - From Route ~070 - North to Route 5070 - South 0.47 Mi Route 5072 (St, Regis Drive) - From Route 5070 - South to 0.25 mile South Route 5070 - South 0.25 Mi Route 507~ (St. Regis Terra=e) - From Rou~e to ~,06 mile W~et Route ~07~ 0,06 Mi Route 5079 (St. ~egi~ court) - From Route 50?2 to Route 5078 (Stemwell Lane) - From Route 5070 to 0.03 mile South Route 5070 0.~3 Mi Route 2396 (Falkirk Drive)'- From Route 5070 to Route 2386 0.12 Mi ROUte 5075 (Teaberry Drlve$ - From 9.03 nile Northwest Route ~98 to 0,04 milo Seutheaot Route 2396 0.07 Mi BEXLE¥ WEST - S~CTION 2 Route 5070 (Stemwell Boulevard) - F~om 0.03 mile Northwest Route 2396 to 0..03 mile North Route 5077 0,16 Mi Route 5077 (stemwelI Terraoe) - From Ro~te 5070 to 0.05 mile East Route 5070 Route 5075 (Teaberry Drive) - From 0.03 mile Northwest Route 2~96 to 0.25 m~le Northwest Route 2396 93-131 2/24/93 BEXLEY~J~ST - SECTION 3 Route 5070 (Stemwell BoUlevard; From 0.03 mile North Route 5074 (Stemwell Point) - From Eoute 5070 to 0.05 mile ~erthwest Route 5070 0.05 Mi Route 5074 (stemwell Place) - From Route ~070 to 0.08 mile Southeast Route 5070 0.os Mi Route 5075 (Teaberry Drive) - From 8.25 ~ile Route 5076 (stemwell court) - From Route ~070 to 0.06 mile East Route 5070 0.O5 Mi Vote: Unanimous r~cessad to the Administration ~uilding, Room 502, for a dinner Mr. Warren called the dinner meeting to order at introductions were made o£ those present. expressed appreciation to the Beard for their support and introduced MS. Jean smi~h~ Director of social services, who highlighted their program ~ervlces and pregented infor~atlon identi£~ed major issue~ which impact the Board's ability fulfill it~ ~i~ion; amd F~. Lynne Cooper who explained agency trends. presented. The Beard ex, reseed its appreciation for the opportunity to meet with member~ of th~ Social Services Board and comm~nded those present for their dedication and co~itment to the high ~ality of services ~ey r~der to t~e citizens of ~he County. continue its r~larly scheduled meeting. ~r. Warran intrc~uce~ Mr, Stith who gave the invo~ation. 11. PLED~ OF ALLEGIANCE TO ~E FLAG OF TH~ UNITED STATE8 OF Mr. Barber i~troduced Weeble Troop 867 who led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of Ameri:a. ~2~ ~E~OLUTIONS ~ND SPECIAL R~O~NITIONR introduced Mrs~ ~arguerita Atkins, Region IV Coordinator for the Virginia Department e~ Emergency Services, and stated Mrs. Atkine has been an outstanding and supportive member e£ the Chesterfield Emergency Planning Committee. On motion of the Board, th~ following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mrs. Marguerite B. Atkins ~as bean a Region IV Coordinator since september, I992, in the ¥irpinia Department of Emergency Sarviges; and the development of a comprehensive Emargenc~ Operations Plan and assisted with the ~mergency Operations Plan training W~EREA$, Mrs. A~k~ns has a~ei~=e~ Dba County in the recovery phag~ of tornado~g and fle04~ effeoting the citizens W~REAS~ ~r~. Atkina has been an outstanding and sup~rtive member o~ the chesterfield ~ergency Planning Committee f~om Aup~st 1988 through FebEuary 1993; and WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors wishes to express their appreciation for F~rs. Atkins outstanding contributions to the County. Supervieor~ hereby recognizes Mrs. Marguerita B. Atkins and expresses their appreciation for her ~upport and a~nistanee to Chesterfield County and its ~itlzens. resolu~oD be appropriately pr~pare~ and presented to ~Lrs. Mar~uerlta ~. Atklns. Vobm: Unanimou~ accompanied by her husband, and expressed apDreuiatlon for her lz.~. R~CO~ISING H~, DAVID BREIDENBACH. _P3~.9~RE~S-INDEX Hrs. Mitc~ introduced Mr. David Breidenbaoh of ~pe Progress- Index. ' ...... on motion of t~e Boa~d, the following r~olution was a~o~ted: ~ER~S, ~. David Breidenbach of The Progress-Index will be leaving him c~rent position w~ the paper; and ~E~S, Mr. Breidenbach f~rmt began c0vering.che~terfield Index's Chesterfield B~r~a~; and ~ER~, ~. Breiden~ch ha~ diligently and creatively Chesterfield Darticulamly the co,uti%les of Chester, Eton, ~ttri~, and Matoaca; and 93-133 2/24]93 whom he ham come in contact while covering the County and generous with his time in developing arti~le~; and Court%yr. and hi~ advice re~arding projects :hat needed loual m~ia coverage; WHEREAS, Mr. ~reidenbach will be leaving reporting for a corporate conununieatinns position. NOW, THEReFORe, BE IT RESOLVED~ that ~he chesterfield County ~eard of Supervisors sincerely wishes Mr. David B=eidenbach all the best in his new career venture. Vote: Unanimo~ ~4r. W~rren presented the executed reeolutfen to MT. Breidenbach, accompanied by members of. bls family, and wished him success in his futmre endeavors. F~r, Bre~denbach expressed appreciation'for the resolution and stated it ha~ been a great experience wer~ieg ~or T~ress- In,ex and covering County government. R~C0~N~ZING MR.P~NDOLPH P. SMITH, RIC~DND TIMRS- DI~?A~GH ~re. ~itehell introduced Mr. Randolph P. smith, Senior Report~ for the Chesterfield CoUnty P~eSS CO~S a~d sanio~ Reporter for the Riuhmon~ Tim=s-DisDatuh. on motion o~ ~h~ Bo~r~,' the following =asulution'was adopted: ~E~S,, M~. Randolph P. Smith, Senior Rego~er for ~e Chesterfield CoCnty ~ress Co~s and S~nior Reporter for ~e Richmond ~me~-Di~patoh, has been promoted by his company and will nc 1on~er be =ore=lng the ~es%erfield Co~ty ~at; and ~REAS, Mr. Smith ha~ diligently and persistently covered ~e 'political and governmental activities of chesterfield Co~ty and the lfve~ of its residents for the past five years; writing about difficult matters and has sho~ r~rkable sensitivity when his ~itin9 would ha~e i~volved i~ocent special events m~klng mil~stones ~n th~o~h of~es~fiel4 County has substantially increased ~e ~ility of clti~e~ to ~derstand ~e process of gover~ent; and ~s~ ~. smith ha~ now been promoted by ~e Ri~ond position and ha~ ~en sin~larly hon0=ed Dy being neminated for a ~litzer Prize for outstanding journalism. 93-154 ~/~/9~ NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors ~inc~rsly wishes Mr. Randolph P. Vote: Unanimous Warren pre~ented the executed re~olution to I4r. ~mlth and w~shed h~m success ~n h~s future endeavors. ~3. HE~RINOS OF OITIZE~ ON UNB~ED~LED ~ATTERB OR CLAIM~ There were no Wearlnqs of Citi2enz on Unscheduled F~atter~ or Claims scheduled at this time. 14. P~BLIC H~INGS O TO ~ONRIDERANORDINAN~E TO AM~NDT~E ~ODE OP T~ COUNTY CHE~TEP~IELD, ~978, A~ AHENDED, BY AHENDIN~ 2tNb REEN~CTXNO BAY ~RESERFATZON AREA~ ~r. ~t~th ~tated th~$ date and t~m~ hac been advertiss~ for public hearing t~ con~idcr an ordinance role=lng to Chesapeake ~y precervation artec. ~e the~ i~troduoed M~. Joan salvati, Environmental Coordinator for Environmental Engineering, who Chesapeake Bay Local A~sistanee Board (CBLAB) to bring the County's ordinance into full compliance wit2~ t, he Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. She reviewed the proposed the Che~apeake Bay Local Assistamce Department, who was present a= the Fn~. George Beadles stated he felt the Board should consider reviewing the entire Chesapeake Bay ordlnanc~ agai~ as he felt the ordinance should be reviewed every fiv~ years to relieve pressure from development. number o~ jurisdictions who have come under compliano~ in State and the ordinance aklowlng citizens to build on lots that previously oogld not be built on, The~e heinq no one el~e to add~s~ thi~ ordinance, the public On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. ~oHale, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDIKANCE TO ~MEND THE CODE OF ~ COUNTY OF C~ESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDIN~ AND R~ENACTING SECTIONS 21.1-2~9.4 AI~D ~.1-1~9.~ R~TIN~ TO CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREAS BE IT ORDAtNED bythe Boa~d of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 21.1-229.4 and 2~.1-2~9.5 of ~he Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as a~e~ded, is amended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 21.1=229.4. Boundary adjustments. by the dlreo=or of environmental engineering where an environmental site assessment prepared by a qualified expert indioate~ a need fo~ such change bused upon th~ environmental 99-15§ 2/24/93 features listed in section 21,1-229.1(a7 tD~ough (d) or section 21.1-229.2(a) through (d), respectively. Any such environmental site assessment shall be drawn to scale and ehatl clearly delineate such environmental features. Wetlands delineations shall be performed consistent with procedures specified in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, 1959. (b) Any person aggrieved by a decision oft he director of environmental engineering concerning the boundaries oX a resource protection area or a resource management area may appeal suc~ decision ia accordance wit~ :~e procedures in (c) The pro¥islon~ of ~ub-seotlon~ (a) and (b) o£ this section shall not apply to property that i~ nndergo~ng redevelopment if, due to previous development of the ~rop~rty, the environnental features listed in (d) er § =1.1-=29.~(a) through (d) cannot be (2) Section 21.1-~9.5., paragraph o has been repealed. (3) T~is ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption, Vote: Unaninous 15. RBOUBSTS FOR RE~ONING 91~N0276 In Be~uda Magisterial Di~trict, FReDeRiCK T. ~ G~A~ requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business (C-3). The density of such amendm~t will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance s~andards. Comprehensive Plan designates ~e property for co~erclal/offi~e, liqht induntrial a~d 100 year floodplain u~es. This reque=t lle= on 54.7 acre= fronting approximately 1,6~0 f~et on the south line of East Hundred Road~ also fronting on the east and we~t lines of Kingston Avenue, and located at the intersection of these ~oads. Tax Ma~ 118~14 Parcels 19 and 24 (Sheet 33), ~. ~a~o~$on Dresent~d a $~ary of Case 915N0~76 and stated the Planning Cotillion and mtaff rec~end denial. He noted TTan~DoTtat~on ~ h~wever~ transportation i~paots have not ~en a~equmtely addressed. ~- McHale stated he was requesting a ~ix=y-~ay defuse1 of ~. John Parsons, repres~ting the applicant, stated ~. George ~eadles s=ate~ he wa~ oppo~ =o ~e ~f~rral felt if the r~est was not ready to be considered by the ~oar~, it =houl~ ~ r~ande~ to the Pla~ing Co~ission for f~ther review. O~ ~OtiO~ of ~. McHale, =acceded ~ ~. D~iel, ~e Board ~e~erre~ ca~ 91SN0~76 ~n=il April ]8, 1993. rezoning ~rom Agricultural (A) and General Business (B-S) to ~eneral Busines~ (C-B). Expansion of an existing day care csnter is planned. HoWever, the property could be used or developed for other general business uses. The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for general commercial and light industrial use. This rec/uest lies on a 1.9 acre parcel fronting approxlmately 215 f~et on the w~t l~ne of I~on Br~dg~ ~ad, a~roxi~tely 650 feet south of Beulah Road. Tax Map~79-4 (1) Parcel 2~ (Sheet th~ Planning Cotillion and ~taff reco~end approval and acceptance o2 ~e proffered =ondltlons. He noted the confo~s to ~e ~entral Area Land Use and Transportat~on ~tan. Mr. ~drew Scherzer, representing the applicant, stated the Om motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. McEale, the Board 1. Prior to site plan approval, 1oo fe~t uf right of way on ~at part cf auUte 10 i~edlately adjacent to~e ~haI1 be dedicated, free and unrestricted, %o and for the benefit of ~esterfi~ld County. 2. Prior to issuance of an occupancy pe~it for traffic abov~ th~ traffic g~erate4 by the existing day D~partment, additional pavement, curb an~ ~tter shall be provide a right t~n lane. Prier to obUaining a buildln~ ~e~it, one of th~ f0110win~ ~hall be accomplished for fire ~otection: 1991, th~ owner/developer shall pay to ~e County If ~e ~ilding p~it ~s obtained after June 30, the date of 9a~ent. With %he a~roval of County's Fire Chief, ~e o~er;deve~oper receive a or~4~t tow~d~e re~ire~ pa~ent f~r~e colt of any fi~e suppre~ion ~yst~ not 'othe~ise require~ by law which is included a~ a pa~t of th~ d~v~lo~ent. OR Vote: The owner/developer shall provide a fire suppression ~ystem not otherwise reguired by law which the County's Fire Chief determines substantially reduces the need for County facilities otherwise for the protection. 93-137 In ~ermuda Magisterial District, CHESTERFIELD MFa%DOWS OFFICE PARK~ INC. repuasted rezonlng from Office ~usino~s (0) to Corporate Office (0-2)- A mortgage brokeraqe facility is planned. However, the propert~ could Ds used or develop0~ for other corporate office uses. The density of ~uch will be controlled Dy zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The C(~nprehensive Plan designates the property for offioe This request lies on a 2.$ acre parcel fronting approximately =J0 feet on the ~outh ~ne of Centralia Road, also fronting approximately 415 feet on the east line of ~emory Lane, and located in the ssuthea~tq~adra~t of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 96--9 (5) Chesterfield Meadows Office Perk, 6 and 7 and Tax Map 9~-9 (lO) Chesterfleld Readowm Office Park, Lots I through 6 (Sheet 31). ~. ~acob=on presented a summary of Case 93SN0159 and stated the Planning commission ~nd ~taff reeo~n~ approval and conforms to the Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan. Mr. John D0~on, representing the applicant, ~tatod the recommendation was acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of F~r. McHale, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard approved Case Unanimous In Clover Hill Magi~terlal District, C~%RL~ ~. THOR~ JR. requested rezon~ng from Agricultural (A) to Community Busiaes~ (C-3). Expansion of an existing automobile sales f~eility plann6d. However, ~e pro~erty could ~s used or developed for other community business uses. The density of such amendment will be contrelled byzoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for. co~unercial us~. This request lies on a 0.4 acre parcel lying at a point on ~e north line of Hull Etreet Road, approximately 431 feet east of T~ner Road. T~x ~p 29-14 {1) part of parcel 5 ~. Jacob=on pre,anted a su~a~ of Case 93SN0160 and stated the Pla~i~g c~ission and staff rec~end approval and ~. Churle~ H. Thorpe, Jr., representing th= applioa~t~ stated ~e reo~enda=ion was ascap=able. There Was. no oppomition present. On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by ~. Colbert, the Board condition: ~riur to obtaining ~ buildiDg pe~it, one of ~e follow~ng shall ~ accomplished for fire protection: A. The owner, developer or assignee(s) ~all pay to the county $150 per 1,000 ~are fee~ of ~oss floor area the Marshall Swift Building Cost Index increased decreased between J~e 30, 1991 and ~e date of pa~ent. With the a~pruval of ~e Co~ty's Fire ~ief, the o~er, developer or assizes(s) shall receive a ~edit toward the required pa~nt for the uo~t of any firs system not otherwise required by law which is included as a part of the development. OR The owner, developer or assignee(s) shall provide a fire suppression system not otherwise required ~y law which the County's Fire Chief determines substantially reduces the need for county facilities otherwise neceeoary for fire protection. Vote= Unanimou~ In Be~m~da.l~agi~terial District, T. NAY~ B~L~, UR. requested rezonlng from Light Industrial (M-i) to General Business preper~y sould be used or developed for other gen~al.business use~. The density of such smendment will be controlled zoning'oondi=ion~ or ordinance standards.' The Comprehensive approximately 1~0 fmet ~n thm wmmt l~ne of Old Staqe Road~ and located in ~e northwest ~adrant of the ~ntersection of these reads. Tax ~p 116-12 (1) Parcel 39 (sheet ~. Jacobson p~esented a s~axy of Case 93SN0163 and Stated ~e Planning remission and mtaf~ reco~end approval an~ on motion oS Mr. McHale, seconded by ~. C~l~rt, th~ Board conditions: !. ~ior to site ~lan approval, forty-five (45) feet of right adjacent to the prope~y shall be dedi=~ted,, free and County. 2. Prior to site pla~ approval, thirty (20) f~t Of right of from the cent~rlln~ Of that Dart of Ware Sottom Read i~adiately adjacent to t~e p~oDerty shall d~icated, free and unrestricted, to and fo~ ~e of Chest~fleld County. 4. TO p~ovide for an ade~mte roadway ~y~t~ at the tine of ~a ~omplete ~evelo~en%, the develop~ ~hall be reaponsiblm for the A. Const~ction of a~ditional pavement and c~b and ~tter along Old Stage Road fo~ the entire property frontage to provid~ a twenty-two (22) foot from Wars Bottom Spring Road from its inter~otion wi~ Dedication to the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, any additional right of way (or ea~emenf~) required for the i~prov~oente identified unanimous In Matoaoa ~agistorial Dis%riot, EaN~T L. R~LVIN requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) end Community Business (S-a) Cor~orato 0££ico (0-2). The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. Thc Compr~henelve' Plan dssignatos tho property ~or ~ixe~ corridor. This request li~ on 36.21 acres fronting on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike in thsoo (3} places for total of approxlmately 1,060 feet, also fronting approximately 255 feet on the east llnc Of County Linc Hood, and located at the southeast quadrant oft he intersection of these to&dz. Tax ~/ap 13 (1) Parcels 23~ 67 and 105 and Part of Parcels 24 and 71 (~heots ~ a~d 6)* ..., ~r. Ja¢obson presented a summary of Case ~7S10'6 and stated the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval subject to a condition and acceptance of t_ha proffered conditions. He noted the request conforms to the UDDer swift Creek Plan, He then gays a presentation of the phasing rocommondatio~s of ~ plan as they relute to ~iS lo~i~g ~eq~e~t and he s~ated buildings and has. also proffered ~e u~e of pUbliC S~e~ after an initial 25,000 square f~e% of d~velo~ent- He further stated the developer would like ~e flexibility of ~in9 %o develop ~a initial portion o~ ~m project un septic of a ~,000 s~are foot buildlng and whether the no,h/south Jim Hubbard, representing th~ ,applicant, ~ta~ed the reoo~endation was acceptable. H~ fu~h~r stated ~. ~wift, o~er of th6 ~cle shop, met wi~ me. ers of the Planning and Transportation Departments and ,mtated he was now more comfortable with the re,est. ~. Ma~ ~ift, OW~ Of the cycle ~ho~, ~tatmd he had nev~ ~en agaln=t ~ha rezonlng but had some reservations'about the potential impuct tho duvulopmunt CoUld have o~ his ~e m~ wit~ Planning and Transportation staff and mtated he had a bett~r understanding of the proposed re,eSt a~d d%velo~ent and safety ~ue~ relativ~ to septic ~st~s. for approxima%~ly 29 year~ an~ h~ supported ~ ~. Walker smith, Jr. stated he is an architect.and contractor i~ th~ Co~n~, and ~at h~ has previously opposed ~h~ but is now in favor of the development. He noted he was satisfied wi~ ~e applicant ~roff~ing the double-mize septic system.. ~. Colbert stated he felt ~a applic~t ha~ adequately addressed the c~ncerns expressed an~, therefore, he supported 93-14o 2/24/93 Hr. Barber expressed appreciation to Planning and Transportation staff for their assisted%ce to citizens in understanding ~his request and stated he Nam previously been opposed to this request, but could support it due to the On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. No.ale, the Board approved Case 87~106 subject to the following condition: A fifty (50) foot buffer shall he maintained around the perimeter oft he property except where adjacent to commsrclally zoned propertlee and public rights of way.. This b~ffer shall conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for buffers~ section 21.1-226 th~mugh 21.1-228. (P) conditions: 1. ~0 mcr6 than 25,000 square fset shall bm developed on a reserve dreinfleld, which is acceptable to e. he Health Department~ at the time any septic ~y~t~m is constructed. 2. All structures shull be connected to th~ public water 2. Prior to ~i~e 91an approval, forty-five (45) feet of right the menterline of that part of County Line Road i~edlately adjacent to the property ~hall be free and unreetrlcted~ to and for the benefit of Ch-sterfield County,. 4. A north/~o~th publlc xoad shall be the major access to that serves Frameway Road, unless otherwise approved by 60 shall be approved by the Transportation Depar~ent. 5. No more than 25,000 square feet of general office or equivalent density, as approved by the Tran~portation Department shall be developed, ~ntit the nsrth/=outhroad to Route 60, as identified in proffered condition 4, is committed as dstsrminedbythe Transportat~en TS ~ruvide for an adequate roadway syetmm at the time of complete development, the developer ~hall be responsible for the following: A. Construction of an additional lane of pavement ulong County L~ne Road for the entire property ~rontage. Con~tructiom of additlonal pavement along the eastbound lanes of Route ~0 from the County Line Road intsrsec%ion tO the easternmost DroDel~y line to provide an sdditisnal t~ough lane (i.e., third through lane) plus a separate right t%~rn lane at wssthound lanes of Route 60 at the north/south road/Route ~0 intersection to prowide a left turn D. Full cost of a traffic signal at the no~tb/south determined by the Transpertation Department. Cohstx~ction of the north/seuth road, as identified in proffered condition 4, from Route 6~ to the 93-141 2/24/93 southern property lane. The exact location of this north/~suth road shall be approved by. the Transportation Department. Construction Of ax east/west public road from the eastern property line to the western property llne. The exact location of this east/west road shall be approved by the Transportation Department. G. Ded£cmtio~, free and unrestricted, to and for benefit of Chesterfield County, any ~d~itlenal right of way (or easement) required by the improvements identified above. Prior to' site plan approval, a phasing plan for required road improvements identified in proffered condition with supporting traffic analysis~ if requested by the Transportation Departnen=, shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department. The owner/~eveloper shall notify all adjacent property owne=s of the entire proper~ywhic~ is the subject eS this zoning of ~ite plan ~uhmission. Vote; Unanimou~ In Matoaca Maqisterial ~istrict, LOiS NIOHOL~ re~uested amendment =o a previously granted rczoni~g (Ca~e 89SN0~38) to delete a proffered condition ~eq~iring the use of the public water system. Tho density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance Standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the ~roperty for residential use of 1+§1 to ~.00 units per acre. This request lies in a Realdent~al (R-25) District on 61.2 acres fronting aRproxtmately 12~ feet o~ the ~outh line of Claypoint Road, approximately 2~250 feet we~t of Qualla R~ad. Tax ~ap 77-2 (1) Parcel ~; Tax Map 77-5 (1) ~arcel 9; and Tax MaP 75-6 Parcel 1 (Sheet ~. Jacob~on' pre~ented a su~a~ of Ca~e 92SN019~ and stated th~ ~lanning Co,lesion reco~end~ a~rovml and ~¢Geptance the proffered ccndition~ and staff ~eco~e~d~ de~ial. He noted ~a~$~ without th~ u~e of public watsr. ~. Gary Patterson, r~rese~ti~g the applicant, Etated he was in agreement with the reco~endation of the Planning Co~is~i0n and reviewed ~e proffered condition~ i~cl~di~g quantity and ~ality o~ wa~er. He th~n state~ the Utilities Department portion of~e s~aff report recomm~ds ~ublic wate~..~ot be H~d a= =his ~ite for various technical reasons. He indicatm~ he felt the ~ealth Depa~ent wa~ now ~ati~fled with the proffered =on~itlons reco~en~ %o ~sur~ proper w~ll installation and repasted the Board to d~le=~ th~ condition red'ring p~lic water at ~s ~i~e. He ~en reco~ized ~. Don Hanes, mmeting. Mr. G~or~ Beadle~ e~re~ed concern~ relatlve to~e utilities D~p~ment b~ing r~ired to provide ~ list of ~ites where %hey do not want p~lic water ~d ~ewer; establi~ent of ~ ~o!icy regarding the inmtallation of deep wells; limiting ~allo~ wells in area~ of ~e County ~at ~ave private and ~upply~ng water on ~e other si~ of Route ~Sg. ~e noted a thirty-day deferral may~ in o~er to provide an for further review of the re~e~t by ~ ~oard. public water at this time as it would be very oo~tly to maintain tae water quali~y required a~ ~hi~..duvelopment site ~ue to~ it~ location. He f~ther ~ta~ h~ f~l= i~ ~as too ~=rly to d~v~o~ this property u~ti~ other propertie~ are ~V~IOp~, b~w~n =h~ ~o~oe 0f wa~er and thi~ property, ~ere will be more usage on ~e water line. ~. Colbert stat~ when ~is pro~ct b~a~, Rout~ 2~8'had not been built and after the work ~ion prese~tatio~ on standard~ stated the apDlicant woul~ put a filt~i~g ~y~t~ in each house ~. Daniel stated at the time of ~e original zoning, Route 288 had ~en or wa~ almost complete at that time and zoning was g~anted snbject to condition~ re~iring public water. furthmr stated he ~elt to allow s~ivtsion~ to be built without re~iring the use of public water would be a mistake. where some wells went ~d and th~ entire subdlvi~ion significant capital investment. Discussion, co~ent~, and qu~tion~ e~s~e~ relativ= to the preyious zoning request; the n~r of house~ to be b~ilt responsibility if the wells wun~d; thm Pianning reco~endation ~einq approval and ~taff's reco~endation~ing ~enial; an~ the ~v~loper waiting until ~he appropriate time to d~velop thi~ ~ite. ~. McHale stated he f~ltthere wo~ld De 5~e ~=onomlc ~nefit from the use of this land at ~i~ time, but the full would not come until s~ch tim~ a~ d~v~lopm~nt patterns change or ~e ca~itaI im~rov~ent zi~uation ~. Colb~t ~ade a motio~ to approve case 92S~0190 and the motion failed. Thee was brief discussion relative to the ~e~est being remanded to the Planning co~ission for additional review and ~. Patterson stated the County ordinance already provides for' than one acre; ~t ~e condition imposed in ~e original zoning Drevents ~e aDDlicant from ~vinq private wells ~or lot= greater ~an one acre for thiE reque=t; and tho applioa~t agreed ~o the conditions b~cause he was ~der the there would be a sleeve and development in this area, which neither materialized. There wam brief d~cu~ion relative to the original zoning and whether or not there was a sleeve under Route ~88 and appropriate manner in which to ad,ess thi~ request. OR ~otio~ of M~. Daniel, seconded by Mr. McHale, ~e Board Nays: ~. C~lbe~. 93-143 2/24/93 to the sohsal budget and there was a ~isunder~tanding the Board of Supervisors wOUld be addressinq the S~heol budget at this time, He further shared he was willing to discuss this issue w~th any citizens present after the meeting. F~, Warren stated there would be a public hearing on tb~ budget on March 24~ I993 at 7:0O 9-m- a= Lloyd C. Bird aigh $0hoo]. On motio~ 0£ ~. warren, ee¢onded ~y Mr. McHale, the ~oard adjourned at ~:40 p.m. Until MaEoh 10~ 1993 at Vote: Unanimous county Administrator ;%rthur ~. Warren chairman 9~-144