The URL can be used to link to this page

07-28-93 MinutesMr. Arthur S. WarrenI Chairman Mr. Edward B. Barber, Vice Chra. Mr. Whaley M. Colbert Mr. Harry ~. Daniel Mr. J. L. McHale~ III Mr. Lane B. Ramsay County Administrator Staff i~ Attendance: Mm. Barbara Bennett, Dir., Office on Youth Mr. Richard Cordle, Treasurer MS. Doris R. DeHart, Asst. Co. Admin., Legis. Bros. and Intergovern. Affairs M~. Willie~ D. Dupl=r, Building o£sicial Chief Robert L. Eanes, Jr., Fire ~e~artm~nt Mr. Bradford ~. ~ammer, Deputy Co. Admit., Mr, Rummell Harris, County Ombudgman Mr. William ~. Howell, Dir., Ceneral Ssrvise~ Mr, Thomas E. Jacob~o~, Oir., Planning Mr, John Lillard, Dir., Airport Dr. Bart R. Low%, Exe. 0ir., Mantel aealth/ M~ntal R~ta~datio~/ Mr. Robert L. Masden, Deputy CO. Ad, in., Mr. R. John MoCraoken, Dir., Transportation Mr. Richard M. McElfimh, Dir., ~nv. Engineering Mr. Steven L. Micas, County Attorney Mrm. Paulinm A. Mitchell, Dir., News & ~ublic Information services Col. 3- ~..Pittman, Jr., Police Department Ms. Theresa M, Pitts, Clerk to the Board Mr. Jam~s J. ~. Ste~maler, ~r. David W. Welchons, Dir., Utilities Mr. Lewis Wendell, Grants Admin., CDBG Offic~ Mr. Frederick Willis, Jr., Pit., Human R~sour¢~ Mgt. 9~-451 7128/93 ....................... L .............. / I I L Mr. Ra~sey stated at the Board meeting q~ June 23, 1993, reviewed the methodology used to a~tablish cash proffers And introduced ~r. Stegmaier who stated staff would review the · history, me~hodology, and legal issues surrounding cash proffers. He introduced ~$. secky Dickson, F~scal Impact Analyst for the Budget and Management Departnment, to present an overview cf the Cash ~roffer Policy. Ms. Dick$on reviewed ~e ohronolo97 of cash proffers+ she recommended to pay the $4,064 (which increase in thc per lot Building Coot Index) and zoning cases approved in the future Mr. Ramsey clarified the current cash proffer methodology will There wad brief discu~ioa relativo to the cash proffer methodology. ~Lr. Je£~rey Min~ Deputy County Attorney, reviewed the legal o~ficial= ~ro~ghout the State, and from other states, and the ~lnarability and reeO~end~ if a change i~ to b~ ~a~, ~he change be mad~ with respec~ to ca~tal facilities inol~d~d in proffer nust be reazonably related to a capital need the r~zoning; that Gash proffers can only apply to needs road-~t~ipped lots to allow cash ~roffers could be considered ~hrough ~e subdivision process. and ~tated without a cash proSfar policy, all proffers will ~cheduled cask proffer policy i& to Dot developers on notice ~e County's e~D~ctations prio~ to deciding on the current met~odulo~ i~ ~imDle; and that while th~ ordinance adopted Cash P~offer Policy itself is not part of~e o~inance an~, therefore, thm Policy can be changed or amended without a gunarat~d by ~rowth, ~ch a~ resid~ntlal and co~ercial real operating ~ost of providing services fur new. residents, but ~at there i~ ~othlng left over :o pay for the cost of capital per ~walling unit of u public facility. ~he ~ur~r stated home~ will cost the County in term~ of providing facilities including calculation of demand generators (such dwelling unit and calculation of e~ist~ng service --I standaEds for each type cf facility for which a cash proffer will be collected. Dimcummion, comment~, and questions ensued relative to standards umed in calculating the number of students per househeld; cost calculations being based on facilities such as high schools; investment of funds as it relates to inflation m~agurmn; cash proffers ma~e today being paid over a 10-15 year porlod; and sash proffers making a contribution but not providing all ef the capital needs of the County. Hr. Ramsay stated research on impact fees show that throughout the co,ntT-y, where impact fees were set, no more than 10-15 percent of capital facilities are paid for by impact fees, cash proffers, er these types of F~. Daniel stated he felt the policy is attempting to m~ke some contribution to capital facilities and it should not be interpreted that the cash proffer policy is fully funding ~acilities through this typo of initistive. Discussion, comments, and quostions ensued relative to delivering County services at higher standards am it relates to mash proffers; standards being sot for cash proffers above Or developing the Capital Improvement Program; and that cash proffers cannot be umud to compensate for existing deficiencies ~he County has in service level standards. Ms. Dickson Continued to reviow compononts involved in calculating what new homes will cost the County in ter~s of providing public facilitios including calculation of the gross co~ of public facilities; calculation of a crodit to apply against the gross cost for each facility; and ~alculatton of t~e net cos= p~r facility or maximum cash proffer. Mr. Danlol inquired as to how the net cost per facility works in tmrms of decl~ning debt. M~, Dickscn stated because less deb~ is bcln~ issued, tho County would be paying lams debt servics; therefore, of the real estate taxes cell~ctcd, the ~ercentage to credit will begin to decline what is being dedicated for that particular facillty. ~s. Dickscn continued to review m~thodclogy assumptions and policy items of the Cash Proffer Policy including cash proffers being used to fund project~ in the Capital Improvement Program; smhocls, roads, parks, libraries, and fire station~ being funded by cash proffers; and cash proffers being applicable all residential rezoning requests. She stated the Cash Proffer Policy does not currently include capital improvements for ~ails, government udministraticn buildings, or landfill~. Thore was brisf discussion relative to capital projects currently fun~o~ by tbs Cash Proffer Policy and th~ Board inclnding additional facilities in the Policy. ~s. Dicksen continued to rsvi~w methodology assumptions and policy items including Cash preffers hslng applicable for all residential rezoninq requests and commercial/industrial rezoning requests for fire protectio~ only since commercial/industrial r$~oning do not directly create the need £or suhools, ~arks, and libraries. There was brief discussion relative to the methodology of cash proffers for commercial/industrial rezoning requests being applicable far fi~e protection only. MS. Diction so~ti~d to review methodology assumptlon~ policy items such as th~ prssen~ $4,000 cash proffer levol~ the allocation of the proffer being as follows: schools 43 93-493 7/28/93 percent, roads - 42 percent, Dar~s - 8 percent, libraries - 3 percent, and fire stations - 4 percent; payment of the cash proffer OCcurring prior to building permit application; and the ~ead for a relationship between the rezsning itself and for a public facility. Discussion, comments, and q~estions ensued relative to whether tho County can adopt & standard other than the Marshall Swift Building Cost Index as a msasure in evaluating real coot; whether proffer~ could be r~c~lculated after a certain period of time; the ~arshall ~wift ~uildin~ Cos% Inde~ oove~ing the county in terms of increases in construction co~t but not coverin~ in terms o£ inflationary cost; placing a sunset clause in the zoning; the ramifications of eliminating the bonding an~ two-~e~ paymen~ provision from the Cash Proffsr Policy; and the pocsibility of reinstituting the two-y~ar payment timeframe in this Policy. M~. Dickson continued to review methodology assumptions a~d policy item~ i~cl~ding geographic service dietrlcts -- north of Route 860 and south of Rau~e 360 -- ss it ~elate~ to middle and high ~chools; and attendance zones a~ it re!at~s to elementary schools an~ geographic service di~ricts for road co,ts. districts and the identification of traffic sheds. Ms. Dickson oontinue~ to review methodology as~umptlsns including that in some in~tanc~, a regoning applicant may wish to donate property either in lleu of tho cash proffmr or as a credit against c portion of the c~sb proffer and stated the the County's calculation of the proff=r. Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relative to whether the County can ~equire; ~hreugh the gaming process, capital improvements for requ~rzng the building of school~, tire ~tations, and Dark~ tO mee~ the needs of new residents; percentages in the cash proffer policy limiting what can be accepted ~ a credit towards a cash proffer; and the ~ossi~ility of a hi~her or increased Cash proffer in the future · n order to extend credits for donations. Mm. Dicksun continued to review methodology assumptions and policy items including cash proffers not used for intended purposes within 15 years of r~ceipt being ra=urnad. Discussion, comment~ and q~stion~ ensued rmlativs to whethsr a mechanism is in place which will allow cash proffers to be ussd for its intended pk~cpo~e~ in a timely fashion in an effort ~c avoid the possibility of having to return cash proffers. There was brief d~moumsien relative to not demanding bonding and collectio~ of proffers within two years and whether the two-year payment provision should be i~ place or not; the policy being amended to eliminate the bonding provision and the two-year payment provision; amd whether staff reco~ndm amending the curr~nt Cash Proffer Policy. ~s. DicMsO~ continued to review methodology a~sumptlons and poli~¥ items including adjustments in the cash proffe~ a~ount being considered cv~ry fiscal year in June. ~he then reviewed other i~sues relate~ to the Policy inolmding uss of a policy to direct growth patternm by evaluating on a case-by-case basis to d~termin~ the fiscal impact. Discussion, o~mmmnts, and guestions ~nsue~ ~elative to thc ~oli=y allowing flexibility for evaluating cases individually 7/28/93 to determine the financial impact of it~ growth and the methodology used in collection of cash proffers. Ms. Dicksen continued to review issues related to the Policy including adjustments in the proffer ~ount "today" not a££eobing previously approved zoning cases and stated zoning casem approved from this point forward could be r~comm~nd~d to pey as much us $5,043 per lot. She than reviewed the comparison of net cost calculations for FY94 and FY93 in the areas cf schools, parks, libraries, fire stations, and roads. There wa~ bTisf discnssion relative to the average cost of new homes in the County. Mr. McCracken presented an overview of transportation improvement calculations including capacities for various roads; 1993 tlrDioal road construction costs; included and excluded road i~prove~ents; the cash proffer formula; cost assignments for existing residential, project residential, existing commercialr and projected commercial; and transportation cae~ proffers. the credit is the bonded indebtness for Route ~88 and Powhlt~ Department of Transportation funds projected the County would r~o~ive ~o ad,ross ro=~ improvements; and credits qiven for road improvements. Mr. McCracken then roviowod the tentative six Year progr= allooatlons for the County and t~an~port~tion cash proffers. pa~ent; lots that harm paid the cash proffer to date; estimated lots remaining to pay the cash proffer; and residential cash proffer monie~ collected with allocation by facility. Sh~ then reviewed ~he co~ercial fire protection cash proffer; the calculation of the fire protection cash pro,for; and no,ed ether Virginia localities are usln~ either the ~a~ o~ similar Cash proffer methodologies. Mr. Mincko ~tated current law provides for cash proffers mak~ road~trlp lot~ a conditional use in single family residential ~nd a~rlcultu~al areas. He further ~tated ~a~h proffers could then be received t~ough th~ ~o~ing p~ooe~ and reviewed ~e n~ber of ~oadstrip lots in the County from ~988- Planning Co~fasion. family lot~ and requiring ~he cash 9relier fee due upon After brief discussion, it was the general con~enzus of the Board to refer to the Planning cu~isslun, ~or their r~view and reco~endation, an ordinance to a~nd th~ Code of the CoUnty ~f ~esterfield, 19$$, au amended, ~y amending and reenacting Section~ 21-3, 21-9, 21-77.16, 21-77.18, ~1.1-17, 21.~-144, 21.1-47, and 21.1-281 relating to z~ning. ~ere was brief discussion r~lative to continuing implementation cf the Cesh Proffer Policy. ~r. Daniel ~%ate~ he ~uppcrt~ increasing the proffer amo~ per lot ba~ed o~ the Marshall swift Building Cost Index. There was brief discussion relative to the manner in which %he pro~fer amount per lot should bs considered by the Board. 93-455 7/28/93 M~. Micas clarified tho Beard cannot increase a previously made proffer beyond the number determined ~y tho Marshall Swift Building Co~t Index. ~r. McH~le stated he felt staff should bring to the Board an agenda item to consider increasing the cash proffer per lot on Board should consider the maxim~a~ amount on an agenda item, thereby creating %~e Xlexib~llty to pom~ibly decide on some Board regarding ~he impact cash proffers has had on the number of building permits issued by the County and throughout the State. payment amount to the Doard at its August 25, 1~93 meeting. It wa~ generally agreed to recess to the Public Meeting Room to Mr. Warren called the regularly scheduled moating to order at ~:10 p.m. On motion el Mr. Colbert, seconded by Er, EcHale, the Board ~r. Ramsay stat~ he received, on behalf of the Board of supervieore~ a re~olution from the State Mental Health/Mental Retardation/Substanc~Abuse Services Board which re¢ognized~he dedication and commitment of the County to excellence in serving mentally disabled an4 substance abus~ eltlzsns. ~e read into the record a copy of the resolution and presented the resolution to th~ Boar~, Mr. Ramsay then introduced Mr. Joseph ~peidel, Chain-man of the Nr. ~peldel expressed appreciation to t~e Board far the opportunity addres~ the work of the Youth Services Citizen ~eard and recognized Ms. Lilli~n Duffie, a ~e~ber of the Youth S~rviee~ Citizen Board who was present at t~e ~eeting. He ~t~ted the Youth Ssrvice~ Citizen Board is compo~ed of yout~h and adult represent~tlves from each oft he county's ~agieterlul dls~rlcts and the youth provide Valuable in~iqht and info~mation about i~ues ~irectly affe~tin~ the c~il~en livln~ in the County. He reviewed the purpose and function~ of the Youth Services Citizen Board bein~ to coordinate and advocate for services to youth within the County and to develop the needs of young people; advielng the Board about issues 93-456 7/25/93 rela~ed ~e you=h; developing recommendations ts meet the needs of youth; involving the co,unity in addressing youth concerns; the primary focus of the cltiasn Board this past year being to provide support, guidance, and resources to the Office on Youth am a way to meat th~ goals identified in the Six-Year Plan; the highlights of the year being ccntinuatiom and expansion of youth activities with increased participation by youth, eit~zons, and sponsors in the Youth Awards, Hodel Government, and Sudmmer Jobs Programs; identific~tlon of youth needs and collaborative planning to address those needs; increase in educational presentations and distribution of education materials; targeting high-risk factors for delinquency; and including legislat{ve advocacy as an additional responsibility of the citizen Board. Me then reviewed c~itical i~ue$ facing the citizen Board in~luding runaway youths; available resources for youth experiencing personal or emotional crisis; drug and alcohol by youth; and the need for additional recreational locations and activities/programs designed spesifically for youth. He requested the Board of Super~isors to consider that issues pertaining to youth and family llfe be given equal priority in County governmental affairs; that the coordination of planning among all County human service agencies b~ ~ncouraged; an~ that a formal work session be scheduled at least once a year for citizen scard to meet to discuss issues of ~utual concern. Mr. Ramsay presented a brief overview on the Total Quality Improvement (TQI) Progra~ initiatives currently being introduced in the County and recognized members of the TQI Mr. Ste~maier, Coordinator for TQI, presented a packet cf TQI information to each Board member. Mr- Ra~y stated he ~nd several Board members attended the National Association of Counties (NACO) Conference in Chicago in which the County received ~0 NACo Achievement Awards. He then intrcduoe~Fir. Hammer who recognized the follswing awards and recipients; Budget and ~anag~m~nt Administration Community Development ~lanning Utilities Fire Proi~ot D~p~r~m~n~al Budgetary Empowerm~nt Strategic Planning Training Programfor citizen Advisors County Mission Statement County Health Care Opt-out Program Shrink-Swell Soils Task Visual Resources Inventory CARE Third Party ~o~ificaticn Program Advanced Emergency Pediatric Life Support Pre-hospital Emergency 93-457 Extension Agent Intergovernmental Relatione Mental Health News and Public Information Parks and Recreation Commissioner of Revenue Purchaming ah=riff~s Office Treasurer's Office Chesterfield 4-H Phonafriend Help Line Volunteer Services ~nteragcncy chiid- Adolescent Servic~ Team County Call-in: a live 60 minute monthly cable TV program 1992 Black ~istory Month Personal Property and L{cense Ta×es, A Comprehensive Audit Program Leaf Collection and Composting Program Automated Delinquent Tax Collection Program ~r. R~m~ey noted the NACo Achievement Awards were th~ most ever received by the County. Hr. Warren congratulated each cf the Departments~ on behalf of the Board~ and exqoressed appreciation for their efforts. Mr. Ramsay then presented t~ Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Director of New~ and Public Information Servioe~, a pewter tray and Certificate of Excellence from the National Association of counties Information Officers (NACIO) for her work as National Chairman cf the highly competitive NACIO Award of Excellence Program. · . BO~mD CO~ITTEE REPORTS ~c- ~rber ~tated he attended a conference for regional govern~ent~ in Portland, oregon and noted PO~tland is the only jurisdiction in the country which elects regional leaders ~c ~ake decieiens ~n regional ifemg~ t~at ~ attended the ~ational Association of Counties conference in chicago; that hie next ccnatituent~ meeting will D~ held september 13, 1993; and that he will be attending education meetings for the virginia Municipal League and the virginia Aero,ia%ion of Counties. Mr. Daniel stated he also attended the National Association of Counties conference; that he attended the Capital Region Air, art Co~mimgion meetinq and noted there ha~ b=en an increase in airport activity; and that he recently attended a City Council meeting ~n which the last debt palrmont was paid (which payment is two yearn ~n advance). Mr. MeHale stated he attended the National Association of Counties conference a~d indicated he attended two seminars of ~pecial interest -- the first being in the area of unfunded mandates and the second being in the area of measuring Mr. Warren stated he was a guest speaker at the grand opening of the Hanchester Rescue Squad annex facility and noted Hr. Colbert also attended; that he, Mr. Barber, and Mr. Colbert attended the ground-breaking ceremony of the Route 2~$ loop and ranD; that he and Mr. HcRa!e were guest speakcr~ at bhx Virginia Power Dutch Gap reception for the boat ramp on J~ly 1, 1993; that he and the chief of Police apDea~ad un the "County's Call-in Show" on the issue of crime and criminal justice; that he was a g~e~t speake~ at the Huguenot Park and Recreation Activity for Ki4s Sake Program en July ~, 1993 an~ noted Hr. Barber and Mr. Colbert al~o attended; that he met with the Harbeur Paints Leadership regsrdin~ the Swift Creek Reservoir and issue~ relating to the Reservoir; that hs introduced the managers cf Hanover, Richmond, ~enrimo, and Chesterfield at tine Metropolitan Richmond Chamber of Commerce debriefing on the InterCity Visit Follow-up Forum; and t~at he met with representatives of Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) to discuss plans in wAio~ t~e County is cooperating with VCU on ways to involve the University in matters dealing with the County. moved item i~.A., Re~olutien Recognizing Hr. David H. Welchona, Utilities Department, to immediately follow this item; Item ?.~.l~.g., Set Date for Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to Amend the Code cf the County o~ 197~, as Amended, by Amending Chapter 12 by A~ending Section Planning Commission an Ordinanc~ to Amend ~he Cod~ of Reenacting Section ~1-186 an~ Section 21.1-180 Relating to Permitting Beat Sales, service, Repair, and Rental to follow Item ?.F.l~.b., Refer to Planning Commission an Ordinance to by Adding a New Section Zl-16.1 and a New suction 21.1-15.1 Relating to Variances Granted by the Director of Planning; added Item 7.F.l~.d., R~fer to Planning Commission an Ordinance to Require a Conditional Use for Road-Stripped Residential Lots Village Plan and Related Zoning Ordinance Amendments to follow or~inance to Amend the Code e~ ~he County of Chesterfield, Relating to Itinerant ~erchants; ad,ed Item 9.B., an Executive sepsion PUrsuant to Section ~.1~344(a) (7)~ Code of V~rginia, 19~0~ asA mended, £0~ Consultation w~th Legal Counsel Regarding National Advertisin~ COlD,Dy ¥. Board of SuD~rvisor$ heard with Item 9., an E~ecutive Session Pursuant to Section ~.1-~44(a)(7}, Code cf Virginia, 1950, as Amended, for Consultation with Legal Counsel Regarding County v. Woodlake. et al.; and replaced P~ge 1~4 for Item 7.F.13.s., Set Date for PUbliC Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to A~end the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as Amend=d~ by Am~ndin~ and Reenacting Sections 4-29(a}, 4-30, 4-30(d} (2), 4-~0(e), 3Q(q] (Z), 4-32(b) and 4-33, and by Adding section 4-26.1(e) and 4-30(1) Relating to Bingo and Raffle Ga~es and, adopted the agenda, a~ a~nded. 93-459 7/~8f93 I~.A. RECOGNI~INGMR. DAVID X. NELC~ON~, OTILITIE~ DEPARTKEET ~r. Wendell introduced Mr. David H. welchons and stated Mr. Welchons is the Director of Utilities and ham been employed by the County for 22 years. Mn further sta~sd the Utilities D~partment has been instrumental in developing a state-of-the- art billing system; a meter-reading system; a eompute~ mapping and design system; and other innovations as a resul~ of the leadership provided by Mr~ Welchoas. He ~tated Mr. Welchons has made it poselble for the County to provide t~e highest quality of service at the lowest rates in the area and the County would miss his dudicated service. On motion of 7he Soard, the ~ollswing resolution was adopted: W~EAS, Mr. David K. Walchon~ will retire from Chesterfield County's Department of Utilities on July 31, 199~; and W~EREAS, Mr. Wclohons ba~an ~is public service with Chesterfield County in 19~1 as Assistant County ~nginoor for water, wastewater, drainage, and house numbering and by virtue of his experience end performance, was promoted in 1983 to Director uf u%illt{ss and has served with integrity in that position ever since; and W~EREAS, Mr. Welchon~ was instrumental in expanding the County's wastewater system to meet the growing needs of Chesterfield County, which in 1961 was virtually non-existent mad now has two state-of-the-art wastewat~r t~atment plants with a total capacity of 21 mgd; 1,400 miles of wastswater li~e~; an~ over 57,300 accounts; and WI]EREAS, M~. Welchons has seen the growth of Chesterfield County's water ~ymt~ fro~ eno $ mgd water plant in 1961 to a system with a combined capacity today of ~8 mgd from Swift Cre~k Water ~lent an~ the Appomattox River Water Authority, and the availability of 6 mgd from Richmond beginning in 1994 expanding to 27 mgd by the year 2000, and 1,274 miles of water lines; and ~EREAB, Mr. Welchons has encouraged and eupperte~ automation throughout the Dapartmeat~ directing implementation of thc CUBI~ customer billlng syste~; the Electronic ~ccument ~anage~e~t ~ystem; the ITRON eleet~oni~ meter reading; the SCADA water ~ystem monitorinq and control system; and the department's local aras computer network; end through his leadership, has enabled Chesterfield County'~ Department of Utilities tc be recognized as on~ cf the most technoloqieally advanced public utilities in the State and its water and wastewa~=r systems to be recognized for operational quality by the requlatory agencies; end WHEREAS, Mr. Welchcn~ has worked diligently to dev~top a ntaff with exceptional e~pertise, to further e~hanc~ the image of Chesterfield County's DepartmeRt of Utilities, while providing the b~st quality service at the lowest rate~ in the area; and financial stability and the system'~ int~ity by implementing a rehabilitation/replacement fund and by revising the Department's rate structure to en~ure that growth pays for growth; and W~EREAS, Mr. Welchons, ~hrough his vision and planning, has ensured adequate water and wastewater service to meet ne~ds of eitizen~ into the next century by providing facilities within the County and negotiating contracts for treatment with neighboring jurisdictions. 7/28/93 NOW, TH~R~FOR~ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. David ~. Welchone and e×tendm on ~ehalf of it~ members amd the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his 32 years of AND, BE IT ~THEE RESOLVED~ that a cody of thio resolution be pr~nted to Mr. Welohens and that thio resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Cheoterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel presented tho executed resolution and a Jefferson Cup to Mr. Welchons, thanked him for hi~ dedicated service to the County, and wiohed him well in his retirement. Mr. Welchons expressed appreciation to the Board for their support add to the Utilities Department staff for their service Ms. Ann Threukmorten, aecompaoied by several other employees of the Utilities Department, presented~dr. W~lchons wi~h a County flaq on behalf of the Utilities Department. Mr. Ramsay expreooed appreciation to Mr, WelChuns for his dedication end commitment to the County and ~uetome~s an~ hie effo~ts in preparing the Utilities system for the ~st Century. S,A* TO CONSIDEB ADOPTION OF ~N ORDINANCE TO ~E~D THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ~E.~TER~TELD~ ~9~8, A~ ~MENDRD, BY Mr. Ramsay clarified his written comments on this item and e~a~e~ i~ is ~e reoo~h~e~a~icn of ~a£~ far the Board to adopt the ordinance as amended. Mr. Micas stated the Board held a public hearing om March the ordinance to afford ~taff the opportunity to meet with representatives of the security alarm industry and other concerned =ember~ of th~ public, Me ~urther ~tated staff wi~h repreoentatives of the alarm industry and members of the alarm user community to discuss the ordinance and the proposed more efficient use of existing police recourses. He reviewed t~e total n~be~ of alarm calla by the Police Department from 1988-92. When aoked, he stated only 71 cut of 7900 alarms were genuine alarms. There was brief discussion relative tc the number of false alarm calls in the County. Mr. Micas stated a number of changes were made to the ordinance including lowering the service fees for excessive alarms; providing an appeals process for those who believe they have been inappropriately fined for an excessive alarm; and removing Fire Department false alarms from the ordinance. He f~rther ~tated staff r~com~nd~ adoption of the proposed ordinance. item, he had advised ~eve~al Constituents that no action would be taken on the ordinance at this time. Mr, Warren stated he felt due to =he written recommendation, the item should be deferred for thirty 93~461 Mr. Daniel stated he also felt the item should be deferred thirty days and inquired if the ordinance requtrs4 a public hearing. Mr. Micas clarified the public hearing was held on March 10, 1993. On motion of MT. Daniel, e%conded by Mr. ~cHale, the Beard deferred consideration of adoption of an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Che~terfiald, 1978f as amended, by adding a new Chapter 2.1 relating to alarm systems and providing for a penalty until August 25, 1993. Vote: Unanimous 6.B. ~POIN~MENTS serve on the Board of Appeals for Virginia uniform Statewide Building Code, representing the County at-large. reside in ~idlcthian District; the Board considering current members who have inters~t in uontlnuing to serve cn the the Board; the need for the Board to have a quorum at thle time which to nominate/appoint members to the Board. On ~otion of Mr. MoHale, seconded by FL~. Barber, the Board nomination/appointment of ma~bsrs to serve on the Beard of Appeals for Virginia Uniform Statewld~ Building Cods. 5t~. ~mBale, the Board simultaneously nominated/appointed ~r. Welfgang Webner and Mr. Bob Olsen to serve on the ~oar~ of Appsalm fo~ virginia Uniform star,wide Buil4ing Code, ~epresenting tho County at-larqe, whose terms will be effective immediately and expire June 3~, 1996. of Appeals for Virginia Uniform Statewid~ ~uil~in9 Co~e, it i= a requirement for representatives s~Tving on the Boa~d to have a quorum; the possibility of extending the current me~er~ within th~ next thirty days. Hr. Daniel muds a motion to reappoint several current members of the Board of Appeals for Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, with staff submi=tinq mn agenda item at the Aug,/st 25, 1993 meeting for the Board to consider removing these members, ~ubject to review by additional recommendations p~opoucd by staff. FLr. Colbert ~esoDded ~he motion. Mr. Warren inquired whether staff has any recommendations for members to serve on the Board at this tim~_ Mr. Dupler stated sta£f did nut have any recommendations a= =his time. Mr. Bar,or stated members O~ this seard were appointed prior to the new Board of ~upervi~ors taking office and indicated although h~ understands the concerns expressed relative to geoqraphic r~preeentation, he did not feel it should be the most important consideration in appointing members to the Board, but r~ther those who are best qualified to represent u spectrum cf the community and citizens. After brief discussion, Mr. Daniel than made a ~ub~titute motion, seconded by ~r. Barber, for the Board to nominate/reappoint Mr. C. G. ~umphrey to serve on the Board of representing the Co~hty at-large, whose term i~ effective immediately and will eEpir= June $0, 1996. ~or Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code was deferred until g.H.2. ~NDUSTHIAL DE~ELOPMEI{T AUTHORITY Hr. MoHale nomlna=ed Fir. Henry Respess to serve on the Industrial Development Authority, representing Bermuda District. On motion of Mr. McHale~ ~econded by M~_ Daniel, the Board Development Authority, representing Bermuda District, ~hose ~ormal appointmen~ will be censidere~ at ~he August 25, 1993 meeting. Vote: Unanimous 6,B.3. YOUTH HERVICES CITT~N BO~D ~r. Barber nominated Miss Kris=ina Haines, r~pre~entiDg ~idlcthlan High School, to serve on the Youth services Citizen Board. On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by ~r. Colbert, the Beard suspended its rules at this time to allow simultaneeu~ nomination/appointment of a member to serve on the Youth Services Citizen Board. Vote: Unanimeu~ O~ ~otio~ of Mr. Barber, ~econd=d by ~_r. Colbert, the Board nominated/appointed ~ias ~ristiua Heines~ rspra~snting Kidlothian High School, to serve on the Youth Services citizen Beard, whose term is effective immediately and will expire June 30, 1994. Vo%e: Unanimous 93-463 7/28/93 On motion of Mr. Barberr seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board deferred consideration of nominations for an adult member, representing Midlothian District, to serve on the Youth Services Citizen B~ard until August 25, 1993. Vote: Unsnimeus F~r. Mesden stated Mr. Warren has requested that charging fees for Fell base,all expenses be plasod on the agenda for Board discussion. He further ~tated this is th~ third year for Fall baseball and during the first year the Board of supervisors agreed to cover County costs from Three Cent Road Fundn with associations contributing $5.00 per youth involved in the proqra~; that the Program wa~ continued a second year with County fund~ provided under the County Administrator's authority with amnociation$ =ontributing $5.00 per youth i~volved in tho Program; amd that funds, in the amount of $I~,000, in needed to conduct tho Fall Baseball Program ~inoe no funds wore appropriated for the Program. There was brief discussion relative to t~e $3.00 Parks and Re=reatlon youth foe addressed in the FY93 budget as it relates to thie particular Program and whet~er th~ associations have paid their fee~. Mr. Daniel stated h~ felt it is important to involve youth in aotivities~ that the Count~ ~hou!d not place additional barriers on youth participating in ~hese typos of programs, and reguested the Board not to impose any youth fees for the Fall Mr. Barber stated ha f~lt at the time the Program was initiated, it was understood the cost~ would be sh~red between the County and the associations and the $5.00 yeut~ leu collected from the a~ociations woul~ oontribute to the Program. He further stated tho fee has boon charged and accepted since implementation of the Program and inquired i~ there is a process in place to ~aive the $5.00 fee based on need. ~r. Golden ~tated there i~ not e County program involved in waivin~ the fss~ but the a~mooiations involved ta~e into consideration rhone who cannot afford to pay the fee by absorbing it withim their budqet. MT. Barber then inquired ~hether negativ~ input h~s b~en received r~gar~ing the associations paying the $~.00 youth fee. Mr. Colden =tared he felt the associations are content with the Program and the ~oucerns expressed were relative to how the fee was imposed~ Ke further stated the associations were notified prior to the original season that the County did not have the fund~ available for this Program, but tho County would attempt to work with the ansoCiatiOn~ in implementing the Program. Mr. Barber stated since the curt%mt p~ooess was working, h~ ~elt it should remain the same. Mr. Daniel sta~d he wes no= in agreement with tho $5.00 yout~ fee or youth fo%e in general. Mr. Daniel then mede s motion~ for the Board to ellmina~e the $5.O~ fee per youth charged Sot the Fall Baseball Program and for the hooded $15,000 to be funded fro~ f~nd bmlanoe. 93-464 7/28/~3 }gr. Warren seconded the motion. There was brief discussion relative to the $15,000 being the total a~ount needed to fund the Fall Baseball Program. Mr, McHale requested slarifioation on the amount of the fee charged per child last year. }Ir. Golden stated the fee was $5.50 pst youth which generated approximately $7,000 revenue to offset the cost of the Program. Mr. McHale stated since this was not a new fee, he has concerns about eliminating the fee at this point in time. Ho further stated the County has recently increased trash fees by percent due to the lack of revenue and he felt elimination of this foe would be setting a precedent and was not consistent with the Program decisions Of the past two years; therefore, he felt the fee should continue to be charged. Mr. Warren stated he felt fees should not be imposed on youth Mr. Warren then called for the vote on the motion made by Mr. Daniel, seconded by him, for the Board to slimina~e the $5.00 fee per youth charged for the Fall Baseball Program and for the Kr. Hammer ~ate~ staff reviewed the policy regarding charges for water used for irrigation at a work session on June 9, 1993 and staff recommends the current policy remain the same. Kr. HcHale ~ta~ed he requested staff to review the policy as he feels citizens using public ~ewer are being unfairly burdened since water used fur irrigation i~ not going into the public sewage system and an alternative method should be provided to allow citi~en~ to separately mater for inground irrigation ~r. Daniel stated he is comfortable with setting a date for a public hearing =o consider ~he policy. Kr. Warren submitted into t/to record a copy of a letter from the Home Builders Association of Richmond relativ~ policy regardln~ charges for water used for irri~ation_ Discussion~ com~ents~ and questions e~sued relative to the poli~y applying to commercial as well as r~sidential; the ~mpact amending the policy would have on small businesses; and alternative methods available without the need ts install irrigation meters_ 74~. Warren stated he support~ ~etti~g a date for a public hearing to receive ~itizen input on this issue. On motion cf Mr. ~cHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert~ the Board set the date of August 15, 19~3 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider amendments to Chapter ~0, section ~0-69 of the Code of the County cf Chesterfield, which amendments relate to e~clu~ion meter~ for measuring out~ide wa~e~ consumption. Vote: Unanimous 93-465 7/28/93 SET D~TH F0B PUBliC ~ZAR~N~ TO CONS~DS~ AI~ ORDIN;U~CE PETS OR REMAND ANORDIN~NCE REd. DING REDUCED ~PPLIC~TION ~EE~ ~OR CONDITIONAL USES ~0~ SUCH PIG~ TO THE PLYING COHHISBION Kr, HcMale st=ted thi~ i~ue ha~ b~n previously consi~ere~ by ~he Board and ha would like to see it resolved. He further stated he felt the Doar~ aho~td reauand to the Planning for ~peoial pets with a reduced fee as the $1,000 application fee for a conditional nee is too high and a reasonable fee should be charged to citizens who wish to have exotic pets in Planning Commission an ordinance ~o amend the code o~ r~nacting Sections 21-~, 21-9, 21-77.18, 21-1-17, 21,1-47, and 21.1-281 relating to special pets. pr~uess heln~ appI~ed County-wide, and the ordinanoe requiring Y-~. Warren stated it is his understanding ~here i~ a certain amount of opposition at the Planning Co~i~sion level in including pot-b~l!ied pigs~ have Deem banned in a northern Virginia locality. ~. Morale stated he felt the proposed ordinance is reasonable high. There wa~ brief discussion relative to the applioatio~ Mr- Micas clarified the original ordinance is broader than proposed O~inance (~2) and Debitted as a matter right, plg~ an~ other ~ypes of animals. There was brief discussion relative to the original ordinance this point in time. =pecial 9et o~srs ~o a~ply for the conditional use and comply with the Zoning Ordinance which would make their $~50 application fee is reasonable. in proces~inq p~t application=; the cost to the Co~ty process conditional u~e applioatlons; the proposed $250 b%ing 1~ than th~ actual cost to process ~e application; impact on staff and the Planning co--lesion if the ordinance by the proposed Xr. ~cKale stated he felt if the Board takes the position to recover actual costs for county services in general~ ~han fees should be the based on that actual cost and a consistent rule ~r. Warren calle~ for the vote on the motion made by Mr. ~cHal~, s~cond~d by Mr. Barber, for the Board to remand to the Planning Commission an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 197S, as amended, by amending and reenesting Sections 21-3, 21-9, 21-77.18~ 21-1-17~ 21.1-47~ and 21.1-281 relating to special pets. The Board being polled, the vote wa~ a~ Nay: Ns. Daniel. Nay: Ns. Colbert. Aye: Mr. Barber. Nay: Mr. W~rran. Mr. ~icas advised the Board also needed to taka action on option ~1, te set a p~blic hearing date to conuid=r an ordinance defining vietnamese Dot-bellied pigs as household pets. There was brief discussion relative to the action required by the Board. ~r. Mc~ale made a motion, seconded by Mr. Barber, for the Board to set the date Q£ August 29, 199~ at 7:O~ ~.m. for a public hearing to Consi~e~ an ordinance to ~mend the Cod~ of thc County cf Chestesfleld by enacting and reenacting Sections 21- ~2, 21.1-59~ 21.1-66, 2!.1-73, 21.1--80, 21.1-B7, 21,1-9~, 21.1- 103, and 21.1-125 relating to household pets. There was brief discussion relative to ~atting a date for a public hearing to conalder the ordlnanca; the process in place to make appllcatlon for a special pet if the Board did not set a public hearing date to consider the ordinance; the issue being to allow po:-ballied pigs aa a legal use within all residential districts subjec~ to rea~ric~ions; and ~hs Planning commissio~ recommending denial. Mr. Daniel made a substitute motion for the Board not to set a date ~or a public hearing to con~ider an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield by enacting and reenacting 21,1-45, 21.1-52~ 21.1-59r 21.1-66~ 21.t-73~ 21.1-B0~ 21.1-B7, 21.1-99, 21.1-103, and 21.1-12~ relating to household Mr. Colbert seconded the substitute motion. Mr. Warren called for the vote on the substitute motion ma~e by Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Colbert, for the Beard not to e date for a public hearin~ to cnn~ider an crdinan~s to amend the Code of the County cf Chesterfield by enacting and reenacti~ Sa~tlons 21-3, 21-77.17, 21-110, 21-169, 21-197, 21,1-87~ 21.1-95~ ~1.1-103~ and 21.1-125 relating to household ~et~. Ayes: Mr. Warren, Mr. Colbert, and ~r. Daniel. Nays: Mr. Berber and Mr. Mo~ale. 93-467 7/28/93 7.D.1o RICIt~OND HBTROPOLITAN AUTHORITY Hr. Warren stated at the June 23t 1993 meeting, }ir. ChaFles H. Foster, Jr. was ~eminated to serve on the Richmond Metropolitan Authority, representing the County at-large. os motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. ColbErt, the Board clo~e~ nominations to sonsider members to serve on the Rio~mon~ Metropolitan Authority, representing the Cou~uty at-large. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Hr. Colbert, the Board aDpo~nted ~r. Charle~ K. Foster, Jr- to ~erve on the Metropolitan Authority, representing the County at-large, who~e te~ is effective immediately and will expire September 30, ?.D.~. COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES FOR TROUBLED ~%q) AT-RISK YOUTN COMMUNITY POLICY ~ MA~rA~EMENT TE~ On motion of Mr, NcHale, s~con~d by ~r. Culbert, ~he ~oard suspended its rules at this ti~e to allo~ simultaneous nomination~appointm~nt of a me,er ~o ~rve on ~e Comprehensive se~vide~ fo~ T~o~bled and At-Risk You~Ccmmunity Policy and Management Team. Vote: Unanimous simultaneously nominated/appointed Dr. Barbara Plnapla, A~imtant Superintsnd~nt for Instruction for chesterfield County Schooln, to metre on the Comprehensive Services for Troubl6d and A~-Risk Youth Co,unity Policy end Management Team, who~ te~ ~s ~ffeotiv~ imme4iat~!y and will be at ~e pleasure of the Board. vote: unanimous O~ ~otio~ Of M~. MCH~lu, seconded by ~. Colbert, ~e Board nomination/appointment of u member to s~rve on th~ Drug ~nd Alcohol Abuse Tas~ Fo~oe. vote: Unanimous on motion of ~r. ColDest, s~oond~ by Mr. Daniel~ ~he Bo~d ~i~ultaneo~sly nominated/appointed Miss Rebekah Tuthill to ~p~e~e~tin9 the County at-large, whose term i~ effective i~ediately and will be at the pleamura of ~he Board. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Warren, the ~eard deferred consldera~ion of the str~etlight installation cost approval for Brook~idge Boad~ in cul-de-sac, in ~a%oaca Di~tri¢%, until January 12~ 1994. Vote: Unanimous 7/~8/95 ARHSTRONG FOR HER VOLUNTEER SERVICES TO THE DEP~TMENT On ~otion of ~¥. Colbert, ~euonded by Mr. Mc~ale, the Boerd adopted the following re~olution: WHEREAS, Mrs. Dorothy Newman Armstrong has, for more than twenty years, served the county of chesterfield and the Department of Social Services by serving as a volunteer on the Chesterfield - Colonial Heights C~ristmas Committee; and WHEREAS, through the years, Mrs. Armstrong has faithfully and unselfishly given ecuntt~s~ hour~ of her time ~erving on the original Christmas Committee e~tabllshed by Miss Lucy Corr a~ th~ 19~ c~ri~tman Mother; and helping those in our community who are in need a: Christmas ~ime and throughout the year. County Beard of Supervisers hereby recognizes and honer~ Mrs. Chsster£1sld County. Vote: Unanimous 7.F.2. ADOVTION OF RESOLUTION ENDORSING ACTIVE 9UR&~IT On motion of Mr. Colbert~ seconded by Mr. Mc~ale~ the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Foreign Trade Zone Act of June 19, 1934 p~ovides for the establishment~ operation, and maintenance of Foreign Trade zones; and WHEREAS, ~he exieting business and industrial community of the metropolitan Richmond area will benefit from the establishment of a Forsign Trade Zene at the Richmond International Airport; and WHEREAS, the existence of a Foreign Trade Zone will enhance and complemen~ the region's industrial pertfclie and recruitment pregram, create and maintain employment, and improve the profitability of existing ent~rpri~e~. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the benefits of a Foreign Trade Zone which is accessible to ~egiohal enterprises. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County ~oard of Supervisors encourages active pursuit by the Capital Region Airport Commission of an application to the Foreign Trade Zones Board and the Department of Commerce which will dauignete Richmond International Ai~Dc~t a~ a general purpose Foreign T~ade Zone. formally considered and adopted by ~ajority participaDion by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervi~or~ on July 2S, 1993. Vote: Unanimous 93-459 7/28/93 7.F.3. APPROVAL OF POLICY REGITL~TING ~O~-SCHOOL USE OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR FY93-94 SCKOOL YEAR On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Nr. MoHalk, the Board approved a policy of non-school use categories for ~s~/rental of school facilities for the FY9~-94 school year. (It is noted a copy of the policy is filed with the papers of this Board.) SETTLEMENT OF V~R$ONAL ~ROPERTY TAX LIABILITY AMES DEPART~E/~T STORES IN BkNKEUPTC¥ FROCEEDIN~ On motion of ~Lr. Colbert~ ~econded by Mr. McBal~, the Board accepted 70 percent ($13,300) of personal proper~y ~axes owne~ by A/~es Department Stores in full settlement as part of b_mss' bankruptcy proceeding; authorized =he county Administrator tc axed~t~ a~ appropriate settlement agreement subject to approval a~ to form ~y the County Attorneys and authorized the T~ea~ure~ not to pursue collection of the r~maininq balance. Vote: Unani~ou~ On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. No, ale, the Board authorized the County Administrator to accept Deeds of Trust as security for mortgage ~ownpayment and closing cost assistance proqram loans ~or the follewinq participant~: Sharon Lightfoot 3101 Terrybluff Drive $1,3a5.16 Timothy and Amy Walters 2637 Beaver Falls Road $1,598.33 ~eo~ge a~d JOan Sinai=ton 2~ Mimi Avenue $1,435.~5 Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by PL~. NoHale, th~ Board approved a project for the installation of 47 streetlights in the Benslay/Fslllng Cre~k ~ills area adjacent to the Route 1/~01 Corridor -- which project li~t it filed with the papers of this Board. (It i~ noted fnnds are available in the FY93 Public Improvements Community b~velopment s!ook Grant to transfer for installation of the streetliqhts. It is anticipated the additional operating costs of mont~e of PY94, can be absorbed within the FY94 appropriation for payment o~ eluetric bills. Future year spe~atin~ costs will b~ addressed du~in~ the F¥95 budget Vote: Unanimous COUNTY AND HENRI~I]8 FSUNDATICN On motion of ~r. Colbert, seconded by Mr. MOHalk, the Board authorized the County Aclministrator Understanding between Chesterfield County and the Henricus Foundation which defines their =Qntinuing relationshi9. (It is noted a copy Of th= Memorandum of Understanding is filed with t~e paper~ of th~ Vote: EleMentary $chool, which funds have ?.F.IO. ~UTHORIS~TION ~o~ ~0UNT¥ ~n~TNIETRATOR TO ENTER INT0 ~reject service agreements with ~he Central Virgini~ WaSte ~&nagemont Authority for solid wa~t~ tranmfer and disposal cost of the Southern Area Landfill contr~st during FY94 will be $$67,500, whia~ price is based on a monthly operations Funds are available in t~e sanitation Budget.} Vote: Unan£mou~ On motion o~ ~r. Colbert, ~eoonded by Mr. Mc~ale, ~he Board ~993 the Board of Supervisors appropriated an additional $391,600 in fund~ for the Jail Annex; therefore~ funds are a~ailable to oov~r this increaue in %he =ontract.) 7.F.12. REFER TO ~L~RING COMMISSION 7.F.lZ.b- TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO ~21BND THE C~DE OF THE referr~0 tu the Planning commission, for thei~ review and Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by addiag a new Section ]1-16.1 D~rec=or of planning. Vote: ~nanlmuus 93-471 7/28/93 COUNTY OF ~ESTER~LDj 19~,.AR ~ENDED,.B¥ ~MENDIN~ AND REENACTING SECTION 21-186 AND ~BCTION ~1,1-150 ~BLATING TO P~ITTING BOAT S~L~S. SERVICE, On motion of ~r. Colbert~ seconded by ~r. ~oBale~ the Board r~f~rred ~o ~he Planning commission, 9or their review and chesterfield, 1978, as amenoe~, Dy amending an~ reenacting sales, service, repair, and rental. Vote: Unanlmcus 7.F.12.d. TO ~ONSIDER kN CRDIN~-NC~ TO AMiD T~E CODE OF THE ~OUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, l~?E~ AS ANENDES. BY ~E~IN~ ~ R~E~CTIN~ SECTION8 21-3~ 21-9~ 21- On motion of ~. Colbert, ~econ~ed by ~r. McHale, th~ Board referred to the Planning Commission, for their review and recommendation, an ordinance ~o amend the Code of the Cowry of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended~ by amending and reenacting Sections 21-3, 21-9, 21-77.16, 21-77.18, 21.1-17, DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS on notion of Mr. colbert, seconded by ~Lr. McBale~ the Board set the date of August 1~, 199~ at 7:00 p.m. to ¢op~ider authorization for the County Administrator to apply for amd accept both Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and State Department of A~iation (VDA) Grants for Airport improvement projects and enter into centrac=s with the Federal and State government~ for e~enditure of said funds; authorizing the County Administrator to solicit bids for Airport improvement projects and to enter into a contract wit~ t~e applicable lowest responsive and responsible hidders~ authorizing the County Administrator to execute applicable contractual agreements to acquire and purchase aviqatien easements; and appropriatio~ of all federal ($775,100) and State funds ($169,~70) allooated for those projects. (Ia is noted ~unds in the amount of $85,000 wore appropriated in the FY94 adopted applieationo for imprcvcment~ to the Airport; therefore, $71,130 is available to be transferred as a match for these Vote; Unanimous on motion o~ Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board set the date of August ~5, 199~ at 7:~0 p.m. to con~id~r the prehibition cf any through truck or truck and tra~ler or ~em±- trailer combination e~cept a pickup or p~nel truck from u~ing old Bermuda ~undred Road (Route 618} fre~ Rents 10 to 0.5 ~iles east of RamblewQsd Drive {Ruu~e 617). The recommended alternate route is Route ~0, Ware Bottom Spring Ramblewoed Drive, and Old ~ermuda Huedred Road. 7.P.15.~. TO CONSIDER ~RANTTN~ ~ LEASE OP ~ZaL PROBERT~ AT .R~ILROADERS, LTD. FOR OONSTRUCTION OP A ~AILROAD ENPOSITION BUILDIN~ on notion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Mc~ale, the Board the date of August 25~ 1995 at 7:00 p.m. to consider granting a lease of real property at the County fairgrounds to Central Virginia Model Railroaders Ltd. for construction of e model railroad exposition building. Vote: Unanimous ?-P-~3,~, TO ¢ONSIDE~ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF T~E the date of August 25, 1993 at 7:00 p.~. to con~ider an o~dinance to a~end the Code u£ the County of Chesterfield, 1975, as amended~ by amending and reenacting Sections 4-~0, 40-30(d) (2), 4-$0(e~, ~-30(g) (2}, 4-32(b) and 4-~3, and by adding Sections 4-2S.1(e) and 4-~0(1) relating to b~ngo and ra~le game~. Vote: Unanimous 7.F.13.f. on motion uS Hr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. McHal~, the Board set ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending and reenacting section 12-138 tala=lng to ~tinerant merchants. On motio~ Of Mr. Colbert~ seconded by ~r. ~cHale, the Board the date of August 2~, 1993 at 7:0u p.m. te cen~ider a~endment$ to the Ettrick Village Plan an~ related zoning ordinancs COUNTy PAIR On notio~ of Mr. Colbert, s~conded by Mr. McMale, th~ Board approved a request for a spesial Dingo permit to A1 Bartraw, Jr., Chapter 50 Disabled Ar~erica~ Veterans to conduct b~ngo 95-473 71~S193 games daily during the annual County Fair from August 27, 1993 through September 4, 1993. Vote; Unanlmcus On motion of Hr. Colbert, Seo0nde~ by /~r. MoHale~ the Board approved the following bingo/raffle p~rm~ts for calendar year ~o. 1980 Loyal order of Ben Air Rotary Club Raffle Vote: Unanimous 7.F.16. AHENDHENTS TO ?.F.l~.a. MAY 26, 1993 On Motion of Mr. Colbert, s~conded by Mr. ~¢Hale, tho ~oard amended the minutes of May ~6, 1993 as follows: "On motion of ~r. Danial, seconded by ~r~ Warren, th~ ~oard simultaneously nominated/appointed the following per~on~ to ~e~ve o~ the camp Baker Management Board, whose terms will b~ effa~tive immediately and eXpi~ a~ indicated: N~/~ DISTRICT TER~ ~r~ Vi~c~ Burge~ Clover Hill 04/30/95 ~. Barbara Shader ~atcaoa 04/~0/9~ ~r- A1 Tlko ~id]cthian 04/3$/9~ And, further, the Board d~farr~d consideration Of nomination/appointnent of a member~ representing the Richmond Area A~oclatlon for Retarded citizens, to serve on the Camp Baker Managem~n~ Board ~til J~ne 9, 199~. "O~ ~otio~ of Mr. Daniel~ ~econded by Mr. Warren~ the Board simultaneously nomlnated/appointed/r~appoint~d the following persons to serve on the camp Baker Management Board~ whose terms will be effective immedlately and exq~ire as indicated: Vinee Burgess Clover H~11 04/~8/95 Janes G. Lumpkin Dale O4/38/95 Barbara Snider ~atoaoa 04/~0/96 A1 Elko M~dlothian 04/30/94 And, f~rther, th~ Board deferrmd consideration of nomination/appointment of a member, representing the ~iohmo~d Rea Association for Retarde~ citi~ons, to ser~e on the Camp Baker Manag~nont Board until J%/ne 9, 1993. Vote: U~a~i~ous" Vote: Unanlmou~ ?.P-.16.bo ~I~NE 9, Xg~S On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by E~. Mc~ale, the Board amended ~e minutes of Ju~e 9, 1993 as follows: it was the gonoral consensus of the Board to address the following as indicated: 1. Allows th~ bepaxtment of Motor vehiol~u (D~V) to i~ue special license plates whose design incorporates ocone~ or symbols Characteristic of a locality upon receipt Of paid applications. The annual fee for ~hese plates would b~ $2~ plus the proscribed fen for ~tate license plates. For each $25 fee collected in mxceoo cf 1~000 mets, $15 would be placed in a special fund to be paid quarterly to vehicle license (decal) requirements which would permit each participating Jurisdiction to enforce tho v~hicls its own. Would re~uire all jurisdiotion~ to sign a household will be allowed only one tax reductioa - set date for public hearing. 4. Permits localities, by ordinance, to issue parklnq tickets for vlolations of a local motor vehicle license (~ecal} ordinance requiring a local vehicle license - ~et date for public hearing. 1. Authurize~ =h~ county to adopt a "dangerous and vicious dog" ordinance which establishes procedures to determine if doge are dangerous or vicious - sat date for p~blic hsarlng. 2. Pormits localities to prohibit ownership oS a cat six 7t28/93 3. Permitm adoptlun into the County Cods of motor vehicle law ckanges and per~it~ adoption of other chnnges is State code between the time the amendments are adopted by the General Assembly and the time they become effective on July 1 - set date for public hearing. 4. Requires the Board to create an advisory board (consisting of towing operators, police officers add members of the public) tO advise the Bonrd on amendments tot he county's towing ordinance such az whether ts regulate State Police towing charges - set date for public hearing. Allows lOCalities to provide compensation, not to exseed $50 per mesting~ plus reimbursement for actual expenses to members of local advisory boards - set date for public hearing. (It is noted Mr, Daniel indicu=ed his p~aSerense would b~ to cap compensation for the Committee on the Future to $3,000 per year under the new co,penes%ion system.} Allow~ localities to adopt an or4imenoe prohibiting the parking of a vehicle so as to prevent the use of a curb ramp - m~t date for public hearing. 7. Adds longbows and recurve bows fo the weapons a County can regulate by ordinance in heavily populated areas - set date for public hearing. Increases permissible civil penalty fo~ a zoning violation from $100 to $150 for subsequent violatlsns - set date for public hearing. Permit~ the County to increase the ~xi~u~ fine far Building Cc~e violations current provided in ~ction 6-6.1 of the ~ountv Code from $1,000 tO $2,500 - sst date for public heating. D. Human Services o Authorize~ local governing bodies to establish, by ordinance, a multl-ageney ~erious or habitual offender comprehensive action programs (SHOCAP$) by ore=ting courts, corrections~ schools, health, youth and family prepare report with fiscal impact of ~uch a program and ether aspects of implementation." "There was brief discussion re~atiYe to each item presented and it was the general consensus of the Beard to addres~ the ~ellowing as indicated: Chan~ee A££eo~ing T~e ~oun~¥which Kequ~e_board ~ct~on 1. Changes criteria for exsnp=ion, deferral or reduction of fees for solid waste disposal, including leaf collection, from age or handicap to income or net worth. County will have to change its current program as a result of this legislation. New criteria will mirror criteria for real e~tate ~ax exemption for the elderly. T~e only County program affected by this legislation is vacuum leaf collection - set date for public hearing. The County administers a program providing real estate taw relief to elderly or disabled property owner~ who~e income and net worth fall below certain levsls. The General Assembly has adopted legislation which mandates that the income of a r~lativ~ living with an c~er who has become incapable sf caring for himself or herself due to physical or men%al disabilities will nut be counted toward the income limits, provided that the owner has not mad~ a gift of his assets in excess of $5,000 within a three-year period before or after the ~elative moveg ~ntO the owner's residence - set date for public hearing. Currently, if an approved plat is not recorded in the Circuit Court Clerk'~ Offi=e within six months from flnal approval, it is void. This legislation eXtends the recordation deadline from six months to one year Or the time speciflsd in a surety agreement, whichever is greater, where the developer has a surety agreement approved by the governing body O~ has started construction of facilities that will be de~isatsd to the public ~ set date for public hearing. Cban~es Whi=h P~r~it The ~o&rO TO T&~ Action Allows the Dspartmeot of Motor ~ehicles (DMV) to issue special li~en~ pl&te~ who~e design incorporates se~ne~ or symbsl~ characteristic of a locality u~o~ receipt of 1,000 paid applications. Th~ annual fee for these D!a~ss would ~s $25 plus the prescribed fee for state license plates. For each $25 fee collected in exse~s sf 1,000 sets, $15 would be placed in a special fund to be paid quarterly to the locality - st~ff to prspare report on ~ow to i~pl~ment such a prs~ra~. Permits formation of regional ee~pacts for enforcement of vehicle license (decal) requirements which would permit each participating jurisdiction to enforce the vehicle license ordinances of all o~her jurisdictions as well as its own, Would require all jurisdictions to sign a regional agreement - staff ~o send to Regional Committee With instruction for staff to draft a compact. Allows one vehicle used by auxiliary volunteer fire sepa~utelM for tangible personal property tax. Kswever, if a volunteer rescue squad or fire department and an auxiliary member a~e members of the sa~e household, the household will ~e allowed only one tax red,orion - set date fo~ public hearing. for violations uf$ local motor vehicle license (decal) crdinunce r~quiring a local vehicle li=snse - set date publio hearing. A~ministration ~f Authorises the county to adopt u "dangerous and vicious dog~ ordinance which establishes ~rocedurss to determine if dogs are dangerous or vicious ~ set date for p~blic hearing. Permits localities to prohibit ownership of a cat six months old or older unle~ a cat is licensed - staff to prepare report giving facts on the problems of cat~ in tree~ and the risk of cats carrying rabies, 93-477 Permits adoption into the Co~ty Cod~ cf motor vehicle law chanqes and permits adoption of other changes in State Code between the time the amendments are adopted by the General Assembly and the time they become effective o~ July 1 - set date for public hearing. 4. Require~ the Board to create an advisory board (consisting of towing eperators, police officers and members of the public} to advise ~e Board on amendments to the County's towing ordinance such a~ whether to regulate State Police towing charges - set date for ~ublic hearing. 5. Allows localities to provide compensation, not te e~ceed ~9o per m~tlng, plu~ r~i~bursement for actual expenses to members of local advisory boards - set date for ~blio hearing. {It is noted ar. ~aniet indicated his preference would be to cap COmp~eation for the Committee on tbs FutUre to $3,000 per year under the new compensation system.} Allows localities to adopt an ordinance prohibiting the parking of a vehicle so a~ to prevent the use of a curb ramp - set date for ~ublic hearing. 7. Adds longbows and recurve bow~ to the weapon~ a County can regulate by ordinance in heavily populated areas - set date for public hearing. C, Co~uni~ Development Increases permissible civil 9enaltyfor a ~omi~g violation from $100 to $150 for subsequent violations - set dar= fO~ public hearing. Permits the County to increase the ma~imum fine for Building Co~e viei~tioD~ surrent provided in section 6-6.~ of the County Cod~ from $1,000 to $2,500 - set date fsr 9uDlic hearing. D. Hlrman services o Authorizes local governing bodies to establish, by ordinance~ a multi-agenty sericu~ or habitual offender comprehensive action programs (SHOCAPS) by creating com~ittee~ composed of representatives of law enforcement, cuurt~, corrections, schools, hmalth, yeuth and family prepare report with ~iecal impact of such a program and Vote: Unanimous ?.F.~7.....AP~RORB~ATION O~ HE~M~A DISTRICT THREE EE~T ROAD ROAD On motion of ~. Colbert~ seconded by Mr. Mc~ale, the Board apprspriate~ $5~0 from the Bermuda District Thre~ Cent Road Fund for improvements adjacent to Perry~ont Road to stabilize an exlstinq driveway that he~ washe~ due to z~noff from a large Darkens lot at the School Board anns~. Vote: Unanimous bidder, in an amount not to exceed $312,000, for construction of the Keithwood/Hylton Park Drainage Project; transferred $35,QG0 which was allocated in the ~Y94 Capital Improvement and appropriated $S0,700 from the Reserve for Future Capital ~YSTEMS ~ND BEST MAi~EM~NT PR~T!C~ FACILITIES Pre=tics Facility withUMP & Associates, the owner/developer of owner as approved by the County Attorney. {IL is note~ e cody of ~he plat is filed wit~ th= papers of thi~ Board.) On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. McMals, the Board ~u=horized the County Administrato~ to execute an Agreement for Maintenance of a Stormwater Drainage System a~d ~=~t Management Practice Facility with V V Associates, the owner/developer of Fernbrook, chatham Grove, Phas~ IV, with the County's only involvement being to assure the Maintenance Agreement followed by ~ke owner as e~roved by the County Attorney. (It i~ noted a copy of the plat is filed with th~ papers Qf thi~ ~oard.) On ~otion of ~. Colbert, seconded by FLr. KoEale, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute an Agreement for Maintenance of a Stermwater Drainage System and Best Management Practic~ Facility w~th Richmond Resources, Ltd., the owner/developer of Beechwood Forest, Phase I, with the County's only involvement being to assure th~ Maintenance Agreement i~ followed by the owner as aDpr0ved by the County Attorney. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the paper~ of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous On motion of ~r. Colbert~ seconded by Mr. McHale~ the ~oard authorized t~e Co~ty Administrator to execute an Agreement for ~ain~enanoe of a Stermwater Drainage System and Be~t Ma~ege~ent Practice Facility with ~ali~bury Corporatiun, the owner/ 93-479 7/28/93 d6veloper of ~alisbury. Hat£ie~d. ~hames II~ & V~ with County's only involvement being to assure the Maintenance Agreement is followed by the owner as approved by the County Attorney. (It i~ noted a copy of the plat is filed with the peper~ of thi~ Board.} on motion of ~r. colbert, necond~d by Mr. McHale, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute an Agreement for Maintenance cf a Stormwater Drainage System and B~st Management Practie~ Facility with sheltering Ar~ Rshabilitation Hospital, Inc., the owner/developer of Mba!taring Arms Rehabilitation Kospltal, with the County's only involvement being to assmre the Maintenance Agreement is followed by the owner as approved by the County Attorney. (It is not%d a copy Of the plat is filed with the papers of thim Board. Vote: Unanimous 7,F.20, STAT~ RO~D ~EPT~NCB This day the County Environmental Engzne~r, in accordance with directions from thim Board, made report in writing upon him e~a~i~ation of Bacen Ferry Road~ Heathstead Road, Heathstead Court~ Kentshire Lane and Churchill Cour= in Ascot Points, Bermuda District- Upon consideration whereof~ and on motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. ~oHale, it is resolved that Paces Ferry Road, Menthstead Road, Heathstead Court, ~ent~hir~ Lane and Churchill Court in A~cot Points, BeI~muda District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further rasolvsd, that the Virginia Department of T~enspertatien, b~ and it h~reby is reqme~ted to take into the Secondary System, Paces Ferry Road extends .26 miles from the intsrsection of RoUte 144 to the cul-de-sac. 5eathste~d Road extends .10 miles from the interse=tion of Paces Ferry Road tQ th~ cul-de-sac. ~eathstead Court ~xtend~ .0~ ~ilee from the intersection of Heathstsad Road ~o the cul-de-sac. Kentshire Lane e~tend~ .07 mile~ from the intersection of Paces Ferry Road to the cul-de-sac. Churchill Court extends .O4 mile~ from the intersection of Pacss F~rry Road to the cul-de-sac. This request is i~clu~iv~ of th~ adjacent slope, sight distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of Tran~portatlon dralnage easements. Those road~ ~rve ~0 lots. And be it further resolved~ that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an ~r~tricted right-of-way of ~0' with n~ce~ary easements for cute~ fills and drainage for all of these roads except Paces Ferry Road which has a 50' to 80' variable width right-of-way. Ascot Points is recorded as follows: Plat Book §9, Ba~s ~i, November 9, 1987. Vote: Unanimous 93-450 ?/25/9~ This day the County Envlroramental ~ngineer, in accordance with directions from this ~oard~ made report in writing upon his examination of Kighb~rry woods Road, Hiqhberry WacOm Terrace and Highberry Woods Court in Highberry Woodm, Phase I, Matoaca Dintrict. Upon ooDsideration whereaf, and un motion of Mr. Celbert~ seconded by Mr. ~cHale, it is r~olved that ~i~hb~rry Woods Rsad, ~ighberry Woods Terrace and Highberry Woods Court in ~ighbmrry WOODS, Phase I, Matoaoa District, be and they hereby are established as public And be it further ~esolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby i~ requested to take into the Secondary System, Highberry Womd~ Road extends .29 miles from intersection of Highberry Woods Road to the cul-de-sac, H~ghb~rry Woods Court extends .05 miles from the intersection of Highberry Woods ~oad tO the cul-de-sac. This request i~ incl~eive cf the adjacent slope, might And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors cuts, fills amd drainage for all of tkese roads. This phase of Highburry Woods is recorded as .7..~.2~. APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDERS engineering services at the Palllnq Crmek Wastewate~ T~eatmunt Plant. (It is noted fund~ are available in the current capital budgmt and reim~ursemmnt i~ anticipated f~om the DuPont s~ruance Plant. ) 7.F.]l.b. TO OASTLR EORIPMENT CORPORATION FOR TH~ N~R~ REHabILITATION PROJECT, ~HA~E III On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. ~¢Hale, the Board authorized the county Administrator to e×ecut~ a Change Order to Castle ~quip~ent Corporation, in the amount of $23,742.08, fart he Water Rehabilitation Project (~90-0417R), Phase iii and P~ojeet (~91-0129R). Vote: Unanlmou~ 93-~1 7t28/93 EN~TNEEEIN~ SERVICE~..~QR_ FUEL T~NK REP~CEM~NT PROJECT On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute a Change Orger to Draper Aden and Associates, in the amount of $11,497.50, for additional engineering services for the Fuel Tank Replacement Project - Rha~ T. (It is noted said fund~ are avsilable in the Capital Improvement Budget.) 7.F,22, C0~TVBYANCE OF E~SEEENTS TO VIR~INI~ ELEDTRYCANDPOWER 7.F.22.a. JAMES RIVER HISM SCHOOL On motion of ~. Colbert, seconded by ~r. MoHale~ the ~oard authorized =~e ckairm~n of tbs Board and the County Admlni~trator to execute an easement agreement with Virginia ~leotrlc and ~ower Company for underground serviae to th~ James River ~igh ~chool football field, field house, amd secondary ~ervlce to tho School. (It is noted a copy of the plat i~ filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous on ~otion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. MoBale, the Board authorized the Chai~an of the Board and the County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with Virginia Electric and Power Company to relocate a pole line to provide service to the traffic light for Kanchaster Fire Statiun Number 2. (It is noted a copy of the pl~t is filed with the papers of t~iS Board.) On motion of ~r. Colbert, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Board accepted, nm behalf of the county, the nonveyance e~ 4.04 acres adjacent to and parallel with the north line of Reedy Branch Road and east line of cattail Road from Continental Land Sales and authorized the County Administrator ts execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a cody of the pla= is file~ with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous 6.046 AORE~ NORTH OF ~ENITO ROAD ~ROM WILL~/9-K_B~ ~,~D~EKE H. DU~ On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. ~cHale, the Board accepted, on behalf of ~he County, the conveyanc~ of 6.046 acr~ north of C~n~to Road from William B. and Gene H. Dural an~ authorized the County Administrator to execute necessary deed. (It is noted a copy of the plat i~ filed with the papers of thi~ Board.) Vote: Unanimous 93-482 7/28/93 7.F.9. ~PPROV~L 0~ ~AN~IOH OF THE HO-BURNARE~S FOR LEAVES Mr. Daniel inquired as to whether a public he.flag needed to be h~ld to consider expensiun of the no-burn areas for leaves. Mr. Micas stated the original ordinance providesfor expansion without the requirement to hold a public hearing. There was brief discussion relative to holding a public h~aring to Consider expansion of the ~o-b~rn areas for loavos. On motion of Mr. ~uHale, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Board approved expansion of the no-burn areas fo~ leaves for th~ following boundaries: 1, From the ia~eraection u£ Courthouse Road and Hull street Road, south on Courthouse Road to Belmont Road. East on Belmont Road to the point wh~ra =he Virginia Power Transnissisn Line crosses Belmont Ro~d and then east along the power lines to the point where the power lines ero~ Route 50. Then east on Route 10 to Beach Road. Wes~ on Beach Road to tho eastern boundary line of Pocahontas State Park~ and then north on that boundary line to Courthouse Road. North on Courthouse Road to the w~st along Bailey Bridgu Road to the intersection with Sprln~ Run Road. North alon~ Sp~ing Run Road to the i~te~section of Zpring Run Road and ~ull str~e~ Road. East along Mull Street Road to the intersection with From =he intersection of kouto 10 and 1-295 east along 3. From the intersection uf the Seaboard Coast Line R~ilroad tracks and chippenham Parkway, south along the railroad tracks to t~eir intersection with C~ntralim Road. West on Whitehouse Moa~, than east to Route 1. From the 4. From the intersection of Laker±aw Drive and the Colonial Heights city limit~, west to Woodpecker Road, than south Road th~n south to the Appomattox River. East on the Appomattox River to the Colonial ~ights city limit~ and then north to Lakaviow Drive. Hickory Cour~ to its termination. Continuing wa~t on Wiltowdal¢ Drive to ~ickory Road. From the int~rn~tioD of Stcaewood Manor Drive and ~ickory its termination a~ both ends. This area includes all Of $~$N~0~0, an~ ~noompassing Tax Nap 174 (11 parcel 56 and 1~1-7 (1) parcel 5. 7/2~/93 7. From the intersection of Woods Edge Road and Rsu~blswood D~ive, eas~ along Rambleweed Drive to Rebel Ridge Road and then west on Rebel Ridge Road to Walth~ll Drive, south on Walthal] Drive to Ruffin Mill Road and then west on Ruffin Mill Road to %he polar where it crosses Aohton Creek. West along A~hton C~eek to the point where it crosses Woods Edge Road and then north on Woods Edge Road to Ramblewood Road. From the intersection of Route 10 a~d Rivers Bend Road, north on Rivers Bend Road ~o RAvers Bend cirole. West on River~ Bend Circle to its termination and the~ o~ a line due north to the James River. ~amt along the southern bank of the 3amem River to the point where I-~95 crosses the river, then south along I-~9~ ~o the point where it c~osme$ ~eadowville Road. West on Meedowville Road to Route fo and then west on Route l0 to Rivers Bend Road. ?.P.12.a. REFER TO BL~/~NING C01~HIS~ION ~/~ ORDINANCE TO ~E~D ~. Daniel stated he has ad~ressed this issue in the pa~t as a indicated ~e would not support referring the ordinance to the ~lannlng citizens who are employed in the line of mash=ge therapy out~i~e of th~ County and he felt there is a misperception by tho public regard~m~ massage therapy. Me further sta~sd the feeling is that if the County elevates the crdinanc~ to a level their trade, then it would alleviat~ the mi~p~rceptlon of message therapy and the need for individuals employed in this line of work, who are resident~ of the County, fro~ traveling outside the County to perf~rn t~ei~ t~ade. Re noted the industrial areas and indicated he felt th~ Boerd should provide the n~c~sa~y forum -- by s~ttinq a dat~ for a public hearing - inquired about other jurisdictions having similar standards. not. referred to the Planning csmmissisn, for their review and recommendation, an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 197~, as amended, by amending and reenacting sections 13-1 and 13-11 ~lating to ma~sag~ parlor~ and an ordinance to amend the code o~ the County of chesterfield, and 21.1-160 relating to therapeutio massages administered in or near heal~ club~ or t~nning salons. Abstention: ~r. Daniel. ~Q~HISSION Mr. Daniel inguired as to the need to set' a date for a public hearing to consider the conveyance ef proRsrty to the Health Center Commf~sion at this point in time. Mr. Ramsay stated the public hearing would be on the actual property the Nursing Home is located on and the property for a new nursing Home if built. There was brfef di~oussisn relativeto the proposed new ~ursing Home. On motion cf Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Cotbert~ t~e Boa=d set the date o~ August 25, 1993 at 7:00 p-m. for a public hearing to consider the donation of an approximately 20-acre parcel to the Healti% Center Commission. (It is noted a copy of ~he site plan ls filed with the papers of t~is Boa~d.) Vote: Unanimous anmepted the following reports: ~r. Ramsay pre,anted t~e Board with a report o~ the water and =ewer contracts executed by,he County Administrator. Mr. Ramsay presented the Suard with a status report on the General Fund Balance; Re~erve for Futura Capital Projects; District Road an~ H%ree~ Light Funds; Lease Purchases; ~nd School Board Agenda. Mr. Ramsay stated t~e Virginia Department of Transportati~ has formally no~ifled the County of the acceptance of the following roads i~to the State Secondary System; ~DDITtOM~ RO$~BAY FOREST ~ ~Effective Rout~ 46~ (Rosebay Forest ~oa~) - Fram Route 4~7 to 0.20 male Southeast Route 4337 Route 46~6 (Rosebay Forest Drive) - From Rout~ 4625 to 0.1~ mile Southeast Route 4~5 0.15 Mi ROUt9 46~7 (Rosebay Fo~est Place) - From Route 4625 to O.14 ~ilu Southxa~t Route 46~5 0.14 Mi WENDOVER HILLS - (Effectiv~ 6-~I-9~1 to 0.23 mile Southeast Routs 1135 0.23 Mi Route 3453 (TiDton Co~rt) - From Route 3452 to 0.14 mile Southeast Route ~45~ 0.14 Mi Route 3454 (Tiptcn Circle) - From Route 34~2 to 0.03 mil~ Northeast Route 5&5~ 0.03 Mi O~ VIRGINI~r ~gS0, AS;~4~NDE~,_~OR CONSULTATION WITH LBG~L COUN~E~,,RE~ARDING COUNTY V. WOODLAKE, ET ~L. 9.B. EEBCUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO ~TION 2.1-344[a)(?1. CODE OF VI~glEIA, 15~, ~ ~/4ENDED, FOR CONSUlTaTION WITH LNO~L ~OUNSEL ~E~RDING N~TIOHAL ~DVE~TISING COMPANY V. ~OAI~ OF SU~I~VI$OK~ On mctlcn of ~r. Daniel, ~econded by Fir. ~e~l~, th~ ~oard went into Executive Sea.ion purfuant to Section 2.1-344(a)(7), Code of virginia, 1950, as amende~, for oonsultatlon with legal c~unsel regarding County u. Wsodlak~, et. al. and pursuant to Section ~.1-344(a) (7), Ced~ of Virginia, 1~50, as amended, for consultation with legal counsel regarding National Adverti~i,Q~ ComPany v. Board of Supervisors. Vote: Unanimous On motion Of ~U, MeHale~ seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board adopted the fallew~ng resolution: W~R~A$, the ~oard of supervisors has ~is ~y adjourned ~nto ~xecutive ~e~ion in accordance wit~ a formal vote of the ~oard and in accordance with the prevlaiens ef the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and W~ER~A~, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act s~fectiYe · uly 1, 1989 provides for certification tha~ such Mx~cutive Session was conducted in conformity with law. NOW, T~FO~ B~ IT RESOLVED, the Board of Supervisors doe~ ~ereby certify that %o the bemt ef each member's knowledge, i) only public busin~nm ~att~rs lawfully from open meeting requirements under the Freedo~ Of In{o~mat~cn kct were discussed in the Exeoutivm ~mmion to which this certification applies, and ii) only such public buminesm matterm am were identified in the ~etion by which th~ Executive Se~ion wa~ CO.reDed wer~ he~rd, discussed or considered by the Board. No member dissents from this certification. The Moard being polled, the vote was as Mr. MoMale: Aye. Mr. D~niel : Aye. Sr. Barber : Aye. recessed to the A~ministration ~uilding, Room 502, for dinner. Recunvenlng: Mr. Warren introduced Reverend Clyde N~c~olu, Pastor of Beulah United Methodist Church, who gave the invocation. AH~RIOA Dr. Lows led the Pledge e{ Alksgianes to ~hs Flag of the United States of A~eri~a. · 3. R~SCLUTIONS ~ SPECIAL RECO~NITIONB la.B. RECOGNIZING MR. WAYNE STUART TATUM ~ON ATTAININ~ TWR R~/~K OF EA~LE S~OUT On motion of the ~uard, the fallowing resolution wa~ adopted: WN~RFJ~, the ~oy Scouts of America was incorporated by Mr. Willia~ D. Boyse on F~bruary 8, 1910; and W~EREAS~ the Boy Scouts of America was founded to promote citizenship training, personal development, and fitness of individ~als~ and WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-on~ merit badges in a wide variety of fields, serving in a leadership pe~ition in a troop, carrying out a service projeat beneficial te his community, being active in the troop, de~on~trating Scout spirit, and living up to the $=Qut Oath and Law; and WMRREA~, ~r. Wayn~ Stuart Tatum, Troop SPl, sponsored by Ben Air united Methodist Church, has accomplished thos~ high · tandards of Commitment and has reached the 1cng-sought goal of Eagle ssoHt which is received by less than two percent of tho~ individuals entering the Scouting movement; and W~REA$, growing through his axperi~nsss in Scouting, learning the lessons ef responsible citizenship, and priding himself on the gr~at accomplishments of his Coon=y, Stuart ~s indeed a member of a new generation of prepared young citizens County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its congrat~latlon~ to Mr. Wayne stuart Tatum and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an outstanding young ma~ ~$ one o~ its citizens, Vote: Unanimous Mn. Barber presented the e~ecuted resolution to Mr. Tatum, aucompaniedbymembers of his family, and =ongratulated him on his outstaedlo~ achievement_ REC0~NIZIN~ TH~ MTDLOTHIAR ROTARY CLUB,. THE RON AIR ROTARy CLUB, THE BPS~NDERMILL ROTARY CLUB, ~ND WTVR-TV~ FOR THE~a ~ENE~OUS DONATION OF A TOT LOT AT ~nGUENOT PARR ~. Golden stated the Midlothian, Don Air, and Erandermill Rotary Clubs and WTVR-TV Channel 6 have donated approximately $15,080 for a to% lot at Huguenot Park and intredu~ed Mr. Rick ~uller an~ ~r. Jim Gannett, representing the Midlothian Rotary Club; and Mr. Michael Ford, rapr~ing WTVR-TV Channel ~, who were present to receive the resolutions. 93-487 7128/93 ............... I[ ............ J _ I [, L On motion of the Board/ %he following resolution was adopted: WI~EREA$, the Midletkian Rotary club, the ~on Air Rotary Club, end %he Brandermill Rotary Club hav~ joined together and provided a Tot Lot at 5ugueno~ Park; and WHEREAS, ~he Rotary Clubs nave shown their concern in fund-raising events and g~king s~istance from WTVR-TV 6; and W~EREAS, the notary ¢i~D~ have provld~d the physical labor to help build the TOt LOt; and ~ERF~%S, the Tot Lot will provide special Tacreatiom for the children and their families in Chesterfield County; and WMEREAS, WTVR-TV 6 provided television coverage to pro~0t~ the fund-raising events and the opening of the Tot Let to increase public awareness. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby.expresseS thei~ appreciation and ~ratitude to these civi~-minded organizations and accepts ~helx gift cf a Tog Lot at ~u~u~not Park on behalf of th~ children of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Barber presented the executed remelut~ans to Mr. Fuller and ~r, ~arr~tt and e~pr~s~ed appr~ciatlon for their contribution of =he Tot Lot. Mr, ~arrett and Mr. Ford expressed appreciation to the Board for the recognition and ~r~ ~arret outlined the upcoming activitiem of the Midlothian Rotary Club. o ~S. SH;LRON L. WILDER, ~EGARDI~G RES~DENTI~tL GROUP MS. chrietima ~orqan, a raprssentative cf the civic Association cf Land - O - Pine~ at Belmont Run, stated ~S. S~a~on Wilder is out of town and she would ~e making the presentation on behalf of Ms. Wilder. She submitted to the Board copies of presentation and stated the Land - 0 - Pines civic Association i~ in opposition to the County's Department of Mental Health/Mental Re~ardatlon/Subztance Abuse Services Department plan for re~id~ntial group homam in nal~ District and the Association is not opposed to these ty~e~ of hemes being buil~ in the co~munlty, but is opposed to the current geographical health/mental retardatlon/~ub~tance a~u~e home~ and/or apartments in th~ County; th~ t~tal number of residents i~ Del6 Di=trlct b~ing 44.4 percent of the total nunbur of renident~ in the county; current plans to build two additional homes in the Belmont Run Subdivision and stated if the two additional group homes are built in Dale District, ~e total would ~ncrease · ~ r~Efd~nt~, which i~ AS.F peroe~t of th~ total n~mber of residents in the County; that the A~ociation feel~ the ~at the A~c~atlon ~ opposed to the n~mber of homes being b~ilt in Dale District; =n~ r~vlewed the number of residents in the cthe~ magisterial districts, she further ~tat~d the A~oclatlon feels no more homes should be built in bale District until the other district~ hay% equal d~tribution and being built, but are oppomed to any mo~e homes being built in Dale District at %hi~ time. she recognized three members the Association who were present at the meeting. Mr. Masde~ stated the Code of the State of Virginia and the Fair Housing Act provides for tbs placement of group homes in residential communities. He further ~tat~d each remident is group home. Dfs~o~eion, ocmments~ end questions enmued relative to th~ federal Fair Housing Act and the Board of Supervisors ability to ~angraph~calty distribute group homes in the County; plans for a~itional homes being placmd in Distr~cts other than Dale District; and ways to ensure the County is being sensitive to the needs of homeowners by a~suring equitable distribution of the~e types of homes. F~. Daniel stated tho Board does not have tke authority to d~sigoate equal distribution cf these hcme~ throughout th~ County and r~quested staff to address and reassure the needs a~d concerns of =he homeowners. There wam ~rief discussion relative to the difference between living homes. Digtrict and indicated he felt the residents make good neighbors. Mr. Masdan stated staff ~ill work with the neighborhoods in TRE I~ORPOP~%~ION OF ALL DRIVING VIOLATIONS INTO COUNTY CODE Mr. Mica~ stated the public hearing to consider an ordinance r~l~ting to the incorporation of all driving violations into the County Code was not adv~rtise~ ~orrectly and needs to be r~-adv~rtlsed and; therefore, requested th~ Board to defer the public hearing until August 25, 199~. Mr. C~lbert made a motion, ~econded by Mr. Barber, for the Board ~o d~fer the public h=aring to consider an ordlnans~ to amend the Code cf the County e~ ~c~erfisld, 1978, as amended, by a~ending and ~eenacting Article I, Section 1~.~-~ rela~ing to the incorporation of all driving violations into the County Code until Au~st ~, 1993. There was brief discussion relative to receiving citizen input en the publi~ hearing at this t~me. KK. Warren inquired if there was anyone present to add,ess the deferral. No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the deferral. ~Lr. Warren called for the vot~ on the motion made by Mr. Colbert~ s~conded by ~r. Barber, for the 5nard tc defer the public hearin~ to eOn~ider an ordinanc~ to amend the Code of the County of chesterfield, 197~, a= amended, by amending and reenaotinq Articl~ I, S~ction 14.1-1 r~lating to the incorporation of all driving violations into the County Code until A~guut 25, 1993. Vote: Unenlmou~ 93-489 7/28/93 TQ_C. ONSIDER THE PROHIBITION OF ~ THROUGH TRUCK OR TRUCK A~r0 TRAILER OR ~EMI-TP~%ILER COHBINATIOE EXCEPT ~ DRi~B# PROM ROUTE 10 TO OLD WRE~3%M ROAD~ ~ OLD ~r. McC~acksn stated t~is date and time has been advertlaed for a public hearing to consider th~ prohibition of through truok traffio from using Chesterfield Meadew~ Drive, from ~oute 10 to Old Wrexham Road and Old Wrexham Road, from Chesterfield Meadow~ Drive to Centralla Road. He fur=her s%ate~ staff recommends approval of the prohibition. Mr. Don Martin, President of Wrexham Esbate~ A~ociation, stated truCkS have been using Old Wre×ham Read from Centralla Road to Chesterfield Meadows Drive as a shortcut to avoi~ th~ stoplight at Centralia Road~ that use of the oorns~ at Old Wrexham Road/c~es~erfield Meadewa Drive by the truck~ wearing away thc shoulder of the roads; the= the fmvorable consideration to the request. roads in the County restricting through truck traffic ~nd County publishing a mad id~ntifyin~ roa~s which restrict t~ck traffic. There being no one else to address this issue, the public it relates ~o shopping =~nter~; %h~ ability of d~livery trucks to qet to the shopping cante~ de~t~nat~on due to this t~e truck traffic. On mOtio~ of M~. MoHale~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted t~e following resolu=ion: received a request from citizens to prohibit a~y through or =tuck an~ brai]er or semi-trailer ~umbin~tion except pickup and Old Wr~xham Road (Route 4~80), from Chesterfield Meudows DTive (Rout~ 9291 =o C~ntralla Read (Route 145}; and ~S~ Route 10 and Centralla Roa~ Druvlde a reasonable ~EAS, the ~oard has conducted a public hea~i~q o~ question. NOW, ~EFO~ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board ~upervi~or~ reque~t~ the Virginia ~epart~nt of Tran~portatlon to prohibit through truck traffic on Che~terfleld Meadows Orlve Vote: UnanimQua TO CONE~DBR TM~ PROH~B~TION OP /~IY T~OUOR TRU~E OR TRUCE ~ TI~.~LER ~R ~EMI-TF~iLER COMBINATION EXOE~T A PICKUP OR P~-NEL TRUCK FROM USING ~L!~TWOOD ROI%D, FROM 9EM,ITC ROAD TO DUMAINE DRIVE~DELG~)O ROAD. FROM CLIN~OOD RO~ TO KELLY~_.DRIVE: SPE~KS DRIVE, FROM DU~INE DRI~ TO SPEEKS C.OURT; WOODSONG DRI~ DRIVE, FROM n~L~DO ROAD T0 D~INB DRI~ ~, ~cCraok~n stated this date and tim~ has b2=n a~v~rtised for a Dubl~ hearing to consider the p~ohibiticn of through t~ck traffic from using 01intwoo~ Road, from Ganito Road to Du~aine Drive; D~lgadm Road~ from Olin/wood Road to Kellynn Drive; Spe~s Dr~ve, from Dumaine Drive to S~eeks Court; Woodsong D~ive, from Dumaine Drive to Wood,rush Court; a~ ~=llynn Drive, fro~ Ost~ado Road to Dumai~e Drive. He furth~ stuff reco~ndm approval of the prohibition. Wo one ca~ forward to speak in favor of or against this issue. a~opt~d the followin~ rasolution: ~EREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors pickup or panel Cracks from using Clin~wood Roa~ (Route 2601), fram Genito Road (Rout= 604) to Du~aine Drive (Route Delgado Road (Route ~05), from ctintwoo~ Road (Route 2601) Kellynn Drive (Route ~6a~); Speeks Drive (Route 305~), Dumaine Drive (~out= 2606] =~ SD~eks Court (Route 3021); Woodth~ush ~our% (Route ]743)~ Du~in= Drive (Rout~ ~606}, from Speeks Drive (Route 3036) to Clintwood Road (Route 2601); and Eellynn Drive (~outa 2509), f~o~ Delgado Road (Route 2608) to ~ER~S, Sp=ek~ Drive, Woodsong Drive, Hull Str~t Road, and Genito Road provide a reasonable alternate route; and WHZR~S, ~he Board has conducted a public hea~inq on the question. NOW, THEREFO~ ~ IT RE~OLVED, ~ha~ the S~pervisors reque~t~ the Virginia Depsrtment of Transportation to prohibit through truck traffic on Clintwoud ROU~, Del~ado Drive. Vote: Unanimous 15.C. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO,MEND T~E CODR OF ~NE COUNTY O~ CEEETBRFIRLD. 197S~...AS AMENDED, BY ~RN~INS ~ REENACTING SECTION 4-18 RELATIN~ T0 ~IN~O G~/4ES A~D changes r~lating to action by the General Ass=mbly. He further sta=ed thie date and time h~s been advertised for a public h~arimg to consider an ordinance relatlnq ~o bingo ~ames and raffles and w~ll provide aDplioation~ for bingo and raffle permits to b~ ~ubmitte~ to the County Attorney's ~r. Ceorge ~eadl~ requested the 9ublic hearing be relating to bingo and raffle games (which earlier was set for a public hearing) aa he feels the erdlnances ~ho~ld be oonsider~d together. 9~-491 7128/93 There being no one else to address this ordinan0e, the Dublic After brief discussion, on motion of Hr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Colbert, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN 0RDI~AN¢~ TO AMg~D T~ CODE OF THE CO._UILT__Y OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978~ AS AMENDED, BY AMENDINQ ~ND REENACTING SECTION 4-55 R~ATING TO BINGO G~ES ~D ~FFLES County: (1) ~a= Section 4-2B Of the Code Qf %h~ Count~ of ~e~terfield, 1978, as a~ended~ is amended a~d r~ena:ted ~u read a~ ~ollows: Section 4-28. Auuliuation for Permit, RDDliu~tion f~e and (a) No volunteer fire department, rescue ~guad or organization ~ention~d ~n section 4-27 shall oonduo~ a bingo game or raffle without first having obtained an annual De,mit from the ~ounty. ADpllcatlon ~ur such pe~it shall b~ submitted to the office of the county attorney on a fo~ D~ovided by that offioe, ooo (2) This ordinance ~hall become effeGtiv~ immediately u~on adoptiun. 15.D. TO CONSTDER~NORDINANCE TO A~ND THE OODE O~ THE COUNTY WHICNHAY BE IMPOSED ~OR VIO~TION OF T~E BUILDI~ CODE Mr. Micas stated this dats and ti~= has ~ea~ a~vertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to th= fine which may be imposed for violation of the Buildin~ code from $1,000 to $~,500, which fin~ will be i~posed by the court available to ~ncourage builder~ to comply with the B~ilding code. Mr. BeD Karnes inquired as ~o whe=~er the fine applies violation- Hr. ~i~a~ ~tated each day repre~ent~ · ~ep~rete violation. Building Code and th~ number of Code violat~enz identified/ cited for his ho~e and stated he did not feel tl~e increase in the fine would be beneficial unless th~ Building C0d~ ~nforc~d. There being no one else to a~dress this ordinance, the public hea~ing wa~ olesed. There was brief discusaion as to the intent of the fine not being to fund repairs and the ~mcunt of the fine being the ma~imtum the Board can implement. On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board adopted the following ordinance: A~ OPJDINANCE TO AMEND T~E CODE OF THE COUNTy OF C~ESTERFIELD; 1978~ AS AMENDED~ BY AI~ENDING AKD R~ENACTI~G SECTION 6-6,1 RELATING TO TEE MAXIFEJ2/ FINE WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED FOR VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE BE iT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors uf Chester~iel~ (1) That Section 6-6.1 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted to r~ad a~ follo~: (a) It ~hall be unlawful for any person within the county to violate or fail to comply with any provision of the building cods. Any person convicted of a violation or failure to comply with any provision of the building code within the county shall be punished by a fine of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2~500.~0). Each day that a violation (2} Thi~ o~diuaues ~hall be in ~ffeut immediately upon ibm adoption. Vot~: Unanimeus ADDING A SECTION RELATING TO ~EES ~OR LEAP PICKUP Mr. Mi*as stated this d~te end ti~e ha~ been advertised for ~ public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to fees for leaf pickup service. ~e further stated the County provides vacuum leaf collection services to elderly and handicapped County re~ident~ in designated no-burn area~ and du~ to a~tion by the General Assembly, the County now may only allow reduced fees if r~sidents satisfy tho income and not worth criteria e~tabliehed for real estate tam relief. He noted adoption of =he ordinance is mandated by :he state and fees will become effactiYe Novu~be~ 15, 1993. Mr. Georqe B~dles stated he felt all property zoned residential should be de~i~na%sd as a no-burn area an~ the County should consider privatizing leaf collection services. He further stated he is opposed to charging fees for leaf collection services. hearing was closed. Afte~ brief discussion, Mr. MCHale ~ade a ~otion, seconded by Mr. Colbert, for the Board to adopt an ordinance to amend Chapter 10 of the Code of the County of Chesterfiald~ 1978, as There was brief discussion relative to the impact of State mandated programs on localities. ~r. Warren called for the vot~ on the motion made by ~r. Mc~ale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, for the Board to adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF TH~ COI~NTY OF CHESTERFIELD~ 1~75, AS A/~D~O, BY AM~WDING SECTION 10-26 REI~%TIMG TO ~AF ~ICEUP SERVICES BE IT ORDAINED by the Eoard of supervisors cf chesterfield County: (1] That Chapter l0 of the Cod~ of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, shall read as Sec. 1O-~$. Leaf Pickup Service. (n) In the event the board Of supervisors shall ohooee to designate an area of the co. Dry a ~no burn area" or to make leaf pickup service available in a designated area, it shall do so by describing such area by reference to commonly recognized roads, subdivimion~ and landmarks in a notice published encea week for two (2) successive wmeks in a newspaper having general circulation in sue~ area and by posting such notice ~n at least five (5) public places within the area sc designated. (b) In the event the boar~ of supervisors shall choose to provide a leaf pickup service pursuant to paragraph hereunder and set a fee for such service, th~ Board may also, as part of the upproYal of t~a budget, provide for a reduced fee for the elderly er handicapped provided =hat they meet the in=oma and net worth criteria set forth in Sectio~ 8-15(a) and (b} of the County Code. (2} That this ordinan¢~ shall became effective immediately upon adoption. vote: Unanimous TO CONSIDERS/d ORDINANCE TO~HENDTHE COD~ O~ THE QOUETY O~ OHE~TERFIE~D, 1978, ~R ~t~N~.D=__B¥ ~DBTNG SECTION 4.1 RBLATIN~ TO COMPeNSaTiON ~OR KF2~E~B OF ADVISORY Mr. Micas s~a=md ~his ~a~s and him~ has been advertised for a public hearing tu oen~ide~ an ordinance relating to e0m~eneation for members of advisory boards. ~e further stated due to action by the General AsSembly, the Board can reimburse members of its advisory Doard~ for their ac=ual e~pons~s amd to compensate these members up to $50 per ~eeting and $3;000 annually. Me noted ~e Board ~ay se~ compensation for members of designated advisory boards annually a~ Dart of the budget approval p~ocess. ~r. George Beadles expressed cencerns relatlve to members of advisory boards being compensated in general and, ~pecifisally~ the Committee on the Future as he felt me. ers cf advisory boards should be willing to serve without compensation. DisCusSiOn, Comments, and q~emtiens ensued relative to the compensation of advisory board members during the budget process; and advisory boards reueiving compensation for their tim~ and ~ffortg. There being no one el~e to address thi~ ordinance, th~ public haarin~ was closed. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN 0RDIND/~C~ TO A/~ND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTerfieLD. 1978, AS MENDED, BY ADDING SECTION 2-4.1 REI~ATINO TO COMPENSATION FOR KE~BERS OF ADVISORY BOAPd)$ BE IT 0~AI~ED by th~ ~oard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) ~at Article II of the Cod~ ~., the County of Chesterfield, 1979, as a~nde~, is amen~e~ ~y adding a new Section 2-4.1 =o read as follcw~: Sac. 2-4.1. Commons=rich for Me~b~s._~f Advisory Board~. The Board of Supervisors may, during the budget approval proce~, provld~ that me,ers of designated advisory board~ COmmittees and co~issions, created by the ~uard ~ur~uant to the authority granted by section 15.1-33.2~ Code of Virginia, 1950, us amended, shall (i} be reimbursed the actual expenses incurred by them whil~ ~ving on such advisory boards, exceed a total of $3,~00 p~r calendar y6~r. i~adiately upon adoption. ~ote: Unanimous ~5,E, TO ¢ON~IDER ~ORDIN~=NCE TO MEND T~E CODE O~ TEK tenuiTY O~ C~EETERFIELD, 1978. AS ~ENDED. ~Y_~ODING A NEW ~TXON ~-Z.X RELATING TO WATER OONEERVATION DEVICEE AN~ LOW CgNE~M~TION FIi~fUREE Mr. Micas stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to wa~er conservation devices and low consumption fixtures which is designed to assist in water cenzervatien for new construction. He further stated staff has discussed the proposed ordinance with representatives of the building and plumbing supply ~ndustry and were requesting adoption of the ordinance with a ~elay of its implementation for four to six months to work tJzrough inventory of fi×tur~ that do not neet the new standards. ~r. George Beadles expressed concerns relative to reduced water at the sewage treatnent plant causing an increased co~t in tho o~er~tion of the treatment plant; that he felt requiring citizens to have the new devices will cause p~sblems in %he future; and that if the requirement is a mandate, it should Pot become effective until July, 1994. ~e. Laurie Norton, Vice President of Gunlep Plumbin~ and Heating Company and Legislative Chairperson for the Virginia Association of Plumbing/Heatin~/Coollng Contractors, stated mbo represents ~15 nember~ throughout the State; that ~hey are concerned about water and energy conservation; and that they support adoption of the ordinance, but are requesting the Board te delay implementation to allow the use of current inventory. There being ne one else to address t~is O~dinancu, the public h~ar~ng wa~ There wa~ brief discussion relative to the timeframe in which to defer er delay i~plementation of the ordinance. 93-495 7/28/93 de~arr~d consideration of adoption of an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by edging a new Section 6-3.1 relating to water cun~ervati0n devic~ and Vot~: Unanimous ~PRO~RI~TR $1,8~4,400 IN RRy~.~U.~S ~ND EXPENDITURE8 TO REFLECT THE CONSOLIDATED OPERATION OF THE WAREKO~8~, 8TOREROOM~ INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION ~ND_PONT~L ~ER~ICRS ~r~ Stegmaler stated this date and time ha~ been advertised for a public bearing to consider an amendment to the FY99-94 to appropriate $1,B34,400 in revenue~ and expenditures to reflect the consolidated opera:ion of the warehouse, storeroom, internal distribution, and po~tal services. Me further stated the appropriation i~ a result of the creation of two new internal service funds. ~here was briml ~iscuseion relative to aPProval of th~ action having a net cost of approximately $15,000 to tl%e FY94 General Fund an~ coat avoidance in the future due to %he consolidation. Mr. George Beadles indicated he supports consolidation of County/School ~e~iee~ and th~ po~zibility of privetizatfcn in There being no one else to address this issue, the public hearing was cloE~d. Mr. No,ale stated he recommends approval of the request and feel~ consolidation will be vary beneficial to the County and Schools. Mr. warren expressed ~ppreciation to County and School staff for t~eir efforts in working together on the con~oli~atlcn and seated consolidation will be a b~nefit to the County- Mr. warren then made a motion, seconded by Mr. ~cHale, for the Board to approve the agreements which consolidate internal distribution, warehouse, and storeroom functions under the administration of the School system and appropriated $1,834,400 in revenue and expenditures for these functions for the balun=~ of FY94. (It is noted this action will mean a net ce~ to ~e General Fund of approximately Sle,QQO in FY~. The county Administrator will identify sources to fund thi~ ~ortfall by year end.) GPJ~NT PROGR~/~ Mr. Wendell stated this date an~ time ha~ been advertise~ for a public hearing to consider the FY93-94 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ~rogram. He further ~tated the County has been allocated $1,344,000 in federal block grant funds from the U.S. Department of Mousing and Urban Development. Be reviewed in detail the project= within the Program and outlined the p~oeess followed in developing the CDBG Program. There was brief discussion relative to the amount of which would be r~turned to the County and re,insulated into the P~ogra~ and the services ~rc¥ided by CARES. 7/28/93 Mr. Wendell then reviewed two proposed amendments to the recommended Program -- the transfer of $32,000 from :he Interfaith Kousing Project for improvements to Chalkley Elementary School and providing the Et~rlck add Eatoaea Athletic Associations with ~5,000 each to pay for the required sign-up fees for low income s=udenta involved in li=tle league activities, which funds will be taken out of the Senlor~ Reoreation Program and the Elder Homes reguest. amendments to the Program might place the Department of ~ouslng and Urban Development (BUD) funding at risk. Ms. Elizabeth Wic~ham stated she would like some of the funds from the CDBG Program to be designated for the Comprehensive Ssrvioes Aot~ that her son is i~ residential placement in Muryland and was placed out of state by the public schools, since there is no program locally that could meet his needs; that she would like to see services available hare to meet the needs of her son amd others; that parenf~ of children with them to care for their children; and requested the Soard to use Apartment Complex; that she supDortm a commnnity center being which ham been very successful; that many residents are in mupport of organized team ~ports in the auea; and that building the co~munity canter will make the residents better citizenm. expressed appreciation to the Board fur their support of CDEG recognized approximately ~0 persons representing varioua civic the meeting; and ~tated the proposed Ettrick Community Center will bring many benefits to the youth and elderly in the area, Mr. Robert Gilly stated he resides in the Bermuda Run Apartment Complex and ~o~ed he has a speaking disability; that CDBG funds afford him the opportunity ~or future employment; end requested Apartment Complex in assistin~ others with similar Mr. Sterling Mawkins, Vice President of Ettrick o~ the Move, presented an update on the Village of Ettrick's revitalization initiatives an~ requested the Board to approve the continuing planned end used for those who nmed it the most; however, he receive the funds in reaching ~he pein5 where they would no longer qualify for these type~ of funds. in the Matoaca area do not particlpat~ in ~port$ because they youths in playing sports; and requested the Board to consider the ~ of CDB~ funds in this effort. Ms. Sharon Robertsen state~ she i~ a resident of the Bermuda Run Apertment Complex~ that she feels parents would benefit from the use of CDBG funds for edueetion and parenting and requested the Board ko Coenider approving the use o£ CDBG funds to assist parentn in th~ area. There being no one else to addre~ th~ ismue, the public h~aring was Nr~ Warren stated this is the second year of the CDBG PrograE and it has ~een very successful. Mr. McHale in~uired if any of the pro~rums presented have been included in the proposed CDBG ~rogram. Mr. Wendell ntated the Bermuda Run Soccer program continues; that ~unds have been e~p~nd~d for the =octet program with so~4 f~nds remaining; that the Bermuds Run Apartment complex will receive funds from Housing ~nd Urban Development tc provide a va~i4ty of programs for the psrent~ as well es the youth. Mr. MeHale ~tated mtaff and the community have worked in unique way on these projects; that two citizens were involved in development of the proposed CDBG Program projects; tha% there has been much citizen input regarding this i~sue; and that he feels so~n~unity needs are being addr~nsed. Mr. McHalu then ~ade a motion~ seconded by Mr. Cotbert~ for the Board to approve the County Administrator's recommended FY93-94 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Prnqram, as emended, and to authoriz~ the County Administrator to submit a ~inal ~tatement of Community Davelop~ent Objnctiven and Projected Use Development. Vote: Unanimous lit in noted f~nd~ in the amount of $1,354,500 war~ included in the FY94 adopted budget; therefore, no appropriation is necessary. Th~ appropriation re~olution grants a~thcrity to tee county Administrator to reduce the amount ~ndgeted down what will actually b~ r~c~ived. A copy of the CDBG Program F~nal Statement is filed with the papers of this Board.) It wag generally agreed to recess for five minutes. Mr. McCraoken stated this date and tine has been advertined for a p~blie he,ring to oo~nid~r the ~YP~ Road ~nhancement Mr. George Beadles stated he felt a public hearing nhould he held prior to the FY94 ~ead Enhancement Projects List being finalized in order for the soard to receive public input. There being no one else to address this issue, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Daniel made a motion, seconded by Mr. colbert, for the Board to approve the FY94 Road Enhancement Projects List as follows: I. Henricus A~cass Road Improvement $ 122,000 2. Chester B~ke Trails/Hiking Trails-seaboard Coast Line Abandoned Railroad Right-el-Way $ 20,000 3. Land~caping Route 10 (Centralia Rd.-Chester 4. ~ikQ lan~ - Smokotree Drive $ 70,000 ~. Sidewalk~ - Rt. i Various locations (Chippenham Parkway - Rt. 288) $ 1~5,000 6. Landscaping Rt. 10 (I-295 Interchange area) $ 50,000 7. Falling cree~ Pedestrian Trail Network $ 8. Sidewalks ~ Ettrlck various locations $ 60,000 9. Courthouse Compl~ Bike Trail Network $ 10. Sidewalk./Land.taping - Rt. 60 ~idlothian $ 60,000 11. ~ppington - ~istori¢ Preservation $ 50,000 12- Po~hite Pa~kway/Chippenham 9arkway Land=taping (Pha~e I) $1,000,00o There was brief discussion relative to the number of pro)eats which might be approved by tbs Virginia Department of TzansDo~tatie~ and requssts for the program exceedin~ the funding. /(r. Warren callsd fur the vets on the motion made by Mr. Daniel~ seconded by FL~. Colbert, for the Board to approve the Road =nhancement ~rcjec=s List as follows: chester Bike Trails/~iking Tr=il~-$~abosrd Coast Line Abandoned Railroad Right-of-Way $ 3. Landscaping Route 10 (Centralia Rd.-Ch~ter ~d~) $ 4. Bike lane - Smoketree Drive $ ~. Sidewalks - Rt. I various locations (Chipp~nham ~ppington - ~istoric Preservation Powhite Parkway/Chippenham ~arkway ~andso~ping (Pha~e I) Unanimous Parkway - Rt. 288) Landscaping Rt. I0 (I-295 Interchang% area) 7. Palling Creek Pedestrian Trail Network 8. $idswalks - Ettrick various locations 9. Courthouse Complex Bik= Trail Network 18. $idewalk~/Landscapin~ - Rt. 60 ~idlothian 11. 12. $ 122,000 70,000 $ 1!5,000 $ 50,000 $ 30,000 $ 60,000 $ Z~,000 $ 60,000 $1,000,0oo Mobile Home Permit ~o park a mobile homo in a Residential (R-7) fronta the north linc of Drewrys Bluff Roadj approximately 9§0 ~66S Pre%frye Bluff Road. Tax Map 67-3 (1) Parcel 41 staff recommends approval eubjsct tm standard conditions. He further state~ thim im the applicant's first permit There was no opposition present. changing end advised the applicant the rmquezt may not necessarily be renewed in tho future. On motion of Hr. ~caale, secon4o4 by Mr- Colbert, the Board approved Cuse 93SN0235 for seven (7) years~ subject to the following conditiens: 1. The applicant ahall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home ~i:e, nor shall any mobile home be use~ for r~ntal property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parke~ en an individual let or parcel. and other ~oning req/lirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied ~ith, ex~ept that no mobile homo shall be located cleser than 2Q feet to amy existing 4. Ne additional permanent-type living opace, other than the existing additions, may be added onto the mobile home. T~e mobile ~ome shall he skirted, but shall net be placed 5. Where public (county) water and~or sewer ar~ eye,labia, 6. Upon being grunted u Mobile Home Permit, the shall then obtain tho necessary permits fram %he office of imst~llatien or relecatien of the mobile home. Any violation Of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of tho Mobile Home Permit. In Dale Magisterial Dis~riut, RSBSCCAWALKSR requesto~ renewal of ~ob~le Hom~ Permit 88SR0~4 to park a mobile ho~e in a Residential (R-7) District. The density of this ~ropesal is approximately 1.4S units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan dasignate~ %he property for residential use o£.1.51 to 4.00 units/ac:e. Thin proDsrty fronts the south line of Cascade Street at Upp Street and is better known aa 4747 Cascade Strmet. Tau Map 52-3 (~) 5~nning Heights~ Let 41 (Sheet 15). Mr. Ja~obson presented a ~uau~ary of Ca~e 93SR~242 and ~tated ~s. Rebecca Walker stated the recommendation w~s acceptable. On motion of Mr. Dani~l~ ~eaOnded by Mr. Colbert, the Board followin~ ~tandard ccndition~: · . The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. 2. No lot or ~arcel may be ~ented or leased for uae as a rental proparty. Only one (1) mobile home shall be and other zoning requirements of the applicabls zoning district shall be complied wit~, excep= ~hat ne mobile residents. 4. No additional p=rmanen%-~yDa living space may be added shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. ~. whats public (county} wats~ and/or sewer are await=hie, 6. Upon bring granted a ~obile ~om~ P~rmit, the applicant the Building 0ffi¢i~l. This shall be done prior ~o =ha installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of ~he above conditions shall be ground~ for Vote: 93BN0195 I~ ~atoaoa ~&gi~teriul Di~trict~ DO~G~S R. ~O~RS requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residen=ial (R~9}. A single family rssidential subdivision with a minimum lot siz~ of 9,000 p~ acr~ i~ pel~mitted in a Residential (R-9) OistricC, The Comprehensive Plan dssignaLes the property for re~idsntial u~e of 1.51 to 4.00 units per aero. This r~ques% li~s on a 29.3 acre parcel fronting approxlmatsly 670 feet on the north line of Powhit~ Parkway and lying at the scuthern terminus of Winbury Drive and upperbury Terrace. Tax ~ap 37-4 (1) Part of Parcel 6 ~r. ~acobson stated the applicant is requesting a six~y-day deferral. ~LY. Andy Soherze~ representing the applicant, stated th~ applicant ia re~uestin~ a si~ty-~ay deferral to provide an opportunity to meet with citizens in the area. There wan no opposition pre~en~. On motion of Mr. Colbert, ~cond~d by Mr. Warren, the Board deferred case 93SN0195 until September 22, 1993. Vote: Unanimous In Midtothian Magisterial Di~trlc~, JA~S ~, rezoning from Agricultural (~), Remldentlul (R-7) and Convenience Business {B-i) ~c Neighborhood Business 14.96 acres and to Com~unlty Business (C-3) of 7.21 acres. The density of suck amendment will he ccnbrolled ~y zoning conditions or ordinancs standards. The Comprehensive Plan designate~ the property for g~neral commercial and ~i~ht i~dustrial uses. This ~equest lies on a tot~l cf 22.17 acres fronting approximately 899 feet on the southwest line of Midlothian ~u~npixc, approximately l§0 f~t northwest of Tuxford Road. Tax Map 17-16 (1) Parcels 1, 2, 4, 5 and 24 and Mr. Jacebson eta~e~ the applicant is requesting a thirty-day deferral. Mr. Frank aswan and Mr. Jam~s Hubbard stated tke applicant is requesting a thirty-day deferral to allow certain b~twm~n the own~rm of th~ ~b~eat property to be so,plated. There was no opposition present. Om motion of Mr. Bar,er, aeeen~ad ~y Mr. Colbert, th~ deferred Case ~lMN0230 until August 2~, ~993. vote: Unani~ou~ 91S~0276 (A~ended) In Bel~muda Magisterial D/strict, EVEL~ J. ~RA¥ ~ezsning ~rom Agricultural (A) to do~nunity Business The density of such amendment will be controlle~ by zenin~ condihions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates th~ property for commercial/office, light industrial and 100 year floodplain u~es. Thi~ reqUest lies on 54.7 acres fronting approximately 1,600 feet on the south line of Kinq=ton Avenue~ and located at th~ int~r~ction of these roads, Tax Map 118-14 (1) Parcels 19 and 24 (Sheet ~. Jaoob~on pre~nt~ a s~ary of Case 91SN~27~ and P15n. reco~endation was acceptable. There was no opposition On motion of Mr. McHal~, ~conded by ~r. Colbert, the Board approved Ca~e 91S~0276 and accepted the following proEfered oondicions: 1. Prior to site plan approval, one hundred (100) f~e~ of right of way on the sou~ sid~ of Rout~ 10 m~agured from unrestricted, to and for the ben~flt of ~es=erf~eld Cou~ty~ 2.A. Rrior to site plan approval for any development eas~ of a line extending from original Kingston Avenue/Route 10 intersection, south to the southern property line, a foot wide right of way for a ~pecial access street (public) from Kingston Avenue along the northern line of future development of Tax Hap 11~-15 (l) Parcel 16 shall be dedicated free and unrestricted to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. 2.B. Prior to site plan approval for any development east of a llne sxtsndln~ f~om original Kingston Avenue/Route intersection, south to the mouthern property line, a 50 foot wide right of way for n special access street (public] from the nortkeae~ern corner of the property alon~ the saetern property line to serve the future dsveIQpmen~ of Tax Map 135-2 (1) parcel 4 shall he dedicated free and unrestricted to and for the bs~eflt ef chesterfield County. Xn the event that Tax Map 11~-15 (1) parcel %6 and the property are combined for the ~0 foot wide right of way for a special scoems street (p~blic) may be relocated eastwardly and as Close r~location of same to be approved by the ~lannlng Commission. 3. A~cees to Route 10 shall be limited to Kingston Avenue and one additional entrance/exit located approxlma%ely midway between the Kingston Avenue inter.action and the western property line. At the time of site plan review, a second additional access located toward the western property line to align with a crossover may be approve~ by the Transportation D~partm*nt~ %£ the second additional access is approve~ the developer shall be responsible for full most of a traffic signal and ~onstruction of the crossover (including necessary burn lan~s). The exact lcoatio~ Of these scces~e~ shall be approved by the Transportation Department. 4. TO provide for an adequate roadway system at the tim~ of ca.plate developmsnt~ the developer sb~li be responsible A. Construction of additional pavement along the eastbound lanes of Route 10 bo provide an adOitionsl lane of payment for the entire property frontage. inter.action to provide dual left tur~ lanes. C. Constr~/ction of additional pavemeHt along the first 500 fe~t of Kingston Avenue at its intersection with Route 10 to provide a five {$) lane typical m~ctio~ (i.e., tWO (Z) southbound lanes and three (3) northbound lanes). D. One-half cost of braffic signalization, if warranted the Kingston Avenue/Rout* l0 Construction of a thirty (~0) foot wide face of curb through the subject property from Kingston Avenue to the western property lin~. It is understood that street ~hall be approved by the Planning Commission. ~3-505 7128193 Dedication to the County of Chesterfield, f~ee and unrestricted, any additional right of way (or easement) required for the improvements identified above, and to include r~ght of way for construction of an additional northbound turn lane along ~ingston Avenue at its intersection w~th Rsute 5. Prior to any cite plan approval, a p~a~ing plan for required road improvemeDt~ identified in proffered condition ~4, with ~uppsrtlng traffic analysis, if r~quested by the Transportation D~partment, shall be ~ubmitted to and approved by the Transportation Department. 6. Prior to obtaining a building permit, one of the followiDg ~hall be accomplished for fire proteotion: A. T~e owner, dev=l~pe~ or assignee(s) shall pay tn County $150 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area adjusted upward or downward by the same Index increased or decreased between June 30~ 199t~ and th~ date Qf payment. Wit~ the approval of the a~ignee(s} shall receive a credit toward tho suppression ~ystam net otherwise required by law which im included as a part of the OR The owner, developer or assignee(=) mba'Il provide fire suppression system not otherwise required by law which the County's Fire Chief determines ~therwiee neuessary for fire protection. 7. The architectural treatment of the development shall be similar to that Of eitheM Rive~s Bend Shopping Center 8. Ne buildings shall ~u constructed within the lOO year floodplain. Sit~ plan~ ~hall b~ ~ub~itted for Planning Commission adjacent property owners and the last known President of the Enon Civic Association, at l~a~t twenty-one (~1) days prior to the Ptannin~ Commis&ion's consideration sf =ne site plan, of the tXm~ and dat~ of ~ite plan 1-295~ no use will be open to the public between the hours of 12 midnight end 6:00 fortune tellers, tea leaf readers, prophets, repairs; D. Veterinary hospitals end,or commercial kennels; F. Cocktail lounges and nightclubs; Coi~ operated dry cleaning, pressing, laundry and laundrsmet~; 93-5u4 7/28/$3 Pawn ehopn, salvage barns and fica Satellite Dishes; J. Residential mult~family 5nd townhouees; Group Care facillti~s; Temporary outdoor vendore; N.Wand type m~tor vehicle washes; N. outdoor recreational aetabli~entm; O. Motorcycl~ P. Auto rentals, except as an acc~nnory use to a hotel; Q, ~e~ical facilities er ullnics ~svoted primar~ly to drug or alcohol treatment; Dry cleaning in conjunnt~sn w~th dry cleaning, pick up and drop off. 12. Outzide public addre~m ~ygt~n~s shall be limited to financial or restauran~ drive-thru facilities located within 400 fe~t of Route 10. Any such public address system shall be designed so a~ not to generate sound levels above 65 dba between the hours of ?:OQ a.m. and lO:Q0 ~.m. measured at the north line of the 100 year floodplain of Johnson's Cra~k at the point clessst to the so~rce of noise. During all other ti~n a~y ~uch public addr~s~ ~ystem shall be d~igne~ so as not ~o generate noise lsvsln above 55 dba measured at the north line of the 100 year floodplain of Johnson's Creek a% the point property shall ba maiatalne~ am a buffer and where the 1O0 year flo~dpluin is not at least meventy-£ive feet wide on the subject property, thn width of seventy-five (7~) ~oot wide buffer. Thin buffer shall comply with Section~ ~1.1-~6, ~1.1-~27 (a) ~ (b), (s), (d), (e), (~), (g), (h) and Rl.1-228(a) (3} provided, however, t~at ~tilities may be located within the buffer, but shall only be located so as to run generally perpendicular through the buffer and looatsd sc as to ~inimize visibility through the buffer. However, the ~lanning Cemmissien~ at the time of sits plan reuiaw may the location is ~ore thau one hundred fifty (150} feet in the easternmost tw~Dty-~our hundred [2,400) Scot area of the subject property, and ~eventy-five (75) feet north of the southern property line of t~e subject property in are accomplished. Except as previ~e~ herein to silvaoulture shall be permitted w~thin maid floodplain. 14. Any hotel located within the development shall be located relusabion o~ Rslmoated Kingston Avenue. 15. Thsrs shall be no more than six (6) ontparcels along Rou~e 10 west of Kingston Avenue_ There shall bs no more than provided, however, that if a hotel is built on the property along Route 10 east of Kingston Avenue, only one outparcel will be permitted. 16. There shall b~ no on-site burning of land cleared 9F=505 7/28/93 The area designated on the conceptual site Dl~n "office/service' shall be limited ~o office/war~houses and C-2 uses not excluded by proffer No.ll. 19. Any access provided through the subj~c~ property to the ~OUth s~all be generally tosated s~ c~o~e to 1-295 as praotisable so as to ~in~mi~e th~ impact on re~id~nces in the Cameron ~ill Snbdlvislon, and the exsot locatisn of this access shall be approved by the ~lanning Commission. 20. Any cucktail lounges and nightclubs ~hall be permitted only as accessory ts a hotel, provided the maximum occupancy o~ any individual lounge or n±ghtclub so permitted s~all net exceed ~1. if approv~d by tko Transportation D~partment and VDOT, prior to release of final occupancy permits for more than ~d,000 gross ~quar~ feet of floor area; okuma Drive abandon the appropriate section(s) of Kingston Avenue so ~2, The maximum density of this development shall be · n ~er~uda Magisterial D~strlct, ~O~RT w. ~ND BETTY S. requested rezon~ng from Residential (R-7) to General Business (C-5). The density of such amendment will be controlle~ by zoning conditions or ordinance standards. The plan designates the property ~or residential use of 1.51 to units par acta. This ~equest lies on a 3.35 acre parcel, known as ~930 Pams Avenue. Tax Map ~1-~ (Z) ~ingstand Meights, Lot ~ (Sheet Mr. Jacobsen presented a ~u~unary of Cas~ 93SN0179 and stated the Planning Co.lesion an~ ~a~ r~oo~ends approval and a==eptance of the proffered conditions. ~e noted ~ request ~onform~ with %~ Jefferson Davi~ Corridor Plan. Mr, Dean Hawkins, representing the applicant, statm~ the r~Co~endation was acceptabl~. There wa~ no O~ ~otio~ of Mr. McHale~ seconded Dy Mr. ~aniel, the Board approve~ Cas~ 9~SN017~ and accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. Prior to obtaining a building permi=~ one of~e following A. ~e o~er, developer or assignee(s) shall pay to the County $15O per 1,OOO S.F. of gross floor adjusted upward or do~ward by the name percentage that the Marshall swift Buildinq Cost County's Fire chief, ~he o~er, developer or which is included as a part of the OR R. The owner, ~evo1Qper or assigned(s) shal! provide a fire suppression oystem not otherwise required by law which the County's Fire Chief ~etermineo substantially reduces the need for County facilities 2. Prior to mito plan approval, thirty (30) feet of right of way, as measured f~o~ the centerline of Pamm Avenue, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and ~n~e~tricted. 3. Easement~ shall be ~ranted to the County e~ Che~torflsld to provide publlo pedestrian access from ~h% site to Fort Stephen~ ~ark and parking on the subject site for the public who vioit Fort stephens Park. sue~ easements shull allow improvements by the County of Chesterfield to Recreation at tbs time of site plan review. A minimum twonty-fiv~ (25) foot buffer shall be maintained along the northern property boundary. This buffer shall t~enty-five (~5) foot bufferG, Suctions ~1.1-2~6, ~1.1-227 (b), if), (h), (i) [4), (i) (5), (i) (7), (j) il) and (NOTES: a) The requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, requirements of this condition. Vote: Unanimous Acceptance of this condition will prohibit any ruduction in this buffer, otherwise allowed by %ho Zoning Ordinance, until ~uch time that adjacent property i~ zone~ or utilized for a non-residential use.) tn Dale Magisterial District, B. ~ORDON BE~SLSy, JR. requested ~ozoning from Agricultural (A) and Resid~n~iai (R-12) to Corporate Office (0-2). Expansion of an Existing day care center is planned. However, =he property could be u~ed or developed for other corporate office uses. The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. Tho Comprehensive Plan designates ~he property for light commercial use and for ~euidential use of 1.$1 to 4.00 Bonniebar~k Read. Tax Map 52-7 (1) Parcels 3, 4 and f~ (sheet l~). ~r. Jacobuun presented a on,mary of Casa 99SN0199 and stated the Planning Commission and sta~£ receaumends approval and acceptance of the proffered conditions. ~e noted the request conforms with the ~entral Area Land Use and Transportation Plan. Mr. B. Gordon Beasley, Jr. stated the recommendation wa~ acceptable- Th~r~ was no opposition preaant. Fur. Qaniel disclosed to the Board that hi~ wife occupies rental space in the building adjaosnt to the appliaant and clarified there is no indication there would be any influence on outcome of the rental payments based on t~e zoning of this request. Mr. Daniel then ma~e a notion, seconded by Nr. Colbert, for the Board to approve Case 93SN0199 and ta accept the following proffered conditions: 1. Prior :o obtaining a building permit, one of the following shall be accomplished for fire protection: A. The owner, developer or assignee(~) ~hall pay tc the County $150 Der 1,ooo square feat of gross floor aroa adjunted upward or dewn~ard by the percentage that t~e Marshall swift Buildin~ Cost Index increased or decreased betwee~ J%k~e 3~, 1991, and the date ~f payment, wit~ t/%e approval Of the County's Fire Chief, the owner, developer or assiqnee(~) ~hall receive a credit toward the required payment fo~ the co~t of any fire suppression system not otherwise required by which is included es a part of tho development. B. The owner, developer or assigne~(s) shall provide a fire suppreSSion ~y~tem net otherwise required hy law which the County's Fire Chief determines mubmtantially reduces the need for County facilities utherwi~e necessary for fire protection. Uses permit:ad shall be limited to those permitted by right and with restrictions in the Neighborhood office (0- 1) District, plus: Art school, gallery or mumeum Laboratories - m~dical or dental Meamenger or telegraph serviaes In Dale ~agisterial District, AT~ ~ROPERTiES, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-7) Residential (R-9), a single family r~sid~ntlal subdivision having a minimum lot size of 9,0QQ square lest is ~lanned. Residential use of up to ~-~4 units par acre is permitted in Reaidential (R-9) Diatrict. The Comprehensive Plan dasignatem the property for r~id~ntial use of 1.~1 to ~.0 units p~r acre. This requemt'lia~ on a 16.17 acre parcel fronting in two af Jemmup Road, acrame fro~ Meadoway Road. Tax Map 52-5 Hr. Poole presented a summery of Case 935N0192 and stated the Planning Commission and et~ff recommends approval and a=oeptance ~ the proffere~ =onditions. He noted the request conforms to the Central Area Land Usa and Transoortatiom Plan. Mr. Jim Hayes, representing the applicant, mtated the r~com~m~ndatio~ was a¢c~p~abl~, There was no oppo~itie~ present. Mr. Danlal made a motion, seconded by Mr. Colbert, f~r the Board to approve Cass 935~0~92 and te a~¢ept the following proffered conditions: 1. At ~he time of recordation of e subdivision plat, thirty- five (3D) feet of right of way on tho north side of Jeesup Road~ measured f~o~ the centerline of that part of Jessup Road immediately adjacent to the ~reDerty shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. road. The exact location of thi~ access shall be approved by the Transportation Department. 3, To provide for an adequate roadway system at the time of complete dmv~lopmeut, the developer shall be re~pcnslble for the following: a. Construction of additional pavement ~long Jessup Road at th~ approved access to prcvid~ a right turn lane. b. Relocation Of the ditch to provide an adequate shoulder along the north ei~e of Jessup Read for the enti~e property frontage. e. Dedication to the County of Chesterfield, fr~ and unrestricted, any additional right of way (or easementl required for the improve~ent~ identified above. 4, For each residential lot developed in excess of the three (~) currently permitted under the existing R-7 zoning, the applieant~ subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following to the County of Chester£ield prior to the time of building permit application for infrastructure improvements within the service district far the property: a. $4,000 Der lot, if paid on er prior ~o June 30, t993; er b. The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not ~o exceed $4,000 per lot adjusted upward by any incTease in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1~ 1992 and July 1 of the fiscal year in which th~ payment is made if paid after June 30, 199~. The ~ublio water and wastewater systems shall b~ used. $. The minimum h~atsd ~ross floor area of dwelling units, exclusive of carport~, garages, porches end decks, shall 7. The owner/developer shall ~snd notice by first class mail to all a4jacent property owners of the entire property which is th~ subject of this zoning prior to any tentative ~b~ivision plan submittal to Ches=er~ield County. In eonp~notion with the submission of the tmntative subdivision plan, the owner/developer shall provide the Planning Department with an affidavit listing Cho~e p~reone to whom notice was sent and their addremmes, plus a Dopy of the notification letter. M~. Barber ibqhired as to thm differenc~ in density noted in ~he public notice versus the density suggested in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. ~cole stated th~ d~nnity men~iened in =he public notice was the theoretical maximum density which was higher than could be expected to occur, taking into a¢ocunt normal ~evelopm~nt constraints. Mr. Warren called for the vote on the motion Node by Ftc. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Colbert, for the Board to approve Case 93SNO192 and to a¢¢opt th~ following proffered conditions: 1. At the time of recordation of a subdivision plat, thirty- five (35) feat of right of way on the north side of Roa~, measured from ~e centerline of that part of Road immediately adjacent to the property shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the ben~£it of Chesterfield County. 2. Access to Jessup Road shell be limited to one (1) publ±e by the Transportation Department. To provid~ for an adequate roadway myst~m at the time Of complete development, the developer shall ~e rosponsihle for th~ followXng: a. 0Qnstxuction of additional pavement along Road at the approved access to provide a right ~urn lane. h. Relocation o£ the ditch to provide an a~quate shoulder alon~ the north side of J~ssup Road for the entire property frontage. c. Dedication to the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, any additional right of way (or easement) requlr~ for the improv~nt~ identified above. 4. For each residential lot developed i~ e~ce~s of the three (3} currently permitted under the existing R-7 zoning, the applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) ~h~ll pay the following to the county of Chesterfield prior to the time of building permit application for infrastructure improvements within the service dist~iot fort ha property: a. $4,000 per lot~ if paid on or prior to June 30, The amount apprcve~ by the ~oard of ~upervisors not to ~o~ad $4,000 per lc~ adjusted upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1~ 1992 and July i of the fiscal year in which the payment iE made if paid after June 30, 1993. 5. The public water and wastewater systems shall be used. 6. The minimum heated gros~ floor area of dwelling units, exclusive of carports, garages, porches and decks, shall 7. The owner/dcv~lu~e~ shall ~end notice by fi=st cla~ mail to ell adpacent property owners of the entire property which is the subject oft his zoning prior to any tentative subdivision plan submiUtal to Chesterfield County. In conjunction with the suhmizzion of ~he tentative subdivision plan, th~ owner~developer ~hall proviso the Planning Department with an affidavit li~ting p~rsons to whom notice was sent and their addresses, plus a copy of the notification letter. Vote: Unanimous 93-51Q 7/25/93 In Clover Hill Magisterial 0is~:ict, CENTRAL VIR~X~IA ~A~K/DAW~ BR~DSE¥, V.R. requested rezoning from Agricultural (Al to Light Industrial (I-1). The density of such amendment Hill be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Com~rehenelve Plan designates the property fo~ regional mixed Use. This request li~ on an $.11 acre parcel fronting approximately 360 feet on the east line of Genito Place, approximately 1,~0 feet north of Genito Road. Tax Map 37-13 (1] Parsel 5 (Sheet Mr. Jacobsen presented a s~ary of Case 93SN0194 and stated the Planning Co~ission and staff recommends approval and acceptance of the proffered conditions. He noted the conforms with the UDder Swift Creek Plan. There was brief discussion r~la~ive to use of public water and ~ewer am it rulates to this request. Mr. Andy Scherzer, representing the applicant, stated the recommendation wam acceptable; that this site drains to Falling Creek and, therefore, water quallty concerns ~ith regar~ to the Reservoir are not necessarily impacted by thi~ ~ite; that extending public water to this slt~ would Ret be beneflcial due tu its isc!ated nature and being a small-scale development; and r~qua~ted the Board to give favorabl~ consideration to the ret!vest. There wa~ no o~position present. On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board approved Case 955~Q194 and accepted the following proffered conditions: Prior to obtaining a building permit for non-residential uses, One of the fei!owing s~all be a~ompllshed for fire protection: (al The Owne~, Developer or assignee(s) shall pay to the county $150.00 per i,QOO mquare feet of gross floor area adjusted upward or downward by the same percentage t~at ~hs Warshall Swift Building Coat Index increases or decreased between Jun~ $0~ 1991, and t~e da~ cs payment. With the approval of the County's Fire Chief, the Owner, Develop~, or assignee(s) shall receive a credit toward the required payment for th~ Oe~% of a~y ~uDpr~ssinn system not otherwise required by law which is included as a part of the development. OR (b) The O~er, Developer or assignee(s) shall provide a fire suppression system not otherwise required by law which the County's Fire Chief determines substantially reduce~ the ~eed for County facilities otherwise ns=am~ary for fire protection. 2, Prior to site plan approval, thirty (30) feet of the right of way on east side cf Ge~i~o Pla~e measured fram the centerline of that part of Genito Place immediately adjacent to the preperty shall be de~icatud, frae and unrestricted, tc and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. 3. Between th~ date of the granting of this razoning and =he adoption by the County of a Comprehen$iv~ Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relative to signs, =here ~halt be no sign(s)~ other than temporary real estate sign(s) an permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, erected on the property which are visible to Route 255. Upon adopSion u~ the 93-511 7/28/93 Comprehensive Amendment to the Zoning ordinance relative to signs, any ~iq~($) ~rect~d on this parcel visible to Route 288 shall comply with such amendment. P~ovided, however, ~f the Comprehensive A~endment to the Ordinance relative to signs is not adopted by Deco.er 31, 1993, any olgn(~} visible to Route 285 erected shall conform to the requirememt~ of the Zoning ordinanne at the time the sign is At such time that the public water and/or waetewater system(s) is within §00 f~et OF THE PROPERTY, t~en all structures shall he connected to suo~ Provided, however, if ~hi~ property i~ combined with other property for development, then et such time that the public water and/or wast~water ~y~em(~) i~ within 500 feet of the other property, all mtrnc=ures louated un the subject property shall be connected to ~uch On motiom of Mr. McNale~ seconded by adjourned at 9:40 p.m. until August 25, 199~ at Vote: Unanimous ~=Lane B. Ramg~y~ COunty Administre~ ~r. Arthu~ ~. ~arren Chairman 93-512 7/2~/93