Loading...
11-22-94 Minutescounty Admini$=ra=or ~t&f~ in ~ttendance: Mr. Craig ~. Bryant, Dir., Utilities Mrs. ~arilyn Cot~, ~x~c. Assr. tu County Admin. Mrs~ Dori~ R. D~Mart, Aszt. Co. AOmln., Lmgis. Svcs. and IntergeverR, Affairs Mr. William D. Dupler, Building official Chief Robert L. Eanes, Jr., Fire Department Mr. Michael ~old~nr Dir., Perks and Recr~atlon Mr~ Bradford $. Hammer, Deputy Co. Ad~in.~ Management Serviue~ Mr- ~ussell Harri~ County 0mbud~man Dir., Planning ~r. Luu Lassiter, Dir., Internal Audi~ Ma. Mary Leu Lyle, Dir., Accounting D~puty Co. Admin.~ Mr. R. John McCrauken, Dir., Transportation Dir., Env. Engineering Dr. William gelaon~ Dir., Health O~partment Dir., G~neral Services Ms. Theresa M. Pitts, Dir,, Budget & Management Mr. M. D. Stith~ Jr., Deputy CO. Admin.~ Community Development Ms. Maruella Williamson, Senior Information S~ec~alist, Public Affairs Mr. Fredarink W. Willis, Mr. McHal~ called the regularly sche~ul~ meeting to or4er at 3:00 p.m. 1,A. NOVEMBER 9, 1994 On Motion Of DP, Niohulas, secunded by Hr. Barber, the Board approved the minutes of Kovember 9~ 1994, as amended. ¥ot~: Unanimous Mr. Daniel state~ he would like it noted for the record that on Pag~ 9~-807, Lines 25 to ~0, that he did not receive a cody of the letter referenced from Mr. H~ward Worrell, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trust~s for Beulah United M~thodimt Church, regarding zoning Case 94SNQlll~ and only became awa~e of th~ l~tt~r after that me.ting. 1.~. NOVEMBER On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr~ Bar~r, ~he Beard approued the minute~ of November ~0, 19~, a~ ~ub~itted~ Bate: Unanimous 2. OOU~TY ADMINIBTRATOR'B ~OMMBNTS Mr. Ramsay i~tEodeoed Mr. Hammer to update the Board on the $tatu$ of renovations at the LaPrade and Ettrick]M~euca Bran=h Libraries. ~ttrick/~atoaca B~anch Li~r~rie~ including prejeoted completion data of the Ettrick/Natoaca Library b~ing ~, 1~94 and projec~e~ completion date for the LaPrade Library Library. When osked~ he stated the completion date for the Matoaoa Branch Library is ~cheduled for mid December~ 1994 and that staff is planning to meet with the construction oampany %o finalize the schedule. He further stated staff will meet with community committees and publish cltiz~ns regarding :he projected openings of the librarie~ in an effort to keep citizens informed. Mr. Warren commended ~taff for their efforts on this project and, particularly, ~er the expeditious manner in which the Libraries will return to operation. Mr. Barber ~tated he held his "First Monday" con~tituentn me=ting on Nevember 7, 1994 ~ith the topic of discussion beiug the FYP5 budget outlook and noted a survey was conducted with those in attendance with the result~ indicating that citizens found th~ me.ting very informative; that ~e will be holding a budget meeting on December 7, 1994 for Midlothian District civic associations and committee appointees; that his next "First MonOay" constituents meeting will b~ held on December S, 1~95 with the topic of discussion being the Christma~ Met~sr Proqrmn; that he has participated in the E×isting Industry breakfa~t~; and that the ~idlo~hian Branch YMCA is projected to open in the Spring of 1995- wi~h the Chesterfield Business Council and requested staff to about b~%~r ~ffi¢iency in government and those issues the Board can addrems to Continue %ha~ efforK. Dr. Nicholas stated he attended the annual Maymont tour and dinner; that ha was a guest speaker at ~ Matoaca Middle School eighth grade class and had the opportunity to read to Appomattox Basin Industrial Development Corporation, the N~ACP'$ annual banquet at Fort Lae~ the Virginia State University Agricultural Alumni annual banquet, the Virginia Historical Society Henricua ~oundati0n annual mee%ingf the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission meeting, the Virqinia Association of Counties (VACo) annual meeting, the retreat with the Chesterfield Business Council; that he met with eonsultant~ from Virginia State University regarding the development of the Jefferson Davis Corridor; that he attended meetings with the Chesterfield county Council oS PTA's and the Children's Hume of Virginia Baptist Board of Directors; and that he has sent a letter t~ every Matoaoa District. Mr. Daniel stated he has attended several meetings with various groups re~arding initiatives of the Capital Airport Commission and noted he made a presentation to the Metropolitan Richmond Chamber o~ Commerce and the Economic Development Regional Partnership regarding this issue and stated the Commission is continuing tn develop the direction in which to take the Partnership to sell economic development on a regional Das±s. He further stated the Commission's next mae=lng will be held on December 15, 1~94 and uuggested eac~ Board ~amber individually ~t=~nd the next several meetings cf the Partnership. He stated he also attended the annual meeting of the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) and note~ unfunded mandates was one of the issues addressed; and that he has attended several me,tinge of the Governor's Commission on Champion Schools and noted the draft report will be presented tu the ~evern0r on November ~9, 1994. ~r. McHale instructed stuff to schedule each individual Board member'a at~en~anc~ ~or a meeting of the Metro Economic Development Partnership. He stated he represented t~e County at the Safe Neighborhosd Action Plan kiuk-e£f on November 22, ~99~ which is a multi-jurisdictional program to assist residents in dealing with ~he challenges e£ crime in neighborhoodm; that a remolution on expanding end improving adopted by the National Association of Countie~ (NACO} this year; that the County is working with consultants on marketing plan for the Jefferson D~vis Cerridor~ and that he Will be hold~ng a m~eting r~garding ~he budget for 8e~muda 4. RBOUEBT8 TO POBT~O~B ABTIOB. BM~R~BNCY ADDITIONS. OR O}IA~G~S IN THE ORDER aP PRBSBNTATION On motion cf Mr. Daniel, seconded ~y Dr. Nicholas, the ~oard moved Item 1B-B-, Public Mmaring to Conmider an ~nuendment to the Southern and Western Area Plan, an ~lement of the County's Commrehensive Plan. to be heard prior to Zoning Ca~= 95S~Ql~l and, adopted the agenda~ as amended. Vote: Unanimous 94-8~2 11/22/$4 5. KESOLUTION~ AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS o RECOGNIZING MRS. DALE E~E~F.~RT. COUNTY ~DKINISTR~T_0~'~ OFFICE appro×imat~ly t~n years and is known for her friendly and helpful attitude and that the County will miss her dedicated service. He then introduced Mrs. Everhart who was present to receive the resolution. On motion of the Board, the following resolut£on was ad©pt=d: WHEREAS, Mrs. Dale R. Everhart has faithfully served Chesterfield County £or eleven years, tan of which have been in the Office of the County Ad~inistretor~ and W~EREAS~ by p~cviding quality public service, Mrs. Everhart has symbolized the type of employee Chesterfield WHEREA$~ ~r~. Everhart has ~hown tremendous knowledge regarding the County and its pregrams and ~he ab~li=y to WHEREAS, ~rs. EYerhart~s de,ire to do a good job ha~ been & primary factor that h~e permitted her to perform at e very high level while always striving to excellence and go~ng beyond the call of duty; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Everhart has been extremely effective is working with akl groups, iDclu~ing the ~oard of Supervisors, localities, so-workers, and~ most importantly, th~ citisuns of Chesterfield County. ROW, THERE?ORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield Ceunty Soard of ~upervlscrs publicly ~ec~gnisss the the appreciation of all residents for her service ts the County, and extends their appreciation for her dedicated service to the County, their congratulations u~om her retirement, and their best wishss for a long and happy retirement. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that e copy of this resolution be presented to Mrs. Everhart and that thi~ Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia_ Vote: Unanimou~ service to tSe County, and ~ished her well in her retirement. 6. WORK SESSIONS o REGIONal INITIATIVES PROJECT Plr. Ramsey stated last ~arch, the Leadership ~roup, consisting of chief elscte~ o£Sioial¢ £rem ~he Counties of Chesterfield, Hanover, and Eenrico and the City Of Richmond, directed the administratcrs/~anager to develop a priority list of future regional partnership initiatives. K~ further stated they selected a consultant to assist in the process recommended to the elected officials in the four localities with seven projects being selected as the h~he~t prlcrlt~e~. Ee then introduced Mrs. Cole to brief the Board on the initiatives. Mrs. Cole reviewed the proposed twenty new initiatives for possibl~ consideration which were broken down into the following categories: regional quality enhancements, public safety, transDortatlon, and human services. She then reviewed evaluation factor~ and wuigkts ased to ran~ the twenty projects and the ted seven regional initiatives and their action plans including regional crime prevention, the reglunal amateur spurts complex, the Regional River Projeot, regional convention facilities~ the regional public safety communications system, regional water planning, and regional juvenile justice services. Mr. Warren inquired as to whether the Regional Leadermhip Group or the olympic Festival Bid Committee could provide the ~oard with information on tho proposal regarding the proposed natatorium at the university of virginia and whether or not that proposal would ~eet som~ of the needs for the Richmond Olympic Festival bid. Mr. Ramsay stated %ha Olympic Festival Bi~ Committee is in th~ process of preparing information to address the Board's questions regarding the University of Virginia facility. ~rs. Cola continued ts review action plans of the top seven ~eqional initiativ%~ and stated ~h@ R~gionat Initiatives Committee made a presentation to the Regional Leadership Croup last weak; that each locality is tO review the report with sleeted officials; that staff is to receive feedback on the top seven priorities in terms of whether the Board has o~her recommendatioes Srom ~ha list Q£ ~wenty projects may not be on the list at all; and that an additional project identified, since =he committee began the pro=ess, was expansion of the Richmond International Airport. She noted results of the feedback on the top saves projects will be presented to the Regional Leadership Group in January, 199~. Or. Nicholas comm~nd~d the Regional Initiative Committee for their efforts on This projec~ and indicated he was surprised not to s~e any health or medical service initiative~ included in t~e top seven ranking, He inquired as to whether the Coi~i~ittee has decided on a rims limitation for implementation of these projects. Mrs. Cole stated the Committee has not reviewed implementation stiate~ies at this time, but the Dr. Nicholas stated he supports regional cooperation, however, ha has rauervation~ about the total cost for these initiatives and especially wi~ tho ad,ed Airport figures. Mr. Daniel commended the Regional Initiative C~mmittee for =heir e~srts on =his project sn~ s%ate~ ~e would like formalize the mddition of tho Richmond International A~rport ~o ~he list of regional initiatives. Ha further sta~ed the capital Region Airport Commission will continu~ to have capital improvements over the next four years and statistics show that ~'big city air transportation accessibility" is the number one reason for big business locating to ~he City. He stated the regional A~ateur Sports Complex does not address how the cable:es will travel ~o an~ ~rem town and he ~eels t~ Airport is an issu~ t~at s~ould be addressed early in Regional Leadership Group for them to consider adding it to the priority list. 94-894 11/22/94 Mr. Barber states his constituents have recently e~preosed concern and reluctance over regional issues due to the recent comments expresm~d by a member of the Richmond city Council and inquired as to the possibility of anna×atica. ~r. Ramsay ~tated annexation is alway~ a possibility and the General Assembly enacted a statute that bans annexation and theoretically the General Assembly could repeal the annexation ~an and reopen the possibility of annexation. He Assembly wo~ld Consider opening the annexation issue in the Mr. Barber stated he feels if the Beard pur~ue~ a regional agenda, then it should be pursued without the threat of annexation. He then inquired as to what assurance the County reviewed with localitie~ after the first cf the year when the initiatives. Mr. Barber then inquired aa to when formal action ~euld be initiatives. Mr. Ramsay stated the ~oard's priorities should ~a ~inalized ~y t~e end cf Deoembe~ thim year prior %o consideration by the Regional L~adership Group in January, 1Dg~. Mr. Barber orated he would like the issue of annexation to be time, he is reluctant to support the rs~ional initiatives. Mr. McHale stated any action taken by the Beard on support of th~ regional initiatives would only be to direut staff to continue this endeavor. He further stated he will express Mr. BarDer's reservations at the next reqional luncheon and clarified that any action by the Bc~rd is subject to rigorous priorities, Mr. Barber restated he iu reluctant to take any action on the regional initiatives while %nero is still a possibility of annexation and inquired as to whether a binding agreement can bm executed with the City of Richmond r~garding this issue. Mr. Daniel stated he has received phone calls re~ar~ing the direction the County is taking on regional efforts and has made efforts to communicate to citizens that the County's participation in regional ventures, such as the proposed natatorium, lo a joint fundin~ mechanism in which all jurisdictions will benefit, He further stated h~ feels the Board should he cauti~uo in deciding which iomueo are regional in nature and in which citizens will see a direct benefi=, aa indicated he could mot support the project the dialogue on issues ~hich affect the £ou~ localities for value added. position in opposition to regional government and he received numerous letters from citizens in support of that pouitio~. He further stated he feels the Board ~hould consider taking if necessary. He stated hs ~eels the Board's first obliqation is to County c£tizen~ and ~itizens de not want to position is ~ommuniosted to County citizens, the position of ls~er, es suggested by Hr. Warren, to County citiJens by the that in e statement made to the press within the past week, regional lunch that annexation is no longer an issue being Mr. Warren stated he feels citizens should be informed of the ~oard'$ posktio~ On thi~ i~nue. Mr. Warren then made a mo~ion, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, for reglonal government. Mr. McHals stated he feels i~ is imporhant for th~ four challenges Ior delivering services %0 their eo~munitie~, and addre~ issues affecting the localities and ways in which to of regional government and that th~ purp0~e of ~hle e~fort is He seated while these projects cost money, that collectively, step in the process is for staff to report back ~o the elected officials from all four localities tn conven~ will be undertaken. the next Board meeting to rank the projects ena County l~vel feels are the most important regional initiatives as viewed Th~r~ was brief di~cusmion relative tn the possibility referring some of the long-range projects to the County's th~ Board.) ~r~ MnHale requested staff to defer Item 7.A., Work Session on Revenue porum, to follow Item $.D-, Consen~ Items. INSTALLATION COST APPROVkL After brief discussion, on motion of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr, Warren, the Board deferred consideration of a streetlight installation cost approval for Brookridg~ Road, in cul-de-sac, Matuaca District, until last Soard mss=ins in FY94-BS, anticipated to be June 25, 1995~ Vote: Unanimous ~.A. ADOPTION OF 1995 LEGISLATIVE PROGRA~ AND SET DATE FOR ~rs. De.art stated staff is requesting th~ Board to adopt th~ 1995 Legislative Program and to set a date for a ~ublic h~ar~ng to con~id~r Charter amendments_ She further stated the County Administrator ha~ requested the Beard a~d am item approve the regional legislative initiatives. Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relative to Henrioo county's request for the four jurisdictions to consider requestin9 the transient occupancy tax legislation which would allow :ha localities to levy, if they nho~e, up to ~ix percent tax on hotels; the County's current rate being two percent and capped at two percent by State Code; cities not being obligated to the cap; revenue from this tax being used for purposes that would benefit the industry on initiatives geared toward attracting tourism to the asea including the natatorium; and w~ethsr the legislation would state that the funds will be held and used for tourism or whether the intent is that the funds will be used on an worthy cause. ~. Daniel stated he doe~ nat have a problem with the i~sue of a transient occupancy tax but indicated concern about the intention of a ta~. ~r, Eam$~y stated the ho~el indus%fy e~ould ~upDert t~assiebt 0ec~pancy tax legislation and Chi& type of limitation is necessary to ~ain the support O£ ~e ~otel industry. ~r. Daniel rmqussted staff to add an item to the Legislative relating to ann,×arian and any attempt to impose a commuter er payroll tax. When asked, Mr. Ramsey stated he feels ~ is appropriate for the Board to adopt the 1~9~ Leglsl~tive Program excluding %he Charter amendments until DecemDer Mr. Barber stated it is his understanding that ~t~m 1~., which would amend the definition of "m~etimg" to allow a quorum o£ governing bodies to attend meetings of local er~ani~ation~ ~here no action can be taken without the formalities acquired with Yhe Freedom of Information Act, was without going through the Freedom of Information Act, however, it weuld include Board members in attendance with local organizations, not preparing mine=es of ~hese me~ting~! the press net being notified, and not following the steps as 94-$9? 11/22/94 stated he feels notification mhould be qiven tn the pre~m regarding all meetings and, therefore, hs ne longer supports this item. Mr. Barber th~n made a motion, eeeended by Mr. Danial~ for the Board to delete I~em 15., Amend the Definition uf "Meeting" to Allow a Quorum of Members of Geverning Bod~e~ to Attend Meetings of Local Organizations Where No Action Can be Taken Without the Formalitie~ Required with the Freadom ef Information Act, from the 1995 Legislative Program. Dr. Nicholas re~ue~te~ ~he Board vote separately on Item 3~., which supports legislation which implements the Regional crime Summit initiatives and the Governo~'~ proposal for the abolition of parole, as it i~ hi~ intention to abstain from that vo~e. Thare was brief discussion relative to the motion i~el~di~g designating the public hearing for the Char~er amendments; adopting the proposed 1995 Legislative Progr~ excludinq Item 3g.; including an item in the Pre~ram re~ardin~ the tranzien~ occupancy tax and defininq how the revenue generated from the tax would De spent~ addin~ an item to ~ke Pr0qram under the Support/Oppeee Category regarding the Beard bain~ opposed to annexation and a commuter tax; and adopting the Central Virginia Cealition Legi~tativa Program. On motion of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Aoard adopted the 1995 Legislative Program, as amended, and set the date ef December 14~ ~994 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider the following Charter amendments: 1. A~e~d 6.7 of the County Charted to inolude the county Administrator on the ce~itt~ which r~co~ends appein~ment of th~ Chief of Police. A~nd the Ceanty Charter to mp~cify the County Administrator appoin%~ the A~e~sor. Amand the Ceunty Charter to provide for the special election of a Board of Supervisors member should a vacancy occur during a Doard term. The election would be by special ~lectien or if within ninety day~ ef a general election at a general elan:ion. In a~li~ion, the vice-chairman weald automatically succaad to chairman if the chairman's position is vacated for any Amend the County Charter to permit election of school board. Amend the Charter to provide that all elections for County supervisors would be "non-partisan." Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel made a motion for th~ Board to include Item 36., which supports legislation which implement~ the Regional Crime Sunn~it initiatives and the Governor's propesal for the abolition of parele, in the 1995 L~gislm=ive Pregram. Mr. MoHale seconded the mo=ien. Mr. ~arber misted when the immua oa~ ~fore the Board r~lat~ng to the Goveraor'e proposal for the ~bolitiem of parole it was anticipated to ~e an $800 m~lllon expenditure, billion. Me further m~ated he will support this item ~ecause his oonsti~uent~ ~upport the concept, but he has st~on~ reservations regarding the financing of this initiative as it relates to where the funding will come from- Mr. Daniel statsd he supports the concep~ as he feels the message of 'no parole'~ will pay for itself. Mr. MoEale called for the vote on the motion made by Mr. Daniel, sooonde~ by him, for the Board to include %tam Support Legislation Which Implement~ th~ Pegional Crime Dum~it ~nitiativas and the Governor's Preponal for the Abolition of Parole, in tho 1995 Legislative Program. Daniel. AbEt®ntion: Dr. Nicholas. Mr. Ramsay briefly reviewed the Central Virginia Coalition Chairman of the Coalition. Mr. Warren stated the Board included adoption of the Central Virginia Coalition L~gislativa Pro~ra~ in i~e previous motion and noted there are no item~ that any ~f th~ jurisdictions have opposed at ~hls point in time. (It is noted a oop¥ ~f the 199~ Legislative Pregrsm and copy cf the Central Virginia Coalition Draft 1995 Regional Legislative ~tatemsnt are file~ with the papers of this Board.) On notion of ~r. ~c~ale, seconded Dy ~r. Barber, the Board deferred c~nsiderat~on of ~enbers to serve on the Chesterfield River Fronts Planning Committee until January, 19~- Vote: Unanimous BOARD OF APPEALS FOR VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE ~n motion of ~r. ~arber, sscond~ by ~r~ Warren, the Boar~ ~spe~ded its r~les at this time tu ~ilow ~imultaneous nomination/appointment of members to serve on the Board of Appeals for Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Cod~. Vote: Unanimous On ~etion of Mr. Barber, ~ec~nded by Dr. Nicholas, the Board simultaneously nominated~appointed Mr. Robert Andru~ and Mr. Warren Vaughan to ~erve on the Board of Appeals for virginia uniform Statewide Building Code, represenKing the County at large, whose terms are effective immediately a~d will expire Jun~ 3Q, 1995. And, further, =~e Board aocepted the resignation of Mr. William H. Scott who has resigned due to declining health. 9~-899 11/22/94 8.B,3. BO~DS AND COMMITTEES WITH TEPd4S EXPIRING THROUGH On motion of Mr. ~cHele, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board nomination/appointmen~/reaDpoin%ment of members to serve on APPOMATTOX RIVER WATER AUTHORITY On motion ef Hr. Warren, ~econded by Dr. Nioholas, the Board simultaneously nominated/appointed ~r- Craig S- Bryant to serve on the Appemattm× River Water Authority, as an al~er~at~, wh~s~ term is ~ff~ctiv~ January 1, 1995 and will exDire December 31, 1995. ~.~.~,b. ¢OF~U~ITY SERVIC~ ~OARD On motion of ~r. Warren, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, ~h~ Duard simultaneously nominated/rsapDointed the following members to serve on the Community Services ~oard, whose terms are effective January l~ 1995 and will expire Deoember 31~ 1997: Ms. Mary G. Carreras ~idlothian representing Matoaca District, to serve un the Conu~unity 8.B.$.d- F~YKO~T FOUNDATION On motion cf Mr. Warren, seconde~ hy Qr. Nicholas~ %he Boar~ deferred consideration of a member te serve o~ the Mayment ~oundation until December 14, 1994. vote: Unanimous simultaneously nominated/reapDoin~ed Mr. David S, Harrington County at-large, w~ose term is eff$=tive January t, 1995 will ~xpire December 31~ ~997. Vote: Unanimous On muti~n of ~r. ~arren, seconded by Dr. ~ioholas, the Board simultaneously neminated/reappeinted the fellowin~ members to effective January 1, 1995 and will e×pzre December 31~ 1995: 94-900 11/22/94 DISTRIC? Mr. ~ill Barthlow Clover Hill Me. Dona Link Dale Mr. William Pettish Matoaca Mr. Michael aurphy Midlc%hiae The Honorable Freddie W. Nicholas, St. Beard Member And, further, the Board deferred ~onsidsration Of one ~e~ber representing Bermuda District and on~ member r~pres~nting Midlothian District to serve on ~he solid Waste Advisory Committee until December 14, t99~. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr~ Warren~ the Board suspended its rules at this time ~o ~ll~w simulbaneou~ nominstion/appoint~ent/reaDpointment of members to ser~e on the Disebiliti~ services $oard. Vote: Unanimous On m0~ion of Mr. Qaniel~ seconded by ~r. Warren, %he Board ~im~ltaneou~iy no~inated/ap~ointed/reappointed the following members to serve on the Disabilities Services Beard, whose terms are effective Ms. ~ar~ha ~o~l~nd ~r. Alfred Cobb~ Ms, Shirley Bar~ley Mr. David ~ohmson Ks. Anne Mc~emmey January 1, 1995 and will expire a~ DISTRICT TERM Clover Hill December 31~ 1997 Matoaca ~ce~ber ~, ~997 At-Large December 31, 1996 At-Large December ~1~ 1~96 At Large December 31~ 1997 And, further, the Board deferred consideration of one member, representing Bermuda 0istrkGt~ ~o serve on the Disabilities Services Board ~til Dece~Der 14, 1994. 8.0. S~REE?LI~£T INS~ALLATfoN cOsT APPEOV~-~ On m~tisn of ~r. Danial~ seconded ~y Dr. Nicholas, %he Board approved a str~etlight ie~tallation eOmt approval for Lori Road and Pine Orchard Drive, in Dale District, in the amount of 8.D.I. APPROVAL OP ;{MBNDMENT TO RIVERSIDE REGIONAL JAIL On motion o£ Dr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board approved a~ a~e~d~e~t to the Riverside Regional Jail A~thority Service Agreement, which amendment ~xt~Md$ %h~ temporary financing obligation to March 15, lgg5 and add~ $5.6 million authority until the permanent bonds are sold in 94 901 11/22/94 order to beqi~ construction of the Jail. (It is noted a oopy ef the amendment is filed with the papers uf thi~ Board.) Vets: Unanimous AUTHORIZATION FOR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXTEND of Corrections~ in a form acceptable to the county Attorney, that extend~ the lease term fur use of a firearms rang~ t~ December 31, 1997, with provision for automatic annual of property is filed with the papers of this Board.) 8.D.~. TRANSFER OF FUNDS ~OR COST AND FEASIBILITY ST~DIES OF OFTICNS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVE~E~TS AT VARIOUS On motion of Dr. Nioholas, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board transferred $175~000 from the Capital I~provement Program Reserve for School Projeuts %o tho School capitsl Pruject FuDd for cost and feasibility studies of option~ f~r capital improvements ~t various schools -- L. ~, Bird and Thomas High Schools; Carver and Chester Middle Schools; and Beulah, Hmpkin~ Reams, Robiou~, and Salem Elementary Sohoola. ~,D.4. APPROVAL OF SCHOOL BOARD ITEMS 8.D.4.a. F~95 ~IRBT QUARTS~ ~UDG~T REVI~IO~ On motion of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. ~arber, the ~oar~ approved a School Board resolution reducing the Instruction appropriation by $61S,©QO; increasing %he ~upil operations and Maintenance appropriation by $36S,000; and requested un appropriation cf $27,0B3 of ~urplUS State Sales Tax from County General Fun~ Ealanoe to ~he Instruction appropriation c~tegory. Vote: Unanimous 8,D,~.b, BEVI$~D GRA~TS om motion o~ Dr. Nio~olaz, Seconded ~y Mr. ~arber, the Eoard approved the following School Board resolution: On motion of ~rs. Elizabeth Davis, seconded by Harry A. Johnson, ad.O., the School ~oard requests the ~oar~ o~ appropriation changes to School Grants Fun~ as indicated Fundinq ~ource Amount Federal $ 6,6~0 Federal (71,525) 11/22/94 FY95 CIS-VGAP FY95 Chapter I 1994 ChapTer I Summer School 1994 JT~A/CATC Title II SS FY95 Project VITAL FY95 Chapter II FY95 Drug Free Schools F~95 Dropout Proven%ion (YES) StaTe Federal I30,527) Federal 148,219 Federal {10,601) State 4,100 Federal ( 19) State $. 37 Total increase to Instruction Appropriation Category in the School Grants Fund Vote: Unanimous $.D.~,~. NEW GRANT8 On ~otion Cf Dr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. Barbert the Board accepted four new grants -- the ~an%er Development Program, Work and ~e~ily Studie~-Phase IV, H~mpitality Industry ~ranb, and the CC Elementary Schools Tree Improvement and ~d P~oject, and approved the following School Board resolution: On motion of Mrs. Eliuabeth Davis, seconded by Harry A. Supervisors to approve the revenue and ~ppropriation changes to School G~&nte Fund ss indlea~ad below which requires an appropriation increase of $1~0,937 to the Instruction appropriation category is the school Grants Fund: Men=or Development Program work a~ Family $%udie~-Pha~e IV Hospitality Industry Gran~ CC Elementary Schools Tree Improvement and Ed Pro,act Fendi~? Source Amount State $ 63,057 Federal 44,600 Federal 5,000 Federal 8.280 S12D.9~7 Total increase to Instruction Appropriation Cat~gery in the School Grants Fund Vote: Unanimou~ 8.D.5. 8ET DATE FOR PUBLIC HE~ING TO CO.aIDER FY96 Om motion of Dr. Nicholaa~ seconded by Mr. Barber, t~e Board set the date of December 14, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. for a public kesrin~ to consider the FY96 Enhancement Projects. (It is noted a copy of the proposed FYi8 filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous 8.D.~. STAT~ RO~D ACCEPTANCE with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon hi~ examination of the roads in Carters Mill, Section ~, Wherea~, the Resident Enpinear for th~ virginia Department of Transportation has advised ~he Director eS Environmental District, meets the requirements establishe~ ~y the Subdivision Street Re~uir~neO~.S. of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and 11/22/94 whero~s, the County and the Virginia Department ef Transportation have entered into an aqreement~ recorded in Deed Book 2453, Page 405, January 21~ 1994, for all 9tormwate~ ~etention/reten~ion facilitie~ in the County. Therefore, upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Dr- Nieholae, seconded by Hr. ~arber~ it is resolved that the roadn in Carters Mill, ~ection 3~ Matoaca District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And b~ it further re~olved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and i~ here~y requested to take i~to th~ Secondary system, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision $troe~ R~quire~ent~, the following: Name of Street: Carters Creek Drive Length: 0.05 mile Prom: ~tate Route ~OO3, Carters cree~ Drive To: th~ end Guaranteed Right of=way width: 50' feet. Name of Street: Carters Creek Court Length: O.l~ mile From: the intersection of Carters Creek Drive To: the cul-de-sac Guaranteed Righ~-sf-Way Width: 50' f~t. Thi~ reque$~ is inclusive of the adjacent mlop~, ~ight dim%anco, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of Trannportation drainage easements indlcat~d on the development plat. These roads ~erve 11 lots. This section of Carters Mill is recorded as follows: Vote: Unanimous CONSTRUCTION FOR S~W~R REHaBILitaTION IN THE VICINITY OF POPLAR GROVE AND ROEERT$ON PLA~E 0187R Sewer ~ehabili%atlon in the vluini~y of Poplar Grove Admlnlstrater ~o execute ~he necessary documents. (It is 8.D.8. AdCEPT~NC~S O~ PARC~5S OF LAND B.D.8.a. RLO~G COALFIELD ROAD FROK MR. MONTFORD ~. AND On motion of Or. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board of land containing ~.95~ acres along coalfield Road ($~ate Route 754) from ~r. Montford C. and ~s. Georgia $. Park~ a~d authorize~ the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a copy cf the plat is filed with the papers of %his ~oard.~ Cn motion of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. B~rber, %he Board accepted, On behalf of the County~ the conveyance of a parcel ef ]and nontainin~ 0.121 acre~ for Holly Trace Court from Oliver D. Rudy~ Trustee, under the provisions c~ a certain T~umt Agreement datmd October 25~ 198~ designated a~ the Holly Trace Trust Agreement and auth~r~$~d ~he County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a copy of th~ vicinity ~k~teh is fXled with the pa~ere of ~his Board.1 8.D.9. APPROVA~ OF UTILITIES OONTRACT FOR CELLULAR ONE - Cn motion of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by MU. Sarber, the Doard aDprov~d a utilities con,rant for Cellular Cna ~oedea Bridge Road, C~ntract Number 94-0151, a~ follows, which Contractor: Brian's water Tap service (water) Stamie ~. Lyttle Company, Ins. contract Amount: Estimateo Total Total Estimated County Cost: (Offaite) Water - (Refund thru connections) wastewater - Estimated Developer Cost: - Code: (©ffsite) Wa~er - (offsiteI Wa~awater District: Oale (Wastewater] $3S,86B.00 1,465.20 $35,611.01 5~-$72VO-E4D 5N-572VO-E4D ?. DEFEPdkED ITEMS ?.~. WORR S~$SION ON R~VBNU~ FORU~ Nr. Stegmaier stated staff met with r~pre~entativ~s of the business community to racaiv~ input on revenue estimates and how the econo~y ls likely to affect the County's revenues Mr. Daniel ~tated he feels the perception i~ that the County is not ~endin~ money. He further stated th~ C~unty i~ e~orting funds out of Chesterfield County and he feels ~he graph relating to local sale~ ta~ dollar~ shows why citizens should "buy Chesterfield." He $=atsd he feels it is time citizens are informed of the impact un the County whmn they purchase items outside the County. 11/22/94 Mr. S%egmaier stated local sales tax dollars are gaining on th~ region, but not seeing increases of the 1980'~; that Christmas males are expected to be excellent; that mall orders are off to a strong start; and ~ha% beyond the holiday season, there is a certain amount of uncertainty regarding tho economy. Mr+ Ramsay noted no males tm× im collected in Virginia on mail ordure which is a significant tax loss to local Mr. etegmaier then reviewed single family building permits and stated housing starts look strong. When asked, he stated cyst the past several yaa~s~ the County's shar~ of the total regional new housing market has been declining and staff will subnit up-to-date inforna~ion ~o the Beard on where the County currently stand= on the total regional new housing market. Mr. Barber stated the County is the most affordable place to build in the area and he feels staff should address that i~sae further. Mr- etegnaier then reviewed interest rates and stated the Fed increased the discount rate Qn November 1~ for th~ ~ixth consecutive time and may have dropped inter,st rates too much is otill cheap. There were no Hearings og citizens on Unscheduls~ Matters or Claim~ ~chedul~d at this t~me. 10. RE~ORTS Mr. Ramsay presented the Board with a report on ~ha developer water and s~wer contracts ex~cuted by th~ CoUnty Administrator. Mr. Ramsay presented the Board with a ~tatus report on the General Fund Balance; Reserve for Future capital Projects; District Road and Street Liqht Funds; and Lease Purchase~. On motion of Mr. Morale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board recessed to the Administration ~uilding~ Room 502, for dinner. vote: unanimous Mr- MuScle introduced Rabbi Zvi Ron, K~eseth Beth I~raet Synagogue, who gave the prayer. 13. PLEDGE OF ~LLEGIANCE TO THE FLA~ OF THE ~NtTED 8rATES OF Weeblo Troop 806, sponsored by Woodlake United Methodist Church, lad the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United 2teton of America. 94-906 11/22/94 14. RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RE~0~NITIONS There were no Resolutions a~d Special ReCognitions scheduled a= this time. 8-17.2 RELATIN~ TO REAL EZTATE TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ELDERLY P~R~DN~ ~r. Mi~a~ stated this date and tim~ has been advertised for a public hearinq to consider an ordinance relating to real estate tax exemption for certain elderly persons. ~e £ur~her stated the current Code appliss only to traditional fixed dwalling~ such as ~ingla family homes and the proposed nrdinanoe would empand the Cmunty's ts× velief program to include manufactured homes owned by elderly or ~isabled citizen~. He stated there are approximately 2,500 ~anuf~otured hum~ i~ the County and ~he revenue from property tax on these manufactured he. es for 1994 i~ WO~ld be effective beginning with the 1995 tax year. When process, he stated th~ only r~straint ~ould be the impact on the application proeess~ however~ the Board could dalny the issue until February or March of 1995. a function of m~t worth; the criteria for this program being in terms of revenue, this program will have on the County if the ordinance is adopted. adopte~; ~ha% ~he County has provided %ax relief to other personal proDer=y or real estate taxes bein~ increased in this t~pe of relief. urdinance as he personally is aware uf individuals who would There being no one else to address this ordinance, the public ordinance whe~ the finansial impa¢~ to the County is unknown and inquired as to whether there is any information available that would determine the impact. ~r. Ramsay skated the information and would net b~ able to ubtain any information this exemption. 94-907 11/22/94 ~r. Saniel s~ated he ~lso ~ould ha~e preferred to have had information regarding the financial impact of this e×emption. He further stated he feels the underlying issue is one cf cons±stency in providing support Lo ~hcea who do not hav~ tie necessary funds to maintain their household and he is Willing to give up something during the budget process in order to Obtain this c~nsistency. He stated the County provides relief to other homeowners and as long as than is being done, then this should also ba dona for this particular group of ordinance. ~Lr. Warren stated based on the comments expressed, he feels the Board should act favorably on this issue and if necessary, provide the Commissioner of Revsnue's office with adequate staff to implement the additional effort. Mr. ~cHale stated he also agrees with the comments expressed and, in particular, that this is an issue of equity. He further ~tated he feels the Board should ~ove forward on this issue and if all 2,~00 manufactured hemes in the County qualify, the total f~naneial i~pae~ would be approximately $260,000. He stated he does not fe~l the Board shculd distinguish among h~mes and, therefore, he supports adoptio~ of the ordinance. On motion sf Mr. Warren, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, the Board adopted the follGwing ordinance: AN ORDINANC~ TO AMEN~ THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS ~ENDED, BY AMEND%NC AND E~NACT%~G 8-17.2 R~LA~NG ~O REAL ESTATE ~AX EXEMPTION FOR BR I~ ORSA~NED by th~ Board of ~upervisor~ of Chesterfield County: (I1 That Seoti0n 8 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, i~ amended an~ reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 8-15. Restrictions and conditions. Notwithstanding any other provision uf this ehapter~ t~e dwelling, manufactured home, and up to one (1) acre of land upon which either is situated subject to real estate tuxation under this chapter may be temporarily exempted ~rcm such ~ax when any such property is owned by and occupied as the sole residence of a person not legs than sixty-five {65} years of age or u p~rson who is determined to be permanently and to~ally disabled as defined in sections ~-17.1~ ~ereunder~ subject to the following restrictions and conditions: That the total combined income during the preceding calendar year from all sources of the owners ef the dwelling or manufactured home tieing therein and owner's relatives who live in the dwelling er nanufaoture~ hems does not exceed thirty s~ven thousand nine hundred ninety-nine dollar~ ($27,999.~Q); provided, t~at t~e first forty-one hundred dollars {$4,100.00) of income of living in the dwelling ~r manufactured home ~hall not be included in suc~ total. (b) Notwithstanding subsection (s) ef this section, if a per,on qualifies for an e×emption under this ~ection~ and if the person can prove by clear and convincing evidence that th~ persen'~ physical or ~ental health ha~ d~t~riorated ~e the puin~ that ~he only alternative te permanently residing in a hospital, nursing hems, 94~908 11/22/94 convalsmesn~ home er :thor facility fcr phymical or men%al care is %o hove a relative move in and provide residence tam net transferred asset~ in excess of five thousand dollars ($~,000.00} without adequate after the relative moves into such residence. (c) ~hat the net combined financial worth, owner, excluding the value of th* dwelling, manufactured home, and one (1) aero of land upon which either is perio~ of ti~s shell not be co~strue~ to <eau that the continue to be the sole residence of such per~onm du~inq ~ueh extended period~ o~ o~her residence so long Sec. 8-16. ~ohedule of e×~m~tions (a} when the %o~al ~omblned income from all sources and dwelling, manufactured home, and up to one (1) acre of land Percentage of Exmmption ~0 through $14,~99 100 $~5,000 through $24,999 50 $25,000 through $37,999 ~5 {b} Th~ tax exemption provided by this article shall not exceed twa thousand dollars $~0- 8-%g-1- Adjustmmntm tO income and value limitations. The income and net worth limitations set forth in sections 8-15 and 8-16 of this articl~ mhall he ad)us,ed by an amoun~ ~epr~sen~ing ~h¢ product of the previous year~s limitation figure and the previous twelve (1~) months~ average Consumer Prims index DuDlim~ed Dy ~e Bureau of Labor Statistics calculated on the bamis ~f th~ county's fiscal year, rounded to ~he nearest one hundred ~ollars I$10Q.QQ}, This same ndjumtment procedure shall be performed annually for sash =ax year; hewevsr~ Ln ns event shall the income and net worth limitations exceed the maximums set forth in Cod~ of Virginia, mecti~n 58.1 3210 et seq. Sec. 8-17. Procedure for ~A!~ino ~a~btion. {a) The pe~eOn or per~ons claiming such exemption shall file annually wi%~ the oemmieeioner of the revenue of the county, on forms to be supplied by th~ county, an affidavit setting forth the namss of tho related parsonm occupying much 94-909 real estate, the total combined ~ut worth, including ~quitabl~ inter,st, and the combined income from all sources of the person or persons seeking to qualify, The commissioner of the revenue shell else make such further inqniry of persons seeking ouch exemption, r~quiring answers under oath, as may be reasonably necessary, including production uf certified tex returnul to determine qualification =~erefor, such affidavit shall be filed no later than April 1 of ¢ach year, provided that application may be fileQ no later than December 3~ of each year by first-time applicants or in cases Of hardship as defined by ~he commissioner and provided further fur the rex year of 199~ the d~adline for filing applications shall be September 1, 1991. If such person is under six,y-five years of ego suck form ~hall hav~ attached thereto a certification by the Social Security Administration, the veterans~ Administration or the Railroad Retirement Board~ or if ~uch person ia not eligible for certification Dy any of these agencies, a Sword a~fidauit by two (~] medical doctors licensed to practice medicine in the commonwealth, to effect tha~ such person is permanently and totally disabled. The affidavit of at least one (1) of such doctors shall be based UpQn a physical examination of such perso~ ~y ouch doctor. The affidavit of one (1) of ~uch doctors may be based upon medical information contained in the records of the civil service commissioner whist is relevant to the SuCh affidavit shall be filed no later than April 1 of e~oh year, provided ~ha~ for the tax year of ~9~ the deadline for filing such affidavit shall be September 1, 1991. Such exemption mey be granted for any year followin~ the dste ~ha% ~he hes~ cf ~he houauhold occupying such dwelling or manufactnr~d ho~e and owning title or partial title thereto reached the age of sixty~ive Changes in r~spect to income, financial worth~ ownership of property or other lectors occurring during the ta~ y~ar for which the affidavit is filed and having the effect of s~ceeding or violating the limitation~ an~ oo~it%oDs provided h~rein ~hall nullify any exemption fur the tax yeer immediately follswing, The exemption for tax year during which the change occurred ~hall be prorated. Suet prorated per, ion shall be determined by multiplying the a~Q~nt cf the ~xe~ption or d~f~rral by a fraction ~herein the ~umber of complete month~ cf the year such property was prQperly eligible for such exemption or ~efer~l is the numerator and the number 12 is the d~nominator. See. $-17.1+ "Permanently and totaltv disabled" d6fin~d. For CAe purposes of t~is article, the term '~permanemtly an~ totally disabled~l shall mean unabl~ to ~ngage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of uny medically d~ter~inablu physical ~r mantel impairment or deformity which can 5e e×pected to result in death or can be expected to last for the duration of such parson's life- Sec. 8-17.2. "Manufectured hone" defined. For the purposes of this articlm, the term '~manufactured home" ~hall b@ d~fined as defined in ~ 36-85.3 of the Code cf Virginia, 1950, as emended. (~) That this ordinance shall beoome effective on January 1, 1995. 94-910 11/22/94 rezgning from Agricultural (A} to Residential (R-9). A single family residential subdivision with a minimum lot size 4.S4 units per acre is permitted in a Residential (R-9) District. The Comprehensive Plan designates ~he property for lies on 54.5 acres fronting appruximately 2,21Q feet On the There was no opposition to the deferral. may Want %o defer the request until the Board's first meeting for the applicant. Mr. HcHale called for the vote on the motion made by Dr. In Date Magisterial ~istrict, O. H. ~RRISS r~quested rezoning from A~rioultural <A3 to R~sidan%ial (R-9). A single family residential subdivision having a minimum lot ei~e o£ 9,UCC square fee~ is ~lanned. The applicant has agreed to limit development to a maximum cf 95 lots~ yielding a density ~f approximately 3.2 unit~ Der acre. The us~ of 1.51 ts 4.0 un,ts Der acre. This request lies on 30.0 acre~ known as ~912 ~ewbys Bridge Road. Ta~ Map 5Q-11 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet t4). Mr. Jacobean presented a sammary of Case 945N0202 and crated the applican~ is requestin~ a mixty day deferral. ~. Lemli~ Saunders, Esquire~ representin~ ~he applicant, stated the deferral will allow the applicant to work out an agreement acceptable to all parties. Mr. Ed DeGennaro, representing the Jacob's Road Coalition! stated they are zn favor of the deferral a~ long as ~ov~me~t is made towa~d~ significant reductions in the number of unite which would r~duce the health, safety, and welfare issues assocla~ed with %his request to adequate amounts. Mr. Daniel directed staff to schedule a meeting durie~ the first we~k cf January, 19~5 between Csunty s~aff, area citizens, and the developer to discuss the proposal and other issues expressed through previous publi~ hearings. He requested staff be instructed %o initiate a corridor ~tudy to develop long-range plans for the area and directed staff to address options during the meeting in January relating to the safety of N~wby~ Bridge Road. Mr. Daniel then made a motion for the Boar~ to defer Case 94SN0202 until the Board's zoning meeting in January, antioipa~ed to bo January 2~ 1~, and stated the Board will make a decision on this request at that time, Mr. Warren seconded the motion. He stated the Planning Commission r~coaun~nded denial and he was moving toward supporting the Planning Commission's re~ommendatisn~ ~oweYer~ due to movement on the part o~ th~ applicant, he will support the deferral at this time. He further stated CloveT Rill District, Specifically, Crsekwood Subdivision, will be impacted by the proposed development and approximately ~0-40 residents of Creakwsod have expressed concerns about many of the i~sue~ identified. He directed sta~i to include Creekwood Subdivision and adjacent areas in clover Bill District in thes~ me.tings. Mr. Daniel stated he h~s received many phone call~ and due to business obligatinns, has not had the opportunity to ~eturn all of the phone calls, and expressed appreciation to everyone for their input on thi~ i~sue. There was brief discussion relative ts the impac~ of preparing a corridor ~tudy for this area on the comprehensive plane for other areas, An unidentified citizen =×pressed eoncer~s to the Board deXerring this request and stated citizens voiced thoir opposition to the request at the Planning Commission meeting. applicant can provide that would make Newbys Bridge Road safe; tha~ regardless if the zening is R~9 Qr R-12, ~unds are not available ho build a new school; and that she does not understand why the request i$ being deferred when the Planning Commission has recommended denial. Mr- Daniel ~tatad th~ applicant of a zoning request has th~ riqht to be heard and to change the thought process reqardin~ the zoning decision. ~ further stated th~ reque=t i~ being deferred ts previde the applicant with an opportunity te mann wi~h those involved ~o attempt Bo ~ach an a~r~m~nt. He noted the request before the Board at this time is not the Commission. Mr. Warren stated he understande the frustration of citizens who are preeent at the m~eting in hopes cf a decision being made on this request and if he thought there was support for denial, he woul~ make a substitut~ motion for denial. He further stated it is with mixed ems=ions that he s~pports the deferral and encouraged =he applicant tu meet with those in a position to support anD%her request ~or deferral- Mm. ~cMsle called for the vote on the motion ma~e by ~. ~45~o2Q2 until the Board's zoning meeting in January, anticipated to b~ January 25, 1~99- In Bermuda Magisterial District, DUVAL D~VELO~MENT/WI~LI~M DUVkL requested rezoni~g from Agricultural (A] to Residential (R-12] of 2,7 acres; Residential (R-19) ~o R~sidential (R-i~) 94-912 11/22/9% (R-12) of 22.8 acres! and Residential Tcwnhouse (R-TH} to Community Business (C-3} of 5~S acres. A ~ingle family residential subdivision ~i~h a minimum lot eize Of square feet and commercial use~ arq planned. Residential use (R-12) District. The density of the C-3 development will be controlled by zonin~ conditions or ordinance 9tandard~. The Comprehensiu~ Plan dosignat~s the property for general commercial use and for residential use of 1.Ol - 8.00 units per acre, This request lies on 47,7 acres lying sf£ ~ho southern terminus nf Cedar Lane, al~o lying approximately ~00 feet off the wes~ line of Jefferson Davis Highway an~ off the south line of OEbarne Road. Tax Map 9R-~3 (1) Part of Parcel S amd Tax ~ap 116-1 (1) Parcel 8 [Sheet Hr. Jacobean presented a summary of Case 965NOla3 and sta~ed the Planning Commission and staff recommends approval and acceptance of proffered conditions. He noted ~he request conforms with the Chester Village Plan. There was brief discu~i©n relative to the areas currently zonc~ ~-15 and the areas that ara not zoned R 15. Mr. Andrew Schsrzer, representing the applicant, stated the applicant circulated a petition in the urea in which approximately 90 signatures supper=ed a rezaning of r~e R~TH to R-13: that the applicant entered into this proposal in good faith; that the applicant feel~ this zoning significantly improves compatibility of this de¥=lopmant to th~ axistin~ neighborhood; that the zoning reduces the impact on County servlces by more than half of the potential number of units that could be developed on this ~ite~ that the neighborhood concerns relat~ to density, traffic, and the orientation cf houee~ with respect =o ~he ezisting neighborhood; that the applicant has limited the density; that the actual density uf 99 units is below the density that R~15 would theoretically yield; that the applicant proffered deed restrictions and other i~em~7 that the applicant has proffered a minimum square footage for dwellings of I~QQ square feet and tc limit development along the northern boundary of the property to R~15 slzs lot~; and the= the applicant ~eels =he issue is strictly a zoning issue and the proposal i~ correct and appropriate for the area. He toques=ed ~he Beard to give favorabl~ considers=ion to =he ~eqUest_ When asked~ he stated the applicant could build an economically viable ~swnhouae project under t~a current zoning. There wa~ brief discussion relativ~ to whether any tcwnhouses whish oosld be developed would be fo~ ~eut er sale; it not bring legally appropriate for the Board to distinguish between owners and renters in their zoning decisions; and the request being to change from ~ownhouses to single-family R-12 development. Mr. Dean Williams stated he reside~ on Osborne Road; that area residents have been involved with this request since August and have been opposed since that time; that citizens initially signed a petition opposing the development and ~ot to change the R-TH zoning, but to change the aching; that they dc nut ~eel th~ proposed development is comparable with ~×isting deYelop~ent; and expressed reletlvm to additional traffic on Osborne Road ~f th~ development is approved. H~ further ~nated %hey are not the compatibility of this request with axis=lng area homes; that they do no~ feel significant changes have taken place in the area since the original zoning ease; and expressed appreciation to Mr. rebels, the Planninq Commission, and staff for their time and efforts during this process. 94-g13 11/22/94 Ms. Alicia webb stated she resides on Cedar Lane and represents residents within W~rfield Eetafes; that they are opposed te the rezening; and entered into the record petition in e~pcsitien to the requeet- Hben asked, she ~tated residente of cedar Lane could support the request if the section currently zoned ~-15 remained R-iS and the portion currently zoned R-PH changed to Hr. Buddy M¢Cants congratulated Dr, Nicholas on his recent appointment to the Board, He stated he resides on Shady Lane; that he can only see negative ra~ifiea%iens of approving the rezuning; ~hat cempatiDility is an issue as 15 is the ~inim~m lo{ ~ize of area neighborhoods; tha~ the lot ~ize should conform to the existing R Z~ neighborhood to hold property values; that there are infrastructure issues; and expressed ooncern~ relative to increased t~a££ic cn O~borne Road and school overcrowding if the request is approved. He further stated the land already zoned R-15 should reNain R-lB and that he doe~ not feel there would be any benefit to e×istin~ property owners when doing a cost benefit analysis. ~r. $cherze~ stated the applicant sent an open letter to residents of warfield Estates and of approximately 31 residents, a response was received from 1~ residents with supporting rezoninq the R-TH property and four supporting the townheusee net ~eing rezcned. He entersd into the record copy of the letter, He further stated the applican~ is proposing :0 limit t~e overall density to ~; that th~ applicant has a situation whes~ he ca~ develop the ~ownheuses; and that the applicant feels changing the R-TH property is in the best interest of area residents- Mr- Barber sta~ed this request is for a decrease in development and it ~s unusual to have opposition ~or such a request. He further stated the County typically encourages in-fill d®velopmen~ as i~ is mere effleien~ than leap development. ~r. Daniel indicated the orLginal zoning request in 198! had nc consensus at the time and it is not often the COUnty seem in-fill development with a reduced impact to the County on approved. Mr. McHale stated his first impression of %he request was %hat it would be beneficial to the county. Hs further stated an agreement end inquired if the applicant would consider leaving the existing R-~ zonin~ in place and rezening the R- $eherzer etated the applicant feels he has compromised as in density, Mr. ~cHale stated he feels that unless the citlsens in area support the change from the original soning, thRt the original zonin~ should be kept and the applicant has e viable use for the land as currently zoned. He stated it is his in~ention ~o reeom~en~ the ~oar~ ~ony ~h~ majority of the agricultural (A) %0 R-15. He further stated si~ty-days ~o allow the applicant, staff, end area citiyens 94 914 1t/22/~4 Mr. McHale then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Warren, for =he Board ~o defer Case 95SN0123 until tAe Board's sorting meeting in January, anticipated to be January 25, 1995, with the intent to rezone only that portion of the proDerty currently zoned A to will take action on each issue seguentielly. ~S.B. PUBL~ ~RTN~ TO CONSIDER A~ A~=~DM~NT TO T~E ~OUTEERN AND WESTERN AREA PLA]~, AN ELEMENT OF ~SE COUNTY'S COMPRE~N$IVE ~r. Warren returned to the meeting. ~r. Jacobsen ~tated thi~ dat~ and tim~ has been advertised ~eople the Co~nty needs to plan for during the 25 year period; the number of acres of land currently in t~e Plan to address the projected 100,000 growth in population to 1015; and s%a~f an~iulpa~ing an additional growth of 25,0~ in the Mr. Jncobson stated the preposed Plan a~endment would add approximately 2,400 acres along Lake Chssdin to the planned Public Facilities Plan. Ma further stated the Plsnning Case 95SN016t. There was brief discussion relative to the applicant paying for the eMtensien of the water line to serve the property and developers being ready to d~elop %he land along Lake Chesdin. In Matoaca ~agi~t~yial D~strict, C & R R~STY~ L. ~. ~ND GR~Y ~OB~O~X ¢O+~ ~, ~, requested rezonin~ fr=m Agricultursl (A) to Residential (R-85) ~f 2,170 acres with Conditi~nai Use on 1S acres of th~s property to allow a private recreational facility. A ~inqte family rmsi~ential subdivision with a minimum l=t ~ize of 65,~4P squ~r~ fee% i~ planned. Residential ~se of ~p to 0.5 units per acr~ is permitted in a Residsntial {$ 88) District. Based upon the applicant's proffered conditions~ a density of up to 0.2~ units per acrs could be permitted. The Comprehensive Plan d~signat~z property for rural conservation area and as Lake chesdin water~hed and would permit isolated single family on lots larger than five (5) acres. This request lies on f~t on th~ ~outh line o~ Ivey Mill Road, approximately 7,COQ ~eet south of River ~oad. Tax Map 157 (1) Parcel 1; Tax Map 169 (l) Parcel ly and Tax ~ap 170 (t) Par~ 0% Parcel 7 (Sheets 46 and 47). ................ L ~__L ...... L ........ I L Mr. William Pools, chief of Devalopmegt Review of the Planning Department, presented a summary of Cas~ 95SN0151 and stated the applicant is pruposin9 a series of road improvements to help mitigate the impacts of the development; that the applicant has prepsred a preliminary development plan; that the regueot encompasses a maximum of S3S single family residential lots and contains the possibility for the developer to donate 190 acres of land to the County for a public golf course; that the developer is not required to make this land availabl~ and if th~ developer makes the land available, the County is not obligate~ to take the land; t~at the request cuntains an agreement to ~ll the County 210 scram of land in three different locations on the property; that no spscific County departmsnt has a short-term u~e for 110 acres of the 210 acres of the property; and that the greatest potential long-term u~s for the ~n~ira 210 acres may be by the ~arks and Recreation Dmpartm~nt. There was brief discummion relative to the %10 aor~ ~ot being a suitable school site and why tho~e acre~ are being offered to th~ County by the developer. ~r~ Pools continued %0 present a summary of Case 95SNO161 and stated the Plan recommends the area be reserved for scattered residential development and that the Plan previ~es ~or a more suburban type of development at such time when provision~ are ~ads for public utiLities~ roads, schools, parks, libraries, approval subject to conditions and acceptance of proffered conditions. He noted if the public golf ce~rme acreage is not accepted by the County, the applican~ has proffered the full cash proffer amount, however, if the land is off.red and %he County elect~ to accept the land, the cash proffers will ba reduo~d~ ~ further stated staff r~connnends denial the Southern and Western Area Plan, do~s not comply with the rural conservation area de~i~na~ions~ and does nob provide, in ~taff's oplni~n~ adequate assurances for public utilities and facilities to meet impacts of the project. He ata~ed staff fe~ls this project ~ill have a significant impact On the School System and the School System is un.attain as to where students from this project wilt attend school. Matoaca Elementery~ Middle, and High Schools as it relates to accommQdatin~ the estimated 250 students which woul~ be ~enerated by thi~ project; whether it is reasonable tn assu~e that s development of this nature would primarily be occupied by "eEecutive type" families who have older mhildren; staff number of school children; and the golf o~urse acreage ~ein~ u~ed to ealculatm th~ averag~ lot size of four (4) acres. oliver Rudy, ~squire, reprmsmnting th~ applicant, mt~ted the Planninq Con~i~ion voted unanimously to approve this request; that the request was basically iDXtiated when Mr. Camp and associates were approach by the Cs~nty'g Parks and Recreation Department about making land available for the County for recreational use~; that a lot of work has gone into this proposal; that the applicant has proffered to make improvements to Ivey Mill Road, which is an unpaved publio roa~ not in the Csunty'm six x~ar Plan for improvement; and t~at th~ applicant has proffered to extend a sis inek water ~tated the applicant feels the road improvements on ~vey Milt auad are significant; that the applicant has proffered to ~ake available 210 acres to the County; that the County has control as to whether the golf sourme ~eosme~ a p~blic golf course; that if the Board approves the request~ it is not approving construction of a golf cuurs~ but rather fha possibility[ that throughout the process of this request, he 94-916 ham been unaware sf any opposition; that the applicant has addressed legal issues; .and r~uest~d the Board to give favorable oonmideration to the request, Mr. George Beadles stated he Supports tko project, but is concerned about the cost cf flushing the water lines and stated that any sewer to this area would have to be extended and requested the Board consider the u~ of ~eptie systems in should be required in these homes due to the distance of the homes from a fire station; teat he feels full cash proffers should be requlr~d by th~ County; and that it is not impossible to get the paving of Ivey ~ill Road in tee six ¥~ar Plan. Mr. Clarke ~ennedy stated hie family owns 100 acres aloe? Ivey Mill Road and they feel this development will benefit the area and the County, therefore, he supports %ha ruqueat. Ms. J~an Wilkinson stated gh~ owns property adjacent to the development and she feels the development will be an asset for future businesses in ~he County. Mr. Ruben Waller ~ta~ed there is available land located for imm~diat~ d~v~lcpment ~est ~f Route 28~ that is comparable to woodlake, Har~our Peinte, and Brande~mill~ that ~e does not feel government should compete with the private sector in day-to-day bueiness; that it would be beneficial for him to know how the $500,000 figure was arrived at relative to the ned ~c~itable for utility rate payers to subsidize this development by paying for the flushing of the water lines; and that he feels in-fill d~v~lopment should ba encouraged by th~ County. There being no one else to address ~hi~ immue, the public hearing was closed. When asked, ~r- ~cCracken stated %he paving of Ivey Mill Road is not in the current Six Year Plan and staff does not anticipat~ it being a recommendation in the future. Mr. Rudy stated it is the Board's d~ci~i~n r~garding th~ golf course and the cash proffers and he feels the Board ehould r~view the proposal r~garding the golf course before it rejects t~e offer, He further stated any ~e&eonable appraisal of the marina sod greeeway acreage would bo ~aeed on fair marRet value and the $lOO,000 is a minimal figure that was agreed upon; that the applicant i~ paying s lo~ of money to execute this development; and that he doss not f~el the flushing of the water lines i~ a major issue. and couture ~ith ~r. R~dy that the property will accrue to the benefi~ of the County. Me qooted a statement from Thomas Jefferson stating that ~'reason and common ~n~ ~hould take precedent over the technicality of language in a plan when the reality of the times dictate." He further stated he feels i~ is reasonable to amend the Plan to include this parcel in the area planned for development and Mr. Colbert worked on this project for appro×i~ataly two year~ and was ~taff presentation earlier in tk~ afternoon on revenue, it was i~dieaTed the reason the County had a tremendous drop in not currently have a large development underway. He stated a lot of work has gone into development of ~he Southern and the western ares of the County has had this type of 11/22/94 oppornunityo Mr. Daniel stats~ this is a quality project and he can support the amendment to the Plan to include the parcel in question in the area suited f~r development. ~e further stated, in principle, hs can support the request, however, he does not support the concept for the golf course. When asked, Mr. Pools stated staff identified six projeots including Riv~r'~ Bend, Birkdale, Magnolia Green, The Highlands, the Green Springs Project, an~ the old Pooeshock golf course property- MT. Daniel inquired as to whether golf course~ such as Meadowbrook and ~randsrmill are privately owned qolf courses. ~r- ~oole gtatmd they are privately owned. Mr. Daniel stated he would lik~ any reference to a golf course to bs removed fro~ the zoning request as he ia uncomfortable with th~s concept- He further stated h~ is also uncomfortable with there not being a school site dedication as a project of this size should have a site amide for an ~l~mentary school- ~e stated he doe~ not feel he can support the request in its entirety unless all Conditions dealin~ with the golf course are removed from the request. ~r. ~ar~er stated hs did not agree with this request being double advertised and h~ fuels the Board should have ~ad more time to review the request. ~e further stated he feels the timing is not right for this development and he do~s not support ~he Plan amendment or the zoning requmst. ~e stated th~ County is ~ot being given anything, but is only being off,red the right to purchase property and =he School System and Fire Department have indicated they have no use for the land. He read into the record portions of the mtaff'~ report indicating negativity relating to th~ cost to the County for extension of t~e water lines; the co~t associated with i~$talli~g a flushing station; n~ public ~ast~water mystem being extended into the area; and fire and rescue service to the area beinq outside the desired six minute or response time the Firs Department attempts ts achieve. He further stated he feels there are many re~cns this should not be approved by the Board at this tine and that County citizens have expressed their desire for planned, managed growth. He s~ated he f~els this particular re~ueE= is premature and would be costly for County citizens end he will vote in opposition to the proposei Plan amendment and zoning request- Mr- warren inquired a~ t~ ~h~ther staff feels the 0.45 phosphorous load level for this project is adequate to protect the water quality- Mr. McElfi=h =tared, from environmental prOteCtion standards, 0.45 is adequate to protect the water quality. Mr. Warren inquired as ~o whether staff concurs that transportation needs will be met in tek-ms of the relationship cf this pzoject ts future transportation needs. Mr. McCracken stated the applicant has proffered and agree~ to e11 transportation needs requested by staff. ~r. Warren inquired as to whet~r the County ha~ specifically set aei~e $ioo,oo0 for a marina development or for other types of par~ and recreational facilities. Mr. Ramsay stated the course or marina on thim property, but money the Board appropriated from ~he Reserve in June, 19~0 for a marina appropriated in the County's capital Improvement Program. 94-918 11/22/94 Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relative to the $500,000 being appropriated for a park er merina project; whether additional funds were appropriated for use in the oth~r Di~triots~ the original appropriation being $600,000 and the Board using $100,00Q for improvements at Philips Pire Station; the Health Department not fore~eein~ any potential problems with the size of the lots ~s it relates to septic systems; this project as compared to The ~ighlands, but more restricted; and the cost of m~intainlng an lS hole golf ~r. Daniel inquired as to how the County's interesb in the golf course originated. Mr. Golden ~tat~d in th~ P&rk~ and Recreation Mas,ar Plan. golf courses and other types of facilities were addressed and it was his understanding the County would look for opportunities for public/private partnerships ~eing careful as ~c tbs monetary commitment made by the County. Ne further stated the intention was to solicit proposals from private corporations for f~nanoin~, constructionr and operation of a golf course for 2~ to 30 years at no sest to the County and at ~he end of %he lease period, the course would belong ko the County. Mr. D~niel stated it is his understanding the ~arks and Recreation ~aster ~lan indicated tha~ golf courses should be privately owned and operated. Mr. Warren stated he supports the project, but doe~ not support the ~olf course as he docs not feel the golf course would be a good invemtment for the County. this project to the County and would like staff to p~epa~e a financial analysis of the project as proposed and does not flashing process. ~e further sta~ed overall ha feels the request is for a quality project. He inquired as to the impact this project will have on the utilities system and whether there are environmental problems relating to flushing the water lines. Mr. Phelps state4 $lg,000 is th~ actual cost to flush ,Ns wate~ lines and that he is unaware of any environmental problems in ~lusking ~he wa,mr lines. project, however, he feels ~sme ohange~ s~ould be made and he Dr. Nicholas noted it would be at the option of the Board to either approve or disapprove the golf course in the future. There was discussion relative to the general consensus of the Board regarding the Plan amendment and the zoning request_ Mr. McHmle stated he does not feel there is sufficient votes for approval of ,be request at this time and he does not feel the Plan ~hould be amended unless it is th~ intent of the Mr. Warren =ts%ed if %he gslf course is deleted from the support the request. Mr. Micas slarified the Board should make a motion ts approve the rsquemt am propomsd followed with a motion to reject the 94-919 11/22/94 I L . L J L. . Mr. Daniel stated this is a multi-million dollar project and he feels hhsre should be an opportunity for a donation of acreaqe for an elementary cchocl site on this property. He a school in this area and indicated %he ~choo% oyst~ ha~ in raised, $~. Warren stated he can support the project with removal of stated the only advantage to deferring the request until et %Ri~ time end staff preparing %he financial impact of this thin request and indicated hic concern teward~ the this request is an outot&ndinq~ quality project and that the development will be an meeet to the County- ~r. Daniel directed staff to secure in writing wh~ther or nst Mr. Warren seconded the me,ion. On mutlen of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by Er. McHalm, the Beard 94 920 11/22/94 On motion of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. Me,ate, the Board adjourned at 10:50 D.m. until November 29, 1994 for the Stats of the Metro Area Dinner sponsored by tk¢ Metre Richmond League of Women Vo~ers at the Richmond Newspaper P~odu¢~ion Center in Hanover County. Vote: Unanimous Lane ~. Ramsey County Administrator Chairman