Loading...
11-21-1995 Minutes~OA~D OF B~P~RVIBO~B Mr. J. L. McMale, ITI, Chairman Mr. Arthur S. Warren, V~ce Chr~. Mr, Zdward B. Father Nr. ~arry G. Daniel Dr. Freddie W. Nicholas, Sr. Mr. Lane B. Ramsey county Administrator Staff in Attendance: ~{r. Et~v~n Calabro, Dim. County Airport Ms. Mamilyn Cole, Asst. to County Ad. in. Ms. Faith L. Davis, Clerk to t~e Board Mrs. Doris R. DeHart, Legis, Oyes. and Mr. Michael Golden, Dim., Registrar Mr. ~r~dford S. Hammer, Deputy Co. Admin., Mr. Rus$ell Karris, county ombudsman Dim., Planning Dr. Burr Lows, Mental Health/Retard. Mr. Robert L. Deputy Ce. Admin., ~uman Services Mr. R. John Mccracken, Dim., Transportation Mr. Richard M. MoElfis~, Dim., =nv. Engineerinq County A~=orney Mr. ~ich~rd Nunnatl~, EE~ension Agen~ Dir.~ Budget & Mr. M. D. stith, Jr.~ Deputy Co. Admin., Community Development Fir. McHals called ~he regularly ~chedule~ meeting to order at i. ~PPROVAL OF Mi~TES On motiom of Mr. Barber~ seconded by Mn. Warren~ the Board approved the minutes of November 8, 1~9~, s~ submitted. Vote: Unanimous 95-709 11/21/95 County Health ~artme~t, ~he wa~ pr~nt at the me.ting and Deputy Health Commi~sloner ~or Operatlon~ for tbs ~tate of V~rginia while the Governor was completing his review of Nelson for his efforts end welcomed hf~ back to chsstsrfiel~ County. Mr. Ram~ey then introduced Mr- ~a~lmer who introduced ~- ~t~v~n Calabro~ the new Director of the county Airport. He briefly reviewed Mr. Colabro's experience and welcomed him C~esterfield County. ~, BOARD ¢OF~iITT~ REPORTS Hr- ~arren recognized ~r~- R~nny ~- Humphrey, Elect, who wa~ present at the meetinq. On motion of Dr. Nicholas, s~conded by ~r. Daniel, the Board Ad,ad 8.C.11., Authorization ~r County Administrator %o Assessmen~ Lien on the Water Tower sheDDing Center to Follow Leqisletive Program Relating to the Transient Occupancy Tex Vote: Unanimcum 5, ~ESOLUTIONS A~D 8PEOI~L ~RCOGNITIO~S There were no Resolutions and ~pocial Recognitions et this time. Mr. Ramsey introduced ~r. Robert E. Martins~, Secretary of Transportation, to brief the 5card on the Public-Privat~ Transportation Act of t99~ and the procedural guidelines the Virginia Department cf Transportation (VDOT) has d~velopsd to guide the selection ef ~rujest~ su~mi%%e~ for VDOT's consideration. ~4r. Mertinez presented a copy of the Co~onwsalth cf Virqinia Public-Private Transportation act of ~995 ImBlem~ntation Guidelines and Virginia Connections -- Strategic Plan Transportation to each ~osrd member, Re stated Governor George Allen introduced a total of twenty-two pi=ocs of legislation in 1995 to %he General Assembly and twenty were enacted into law. He faiths2 stated the Governor is ¢ommittxd to thc integrity of Transportation Trus= Funds in Virginia a~ noted ~$o~e the Allen Administration a quurt~r of a billion dollar~ wa~ taken out of Transportation Trust Funds and Department of Vehicles Special Funds and diverted to non-transportation increase of approximately $~00 million availabl~ to transportation, generated by a growing Virginia economy and 95-710 11/21/95 construction. He further stated the Public-Private Transportatien Act of ~995 was an initiative of ~over~or ~llen amd a fully bipartisan effort. He stated the Act is not only about toll roads and not about supplanting the role of the public ~ector~ but i~ about supplanting that role with substantial amounts of private capital. Be further stated there is a growing, competitive capital market for investors WhO a~e interested in investing in private transportation projects and briefly reviewed s~veral innovative app:oackes ef lundinF for transportation in the future. He ~teted the Act allows for any responsible public entity to be the public sponsor of a privately funded tren~pertation project and allows for both solicited and unsolicited projects. He further stated Public-Private Tranmportation Act Projects will assist in providing ~jor transportation projects, without encumbering the Commonwealth's debt capacity. He briefly reviewed highway allocations distributed to Virginia; highway projects underway in the region; and fully funded highway projects in the region within the Six Year Program. He briefly reviewed activity currently underway re~ardin~ the Route 2~8 Project and cost estimates for the ~roj~ct; cost ~stimates for the I-@9~ Project; the review process to be followed r~garding the propo~al~ £or the two Projects. ~e ~tatad VDOT's guidelines tbs region Wants Route 2~8 or 1-895 am a free facility versus a =oll facility, Put whether the region wants one or both of these Projects as free Projects versus toll, and recognizing if the free approach is ~aken, it would take between t0 to 20 years for the Project to be fully funded through public funds. He stated actual conditicnm, ~clls, etc. for projects built under the Act will b~ negotiated under a comprehensive there ham be~n any ~egional ~omsideration in sharing some of the burden that a private toll road may create for citizens; whether the region wns obtaining it~ fair share of existing highway revenues; ramifications if one of the Projects fun~ed through private funds and the other through public funds[ current g~/idelines requiring that there be a demonstration of local mupport for PuDlic-Priva~e Transportation Act Projects; and exploring financing options to possibly lower overall comt_ input regarding this process by wFiting to the Dzputy Secretary of Transportation and that citizen inpu~ would De made a part of the publio record. ~. Ramsay then introduced Mr. R~iph L. Axselle, Jr., whe briefed the Board on their prmposal for the privatization of ~-~5. He stated the need for the roads originated ~n 1981 and sihce 1984 State Route 895 has r~c~ived all necessary federal, State, local, and regional approval in~luding thm support of Chesterfield and ~n~i~o Counties, the City of Ri~ond, and the Metropolitan Plannin~ Organization. He reviewed current status of the Project and stated preliminary engineering has been funded, however, t~e~e are no right-cf-way acquisition an~ oonstruction funds available for th~ brief overview of the property to be utilix~d for the Project which also explained the benefits of making the Pro)eot a toll road~ ~, Jim Carroll, vice President of Project Dev~lopmen~ for ~o~iso~ K~dse~ Co~po~ation, stated Mcrriaon Knudsen and Fluor Daniel, Incorporate~ are forming a joint development oompany to 11/21/95 excited about the I 895 Project and briefly reviewed their proposal for th~ Project. ~ then r~cognlz~d Mr. Jeff Fielder~ Pro,act Manager, and stated Mr. Fielder leads the organization that developments, builds, and pats the Project into operation. There was brief discussion relative to the mast recent projects completed by Morrison Koudsen Corporation and Fluor Daniel. When asked, Mr. Axselle ~tated Fluor Daniel, Incorporated has met with staff at the Richmund International Airport and stated the project will not jeopardize the dual parallel runway planned at the Airport. There was brief discussion r~Iative to the length of I-$9~ going through Chesterfield versus the length going through ~enricc and the looatien~ of interchanges along 1-895 hiqhway. Mr. Berber expressed concerns relative to the benefits to Chesterfield'~ economic development because of the small long'ch of highway in Chesterfield. .Mr. A~selle stated he has spoken with Mr. Gary McLaren, ~Dirscter of the County's Economic Development Department, who iindicated that the I-~95 Project would have a positive economic .~'and transportation impact on Chesterfield CeunPy, however, it would not produce the same economic development benefits as Route Mr. Warren ex,reseed appreciation ~or all p~esentatio~s commended th~ businesses for taking on such major There was brief discussion relative to the portion of I-~9~ that will be most traveled by Chesterfield County residents. Mr. Wsrree stated Route 288 will have a mete ~ig~ifiea~t impaot on Chesterfield resident~ than I-~95 and inquired aE to how citizens can express their views regarding the 1-895 Project. Mr. Bill A~selle stated citizens may express their input r~garding the I-$95 Project by writing ~o him at 4401 Waterfront Drive, Glen Allen, 23036 and that all coI~ments should b~ made during the next sixty days. ~4r. Carroll stated citizen comments should b~ received as a; possible, he,ever, a~reements with the ~irginia Department of Transportation will take approximately eight months. ~_r. Axselle stated Fluor Daniel, Incorporated included an Automatic Automobile Ve~icle Identifie&tion system (AVI) in their proposal, which allows vehicles to ge through the :oll a~ a speed of 35 mp~ while a maqnetic Card on the automobile is read and th~ toll deducted from the drivers account and noted the projected toll on 1-895 ~ill be $2.00 each way. Mr. Ramsay then introduced M~. St~ven W~ Peak-on, representing Root Civil, Incorporated and Dewberry and Davis. Mr. Pear~sn then int~oducedM~ William ~. Allen, repre~entin9 Dewberrry & Davis to brief the Board on their ~ropcsal for the privatization of Route 288. He submitted copies of the pre,aeration to each Board member. Mr. Allen rasognised Mr. John ~illiken, representing venaDle, Beerier, end Howard law film, N~. Bob Ashland, representing Brown a~d Eoct$ civil, and s~her developers of the Route 288 Project, who were present at the meeting. Ee then presented including the statue of Route 288; transportation and economic banefitg; funding perspective; public-private partnership 99-712 ~/21/95 proposal; functional organization chart; project team e~perience; and details regarding the Project. Ke ~hen re¥i~wed the Plan from Pow~ite Par~way to James River and from James Rivers to I-~4; mainline and ramp typical s~ctions of ~he P~ojeot; p~op~sed project schedule; and development schedule. He stated Route ~$8 ooul~ possibly be completed ~y the year 1999. When asked, Mr. Allen stated the cost ~f the toll on Route 288 is currently undetermined; =hat the Route 288 Project will be a length of ~v~nt~n and one-half miles; and that citizens can ~ive their input regarding the Route 288 Project by sontactin~ M~. Pearson with James River Parkway Associates or contacting himself at Dewberry & Davis at the Richmond office er at 8401 Arlington Roulmvard, Fairfa~, Virginia 220~1-4666. There was brief discussion relative to Powhatan County's 80ard of Supervisors opposition to a toll road for Route 288 and o~her options that have been explored other than tolls. ~r_ Warren stated he has gone on record oppo~fug, a ~oll roe~ for Route 2S8. There were no Deferred Items at this On notion of Mr. Daniel, seconde~ by Dr. Nioholas, the Board approved the following streetlig~t installation cost approval in Dal~ Magisterial District: * I~t~rsectioD of D~rtrail Drive and Sprucewood Avenue * Additional cost for a previously approved streetli~ht in th~ Additional cost to install light: $1,399.25 Due to health, safe~y, and welfare concerns On motion 0£ Dr. Nicholas, seconded by ~r. B~rbsr, the Board replacement o~ eight exls:ing strestlights along Chesterfield Aven~e in th~ village of Ettrick. (It is noted the cost for tbs thirty ohs lights is $1,832 and tbs oost for the rsplace lightg ig $1,336. Total in~taliation co~t is $~,I$8 which will hu paid by the Community Development Bleak Grant office and the ~ddit&on of the thirty one lights ~o She County's system will add approxima:ely $4,452 =o t~e county's electrical servic=-per year. The addition of the~e streetlights will be addressed in th~ FY97 operatinq budget.} B.B. A~OTWTM~NTS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Warren, th~ Board deferred consideration of a ~e~be~ to serve on the Personnel Appeala ~oard until January 24, 199~. Vote: Unanimous CONSENT ITEMS ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS 8.C.l.a. TO ~ETITION TEE STATE WATER CONTROL BO~RD TO INITIATE A pROCEEDING TO ~EATE A GRUU~D WATER ~NAGEMENT ;uREA TN WINTERPOCE On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by ~r. Warren, the Board adopted the £clluwing resolution: W~ER~A$~ in June, 199~, the Co~unltims of wintmr~ock submitted to th% Board an Impact Report (~e "Impact R~port") .on th~ sensitive natur~ of the Cashion Quar~ site and its ~impact on the surrounding community; and ~AS, the Impact Report describes significant risk$ of ground water pollution and declining ground water levels in ~e Winterpock area if quarryin~ activity co~ences at ~e Ca~hion Quarry because of the proximity of th~ quarry to many abandoned coal mines; and Control Board to create G~ound Wate~ ~anag~ment A~eas fo~ the purpose of requiring ground wa=er withdrawal 9ermit~ for greed protect the ground water ~n area~ su=h as WinterDock that are at risk of ground water pollution and ground wu=er level decline; ~=R=AS~ the State Water Control Board may, upon by the County~ initiate a proceedlnq to d~slare the Winterpock area in th~ vicinity of the Cashion Quarry asround Water Now, T~O~ ~ IT ~=~OLV~D~ ~hat the ~oar~ supervisors of c~esterfield county hereby petitions ~e state Wa~er Control Beard to institute proceedings to declare the WinterDock area, in the vicinity of the Cashion Quarry, a Ground Water ~anagem~nt Ar~a. Vote: Unanimous · REATER RICHM0~ ~CA BY THE INDUS~IAL DEVELO~KE~T AnT~ORITY OF THE TO~ OF ASHL~D On notion of ~r. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, =~e Board adopted ~e following r~solution: RESOLUTION OF T~ INdUSTriAL D~L0~NT AUTaORIT~ OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD RECO~ENDING OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA OF A PROPOSED I$$U~ OF REVENUE BONDS IN ~ ~OU~T NOT TO EKCEED $7,500,000 FOR ~E BENEFIT OF THE YMCA 0F GREAT~ RICHEOWD ~5-714 11/21/95 ~7~EREAS~ the YMCA of Greater Richmond ("YMCA") has requested that the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, $irginia ('TAuthority"), approve the issuance of up to $7,500,000 in revenue bonds by the Industrial Development Authorit~ of the Town of Ashland, Virginia "Ashland Authority") a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to acquire, ex?and, construct, renovate, and equip ~rtain M~CA facilities located in %he county of Chesterfield, Virg~nla ("County") ~nd other MECA facilities in the Town cf Ashland, Virginia, the County of Henrico~ Virginia and the city of Richmond, Virginia ("Project"); WHERF~k$, a public h~aring has bs~n held by the Authority regarding the YMCA'e request, and the Authority desirsm to reoo~end approval of the Project and the proposed bon~ issue to the Beard of supervisors of the County cf Chesterfield, Virginia, with respect to the portion of tho Project to be located in the County. NOW~ THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE INDUSTRIAL 1. The Authority concurs in the inducement an~ ~mco~endation of ~p~ruv~l of the Ashland Authority for the of ~es~erfield, virginia. ~. This ~esulu~ion shall toke e~fect immediately upon its adoption. DISTRICT On motion of ~r. Barber, ~e=onded by Hr. Warren, th~ 8card upprogriate~ community Development Department revenue, in the a~eun~ of $4~091, to fund the donation to. the ~MCA in the Midlo=hian District. Vote: Unanimous ~.~.~. ~T~TE ~OAD ACCEpTaNCE This day the County ~nvironmenual Engineer, in ac=or,once wit~ direotiene fre~ this ~o=rd, made report in writing upon his examination of the ~oado in Arbor ~anding, Sec=ion 5, Bermuda District, and Whereas, the R~id~nt Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Director of Environmental Engineering, the streets in Arbor Landing, ~ection 5, ~er~uda District, meets the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Require~ent~ of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and Whereae~ the County and the Virginia Department' of' Tran~port~tion have entered in~0 an agreement, recorded in Deed Book 245~, Page 405, January 21~ 1~94, for all ~tok-mwater d~t~ntlon/r~tention faeilitie~ in tho County. Therefore, upon consideration whereof, and on motion o£ Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr, ~ar~en, it is resolved that the roads in Arbor Landing, Section 5, Bermuda District, be and they hereby are emtablis~ed au public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of I ~ I ...... il, L ,I I, !,,I Transportation, bs and is hereby requested to take into the Secondary System, pursuan~ %o Section ~1-2~9, Code of virginia~ snd th~ Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, tbs following: Name of Street: Rose A~bor Court Length: 0.05 mile From: Tronbridqe Parkway, State Route lS69, 0.Q~ mile south uS ~£dden Arbor Place, State Rout~ 4g14 To: Permanent cul-de-sac, 0.QE mile east of Ironbridge Parkway, State Route 1569 Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 50 feet. Name of Street: Cedar Landing Terrace Length: 0.08 mile From: irongbridge Parkway, State Route 1~69, 0.10 mile sout~ of Hidden Arbor Place, S=a=e Route 4~14 southeast of Ironbridge Parkway, Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 50 feet. ~ame of Street: Brentwood Ar~c~ Court Length: 0.08 mils 0.14 mile southwest of Hiddsn Arbor 0.~0 mile southwest of Hidden Arbor ~outh of Ironbridge Parkway~ Guaranteed Right-of-way Width: 50 feet. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of plat. This section cf ~bsr Landing is recorded as follows: Thi~ day the County Environmental ~ngineer, in accordance with direc=ions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of the roads in cabin Creek West~ Date District, Whereas, the ~e~ident ~ngineer for t~he virginia Depar~men~ of Transportation has advized the Director of Environmental Engineering, the streets in Cebin Creek West, Dale District, meets the requirement~ e~tabliz~ed by the SubdiV'~'o Street Recuirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and Whereas, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement, recorded in Deed ~ook 2493, Page 409, January 21, 1994, for all state,water detention/retention facilities in the County. ~erefor¢, upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Barber, seoonded ~y ~. Warrsn~ i~ is resolved that the roads in Cabin Creek West, Dale District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And ~e it further resolved, that the Virginia D~partment of Transportation, be and i~ hereby r~qu~¢ted to. take into the Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirsmsnts, the following: Name of Street: Boones Trail Road L~ngth; 0.14 mile From: Baches Bluff Way, 0.07 mile southeast of Boone~ Bluff Maws Existinq Boone~ T~aii Road, State Route 2245, 0.02 mile Ne~t of ~oone$ Trail Court, State Route 3257 Guaranteed Right-of-Way of Variable Width: 50 - 60 feet. Ns~e of street: Bashes Trail Terrace Length: 0.04 mile Name of ~treat: Bean,s Trail Place L~ngth: 6-04 mile south of Boone~ Trail Road TO; Permanent sul-de-sa=, 0.10 mile Guaranteed Righ~-of-Way Width: 40 feet. Thi~ request is inclusive of the adjacent ~lope, ~ight dis~anua, clear zone an~ dss~neted Virginia Department of plat. Thsse raa~s serve 44 lot~. Vets: Unanimous 8.~.4. REQUEST FOR BINGO/P~kPPLE PE~ITS O~ ~otien of ~. Ba~heE, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board approved the fallowing bingo/raffle permits £or ¢~lendar year ~996: 1~/21/95 Or~ani~atien Rubert E. Lee Post 2239 Veterans of Foreign Wars Loyal Order of Mooss, Incorporated ~t. Edward-Epiphany School Home & School Aamociation Mid-Cities civics Association, Virginia State University Athletiu Booster Club, Incorporated Type Bingo/Raffle Bingo/Raffle Bingo/Raffle Bingo/Raffle fifteen foot wide driveway within an existing fifty foot right- of-~ay designated as Pins Grove Avenue, subject to the vicinity sketch is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous MR. WOODROW W. AND HRS. GLORIA V0 ~ICKS TO INSTALL A WATER SERVICE FOR A NEW RESIDENCE OFF WINTER~OCK ROAD On motion uf Mr. Barber, n~cond~d by Mr. Warren, the Board approved a request from Mr. Woodrow W. and M re. Gloria V. B~ck~ to install a. water servloe for a new residence off winterpock Road~ ~ubject to the e~ecution and recordation of an agreement aecephahl~ ac the County Attorney~ (It is noted a copy of the plat is ~iled wi=h the paper~ of thi~ Board.) Vote: Unanimou~ 8.C.$.b. ~O~O~4WE~LTH GAB TO iNSTALL ~ FIFTEEN On motion of Mr. Barber~ seconded by Mr. W~rren, the Board approved a request from commonwealth Ga~ to ~natall a fifteen foot wide driveway within an existiug fifty foot right-of-way located off Plantation Tr~oe Place~ subject to the execution of a license agreement. (Th is noted a ~opy o~ the vicinity sketch is filed with ths papers of this Board.) vote: Unanimous approved the followinq utility contract for Ashbrook, Section of eighteen inch watt,water line and authorized the County Developer: S & E DeveloDment Company of Virginia Contractor: R,M-C. Construction Company Total ~timated County Cost: Wamtewater (Oversizing) $ ~5,250-60 (Refund thru connections) Estimated Developer Cozt: $11~r~13.90 Code: (Over~iz~ng) 5N-572VO-E4C District: Matsaca authorlzed the Chairman of the Board and the county Administrator tc execute an ~a=~ment agreement with Bell Atlantio-Vir~inia, Incorporated to in~talt under,round tel~phon~ line~ to provi~ phone service to ~ Communications copy of the vicinity sketch i~ filed with th= BOa~d.} FOR POLICE DEEART~ENT TO AP~LY FOR A FEDERAL GR/~NT TO PROVIDE FUNDING POR A ~ULL-TIME federal grunt, in the amount of $$0,42§, to provide funding ~ ~ull~tim~ uivilian position, operauing ~unds, an0 e~uip~enn funding up tu $50,425 and created a new po~ition. RET BATE ~OR PUBLIC H~RTNG TO CO~SIDFB T;~ EXEMPTION BBOUEST OF RICHMOND METROPOLITAN HABITAT FUR HUMANITY, INCOR~O~U%T~D On motion Of ~u, Barber, seconded by ~r. Warren, the Doard set the dat~ of D~enber 13; 1995 for a public hearing to oonsider tax exemption request of Richmond Metropolitan ~abitat for Humanity~ Incorporated. Vote: Unanimou~ 95-719 11/21/95 AUTHORI~ATION FOR COUNTY ADHINISTRATOB TO EXECUTP A SUBORDINATION AGREEKENT ~OR THE COUNTY'S SEWER ASSESBHENT LIEN ON THE WATER TOWER SHO~ING C~NTER On.motion cf ~r. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Beard autheriuad the County Administrator te execute a Subordination Agreement for the County's ~ewer Assessment Lien on the Water Tower Shopping Center. APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL ITEM TO TB~ 1996 LEGI~TIVB PROGP~2~ RELATING TO THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX Mr. Daniel stated that he feels the proposed legislation has ted open of a definition and that he feels the Board should further address this item, Dr_ ~icholas stated it was his understanding that localities a~proved sn~ supported thi~ change. ~T. Ramsay stated this is the same language that was approved ~last year, but was not introduced into Legislation, and that ~th~ Greater Richmond Hotel Motel Association has approved this language. M~ further stated the proposal for the expan=ion of the convention center is premised on the ability to generate this r~vanue and that when this language was developed last year, it we~ also i~tended that there could be other posoibl= uses of this revenue to promote toumism in the region. He ~teted while the intent cf the Co~ittee working om the Convention Center is te propose, t~ all jurisdiotions, that thio revenue go to the Convention Center project, the language would not restrict the revenue te that project. Mr. Daniel inquired aa to who decides where Chesterfield County's percentage goes to. Mr. Ramsay stated the governing body of much jurisdiction would ~ave to De satisfied as to the use of the funds before implementation. Mr. Daniel requented ~taff to inform th~ Board of the anticipated use of the Tranoient Occupancy Tax revenue in¢luding Che~t~rfield's percentag~ be~ors th~ fss~ is forwarded to the General Assembly. Mr. MoHale clarified that if t~e General Assembly pas~es this l~gimlation, the County would have the opportunity to impose this tax; that it would be et the Board of Supervisors discretion to use the revenue to offset the County's contribution for a public purpose t~at promotes business, tourism, or travel; and that the Board is not committal to imposing the ta~ at this time or to any specific commitment other than within these general parameters of travel and tourism. ~4r. Ramsay stated the Hoard would have to levy the ta~ and then appropriate the use of the funds. Mr. Micas stated the amount of the ta~ is also discretionary, therefore, the Be~rd would no% have to go the full amount. ~- Daniel requested that language be added to the ite~ to reflect that th~ amount and timing of this tax are at the discretion of the locality. Mr. Zicas stated the item would indicate that the Beard of Supervisors retains discretion to determine the amount 0£ the tax or the u~e of the proceeds. 95-72O 11/21/95 There was brief discussion relative to the language ehahge to tho item. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Barber, the Beard approved an additional item to bs added to tko lg96 Legislative l~re~ram Relating tc the Transient Occupancy Tax, as amended, as follows~ FINANCE 9. Amend Section 5S~1-~823 of the Code of Virqinia to allow ~emrlco, ches%erflel~, end Nanever Ceunties to increase their transient occupancy tax to a maximum of mix (6) percent (up ~% from the current limit of 2%) with the in~rea~ in r~v~nue to be used for promoting business, tourism and travel in t~e Greater Richmond metropolitan area- The Board ef Supervisers retains discretion to determine t~e amount of the tax or the us~ of ~he proceeds. (Yt im noted a copy of th~ additional Lsgislatlve Ite~ is filed with the papers of this Beard.) 9.~. OL~I~ OF · i R OOMS~RUCTION COHPANY, INCORPORATBD utility contractor fram A~hland~ ha~ made a claim for ~3g,0~9.94 aqains~ the County fe~ work tha~ it was required to perform in 1991 and, after a sewer line that it had installed, less than one year earlier, began to sink, es=tls, and lsa~. ~e f~th~r ~tat~d the County reqUire~ T & E to replace the line, however, T & E now claims it is net a~ ~ault and is demanding te be paid for repairing it~ ~w~ work. ~e s~ats~ R. S~uart Royer ~n~ Asseciates~ the project engineer, has informed stsff that the ~ewer line failure could only have been caused by two things~ beth of which are T & E's responsibility, including defective materials and werkman~hip, which T & required to correct if they scour within on~ year of pro,eot completion, as happened in this case or (2) weak ~oil be~ow pipe, which T & E is centractually required to report to the County ~o that ad~quat~ eenstructi~n methods c~ be employed the time of construction to prevent the kind of settlement and lea3cing that occurred in this case. ~e noted that the soil is not shrink-swell~ but a different type of soil t~at can pipes, He erased an independent soil analysis was conducted at the ti~e T & E perfo~m=d tho repair work and was inconclusive as to whether weak soil had caused the.settlement and leaking. ~e further stated T & E is responsible for the failure cf the sewer line, therefore, the County has denied the claim. Kr. Thomas C. Narri~, President of T & E Construction Company, stated the sewer line in question wa~ put in u~e by Nove~oer 20, 1991 and round ts ~ave settled in May, 1993, qhio~ is seventeen month~ rather than les~ than a year. Me further e~ated two sections of the linc were foun~ to ~e the County agreed to reimburse T & ~ Constructio~ if it was proven that the workmanship an~ materials were not defective. ~s stated no consultanting engineer with either R. Stuart Royer and Associates, Frnehllng & Rnbertsnn, or the County has ever indicated to T & E that there was defective material or defective workmanship. He referenced a letter indicatinq there was ne negligence on the part of T & E Construction Company. He stated be feels T & E is entitlud to reimbursement because ~he line did not se~le due ~e deZe¢=ive workmanship or d~fectlve material. which is in question, was put in service prior to January 10, 1992; and that the total project was completed in July, 1992. He further stated it is his con~enticn that there we~ no defective workmanship or material, therefore, the CoUnty should relm~ursa T & E. When asked, he stated he disputes a letter from R- Stuart Rmyar and Associate~, Incorporated stating their When asked, Mr. Kites stated County etaf~ used R. Stuart ReFer, an independent ~ngin~er, to analyze the cause of the fail~re. He further stated R. Stuart Royer determined tha~ they could net dot~rmino wh~thor the settlement wes caused by defective workmanship or weak soil. He stated under the County's agreement with T & ~, both weak soil and defective workmanship 0re the responsibility of the contractor. Mr. ~c~ale stated if the Board denies Mr. Harris's clslm, Br. ~arrls would hav~ the opportunity to go to court and make a claim. Dr. Nishele~ ~tated he ~ympathize~ with Mr. Harris and inquired ~of eempremism rzgardin~ compensation for Mr. Harris. Mr. Micas ~=a=ed ~here are certain situations in which the County offer= Mr. Qaniel stated he sympathizes with Mr. Harris; that the Board he~ to act on the evidence praeented; t~at the Board is not a court of law; ~n~ that ~ue to ~he evidenced pr¢~n~ed, he supports a denial which will allow for continuing proceedings Mr. Daniel ~hen made a motion, seconded by Mr, Warren, for the Board to deny the claim of T & ~ Construction Compuny, Incorporated, in the amount cf $38,0S9.74. and ~r. Daniel. Abstention: Dr. Nicholas. 9,E. ~LAI~ OF ~%. WILLIE O, G~U~E AND ~, Mr. stylian Parthemos, senior Assistant County Attorney, stated Mr. Willie O. and Mrs. Frunces B. Grubb have mad= a claim against the County for $1~0,000 and ~eeonstruetien of a pond as a result of the construction in 199~ of u sewer li~e in a County easement across unimproved property owned by them on Jefferson Davis ~ighway in the Bermuda Magisterial District. He further stated the claim is a result of the construction of a sewer line in 1950 by the County pursuant to the Route 1/301 Sewer Assessment District. Me stated in May, 1990, the County acquired a sewer easement from the Grubbs to install e sewer line for the Assessment District to cross his prope~rty. ~e further stated at that time, the county's construction plans celled for the sewer line to ~e located outside the area of the pond located on the G~UbbS property~ ~owever~ at the request of Mr. Grubb the sewer line was relocated to run underneath the pond. He stated at that time, plans were a~ended in order for arrangements to be made ~o lower the level of the pond sc tha~ t~e sewer line could be installed undeEneath the pond. However, in June or July of 199Q, stamie Lyttle company, Inoo~porated, the contractor for the project, met with Mr. Grubb who indicated he did not want the pond on his property and asked that the dam for the pond be breached and the pond be drained. He further stated the County complied with Mr. Grubb's request to ~ove the easement and drain the pond. ~e 95-722 i1/21/~5 circum~tance~ that l~d to the removal of the pond. He stated approximately three years, later the County wmm contacted abo~t replacing the pond. He further stated staff recon~aends denial of the claim. Mr, Joseph Kaestner0 representin~ Mr. Willie o. and MS. Francis Grubb, stated low.ring the poDd level had always been part of the County's plan and that there are no agreements subsequent tO the easement which require the County to rebuild th~ pond. ~e fuTther stated the easement was granted to the County under certain conditions including that the county shall return the property as nearly to its oriqinal condition as possible and that Mr. Grubb denies ever having a conversation with Stamie Lyttl~ o~ Lyttl~ ~ep~eSe~tative about removing the pond. ~ stated the Gruhbs have resided in the County for many years and feel the County should fulfill the commitnent it made when the cluim. issue; that he has tried to get the County to negotiate with something needs to be negotiated with the Grubbs in good faith vote on this issue to avoid any appearance of a oonf!i~% and change in the contramt between the County and ~he utility between the County and the Grubbs. He further stated that ~r. easement was ~i~ned and relieved ~he County cf any inves=igabien. Dy t~e county for developing the plans~ and why t~e Grubbs would hays waited thre~ years before asking the Coun=y to rebuild the ~snd. When asked, Mr. Parthems$ stated it is typical policy of the County to avoid installing sewer lines underneath bonds because of these t~r~es of issues. He further stated if there had been any indications from the ~rubbs~ other ~han they did not want the pond baoR~ the entire ~atter scold ~ave been ~andled very e~pedi~ieusly. ~e stated the only reason the pond was removed was because it was the request of Mr. Grubb. not feel there is ccmpetlin~ arguments for ~he county or ~he 95-723 11/21/95 Mr. MoHale then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Barber, for the Beard to deny the claim of Mr. Willie O. and Ks. Fran~e~ B. Grubb for $150~000 and rebuilding the pond. Vote: Unanimouu ~0. REPORT~ On motion of Mr. Barber, eecended Dy Dr. Nicholas, =he Beard accepted the following reports: A report on Developer Water and ~ewer Contracts and a status report on the General Fund Balance; Reserve for Future Capital Projects; District Road and Street Light Funds; and Lease Purchases. A~d, further, tJ~e Beard accepted the fallewing read~ inte the A~ANDONMENT LENGTH !STONEHENGE - ~Ef~ective ::%~oute 2564 (Harwiuk Drive) - From Ruute 2562 ~O 0.03 mile south Route 2562 CROS~ CREEK.,__$ECTION F - (Effective 10-23-95] Rout= 3773 (Crossings Way) - From 0.10 mile North Route 3777 ~o 0.29 mile Nur~h Route 3777 G~ITO WOODS, SECTION 2 - ~Effectlve 10-11-95) Route 3~08 (Gr~ood Road) - ~rcm 0.1~ mile North Rou~e 3313 to 0.12 mile Sou~h Route MO~T BLANC0, SECTION t2 - {Effective Rout~ 4~93 (Mount ~l=nco Court) - ~rom Routs lo. DIVINER on motion of ~r. Barber, seconded by ~r. MsRale, the Board recessed to tho Administration Building, Room 502, for a dinner meeting wit~ members of t~e Legislative Delegation ts ~evi~w th~ 1996 Legislative Program. Vote: U~animoum Mr.~c~ale expresse~ appreciation to members of the Legislative Deleqation for nes~±ng wit~ %he Board of Sup~vissrs to discuss meeting. 95-724 11/~/95 the Board approved adding an additional Finance item to the Legislative Program and reviewed the isuue which would Amend Section 5S.1-3823 of the Code of Virqinia to allow Henrico~ Chesterfield, and Hanover Counties to increase their transient ocs~paney tax =o a maximum of six (6) percent (up 4% from the current limit of 2%) with the increase in revenue to be used for promoting ~uslness, tourism smd travel in the Greater Richmond metropolitan area. The Board of Supervisors retains discretion ts determine the amount of the tax or the use of the proceeds. There was brief discussion relative to the possibility of the proceeds being used to support ~he expansion of the Convention Center. Fr. Micas stated Item 10., Supporting ~tate funding for Route 288 construction without tolls was mistakenly omitted smd should be included as Dart of lagiulatiea to support/oppose in the 1996 Leqislative Program. There wa~ b~ief discussion relative to the difference between the Brickley BP©L tax ordinance and the ~enrico County pm~posal; the amount of State appropriations needed for the expansion of the Convention Center project; and whether ~here is = demand for the services that will be provided by. an Fir.' Micas reviewo~ A~ministration of Government issues including amending Section 46.2-395 of the Code of ~, to allo~ the courts to suspend an operator's driver's license due to restrict such an operator's llcsnse ss well. ~e then property exemptions for Iverssn Properties, Incorporated, Terjo Properties, Incorporate~, and Winters Hill Properties, ezemption for ~abitat for Humanity. There was brief discussion relative to the Board voting on%he three real property exemptions separately and specific dollar resolutions. Legislation to fund all certified law enforcement training acudemies (independent and regional) through the creation of a one-hal~ os one percent fee on automobile liability insurance premiums. rea~ "Legislation he fun~ all certifie~ public law enforcement training academies through the creation of a one-half of one Mr. Micas continued to review Finance issuss including amending give local Commissioners of Revenue the suthcrity ts grant personal property %az relief to volunteer public safety workers and request State share of funding for construction of detention home expansions or provide State funding to house j~vcniles at alternative £acilitie~. Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relative to the cost the average number of juveniles residing in the Home; exploring oD%isms ~e possibly construe% a separate section for more ~erious juvenile offenders; how the juveniles are classified in the State System; and exploring the po~ibillty of sending more merious local offenders to the Ban Air Facility ar to the Riverside Regional Jail after they have been through the Court Mr. Mica~ continued to review Finance issues including amending disqualified fram the land use program and roll-back ta~e~ will net be triggered if property is zoned to an industrial zoning category. applying only =o property that is initiated by the governing body, Mr. Micas continued to review Finance issues including prohibiting a) the withdrawal cf a member locality from a local community college beard and b) the change of a community college service delivery boundary by a member locality, without th~ approval of all of the other m~mb~r localities. possibility of a Bill being introduced to specifically remove the Clty of Richmond from the John Tyler service area; potential risks in introducing legislation prohibiting the board and the change of a community college service delivery boundsry by a member locality, without the approval of all the other member l~calities; .the City of Ric~ond Administration prcposin~ ts City Council legislation; possibility of requiring the payment of a penalty in order to withdraw a member locality from a local community college board; this proposed legislation sending e mixed message about County Board of Supervisors have always been regionally cooperative, but this issue being an opportunity for cooperation t~ be a two way street. Mr. Micas continued te review Finance issues including amending Section 58.1-3823 of the Code of Virginia to allow Benrico, Chesterfield, and ~anover Counties to increase their transient occupancy ta~ to a maximum of ei~ (g) percent (up ~% from the current limit of 2%) with ~he increase in revenue to be used Richmond metropolitan area. He then reviewed Community Development issues including umending the Code of Viruiniu Dro~ide for assessment district liens to De recorded as tax liens ruther than us judgments against the property und in addition, provide discretion to allow localities the ability ts defer ~ssessm=nt district payments: (a) until th~ property owner actually connects to the public utility system er (b) if conveyed, then the entire amount due would be payable and in any event, the ~ntire amount 4ua would ba payable nc later than ten yee~e from the e~eation of the district; &~e~di~g th~ Code of Vireinia to ~rovida that the statute of limlta~ions provision for Building Code violations for new construction which re~uires the violation ~o ~e ~isoovered within one year after a certificate of occupancy (C.O.) is issued does not ap~ly to maintenance related violations; and amending Section limitations for criminal prosecution far ~uilding code violations to allow fe~ a tNe yea~ diseevemy period followed by ~ one year statute of limits%ions after discovery, aa then ~eviewed ieqi$1ation tu support/oppose including s~ppo~ting legislation which adopts t~e ~ric~ley Committee's model ~POL tax ordinance; supporting approprlation~ providing for State International Airpor[ expansion; supporting appropriations which provide ~or State funding of a Dart of =ha cost of the proposed Richmond Convention Centre e~pan~ion; ~upportin~ 95-726 11~Z1/95 legislation which institutes a three duller court technology fee on deeds, wills, that will defray cc~t~ of implementing technology to improve access to court records in Circuit Court Clerk's offices; supporting legislation that would'require the Commonwealth to relmburea locelitlee for the satire assr of microfilning Circuit Court records to satisfy the commonwealth's archival regn~rements; opposing any legislation that would reduce the pow~r~ and duti~m of the Community Services Board and supporting the Virginia Muncipal Leaquo {~14L) and the Virginia Assoaiat~cn of Counties (rACe) principles en the proposed restructuring of public mental health/mental r~tardation/substance abuse cervices in the Commonwealth; opposing any legislation that would reduce the State's contribution for the funding of juvenile detention homes~ supporting State funding for the expansion of Jonn Tyler Comuuunity College; supporting legislation that would allow acres o~ Pocahontas state Park and Forest to Chesterfield County for t~e devel0pme~t of uctive region~l facilities; and supporting State funding ~or Route 2~8 cens%ructlen without tolls. There wa~ brief discussion r~lative to opposing legislation %hat w0~ld ~ed~oe the powers and dutie~ of the Community ~rvie~ Board; ~upporting the VML and VACo prlnclples on the proposed restructuring cf public mental health/mental retardation/sub,tense abuse servlceE in Commonwealth; opposing any rod~ctions in State funding for the Juvenile Detention ~cme; sharing an additional juvenilu judgu with Richmond who ~culd spend three days a week in chesterfield; and t~e need for Chesterfield to u~ the ju4ge five days a week. (It is noted a copy of the proposed 1996 Legislative ~regram ia filed with the papers of this It was generally agreed ts adjourn to th~ Pubtie Meeting Room to continue the regularly scheduled mae~ing. Dr. Glen ~uhannon, Pastor of Central Ua~tiet church, gave invocation. Mr, Travis L. Jones, Troop $~7, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of tho United States cf America. i4. RESOLUTION~ AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS 14.~. RECOGNIZING THE ME~DOWBROOK AREA COMMUNTTy7 COUNCIL-FOR THEIR ~ONTRIBUTIONS TO THE 1995 HEADOW~ROOK A/~EA ~ALL FESTIVAL Mr. Stith introduced ~s. ~ea ~elone, ~e. ~ancy ~udson, -~s. ~eth Dunkum, Dr. Walter Felton~ Mr. John He~si~n, and ~. Robin Guthy, members of the Steerin~ Committee for the Festival, who On motion of the Board, the following resolution wam adopted: WHEREAS, th~ Meadowbrook Area Community Council initiated and sponsored the first annual Msadewbrook Area Fall Festival~ WHEREAS, the purpose of ~he Festival was ~o celebrate the Meadowbrook community, its people, and its community spirit; and WHEREAS, ~i~izens at,ended the Festival and enjoyed a variety of activities including arts and crafts, bands, games, carnival rides, and v~siting with other residents Of the area; and WHEREAS, the Meadowbrook Area Co--unity Council made invaluable contributions to the ~estival as the organizer and promoter for this successful event. NOW, T~R~P©R~ B~ IT R~OLV~D, that the Chesterfield County Beard of Supervisor~ commen~s the Meadowbrook Area ,Co.unity Council for their contributions to' t]~e 1995 [Maadewbrook Area Fall Festival. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED! that a copy of this r~olution b~ presented ~o the ~eadswbrook Area Community Council and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers sf this Board of Supervisor= of Chesterfield County, virginia. Vote: Unanimous ~ Dankel presented the executed resolutions to Me. Malone, Ms. ~udson, Me. Dunkum, Dr. Felton, Mr. Ressian, and Ms. ~uthy and expressed appreciation for their contributions to the Festival. ~s. ~udson exgressed appreciation, on behalf of ~he Commi=~ee, for the recognition. Mr. Golden introduced Mr. ffo~ ~ngland, Coach, a~d ~b~r$ of the Clover Hill High School Lady cavaliers Tennis Team~ who were present at the meeting. On motion of th~ Board, the following r~olu~ien w~s W~R~AS, parti¢ipatien is high suhool sports has long been an' infegraI part of Chesterfield County's educational, physical, and emo=ienal development fom students~ and WHeReAS, Mr. Joe England, Coach cf th= Cluver Hill High School Lady Cavaliers Tennis Team, co.plated hie first year of coaching; and WHEP~EAS~ under Mr. ~ngland's guidance.and direction, the 1995 Clover Hill Lady Cavaliers finished the regular season with a 13-0 r~cord,-won the Oominion Dis~ric~ Tournament and Central Region Championship, and finished as State and WHEREAS~ th~ Clover Hill ~ady cavaliers have ~omoiled two yea~ record of 31-3-8. NOW, TEEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Bomrd of Supervisors hereby commends ~he Clover Kill High School Lady Cavaliers Tennis Team for their outstandihg accomplishments and splendid sportsmanship, of the citizens of Chesterfield County, hereby expresses their ~est wishes for continued success to :he Clover Hill Lady Cavaliers. Vote: Unanimous and members of the Team! congratulated them on their outstanding ~ccomplishments, and wished them continued ~uecess. ~r. ~n~l~nd expressed appreciation, on behalf of the Team, for RECOGNIZING I~, TRA~IS L, JONES, TROOP $97. ~TT~NIN~ 93uN~ 0~ EnGLE stUnT On motion of the Bo~rd, %he following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, th= Boy Scouts of A/~erica was incorporated by ~r. William D. ~oyce on ~ebruary ~, 1~1Q; and WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America w~ founded ta promote citizenship training, personal development~ and fitBe$$ of ~ndlviduals; and WHEREAS, after earning at l~ast twenty-un= murit in a wide variety of fields, serving in a leadership position in a troop~ carrying out a service project beneficial to his oonumunity, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit~ and living up to the Scout 0at~ and LeW~ and WHEREAS, Mr, Travis L. Jones, Troop S97, sponsored by Nount Pisgah United Kethodist Church, has accomplished those high standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle ~cout which i~ r~c~iv~d by 1~ than two percent of those individuals entering the Sceutinq mavement~ and WHEreAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting, learning ~e le~sons of responsible citizenship, and hims=lf on the great accomplishments cf his County, Truvis of whom we con all be v~ry proud. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED~ that the Chestmrfield to ~. Travi~ L. Jon%~ and ackn~wledge~ the good fortun~ cf the County to have such an out~tan~n~ young man as on~ citizens. ~r. Barber presented the executed resolution to Mr, Jones, accompanied by ~e~e~s of his family, congratulated outstanding achievement, and wished him well in his future 95-729 11/21/9~ 13. HEARING CF 0ITIZEN$ ON UNSOHEDULED MATTBRE OR CLAIHS O MS. JOYCE GILLILAND. MR. CHARLE~ ~. PU~Ho AND HS. SCHAEFER REG~DiNG P%G ODOR ON RUTHERS ROAD Mr. Charles $. Pugh stated he is a rental property cwo%er of three townhouse units in the Providence Court Townhouse co~u~ity; that he takes an active interest in the w~lfare and comfort of his tenants~ and that he is a member of the Board of Direstors for the Providence Court Townhouse community, se expressed concerns relative to the pig odor in the commumity an~ stated tbs c~or has prehibits~ citizens in the area ~rom the l~as~ had been signed due to the odor. He further stated at that time, he began his own investigation into the matter; and that mo~t citizens contacted were in favor of t~ng type of action through County Administration procedures to have th~ odor alleviated. ~e ~tat~d th~r~ i~ currently a neighborhood petition underway to provide interested residents to becom~ involved; that an ~ducatio~al progra~ ke ~derway to inform neighbors there is possibility to eliminate the odor; that information building is ongoing; and that ':re~id~nts ~nd neighborhood~ are being encouraged to write their ,!complaints. Ms requested the Board to support an ordinance that would prohibit the production of obnoxious odors which may subject any residential community to unpleasant living conditions and perhaps ~esult in negative effects on ~r- Richard $ohsffer sba=ed ~hat he r~sides an Clover=res Court and read portions of ~everal lett~=~ from ~r~a expressin~ their concerns about the negative impact the odor will have on property values and ~tatlng the odor has made it impossible for their children to play uutdeers, ~o have cookouts, or to open windows in their Ms. Joyce Gilliland stated she resides in Prcvldeuce Court Townhuuses~ ~hat she cannot have cookouts an her home of the odor~ and that ~he beg~n her own investigation into the matter. She furthe~ stated she can no longer take walks in her neighbor becau=~ of the odor and requested th~ Board to a~dres~ the pig odor on Ruthers Road a~ the odo~ is an u~healthy environment tc the community. Ms. Lucet Dingle, Treasurer of ths Providsnua Court Townhsuse As~ooiatien~ stated she has resided in Providence Oou~t Townhouses since its origination. She further stated there was no pig odor from the farm the first few years of her residency and that she feels the pig farm is not being properly managed. having on area property value= and requested the Board to address =his i~ue so that propsrty values in the area will not be negatively impacted. Mr- Warren e~prcased appreciation for citizen input and this i~sue. ~r- ~icas stated the property is currently zoned for agricultural u~a, which includes pig farming, however~ in additio~ to the zoning ordlnanoe, the County has a Swine Chapter that regulates the rai~ing of pigs. ~m further ~tated this chapter ~tat~ there =~nnot be a pig farming operation within 200 fee.t of any resident. He stated the Board could consider increasing the 200 feet distance, however, th~ increase ~ay ~avo tho affect of stopping owners operation or forcing th~ owner to move his facility. ~ further stated increase could also affect other pig farm~ in more rural parts of the County. ~0-750 11/21/95 WACn as~a~, ~r. Nunnally stated the ownsr's lot complies with the 200 feet restriction; that he h~s four small lots in which the animals ceul~ be rotated in ordaF to ~llow the other lots to dry; and that pig odor can be noticeable in exce~ to one mile, therefore, inoroasin~ the distance to addreos the odo~ may not be the proper step to take. Th~r~ wa~ brief discussion relative to the impact on pig fares located in more rural areas of the County if the Board increases th~ 200 feet restriction. that focuses om density and report hack to the Board at the December 13, 1995 Board meeting, at which time the Board could co,sider whether or not to ~ched~le a public hearing on the issue. Dr. Nicholas stated he £eel~ the current 2co feat restriction is not realistic and that increasing the ~istance to 300 feet WOrld no~ address the issue. Er. Daniel stated he Zeals this is an e~ample of individuals' riqht~ that are conflicting with urban development. ordinance back at the Dscember 13, 199~ Board meetinq so the Board can schedule a public hearing on the is=ua. When asked, Mr- Nunnally stated the owner has the minimum number of pigo for the acreage of his property; that there will b~ an odor wherever there are pigs; and that whenever there ie excess moisture, there will be an odor. Mr. Barber stated he wants to ensurs all avenues are purnued to alleviate or lesson the problem before %he owner of thi~ farm is forced out of existence. Mr. Nunnatly stated it his ~nd=rstanding that the School Board is in the process of gran=ing the owner of this pig farm a piece of land to p~u~ide the owner with an additional buffer. Mr. Daniel requested stuff to address the issde of whether it is the decision of School System or School AOmlnistr~tion to grant the owner this piece of property. ~lr. McHale stated he sympathizes with the concerns that have operations in the County; that he wants clear, definitive by this ordinance; and that th~ Board wants tC work with the of the economic development in the County. raise4 and sold at this pig farm on an annual basis, Mr. Warren stated this issue is a major problem ~or area property ownero; that he supports farming in the proper negative impuct in areas of the County in which farming is a majo~ operation; and that he £sela the ~enslty approach may be ordlnan~e is dr~fte~ he would like to ~aet with tbs property owners, to allow them to review the ordinance, before a public hearin~ is bald. 95-731 11/21/95 iL ....... L ..... JI ......... I I~ ! . I i~. ~HBLIO HEARING~ TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION REOUESTIN~ RE~Ja ESTATE TAX EXEHPTIOHS FOR WINTERS HILL PROPERTIES. INCORPORATED Mr. ~isas stated this date and time has bean advertised for a public hearing to consider a~option of a resolution requesting Real Estate Tax Exumptiuns for Winters Hill Propcrtleu, Incorporated. He further stated in 1995 this property will generate $971.28 in County real estate taxes. No one came forward to speak in favor of or against this issue. On motion of Mr- Barber, secoDded by Dr~ Nicholas, the Board RESOLUTION SUPPORTING T~E DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY OF BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGIKIA WHEREAS, Winters Hill Properties, Inc. is a non-stock, ~'.non-profit corporation which pruvide~ long-term oar= services to patlentm in their home~ and W~EREA$~ Winters Hill Properties, Inc. is in the proces~ of purchasing real property located in Chesterfield County, Virginia; and WHEREA$~ the real and personal pruperty used exclusively ~or charitable and benevolent purposes by a gualifying organization shall be exempt frum taxation a~ authorized by Article X, Section ~(a) (6) of %he Constitution OS Virginia, upon action by the General Assembly of Virginia and so long as such organization is operate~ no; for profit and the property so e~smpt is u~¢d in accordance with the purpose for which the organization is classified; and WH=R=AS, the Boar~ of Supervlmors of Chemtmrfisld County, Virginia has considered the followin~ factor~ before, the adoption of this resolution in support of the tax sxempt status of Winter~ Hill Properties, Ina. as follows: 1. Wkuters 5ill Properties, Inc. is exempt from federal income taxation purmuant to section SOl(c) of the Ne current annual alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages has been issued by the Virginia Aloohollc Beverage Control Board to Winters Hill Propor=ie~, Ins. for u~e on the organization's propsr~y. 3. No director or officer of Winters Hill Properties, Inc. is paid any compensation in excess e~ the velum of the services petrol-mad in sue~ pa~itio~ with the corRoratlon. Ne part of the net earnings cf Winters Hill Propertles~ Ins. inures tm the benefit uf any individual. 5. Winter~ Hill Properties, Inc. providez services for t~e common good of the public. No part of the activi=iem of Winte~rs Hill Properties, Ins. involves carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation. The corperatio~ doe~ ~o% participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for publi~ office, ~5-752 7- Winters Hill Properties, Inc. has no rule, requlation~ policy or practice which discriminates on the basis of r~ligious conviction, race, color, max o~ national origin. This y~ar the above-men,toned property is assessed at a value of $89,100 and will generat~ $971.90 in ~971.20 ~n County real estate taxes. THEREFORE, be it re~olved by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County as follows: an~ ~amsonal property pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a) (6) of the Constitution of Virginia and the provisions cf'Chapter 36 of Title 58.I of the Cods of Virginia, 1950, a~ amended, and that such exemption should be categori=ed a~ charitable and forward a certi£ie~ cc~y cf this resolution to the members of with the requemt that the proper legi¢lation be introduced in re~olutlon. $. Th~ e££ectiv~ date of this resolu~ien shall he On motion and ~cehd to adopt r~solution, motion carried ~y the fullcwlng recorded vote: ~r. Micas stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing to consider adoption Of ~ resolution requesting Incorporated. He further stated in 1995 this property will No one came fsrward to speak in favor of or against thi~ adopted th~ fallowing r~solutis~: ~Y TH~ GENERAL ASS~BLY OF VIRGINIA profit corporation which provid~ long-term care services to patients in their homes; and purchasing real property located in Chesterfield County;' Virginia; and WHeReAS, the real and personal prspert~ u~ed exclusively such organization is operated not for profit arid the property so exempt is used in accordance with the pu~pome for which the organization is classified; and WHEREAS, the Board of SuDorv~eore of Chosterfield Coon%y, Virginia has considered the following factors before the adoption of this resolution in support of the tax exempt status of Iverson Properties, In¢. as follows: !. Ivaraon Properties, Inc. ia exempt from federal 2. Ko current annual alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages has been issued hy ~he Virginia Alcoholic Beverage control Board to Iver~on Propertiest Inc. for use on the organization'~ property. ~o director or officer of ryerson Properties, ~ervices performed in such position with the corporation. 4. ~o part of the net earnings of Iverson Propertiem, Inc. inures to the benefit of any individual. 5. Iver~on Properties, Inc. provides ~ervicee for .~the c~en good of the ~ublic. ~o part of the activities of ~verson Inc. ~nvelvae carrying on propaganda or othsrwi~e attempting to influence legislation. The corporation does not in, or intervsns in, any political campaign on bshslf of any candidate for public office. 7. Iverson Prs~ertles, Inc. has nc rule, regulation, policy or practice which discriminates on the basis of religious conviction, race, colo~, sex or national origin. 8. In 1~, tho a~ove-men~ien~d proper~y was assessed at a value of $80,90~ and will generate $881.8~ in County real estate tax. In 1994, the property gsnerate~ $851.30 in County real estate taxes. TH~REFORE~ be it r~solved by th~ ~o~d of Supervisors Of Chesterfield County as follows: l. That this Board supports the request of Iverson Properties, Inc. for exemption from taxation of its real and personal property pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a) (6) of th~ ConstitUtion of Virginia and the provisionm of Chapter ~g of Title 58.1 of t~e Code of Virginia, 1958, as amended, and that such ~xamption should be categorized aB charitable and benevolent. 2. That the County Administrator is directed to forward a certified Copy of this resolution to the members of the General Assembly representing the County of Chesterfield carried by th~ following recorded vote: Vote: Unanigous 99-734 11/21/~5 No one came forward to speak in favor of or against this issue. By TM~ GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA ~EREA$, Terjc Properties, Inc. is a non-s=eck, non- profit corpora=ion which provides long-%cfm care services to for charitable and benevolent purposes by a qualifying organization shall be exempt from taxation as au~herlze~ by Artlcla ~ Section 6(a)(6) uf the Constitution of upon action by the General Assembly cf virginia and so long as such organization is operated not for profit and the property so ~xcept i~ uso~ in accordsnse with the purpose for which Virginia has considered the following factors before the of Terjo Properties, Inc. as follows: income taxation pursuant to Sectica D01Ic) cf the Internal serving elcohollc b~v~rag~ has been issued by ~he Virginia use on th~ orga~i~abion'~ property. is paid any compensation in e×ees~ of the value of the services performed in such position with the corporation. 4. No part of the net earnings of Terjo Properties, Ins+ inures to the benefit of any individual. 5. Terjo Properties, Inc. provides services for the common good of the public. 6. NO part of the activities of Terjs Propertie~, Inc. involves carrying on propaganda c~ otherwise attempting to influence legislation. The corporation does not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. policy or practice which di~criminate~ on the basis of 95-735 11/~1/95 Tn 1995, the above-mentioned property was a~e~sed at a value of ~87,4OQ and will generate ~952.6~ in $707.42 in County real estate taxes. THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board ~f Supervlssr~ of chesterfield county as follows: 1. That this 8card supports the request of Terje Properties, InC. fuZ exekption fro~ taxation of its real and personal property pursuant to Article X, ~ection 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia and the provision~ of Chapts~ 36 of Title 56.1 of the Cods of Virqinia, 1950, as amended, and =hat such exemption should be categorized as charitable and benevolent. 2. That th~ Couu~y Admisistrator is direc~e~ to forwurd u c~rtified copy of this resolution to the meaub~rs cf the General Assembly representing the county of chester£i~td with the request that the proper legislation be introduced in the General Assembly to achieve t~e purposes of ~his ~resolution. The effective date of this re~olution shall be '~ilNovem~er 21, 1995. carried by the following recorded vote: Vote: Unanimous ~?. REOU~STS FOR HOBILE HOMES PERMITS AND REZONINS 96HR0151 park a ~obile home in a Residential (R-T) District. The density of th~s proposal is ap~r~xlmatsly 2.33 un~t~ Der acre. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for regional staff recommends approval cf the rsqus~t for sevsn years subject to steudar~ ~onditions. He noted the mobile home is Mr. Donald H. ~ichulson stated the recommeHdaticn is 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. No lot or parcel may be rented or laa~ed for u~e a~ a mobile hams site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual let er parcel. yard, and other zonin~ requirements of the apptioable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no 95-73S 11/~1/95 Vote: mobile home shall be located closer than 20 £aet to any existing ~esidence. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. Ail mobile homs~ ~hall be skirted hut shall not be placed on a pe~anen% foundation, W~e~e public (County] water and/or ~ewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official, This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounde for revooation of the Mobile Home Permit. INC. reguested Conditional Usa to ~mrmit above-ground propane density of such amendmen~ will be controlled , by zoning request liem in an Agricultural (A) Dimtrict on 0,9 acres lying Place, approximately M00 feet west of Riverpark Drive. TaM Map lO9-1G (1) Part of Parcel 3 (S~eet public he,ring on ~hls request fur Kovember 2S, 1995, recommendation for a deferral im acceptable. deferral. In Clover Hill Magisterial Distriut~ THE LAKES ON 360, INC. requested rezoning from R~m~enti~l Townhou~e (R-T~) to Community Business (c-3). The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance stendard~. The Comprehensive Plan des~nate~ the property for co~nnity mixed use, This request lies on 1.~ acres lying approximateTy.84~ point approximately 100 feat wemt cf Winterpock Road. Ta× Map 75-2 (5) Lakepointe~ Part of Let 94 (sheet 201. M~, Jacobson p~ese~ted a summary of Case 965N0122 and stated the Planning co,lesion and staff recommends approval and acceptance of proffered condition~. He noted the request conforms to the UDDer Swift Creek Plan. 95-737 Mr. Scott Stlote, representing the applicant, stated the on motion of Mr. Warren~ seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board approved Case 965U0i22 and aooepted the following proffered conditions: 1. ~ne sto~ water runoff from all impervious areas of the property shall drain through a BMP. 2. The public wastewater system shall be used. $. Buildings shall have architectural styles and incorporat~ materials that are similar and oomplimentary ts the adjacent tewnhoase and commercial project~. 4. Pedestrian and vehicular access shall be provided to the adjacent R-TH pruperty. AC the time of the schematic plan or first mite plan review, an overall access plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to, and approved, by the Transportation and Planning In clover Hill ~a~isterial District, TH~ ~S ON Z60, requested re~oniDg from Regid~ntial Townhouse (R-TH) INC. to Co--unity Business (C-3). The density of ~uoh amcndmont Will be controlled ~y z~ning conditions or Ordinance standar~. The Comprehensive Plan designat¢~ t~e praperty for co--unity mi~ed use. This request lies on 0.7 acres lying approximately 4~0 feet off the north line of Hull street Road, measured from a point approximately 1,200 feet west of Winterpook Road. Tax Map 75-2 (5) Lakepointe, Part of Lot 94 (sheet ~0). Mr. Jaoobson presented a summary of Case 96SNOI~3 and stated the Planning commission and staff recommends approval and acceptance of proffered conditions. He ~oted the recfuest con,diems to the Upper swift Cree~ Plan. Mr. Seo~t Stolte, representing the applicant, seated the recommendation is acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of ~r. Warren, seconded by ~r. Barber, the Board approved Ca~e 96SN0123 and accepted the following proffere~ conditions: 1. The.storm water runoff from all imperviou~ areas of the property s~all drain ~rough a BMP. 2. The public wastewater system shall be used. 3. Buildings shall have architectural styles and incorporate materials that are similar and complimentary to the adjacent townheuse and commercial projects. 4. Pedemtrian ~nd veh~sular asee~s ~hall be provided to the adjacent R-T~ property. At the time Of the schematic plan or first ~ite Dlsn review, an overall access plan depicting this r~quirement shal~ be ~ubmitted to, and approved, by the Transportation and Planning Dmpartments. Uote: Unanlmou~ 96~0125 ~%-NK requested rezoning from General Industrial (I-2) to General Business (c-5). The density of such amendment will b~ controlled by zoning ~onditions Qr ordinance standards. Th~ Comprehensive Plan de~igna~e~ the pEoperty for liqht W~st Hundred Road. Ta~ ~ap 1~7-9 (1) Parcel 50 (Sh~t ~)~ Mr. Jacobsen presented a sugary of Ca~ 96gN0125 and stated the Ptannin~ Co~ission and s~af~ reco~n~ approval and acc~Dtanc~ of proffered conditions. He noted th~ r~qu~st conform~ to the Eastern Area Land use and Transportation Plan fo~ light industrial ume. Mr. Phillip Rmdctiff, representing the ~pplicant, stated the reoo~endation is acceptable. There was no opposition present. approved Case 96~N01~5 and accepted the following proffered conditions: ~rlor to ~it~ plan approval, one hundred (100) f~et of right of way on the ~oFth ~ide of Route 10~ measured from the ¢enterline of that part of ~out~ lQ i~e~iately unrestricted, to and for ~ke benefit o~ Cha~:~rfi~ld County. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for any lum~er store, as determined ~y the Transportation Department, direct access to Route 10 ~hall be eliminated. Vote: 958N01~6 In Bermuda Magisterial District, IHeENDER~, Z~c. facility in a Meavy Industrial (I-3) District. T~s density of Euch amen~h~ent w~ll be controlled by zoning condition~ Ordinance ~tandards. Th~ Comprehensive Plan designates the property ~or general industrial use. This request lieu on 1.4 acr~ knowD a~ ~06 B~llweed Read. Tax Map 65-t0 (2) Bellwood the Planning Cummissiun and staff recommends approval subject Area Land Use and Transportation Plan. Mr. Tom Herber=, representing the applicant, sta=ed- 1. Th~s Conditional Use ~hall be grented for a .period net to exceed two (2) years from date of approval. (MOT~; Continued operation of this facility beyond the two (2) year limitation could occur only upon reappIication for renewal o£ the Conditional Use and approval of the renewal requsst by the P~anning Co~mismion and Board of Supervisors.) A maximum of two (~) storage trailers shall be permitted on-site at say One (l) ti~. Medical wamtes mtored in these trailers shall be refrigerated at all maintaine~ in aD ambient t~mp~rature b~twQ~n thlrty-f~ve (35} and forty-five (45) de~rees Fahrenheit. Facilities County requirements. Thm medical waste transfer and storage facili%~ shall b~ enclosed ~y a minimum six (6) foot high fence, to preclude trespassing. The exact dasig~ Of thim fe~c~ shall be approved by the Plannin~ Department. All truc~s and trailers containin~ medical waste shall be placarded to identify the contents under transport or in storage as medical wasts~ All containers of medical wamte mhall b~ labeled to identify the contents as me~ical waste. (ES) Prior to the operation of any waste storage or transfer activities, a site plmn shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. Prior to final site plan approval, a security plan shall The plan shall bs continually reviewed by the Police Department and, if deemsd necessary~ modified to inmure that medical wamte~ are ~ecur~d. Prior to final site plan approval~ a medical waste spill plan shall be continually reviewe~byEmergency services amd, if necessary, modified to i~s~e that ~edical Waste spills are quickly and safely slashed and transported to an approved disposal facility. entering the site that medical waste is stored on si%e. Further, the fence shall be posted in a manner to provide notice that m~diaal waste is stored o~ th~ site. The exact design and location of this posting shall be approved by the Planning Depart~ent and Emerqenoy Services at the time of site plan review. In Bermuda Maqisterial District, ~INMLOW, I~C. requested rezonlng from ~gricultural.(A) and Community ~usinemm (C-3) to Light Industrial (I-L) with Conditional Use to permit Community controlled by zonlnq conditions or Ordinance mtandards. The commercial/industrial oorridor and light industrial use. This request lies on ~-4 acres lying approximately 316 feet off the east lane of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 3,180 feet mouth of Forest Lake Road. Tax Map 133-11 {1} Part of Parcels 4 and 5 (sheet 41). acceptance of prof£ered conditions. He notmd the r~queet Jim Theobold, E~quire, representing %he applicant, stated th~ recummendatiun is acceptable. There was no opposition present. approved Case 9~SN01I? and accepted th~ following proffered conditions= complete development, the developer shall be responsible for thn fmllowlm~: A, Construction of additional pavement along route 1/301 at the approved a¢ces~ ~o provide left Transportation Department standards; sn~ Dedication to ches=er~ield County~ frae and property until an ano~ion and sediment control plan fo~ disturbing activities, ham been submitted to and approved by Environmental Engineering and the Planning approval. 3. A minimum seven%y-five (75) foot b~ffer shall be requirements of the zoning ordinance for seven~y-flve Vote: Unanimous In ~ermuda ~a~isteriai olsbr~t, REEDY ~RRRK ~OUTH LIHiTED PARTNERSHIP r~qu~ted r~z0ning from Agricultural (A) to ~eneral ~ndu~rial (I-~) of 52.5 scrag, w~tn conditional Use to.permit Community B~iness (C-3) uses on a 6.4 acre portion Of this proper=y. The density of suoh amendment will be sontrolled by zoning conditions or Ordinance stand~rds. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial/industrial corridor and light industrial use, Thi~ request lies approximately 268 feet off the east line of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 1,2OQ feet north of the A. C. L. Railroad. Tax Map 133-15 (1) Part of Parcel 34 (Sheet 41). Mr. Jacobean pr~nted a summary of Case 95SN0128 and stated the Planning Commission and mtaff reeom~m~ds approval and aoceptanee of proffered oondi=ions. He noted the ~e~ue~t conformm to th~ ~outhern and W~ster~ Area ~lan. ~r, Theobold, representing the applicant, sta~ed th~ recommendation is acceptable. There wam no opposition present, 95-741 11/21/95 on motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board approved Cese 96SN0128 and acaepted the ~ellowing proffered 1. To provide an adequate roadway system at time of complet~ development! the developer shall be responsible for the following: A. Construction of additional pavement along Route 1/301 at the approved access to provide left and right turn lanes, if warranted, based on Transportation Department standards; B. Full cost of traffic signalization at the mite access/Route 1/301 intersection, if warranted, based on Transportation Department standards; Dedication to Chesterfield County, free and unre~trlcted, any additional right of way (or easements) required for the improvements identified above. i 2. Except for timbering approved by the Vi~gimia State Department of Fore,try for the purpose of removing ~ead or diseased tre~s~ there shall be ne timbo~ib~ on the property until an erosion and sediment con~rol plan for timbering purposes, in conformance with the seats Erosion end sediment COn=Del Program for lend disturbing activities, has bxen submitted to and approved by Environmental Engineering and th~ Planning Department, which may bo independent of site plan approval. E~isti~g ~at~re Vegetatio~ withi~ ~etbeok~ and buffers shall be preserved unless the removal of such vegetation is approved by Environmental Engineering and the 9]arming DepartmQnt. 3. A minimum seventy-five (75) foot buffer shall be maintained along the northern property boundary. This buffer shall comply with the requirements cf the 5oning Ordinance for seventy-five (75) foot buffers, Sections ~1.1-226 through 4. A minimum seventy-five (7~) foot buffer shall the Route 1-95 right of way. This buffer ~hall aomply wit~ Sectien~ 21.1-224 (d) and 21.1-227 (h} of modified at the time of site plan review if it is the buffer will provide an acceptable s~and of high fi~ury trees. Provided, huwever, this buffer shall Vote: Unanimous ~L~d4NIEG COMMISSION ~eq~ested rezoning from Agricultu~&l (A) to Res~en=ial (R-15). A ~in~le family residential ~nDd~vi~om with a minimum lot size of ~5~000 ~quare feet is plarn~ed. BesidcnLiat.use o£ up tu ~.9 uni%s per acro is permitted in a Residential (R-~5) District. Th~ ~o~pr~h~n~ive Plan d~i~ate~ th~ property for regional mixed use. This request lles on 1~.1 acres fronting approximately ~96 feet on the ~a~t l~ne of Road. Tax ~ap ~5 (1) Parcel ~1 (~heet 1~). Mr. Jaoobaon presented a ~u~m&r~ of Case 96BN0130 and stated the Planning Commission end ~taff recommends approval and acceptance of proffered conditions. He noted the request Mr. Custis coleman stated the reoommendatie~ is acceptable. On motion of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. Warre~, the Beard eRproved Case 96SN0130 and accepted the following 'proffered conditions: 1. In conjunction with recordation of the first subdivision plet~ forty-five (45] fast of right-of-way on the east side of Otterdale Road, measured f~em th~ con~erllne of that part of otterdale Read immediately adjacent to the property~ shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit Of Chesterfield County. 2. Direct access to Otterdale Road ~hall be limited to (1) one public road. Th~ ~act location of this access shall be approved by the Transportation Department. TO provide for an adequate roadway system at the tlme of complete development, the developer ~hall b~ responsible for th= following: a) Construction of additional pavement along Otterdale Road a= the approved access to provid~ a right turn lane; b) Relocation of the ditch along the east ~id~ of Otterdale Road for the entire property frontage to provide an adequat~ ~ho~ld~r; and c) Dedication of Chesterfield County, .free and unrestric~ed~ any additional right-of-way {or easements) required for the improvements identified above. 4. Prior to any read and drainage plan approval, a phasing plan for the r~quired road improvements, identified in Proffered Condition 3, shall be submitted to and approved by th~ Transportation D~partmen~. 5. The public water and wastewa%er systems shall ~e With the exception o~ timbering which has been by the Virginia Ste~e De,artiest of Forestry, for the purDon~ of removing dea~, diseased om dying trees, there shall be ~0 timbering until a land disturbance permit has been obtain=d from %he Environmental Engineer±hq Department and the approved devices installed. The applicant~ subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following to the County of Chesterfield~ prior to the time of building permit application, for improvements within the serviuu distric~ for the a. $5,175 per lot, if p~i~ 0~ er prier to June 30, 19~6; or b. The amount approved by the Board of not to ~e~d $~,17~ pe~ let adjusted upward by any increase in the ~arshall and Swift Building Cos~ Index between July 1, 1995, as~ July 1 of the fiscal year in which the pa~ent is mad~ if paid after June 30, 1996. Stormwater runoff shall be controlled such that the posh-development total pho~phorou~ load ~hall not exceed 0.22 pound per acre per year. Unani~ou~ Development (Case 9SSN0109) relative to sunetruotion OS ~idential, office, commercial and industrial ueee is planned. The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning d~nignat~s th~ property for comm~rciml and light industrial use However, the plan notes that thi~ are~ ~ay b~ appropriat~ for large ~cale, mixed u~e development in the vicinity of Route 1- 295. This request lies in Residential (R-15}, Neighborhood · .Office (0-1), Neighborhood Business (C-2) and Light Industrial (I-l) Districts on a tstal of 8~7.7 acres frontiug the west ~ line of Route 1-295, the north and south lines of Meadowville 'Road and the north line of Bermuda Hundred Road. Tax Map 100-9 (2) Rivers Bend, Section 6, Lots 37 throuqh 62; Tax Hap 100-13 (2) givers Bend, Section 6, Lots 20 through 38 and Lots 65 Parcel ~$; Tax Map llS-~ (2) westover Farms, Lot l~O; and Tax Map 118-10 [1) Parcel 35 (sheet 33). to one condition. Mr. Cogbitl, representing the applicent~ stated the re=ommen4atlen i~ a~eeptable. There was ne opposition present. approved CaEe 96SN0560 subject to the following condition: Construction of on~ (I) additional westbound lane along of Riv.er's ~end Road intersection end one (!) eastbound lane along Route 10 from Old Bermuda Hundred intersection to Kingston Avenue intersection as generally shown on the plan prepared by Charles Town, s & Aesoeiates, last r~vised september 1, 1994 titled ~'Exhibit C-l~" eubjeot to Proffer B.7.a, amd The r~quireDe~t for the developer to ¢onstrue~ the be eliminate~ at such time as one of the following such improvement, as determined by the Transportation Department; or 2) Liberty Property Devalol~ment Corporation, or ~eme other comparable developer as purchases and actively pursues development ef the business center. If clause 1) or 2) above i~ satisfied, the requirement relating to the phasing of the eastbound lane as outlined in Proffered Condition B.7.b. of Case (NOT~; This condition supersedes a, of Proffere~ Condition B.6.a. of Caae ~95SN0109.) Vote: Unani~eum 95~N0294(Amended) Dale Na~ioterial Distriot~ ~OUTHSID~ CHURCH/MEADOWBROOK PRESCHOOL requested amendment to prowiously granted Use Permit (Case 75A003) to enrollment of a child care center in an Agricultural Distr±et. The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Cmmprehenoive Plan designates the property for residential use cf 1.51 to 4003 and 4009 Cegbill Road. TAX ~aD 52-12 (1) Parcels 22 and 23 (Sheet l~). Nr. Jacobsen presented a summary of Case 9SSN0~84 and stated tSe Planning Co~missiun and staff reccmmend~ approval subject to conditions and acceptance of proffered conditions, He further stated the applicant submitted an amendment to Prof£~re~ condition Number 3 which limits the access to the Church from ~he neighborhood. He further stated the was not submitted in conformance with the Beard's pulicy, it will he necessary for the Board to amend its rules of Ms. Vickl Bohall, representing ~he applicant, stated reco~unendation is acseptable. She f~rthcr stated the Church r~quested the amende~ proffer with t~e intent ~o chow good faith to the neiqhbo~buod that grankmcnt Road would not be used in any way for transpomtation for ~he presshoel The~e was ne oppeuitiun pre~ent. Mr. Daniel stated the epening and closing of the gate from the neighborheo~ ~o %h~ church was an oversight at the Planning Commission meeting~ and that many neighbrohood N~ting~ have been held regarding :hi~ r~qusst in whioh many neighborhood c~nc~ ~e~ ~aised that the Church has worked very hard address. ~e f~the~ stated he feels a good compromise has been reached and that he supports the amande~ proffered Gonditio~, Mr. D~niel then mad~ a motion, seconded by Mr, Barber~ for the ~uar~ %o consider =he following proffered condition: No a=cess shall b~ provided to the property Road for any use, except for church use on Sunday~ from 7:00 a.~. to ~:00 p.m. ~Dd ~O0 p.m, to S p,m, and Baccatarueat~, universi=y/college ~raduations, an~ July Patriotic Mu~cial. approved Cass 96SN0284 subject to the folluwin~ con~itions: CONDITIONS ~OR CAI CARE USE 1. Enrollment for child care use shall not ex=~ed children. (NOTE: Th~s condition supersedes Condition 4 of Agricultural (A) zoning are mor~ r~strictiv~, ~y Dew development for child care use shall confo~ to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinanc~ for co~ercial uses in Emerging Growth Areas. (P) 55-745 This Conditional Use shall De granted to and for Southsid~ Na~aren~ Ch~rek/Meadowbrook Preschool, and shall not be transferrable nor run with the land. Purth~r~ child care long a~ ~ou~hsido Nazarene operates a church on the subject property. Any additional impervious developmen~ ~n ~his property shall be subject te a steTmwet~r management plan limiting t~ ultimate sits runoff to the pre-existing 2, ~O and ~00 year stor~ ~vent d~ssharge. (EE) (NOTED: A. These conditions are in addition to conditions of zoning approval for Case 75AU33~ and would apply to any c~ild care operation regardless of the number of students enrolled. B. These cond~ti0ne would n~t apply to any permitted us~, such as a church, on the . And~ further, the Soard accepted the following proffered ' conditions: ~ROPP~R~D CO~DITION~ FOR DA~ 1. Prior to si~e plan approval, thirty-five (35) fe~% o~ right-of-way on the south side of Cogbill Road m~a~ured immediately adjacent to the property shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefi~ of Chemterfield County. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any day care use anticipated to generate trellis that would warrant a left and/or right turn lane based on Transportation Department standards, additional pavement shall be constructed along Cogbill Road at the approved access to provide a left end/or right turn lane, The develops= shall ~e~icate~ free and gnr~gtrioted~ to add for the benefit of Chesterfield County any additional right-of-way (or easements) rsguirsd for these improvements. PROFFERED CONDITIONS FOR ALL USES 3. No ~ccess shall be provided to the prop®try from Homeward ~uad. No access shall b= provided to Fran~momt .Road for any us~, e×c~pt for church use on ~undays from 7:0Q a.m. to 2:00 pm an~ 5:00 pm to S ~m. am~ ~p~ciat Universlty/Celleg~ graduations, and July Patriotic Musical. 41 Within sixty (60) days from the date of approval of this request by the Beard of supervisors, a too~ed gate shall bu instull=d and muintainad across th= driv~ay onto Frankmo~t road to restrict all vehicle access. This locked guts mhall only b~ opxnxd during th= up=tilled times as outlined in Proffered Condition 3. (NOTE: Those conditions apply ~c all usespermitted on the property, including achurch with or withou~ a child care can%ar.} Vo~e: Unanimous In Mi~lothian ~agisterial District, HOLIDAY ~I~N~, ~. requ~mted amendment to Conditional Use Planned DevelopMent (Case 835168) =o permit a fresstanding sign which incorporates an electronic message center and to increase the size of a permitted freestanding sign. The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning conditisDs er 0rdinanoe standards. T~e Comprehensive Plan designates the property for general so~r~ial us~. This r~quest lies in a Cc~munity Business 3) District on 3.9 acre~ known as ~a26 Midlcthian Turnpike. Tax Map 17-12 (1) Parcels ~6, ~3, 52, ~3 and ~4 ($h~e[ ~). Mr. Pools presented a summary of Case 96SN0107 and sts=ed the Planning Commission recommends approval ~ubj~ct to one condition and noted the Commission also reco~endsd a clause that re~ired a ten second i~te~el between the m~ssug~ change on ~e sign, whereas ~e Board's policy woul~ require a five te~ second inturual depending upon the size of the letters. footage for ~ on-si~e free~tandin~ sign ~xceeds the ~ign area permitted for su=h signs by the recently adopt~ Sign ~- Allen Twad%, representinq the applicant, stated h= uuppcrts ~. Rarber~ r~commsn~ ohanges in the Condition tha~ were up~osition present. Condition to addre~ conc~rn~ of adjmining property owners and is consistent with the policy recently adoDzed by ~he additional para~rap~ %o read "This sign shall ~e a~ generally 612/95; D~ovided, howsver~ ~ha% ~he Planning Commission may approve an alternative sign design which does not obstruct th~ A fifty [50) square foot freestanding sign snell be p~itted along Mi41othian Turnpike, A computer controlled variable ~essage electronic sign ~eetinq the requirements of Sections 21,1-270,~ (c) and {0) shall be permitted subject to th~ following restrictions: a. Flashing and traveling messages shall be Drohibi=ed, sijou lighting effec=s shall Da c. The message or display shall be progr~ed legible to ~ motorist traveling at the maximum d. The lights in the messag~ shall be limited to :n~ (1) color. The sign shall be as generally de~iote~ in the ~levation prepared by ~oliday Signs, dat,d 6~2/g5; provided, ' however, that the Planning Cn~mis~isn may approve an alterna~ivs sign design which does not obstruct the view of adjacent business f=eestanding signs any mo~e so than the sign depicted in the referenced elevation. (NOTES: A. This sign snail replace ~he existing (50) square foot freestanding sign permitted wit~ the a~proval of Condition ll of Case 83S1~8 Drohibltln~ temporary or reader board signs is deleted. Vots: Unanimous E×cept as provided herein, all freestanding and buil4ing-mo~nte~ signage sn the request property is subject to the requirements of the ~oning Ordinance. With the approval of this request, a ten (10) square foot exception to the twenty (20) square ~oot ~ign area limitation for on-site freestanding signs shall be granted for the existing on-site freestanding sign which is looated at Point D or t~e plan attaohe~ =o the Request Analysis.) 16. ADJOURNMEN~ On motion of Dr. Nichole~# seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board adjourned at 8:30 p.m. until December 13, 1995. at 2:00 p.m. Vote: Unanimoum 9S-74~ .11/21/95