Loading...
11-26-96 MinutesKINUTES supervisors in Attendance: MT. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman Mr. Arthur 5. Warren, Vice Chrm. ~~ Edward B. Barb=r Mr. J, L. McEale, III Mr. Lane B. Ramsay County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Chief Carl Baker, Police Department MT. Craig Bryant, Dir., Utilities Ms. Harilyn cole, A~t. Coumty Adminiatratsr Ms. Faith L. Davis, Clerk to the Beard ~cuth services Mrs. Doris R. DeHart, Legis. Svcs. and Fire Dapartm~nt Bu~ldin~ Official Parks and Recreation Management Services Dir., Planning Mr. Donald Kappet, Dir.~ Public Affairs ~ental ~r. Ri=hard M. Dir-, Env. Engineering County Attorney ~r. Daniel called the regularly scheduled mee=~ng to o~der at 3:00 p.~. 11/26/96 96-671 1. ~PPMOVAL O~ MINUTES approved the mlnutes of November 13, 1996, Barb~r~ the Board as submitted. 2, OOU~F~Y ADKI~IBT~ATO~S COMMENTS Mr. Ramsay stated that a= the request of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate and the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunity oX the House of Representatives, tho C~n~ral Accounting O£fice conducted a nationwide survey of Dellnquenoy Delinquency Prevention Act. ~e further stabeO that Chesterfield County~ ~ program -- Remti~utlon Through Co~munitv ~e~viee. was one of only nine p~Og~am~ pre,ended to Congress as programs. He them introduced The Honorable Frederick Rockwell, III Judge of t~e Juvenile and Domestic Relatisnm Court, to brief =he Hoard on the program and the award. Judge RuGkwell stated t~at on ~ove~ber 12, 1996 the Wational Association of Communities that Care presented an outstanding program award to ChesterSield County. He further state~ ~ha~ a grant written by Juvenile Probation in his office resulted in a program entitled Restitution Through coamunity Services -- Program where young people who have broken the law hav~ to Drovid~ soma type of community aervic~ as a way to pay back their transgr~ti~ns- Me recognized ~s. Patricia Carrington, Dirmctor of Court Servlom~ unit, and Ma. Sandy Napp, ~rogram Manager, who were present at the meeting, and who were very instrumental in this grant and Program. Ke ~tated that the Program has been recognized by the Department of Justice and the Award that was received. Mr. Ramsay introduced Ms. Barbie St~il, Chair of the Drug amd Alcohol Abuse Task Force, and ~r. Ben Scafldi, Praslden~ cf Oiok straum~ Ford-I~uzu-Suzuki and Chair of the Mobilization Resource C~mmlttee~ to brief ~ Board on activities of the chesterfield Mobilization Against S%bsta~c~ Ms. Stall stated that the Task Force was ~u~ed in 19OB by the Board of Supervisors and has been very actively involved fn ~ development of the Chesterfield Mobilization Against Substance community~; that their mission is "TO mobilize our co,unity to Kobi!izatlon A~ainst Substance Abus~ to each Board member. ~. $cafidi sta~ed that drug abuse in teenagsr$ has over doubled since 1992 and that the Mobilization Resource Committee'~ goal is to educate ohii~en and parents. He further sba=ed that the resource co~ittee to educate people about ~ugs. He stated that Louis Printinq Company, ~rops, and Bobby Msrtin Add . staff time in designing the brochures. 11/26/96 96-672 Mr. Ramsay s:at~d Mr. Seafidi has been very helpful to the County in its revenue forum as it ha~ been found tha~ ~here is a d~rect relationship with how the new car industry pr~pers as to how the economy works in Chester£ield County. Ks expressed appreciation to ~r. ScRfidi for keepin~ the County informed. Mr. Ramsay stated that M~. Bernard Bottom, a County Airport employee, passed away thls p~st weekend. H~ ~urther ~tated that Mr. Bob RiverB, a General Services Department ~mpleyee, lost a stepson this past weekend also. ~e stated the~ Con,unity Policing Officer George Fisher recently lost his daughter. expresse~ his and the Beard' s sympathy to all the fa~lie~. ~r. Daniel stated that ~he ~onsra~le J. Ruff~n ADDer$on, former Board menkber representinq the Dal~ District is currently recovering from a hear~ attack and stated th6 Board'~ thought~ end prayers ate with him. B. BOkRD OOM]4ITTEE RBPOR~B There were no Board Cemmittee Reports at thi~ ti~e. deleted Item 8.B.i.~ ~omination/Appointment to nh~ Debris Manifest Appeals Board; added Item 8.A., Approval of FY96 at Curtis ~l~mentary School and, adopted the agenda, ~s amended. Vote: Unanimnu~ 5. RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS There were no Resolutions and Special Recognitions at this time. F~. Hammer in~reduoed Mr. Kirby Brooks, General Manager of Comcast for Chesterfield County, to updat~ th~ ~aard on the la,est develoDment~ regardi~ the Fiber Optic Backbon~ and reliability, and to nemply with its franchise agreement with Chesterfield County. He r~coqnized ~ir. Tim Peters, Project with any technical questions. He introduced Mr. Chef Desai, assisting wi~h Lhe presentation. H~ stated that comcast is facing competition fram satellite companies and other customers (~BG) because they can rent th= sums title~ at a video store. ~e r~viewed basic fundamentals about the current system upgrading its system using an architecture called Hybrid FibeT 96-675 routes that have been replaced with fiber optic cabl~. He reviewed tko process that Hill be followed for the system upgrade and acted ¢om~a~t ha~ currently completed phases one and two at the Southern end of the County and are currently wo~ing on phases three and four. He r~viewed the system upgrade schedule and stated that project completion ie currently notification is a critical element bo custome~ satisfaction; that advance mailers will be sent cut to customers before splicing begins; and that on-air notification will be p~ovid~d. He further stated that the results of the system will be a 750 ~z/two way capable system -- a capacity of 110 analog channels. for other services. Ee reviewed channel launches an~ new chasnels- Ma stated that Comcast ~ailed a programming survey to services. He further stated at completion of the system, telecommunications system with excellent system reliability, picutre q~ality, capacity, and remote ~oni=orin~ capabilities. He ~tated that Comca=t will have an excellent selection of basic affiliatag, premium ahannal~, and pay-p~r-v~ew services that percent of County citizens currently receiving Comcast cable system offered in Henries County and the City of Richmond; and that may locate in the County. Nr. Warren expressed appreciation to ~r, Brooks for Comcast capability for two-way communications an Ehe network when the system is fully installed, he, ever, Comcast will ensure two-way right, citizens can use Comcast as its provide~ for l±nkin~ to suspended its rules at this time to amend the agenda to add a Vote~ Unanimous On motion of Mr. Dani~l~ seconded by Mr. McMale~ th~ Board added Item 9~, ~s~ Kathy ~cDonal~ to speak under 5~arings cf citizen 96-674 ~r. stegmaier stated that the County ended the fiscal yaaro in Very strong financial condition. H~ further stated that, at year end, the County designated $l.2 million in unanticipated funds that had been ~aved on the expenditure side of the School Budget; designated an additional $1 million in funds that were saved from Ge~erai Fund Departments and grant programs; designated a total of $6Q1,000 to fund the Public Safety Career Develop~eht Study ($50,~80), police vehicl~ ($350,0S0), and library books $201,000); designated $567,000 to be ~et aaide to cover the affect in FY97 of th~ proposed one cent reduction in the real estate tax rate; and oat acids $1.6 million to be used for non-recurring COSTS and for the increase in fund balance required to cemDly with e~tablished debt/financial polieie~ in th~ 199~ Du~get. Ke stated that, in addition, the actual undmoignatmd fund balance, which was budgeted for $24.7 million ended up at $25.2 million, therefore, another $560,000 added to the Undesignated Fund Balanse. He requested that as a re~ult of ~xp~Dditures to be set aside for future school use; appropriate the $601,000 for the career development pro,ram ($§0~000)~ police vehicles ($360,00Q), and library books ($205,000}; Mr. Daniel ~tated that this item was reviewed by the Budget and Audi% Committee an~ that it iza Committee recommendation that When asked, Mr. Steg~aier stated staff is recommending that the April, at the time the Budget is adopted for next year. Mr. Daniel stated that if the tax rate is net approved~ the ~r- Barber stated that as the Board looks at the concept of the tax donraaon, it ~ also dealin~ with the potential loss ef ~ash areas of local revenue in which =he Board has very genuinely County citizens seem to be satisfied. Ha £urther stated that he feel~ the Board should De c~utiou$ before it aliens the public to believe that there is a tax decrease in actuali:y on the table- Mr. Daniel stated that he has per~onally made a commitment to the one percent tax ~ecrease and that the mechanisms ara there that the county can ~uotain and maintain t~e decrease. When asked, Mr. Masden stated that tha $201,000 for library books will be dispersed among all County llbrari~o. ~e further stated that he could not identify exact dollar deelgnatlono library, but indicated that all librarie~ would benefit from the $201,000. 11/26/96 96-675 Th=ro Was brief discussion relative to the canine unit being put back into service. Mr. Warren commended the ~udget and Audit Couunittee for cumins forward with this initiativ~ and that he w~lI support the tax ~4r. ~arber stated that he does not feel that i~ is fiscally indicating what service l~vel ur what level of funding will also indicating to citizens wh~ther or not ther~ will be a tax Mr. McBale stated that when he requested this item aa part uf his addbacks for last year, part of the notion was that through eoonomie~ and effioienoies, the B~ard oeuld begin to find a way %0 ~hare some Of thos~ b~n~fit~ in a tanglble way with the people that ara paying the bills. ~e further stated that the Co~ty demonstrated that this rate d~crease can be funded; that it is being handled in a very fiscally repensible manner; and that it is oonsisten~ with th~ planning for the Bond Referendum. Be stated that he feels the Board is handling this issue in a very respcnbil¢ an4 prudent way; that thim i~ a downpayment in a process iD ~hich the Board need~ to continue its due diligence; and that he looks forward to continue reviewing the numbers and addressing this issue sash year. Mr. Daniel stated that with the da~a %hat has been presented and the ability to cover the cash out of 3anuary-3un~*s operations, year's budget, is a reallslation. H~ further stated that as far as th= other items, (cash proffers, BPOL, etc.) the Board will attack and defend rigorousIy the County's position on all issues. He stated that the Board will pressed in a structured, ordered, and direct fashion in stating its position and lobbying for its position on all the other re~enae item~. Me further these items and the item before the Board at this ti~e. Mr. Daniel called fo~ the queGtion on the motion mad% by him for the Board to designate ~cncol e~penditure savings, in the amount of $1,~7,700, for school uge; appropriate $601,000 fO~ the Police/Fire Career Program ($50,000}, polie~ vehicles (~350,000), and library book~ ($201,000); r~taln the designation for the one cent tax rate reduction to offset the anticipated balance and deslgna=ions of fund balanse for allouation in the Vets: Unanimous After brief discussion, on motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by ~r. installation cost approval until January 24, 1997: Clever ~11 Distr~ct * Tall Hickory Drive, between Pecan Terrace and Acorn Mill Drive Cost to install light $1,110.76 96-S76 An~, ~rther, the ~oard apprsved ~he following installation oost apprsvel: * Pocono Drive, vicinity of 2~1, at the dead end Cost to install light: $1,211.01 Vote: Unanimous ~_~)..... APPOINTMENT~ On motion of Mr. HcHale, seconded by Hr. Warrsn, the Board suspended its rules at this time to allow simultaneously nomination/appointment of members to serve on the Citizens Advisory Csunoil, Vote: Unanimous on motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board simultaneously nomina~ed/appoints~ ~r. Linwood Carol, representing Bermuda Distric~ Ms. Hedy Foster, representing clover ~ill District; ~nd Hr. Larry Buchanan, reDresantlng ~idlothian District, to serve on the Citiz~n~ Advisory Council, whose terms ars effac=iva January l, 1997 and will be at th~ ~leasure of th~ Board. ~d, further, the BOard deferred consideration of a member ra~resentlng BaSe D~triot, and a member representing Matoaca District, to serve on the Citizens A~visory Co~cil~ ~til D~c~r 18, 1996. ~.~. CONSENT IT~M~ Appropriation Uat~gory to the Administration/Attendance and ~ealth Appropriation Category and approved the transfer oS Fund for the FY1997 Gov~rnor'~ Technology Gran~. Vote: Unanimou~ APPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL BAY Ci~B BLOCK ~uNT KEVEKUE AND APPROWAL OF ~RANT FUND EXPENDITURE A~gRO~RIATIO~S BY THE ~EmTAL HEA~TH, HENTAL ~ETA~DATION. ~ND On motion of FLr. McHale, s~conded by Hr. ~arber, the Board a~pro~riate~ $30,000 in Federal Day Care Bloc~k ~rant Rav~e and approved grant fund expenditure appropriations of $30~000 by the ~ental ~salth~ Eent~l Retardation, and Substance Abuse Bepartment. Vote: Unanimous 96-677 ~nis day the county Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, ~ade r~port in writing upon his examination of the road~ in Ashbrook~ Sec:ion ~ ~istriat, and Transportation has advised the D~rector of Environmental Engineering, the street (s) in Ashbreok, Section ~, ~atoaca District, ~eet the ~equ~ements e~tabli~hed by the Subd~vislon Street Re~ulrsmen~s of the Virginia Department of Whereas, the County and the Virginia Department of Trasspe~tation have entered into an agreement, recorded in Deed Book 2~53, Page 40S, January 21, 1994~ for all detenticn/retentisn facilities in the County, Therefore, upon consideration whereof, and on motion of McHale, seconded by M_r. Barber, it i~ re~OiYed that the read~ in Ashbrook, Section ~, ~atoaea Die~rict, bs and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia D~partm=nt of Transportation~ be and is hereby reques%=~ to ~ake into Secondary System, p~r~uan% to S%ction ~3.1-~9, Code of Virginim, and the Department's Subdivision S%re=t the following: Name of ~tr~et: A~hbrook Parkway Length: 0.~7 mile From: End of pavement, 0.27 mile State Route 4203 ~i~ting Ashbrook parkway, State Route 4202, at intersection of Offshore Drive, State Route 4203 Guaranteed Right-of-way width: 90 feet, N~e of Street: Shady Banks Drive Length: ~,~4 mile From: End of pavement, 0,Z4 mile south of Ashbrook Parkway A~hbrook ~arkway~ 0,~6 mil~ west of Off~hore Driv~ State Route 4203 Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 79 feet. From: Shady Bn~m Drive, 0.04 mile To: c~l-de-sa=, O.05 milo cast of Shady Banks Drive Guuranteed Right-of-Wu~ Width: 40 feet. Nome of Street: Shady Basks Road Length: 0.03 mile From: Shady Banks Drive, 0.~3 mile ~outh of A~hbrook Parkway To: shady ~=nks T~rrace, 0.03 mile ~a~t of Shady Bank~ Drivs Guaranteed right-of-way wi~h: ~0 fact. ~ame of Street: Shady Bank= Terrace Length: 0.17 mile o~ shady ~anks Road To: Cul-de-sac, 0.07 ~ile Guaranteed Rig~t-of-way Width: 40 feet. Thi~ ~eque~t is intlumive of the adjmcent slope, sight clear zone and designated Virginia Departman~ o~ Transportation drainage easements indicated on the development plat. These roads s~rve 40 lots. This section of A~hbrook is recorded as follows: Section 2, Plat Book 8?, Pages 91 and 92, May 4, 1995. Vote: Unanimou~ Thio day tho County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with dir~ction~ from th~s Board, made report in writing upon his examination of the road, Sonth Chalkley Road~ Bermuda District, Whereas, the Rssidmnt Bngineer for tbs Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Director of Environmental ~nglneering, the street, South Chalkley Road, Sermuda ~eets t~e ~eq~irements cutab!ished by the Subdivision whereas, the County and tho Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement, recorded in D~d BOO~ 2453~ Pag~ 405, January 21, 1994, for all etormwater detention/retention facilities i~ the County. MoRale, seconded by M~. Barber, it is resolved t~at the road, South Chalkley Road, Bermuda District, be and it hereby is emtabli~h6d am a public road. And De it further resolved, =hat the Virginia Department of Trannportation, be and is hereby requested to take in~o the Secondary System, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department'o Subdivision ~treet the following: Name of $~ree=: South Chalkley Road Length: 0.10 mile ~rom: Temporary Turnaround, 0.10 milo south Of Ir0nbridge Road~ State Route t0 To: Ironbrldge Road, Btato Route 0.26 mile West of Booker Boulevard, ~tate Rout~ Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: Variable, 99 feet to Thi~ request ia inclnsi~e of the adjacent slope, sight distance, South chalkloy Road is recorded a~ follows: Deed Book 2238, Pag~ 1356-1360, and Plat Book 7~, ~ag$ $6 and 96-679 8.C.4.a, TO CONSIDER PROPOSED A~B~DHENTS TO THE CHESAFEAKE WATEREHED ORDINANCE When asked, Ks. Salvati stated the proposed &nendmente to the Watershed Ordinance will not nece~saril~ ~ffeet any of the recommendations of the Watershed Committee and briefly reviewed the proposed amendments. Mr. Warren stated that the Planning Commission has unanimously approved ~he~e amen6[ment~. On motion of ~r. ~cHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, ~he ~oard set the date of January 8, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider pruposed amendments ~o ~he Chesapsaks Bay ~reservation Ordinance and the Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance. Vote; Unanimous FOUNDATION . On motion of Mr. McHale~ seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board set the date of December 18, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider the tax exemption request mf th~ ~enricu~ Foundation. Vote: Unanimous ACROSS PROPERTY OF ~. LEL~ND ~ NRE. LELA ORITCHER On notion of Mr. McHale, secsnded by Mr, Berber~ t~e Board authorized the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate two existing drainage easements across property of Mr. Letand and Mrs. Lela Crftcher. Vote: Unanimous NXIBTIN~ CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER TO BE LOCATED On notion of Mr. McHals, seconded by Mr. Barber, the ~oard approved a request from Rivers Bend Shopping Center Partnership ~or existing concrete curb an~ gutter to ~s located within a sixteen foot water easement, subject to the exe¢~tio~ of l~cense agreement. (It is noted a copy of the v~clnity sketch is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous On motion of mr. McHale, c~conded by Mr. Barber, the Bo~rd approved a request from ~r. Jame~ T- Durfee and Mrs. Marleen K. Durfee tQ install a private drainage pip~ within ~ drainage easement across Lot 2~, Poxcroft Subdivislton, Section III, subject to the execution of e llcenne agreement. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the pap~r~ of this Board.] Vote: Unanimou~ MENRY E. MYERS. ~R. ~OR TWO CONCRETE DUNPST~R PADS TO ENCROACH WITHIN A O~ motion of Mr. McHale, ~eeonded by Mr. Barber, th~ ~oard approved a request from Zane G. Davis, Carmen G. Davis, and Henry E, Myers, Jr. for t~o oo~crute dumpster pads to encroach within a twenty foot s~wer cavemen=, subject to th~ ex==utlon of a license agreement. (It is noted e copy of the vicinity sketch is filed with the papers of %his 9ere: Unanimous 'on me,ion of M~. Daniel, seconded by Mre. Hu~p~ey~ the Beard whose terms are effective i~ediately and will expire December ~1, 1995: ~E DISTRICT ~r. Ieaac Bo~ Clover Hill ~_r. Richard Worcester Clover kill ~r. ~he~man Litton Dale ~r. Robert E- Terrell Dale Mr. Wilmer D. Negel Matoa~a Mr. ~im Pledger Matoaca And, further the Board d~ferred =on~id~ratloe of two mmmbcrs representin~ Bermuda Di~tr~ct and two members reDra2enting ~id~othi~n Di~xic~ to ~erve on the Parks an~ Recreation Advlnory Co~i~ie~ ~til J~nuary 24~ 1996. vote: unanimous" TO: ''on motion of Mr. Daniel, ~Cond~d by Mrs. Humphrey, the ~oerd ~imultan~ously nominated/appoint~d/reappuinted the following me~bere to'serve on the Park~ and Recreation Advisory Commission 31~ 1999: 96-681 NAME DISTRICT Mr. Ieaac Bogqo Clover Hill Mr. Sherman Litton Bale Mr. Robert E. Tarr~ll Dale Mr. Wil~r ~. Nagel Matoaca Mr. Jim Pledger Matosca And, f~rthe~ the Board defe~ed oeoeideratien of two members r~pren~nt~ng B~rmuda District and two members representing Midlothian District to serve on the ParR~ and Recreation ~dvisory Commission until January ~4, 1996. vote: Unanlmou~~' Vo~e: Unanimou~ On motion of ~r. HcHale, s~=onded by Mr. Barber, the Board amended the Board minu~ of January 24, 199S a~ followm: FROM: "On motion of Mr. ~cHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Doard simulUan~ou~ly nominatea/appoin~/reappui~d ~r- ~an Walker John Hilliard an~ Ms. Frances CuMtard, representing Midlothian District~ to serve on the Parks and R~eatio~ Advisory expire December 31, !998- Abmemt: Mr. Daniel." 'On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by ~. Barber, %ha ~oard simultaneously nominated/appointed/reappointed N~. B~yan Walker and Mr. Timothy R. Mick, raDresenting Bermuda District, and Co~ission, whose terms are effective i~ediately a~d will Absent: Vote: Mr. Warren, ~r. Barber, Rr~. Humphrey~ and ~. ~oHale. Mr. Daniel. Unanimou~ REGIONAL FIRE IFVESTIOATION AGREEMENT WITE T~E COUNTIES OF Fa%NevER z~qD HENRICO ~/4D THE ~ITTE~ OF RiDHMOND~ authorized th~ County A~miniotrator %o ~ign the ~atro Regional ~=nrioo and the citie~ of Richmond, Pe=ersburg, and Mopewell, an~ Firearms. (Ia ie noted ~ copy of the Agreement ie filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous 96-6S2 and increased exDenditur~ appropriation for the purchase of computer e~u~pmen= for th~ Mental Eoalth/~ental Retardation~ Vote: Unanimous TO C0NSTRUC? A PLAYGROUND AT CUl%TIS ELEM~NTAR~ SCHOOL On motlo~ of Mr. McHale, seconded by ~r. ~arber, the Board transferred $1,2o0 from the Bermuda Diet~iet Three Cent Road ~und to be donated to the school Board to construct a playground at Curtis Elementary SChool. 9, HEARINGS O~ OITIZE~B ON U~SO~EDULED KATTSR~ OR CLAIM~ Me. Kathy McDonald stated that her mother, hrether~, ~ister, and herself own twenty-five acr~ at the ~althall Interchange on I- 9~. She further stated =hat over tho span of the next twenty yaa~, land ~ill b~ purchased for freeways in the County -- ten major reed projec=~ being on tho docket. She stated that according to the County's Tran=portation DopartmeDt, the highest priority is this Interchange a~ 1-95 and Watthall. She further stated that ~he and her family have b~sn closely followinq thie process for one and one-half years. She stated t~at her family has been in close con,ac% with the Coun-ty'e Transportation Department regarding thlg proces~ and e~prossod appreciation to County staff for tkeir cooperation. She further stated that the designated for major commerci=l and industrial e~ploy~ent, she stated ~hat her family's property will directly contribute to this major commercial and industrial economic opportunity for other~. She further stated that for twenty-five yeaEs, her father paid taxes on oth~r property locate~ i~ %he County, ~nowing that it would never be developed. She stated that in 1985, her family received 1/~ of the fair market v~lue for ~he property. She further stated that she would lfR~ th~ Co~nty'~ assurance that her family wkll be offered fair market value for their property et 1-95 Interchange (Walthall). Mr. Daniel ~toted that staff will addrese the izeue that Me. McDonald has brought before the Board. O~ mot±o~ of Mr. War~en, ~eeonded by Mr. McHale, the Board accepted the following re,otto: A report on Developer Water and Sewer Contracts and a status report on the General Fund Balance; Reserve far Future Capital Projects; District Road end Street Light Pundo; and Lease Purchases. Vote: Unanimous ~1/26t96 96-683 VIRGINIA. 1950. ~G AMENDED. TO DISCUSS TNE PERFORF~NCE into an Executive Seeeion Put,eon= to Section 2.1-344A.1., Code of Virqinia, 1950, as ~J~ended, to Discuss the ~erfor~once of Board Appointees to the Health Center Co~mie~ion. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Warren, seeo~ded by Mr. Borber~ the Board adopted the following resolution: WK~F-%S, the Board of Supervisors ha~ thio ~ey adjourned into Executive Sea,ion in accordanc~ with ~ formal vote of the Board and in accordanoe with the provisions of the Vir~inla Freedom of Information Act; and 9~EREA~, the Virginia ~reedom of Information Act effective July 1, 19~9 provides ~or certi£i~ation that suo~ Executive Smssi~n was conducted in conformity with law. MO~, T~REFOR~ BE TT RESOLVED, the Board of ~up~r¥1sorm I) o~ly public business matters lawfully exempted from meeting requiremen=e under the Freedom ef Inferma~iun Act were discussed in the Executive Session to which this certification applie~, i~} only such Dubllc ~uslness matter~ as were identified in the Motion by ~hich the Executive Session ~ae convened were heard, discussed, or considered by the Board. No member dissent~ fro~ thi~ certification. The Board being polled, the vote Wa~ a~ follow~i Ytr. McHale : Aye. Mrs Humphrey: Aye. ~r. Barber ; Aye. M~. Wa~en : Aye, Mr. Daniel : Aye. On motion of Mr, McHale, ~econded by ~r. Borber~ the Board Item to Adopt a Re,elation Regarding Health Center Co~i~slon O~erating Contingency. Vote: Unanimeu~ ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING HEALTH CBNTER COM~4ISSION On motion of ~r. ~cHal~, Yi~s. Humphrey, the Board adopted the following resolution: WEBREAS, the Health Center Co~i~on i~ preparing to clo~o on an agree~eDt with the U-$~ Dep~rtm~nt of ~eu~ing an~ Urban Development for a guaranteed loan and bond ~ole to finance ~h~ con,traction of a replacement Nursing Home; and 96~654 WHEREAS, me,ting equity requirements of the agreement may require a substantial portion of their operating fund~ and WHF~R~$, the Commission requests the County to assure, operating n~ds ~hould that become necessary during the uon=tructlon and fill up phases for the replacement facility; NOW, TN~R~FOR~ BE IT R~SOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County thnn the County will provide funds to insur~ that sufficient cash flow is available to meet daily operational needs of the Nursing Home during the construction an~ fill-up phase~ of the nsw facility. AND, B~ IT FURTEER RES0LVE0~ that any such cash advan~ w~I1 be oonmidered a no-interest loan to be ~epaid when the balance in the Nursing Moms account is at an acceptabl~ level. A~D, ~ IT FURTHER P~ESOLVED, that s~ no =i~e will the total of ~uch advanced funds exceed one million dollars. Vote: Unanimou~ r~ce~zed to the Administration Building~ Room ~0~ for a dinner m~oting with m~n~bsr~ of the General Assembly Legislative D~legatio~n~ Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation to members of the Legimlative meeting. consultation with representatives of the development coI~u%unity, g~ves the homebu~lders more than what they originally requested. understandable; designed not to slow down t~e zoning process; and the maximum acceptable amounts or caps were designed to provide ho~ebuilders/devaloperz with a guideline when determining the feasibility of their projects. He fur%her stat@d that the ~yztam ha~ been i~ place since 1990 and has been developers h~ve e~ered to ccn%ribu:s to facilities $10.7 96-655 Discussion, co~snts, and questions ensued relative to ~roffers potentially meaning up to $10 million to the County per year; concerns that H.B. 1517 will go to the full COn~tia~ Ci~ies and Towns Committee an~ be unfavQrably amended; and how N.B. %~17 will impact the County if passed. Mr. Daniel stated that the General Assembly needs to understand what the outcome will be if H.B. 1517 is passed because the County will have ho insure a no-net loss outcome. Discussion, oomment~, and question~ ensued relative to individuals wanting to see the benefits of t~e eas~ proffers in thei~ community; accepting higher cash proffers in so~e areas than othe~m in the County; and the size of the service Mr. Daniel requested staff ts put together a complete listing of where all oa~h was raised from cash proffers and where the funds were spent and forward the informatlen t~ members of the Countiee Cities and Towns Committee to reassure the members that the County is livin~ within the spirit and actual practice cf ~he ¢~rrant law. There was brief ~isoussion relativ~ to th~ County using County- wide averages to determine the maximum amount of cash proffers proffers being wall below the actual financial impact. Mr. Ramsay stated that N~. Charlie Davi~, of Davis Consultants, is working with the County on ~ho cash proffer immu~. There was brief discussion relative to th~ ti~frame in which an amendment to H.B. 1517, a~ it relates to Korthern Virginia, could como forward to the Full Counties, Cibicm, and To~n~ Committee and the proc®ms that would follow if H.B. 1517 passes Senator Mar%in stated that he conceptually supports M.B.1517, however, feels that if the House cf Delegates i~ not willing to add Northern Virginia to the Bill, he does not ss~ the i~mue as a principal debate any longer, but rather a political debate. Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relative to million b~ing proffered to-date in Chesterfield County; approximately $1 millis~ being collected in camh proffers to- dat~ in the County; the number of lots that are still in inventory of the 30,000 lots that have been zoned in the County. Mr. Daniel stated that the next issue is the concept of SchoOl funding for school capital expenditures. Dr. Basher stated that the Co~kmission on Infra~tl'uct~re met y~t~rday. ~ further mtated that there was overwhelming support from the co~munltyreqarding %he recen~ Bond Referendum. He stated that the message that they are trying to send is that even if the C~unty mends a dollar out in the SOQ for school to take that dollar and use it for d~bt sarvlc~ than the state not gaining a penny on what they anticipated to be un enhancement of pro~am~. He ~urther s~a~d that historically, ~e ~sse~ly has ~aid that their primary role is ~upporting the of revenue -- both in terms of the basic aid and technolo~ $291 million annual financial plan is taken to fund debt m~ice. ~ further stated that the County ~ust address this issue and also whether the State will become a participant in 96-~$6 helping the county deal with debt. Ha stated that Chesterfield County School~ ware opened this year with 250 trailers and that when the County spends the $~8 million from the Bond Referendum over the next five year~, the County still anticipates havi~g approximately fifty percent of those trailers. There was brief dlscuseion relative to the County currently having no borrowing capacity through the year 2002; the County's debt policy allowing ten percent of the Budget to fund debt ~ervice; and approximately ten percent of the School's capacity being trailers. Discu~mlon, cements, 5nd questions ensued relative to changing the filing date for BPOL ~axss from ~arch 1 to April 15 and other issues surrounding the BPOL tax~ whether it is appropriate to tax gross receipts when it has no relevance to profits; the General Assembly possibly attempting to repluce the BPOL tax revenue with another source; and the County sending the me~aqe that services will be reduced to equal the amount of the reduction. Delegate John War, ins reviewed thc Route 288 Pro]eat -- the County's highest road priority. Me referenced a letter from Mr. Greg Kipner, engineer in charge of the Route 288 Project, regarding the district being in th~ p~sc~s of responding to the public comments about the prujac~ and working with County staff to address some concerns by citizens residing on Otterdale Road who want a ~ecund entrants. He ~tated that right-of-way plans have been ~ub~itted a~d are now being reviewed; that funding will ~e available for right-of-way acquisition in July, 1997; and that reco~unendations for phasing for the construction will be completed within the next few months. Mr. Ramsay reviewed support/oppose legislation which ~ould support amendments to the Appropriations bet to held ~und the expansion of the Richmond Centre end mupport any study of the financial b~nefit of an expanded Richmond Centre. He stated that the project will nat work without State participation. When asked, he stated that current cost estimates for the facility i~ in the $150 ~illion range. He furt~e~ stated that the feasibility study indicates that thi~ project will. generate, in direct revenue to the state! at least $4.5 million per year. Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relative to the difference between this the Richmond centre Project end the ~otel Roanoke Projest; funding mechani~m~ that other Stat~s are using for projects of the same size as the Ricb-~ond Centre; anticipated revenue fro~ th~ four localities being approximately $4-5 ~illien per year as a result of the increase in aha lodging tax; the Project being reduced to approximately $130 million if the lodging tax is used to service approximately Sso mill/on of debt and the State returns the State ravenu~ generated by the Project; the CQunty currently pursuing some private pantnership opportunities regarding the Richmond Centre Project; the lodging tax funds ~hat have been collected to-date being placed in ~so~ow; and the board f~ling that the expansion of the ~ich~oDd Centre is an achievable project. public/private park project in the works at this time. She fur=h~r =t~=ed that Mr. Golden has i~for~ed her and Mr. Barber that there is a problem with match~ng fund~ w~th th~ ~tate. She 96-6B7 ~r. Golden stated that Nr. Git Woodfin, Director of Game and Inland Fi~herles, and staf~ have developed a grant proposal for two sites in ~he County to construct boat ranp~ and fishing the County applied for a State matching grant, however, no fundm available for any locality. Ke e~pre~ed concern Because Game and Tnland F~heri~ had rai~ed funds through boat registration fees for this grants There was brief discussion relative to whether a Budget amendment wee submitted to the appropriation~ Co~ittee to fund this pa~k D~oje~t and a bill, that would increase the speed limi~ Qn ROUte 255, being ov~rwh~lmlngly rejected by the ~enate and the HOUSe last year and the Dropa~aI to require parents to pay all of the costs of graffiti removal and adding language to put a cap on the colt liability. It was qeneratly agreed to recess to the Public Meeting Room to oontinue the regularly scheduled meeting. (It is noted s copy c~ th~ ~97 Legislative Program is filed with the papers of this Board.) The Honorable Harry G. Daniel gave :he invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF Fram Pitarc led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the States of America- Mr. Daniel recognized The 5onorable Jesse Mayer, former Board the meetinq. ~e asked everyone to remember The Honerable J. Ruffin Appersen, former Board member~ representing %he D~le District, whe is recovering from heart surgery. Mr. Golden introduced Ms. Michelle ~vett~ Meadows who wa~ pr~ent to receiv~ the resolution- On notion of the Board, the following resolution wa~ adopted: of Monacan High school in which she ~raduated with a 3.$3 graCe- point average and a four-time, all-academic district and region student/athletics and W~R~$, Mi~ ~eadew~ wa~ the only player in ~irginia ~igh scholarship awarded by virginia Tach; an~ 11/26/96 96-688 WHER~AS~ Mi~ Meadows athletic achievements include, but are net limited to; being awarded th~ 1~9~ Dominion District, central Region, and Richmond Times-Dispatch Playe~ of the Year; being a~r~ed the~1996 Monacan senior scholar Female Athlete and the 1996 Monacan Senior Female Athlete; being named as a 1996 Richmond Times-Dispatch scholar Athlete Fine!let; being a three time Richmond Times-Dispatch All-Netro player; and being voted MVP oS the East All-State Squad in the 1996 Virginia High school League/Virginia Kigh School Coaches Association (V~$L/VHSCA) softball game. NOW, THEREFORE BE tT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby r~og~izes Miss Zichelle Events ~eadows for her outstandln~ a~l~tic achievements, her w~ll in h~r future endeavors, and ac~owledges the for~une of the Co~ty to have such an outstanding young lady on~ of it~ citizens. ~D, BE IT F~T~R RESOLVED, ~a~ a copy of ~his resolution be presented to Mi~ Meadows and that thim resolution be permanently recorded among the Dap~rs of =hi~ Boar~ of and congratulated her on her outstandin~ athletic achievements. h~ pa~nts and coach for ~air support. She recognized her TOWARDS THE BEAUTiFICaTION O~ TH~ CN~TER LINEAR 9ARK Mr. Golden introduced Ms. Ann ~uyalos and Ks. Aaa Cro~Qon~ini who were present to accept the ~esol~tion. WHEREAS, oommunlty inuolvement im the hallmark of all great ~ocietie~ and Organi=a~iuns; and WK~R~AS, Chesterfield County residents expressed an overwhelming ~e=ire to beautify and provide a public pedestrian facility in the Chester area; and WHEREAS, thi~ unique facility Was groomed and ~eautisied; 'and WHEREAS, the beautification Of thi~ facility required skill and ~alent~ and coordination of d~ign and site ~:preparation; and WKEREAS~ ~. Betty Zavertnik, MS. Ann Buy&los, ~s. Doris Crowell, Ms. RQmmy Earrlngton, Ms. Joan ~cne~, Ms. Janekrkwood, and Ms. Linde WyBBe, members of the Ch%stet Garden Club, have genercusly given of their time and talents; and WHEREAS, these services were ~enerously provided in a timely manne~ in addition to other compelling orgami~tional : obligations. NOW, THEREFOR= H= IT RESOLVED~ that the chesterfield county Board of Supervi~or~ hereby recognizes the Chester Garden Club for their mubetantial contributions toward the beautification of the Chester Linear Park. ''Vote: Unanimou~ 96-689 · .i Hr. ~cHale presented the executed resolution to Ms. Buyalos and Ms. Cr~cen%ini and expressed appreciation to them for their efforts in establishing and maintaining several gardens and landscape areas ~n the County. re~ei~tion. THE JEfFeRSON DAVIS ~D WALT~ATJ. AREA ZONES Mr. McLaren ~taTed th~ date and time has been advertls=d for a public h~aring ~c ccnelder proposed ~odificatione to the incentives for the Jeffarsun Davi~ and Walthall area enterprise No one came forward ~o speak in favo~ e~ or aqainst this issue. On motion of ~r. MCHal~, ~econded by Mr~. ~u~phrey, the Board ~uthorized the County's Economic Developmen= Department staff to submit an ~pplica~iun to change the incentives for th~ J~fferson Davis and Walthall Area Enterprise ~ones. Vote: U~animous ~r. Mincks ~tated that th~s date and ~ime has bes~ advertised for e public hearing to con~ider six real estate tax exemption requests for Chesterfield Alternati%ee, Incorporated and the ~oun~aticn for Senior Independence. Ha further stated that these requests have to be considered as a public hsa~ing prior to bein~ considered by the General A~embly at its 1997 ~eseion. He presente~ a copy uS a graphic representation of the six properties being considered which des~ribe~ the location, owner, and current assessed value of the p~cperty, the District in which the property is located, and the tax generated from the District. adopted the following resolution: mentally handicapped citizens of Chesterfield County~ and of p~rchasing real property located in ~he Ma%ease Magisterial and WHEREAS, real property used exclusively for charitable and bsnevslsnt purposes by a q~alifying organization shall be from taxation as authorized byArti~l~ X, Sourish 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia, upon action by the General Assembly cf Virginia and so long as ~uch organize%ion is operated ~ot for p~olit and the property so e~e~pt i~ used in accordance with the purpose for which the organization is classified; W~=R~AS~ the Board Qf Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia has considered the following factors before the adoption of this reeolutlon in support of the tax exempt status of chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. u~ follows: 1. Chesterfield Alternatives, IBC. i~ exempt from federal income taxation pursuant to Section 501~ of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 2. No current annual alcoholic beverage license for servin~ alcoholic bevsrages has been issued by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to Chesterfield Inc. ~or uss on the organization's property. No director or officer of C~este~field Inc. is paid any compensation in excess of the ~ervices performed in such position with the corporation. No part of th~ net earnings of Chsster£ield Ins. inures to t~e benefit of any individual. 5. Chesterfield Alternstive~, Inc. provides ~ervic~ for th~ tenures ge~d of tko public. 6. No part of tho activities of chesterfiel~ Alternatives! Inc. involves carrying on p~opagandu or otherwise attempting to influence legislation. T~e corpora%ion ~oes not participate in~ or intervene in, any political campaign on b~half of any candidate for public office. 7. chesterfield Alternatives, In~. h~s no rule, regulation! policy or p~aetioe which discriminates on the basis of religiou~ conviction, race, color, sex or national origin. This year the above-mentioned property is assessed at a value of $95,500 end ~ill generate $1,0~.96 in County real estate tax. In 1995, t~e property generated $1,040.96 i~ County ~eel estate taxe~. THEREFORE, be it re=olved by th~ Board of Supervisors of C~este~field County as follows: 1. That this Board supports the request cf Chesterfield Alternatives, Ins. for exemption from taxation Of its real and personal propart~ purmuan% to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia and the provisions cf Chapter 36 cf Title 58.1 of tho code of virginia~ 1950, as amended, and that much ~xemption should be categorized as charitable and benevolent. 96-691 2. That the County Administrator is directed to forward a c~rtifiedcopy of this resolution tc the members of the General Asse~tbly representing the County of Ckesterfield with the request that the proper legislation be introduced in the General Assembly to achieve the purposes of this resolution. The effective date of this r~olutio~ shall be November 26, 1996. On motion and second to adept resolution, motion wes ear~ied by ~he following recorded vote: Vote: Unanimous 1~.B.2. CHESTERFIELD ALTERNATIVES. ~RPORATED, O~NER B~TATB IN THE CLOVER HIlL DISTRICT F~r. Mincks stated this date and time has been advertised rom a ~ublio hearing to consider the adoption of a r~solution requesting real estate tax exemptions for Chesterfield Alternatives, In¢orporated~ owner of real ~state in th~ Clover Mill District. No one came forward to ~peak in favor of cr against thi~ issue. On motion of ~r. Warren, ~econded by Kr. ~arber, the Board adoDte~ the following resolution: RESOLUTTON SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY OF C~STZRFIELD ALTE~LNATIV~S, I~C. AS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA ~EREAS, Chesterfield Alternativ~ Inc. i~ a non-Drofit oorporatlon which provides housing and services to mentally hand,capped citizen~ of Chesterfield County; and ~EREAS, Chesterfield Alter~atlve~, Inc. is in the 0f ~urchasin~ real property locate~ in ~ Clover Hill Magisterial District of Chest~rXield County, Virginia at 2504 ~=~AS, real property used exclusively for churituble and benevolent purpeses by a qualifying organization shall be ~rom ~uxatlon as authorized by ~tiale X, Section 6(a) (~] of the Constitution of Vlrgln~a~ upon aution ~y %he General Assmm~ly of virginia eno so lon~ as such organization is operated not for profit and the property ~o e~e~pt i$ used in accordance wi~h the purpose for which the organization is classified; and W~=R~S, =he Board of Supervi~o~ of Chesterfield County, Virqinia has considered th~ followin~ factors beSore of Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. a~ follows: 1. Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. is exempt from federal income =axation ~ursuunt to Section 501~ of ~e Revenue Code cf 1986. 2. ~o curr~nt annual alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages has been i~ued by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to ~=sterfield Alternatives, 9~-692 3. No dlrector or officer of Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. is paid any compensation in excsss of the value of tbs e~rvices performed in suck position with the corporation. 4. No part of the net earnings of Chesterfield Alternatives, Ins. inures to the benefit of any individual. 5. Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. provides services for the coI~mon good of the public. 6. No part of the activities of Chesterfield attempting to influenos legislation. The corporation docs not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. 7. chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. has no rule, regulations potxey or practice which discriminates on the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex or national origin. This year the above-~enti~ned property is assss~ed at a value of $~,700 and will generate $90~.44 in County real estate tax. In 1~95, the p~o~erty g~nerated $901.44 THRI~EFOR~, be At resolved by thc ~oard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County as follows: t. That this Board supportm th~ request of Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. for exemption from taxation of its real and p~rssnal property pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a) (~) of the Constitution of Virginia and the provisions of Chapter 36 of Title 5S.1 of tbs Cede of Virginia, l~O, as amended, and that much exemption should be categorized as charitable and b~nevolent. 2, That the County Administrator is directed to forward a certified copy of =tls resolution to the ~a~be~s of t~e General Assembly represe~ting the County cf chesterfield with the request that %he pro, er legislation be introduced in the General Assembly tu achieve the purposes of thi~ resolution. 3. The effective date of thi~ re~elution shall bm carried by the following recorded.vote: VOte: Unanimou~ ALTERNATIVES, INCORPOP. AT~D. O~;N~R OF RB~T, Mr. Mincks stated this date and time ham been advertised for a public hea~ing to con~ider the adoption of a resol~tion rsque~tinq real estate tax exemptions for Chsstsrfield Alternatives, I~oorporated, ow~e~ of real estate in the Der~da District. 11/26196 96-693 on notion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey, the Board adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION OF ~ROPEH~¥ OF CEBSTER~IELD ALTEPi~ATIVES, INC. AS EXEMPT FRCM TAXATION BY THE GENERAL ~SSF/~BLY OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. iea non-stock, non-profi~ corporation whick provid~n housing and ~ervices to mentally handicapped citizens of Chesterfield County; and real property located ia the B~rmada Magisterial District of Chesterfield County, Virginia at 11123 Ti~onium Drive; and WHEREAS~ real property used exclusively for charitable and benevolent purposes by a gualifying organization ~hall be exempt f~om taMation a~ authorized by Article X, section 6(a) (6) of the constitution of virginia, upon action by the Seneral Assembly of Virginia and so long as such organization is op~rate~ Droll: end,he property so ex,mpa.is used in accordanc~ wlth~e purpose for which the organization is olassi~ied; and WHEREAS~ the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfi=ld county~ adoption of this resolution in support ~f the ta~ e~e~pt ~tatus of Ches~erfleld Alternatives, Inc. as follows: 1. ~e~t~rfleld Alternative~, Inc. is mx~pt from federal income taxation pursuant to Section ~01~ of %he Internal R~v~nue Code Of 1986. 2. NO c~rrent ~nnual ~lcohol~c ~evar~ge licens~ ~erving alcoholic beverages has been issued by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Beard to Chesterfiel~ Alternatives, ~nc. for us~ on th~ orqanization's property. No director or officer of Chesterfield Inc. i~ paid any compen~atlon in excess of the Alternative~, value of the corporation. Alternatives, NO part of the net earnings of Chesterfield Inc. inures to the benefit of any individual. 5. Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. provides for the common good of the public. No part of the activities of Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. involves carrying on propaganda or attempting to influence legiolation. The corporation does not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. 7. Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc- ha~ ne rule! regulatlcn, pollcy or practlua which ~iscriminates on the ba~i~ of religio~$ e0~viction, race, color, se~ or national oriqin. 8. This year the above-mentioned property is assessed at a value of 859,100 and will generate $7~3.20 in County real estate tax~ In 1995~ the property generated $731.40 TH~FOFu~ D~ it resolve~ by th~ Board of Supervisors of 96-694 1. ?hat this Board supports the request of Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. for exemption from taxation of its real and pereonal property pureuant to Affticle X, Section 6(ap (6) of the Constitution of Virginia and the provisions O~ Chapter 36 of Title 58-1 of the code of Vi~ginia~ 19~0, as amended, and that such s×emptien should be categorized es charitable and benevolent. 2. That the County Administrator is directed to forward a c~rtifted copy of this resolution ts ~he members of the General Ae~embly representinq the County of Chesterfield with %he request that the D~ope~ l~gislatien ~e ~ntroduced in 3. The effective date of this re~ol~tion shall be Vote: Unanimous ~r. Mincks stated th~s date and time hae been advertised for a public h~aring to consider the adoption of a reguest~ng real eetate ~ax exe~ption~ fo~ Ch=sterfield District. On motion of PLT. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Humphrey~ the Board adopted the following resolution= RU{E FOUNDATION FOR SENIOR INDEPENDENCE AS EXEMPT TAXATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Foundation for senior Independence is a non- s~ock, non-profit corporation which provides affordable housing for elderly, low and moderate income and at-risk citizens of the county; and WHEREAS, the Fcundution for Senior Tndependence own~ real property located in the Dale Magisterial District of Chesterfield County, Virginia at 6330 Dorious Drive; and ~EREA~ real property used excluslvely for charitable and bmnevolent purposes by a qualifying organization shall be eRempt fro~ taxation as authorized by Article X, ~ection 6(a)(6} of the constitution of virgin/a, upon action by th~ General Assembly of Virginia and su long as such organization in operated not for profit and the property so exempt is used in accordance wit~ the purpose for which the organisation is classified; and W~R~AS, the Boar4 of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, virginia has considered t~e following factors before the adoption cf thi~ resolution in support of the tax exempt status of tho Foundation for Senior Independence as follows: The Foundation for Senior Independence ~s ~rom federal income taxation pursuant tu Section 501© of the Internal Ravenu= Code of 1986. 96-695 NO Current annual alcoholic beverage license for Independence for use on the organization's property. 3. No director or officer of the Foundation for ~nior Tnd~p~nd~n~e is paid any compensation in excess of the value Of the services performed in such position with the corporation. 4. No part of the net earnings of ~he Foundation for services for ~he common good cf the public. 6. No part of the activities of the Foundation for a:~empting to influence legislation. The corporation does not parti¢ipmte in~ or intervene in, any political campaign on De,ali of any candidate for DuDliG office. bm~is of fail,leos convlctlon, race! color, ~ex or national origin~ 8. This year the above-mentioned property is t- That thi~ Board ~upport~ hh~ r~qu~t of th~ Foundation for senior Independence for exemption from taxation 6(a)(6) of the £on~titution cf Virginia 5nd the provi~ion~ of C~apter 36 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and that suc~ exemption ~heuld be categorized as charitable and benevolent. That the county Administrator ie dir~o%e~ to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the members of the General AssemBly represea~in~ the County 3. The effective date of ~his resolution shall be Vote: Unanimous ESTATE IN THE DAL~ DISTRICT Mr. Mincks stated this date and time has been advertised for a public hearing bu consider the a~option of a resolution requesting real estate tax exemptions for the Foundation for 11/26/95 96-696 On motien of Mr. Dsniel, oeconded by }te~ ~Nal~, the Board adopted the following resolution: THE FOUNDATION FOR SENIOR INDEPENDENCE AS EXEMPT ~ROM TAXATION BY TNE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA W~EREAS, tbs Foundation for Senior Independence is e non- stock, non-profit corporation which provids~ affordable housing for elderly, iow and moderate income and at-~isk citizens of the Cowry; and Wq{EREAS, the Foundation fo~ Senior Independenc~ owns proper~y located in ~he Dale Magisterial District of Chesterfield County, Virginia at 621E Omo Road; and WHEREAS, real property u~ed ~×clnoively for charitable benevolent purposes by a qualifyin~ or~aniz&tion shall be exempt from taxation as authorized byArticle X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Cons~i~utlcn sf Virginia, upon action by the General A~o~mbly of Virqinia and ~o long a~ ~uch organization is op~rat~ not for purpose for which the organization is classified; and W/~EREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia has considered the following factors before the adoption of this resolution in support of t~a ta~ ~xem~t of the Foundation fop senior Indupendenc~ as follows: 1. Th~ Foundation for Senior Independence ~ from federal income taxation purmuan= to Section 50t~ of the Internal Revenue Code of X986. No current annual alcoholic beverage lisen~ for serving alcoholic beverages ha~ been i$~u~ by th~ Virginia Independence for use on the urganlzatlon's proper~y. No direo=or or ofSio~r o~ the Foundation for Senio~ Indepe~dehc~ is paid any comp~nsat~o~ i~ exce~s of the value of the services p~rfurmed in such position ~ith the corporation. 4. No part of the net earnings of the Foundatio~ Ss~ior Ind=p~n~enQe inures to =he Denefit of any individual. services for the co~cn good of the public. 6. No part of the activities of th~ Foundation for attempting to influence l~i~lation. Th~ corDoration does not Dartioipa~e in, or intervene in~ any political campaign on behalf of any candidat~ for public office. 7. The Founda=ion for Senior ~ndapundence has no ~ule, requlation, policy or practice whish discriminates on the basi~ of religious conviction, rao~, oolor, sex or national origin. 8. ~is year the above-mentionud property County real estate tax. In 1995, the property ~=nerated in county real estate =axes. 96-697 THEREFORE, be it resolved by =he Board of supervi$0r~ of Chesterfield Co~ty a~ follows: 1. That this Board supports ~h= request of the Foundation for Senior Independence for exemption from taxation or i~s real and personal proper~y pursuant to Artlcle X, S~=tion 6(a] (6) of the Constitution of Virginia and the previeione of Chapter 36 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia, 195Q, as amended, and that such exemption should be categorized as charitable and benevolent. 2. That ~he County Administrator is directed to forward a certified copy of this resolntion to the member~ of the General Assembly representing the County of Ches%er£1eld with the request that th~ proper legislation be introduced ~n the General Assembly to achlevs the purposes of this resolution. 3. The effectiue date 6f this resolution shall ~e November Z6, 199~. Vote: Unenlmeu~ ~STATE IN THE D~LE DISTRICT Mr. Minck~ ~tated thi~ date and time has been advertised for a public hearing to consider the adoption of a re, cio=ion requesting real estate tax e~mpticne for the Foundation for Sen~or Independ~noe~ owner of r~al aerate in the Dale District. No one Came forward to speak in favo~ of or against th~s issue. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Numphrey, the Board adopted the £ellowing resolution: R~$OLUTION SUPPORTING T~ D~$IGNATIO~ OF ~OP~RTY 0F THE FOUNDATION FOR SENIOR IKDEPF~NDENCE AS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION BY TBB G~NE~ AS$~L¥ OF ViAGINIA WHEREAS, tho Foundation for Senior Independence is ~ non- stock, non-profit corporation which providem affordable houei~g for elderly, low and molera~e inusme ami a~-risk citizens of the Coant¥; and WHEREAS~ the Foundation for Senior Independence owns real property located in t~e Dale Magisterial Dis~ric= of Chesterfield County~ Virginia at ~16 Lamplighter Drive; and W~RF3~S~ r~al property u~ed exclusively for charitable and benevolent Durpose~ by a qual~fy~n~ orqan~zat~on shall be e~em~t from taxation as authorized by Article X, Section 6fa) (6) of the Constitution of virginia, upon ac:ion ~y the General Assembly of Virginia and so long as such organization is operated not for profit and the prpperty so exempt is used in accordance with the purpose for which the organization i~ classified; and virginia has considered =he following fac=or~ before ~e of the Foundation for Senior Independence as follow~: from federal income taxation pursuant to Section 501~ of the Internal Reven~ Code of 19B6. 96-698 NO current a~al alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages has been imbued by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to the Foundation for Senior Independence for use on the organization'~ property. Mo d~rect~r or officer of the Foundation for Senior Independence ie paid any conpenmation in excess of the value Of the services performed in much pomitio~ with the corporation. 4. No ~rt of the net earnlnq~ of the Foundation for $onior Independence inures to the benefit ef any indiviaual. 5. The Foundation for Senior Independence provides servicee for the co.men qecd of th~ public. NO pa~t Of the activities of the Foundation for Senior Independence involves carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence lugislahion. The corporation ~OeS participate in, or intervene in, any politiu=l campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. 7. ~he Foundmtion for Senior Tndependence has no rule, regulation, policy or pra=~iee which discriminates on the basis of religious conviction, ~ac~, color, sex or n~ti~nal origin. 8. This year th~ above-mentioned property is assessed at a value of $7~,g00 and will generate $~04.4~ in County real estate tax. In 1995~ the property generated $804.42 in County r~al e~tate taxes. T~REFQR~, be it resolved by the Board of Supervi~or~ Chesterfield County a~ follows: Foundation for Senior Independence for exemption from taxation of its Teal and personal property pursuant to Article X~ section 6(a) (6) of the Constitution of Virginia and the provisions of chapter 36 of Title 58.1 of the code of virginia, 1950, as amended, and that such exemption should be categorized as charitable and benevolent. 2. That the County Administrator is directed to ~orward a certified copy of this resolution to =he memberm oS th~ General A~bly representing the Count~ of Chesterfield with the request that the pro,er legislation be introduced in the General A~e~bly t~ achieve the p~rpuses of ~is resolution. 3- The effective date of this resolution mhall 17. REQUEST~ FOE MOBILE ~OME8 ~ND REZONTN~ PERMIT~ 97~N0109 In Clover Hill M~gisterial District, RICHARD JEFFRESS requested rezoning fro~ Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-7) to acres and Neighborhood Business (c-2) of 6.s acres. A mixed use development to include single family r~sidential, offio~ add commercial uses is planned. Residential use of up to 4.84 units per aero is permitt~ in a Kesi~ential (R-~) District. The 96-699 density of the Corporate office (o-2) and Neighborhood (C-2) uses will be con%rolle~ by zoniBg oo~ition~ or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property is appropriate for residential uae cf 4.0 units per acre er less, lies on 26.7 acres fronting approximately 600 feet on the north line of Hull Street Road, also fronting approximately 690 feet (1) ~arcel 14 (Sheets 14 and 15). that staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval and recommendation is acceptable. There was no opposition present. approved Case 97SN0109 and accepted the following proffered conditions: 2. For every lot developed in excess cf %he sixteen (16) lots currently permitted under the existing R-7 zoning, the applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following to the County of Chesterfield, prior to the time of building permit application, fur infrastructure $~,17~ per lo%, if paid on or prior to June 30, not to exceed $5,175 pe~ lot adjusted upward by any increase in the ~arshall and swift Building the fiscal year in which %he payment is made if paid after June 30, 1996- Department of Forestry for the purpose of removing dead Property until a land disturbance permit has been obtain~ from the Environmental ~ngin~ering and the approved devices have been installed. 5. Prior to any site plan approval or in conjunction with o~surs first, thirty-fi~e (35] feet cf right-of-way cn centerline of that part of Po¢o~hoek Boulevard i~m~di~t~ly ~4jacent to the Property, ~hall be Chesterfield County, 6. Access to Poco~hock Boulevard ~hall be limited to on~ entrance/exit located towards the northern property line. Access to Route 360 shall he limited to one Th~ exact location of these accesses shall be approved by 96-700 10. 11~ 12, shared with adjacent properties. Prior to any site plan approva~ or in ¢o~junction with recordation cf the flrs~ subdivision plat as requi~ed by the Transportation propertie~ complete development, the Developer shall be responsible for the following: A. Construction Of ~ddi%ional pavement along provide l~ft and right turn lanes; C. Full cost of traffic signal modification a~ the D- Dedication to chestersield County, free and nnremtricted, any additional right-of-way (or easements) required for the ~mprovements identified above. Pric~ to any ~ite plan mpproval or tentative subdivimion required roadway i~pr~v~ent~ identified in Proffered Condition 7 shall he submitted to and approved hy the a~uttin~ Parcel 1 on Tax Map 40-1 acree~ ~he northern- have a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. Dwellin~ A maximum of sixteen (16) ranch style dwellinq unit~ Subdivision. Roads shall be designed to minimize t~e possibility of any future connection from this p:ojast to any portion of Surrmywood Subdivision, throu~ any Prior tO, or in conjunction with, recordation of each which include the following ~rovi~ions: developer and a person appointed by th~ Rout~ 96-701 ~- A ~om~unity a~scciation shall be ~tablished and each lot owner ehatl be reguired to be a member of the association. The association shall have th~ right to ~harge reasonable annual dues and to p/ace liens on e ~rcperty i~ not pai~. The R-9 development shall not utilize any part (abbreviation mr otberwime) ~f the term "SurreyWood" in its name. 14. The dmYeloDer shall not seek approval of a private road subdivision- reade, drivew~ye, and perking- n~twork shall not oe~nr on that portion of th~ property zoned Residential (R-9). 17, The develope~ ~hall be responsible for notifyin~ the property owner of parcels 8 and 50 on Tax Map ~-$(1) and the' last known r~presentatives on file with the county Planning Department of the 3~0 corridor committee and Surreywood civic Asmociation of the submission of site and tentative subdivision plan submission. Such notification ~hell occur as soon as practical, but in no event less than twenty-sum (21} days prior to approval er disapproval of th% plan. The developer shall provide the Planning Department with an affidavit that such notice Th~ developer ~hall not s~ek ~eduotion of the fifty (50) foot buffer between the R-9 and 0-2 tracts. 19. Required public open apace in ~he C-2 tract shall be lighted for security purpose~. The exact number and location of ligh=s shall be approve~ by the Planning Department ~t the time of site plan review. ~he open ~pace shall be closed to public use from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.~., and the property shall b~ go posted ~ith ~ignage aooeptable to the Planning Department. 20. There shall be no parring of any v~hiole with 21. The following u~ee ehall not be permitted: group care facilities; a~y establieh~e~t having ~ e~bstantial or significant portion of its practice ~erforming abortions; d. business scheols$ ccmult scimnces such as palm readers; a~trologer~; fortune tell~r~; tea leaf readers; prophets; f. funeral homes or mortuaries; and communication to.ers. 22. Sale of alcohol shall only be permitted in conjunction with another permitted 23. Vote: Within th~ C-~ and 0-~ tracts, the architectural treatment of b~ildings, including materials, color, and style shall be compatible with the colonial buildings located in the southeast quadrant of the inter,cotton of achieved through the use of similar building massing, materials, scale, colors, or other ~rchitectural features. NO reed drainage shall discharge into the proDerties or eree~ =ha~ lies to ~he north of the reeidential tract. In ~lover Hill ~agi~erial District, R~ & p L2~NB II, requested amendment to C0~ditional Use Planned DeVelopment (Came 89SN0199) to reduce a required rear yard building s~tbaak from lOC ~eet ~o ninety-sev~n [97) feet. The density of ~uch amendment will he controlled by ~oning conditions or ordinance standard~. The Comprehensive Plan suggests th~ property is approprlat~ for o~fice use. This request li~s in a Corporate Office (0-2) District on 7_7 acres known a~ ~0~1 Arboretum Parkway_ Tax ~ap 2S-1 (1) Parcel 27 (S~eat 8). that staff ~nd the Planning Co~mission race--end approval subject tn the con~i~icn. There was brief discussion relative to th~ applicant having to ge through the entire zoning process for this "three feet" rsques= because this is conditional use planned development. ~r. Daniel requested staff t~ address the imbue of handling the~e t~rpe request administratively_ John Cogbill~ Esquire~ represent'dug the applicant, eta=ed the recommendation in acceptable. There ~as no opposition present. Nr. Barber stated that this request im an example where Board cannot approve three feet unlem~ the C~n~ral Assembly gives the board ex]~rasg Dermi~sion to approve it. On nation of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Ba~be~, the Board approved Case 97SN0113, subject to the following condition: With the approval of thi~ r~quest, a three (3) foot exception to the requirsd 100 foot setback for the existing building only shall he granted. A. This condition modifies Condition 2 o~ Case 89eNO199 for the existing building only. Any additions to ~his building or new £oot ss=back. This setback sxcep~ien in generally depicted on the plan prepared by Jordan Consulting ~n~inears, P. C.~ and dated December 3, 1993.} Vote: Unanimous 96-703 97~N0120 In Matoaca Magisterial District, B~YaILL D~VEL0PMBNTCORPORATION requested Conditional Use to permit indoor/outdoor recreational uses in a Residential (R-12) District. The density Of SUC~ amendment will be controlled by ~ening condition~ or Ordinance appropriate for residential use of one (1) to five [5) acre lots. This request lies on 7.0 acres fronting I~10o feet on the north line of ~a~tlecreek Drive, also fronting approximately 50 feet on Bailey Bridge Road and located in the 76-7 (1) Part of Parcel 3 (Sheet }qr. Jacobsen presented a summary of Case 97SN0120 and stated that staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval subject to conditions. ~e noted the Southernan~._~s~_~o Ar~a one to five acre lots. l~r. Glenn Hill, representin~ the applicant, stated the recommendation i~ acceptable. T~ere wa~ nm opposition present. Om motion of Mrs, Humphrey, seconded Dy Mr, ~oHale~ the Board approved Case 975~0120, subject to the following ¢om~itions: 1. With the ~xception of playqround area~ which accommodate swings, jungle gyms, or similar such facilities, all outdoor play fields, courts, ~wimming pooln and ~imilar active recreational areas shall be located a minimum of residential lot line and a minimum of fifty (50) feet from amy existing or proposed public read, ~othiag herein shall p~event development of indoor facilities and/or parking within the 100 foot setback. Within the 100 foot setbac~ a fifty (50) foot buffer shall be providmd along the perimeter of all active recreational facilities except where adjacent to any existing or proposed roads. This buffer shall conform to the requirements of the Zonin~ Ordinance, Sections 21.1-227 and 21.1-228, for fifty (~0) foot buffers. (P) 2. Any playground areas (i.e., areas accommodating swln~s, jungle gyms or similar such facilities) shall be located a minimum of forty (40) feet from all property lines. A forty (40] foot buffer shall b~ provided along the perimeter of these'recreational facilities except where adjacent to any existing or proposed roads. This buffer s~all conSurm to the roqulrememt~ ol the zoning Ordinance, Sections 11.1-~7 and 21.1-~B for fifty foot ~uffers. ~peaker~. 4. The site shall be deslqned to accommodate future access to the adjacent property to t~e northeast. TRe e~act location, width and types of aoc~s shall be approved at the time of sits plan review. (NOTE: These conditions apply to recreational use on property. ~y residential and recreational use will also be mubject to conditions of sorting approval for Case 89SN0287.) Vote: Unanimous 96-704 In Bermuda ~agisterial D~strlet, DAVID S~S~MORE requeoted rezoning fro~ Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12). A single family reeldentlal subdivision having a minimum lot sim= of 12,000 gross square feet is planned. Residential use of up to 2.6S u~ite per acre is permitted in a Residentiul District. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the pruparty is appropriate for residential use of 1.51 to.4.0 units per This request lies on 1.$ acres known as 13912 Rock orchar~ Lane. Tax Map 135-5 (2) Bermnda Ochre Company, Lot 9C (Sheet 42). Mr. Jacobsen presented a summary of Case 97SN0123 and stored that mtaff and the Planning Co~imsion Meeommend approval and acceptance cf prs££ered sundltions. Me noted the request conforms to the Eaotern A~e&_~lan ~endment. Mr. David Size~o~e stated ~e reco~endation is acceptable. There was no opposition on ~otion of ~r. MuHale, seconded by Mrs. H~phrey, the Boa~d conditions: 2. For sv~ry lot in excess of two (2), the applioan=, subdivid~r, or a=~ignee(~) ~hall pay ~he following to the County of CheSterfield, prior to th~ time of building De.it aDDlication, for infrastructure improvements within the ~ervice district for the property. a. $5,175 per lo%, if paid o~ or prior to June 30, not to sxcee~ $5,175 ~er lc~ adjusted Rpward by any inorease in the Me.shall and Swift 5uilding the fiscal yea~ in w~ich the pa~ent is mad$ Vote: Unanimous COMMISSION requests Conditional Usa to pe~it nursing heme~ Aqriuultural (A) District. Expansion of an existing nursin~ ~e~e facility i~ planned. However, with approval ef ~his ordinanoe standards. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the (1) P~rcel~ 10, 11 ~nd 12 (Sheet 31). ~Ir. Jacobsen presented a summary o£ Ce~e 97SH0147 and orated that staff and the Planning Commisuio~ recommend approval subject to conditions. He noted the request s~n~erm~ to the · Chesterfield County Guvernm~nt Center ~ster Plan which suggests 96-705 Hr. Phillip Rome, representing the applicant, stated the On metion of Mr. Daniel, ~econdsd by Mr. McMale, the Board approved Ca~e ~7~N0167, subject to the following conditions: 1. Zxcept where the requirements of the underlyiug Agricultural {A) zoning ara more restrictive, any new development shall conform to the requirements of the zoning ordinance far commercial uses in Emerging Growth kraal. ~rior tq issuance of any additional occupancy p~rmit~, Lucy Cork Drive shall be e~tendad aa a two (2) lane Ro~ ~t it~ inter,co,ion with Lucy corr Driv~ ~xtended to provide left smd Tight turn lanes. In ~atcaca Kagisterial oistrict, THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS requested Conditional Use to pe~it a group care facility and a retreat center Sor religiuus, civic, social and group activities in an Agricultural (A) District. The density of such amendment will be contrulled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan suqqe~t~ the property is appropriate fur community mixed use canter and residential use of i to ~ acre lots. This request lies on ~60.8 sofas known as 6~00 Hickory Roa~. Tax Map 173-~0 (1) ~arc=l 1 (Sheet 48). M~. Jacobsen presented a summary of Case 97SN6148 and stated that staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval subject to conditions and acceptance of proffered conditions. ~e noted the request conforms to the Southern and Western Area Plan~ Ms. Mildred Tucker, representing the property owner, stated the reco~endation i~ acoe9table. There wa~ no opposition present. i. ~c~pt wh~r~ the requir~m~nt~ of th~ underlying Agricultural (A) zonlnq are more restrictive, any new development for ~roup.car~ facility us~ and facil~tie~ for religious, civic, social and group activities shall conform to t~e r~quir~entn Of the Zoning Ordinan~ for oo~erslal u~e~ ~n E~erqing Growth Areas. (P) 2. Th~ following ~etback criteria ~hall apply to o~tdoo~ ~imilar ~ctive recreational ar~a~ ~hall' be properties zoned for a~icultural or residential proposed public road{s). Wi%him the~e setbacks, existing vegetation shall be supplemented, where necessary, with landscaping or other devices 96-706 And, further, conditions: d~slgned to aohieve the buffering contained in Section 21.5-228(a)(4) of the toning ordinance. If optdoor play fields, cuurt~, swimming pools or similar active recreational areas are set back moro than 100 foot from adjacent properties zoned agriculturally and residentially and more than ~i~ty ($0) feet from any proposed public road(~)~ tbs landscaping or oth~r design features described in Condition 3.a. ~ay be modified by the Planning Department at th~ time of site, Dlan review. Such modification mhall accomplish a mitigation of the visual and noise impacts that sports or related activities have on adjaceDt prupertie~ equivalent to tho fcot/f~fty (50) foot setbaok/land~caping requirements described in Condition 2.a. The 100 foot setback described in Condition may be reduced by the Planning Commission if the =hat sports er ~eleted activities have on area residences are mitigated, Mi~i~atlon may achlevad through the use of topography, fencing, berming, walls and/or other devices and design features, as approved by th~ ~lanning Commission at the time cf site plan review. tho Board accepted the following proffered Prior to ~ite ~lan approval, forty-five (45) feet of ripht of way on the north side of Hickory Road~ measured fre~ the eenterline of that part of ~ickory Road immediately adjacent to the property shall be dedicated for the benefit of Chesterfield Direct access to Hickory Road sh~ll be limited to two entrance/exits. The location ef these accesse~ shall be approved by the Transportation Department. For the provision cf an adequat~ roadway system a~ the time of comDle~e development, the Developer uhull be responsible for the following: (A) Construction O£ ad~itlonal pavement alon~ Hickory Road, at each approved access to provide left and right turn lanes, iS warrante~ ~ssed on Tran~portation Department standards; and (B) Dedication to Chesterfield County the necessary right of way required fur :he imDravement$ identified above. A phasing plan for t~e requi~ad ruud improvements, as identified in Proffered Condition 3, shall be submitted to and approved by t~e Transportation Department. The area designated .for the proposed Worth/South Freeway a~ ~hown on tho ~lan titled (North~South Freeway) as prepared by ~uff-Mcrris Architects dated ~ov~mber ~, 1996 shall ~s reserved for limited access right of way. No development shell occur within this d~signate~ area. 96-707 All sound sensitive land uses as determined by the Transportation Depar~ent shall have e 200 foot wide setback, from the North/Seut~ Freeway risht of w~y. Natural vegetation ~hall b~ r~talned w~thln this setback area, unless removal ef vegetation is approved by the Planning Commission- The public water system shall be used- Except for timbering approved by the Virginia State Department of Forestry for the purpou~ of removing dead or diseased trees, there shall b~ no timbering on the property until s land disturbance permit hn~ been obtained fram the Environmental Engineering Department and the approved devices have been installed. Vote: Unanimous In Dale ~agiaterial District, KUL~E~X CO.ORATION requested rezoning from Agricultural (A). Residential (R-12), Residential (R-I~)~ Residential Townheuse (R-T~), Residential . (R-~F) and Community Business (C~3) to Residential (R-~) of 177.3 acres, and from Agricultural (A) to Keighberhood Business (C-2)- of 5.6 acres. A single family residential subdivision having a minimum let size ef 9,080 qross square feet is planned for the R-9 portion of th~s request. Commercial uses are planned along Belmont Road, across from its intersection with Cogbill Road~ for the C-~ portion of this request. Residential use of up to 4.84 units per acre is permitted in a Residential (R-9) Oi~trict. The density cf the Neighborhood Busine~n (C-~) trash will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for public/semi-public and for residential use ef 1.5 units per acre or less. This request lies on 180.9 acres fronting approximately 1~300 feet on the west line of Belmont Road, across from Cogbill Road, also fronting approximately 800 feet on the ee~t line of Newbys Bridge Read, approximately 1,lO0 feet g~-8 (1) Parcel 1; and Tax Map 65-5 (1) Part of Parcel I (Sheets 21 and that staff recommends denial because the existing Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan suggests puDli~/s~mi-publio and residential usc of 1.5 units per acre or less for th= area; the proposed development is not compatible with the long term operation of. the Airport; and the proposed d~velopment is inappropriate for this location, He stated that staff has recommended, i~ the proposed Central Area Plan, that the appropriate land us~ fur this location wu=Id be light industrial. ~ further ~tated that the Planning Ce~ission w~r~ before the Commission at the time the request was considered. He ~ur~er stated that ~ese proffered conditions has included say=tel mitigating provisions of the proposed residential development near the Airport, essentially tha~ ruutrictivu ccvunants should provide for notice of the proximity Of different t~chniques. H~ stated that the Commission impomed ~hall not be connected %o Newbys Bridge Road until Newbym Bridq~ Road is imp~ove~ to the virginia D~par~munt u~ TransDur~mtion's urban minor art~rlal standard. ~e further ~tat~d that 9~-705 applicant ~ub~ittad ravine~ Proffered Conditions, after the Planning csmmisaion masting and afte~ the case was advertised, wisha~ to mon~±der the aNended proffered condition~_ ~ briefly reviewed the amended Proffered Conditions includln~ rsduoinq the total maximum number of dwelling unit~ from 3~0 to 335; that no more than 200 lots can be recorded and ne lm~ san he within 1,0QO feat of Newby~ B~idge Road until Cogbitl Road ~xtended is extended to ~ewbys Bridge Road; and. the applicant will raquast, through the CheSterfield County Tr~n=pertatien Department, that the virginia Department of Transportation post Cogbill Extended at a traffic =peed of ]~ ~ph an~ that the design of Cegbill Extended be reduced from 50 mph to 40 Kr. Cegbill, rspre~entlng the applicant, presented information to ~a~h of the Deard members regarding the request. recognized Mr. Tom Houok, senior vice President cf ~lberry Corporation, who was present at the meeting. He mtated that the Five Porks villag~ project was originally ~Sned in ~88; that thi= property ha~ had s~veral changes i~ ownership since 19~; =he existing Five FO~RS Village area. He requested the Board's approval for downzoning te ~ubst~tut~ single-family residential Fork~ community and others in the area instead of an exis%in~ multl-family~ townhouse and twenty acre shopping center zoning. Ee state~ ~hat the applicant is requesting te exchange 750 dwelling unit~ and twenty acre shoppinq esnt~ for 395 single family homes. Me stated that the applicant' s reqnsst is He further stated that the applicant's request is ~onaimtent amendment ~c the Central Area Plan. Me stated that the Planning a~mdment that differed, in some respect, from staff's ~eard at this time. He further stated tha~ the Commlmmimnsrs ~ppllcan~'s property as iow density residential ~ith a proposed Central Area Plan, a~ r~co~m~nded by staff; and that rmque~t, based upon the actions of the Planning Commission. Ha referenced various Darts of the staff report for the southside is amy justification for trea~ing such similar cases ~ulti-family, townhouse, and the meier retail use; and the · police, libraries, and other services. ~e stated that the a cost to the developer of approximately $1.7 million; that 11t26t96 96-709 request is consistent with the amendment to the Comprehensive ~lan a~ reo0~eRde~ by the Planning Commission; a~d '~he request is recommended far approval bY the Planning Commission. He furt_hsr sta~sd that the applioan~ has attempted to find way~ to accommodate the needs of all the citizens in the areal; that the alternative preSSers that the applicant has provided at this time were based, in part, on Planning Commission' ~ ~tated desire that Cogbill Road be connected, but subject only to certain design standards; that the applicant had intended to agree to no connection until the road improvement scheduled for 199~-2001 were completed; that the amendments provided by the Planning Commission contemplated improvements tha~ migh~ not occu~ for 10-20 years; and that the applicant then revised its proffer to guarantee nc connection for eight yeer~ due ts concerns o~ the Wewbys Bridge residents. He ~tated that the applicant has also changed its design proffer tc work with the County in reducing the ~p~d limit on Cogbill Road Extended to ~5 mph and that the applicant has attempted to make Ccgbil~ Road Extended curve through the subdivision so it becomes more like a subdivision street. He further stated that the a~plisan~ has tried to be a good neighbor with the Airport ~y proffering ts tsll future development; that the applicant ~upport~d the Planning Commission's recommendation that a note ba placed on the domprehensiv~ Plan that ~tat~ that all n~w residential davelppment in this area have this same requirement; and that the applioant has tried to ~usgest way~ in which the Airport Can better oo-e~i~t with its existing neighbors and encourage great dialogue between neighbors. He stated that concerns have been expressed about pos~ible development on the commercial site at Cogbill and Belmont Roads. He further stated that th~ applicant has tried to ensure that there can be no expansion at this area and has limited the commercial area by pottles residential next to the property; that an aviation easement ha~ been placed on part of the co~merclal site property; and that th~ applicant feels that by locating this contraercial project in this area, it will provide an additional buffer to the Airport operations. He stated that the applioant has worked with area neighbors to find USeS and designs that were acceptable t~ ~ham and that the applicant feels this facility provides convenience to the scI~munity wi~h walking and bik~ trails and limiting it~ size and us=s and proffering it so its appearance would blend with the community and serve the nsed~ of th~ neighborhood. Be expressed conserns relative to language in the ~taff report whlch~ when oembine~ with the current cc~prmhensive plan dmscription of a portion this property as reserved for public or semi-public use, may deprive the applicant of tt~e right to use this property in a reasonable and logical fashion, consistent with adjacent land uses. He re~u~ted the Baard~ s favorable support of the request. Mr. Nincks clarified that before the public hearing begins, the amsnde~ proffered conditions need to be considered by the Board. Ms. Darryl Walker, Advisory Chairperson for Five Forks Village Homeowners Association, stated that they ~upport th~ proposed request an~ recognized approximately 4~ people in support of the request who were present at the meeting. She su~itted a petition of $48 signatures of residents from ~ive ~orks Village and ~urrounding neighborhoods in support of the.request. Ms. Susan Wasick, Co-Chairperson of Five Forks Village Homeowners Association, stated that 348 signatures were received b~ residents of Five Fork~ Village, Belmont Run, Land of Pines, Ashley Grove, an~ Nawbys ~rld~e Road in support of Five Forks Village position on the request. ~he further stated that %hey 9~-710 L support Mulberry Corporation; that they would eventually like to have Ceg~ill Road out through to Newbys Bridge Road; and that they agree with the proffered condition cf the reduced speed limit si~n~ that they support the eight year time period in which Cogbill Ro~d ~xtendsd would go through. S~e further stated that Five Forks Village residents do not want their ~roperty values to d~cr~a~e and do not want an industrial park in the area. She su~a~ted That the County look into revitalizing and putting more ~uslnesses in the ~id-Atlantio industrial park. She stated that they feel an additional i~du~trial park would increase Traffi~ en Bel~o~t Road, which i~ not eo~duoive to a community, sh~ further stated that when ~lans to ~uild a commercial and single-family and ~ulti-family development and knew they tired near tbs Airport. She stated that they ~id not anticipate the plan that an industrial park ma~ be located in their backyard. When asked, she stated they covere~ the nslghhorhood with f]yer~ and people about the request. Mr. 5eroy Vaughn~ with C. Porter Vaughn Realtors, stated they represent Five Forks village for Mulberry Corporation and that they are responsible for th~ ~ale of the lots, new hones, marketing, appreval of plans, specifications, and ~oordlnatlon of ell site work. He further ~tated that the Five Forks village Casualty wa~ in fairly bad shape at th~ Time the applicant took over the proposed property; that th= applicant replaced the entrance sign with two new brick ~olunns; that the sprinMlsr ~ystem~ and ~ntrsnc~ lighting were repaired; that new street signs and streetlights were in,tailed; that numerou~ d~ainage terminated and replsca~; and that partially d~V~loped streets Were SOQn paved and new sections begun. Me stated that Five one emergency entrance for approximately 2~3 hone sites. He further stated that there sre currently approximately 170-200 families lining in Five Forks. He stated that the ~urcha~s of this site not only p~ovided the recreation center site, but will Coqbill and Belmont Roads, which the existing project does not development sf ~¥en ~ubdivisions in this vicinity; that this area does not need twenty nora acres of shopping centers; that this area does not need anymore light industrial zoning; that there is too much density end too few acres on this property; and that the appli~ant~ s request has modified an~ reduced the zoning for ~his ~roperty. Mr. Edward J. Willis, III, stated that the residents of Five Forks Village were approached on the basis that they had a choice of either to accept the large number of apartments, subdivision. Ke further ~tatad that he opposes the re~ue~t because he feels it would negatively impact any future industrial development for the ceunty. ~e stated that ne i~ a corporate consultant and that the corporations in whiuh he deals with want to move to a location close to an i~ternation~l Airport wher~ they have access ~e package air delivery and proposed cross-wind runway tha~ has been proposed by ~he Airport and stated That he dou~ not feel that runway improves the conditions at the Airport. ~m further stated that he recommends that B~lmont Road be located so the existing runway can be 96-711 M~. AnS Carter, Chairman of thc Board of Stewards at Fairhavens Methodist Church, ~tated that they support the proposed that they have been looking forward to growth in this area; and that they feel this proposed development is an opportunity for growth. Mr. Doug Mackman~ owner of Liberty Farms and adjoining landowner to the propossd property, stated that they have worked very closely with the applicant in addressing various issues; that all iesues and concerns that they raised have been address; and that they support the zoning change to the 333 r~sidential lots. M~. Stalls, e resident of Newbye Bridge Read, expressed concerns relative to the dangerousness on New~ys Brid~e Road. Ee stated that he does not feel another subdivision needm to be located in the area as eight subdivisions are currently located along Nawhy~ Bridge Road. He requested the Board to deny the request. Mr. Gordon Overstreet, a resident of Cogbill Roa~, entered into the record e letter ~rem Me. Bran~ ~pokeepa~eon fo~ CogbiI1 Corridor Organization, expressing their support of the proposed request. :.~r. Warren excused ~imself from the meeting. Mr. Jay Lowden stated that ho is a user of the County Airport and expressed concern~ relativ~ to ~afety iseeo~ %his request. He stated that he has no preble~ with the area~ that are currently ~oned that used to be =h~nged for single family, however, is concerned with changing the ar~a clo~e~t to the runway~ which is currentlyzoned agriculture. Ma further stated he ~eels the buffe~ in this area needs to be kept as ~r. Mike Michael, President of Virginia Aviation Scrvleae, stated that they provide airport servieee to the Airport; that during the last five ysar~, they have seen e~Dloyment at the Airport quadruple, fuel ~alee double, and tax payer subsidy of the Airport end; and that during the next flys years they anticipate thio continued growth of the Airport. ~e further ~tated ~hat many noise complaints have been received from the hc~e~ in the Five Forks area during the last two years. stated that he feels any increase in residential development near an airport has the potential to stifle growth By restricting airport expansion. He requested the Board tc accept staff's recommendation in not approving any rezoning that would increase residential development and the encroachment the airport runways. Mr. Warren returned to the meeting. Mr. Dickie Eing, Chairman of the Chesterfield County ~irport Advisory Board, and President of Kings Karner Enterprise~ stated that the Advisory Board concluded and acknowledged the legal right of ths applicant tu improve the paroel~ in in accordance with the zoning ~t forth by th~ ~oar~ of Supervisors in 1988. He referenced a letter sent to each of the Board merkbe~s fram an Advisory Board membev stating that "Th~r~ is a recognizable trend in ~0rp0rate Amerioa to utilize small aircraft for their transportation needs a% a ~beti~te for the use of air ear~ier serviue.. Ail indications are that the trend will continue indefinitely. Indeed, corporate aviation i~ the fastest growing area in the a~iaticn industry with approximately a three year backlog for corporate typ~ air-raft. I~ agreeing that we li~e in a progressive County, the Airport i~ naw~ and will continue to be in the future, an integral part of our 1~f26/96 96-712 £utu~e. The £u=ure holds ~cr ua more alrcrufts with mere noise. We have a pict of land that we call the airport..." Mr. Jackie Dankos, representing the Virginia Aviation Board, expressed soncerna relative to the prepoeed rezoning request. ~ read a letter into the record from Flr. George Ramsay, Chairman ef the Vlr~in~a Aviation soarde stating that the Virginia Aviation Board and the Department of Aviation have invested over $2.55 million in the Airport since 1987 and that it i~ the duty of the Aviation Board to provide financial assistance to localities to develop airports in th~ interest of erahan~ing economic development potential as %hey also develop Virginials air transportation eyst~m. Ke stated that the Aviation Board views the recent ender~emen~ by the Planning Commission as a signal that it may ne longer be concerned about maintaining unrestricted~ direct, aerial access %o the community by existing and potential businasues. H~ further stated he views the endorsement as a move that ~ill, over t$me~ constrain Airport operations, threaten the usefulness of the facility, and eventually lead =o Airport closure. ~a requested the Board to not apD~eve the recommendation of the Planning Cemmissian~ ~s they feel i~ will threaten the future of the State's leading reliever Airport. ~e referenced a letter from residents of Five Forks Vilt=ge that was written to Mr. Daniel ~r. ~anneth F- Wiggin, Director of the Virginia Department of Aviation, orated that he is ~peaking this evening at t~e ~eqUest of ~r- George Pete Ramsay, III, Chairman of =he Virginia Aviat~nn Board. ~e fmrthor stated that residential uncrouchment will, at best, deter the County's Airport utility and its economic value as a tool for plannede economic growth. He stated that encroachment of ~onimg allowe residential development near or adjacent to sirporte and that citizens who purchase these homes, sometimes unknowing and sometimes with fulk knowledge of the airport's lsoatien, e~ercise their right to speak out againmt airaraft noise. He further stated that many times, uom~lalnte from citizens lead to airport operational con~tralnts which include curfews and restrictive aircraft operation. ~e stated understanding that it is difficult to purchase ~11 lmnd adjacent to airports, aviation agencies often encourage compatible land use zoning which means ~oning erbar than residential. Mrs. Rumphrey excused herself from the meeting.. ~r- Paul ~empsi~y, a resident of Five Forks Village, sta~ed ~hat families who purchased homes in Five Forks Village did eo in reliance to uncertain representations, cn~ of the most critigal representations being that the remainder of the property, t~e residential purposes. ~e e~ated he feels ~n ~s fair ~o say thaf village if the remainder ef the tract had been deeiqnated for light industrial development. Me further m~ated that he feel~ and deal with ~he community fairly. ~r. Jshn Lillard, a pile: who frequently u~ee tho Airport facility and former Chesterfield County Airport Manager, e~pree~ed concerns relative to the additional residential zoning in the Airport' s runway approache~. Ke ~tated that during his ~ive years ae Manager, he met with. mady residents in adjacent neighborhood~ oeDeerning Airport noise and safety, ae further 56-713 ~tated that he feels additional residential development in the runway approaches will increase citizens ccmplaintu about the Airport and jeopardize the long-range viability of the County's Airport facility. He stated that the Airport is in the ideal location to continue to serve as an economic generator for the County and the Board's decision ~il~ have a ~ignifi~ant impact on tho Airport' ~ ability to continue to serve in that capacity. Mr. Mark Denny~ a resident of Valencia Road, ~tated that he more concerned about the infrastructure issues relating to this development~ rather than tho n~i~e, and that he ~ppurt~ Ms. Viekio Betel, representing ~outhside Church cf the Nazarene, requested tRe Bea~d's favorable consideration of the proposed request. Mrs. ~umphrey returned to the meeting. Dr. ~argaret Turner, a resident of Belmont Road, stated that her father benght a i00 acre tract in 1939 on Belmont Road; that she would like the property to remain ~esidential~ and that she nat support industrial for th= proposed property. Mr. RObert Turner uxpresmed concerns relative to t~he negative impact on area property value~ if the request site is developed for light industrial usaa. ~e stated that the real issue at this time is ~he pro%action of the Airport end that he feels th=re is no r~ason why the applicant cannot exist wi~h both the Airport and Five Forks village subdivision. ~s. Amber cole, a resident of ~ewbys Bridge Road, stated that she supports the proposed request, however, i~ concerned about the e×tensie~ of cogbill Road onto Newbys Bridge Road within eight year~. She further stated that there is currently an ex~eting subdivision~ creekwood, that has at least 335 units which e~its solely onto Newbys Bridge ~oad. ~he ~a~ all of Five Forks Village traffic exit onto Belmont or on to some fo~ of Cogbill Road Extended. Sh~ stated she would much rather have residential neighbors than ~ndustrial. She residents who hav~ cho~e~ central Chesterfield County as their home. She stated that thim industrial development would be encroaching on ar~% uiti~en$ way of life and that s~e would lika ~r. Ed Diginaro~ representing the Newbys Bridge Road Coalition, ~tat~d that they are strongly oDDo~e~ to light indus~rlal in this area; that t~ey feel light industrial does not ~e% the goals a~d objectives of the Hewbys ~ridge Rua~ couli%ion and over 2,000 neighbors; and that light industrial would destroy ~ quality of life and ruining kha environment el thm agricultural, suburban uses in thia area. He further stated ~at they feel ~hat supporting light indus~rlal wouSd be violation of trust between the ~itizens, the Board of Supervisors, and County staff. He s~at~d that they supper= lowest ~osmible resid~n=ial zoning fo~ thi~ area; that they ~upport R-88 zoning; and that they support, in view of the o~=ion~ ~a~ have been presented, dOWnZoning ~e proposed property to ~ unitn. Mr. John b~r~s, a member of ~he Newbys Bridg~ Road Coalition and a resident of Gle~nWood Subdivision, ~xpremsed concerns r~lative to commen~ indicating that r~sldentiul will pose s~ri~u~ problems to the Airport. K* stated that 96-7t4 the property is currently zoned, residential i~ not being added, aB residential exist in t~is present zoning with 750 units and that the applicant is reducing th~ 7~ units to.~%9 units. Ma further stated that if this property presents so much value to the growth and fu~ur~ of ~he County, t~en maybe ~he County consider an investment in terms of purchasing the land from ~plieant at a fair market value. ~e stated th~ the roadway being connected to Newbys Bridge Road is inevitable and that, based on the op~iose that have been presented, he supports the proposed request. Mr. Ray JaoEson, Pastor of Heritage Baptist church, and a resident of cogbill Road, stated that the Church and Church neighbors ~upport the proposed r~quest. He commended f_he applicant for working with area neighbors and the co~nunity on this project. Mr. Tom Richard, a resident of Five Forks Village, stated that the applican~ has alway~ attempted to address any of problems such as new drlveway~, ~ntranc~s, streetlighte, etc. when they took over t~is property and expressed concerns relative to the appearance of the entraDa$ i~to the MAd-Atlantic Industrial Park. He requested the Board to Support the applicant's efforts. Mr. Eteven McNeily, a resident of ~ampstead Lane, stated that he has been advised by Mr. Dickie King, Chairman of the Aviation Advisory Board~ to expr~ their support of County staffs resommendatlon and their opposition for rezoning cf this area. ~e further stated that the Board has the opportunity tc be ~ro- active, a~ opposed to reactive, to future ~omeowners in the Mr. Walter Marsh stated that he supports the proposed request as keying mulhl-family development in the area. There being ne one else ~c address this ieeue~ =he public have came out and expressed their input into the request. of the Airpur~ and tz the ~DDlicant for their work and Airport, and citizens can live together as a community and requested the Board's favorabl~ ~upport of the request. knd zoned; that he ha~ received a lot of input from the business recommending industrial; that the citizens in the area de not wan% the proper%y zoned ~ndustrial; that he feels there is enough industrial property around the Airport today; and tha~ he cannot support zoning, t~ property industrial. He further Central ~rea ~n at its January ~, 1997 Board meeting end requested everyone to att=nd that me,ting to express their the Board set the tone of wh~t this general area would be zoned the Nazarene. He stated that the existing zoning will 96-715 allow the extension of Cegbill Road to be cut through to ~e~bys Bridge Read~ ~e further stated that the most appealing to him is the zoning request before the Board this evening that will eliminate approximately 600 mulgi-family unite for approximately 192 single-family units. ~e stated that with all of the concerns about density in the County and the impact it will have on the County in terms of resources, he feels that trade to be rather appealing. He cooL, ended all citisens for their leadership in working with the applicant regarding this request and reaching a consensus. He further stated that the applicant has addressed the cut-through road by proffering to reduoe the speed limit and designing the road so the speed limit will only be 25 mph; that the applicant ham proffered a condition that will allow Coqbill Road Extended to be constructed a~ a neandsring, winding road; that the applicant has proffered that ~he road will not he oonstruuted until at least eight years or until improvements take place along Naw~ys Bridge Road; and that the applicant has proffered not ts build within 1,000 feet of Newbys Bridge Road until Cogbii1 Road i$ ex~ended. Ze stated tha~ he feels the proposed request i~ a mush better deal than the existing zoning. He further stated ~hat the County will continue to have an excellent coalition with the Airport; that the County has a v~ry strong Airport sys~em~ and =ha: t~is zoning will in no way curtail any activity within the Airport. Ke ~tat~d that the County Airport will never bm an international commercial airport in this ~gion is the Richmond International Airport. ~e further state~ that ha ~eels the proffered cond~tlons addres~ ~OSt of the concerns and requested staff to include the improvements along Newbys sridge Road in t~he~r development plans for highway funding. ~a ~tated the first order cf ~usiness will be a motion that allows the acceptance of the proffered conditions that were sttbnitted late. Mr. Daniel then made a notion, for the Board to ~u~p~nd its rules to accept the amended proffered conditions. ~r. Sarber stated that ha would llke to s~k questions about the ~equest and then con~ider the Waiver of the rules to accept the When askmd, Mr. Cegbill reviewed the a~snded p~offered conditions including an eight year limitation on ~he cut-through Xrom CogbilI Read Extended to Newbys Bridge Road; a limit of 200 lots that may be developed until the road connection is made; ~nd that lots will not be recorded within 1,000 feet of Newbys Bridge Road until ¢ogbill Road has been extended; attempting tu get the speed llnlt eat at ~5 mph on Cogbilt Ro~d; to make Cogbill Read ~x~ended a cu=vilinear design; provides for the ability oft he devsl~pe~ to tentinue to work with the community, particularly the Church. ~e stated that he feels the amended proffered eondltion~ meet the spirit and intent of t~e Planning Commission's r~eo~mendat~on. F~. Barber inquired as to whether the amended proffers satisfy the Transportation Department's request for transportation proffers for this zonin~ r~quest? F~. McCracken stated that staff would hav~ preferred to have. the read constructed ~ren Newbys Bridge Road tc Belmont Road in a more quic~ fashion than the r~trictieB$ currently in the proposed Dre~fers. Ee further stated that ~taff had discussed with the applicant that when ~00 lots were built, they would 9s-716 prefer to have the cogbikl Rued constructed. He stated that if the 200 lots are not sold before eight years, there is differencs bstwean the proffer and what the Transportation Department wants.. When asked, Mr. Jacobsen stated that the only other change that wax made in the amended proffers, ether than the transportation i~uo, was the reduction of the maximum nu-~ber u£ unit~ ~ron to ~35. He further stated that staff has no objection to that change. Mr. ~e~ale ~tated that he doe~ hays ~o~e Concerns about reques~ ~s the Board has received a !o~ of information relating to the request this evening. HS furthe~ ~t&ted that th~ Board has cautioned people, in the past, about the bringing of late proffered conditions to the Bea~d. He expressed concerns about the appearance of hast in this issue and bringing this request forward in anticipation of the Central Area PleD. ~e stated, it weuId be helpful ts him, in supporting a decision to go forward~ if he could hear the thougAts sf other Board members rega~cl~ng the ~e~uest. F&r, Daniel stated that the Board would have ample time to di~cu~ th~ request after the motion on the table i~ disposed of because, if the motion does not pass/ the aet~al motion on d~aling with the case will be handled accordingly. M~. Daniel then called for the vote on the motion made by him, ~econded by ~r. War~en, for the Board ts suspend its rules at tiis time to consider the amended proffered conditions. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, ~Lr. Warren, and Mrs. ~Dhrey. Nay : Mr. Barber and Mr. ~r. Daniel stated that the vote which has just taken place prevent~ the Soard from accepting th= amended proffered conditions at this time. ~tr. Daniel then made a mo=ion Sar the Board to defer consideration of Case 96S~0201 until December 11, 19~6 to allow the applicant to properly submi~ t~e ~rof~e~ed condltion~. There was brief discussion relative t~ tho la~k of time tn readvertise the request for the December llth Board meeting. M~. Daniel stated that due to th~ confusion over when the Beard can and eanno~ actually vote on the reguest with the amended p~offered conditions that have been submitte~ and agreed upon by all parties, including the publio~ he will mare a motion to defer the request until the next ~oard meeting, which will be scheduled for December 1az 1996. ~r. Daniel then made a motion, ~eoonded by Mr. Warren, for the Board to dsfer Came 96~N0~0% until D~cemhsr 96-717 Mr. Daniel that hQ hoped to have fiv~ ~inut~n to dinousg what ha felt was some of the controversy surrounding the casa. Hs further orated that he was prepared to vote to suspend the rules in order for the case to move forward. He stated that he fe~ls not being given that opportunity ho discuss the request was an infringement of hio ability to represent his District, which may be the minority interest or County's interest from a larger perspective. He further stated that he fully expects, at the December 18th meeting, that the proffered conditions wil~ ba accepted and Board me~bers will be able to state their ca~e and the zoning request be approved. Mr. ~cHale stated that ha feels he made a very reasonable request and indicated very ~trongly by that request that he wanted to hear from his culleagues before the Board rushed to judgement on the request. ~e further stated he wanted, to reserve the opportunity to defer this by voting no on the procedural case if he felt that those questions were not asked. He stated he feels ~r. Daniel forced him to make that dsoision without getting the benefit of ~r. Danlel's thoughts an~ counsel or those of Mr. Warren and M~S. '~umphr~y. He stated tha~ he takes exception to the fact that h~ and ~r. Barber are being procedural obstructive. Ee further stated he feels the citizens here tonight did not have to ~e put through what hmo happened. Kr. Daniel stated that th~ r~quest for the proffered conditions was nothing more than the normal proce~a in allowing thc~e to b~ at least on the tabl~ a~ part of the zoning request. K~ further stated that everyone would have had the Opportunity to ~press any input after the prof~er~ con~itions were accepte~, however, ha feels they preempted that by not allowing the proffers to be accepted. Ne apulegize~ to the p=blio for tbs situation that has taken place this evening. It was generally agreed to recess fe~ five minutes. Reconvsning= Vote: Unanimous In Dale Magisterial Dis=rio=, A. T. LIHEGAR requested razoning f~om Corporate Office (0~2) to Community Bu~in~n~ (d-S). restaurant and convenience store w~th gascllne sales ia planned. However, with approve& cf this request, other C-~ ~ses would be permitted. The ~snsity of such a~endment will be controlled by zoning conditien~ or Ordinance standard~. ~he Comprehensive Plan su~sts the property is appropriate for office use. This request lies O~ 2.8 acres fronting approximately 277 feet on the ea~h 1ins cf Iron Bridge Road, approximately 270 feet north of Coqbill Road, also fronting approximately ~5~ feet on tll~ north line of cogbill Road morose from Howell Drive. Tax Map 52-14 (1} Parcels 22, i28 and 131 (Sheet 1~). summary of case 9~SR0256 a~d stated that staff and the Planning commission recommend denial becapse the proposed zoning and land uses do not oon£srm to the a~o~ted Central_.Area Plan which suggests the property is appropriate for office existing 0-2 ~onin~ on the re~usst property and on ad,scent properties along Iron Bridge mhd Cogbill Roads provides a 11/26/96 96-71~ ~evelcpment at the Iron Bridge Road/Cogbill Road intersection and existing and. anticipated area non-commercial uses to the north ~nd east; and the request site and surrounding 0-2 properties were rezoned as one project ts allow a coordinated, campus-style office park with limited, supporting co~er¢ial usam. She stated that staff received two additional proffered conditions this evening, therefore, if the Beard qiehes to consider the proffers, they must suspended their Ruins of Procedure. When asked, she sta~ed that the two proffered ccndit~on~ include requiring all pavement ar~a~ that a~e ~ubjeCt to spillage er run-off from fuel pumping facilities be through a three compartment oil/water meparation structur~ prior to leaving the property and requiring the installation of solid board fence adjacent to the east p~operty line adjacent to an existing elngle family dwelling. Mr. Matt ~arris, representing the applicant, era=ed that this request is actually a change to a previously approved zoning regues~ in t~a late 198o's. He submitted a petition of 119 c~tizens in support of the request and ~ketche~ of the proposed development. He s~atsd %hat the applicant ia proposing a mixed use -- convenience store, ga~ ~tation, and fast food restaurant. ~e further stated that since the October 15, 1996 Planning Com~ission meeting, th~ applicant has submitted the two new proffered conditions. Ha presented an overview of the proposed ar~a a~ it exists now, with re~pect to couumercial development. Ra ~tatsd that ha d~ not feel the applicant's request is OUt o~ line with the propo=ed C~ntral Area Plan He fur=her ~tated in regards to the traffic issues~ truffle ~tudies show that peak time for a rant food store is in the middle of the day, school peak hours are between 3:00-4:00 ~.~.~ ~nd ~ conv~hience between ~=00-7:00 p.m. Me stated that the proposed development w~ll nave less impact on the peak hour than the currently zoned u~e. He further atated that the applicant has proffare~ fencing to a~simt area residents and ha~ attempted to position %%he drive-thru to lesson the impact to any of the residents. ~tated that most of the fast food sto~es in tho area have regular trash and du~pster pick-up and ~pand a lo~ OS time and offor~ in keeping their propertie~ clean. He presented an overview showing a dumpster at victorian square and at Route with only tras~ in, and nut aroun~ the outside of the dumpster. gas pumps through a prcf~ere~ condition and tha~ the applisant normal development of the property and the applicant feels this u~e i~ very compatible with th~ area. Ke ~tatsd that the lO and that the applicant will attempt to gat as many people as approximately gO p~r~ons in s~ppcrt of the request who were presen~ at the meeting. Mr, Joseph Hump~ries, Vice C~airman of Fellowship of Deacon~ at Scutkside Baptist Chu:oh, etatad that they arc supporting the transition of this property to the proposed request. Mr. John ~oward, stated that he is spearing on behalf of his moth,r, N~. Virqini~ Howard, and his family; =~a~ =~ey are the poise, lights, smells, etc. associated wit~ a high ~rcfi!~ traffic impac% on Cogbill Road if the property was an office 96-719 ~esidents and that he was happy to see the additional proffer submitted about ga~01in~ run-u£f. ~e entered into the record the request and a petition of aDproximat¢l~ 150 signatures in opposition to the regueet. He noted ~he signatures on the petition reside within four tenths of a mile of the site. Ms- Z~ry Howard Sargent, accompanied by her mother Es. Virginia concsro~ relative to additional traffic from Meadowbrook ~igh Schoel to the Surger King if the request is approved. She and expressed concerns about trash in the ditches in the area that the area has always been zoned commercial in this imm%ediately area and expressedconcerns about headlights into normal working hours and not a lot of peak ti~e traffic would ~e Mr. Tim Thacker, property owner directly adjacent to the proposed Burger Kingr ~tate~ that h= is the uniy property owner to abut two sides cf the property; that he ~upp~rt~ the proposed buildlnqs in the area; that children will be in the area regardless of wh~ther a ~urger King is proposed for the area er stated that apprevml of the request woul~ n~gatively impaot her prevent a bar or similar establishment if thi~ property rezoned, but the plans for the gas station, ~tc. ~o hot pa~. She furthe~ Stated that the proposed request would have negative impact on her personal rights amd the rights of her tonight are coming from the Church amd are not immediate area to deny the request as the development would practically be in ~ir. J.R. Dike, stated that he resides appro~imatoly $/4 of a mile fro~ the prapo~ed s~te; that he feels Route 10 has ample commercial development; and that he feels the proposed request would improve ~he appearance of the neighborhood. of the current 7-Eleven and ~aet coast station in the proposed tho proposed development will run in=u ~eadowduls Apartments and 96-726 Mr. Farris stated that in regards to th~ ac~g~ to ~ea~owbrook High SChool, the applican~ ia ~eq~ired by the proffers to add'a turn lane and dedicate right-of-way. ~e further stated that the access on Cogbill Road is required to line with Howell Drive; and that any Vehicles leaving this property, will. come out at the same point as ~owell Drive, which will alleviate a lot of concerns about he&dli~hts shining into people'z homes. stated sewer access to this property is on the Route 10 side, therefore, no sewage will be directed back toward~ Mead~wbrook or Neadowdale Lake. Mrs. Humphrey stated that the County e~¢0~rages rei~vest~ent in older communities, however, the business community and geverr~ent should hc cognizant of the fa~t that older residents are being affected. She expressmd concer~s about headlight When asked, Mr. Fsrris state, that the applicant is p~op0sing to con.tract a six to ~ight foot =olid f~n~e along t~he entire eastern property line, He furthe~ stated the applicant willing to work with Ms. Howard and the County in wher~ to place as it retutes to ~e design and location of the issues deaking wi~ fast food remta~rants and children; ~uspending the rul~ to accept the proffered condition relating to the solid bo~rd fence; to the overwhelming ~Upport of th~ r~est by ciCizen~ thi~ eveninq when the Planning ~o~ission p~%ition were signatures from immediate area residents; ~he c-3 on thi~ property; the possibility of =llminating some of the C-3 vehicles tr~pg per day7 addremming ~hm drainage prublem~ on the ~en a~ked, Nr. Jacobsen stated ~hat the concerns.of staff and the Planning Commission is that this site, in thig lecation, adjacent to a residential neighborhood. H~ further stated that another concern is about the transition of this ~articular mitiga~ the impact this use has on adjacent developments. mtated that th~ proposed reqummt does not conform with th~ curr~n~ ~lan or the proposed ~.a~ for thi~ area. ~en asked, Mr. Farris stated that the applicant would proffer Vo~e: Unanimous 96-721 F~T. Minmks stated that suspension of the rules is an issue that deal~ with the timing of a proffer muds before the meeting begins, but at some time after the ease is advertised. He further stated t~at in thi~ cane, the proffer relating to the applicant proffering out all uses other than Fast Food, Gas net made before the start of the meeting. He stated that Stat~ law require~ that prsffer be made befsre the Dublic hearing begins in order for the Board to a~cept it. M~, Daniel stated that the applicant must submit the n~w proffer Vo%m: Unanimous on ~utisn of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board suspende~ its r~les at this tima to allow for all previously advertised and scheduled items for the December 11, 1996 Board of Supervisors meeting to be re~eheduled ~o December 1~ Vote: Unanimous adjourned at 10:45 p.~. until Daee~be~ 18~ 1996 at 2:00 p.m. 96-722