Loading...
07-26-1995 MinutesJuly 26, 1995 Mr. Arthur $. Warren, vice chrm. Mr. Edward B. Barber ~r. Harry G. Daniel Coordinator, Youth Dir., Accounting Mr. craig Bryant~ Dir., Utilities Ms. Doris ~. DeHart, Asst. Co. Admin., Legis. Svc~. and Int~rgovern. A~fairs Hr. William D. DuDle~, Jr., Fire Department PL~. Michael Gulden, Dir., Parks and Recreation Mr. Bradford S. Hammer, D~puty Co. Admln., County Ombudsman Mr. Thomas B. Jacobsen, Deputy Co. Admtn., Dir.~ Transportation ~r- ~ichar4 ~. ~¢Dlfish, Dir.~ Env. Engineering Mr. Steven L. Hicag~ County Attorney Dir., Public Affairs ~r, Yran¢im M, Pitaro, cel. J. E. Pittman, Jr., Mm. Theresa M. Pit~s, ~s. ~arah Smead, Dir., Mr. James J. L. Stegmaier, Dir., Budget & Management Mr. M. D. mtith, Jr., Deputy Co. Admin., community Development Mr. Lewis Wendell, Dir. CDBG 0ffice Mr. Mc~ale called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at 3:00 ~.m. and nctud Mr. Warren would he arriving late to the meeting. approved the minutes of ~un~r 2~, 1995, as submitted. Absent: Mr. Warren. O~ motion of ~ir. ~arber, seconded by Dr. Richolas, the Board approved the minutes of June 28, 1995, as submitted~ Absent: Mr. Warren. 2. ~OUNTY ~HINISTRATOR'S COUNTS Mr. Ramsay introduced Ms. Lynne Cooper, Chairperson of the Chesterfield/colonial Heights social Services Board, to introduce the new Director for the Department of Social Services. Ms. Cooper briefly reviewed the process utilized in hiring the new Directer and introduced Sarah Snead, the ne~ Di~eeto~ for the oepartmen~ of social services, she briefly reviewed MS. Snead's education ~nd qUalifications. M~. Snead expressed appreciation for the opportunity to work with the Chesterfield/Colonial Heights social Services staff, as well as County e/nployees~ and stated she looks forward to meeting future challenges of the Department. Mr. Ramsay then introduced Ms. ~ary C. Payne, Executive Director of the Capital A~ea Aqency on Aging, to present the Agency's Plan £or Aging Services for fiscal years 1996-1999. MS, Payn~ stated ~e Capital ~ea A~ency on Aging (C~) is a private no~-profit organization that develops and implements needed Drograms .for the elderly Dopula%ion and noted the elderly adult population is steadily increasing. She further Chesterfield County. She ~tated many requests have been organization will begin requu~ting fees for ho~e services. considered which would eliminate some of the funding for various C~ pro~ra~s, she briefly reviewed the Agency's Pla~, expressed concernm r%Iativ~ to the lack of funding fur transportation n~mds of the elderly, an~ ~nco~aged ~e Board to refer elderly con~titu~nt~ or their f~milies to Capital Area Agency on Aging fur Services. Mr. Ramsay introduced ~r. Joseph K. Avermano, Director of the Co~unity Planninq and D~veloD~ent Division for the Department of ~ousiug ~nd Urban D~velopmen~ (HUD), to brief the Board on H~'s recently announced National Homeown~r~hip ~trategy and the Co~nity ~evelopment Block Gran~ and 95-438 7/26/9~ ~ Avar~ano stated the County received approximately milllon ~rom mD last year and will be receiving approximately $1.8 million this year which will include, for the first time, HOME Program funds and that County usaa these funds for affordable housing and economic Subco~itte~ has votsd to cu~ hq3D's budget by $6.4 billion nex~ year. He expreaae~ concern~ relative to the negative for reform, but not a need for elimination cf the HUD and if the budget out takes place, the burden and ~esDonsibilitias of funding programs wilt be shifted to states and localities. ~e further stated ~ignifioan% downsizing and streamlining of HUD is anticipated including reduction of the current wsrkfore~ £~om l~,OOO employees to in achieving its community development housinq objectives. ~o Warren arr~ved at the the certificate o~ Achievement Io~ ~x¢~ll~nce in Financial the United $~ates and Canada (GFOA) for the June 3~, 1994 Comprehensive Annual Pinancisl Report (CAFR}~ Wa further ~tated this aohiev~ent is the hi,heat form of recognition in Dep~rtment has received this Award. work e~ the Accounting Department and various staff thrsughout the County, She expressed appreciation for the recognition and the support of the Board in eateblishin~ sound financial policies for the County. in making this Award possibl~. There were no Board Committee Reports at ~his time. REOUESTB TO POSTPONE ACTION. EMERGENCY ~%DDITION~. OR 0~S ~N ~ ORDER OF PRESENTATION On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, the Board replaced Item 8.C.7., Award of Contract to Williams SDrin~ler Company, Incorporated for Fi~e Suppression System Inet=llati©n ~t Eppington House, Authorization for County Administrator to =recurs Grant Agreement and Deed of ~a~em~nt, and Transfer cf Funds from Reserve for C~pital Prejeotm; moved Item 15.A.~ Resolution Recognizing Mr. Benjamin K. Armstrong for 5sing the Recipient of the Richmend Tines-Dispatch Metropolitan Richmond Sports Backers ~ale Scholar-Athlete Award to follow Item ~.C.~ Resolution Recognizing ~r. William F. Shewalter, Police Department; moved Item l~.F.l., Resolution Recognizing Mr. Matthew B. Brinoefield~ Troop $69~ Upon Attaining Rank cf Eagle ScoUt, undsr consent, to fellow Item 8.C.l.b., Resolution R~cogni~ing Mr. Jam~s L. Mucklin, General Services Investigate Environmental Impact of Renewed Quarrying Operations at Vulcan Quarry to £olluw Item 15.H., Resolution for Their Outstanding Representation of Chesterfield County Vote: Unanimous 5. ~E$OLUTIONS ~--ND SPEOIAL REOG~NITIOES Mr. Dupler introduced Mrs. Lilly M. Boggs who wa~ present to receive tbs resolution. On motion of t~e Board, tke following resolution was WHEREAS, Mrs. Lilly ~. Boggs will retire on August 1, ~995, after providing over twenty-six years of dedicated and $~ith£ul servic~ to Chesterfield County; WHEREAS~ ~rs. Bog~s began hsr service on February 1969, as a clerk typist in a four p~rson Building Inspection Department; and WHEREAS, Mrs. B0ggs has held various positions within th~ Departm~nt~ such as Office ~a~ger, Customer ~rvice Supervisor~ and Administrative officer for a Department of sixty staff members; and Inspection, as many or~anlzational and technolo~lcal ~R~AS, the Department of Building Inspection has relied on Mrs. sogqs' knowledge and consistent ability to mH~t the ne~ds of the public and fellow emDloyees; and ~EREAS, Mrs. Boggs disDlayed a oari~g attitude toward k~r fellow employ=es and d~monstrated her dedication to County by being a team player in assisting others when possible~ and department coordinator and p~r~onally ~pported individual themselves in cri~i~ ~ituati~n~ ~EREAS, Mrs. BO~S ha~ b%en recognized, through meri~orlous servic~ incremmnt r~commendatlon in 1975, by thm Building official (~. Dave Clear) and A~i~tant Administrator (~r. Jef~ra~ Mu~y), at that time, and Employee-of-the-Year for the Building Inspection in 19~9. County Bour~ of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mrs. Lilly M. Boggs and extends their appreciation for over twenty-~ix congratulations upon her retirement, and their b~s% wlsh~s ~or a long and haDpy life. 95-440 A~D, B~ IT F0~THER EESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mrs. Bog~s and that thi~ Board cT Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Mr. McHale presented the executed resolution and Jefferson Cup to Mrs. Boggs, accompanied by members of her family, expressed appreciation fo~ her dedicated service to the County, and wished her well in her retirement. ~rs. Bo~s expressed appreciation for the recognition and ~tated it ha~ bee~ ~ pleasure to work for Chesterfield County. chief ~i~mmn introduced sergeant Jo~n w. Layna who was pre~ent to receive the re~olution. On motion of th~ Board, the following resolution was adopted: chesterfield County Police Department on July ~1, 19~5~ and WH=R~AS, Sergeant Layne ham provided over thirty years of q~ality service to the citizen~ ~f Chusturfield County~ W~EREA$, Sergeant Layne has faithfully ~erved the County in the capacity of ~atrol Officer and Sergeant; and safety of the community by over~aeing the training and operation~ of the Police Canine Unit; and WEEREA$, Sergeant Layne has provided the Chesterfield County Police Department with many yea~s of loyal and dedicated service; WK~$, chesterfield county and Supervisors will miss Sergeant Leyn='s diligent ~ervic~. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield Ce~ty ~o~ of Supervisors publicly recognizes scrgcan~ John W. Lay,s a~d e~tends, om behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfiel~ County, their appreciation for h~ service to the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy ~f this resolution be presented ~ Sergeant Layne and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papern of this Eoard of supervisors of C~este~field Ceunty. vote: Unanimous ~Ir. McHale ~re=en=ed the aMecuted resolution smd Jefferson Cup to sergeant Layne, accompanied by his wits, expressed ap~reclation for hi~ dedioated service to the Coumty~ and wished him well in his retirement. Sergeant Layn~ e~pr~ss~d appreciation for the support of Chief Pit,man and stated it has been a great oppurtunit~ to work for the County. 7/26/95 Chief Pittman introduced Hr- William Y. Skowalter who was On ms=ion of the Board, the following resolution was adoDteH~ W~EREAS, Mr. Showalter has served the County with Detective; and ~-HERBAS, Mr. Showalter has significantly imDa¢=e~ ~e safe~y of the community by arresting numerous criminals in his role as bete~tive; and County Board cf Supervisors ~ubl~s recogniz~ Mr. Willia~ ?. citizens of Chest~r~iel~ County, their appreciation for his resolution be presented to Mr. Showaltsr and that this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield Connty_ stated he will mi~ ~orking leu the County. 5~B. ~ECO~NI~IN~ MR. BENJAMIN ~. ;~AMeTRONG FOR BEIN~ T~ R~CI~I~NT OF ?~E ~99~ ~ICH~OND TIMB~-DIZP~TCH ATHLETE AW~RD Mr. ~errotte introduced Mr. Benjamin K. Armstrsng whs was present t~ reseive the On ~otion o~ the Board, t~c following resolution wac WHeReAS, Benjamin K. (Ben) Arm~tronq, a 1995 q~aduate of Thomas Dale High School, ha~ r~eeived ~he Richmond Times- Dispatch Metropolitan Rioh~ond Spert~ Backers Scholar-Athlete Award; and W~REAS, B~n has excelled in athletics and received numerous school, dis=riot, region, met~o a~d utat~ awards and honors in soccer, basketball, football, and tennis, including The Thomas D~le Athlete of ~he Year Award; the Beys Basketball Co~ches Award; the Buys Soccer Most Outstanding 7/26/95 Award, and Wendy's High School Keismen Regional Award to name a few; and ~AS, B~n is & three-year letterman in football and se=car and ~wo-year letterman in basketball; and W~EREA$, Ben also participated in extracurricular activities, having s~rv~d a~ prem~eDt of the Key Club, a member of the Symphonic, Jazz and Concert Bands, e member of ~he French Club, and was active in the Parent, Teacher, Student Association, and other clubs and organizations; and WKEREAS, Ben did all thi~ while maintaining a grade Doln~ average that resulted in membership ~n the National W/~EREAS, Ban sets un example as a superior scholar and athi~t~ ~hat oth~r young p~opla should strive to follow and is the type of ~tudent of which Chesterfield County ~nd its residents are most proud. NOW, T~REEOR~ ~= IT R~$OLPED~ that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes and congratulates ~r. Benjnmin K. Armstrong upon receipt of the Richmond Times-Dispatch ~etropolitan Richmond Sports B~ckers scholar-Athlete Award and extends their best wishes for his continued success at ~andelph Macon college and in t~e yearm Armstrong, accompanied by me~e~e of his family, congratulated him on his outstanding achiev~ment~ and for r~ceiving the 199~ Richmond Times-Dispatch ~mtropolitan Richmond Sports Backers Male Scholar-Athl~t~ A~a~d, and wished him ~uccmss in his future ~ndeavcr~. ~. A~=rong expressed appreciation for ~he recognition and for the support of his family, tea=hers, and coaches. TO T~E BO~D OF ~UPERVISCRS ~ir. Ha~mer introduced Ms. Theresa M. ~itts who was present to receive the resolution. On motion of the Boar~, the following ~esnlut~nn wan ~dopted: WHEREAS, the Off,ce of the Clark to the Board of Supervisors provides quality ~upport and timely a~ist~nc~ to %he Board Of Supervisors through secretariat and records ~aDage~ent funations, as th~ Board a~dress~5 the ¢oncern~ of county citizens; and WHEREAS, ~s, Theresa M. Pitts has diligently and faithfully served the County for approximately ten years, while serving as clerk to the Board cf supervisors since January, 199~; and WBE~EAS, ~s, Pitts has served the Board of supervisors i~ t~e capacity of Assistant Deputy Clerk, Deputy Clerk, and Clerk; and WHEREAS, Ms. Pitts has effectively worked with elected representatiYem, official~ from ~urrounding localities, workers, and mo~t importantly, the citizens of County; and 95-443 ?/2~/95 WHEREAS, Kso Pitts will end her service ss Clerk to Board of Supervisors to accept the pomition of Administrator in the Department of General Services on July 31, 1995; and employee who has performed her duties to tho highest of professionalism; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors will miss Ms. Pitts dedicated and loyal service_ Now, THEREFORE BE 1T RESOLVED, that th~ Chesterfield County Board. of ~upervisorm publicly recognizes ~e- N. Pitts for her dedicated service to the Board of Supervisors and extends their De~t wi~h~m in her new position as Records Administrator in the Department of General Services. AND, BE IT FURTEER R~$OLVED, ~hat a ~opy of remolution be presented to Ms. Pitts and that this resolution be permanently recorded among ~he papers of :his Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, virginia. Vot~: Unanimous Mr. McHale presented the executed resolution to Ns. Pitts, the Board~ and wished her well in her new position as ~ecords Administrator. Ms. Pitts expr~mmed appreciation for the resoqnitlen end for the opportunity to mmrve as Clerk ~o bh~ Boar~ of Supervisors. She stated serving as Clerk has been a rewarding experience and e~pressed appreciation to the Board and County staff for t~oir euppo~t~ There were no Nork ~msion~ mch~duled. 7. D~FERRED ITEMS ST~WID~ BUILDIN~ CODE DEFICIENCY ~r- Dupler stated consideration of chan~ing tho County enforcement policy directing the Building Official to issue notice~ o~ violation immediately upon finding a uniform Storewide Building Code deficiency was deferred from the Jun~ 2~, 199~ Board meeting, at which tim~ the ~card staff to present a report on the Cc~nty'~ ~nfercemont violations of the Uniform storewide Building cede. reviewed tho process of Code enforcement, focusing un tko Building Code, the ~uilding ~aintenance Code, and the Fire Prevention Code. He t~en Feviewed =nforcem~nt uf tho Building Code including the process used w~en a violation is discovered while constFustio~ is in progress and when violation is discovered after a homeowner ~as occupied the homo within the statute Of limitations. There was brief di~eu~ion ~elative to the County having two years to pro~ooUte a builder ii a notice of violation has not been complied with. Mr. Barber gtat~d issuing notieeg of vislatisn and pursuing legal prosecution are two separate issues and he i~ unaware of the Cod~ acknowledging the statute of limitations as it pertains to issuing s notice of violation. Mr. Micas stated the statute of limitations is 5 restriction i~eming the notice of Violation is the first ~tep in the Court process. ~r. Barber stated his interpretation is that a notice of violation, in itself, does not initiate court action a~d the County Attorney's Office is responsible for determining whether court action i~ necessary after they receive a copy of a notice cf violation. He further stated the statute of limitations has no relevance as to whether or not a notice of violation is ie~ue~. Mr. Micas stated a notice of violation is a peduliar instrument to the Building Code that proceeds the summons and is a necessary ~tep ts pursuing enforcement action. Mr. ~arber restated the statute of limitations is not a determining factor in whether or not a notice o~ violation is i~ued and that the ~otice of violation doe~ not b~gi~ court action. Dr. Nicholas stated he concurs wi~h the interpretation of Mr. Barber. Mr. Micas ~tated because a notice of violation in the initial ~tep in any judicial proceeding, it has ~s be determined %~hether that judicial proceeding is meaningful or meaningless, which is the connection between t~e notice of violation and the summons. Mr. Dupl~r r~viewed the process used when a violation is discovered after the status of limitations has expired and stated the County's Code enforcement i~ consistent with state guidelines and instructions received through the Virginia Building Code Training Academy. Ke further stated ke has received letters from Ms. Roxanna G, Rickman, Program Manage~ for the State's Department of ~ousing and community Development, reqarding the %raining program provided by the State for all building officials and ~rom ~r. Paul ~ailstedt, P.E., chief Executive Officer for Building officials and Cod~ Administrators (~QCA) International, Incorporated, regarding application of administrative regulations. WheD aske~, he stated the Building inspection Department i~ 100 percent in compliance with the decision of the State Technical Review Board regarding issuance of notice of violation. Fr. Barber ~tated the l~tte~ f~om BOCA relates to the administrative portion of the BOCA National Code and is irrelevant at this time us the Stat~ has not adopted the administrative portion of that Code as part of Lhe State Code_ He further stated the State writes its administrative provisions and the State T~¢hnical Review Board is the ~nly body empowered to interpret thome provisions_ Mr. Dupler stated the letters demonstrate the training and direction received by County building i~s~ectors. ~r. Rankly ~tated it is staff's understanding that the State Technical R~vlew Board has mad~ a decision iD an individual case and they are unaware of the Board's policy ruling declaring that notices of violation would be i~sued initially. He further stated the Technical Review Board is currently giving consideration to that question and will make 95-445 7/26/95 a ruling in August, 1995 and that everything the Technical Review Beard has done to this point has been based on decision they ~ade in an individual relating to the State ruling regarding notices of viola:ion. There wac brief discu~io~ ~elative to the clarificatio~ of the State's ruling regarding the insuance of noticem of violation. Mr. Dupler stated statistics show the Building Inspection reviewed a ~urvay of other jurisdictions throughout Virginia, noting 86 percent of the jurledic=ions use the adminis=ratlve p~oc~ss prior to issuing no,ices of violation. He reviewed the recommendations Of s~a~f including ~.1., ad/~iniefrative enforcement efforts by the Building Official fail to a~hieve code compliance or the b=ilder refuses to fha violation, the Building official will service a No~ics of violation by the ~uilding ossioiai; Z.2., ~rior to normal practica, a Nutice of Vlclatlen will be served as pending a decision by the St~e Technical Review Board on the questions raised by the Virginia Building and Code officials Association (V~COA}; and E.3., Renew County efforts to amend Change ~he statute of limitations to discover a Building Code certificate of occupancy is issue4 ~u~ b~ Allow u~e of penalties ~cr Building Co~e vlela%ions in =he amoun~ of the cost of repair in addition to e~isting crimlnal penalties. ~uil~ing Coda enforcement ~ract~cee in e=her Virginia jurisdictions and stated the processes used by Hanover and Prina~ William Coun=ie~ and t~e city of Ric~mon~ are disadvantages of the County using the same practice used by Hanover and Prince William Counties and the City of Richmond. When asked, Kr. Dupler sta~ed it is his understanding ~hat a notice of ~iolation ~ust be issued, however, did net remedies thut could be taken before a notice of violation was issued. When asked, ho stated once a violation is corrected, that they want the statute of limitation~ changed a~ it place and who has ce~t~itted the violation. Mr. Dupler stated symptom appears in a home whi~h, after an investigation, ia 7/26/95 Mr. BarBer requested the Board to consider each of staff's reco~endation~ individually. Mr. NcHale clarified that when the building inspector discovers a violation he records the violation in the appropriate document and then the document becomes a matter of public record. He stated the ihspeeto~ then issues an ad/~inistrative letter of violation to the person for the repairs, which is also a matter of public re~ord and once staff administratively notifies the responsible person W~e~ asked, M~. D~pler stated without a notice of violation, homeowners san still pursue other legal avenues by submitting letters from the Building official to the Board of Dr. Nicholas stated he feels issuing a notice of violation immediately and issuing an administratlv~ letter with notice of violation carry the same legal ra~ification~ and and will be corrected quicker if handled through tho the builder. He further stated staff feels the ho~eo%~n~r and if the builder does not respond, the County is very successful in taking the case through the court ~yet~m. the violation will most li~ely be han~le~ more quickly. He UniSorm S~atewide ~uilding Code relating to notices of Review Board regarding the issuance of notices of violation; a copy of the form sent to individuals to correct zoning violation~ used by th~ C~uDty's Planning Department; a summary of information regarding the numDer of complaints r~ceive~, tb~ Dumber cf complaints closed, the number of number of day~ =o verify a zoning violation, and th~ ay=rage number of days to close a zoning violation for FYg&-95 by the suilding official being responsible in enforcing the building is complete. ~epartment in issuing a notice of zoning violation including the owner being sent an administrative paper outlining the violation and the owner being given ten days to correct violation and if the violation is net corrected after ten additional time~ staff allowing extensions of ten to twenty days to correct the problem. He further stated if after thirty days the violation is not corrected or the owners are 95-~7 7/26/95 not showing a willingness to cooperate, staff then issues a Mr. Barber stated the process used by the Planning Department is very effective and he feels the same procedure shculd be considered to be used by the Building Inspection Department. He further stated 94.t p~rcent of complaints have bomn clom~d by Plenning staff following this procedure. When asked! Mr. Jacobsen stated there is no document for Building Code violations outlined in =he Code of virginia ~i~ila~ to thm one currently being used by the Planning Mr. ~cMale clarified that there is a specific requirement under the Building Code for a notice to ~e issued and the document being used by the Planning Department is net defined in the Code of virginia and does not have the same affect, with r~spect to the force of law. Me indicated =his Planning Department document is not forwarded to the County Attorney's ~r. Barber atate~ hs concurs that the ~uildlng Inspection Department obtains their empowsr~eut f~om th~ State Code add .the Planning Departmen~ obtains their empowerment from the similar. He farther stated he ~oee not understand why the received by the Planning Department r~sulted in compliance administratively. There was brief discussion relative to the 94.1 percent complians~ and th~ Planning D~part~e~t~n proces~ being a different enforcement procenn than that of tho Buildln~ in ~taff's recommendation number E.i., from "I~ administrative enforcement efforts by the Building official fail to achieve Code compliance or the builder refuses to m~ke ~ written commitment to the Building Official to repair the violation, the Building Official will serve a Notice of Violation no lator than thirty (~0) day~ after dotormination Of a violation by the Building Official" to "The Building Official will ~or~e a ~otice of Violation im~ediatoly aftor determination of a violation by the Build,hq Offlc~at." Dr. Nicholas ~ecnnded the motion. quality service to its constituents, specifically, as it relates to thi~ particular proces~ and he does not feel that followed through. He furthe~ stated he feels the procedures currently in place are fully protective of the citizens without the initiation of paperwork and ~rooesses and noted 69 percent of eases achieve Code compliance. He stated he feels good management, both in the private end public sector, does not warrant the County to initiate actionn that will not be followed through on end the ~otion initiates additional change to staff's recommendation. Dr. Nicholas indicated he feels 89 percent Cod~ complienc= is not what tho County should strive for and that he is more impressed with the Planning Department,s 94.1 percent compliance. 7/16/9~ ~r. Mc~ale orated ha ia not satisfied with anything less than 100 percent compliance, howeverr 89 percent of in~ivlduals softest the prohle~ without further discussion with the Building Official. We further stated he foals adminiotratlve and legal attention should foo~s On the 11 percent that do not comply and the County should not burden the ~9 percent of those person~ willing to comply or County staff with unnecessary paperwork and the focus should be on the results and not perceptfon, Fir_ Daniel stated he concurs with the comments expressed by ~r. McHale and ¢onaldering tho information presented! ha feels the County should be focusing its attention on achieving co~plianso with the remaining 11 percent. When asked, Mr. Micas sta~ed the state Technical Review Board's decision r~garding notices of violation after expiration of ~he statute of limitations is schsduled far August I~, 1995. see how citizens will benefit from this change and the majority of violations will be handled at the first ~. Barber stated th= paperwork being discussed is currently initiated to some level amd under the Cc~e, th~ violation does not have to bo referred to the County Attorney's Office unless there ia no prompt compliance, therefore, there will nob be additional paperwork. He further stated his inter~t in this change is to better s~rvo tho citizens of Chesterfield County. ~r. Ramsay clarified th~ language eha~g~ On the motion made by Mr. Earb~r. ~r. Barber clarified that the notice o~ violation does not initiate anything beyond th~ notice and the notice itself does not initiate oourt proceedings. He further stated court proceedings are initiated wh~ persons ~e not comply and the administrative ~rccess will not substantially change except that the first notice received would be the notic~ of violation. There was brief discussion relative to the current proscan used by the County Attorney's office when a notice of the County Attorney's O~ics if the motion is supported. ~r, Ramsay stated it i~ his understanding that th~ intent and suggested the language r~ad "If a~ministrat~v~ enforcement efforts by the Building ofiicial fail to achieve co~itm~nt to th~ Building Official to repair %he violation, the ~uilding official will ~erve a notice ~f ~iolatlon i~ediately after determination of the violation of the Building Official. If enforcement ~fforts by the Buildln9 official fail to achieve Code compliance or the to repair the violation, tho County Attorney will then seek 14B,000 building permits issued in Chesterfield, only Mr. ~cHale called for the vote ~n the motion ~de by ~L~. language in mtaft~s recommendation number E.i., fro~ "If administrative en£orcament efforts by th~ Building official fail to achieve Code compliance or the builder refuse~ to make a written commitmsnt to the Building O~ficial to repair the violation, the Building Official will serve a Notice of Violation no later than thirty (30) days after determination of u violation by the Building Official" to "The Building official will serve a Notice of Violation i~mediately after determination of a violation by the Building official." Ayes: Mr. Warren~ Mr. Barber, and Dr. Nicholas. Nays: ~r. MeHale and Mr. Daniel. It was generally agreed to recess for five minutes. Reaonvening: There wa~ brief discussion relative to when the County Attorn~y'~ Office will new rcque$~ ~ summons. ~r, ~rber ~tated the Code does not man,ate a timeframe for that the County Attorney request a summons, and dues nut mandate that each notice of violation be sent to the County Attorney's o~fioe. Mr. McHale ma~e a motion, seson4sd ~y Dr. Nicholas, for the Board to approve staff's recommendation number E.2., "Prior to the e~piraticn of the statute of limitations, in accordance with normal practice, a Notice of Violation will be served as provldmd by Item 1. The appeal to the Virginia Court of Appeals to determine whether notices of violation mus~ ~e sent after the statute of limitations has run, will continu~ pending e decision by the Sta~e Technical Review Board on the question raised by the VBCOA." Mr. Barber stated he underst~nd~ the willingness of the Board to wait on the decision of the State Technical Review Board on August 18. Ha further stated the Code makes ne reference to statute of limitations either during or after i~suance of a notice of violation. Mr. McHals called for the vote on the me,ion ~ade by him, seconded by Or. Nicholas, for the Board to approv~ ~taff's recommendation number E.2., "Prier to the ek'piration of the statute of limitations, in accordance with normal p~aotie~, a Notice of Violation will be ~erved a~ provided by Ite~ 1- The appeal to the virginia Court of Appeals to determine whether notices cf violation n~st be sent after the statute of li~itatlon~ ha~ run, will continue pending a decision by the State Technical Review Board on the questien raised by the VBCOA." Vote: Unanimous 7/~6/95 On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, the approved staff's recommendation number E.3.~ "Renew County efforts to amend the State Code at the 1996 ~eneral a. Change the statute of limitations to discover a Building Code v~ol~tion from cna year ~o two year~, or~ for foundation-related violations, year to five years, after a certificate of occupancy i~ b. Allow use of civil penalties for Building Code violations in the amount of the cost of repair in addition to e×imti~g criminal penalties." Vote: Unanimous ~Lr. Warren stated he feolm it i~ appropriate for Mr. Ramsay tc report on ~taf~'s interpretation of the enforcement policy 7.B. ~ONSIDERATION OF REVIgIO~Z TO THE COUNTY CODE ~EI~MITTED Mr. Micas stated at the June 28~ 1995 meeting, the Board deci~e~ to advertis~ ordinance ohange~ that were required by discretionary changes to ~he County Co~. ~e further =ta~ed the Board can approve the paper as is if the Board approves the County Administrator's recommends=ica or can indi~Cate On motion of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board adopted ~he recommendations of the County Administrator regarding the optional changes made by the 1995 Virginia General Assembly Legislation. Veto: Unanimous (I~ i~ noted ~ha ~ubllc hearings will be advertised and held as staff determines appropriate and a copy of the complete li=t cf 1995 legislation adopted by the General A~embly i~ filed with th~ papers of thi~ Board-) ?,C. APPOIN~E~TB 7.C.X. JOHN TYLER COMMUNITY COLLEGE LOCAL BOARD On ~otion of Mr. MoHale, seconded by N~ Dani=t, th= Beard suspended i~ rules at this time to allow simultanmous nomin~tion/a~eintment of a m~mber to serve on the John Tyler Community College Local Board. Vote: Unanimous on motion of Mr. MeMal~, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, the Beard simultaneously nominated/appointed ~r. Wickliff~. Lyne, representing the County at-large, to serve on the John Tyler Community College Local Board, whose term is effective immediately an~ will expire June 30, 1999. 95-4fil 7/26/95 On motioD of MY- Mc~ale, ~econdad by Mr. Warren~ the Board Mills Court, in the cul-de-sac, iu the a~oun[ of $601.5~ in Bermuda Hagisterial District, with arid fund~ being expen~a~ from the Barmuda Di~trlct Streetlight Fund. And~ further~ the ~oard denied ~ strestlight installation cost approval for ~7 Kristen Lan~, in Bermuda Magisterial District. Vote: unanimous 8.A. ~PPOINTMENTS S.A.1. ASSISTANT FIRE MARSHAL On notion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, th~ Board suspended its rules at this time to allow simultaneous nomination/appointment of the Assistant Fire ~arshal. Vote: Unanimous On motion cf Mr. Barber, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, the Board~ pursuant to Saction ~7-35 of the Code eS Virginia, simultaneously nominated/appointed Lieutenant Robert E. Lukhar~ as Assistant Fire ~ar=hsl. On motion of ~r. Barber, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, the Board suspended its rules at this time to allow simultaneous nomination/appointment of members to serve on the Chesterfield Emergency Planning Committee. Vote: Unanimous O~ ~otion of Hr. ~oHal~, ~sco~ded by ~r. Barber, the Board simultaneously nominated for appointment Mr. Samuel A. Nixon Jr.; captain Robert C. French; and ~$. Beverley Hudgins to serve on the Chesterfield Emexgency Planning Co~ittee, who will be appointed, on behal~ of the Governor. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Mo~ale, ~c~nded by Mr. Warren, th~ ~oard suspended its rules at this tiaa to allow si~ultaneous nomination/appointment of members to serve en the Drug and on motion o~ Mr. McHale, seconded by Hr. Daniel, the ~oard ~imultanaoualy nominated/~ppe£~te~ Ms, Dabble Davis ~nd Ms, Lauren Cummlngs~ representing =he Count~ at-large, tm serve on th~ Drug and Alcohol Abuse Task Force, whose terms are effectlva ~l~ediatsly and ~±11 b~ at the plsasL%~e of the Board. Vote: Unanimous 95-45l 7/~/9~ suspended it~ rules at this time to allow simultaneous nom£nation/a~Dointment of Clerk to the Board of Suparvimors. simultaneously nominatedfappointed ~s. Faith L. Davis to offeotive immediately and will ~e at %he pleasure of the Vote: unanimous on mo=ion of Hr. Daniel, secsn~ed by Dr. Nichslas~ the BOa~ approved the following streetlight in~talla%i©n cost approvals, wi=h said ~unds being e~pended from the designated streetlight fund: Drive Cost to in~tall light: $2,879.77 ~im Orive, vicinity cf 30~1 Cost to install light: $1,21~.48 Co~t to install light: $1,313.09 · Vo~e: Unanimoum Co~t to install light: $1,&24.03 Monza Drive, vicinity ef 4030 Cast to install light: $5,198.73 Falstone Road~ vicinity of 4010 COS~ ts install l~ght: 54,~55.54 Burn~am Rsad, vicinity of 48S6 Cost to install light; $3,160.48 Bonnie Bra~ Road, vicinity of Dost to install light: $3,769.85 (It is noted all streetlight installation cost approvals for Dale Magisterial District were approved due safety, and welfare concerns.) ~A$, ×ear Ad~iral K~ith ~- Lip~rt has ~rved an primary field activity of the Dsfense Logi~tic~ Agency ~ince employer by recaivinq the pre~tigiou~ Ccm~ander-In-Chlef'~ Award for Installation ~xcellenco, the Department of Defense Value Engineering Achievement Award for Outstanding Fisl~ command, and being recognized as a ~inalist in the secretary senate Productivity and Quality Award Pr0gr~m; and initiatives within the workforce by chartering nu~rous employee process actiQn teams, increasing the smplcyee plan and personally conducting DGSC~s first town hall meeting; and ek~panding its role to include support of the Chesterfield mots than S5 hours per week wurkin9 with students et W~=R=A$, Rear Admiral Lippert has been active in Fedsral Campaign and active in oenu~unity affairs including ~paaking ~ngagements with %he Rotary club, chesterfield other organizations; and ~aval Avla%ion Supply office and ships Parks Control Cen~er ~n Pennsylvania. County Board o~ Supervisors ~ublicly recognizes ~e Vote: On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by ~Lr. ~arren, the Board adeptsd the fcllowin~ re,elation: WHEREAS, Mr. Ja~es L. Macklin will leave Chesterfield County government on Juue SO, 1995; and 7126/95 ~H~R~A$, ~r, ~acklin began bis public service with the County om July 5, 1974 as a M~chanlc'~ ~elper in the old county Garage; and WEEREAS, Mr. Macklin, as the "Dean" of the County Garage team has helped many different mechanics, supervisors, and managers me the team l~ad~r Of the lubrication &hd tire fleet of vehleles has more than tripled in size; and WHEREAS, Mr. ~cklin was recognized to hans unique ~kills to the degree that h~ was seieo~ed ~o be the first WHEREA~, Mr. Macklin is recognized by his fellow team ~upportive, and efficient worker and an ~xtremely ~liable employee; and ~EREAS, Mr. ~acklin's dedication, loyalty, and total involvement in his job has been of such magnitude it has brought credit not only upon himself but ~ the Garage team and to Chesterfield County as well. NOW, TMEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED~ that the Chesterfield Macklln and ~Mtends their appreciation fu~ his twenty-one w~shes in his future endeavors. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of thi~ ~e~olution be permanently r~e~ded among the papers of this Board of Supmrvisors cf Chesterfield County, virginia. 8.O.l.O. }IR. W-%TTHEW B. BRTNCEFIELD. T_R__O_O~ ~9 On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, ~h% Board adopted the resolution: WHEREAS, ~he ~oy $cou=s cf America was incorporated Dy Mr. William D. Boyce on F~bruary $, 19~0; and WHEREAS, the Boy Scout~ of A~erioa was founded to promet~ c~tiz~n~hip training~ personal development, and fitness of ~ndividual~; and WH~3%S, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety ef ~ieldz, s~rving in a leadership pe~ition in o troop, carrying OUt a service project beneficial to his community, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and living up to the Scout O~th and Law; and WHEREAS, Mr. Matthew B. Brincefield, Troou 869, ~pon~or~d by Salisbury Rresbyterian C~urek, has a~complished tho~ high ~tandards cf commitment and has reached the ~ong- som~ht goal of Eagle S~o~t which is received by less than two percent of those individuals entering the Hcouting movement; and 95-455 WHEREAS, growing threugh his eEperiences in Scouting, learning the lessons dC responsible citizenship, and priding himmelf on thm great acco~plisbr~ents of his County~ Matthew is indn~d a member of a new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be very proud. NOW, TKEFC~FORE B~ IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby e~tende its congratulation~ to Mr. Matt/~mw B. Brincefleld and acknowledges the ~sed fortune of tho County to have ~uc~ an 8.C.~. REQUEST FOR ,ADDITIONAL POSITIONS FO~ DETENTION On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the ~oard approved two additional Youth Supervisor positions for the Juvenile D~tention ~ome and appropriated $4~,~00 to cover salaries and benefits in FY96 for the positions. (It is no,ed the po$i~ion~ are antioip~ted to be f~nd~d for FY96 for 8.5 months at a cost of $42,225 for salories and benefits. · The funding source will come from any County overpayment the FY95 Health DSp&~t~e~t cooperative budget; Surplus Library FY95 revenues; and the virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Grant. If sufficient funds are ~ot available from these sources, the remaining funding will come from unanticipated FY95 property tax revenues. E~nditure5 for ~¥97 will be $~,61Z £or a full y~ar. Sources of funds are not identified presently.) Vote: Unanimous CHESTER POCKET PARK On ~etien of Mr. Barber, secondn~ by ~r. Warren~ the Board a~reved the allocation of $~,600 from the ~ermuda District Three cent Road Fund to the Parks and Reoreation Department to pay for development and site improvement costs for Chester Pocket Park. IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTIN~ PARK R~STROOMS authorized the County A~inlstrator to execute a ce~tr~ct with JRJ Building Contractors, Incorporated, in the a~ount o~ $146,049, for Americans with Disabilities Act/~aDdicapped Parking (ADA/~CP) improvements to existing park res~rooms. (It is noted funding is available in the County's ADA ~lan.) Vote: Unanimou~ 7/26/95 OF NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISC~R~ E~IMIN~TION On motion o~ Mr. Barber, seconds~ by Mr. Warren, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute a contract with CH2~/Hill, in an amount not to exceed $238,700, to provide ~onitsring and Dublio education service~ related to the implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination syztem (NPDES} Program and appropriated $55,500 for th~ implementation of t~e NPDES Program. (It is noted the additional expenditure= r~qu~ted will be funded either with unexDended funds or from additional property tax reven~e from FY95.) Vote: Unani~ou~ C~PITAL 9ROJECTS On motion of Mr~ sarber, ~eoonded by ~r. Warren, the Board awarded a contrast to Williams Fir~ Sprinkler Company, Incerporate~, in the amount of $111,531, fo~ fire suppression mystem installation at ~ppington House; authorias~ the County Administrator to enter into an agreement with t~e Stat~ Division of Historic ReSources tc accept Crest funds, i~ the amount of $50,00Q, ~o ~e allocated towards the Project; authorized the Chairman of th~ Board and County Ad~iniztrator to execute an ~istoric Preservation Easement on the house and capital Projects. Vote: Unanimous initiated an application tQ the Board of Zoning ADgeal~ requesting a Special E~eeption for Ms. Deborah Da~erel to operate a on~ chair beauty salon at 416 Kei~hwoed Court. COMMITTEE On ~o~ion o~ ~r. ~arber, seconded Dy Mr. Warren, the Board initiated an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, =o be obtained by the Magnolia Grange committee~ to install gutters at Magnolia Grange. at 10020 Ircnbridgs Roa~ and authorized the Director of t~e CoUnty Museum to act as agent for the application. Vote: Unanimous 95-457 7/26/95 EFFORT On notion of Mr. Darber~ seconded by Mr. Warren~ the Board authorized the appropriation of up ts $35,000 to retain an Economic Market Consultant to develop the economic market analysis and strategy for the upcoming eastern ~idlothian planning effort. (It is noted funding will come from unspent expenditures and surplus F¥96 Planning Department revenue~. If sufficient funds are not availabl~ from ~hese sources, the r~aining funding will come from unanticipated ~Y95 property tax revenmes. A copy of an area Map is filed with the papers of this Foard.) Vote; Unanimou~ ADMINISTRATION ORANT ~ND A~RO~RIATION OF FUNDS FOR ~IRBORT On motion of Mr. Barber, ~econded by ~r. Warren, the a~tho~ized the Count~ Administrator to accept the Pede~al Aviation Administration (FAA) grant and execute applicable contract with the federal goYernm~nt for expenditure of funds; autkorizmd the County Administrator to acquire and purchase aviation easement acquisition at the County Air~ort; and appropriated federal funds, in the amount of $195,08~, for the project. (It is noted approval of this federal grant supersedes th~ action taken on August 25, 1993; therefore, e×i~ting appreDriationm of State and local funds for this project will be reduced aGcordingly, Aisc, this action only reguire~ the appropriation in federal revenu~ State and County funds were previously appropriated on August 25~ 1993.) On motion of 5ir. Barber~ ~econded by ~r. ~arren, the Board set the date of August 23, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. for a publio hearing to authorize th~ County Administrator to a~c~pt a Vlrqinla Department of Aviation Grant for an airport improvement project and %o ~nter into a contract with the Commonwealth of V~rglnia for expenditure of maid fund~; to amendment number ten with Delta Airport Consultants for desiqn, engineerinq, and consultant s~rv~ces; to authoriz~ ~he county Administrator to enter into a contract with the applicable lowest responsive end responsible bidder; an~ to appropriate all S=a%e ($51~800) and County ($129,200) funds for the Project. (It is noted funds ere available in the Airport Capital Projects Fund.) Vote: Unmnimcua ~,C,11,b, TO ~ON~IDE~ ABANDB~NT OF A ~ORTION O~ ~ARWICK on motion of Mr. Barber, ~econded by Mr. Warre~, the Board hearing to consider the abandonment of a portion of Ma~wiCk 8.C.12. RE~U~T FOR ENT~R~IN~ENT/HUSI0kL ~ESTIVAL PEP. KiT On motion of ~r, Darber, seconded by ~r. Warren, the Board approved an entertainment/muzical festival permit to the Chesterfield County Fair Association for the annual Chesterfield County Fair to be held August 25, 1995 throuqh September 2, 199~ at the fairgrounds oomptex, subject to conditio~ as the County Attorney ~ee~ necessary. Vote: Unanimous with directions from this Board, mad~ report in writing upon his examination of the r0ad~ in Amended Five Forks Village, Wherea~, th~ Resident ~ngineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation ha~ advised the Direotor of Environmental ~ngineering, the ~treets in A~endsd ~ive Fork~ Village, Phase I, Bale District, meet the requirements e~tabli~h~d by the stormwater detention/retention facilities in the County. Name of Street: Five Fork~ Lan~ From: Belmont Road, Route 651, Road, Route 2122 limits cf Phase I, 0.40 mile southwest of ~elmont Road, Route Guaranteed Riqht-of-wey Width: 70 feet. Name of Street: Nerthfo~d From: Fiv~ Fork~ Lane, O.i2 mile ~e~t of Belmont Road, Route 651 permanen~ oul-de-s~c, 0.24 mile northeast of Five ~ork~ Lane Guaranteed Right-ur-Way width: 50 feet. Length: 0.40 mile Length: 0.24 mile ~S-459 From: Nerthford Place, 0.08 mile north of Nerthford Mews mile northwest of Nerth~er~ Place Name Of Street; ~iddlefield ~la~e northeast ef Five Forks Lane mile northwemt a£ Middlefield Lane Guaranteed Right-el-Way Width: 50 feet. Name of Street: Middlefield Mews From; Middlefield Place, 0.04 mile northwest of Middlefield Lane To: permanent cul-de-sac 0.05 mile we~t of Niddlefield Place Name e£ Street: Middlefield Ccur~ From: Eive Forks Lane, 0.07 mile mile Southeast of Five Forks Lane south of Five Fork~ Lane Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: ~0 feat. Length: 0.04 ~ile Length: 0.07 mile Length: 0.03 mile Length: 0.12 mile Length: 0-07 mil~ Length: 0.03 mile Length: 0.03 mile Length: 0.13 mil~ Length: 0.06 mile Length: 0.03 mil~ 95-460 7/26/95 Name of Street: Pleasant Pond Lane ~rom: Five Forks Lane, 0.05 mile · outhwesb of Baker'~ Hill Road Guaranteed Right-of-Way: ~0 feat. Name of Street: ~lea~ant Po~ Plaqe F~O~: Pleasant Pond Lane, 0.03 mile northwest of Five Forks Lane To: permanent cul-de-sacr 0.04 mile aorth of Pleasant Pond L~ns Guaranteed Right-of-Way: 50 feet. NR~ cf Street: Pleasant Pond Court From: Pleasant Pond Lane, 0.06'mile w~ut of Pleasant Pond Place To: permanent O%l-de-sao, 0.03 mile north of Pleasant Pond Lane G~arant=~d Right-of-Way: 50 feet. This request is inclusive of the Transportatisn drainage easements Length: 0~15 mile Length: 0.~4 mile Length: 0.03 mile adjacent slope~ sight Virginia Department of indicated on the Thi= phase of Five Forks Village is recorded as follows: Amended Plat of Phase I. vote: Unanimous Plat Book 74, P~es 95, 96~ 97~ 98, This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, muds report in w~iting upon his examination of =he roads in Amended Manor Ga=e, Matoaca DiStrict, a~d Whereus, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of T~aneDor~atiun has advlse~ =he Director of Environmental Engineering, the streets in Amended Manor Gate, ~a~oaea District, meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street ~irement~ of th~ Virginia Departmen~ of Transportation, and Whereas, the County a~d the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement, recorded in Deed BOOR 24~3, Page 4U5~ January 21, ~994, for all stcrmwater d~tention/r~t~ntien £acilitiei in the County. Therefore, upon cen$ideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Barber, s~conded by Mr. Warren, it is re~olved that the roads in Amended Zanor Gate, Matuaoa District, b~ and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and is hereby requeated' =e ta~e into't~e' secondary System, pursuant to Section 3~,I-~9, Code of Requirements, the following: Name of Street: Manor ~ate Drive Length: 0.1~ mil~ From: Village S~uare Parkway, ~oute 3855, 0-39 mile northwest of Woo~lake Villag~ P~rkway, Route 3600 To: per~anent sul de-sac, 0.18 nile Parkway, Route 3855 G~aranteed ~igkt-of-Way wi~h: 50 foot. south of village square Parkway, Route 38~ permanen~ cul-de-sac, 0.04 mile west of Manor Gate Drive Guaranteed Riq~-oi-way width: 50 feet. Name of Street: Manor Gate Court From~ Manor Gate Drive, 0.07 mile south of Village S~uare Parkway, emst of Manor Gate Drive G~a~ants~d Ri~At-~f-Way Width: 50 f6et. Thi~ request is inolusive of the a~jaee~t dimtancm~ clear zone and designated Virginia Transportation drainage easements d~velopm~nt plat~ ~lat ~ook ~0, Pa~e 5~, ~arch 8, 1~3. vote: Unanimous Length: 0.04 milo Length.: 0.07 mile Department of indi=utud on the This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions £rom this ~oard, made report in writing upon his examination of the roads in Triple Crown, Section 4, Satoaca District, and Whereas, tho Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Director of Environmental =ngineering, the ~treets in Tri~le Crown, Section 4~ ~atcaca District, meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department cf Transportatlon~ and Whereas, the County and the Virginia Department of TrsnsDortat~on have entered ~n~o an agreement, recorded in Deed Book ~453, Rage 405~ January ~1, 1994, for all stcrmwa~er ~etent~en/retent~0n facilities in the County. Therefore, upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Barber, seconded by W_r. Warren, it is resolved that the roads in Triple Crown, Section 4, Matoaca District, be and the~ hereby are established am public road~_ And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transpor~ation~ be and i~ hereby re~uested to take into Secondary System, pursuant tQ Section ~.1-229, Co~e of Vir~inls, and the Department'~ Subdivision Street Requirements, the following: Name of Street: Whirlaway Drive Length: 0.19 mile From: end o~ eMisting Whirlaway Drive, Ro~te 4901, 0-04 mile north of whirlaway Way, Route 4992 To: end of existing Whirlaway Drive, ~oute 4901, 0.04 mile south of Triple C~own Drive~ Route 4900 Guaranteed Right-of-Way W~dth: 50 feet, Name of Street: Whirlaway Turn Length: Prom: Whirlaway Drive, o.o9 ~ile north of Whirlaway Way, Route 4992 To: end of ~ul-de-sao, 0.04 mile east of Whirlaway Dr~ve Cuarant~ed Right-of-Way Width: 40 feet. Name of Street: Whlrlaway Terrace Length: Prom: Whirla~ay Drive, 0.07 mile south o~ Triple crown Drive, Route 4900 end of ~ul-de-sac, O.Q4 mile east of ~rnirlaway Driv* Guaranteed Right-of-Way W~dth: ~0 feet~ Thle request i~ in~lu~iv~ of the adjacent distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Transportation drainage easements indicated development plat. These roads serve ~6 lots. This section of Triple Crown is r~aorded a~ ~ollow$: Vote: Unanimou~ mile 0.04 mile elope, 9ight Department of on the with directions ~rom this Boa~, made r~por% in writing u~on Woslridge Road, ~dlothian District, and Whereas, the Resident Engineer for the virginia Department of Engineering, the ~tr~ts Charter Colony Parkway and North ea~a~llahsd hy ~he Subdivision Street Requirements of the sto~water detention/retention facilitie~ in the County. Charter Colony Parkway and North Woolridge Road, ~idlothian An~ b~ it further resolved, that the Virginia Department e~ Transportation, be and is h~reby requested to take into the Re~uir~menta, the following: Name o~ Street: Charter Colony Parkway Length: 0.20 mile south of Midlothian Turnplks~ Name of Street: No:th Woolridge Road Length: 0.3~ mils Fro~: Charter Colony Parkway, 1.04 mile south of xidlothian TurnpiRe, Route 60 To: Coalfield Road, Route 754, 1.2 mile ~orth of Qu~enmgate ~oad, Route 13g5 Guaranteed Variable Right-of-Way Width: 90 - 29~ feet. This request is inclusive of the adjacent elope, sight distance, cl~r zone and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainaq~ ~as~ments indicated on th~ development plat. These reade serve me accede to adjacent properties. The~a roads were constructed with public funds by the County. Therefore, we are requesting that the maintenance fee and bund bm waived. Dedication o~ Charter Colony Parkway, Section 2, 47~ Page 86, November 15, 1~84. Vote: Unanimous Plat Book This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions frs~ this ~oard, made report in writing upon his examlnatisn of the road in Cross Creek, Section F~ Midlothian District, and Whereas, the Residen~ ~ngineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Director of Environmental Engineering, the street in Cross Crask~ Section ~, Mi~lothian Distr~c%, meets the requirement established by the ~ubdivi~ion Street ~equi~ement~ of the virginia ~epartment of Transportation, and Whereas, the County and the Virginia Department of Deed Book 2453, Page 405, January ~1, 1994, for all stormwater de~sntiQn/:e~entien zacilities in ~h~ County. ~hsrefor~, upon consideration whereof, an~ on marion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, it is resolved that the road in C~oss crsak~ section F, Midiothlan Dis~rict, ~e and it hereby is established as s public road. A~d b~ it furtha~ ~emolved, that the Virginia Department of ~ranspurta~ion, be and is hereby requested ~o take into the S~condary System, pursuant to Section 99.1-~9, Code of Virginia, and t~e Department's Subdivision Street Regni~eme~ts, tke following: Name of Street: Crossings Way Length: 0.09 mile From; ~he end of Crossings Way, Route 3773, 0.20 mile northeast ol Crossings Ridge Drive,Route ~777 TO: permanent cul-de-sac, 0.09 mile distance, clear zone and designated Uirginia ~portment of development plat. This rood serves 11 lots. Thi~ z@ction of Cross Creek is recorded aE follows: Section F. ~lat Book 84, Page 90, 3uly 19, 1994. Vote: Unanimou~ On motion of Mr. Berber, ~ee~nded by Mr. Warren, the Door~ awardad o construction contract tc G. L. ~oward, Incorporated~ in the amount of $394,30S, for the Route 1 Water LiDo Improvements Project #93~011QR an~ authorized the County Administrator to execute the n~cessary construction contract documents, (It is noted funding is available in the current Capital Improvement Program.} Voh~: Unanimou~ ~R. ~ORACE ~. DABNEY On motion of ~r. Barber, ~econded by Mr. Warren, the Boord approved the purchase of a parcel of land containing 12.3 acres, Bore or less, lyln9 eamt of Old Contrails Road ahd adjacent to the Thomas Dale High School Complex, in the amount of $225~000~ from Mr. Horace C. Dabney~ for improvements at Thomas Dale High School and authorized the County Adminimtrator to execute t~e contract and deed. (It is noted funds are available in the school's Reserve for Capital Projects and~ upon approval of this purchase, will be transferred from th~ ~es~rve. A copy of the vicinity sketch is filed with the papers of this Board.l Vote: Unanimous on motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Hr. Warren, the Board (lt is noted'a copy of the plat is filed with th~ pa~ra-'of thi= Vote: Unani~ou~ 95-465 7~26~95 EXISTING THIRTY FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS LOT S. BLOCK A0 OTTENDALE. SECTION D On notion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warrenr the Board authorized 'the Chairman of the Board and the CoUnty kd~inintrator t~ execute a quitclaim de~d to vacat~ a portion of an e~istinq 30 foot drainage easement across Lot 8, Block A, O~terdale, Section D, (It is ncte~ a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Vote: Unanimoum WITHIN kW EXISTING VARIABLE WIDTH EASEMENT ACROSS LOT ~. ELOCK I, ROXSEIREo ~ECTICN 4 on motion of ~r. ~arber, seconded by ~r. Warren, ~he Board approved a request from ~r. William P. Baker for a fence to encroach within an existing variable width es=omen= across Lot 3, Block I, Roxshire, Section 4, subject to the execution of a license agreement. (I~ ie no~e~ a copy cf =he pla~ i~ filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Ununi~ous 8.O,17.b. MS. B~RSARA DIFRANCESCO FOR A FENCE TO ENCROACR On motion of Mr. Barber~ seconded by Mr. Warren~ the Board to encroach within an e×istinq variaDIe width easement soross Lot ~, Block B- Windsor Place, Section 1, subject to the execution of a license agreement. (It is noted a copy of the vicinity sketch i~ filed with the paper~ of this Doard.) VIRGINIA POWER FOR INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND approved a reques~ from Virginia Power to install an way designated as Carroll Avenue, subject to the execution of a license agreement. (It is noted a copy of the vicinity sketch is filed with the papers of this Board.} Vote; Unanimous DAVID W. AND MB. JANSTT R. WEEKS TO INSTBLL A WATER SERVICE FOR RESIDENCE OFF OF RIVER ROAD On motion of ~r. Barber, seconded by ~r. War~en, ~he Boa~ approved a ~eq~ast fr~m Mr. David W. und Ms. Junett R. Weeks to install a private wa~er service within a 16 Soot privat~ water easement for a new reuidunce off River Road, subject tu th~ e~ccution and recordation o~ an agreensnt acceptable to the County Attorney. (It is noted a copy of the plat is Vote: Unanimous of land containing 0.302 acres along Courth0~se Road (State Route ~53) from the Trustees of Trinity Assembly of ~od ChUrch and authorized the County Administrator to e~acuta the necessary dasd. (It is noted a copy of the plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote~ Unanimous NORTH OF RIVERS BEND BOULE?)~D ~ROM PIONEER PROPERTIESr III, INC. 0n motion of ~r. ~arber, seoomde~ by ~r. Warren, the Beard accepted, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a parcel of land containing ~.55 acres no~t~ os ~ivars ~end Boulevard from Pioneer Properties, III, Incorporated, and authorlz~d the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. (It is noted a copy of the plat i~ filed with the papers of this Vote: Unanlmuus A~PROPRI~TION OP B~RMUD~ DTRTRIC~ T~RE~ C~NT RO~D CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS TO THOMPSON AVEN~ Mr. MeHale requested t~e Board to defer consideration of appropriating ~srmuda District Three Cent Road ~unds for uonstrueticn and installation of a barricade on Thompson Avenue ~ntil Augus~ 2~, 199D to allow him the opportunity to Board to defer consideration of appropriating $10O.00, from Au~0lst 23, 1995. HEARINGS O~ CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS oR CLAIMS O~ motion Of Mr. BsrDeT, see0nded by Dr. Nicholas, the Bea~d accepted the following reports: 95-467 And, further~ the Board accepted the following roads into the RIVER RIDGE. SECTION C - ~Effective 6-8-95) Route 4369 (PlanTation Trace Place) - From Route 2720 to 0.26 mile west Route 2720 0.26 Mi Route 4362 IRiverpark Drive) - From Route 4350 to 0.07 mile north Route 4369 0.23 ~i Route 4350 (Riverpark Way) - From Route 45~ to Route 4368 6.07 Hi Vote: Unanimous CODE OF VIRGINIA, 19~0, AS AHEND2D FOR CONSULTATION WITH L~GAL COUNSEL REGARDING BIRON v, COUNTY OF CHBSTBRFI~LD, ZT k~. A~D PUaSUAN~ TO SECTXON ~.~-~44(A)(~, COB~ O~ DISTRIC~ On ~otien of Mr. Barber, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, the Boar~ ~ent into Executive Session ~ursuant to Section 2.~- 344(A) (7), Cede of Vir~inia~ 19~0, as amended, for consultation with legal counsel regarding Birch versus County of Chesterfield, et al. and pursuant tc Section 2.~- 344(A) (3}, Code of Vircin~s~ 1950, as amended, for consul%atica with legal counsel regarding ao~ui~itlen an~ Magisterial District. Reccnveninp: On motion of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board ad0D=ed t~e following resolution: ~HEREAS, the Board of Supervisors hes th~s day adjeurned into Executive Session in accordance with a formal vote of the Beard sad in accordance with the prov~eione ef the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; a~ W~ER~AS, the Virginia Freedom ef Information Act effective July 1, 1989 provides for certification that such NOW, T~R~FORE BE IT RESOLVED~ the ~oard of Supervisors does hereby certify that to the best of each member's knowledge, i) only public business matters lawfully e~empted from open meeting requlre~en~s under the Freedom of Information Act were discussed in the Executive Session to w~ich this certification applies, and ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the ~o%ion by which the Executive Session wa~ convened were heard, d±scus~ed, or considered by the Board. No member dissects from this c~rtification. The Board being Dolled, the vote was as follow~: Dr. Nimholas: Aye. Hr. Daniel: Aye. Mr. Barber: Aye. Mr. MOHale~ Aye. On notion of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. McHale, the ~oard suspended its rules and s~de~ Item. 8.D., Transfer $200t000 for Right-of-Way Acquimition for Coalboro/Otterdale Connector Road to ~o!lcw Item 8.C.2., Request Governor to Inve~tiqate EnvironMental Impact of Renewed Quarrying Operatlon~ at Vulcan Quarry. On motion of Mr~ Barber, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, the soard recessed to the Administ~&tion Building, Room ~02, for di~ner- v~te: Unmnimous the invucatisn. Reverend Harris then pre,anted a plaque to Mr. Ramsay, on behalf of the Virginia Unit of ~he ~outhern Christian Nr. Ramsay e×pr~ssed appreciation for the plaque. 14. PLEDGE OF ~LEGIANOE TO T~E FLAG OF THE UNITED STATE~ OF 15,B.1, MR, RICK P~RR Ma. B~nnett introduced N~. Rick Pa~r who was present to recuive the resolution. On motion of the Soard, the followinq resolution was adopted: WHERIA$, %he chost~r~iel~ county Board' o~ Supervisors- and the Youth Services Citizen Doard are commit=ed to enhancin~ the ~uallty of lif~ for the ysuth and famil±~e of our commun±ty~ and W~R~A$, the Che~t~r£ield County Youth Servioe~ citizen residents of our community who volunteer their time and service to other~j and 7/26/95 WI~EREAS~ Mr. Rick Parr has represented Bermuda District as an active and committed member of the Youth ~ervices Citizen Board fro~ January 13, 1993 to J~ne 30, 1995. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield their appreciation to Mr~ ~ick Parr for his eMemplary performance and service as a member of the Youth Servlees citizen Board. Vote: Unanimous expresse~ appreciation ~or his ~e~ioated service au a member of the Youth Services Citizen Board. Mr. Parr expressed appreciation for the recognition. M~. Bemne=t introduced ~z. cheryl.Ghora~h~ who was prezemt to receive the resolution. On motion of th~ Board, the following re~olutien wa~ adopted: W~R~A~ the Chesterfield County Board of ~up~rvi~or~ and the Youth Services citizen Board ere committed to enhancing th~ quaSity of l~f~ for th~ youth and familie~ of Our community; and ~REAS, the Chesterfield County Youth Services citizen Board i~ mad~ up of dedicated and visionary adult and youth re$idente of our community who volunteer their time service to others~ and WHEREAS, Ms. Cheryl Ghurashi has represented the Clover Hill District as an active member and a capable leader of the Xouth Service~ citizen Board from May 24, 1990 to June 30, 1995; and Services citizen Board from July 1, 199~ to June 30, 1994. Co~t~ Boa~d of Supervisors her~b~ recognizes and expresses their appreciation to MS. C~eryl G~oras~i for ~er exemplary performance and service as a member of the Youth Services Citizen Bea~d. VoBe: Unanimous ~Ir. MmHule presented the execs=ed resolution to M~ Ghcraeh~ and ~xpr~s~d appreciation for her dedicated service as member of the Youth Services C~tizen Board. MS. Ghorashi expressed appreciation for %he recognition. receive th~ resolution. On ~otion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHRREA$, Mr. John Cogbill served two ter~s, from ~uly 19~3 tm June 1995, as Chairman of the Chesterfield Business 7/26/95 W~ER~AS, during Mr. Cegbill~$ leadership, tho Cheeterfield Business Council has been an active organization that contributed to the community in numerous ways, including raising funds for victims of the Petersburg tornado, organi$ing a letter-writing campaign to rsmsve the Defense Genera/ Supply Center (DGSC) from the base closing list, and organizing gift giving and contributing funds to the Christmas Mother Program; and WHER2~AS, the Chesterfield Business CeunGil, under the direction of Mr. Cogbill, has Drovlded the Board of Supervizors with invaluable a~sistance through suoh events as workshops and legislative receptions, and by providing input in such areas as the Busineg~, Professional and Occupatlenal License {BPOL) Tax, the si~n ordinance, the Upper Swift C~eek Water~hed~ the Parks and Recreation Plan, and Business Recognition Awards; and WHERF~%$, during Mr, Coqbill'u terms as Chairman, the Cbeiterfield Ruainess council adopted resolutions suppsrting pro-business initiatives~ including the Olympic ~estlval~ Regional Cooperation, Tourism, and Airper~ Signaga, and initiated County budget forums and a budget review committee; and WH~K~A$, ~he Chesterfield Business Council, ~nder the amsple~ of Mr_ Cogbill, formed thc Buslne~ ~etention Committee, a partnershiD between the Council and the Department of Economic Development; and ~EREA$, Mr. Coqbili provided represeDta~ion and leadership at the Urban Summit and the Whi~e House Conference community service ~hreugh his work in nu~aroum civic, ~ocial, and other organlzationm and i~ one of Chesterfield County's most notmworthy =i:izen~ and l~mders. NOW, ~REFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield expresses the a~Dr~ciation of all residents for his continued commitment to the County. Vote: Unanimous accompanied by his daughter, %~pre~s~d appreciation for his ou~tandlng service, devotion, and contribution~ ~o ~he County, and stated thm County locks forward tc hi~ continue~ commitment to service. Mr. Cogbill e~pressed a~Dreciation for the recognition and reality and expressed a~Dreciation %o his family fo~ their ~upport~ Petersburg, Virginia and resides in Colonial ~aiqhts; and 95-471 7/26/95 WHEREAS, Mrs. Moerer attended John Tyler Community College and Virginia eta~e University; and WHEREAS, Ers. Nester has eerve~ Rebert E. Lee Elementary School for eleven year~, during which she ~erved as a Reading Center Aid, and as President e£ the ~eacherst Aide Association; and ~EREAS, Ers. Noster serves on many regional and local organizations including the Petersburg chapter NO. 33 Order of the Eastern ~tars; Di~trlct t6 of the Negro College Fund Parade of Stars Television Program~ the Petersburg E~oational Aseeeiatiou and National Educational Association (N~A); the American Business Women's Association (ABWA); the N.A.A.C.P; the Civic and Progressive A=tiun A~ociation for the Matoaca Magisterial District; Ettriok on the MOMS; and the Chesterfield Democratic Committee; and W~REA$, Mrs. Meorer i~ Block Cap=aim for the Voter Registration Committee of Ettriok, virginia~ Poll-wer~er Organizer for the Village of Ettrick; and Chesterfield County Assistant Coordinator for the 1962 Freedom ~arch in Alabama; and WHEREAS, Ers, Eoerer organized the salvation Army~s Christmas workers and is an acti¥~ member of the Gillfield Baptist Church in Petersburg, virginia. EOW, TE=R=FOR= ~= IT RE$0LV=D, that the Chesterfield County Beard of Supervisors hereby recognizes ~_rs. Bessie Cargill Moorer for her outstanding eitizenshi~ and leadership in the Ettrick/~atoaca area, her involvement with the N.A.A.C.P and Et=rick On the Move, and her 9artlcipatiun and leadership in many other civic and community D~ejects. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented tn Mrs. Meorer and that this re~olution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisers of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Dr, Nicholas presented the executed resolution to Mrs. Moorer, accompanied by her husband, and expressed appresiaticn ~cr her outstanding citizenship and leadership in tl~ ~ttrick/Matoaca area. Mrs. Moorer recognized a~proximately 1S persons who were present at the meeting ~n support of th~s recognition, expressed appreciation for the recognition, and stated her a~biticms a~e ts continue wsrk~n~ with people and mnklng her community a b~tt~r plac~ to liv~. 15.E. RECOGNI2IN~ NIS8 R. DANIELLE BAILEY FOR BEING NAMED A ~FF~R$ON $CHO~ Mr. erich intro~u=~ Mi~ R, Danielle Dailey who was pr.se~t On motion of =he Beard, the following resolution was adopted: W~EREAS, Miss R. Danielle Bailey is a 1995 gradua=e cf Matoaca ~igh Schosl and valedictorian of her class; and WHEREAS, Danlelle was an outstanding student with keen interest in math and soience and a member of the National ~onor ~oci~ty; ~ey Club; German Club; and President of both her $~nior and Junior class; and WHEREAS, Daniells hss served sa a Un%ted Way volunteer; competed on Battle of the Brains and in the Ka~h League; participated in the ~ath and science center; and wes u member of Students Against Drunk Driving; and WHEREAS, Dani@lle was recognized as a National ~eri% Scholarship semi-Finalist and received the Univ=rsity of Virginia Book Award, the 1995 Kodak Young Leader Award, ann the Delta Sigma There Sorority Outstanding Student Achiever achievements by b~ing na~d a Rodman Scholar by th~ University of uirglnim; a National Science scholar by the Virginia Department of Education; and, mo~t prestigiously, a Jefferson scholar by ~he University of Virginia; and to attract to the grounds of the University of virginia, the ~ost promising students in the country; and WHeReAS, ~el~ction is based on excellence in leadership, sehola~ship~ an~ citizenship; and WHEREAS, nationwide, ~40 candidates ~r~ nomina~ed and 6B finali~t~ wer~ ~hosen by regional selection Committees to competition ear in which Danielle is sn~ of R8 students offered a ~e~er$on Soholarship for study at %he University o~ Virginia; and awarded to o~tstanding high ~chool ~enior~ and cover the %ntir% co~t of att%nding the University of Virginia for four years o~ study; and WH=R=A$, Danielle plans to continu6 her education at the u~ivezsity of Virginia majoring in meshanical e~gi~eeri~g. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT R~SOLV~D, that the Chesterfield county Boar~ of supervisor~ hereby congratulates Miss R. Duniulla Bailey for her outstanding scholastic achievements and WiShes Asr well in h~r ~uture endeavors. AND, S~ IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors acknowledges the good fortun~ of the County %o have such an outmtanding young woman as one o~ its citizanu. Vote: Unanimous Dr. Nicholas presented th~ executed resolution to ~iss Bailey, accompanied by h~r mother and ~r. eta1 Par=h~os, Senior Assistant County Attorney and who was a m~mbmr of the S~lection Committee, congratulated h~r un hmr outstanding scholastic amhievements, amd wimhed h~r well in her future endeavors. Miss Bailey ~xpre~sed appreciation ~or ~ke recugnition and to her parents, school, and cummunity for their support. SCOUT~ On notion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: W~REA$, the Boy Scouts of A~erica was incorporated by Mr. William D, Boyce on February $~ 1918; and ?/~l~S WHEREAS, the Boy Soou=e of America was founded to promote citizenship training, personal development, and fitness of individuals; and WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of fields, serving in a leadership position in a troop, carrying out a service p~ojoct benoficial to his community, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and living up to the $Co~t Oath a~d Law; and WHEREAS, ~Lr. Christopher David Cosb~, Troop 869, sponsored by salisbury ~resbyterian Church, has accomplished thos~ high standards of commitment and has reached the long- sough= goal of Eagle Scout which is received by less than two percent of those individuals entering the Scoutinq movement; ~EREAS, grswing through his experiences in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and priding himself on the great accomplishments of his County, Christopher is indeed a member cf a new generation of prepared young citizens o£ whom wa can all be very proud. County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its congratulations to Mr. Christopher David Cosby amd out.tending young man a~ one of it~ citizens. M~. Barber pre~ented the executed resolution ts Mr. Cosby, a~compani~d by member~ of his £a~ily, csngratulat~d him on hie outstanding achievements, and wished him well in his future endeavors. ~5.P.3, MR. JOSEPH P. DORTON, TROOP ~19 On ~eticn of the Board, the following re.distich wam adopted: WHEREAS, the Buy Scout~ of America wa~ incorporated ~y ~r. William D. ~oyce on February $, t910; and promote citizenship training, personal development, and ~itness o~ individuals; and WHeReAS, a~ter carnin~ at least twenty-one merit badges in a troop, carrying ou~ a service prcjeut beneficial to his s~iri~, and living up to the $ccu~ Oath and Law; Saint John's Episcopal Church, has accomplished those high of Eagle Scout which is rs=sired by less thus two percent of WHEREAS, gro~ing ~hmough his experiences in scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizen~hip~ and priding ~imself on the great accomplishments of his County, citizens o~ whom we can all ~e very proud. 7/26/95 NOW, THEREFORE D~ IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby ex,ends its congratulations to Mr. Joseph p. Dorton end acknowledges th~ good fortune of the County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its citizens. vote: unanimous Mr. Berber prsmented the executed r*~olution to ~r. Dorto~, accompanied by members of His £amily, congratulated him on hie outstanding achievements, and wished him well in hie future endeavors. 15.G. RECOGniZING MIDLOTHI~N YOUTR ~OCC~R U-12 ~TAT~ ~HA~PION~ FOR THEIR OUTST~NDING REPRESENTATION OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTy Mr. Golden introduced Mr. Danny Tomic, H=ad Coach; Mr. Doug MCDonough and Mr. Bob French, Assistant Coath~; and Mr. Bill ~anley, Tea~ Manager; and members o~ the Team, who Were present te receive the resolution. On motion of the Board, the followimq ~amolution was adopted: ~EREAS, the Midlothie~ Yo~t~ SOCcer L=agu% has, for ten years, consistently and diligently provided to~ guality recreational opportunities for th= youth of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, the U-12 State Champion Team; Mr. Danny Coach; and Er. Bill Henley, Team Manager, Chesterfield County and the Ei~lo%hian Youth Seccer League in the regional tournament held July 1-~, 19~ in ~iagara Falls, gcalm and giving up only twa goals~ and W~EREA$~ the Chesterfield County ~arks ~n~ Recreation Department co-sponsors numerous youth and adult tcagues~ providing t~e facilities necessary for their operation; and WHEREAS, the Midlohhian Youth Soccer League~ h~ade~ by ~r~$ident Jim ScAreckengost~ registers over 1,700 participants each s~son; and WHEREAS, the Midlothlan Youth ~oce~r League had a Stat~ Champion Team from among thirty entries in virginia. NOW, T~EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, t~at the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisor~ hereby oommends and recognizes the u-12 state Champions and the Midlothian Youth ~occer Lsa~e for their muperior achievement and representation of chemterfiel~ County and its residents. Votm: Unanimous M~. Barber presented the e~ecuted resolution~ to ~r- Tomic, Mr. McDonhugh, ~r. ~rensh, ~r. HaRley, a~d Team memberm, and congratulated t~em on their outstanding a~hievement and representation of'Chesterfield'County. ' ~r. Tomi¢ expressed appreciation, on behalf of the Tea~, for the recognition. 15.H. RECOGNI~IN~ JACOBS ROAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FIFTH WHEREAS, Jacobs Road Elementary School a~ninistere~ this entered two te~s iD the Science Olympiad Contest; and %7~EREAS, from the results of the test, the top twenty pupils who scored the highest~ were formed into two finished first and third; schools and scored higher than all the international competition; and finishe~ second in the National science olympiad. all Jacobs Road Elementary school fifth grade students their participation and recognition in the National Science Olympiad Contest and for their outstanding representation cf students ~ho participated in the Contest; Nr. Jeff Beatman~ School Science teachers for their dedication to teaching. an~ Ms. Adkins and expressed appreciation for their leadership and dedication to teaching. He congratulated all fifth grade students for their participatien and recognition in the National Sci~nc~ Olympiad Cont~t and outmtandlng representation of Chesterfield County. ~ir. seatman expressed appreciation for the recognition an~ stated he is proud of all the students and the recognition is R~QO~ST ~OVERNOR TO INVESTIGATE E~IRONMENTkL IMPACT Dr. Kicholas stated oiti~ens in the winterpoek area have expressed concerns relativg to the reopening of the Vulcan Quarry. Ne further stated h~ and Mr, McHale rec~ive~ a copy of a document developed by the citizens addressing their ~dver~e affects and envirorumental impacts if the Querry were the Board to authorize the chairmen to reguest, on behalf of th~ Board, that the Governor Xnitiat~ an investigation into t~e Vulcan Quarry. Aye~ : Y~. McHale, Mr. Warren, Mr. Barber, and Dr% Nicholas, 8.D. TRANSFER $200,0O~...FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR $200,0o0, would be applie~ for right-of-way acqulsi~ion to be used by Vulcan Quarry if it reopens. the Board to transfer $200,000 from the Rsssrve for Capital of-way acquisitiun. (It is noted this transfer is contingent upon vulcsn'~ commitmsnt to construct the Coalbcro/Otterdale Connector Road.) Absent: ~r. Daniel. ordln~nce. On ~otion of Mr. Barber, ~ehded by Dr. Nicholas, the Board adopted the following ordinance: CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, ~"GR~T©R"] vacates (husband and wife), ("~I~Ai~T~E"), an $~ Subdivision, Section A, MIDLOTHIAN Magisterial District! Chesterfield County, recer~md in the Clerk's offise el t~e Circuit the aforesaid Clerk's office, Section A, MIDLOTHIAN Maqi~terial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more ~srtlculerly ~hown on a plat of record 95-477 7/26/95 in the Clerk's office of ~he circuit Court of said County in Plat Rook 52, Page ~1, and recorded MARC}{ 7, 19S6~ in the aforesaid Clerk's office. The easement petitioned to Creek Subdivi~ion~ Section A~ the location of which is moro fully shown on a plat made by BALSER AND AESOCIATES! INC., dated JANUARY ~$, %9S6, a Copy of which is attached hereto WHEREAS, notice has bee~ given pursuant to Section 15.1- 431 of the Code of Virqinia, 1950, as amended, by adv~r~i~inq; and WHEREAS, no public necessity exists ~or the continuance of the easement sought to be vacated. SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUUTY, That pursuant to Section 15.1-482ID) of bh~ Code of virginis, l~$Q, as amended, the aforesaid easement be and hereby This Ordinance shell be in full forc~ and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482{b) of ~he Co~o of virginia, 1950, ag amended~ and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto ~hall be recorded no the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia pu~muant emended. The effect of thi~ ordinance pursuant to secsion 1§.1- 483 is to destroy the force end effect of the recording of th~ portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee simple title cf the easement hereDy vacated in the property owner of Lot 1~ Block B within Cross Creek Subdivision, ~ection A, fr~ and clear of any rights of public uae. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall bs indexed in the names o~ t~e county of c~ester~ield as GRANTOR, and CLOWER and PATRICIA S. CLOWER, (husband and wife), cr their Ayah : Mr. zcMale, M~. Warren, Mr. Barber, and Dr. Nicholas. Absent: Mr. Daniel. I~.B. TO CONSIDER A~ ORDInAnCE TO VAQAT~ A PORTION OF BYRD AVENUE, LOTS ~0-16, BLOCK A AND LOTS ~-5, Fir. sti~h stated thi~ date and time has been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordikance to vacate a portion of Byrd Avenue, Lots 10-16, Block A and Lots 1-~, ~lock B, within Petersburg-Heights Subdivision. NC one ea~e forward to speak in favo~ of er against thio ordinance. 95-478 On motion of Mr. ~cHale, ~econded by Dr. ~icholas, uae Suard adopted the ~ollowing ordinance: AN ORDINANCE whereby the COUNTY CHESTERFIELD, VIRG%NIA, ("GRANTOR") to JOHN C. VASILOFF and WALTRAUD VASILOFF, (hugband and wife) and JI~/~IE C. SKELTON add REBECCA M. 8KELT©N, (husband and wife), ("GRANTEE"), a portion of Byrd Avenue, Lsts 10-16, Block A, and Lot~ 1-5, Block B, within Petersburg-Heights Subdivision, BERMUDA Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly ~eeorded in the Clerk'~ Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield C~umty in Plat Book 4, at Pages 8~-69. ~HEREA~ JOHN C. VASlLO~P and WALTRAUD VAS~LO~E~ (husband and wife) and JIM~{IE C. SKELTON and REBECCA Supervisors of chesterfield COUnty, Virginia to vacate a ~ortion of Byrd Avenue, Lot~ 10-16, ~lock A, and Lobs 1-5, Block B, within Petersburg-Heights 9ubdivision~ Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of ~ecord in the Cl~rk~s Office of the Circuit Court e£ said County in Plat Book 4, Page 68- 69, dated MAY 15, i928_ The portion cE right of way and lots petitioned to be vacated are more fully described as follows: A portion of Byrd Avenue, Lute 10-16, Bloo~ A, and Lots 1-5, Bloc~ B, within Petersburg- Heights Subdivision, =he location of which ia more fully ~hewn on th~ above mentioned plat, a copy of which is at~ached hereto and made a pert of this WHEREAS, netiae has been given pur~uan~ to Section 15.1- 451 of the Code of Vlrg%nla, 1950~ as amended, by advertising; and WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for =he continuance of the aforesaid portion sf P6tersburg-Heiqhts Subdivision sought to be vacated and the vacation will no= a~ridga rights of any citizen. NOW, THeReFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD O~ SUPERVI~OR~ OF C~ESTERFIELD COUNTY, vIRGInIA: That pursuant to ~ction 15.1-4ah(b} of the Cede of Vir~inia, 19~0, as amended, the aforesaid portion of Petersburg-H~ights ~ubdivi$ion be and is hereby vacated. GR~NT~ h~reby conveys unto ~he G~ANTQR and GRANTOR hereby remervem a drainage sa~ment cyst the entire portion of Dyrd Avenue hereby vacated. This Ordinance shall ~s in full force and effect in accordance with section 15.1-482(b) of the ~Ode of Virginia, 1950, a~ a~ende~, and a certiSied copy of thim ordinanee~ together with the plat attached' berets sh~ll be recorded nc ~oon~r than thirty ~ays hsraahter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia to Section 15.1=485 of the Code of virginia~ 1950, as 95-479 7/26/95 The effec~ ef this Ordlnanee pursuant to Section 15.1- 483 is to destroy the force e~d effest of the recording of the portion o~ the plat vacated. This Ordlnanse shall vest fee simDIe title to the centerline of the portion of right Of way hereby vacated in =he adjacent property owners and fee simple title to the lots hereby uac~ted in the underlying owner~, within Petarsburq-Hei~hts Subdivision, ~ree and clear of any rights of public use. Aeeerdlngly, this ordinance shall be indexed in the name~ of the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD as GRANTOR, and JOHN C. VAZILOFF and WALTP~%UD VASILOFF, (husband and wife) and JIMMIE C. SKELTON and REBECCA N. SKELTON, (husband and wife), er their successors in title, as ORANTE~. Ayes : Mr. McKale, Mr. Warren, ~lr. Barber, and Dr. Nicholas. Absent: Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting. TO CON$IDE~ ENACTMENT. PURSUANT TO SECTION CODE OF VIRgiNIA. 19~, AS ~ENDmD, OF ~N OHDIN~/4~E TO ~TATER DISTRICT. TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN WATER FACILITIES Mr. Stith stated this date and time has bean advertised tO consider an erdinanu~ to establish the Lyndale Drive Special Tax or A~se~ment Writer District for three lots in the Lyndale Subdivision. Mr. G~org~ Beadles rsferenceo =he vicinity sketch cf the special tax or a~sessment water district and inquired e~ to whether two specific homes in the area will be able to obtain publx~ w~ter w~thout paying the cost of the line being extended and stated he feels a cost should be developed for =oral There being no one else to address this issue, the ~ubllc hearing wag closed. When asked, Mr. Bryant ~tated both home~ referenced by Beadles can access the existing wa%er lines, therefore, are ne~ required ~s participate iD the assessment district. further stated the request is from t~ree property owners who are all in agreement of the assessmen~ district. Mr. Barber state~ at the last Board meeting he did not Drive/Harwick Drive assessment sewer districts because not all of the parties ~ere in sg~eement of establishing the assessment district, however, he will support this request es all the parties are in agreement to pay for extension of the On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board appropriated fund~ for the Lyndale Drive Special Ta~ er A~e~ment Water District project from th~ Water Pund Balance; set interest rates equal to the interest rate on one-y~ar U.S- Treasury sills on ~hi$ ~ate; and a~opte~ th~ following ordinance: 7/26/95 AN 0~DI~-NC~ TO 2~MSND THE CODE OF TN~ COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978~ AS ~3~ENDED~ BY ADDYNG ARTICLE XV O~ CHAPTER 20 RELATING TO LYHDALE DRIVE SPECIAL TAX DR ASSESSMENT WATE~ DISTRICT BE IT ORDAINED by tko Board of Supervisors of (1) That Chapter 2S of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 197~, as a~e~ed~ is amended and reenac~e~ ~e add Sections 20-215, 20-216, 20-217, 20-218 and 20-219 as follows: B~c_ $0-215- Definitions. In the context of this article, the definitions contained in this section shall be observed and applied, except when the context clearly indicates otherwise. District: Th~ Lyndale Drive Special Tax or A~semsmen~ Water District. ~aD of the District: Th~ ~ap entitled "Lyndal~ Drive Special Tax or Assessment Water District" prepared by the is on file with the director of utilities. there is hereby created in the ~ounty the Lyndale Drive district shall be and the same ie hereby fixed within the boendaries depicted on the ~ap of the district. Sec. ~0-~17. Con~truction of certain water facilities in and ~djacent to the district. The utilitiem department shall oansetu be constructed in and adjacent to the district the water line and appurtenant facilities depicted on the mad of the district. located within the ~istriot. The cost of e~nstrue~ion of tko water line and appurtenant fae~l~tles located within the district shall be apportioned among the owners of property a~u~tlng the water line. The abutting property ~hall be one-~ird (1/3) of ~he total cost of t~e improvements constructed within the district, inuluding the legal, financial and ether directly attributable costs incurred by the County. The amount finally =a~ed or assessed a~ainst each landowner shall be completion of ~he water line and appurtenant facilities located within the district, and the treasurer shall enter Any person against whom am assessment provided for in this article ham b~on ~inally made shall pay t~o full amount e~ of the f~rst t~ bit1 on which suc~ assessment is show~. In no event, however, ~hall any part cf the a~esmment be due p=ior to the completion oS the water line and appurtenant facilities constructed purmumnt t~ this article. As an alternative to payment am provided above, a person against 95-481 7/26/95 ~hom an assessment provided for in this article has been made may pay suck assessment in twenty (20) equal semiannual principal installments over a period of ten (10) years, toge=hsr with simple interest un the unpaid principal balance ~t the rate of 5-668 percent per annum. The first of such principal balance shall accrue from the date on which the full amount of the asse~mment would otherwise have been due Vote: Unanimous 16.D. TO CONSIDER THE CONVEYANCE OF ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCBL OF LAND LOCATED aT THE CHESTERFIHLD COURTHOUSE COMPLEX. IN DALE ~A~ISTERIAL DISTRICT OF CHESTErfIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA, wHICH p~CEL TS LO~TED aT THE INTERSECTION OF PUBLIC ~A~BTY ROAD AND WEST KRI%USE ROAD ~r. ~ammer stated this data and time has been advertised for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of a parcel of land to ~he chesterfield Employee Federal credit U~ion for con~truction of a new Credit Union building and that staff reco~u~ends a~preval of the request. the Chesterfield Employee Federal Credit Union do not have conflict of interest pursuan~ to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict cf Interest Act regarding this No one came forward to speak in favor of or against this issue. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, the Board approved %h~ ~onveyance of all that c~rtain tract or parcel of land located at the Chesterfield Courthouse Complex, in Dale ~agisteriat District of Chesterfield county, Virginia, which parcel i~ located at the intersection of Public Safety vicini%~ sketch and agreement is filed with the papsr~ of Chis Vote: Unanimous 16.E. TO CONSIDER THE COUNTY'S 1995-96 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN A~D ~N AHENDME~T TO THE F¥95-96 BUDGET TO ~PPRO~RIATE $~25,oso IN ~o~ eR~NT FUNDING ~r. Stith ~tate~ thi~ date and time ha~ been adverti~ fe~ a public hearing tQ consider the County'm ~995-96 Co~mumity Development Bleak Grant (CDEV] program an~ the ~C~E Consolidated Plan and an amendment to the FY~5-96 budget to appropriate $62~,000 in K©M~ grant funding. ~s, Katbleen Jack~en, Regional Office Director for Refuge~ a~d Ii~igration services for the Richmond ~etropolita~ area, ~t~ted she ~upports the funding request for the Limited Englioh Speaking Program and recognized several persons, in support of thi~ r~qu~t, who were pr~nt at th~ meeting. M~. C~n~viov~ manfred, co-Coordinator of the ~upont Bquar~ Learning Center, stated she supports the funding request for continuation of the Learning Center Program, which serves approximately 8~ young people and recognized two students who work for the Program who were present at the meeting. Mr. Wayne Swatlewaki, ~xcoutlve Director of First Homes, Incorporated, e×pres~d appreaiation to the B~rd for funding provided tQ First Homes, Incarcerated, which allows homeless families in the co--unity the opportunity to become first time homeowners. ~e e~atad First Homes is a subsidiary of Fr~dcm House; that CDBG funds are critical to First Homes; and requested the Board to support funding for thu program provided by First Homes. Me recognized save=al participanks in the program who were present at the Reverend Linwood Cook, Pastor of Beulah United Methodist Church, stated a member of his Church participated in the program provided by First ~omem; that B~ulah United Methodist and Central Baptist Churches supports the funding request for First Homes; and r~quested the Board to support the funding request for First Homes. Mr. Daniel submitted into the record copies of letters f~om Beulah United ~ethodist Church and C~ntra! Dentist Church expressing their sup~or~ for the funding request for First Mr. Wvigve ~aintha stated he supports fundin~ for the Limite~ English Speaking Program because it also provides aoti~/tie~ for n~ighborhood children. ~s. tang ~a stated she ~upports funding for the Limited English Speaking Program. Mr. Ti~ Boltz, Executive Director of Richmond Metropolitan ~ABITAT for ~umanity, stated he supports the funding request for the HABITAT for ~u~anity who serve lo~ income familie~ which projects are made possible by CDBG funding. Es. Chanh Da Lam stated she supports ~unding ~or ~e English speaking Praqram. MS. Joyoe Brown, Executive Director of the Rosy Grief Youth Pavilion, requested =be Board ts reconsider funding for Project New Hope that purchases homes throughout chesterfield, through ~e HUD program, to ~e used for low to moderete ibcom~ families and stated the funds will be used to renova:e ~e T~ere being ne ohs els~ tc address ~hls issue, the public hearing was closed. Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relative to the ~mDaot on the County'~ Americans with Disabilities (ADA] Compliance Grant if ~roj~et ~ew 5op¢ i$ fun~ed; the ex=ant to w~ich there were caps on certain categories of funding; whether monies san b~ moved around to fund the Project; and %he possibility of reviewing funding availability later in the y~ar to see if fun~s san ~e found to address the unfunded project~. When asked, Mr. Ramsay stated staff recommend~ two changes to the CDBG Prsgram includinq moving $29,00Q from ADA ~o add to the Camp Baker request. He further stated staff originally requested that $20,000 be added to a ~rogram for-aZ-risk ekildren four yea~s of e~e, ko,ever, staff docs not this change at this time, as it will take a signisisant amount of additional funds to fund the program. Mr. McHale clarified that all recommended funding request amouAts race,ended Dy sta~ would remain the same axcapt for the change to the ADA and Camp Baker request referenced by Mr. Ramsay. M~. Wendell clarified that staff's changes have already been incorporated into the package. ~e further stated Camp Baker Was initially not recommended for funding and will now have funding of adopted the County'~ 1995-96 Community Development Block ~eoommended by staff~ and authorized an appropriations, in the amount cf $$25,600 for HOME grant fund~ and for creation of one new full-tim~ position in the · CDBC office. (It i~ noted a copy of th~ r~comm~nded projects for the 1~95-96 CDB~ Program is filed with the papers cf this Vote: Unanimous I~ was generally agreed to recess fe~ five minutes. · 7. REOUEBT~ FOR ~OBILE HO~E ~ER~IT ~ND In Bermuda Magisterial District, BARRY RAY AND JO ANN ROB~I%TS Residential (R-7) District. The density cf this proposal is appro×imately 1.96 nnit~ per acre. The Comprehensive Plan d~signates ~he property for residential use of 1.Ol CO units/~cre. This property fronts the north line of shields Road~ at Oak R0ad~ and is better known as a790 shields Road, Taz ~ap 9~-9 (4) Shield~ Property, Dlock C, Lots 1 through 3 Mr. Jacobsen presented a summary of Case 95SN0298 and stated staff recomm~nd~ ~ppreval of the request for seven sub,eot to standard eenditien~ He f~rthe~ ~tated the applicants requested ~hat standard condition number one be amended to allow the applicant's brother, Glenn Stanley Roberts, ~o occupy t~e moDile home. Me nete~ t~e mobile home is located in an area designated by the Chust~r Village Plan for residential use. Mr. Barry Roberts stated the recommendation is acceptable. Mr. Frank Porter, representing Y~. Charles and ~leancr Temple, expressed concerns relative to the granting of the the difference b~twe~n uming thm ~ebile home am property and the applican~ allowing his brother to reside on the property; that they only object to so. eons other than the owner occupying the mobile hems; that they are concerned about the sewage disposal system on the p~operty~ and requested the applicant be required to connect to public Mr. Barry Roberts stated the existing septic tan~· is in working condition and he accepts the recommendation of Mr. Lynn Roberts s~a~ed he has made repairs to t~e septic tar~k and other repairs to comply with County standards. 95-484 7/26/95 available for this propertyt however, ~ince a mobile home ham exlstsd on thio property, there is ns requirement to connect approved Case 955N0~98 for seven (?) years subject to the following condition~: 1- The applicant shall Do %he owner of %he mobile homo. brother, Glenn Stanley Roberts and his immediate family 2. NO lot or parcel may bo rented or leased rom us% as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. yard, and other zoning requirements o£ the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that ne 5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit~ ~he applicant shall then obtain tho necessary permits from the Office the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditiono shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. In ~a~oaoa Maglst~rial Oistrist, DOUGLAS SOWERS req~est~ a sixty (50) day deferral of consideration for rezoning from Agricul=ural (A) to Residential (R-9). A single family residential subdivision with a minimum lot size of 9,000 ~quare font ~ planned. The applicant ha~ agreed to limit development to a maximum cf 240 lots, yielding a denmity of designate= the property for residential use of 1.51 to 4.0 units per acre. This request lies on 90.6 a=rss fronting approximately ~lo fe~t oD tbs south line of Lucks Lane, appne×inetety 110 feet eamt of E×bury Drive. Ta~ Kap 37-4 (1) Parcels 14 and 17 and Tax Map 37-8 (1) Parcels 2 and 4 (Sheets 13 and Mr, Jacobsen presented a summary of case 945N0219 and stated the applicant is requesting a sixty day deferral. Dr, ~icholas stated he addressed the issue of a deferral th= applicant earlier today and indicated to him that he would not support a deferral unless the deferral was supported by the majority of the persons present at this deferral and approximately 95 persons stood in opposition to the deferral. Mr. McHale stated thc Board wo~ld hear the request, however~ there was ~till a possibility that the Board could defer the request after public comment. Ha further stated due to its rep~lar sequence on the agenda for discussion. 9~$N0212 ~n Dale ~a~isterial District, b~/~ ~ PA~RZ~ requests a 120 day deferral of con~ideration for rezoning from Agricultural subdivision with a minimum lot size of ~,000 ~uare feet is planned. The applicant has agreed to limi~ ~evelopmen~ to a maximum of 175 lots, yielding a density of approximately 2.4 ~nits per acre. Tko Comprehensive Plan designate~ property for residential use of 1.51 to 4.00 units per This request lies on 74.4 acres frontin~ in two (21 places for a total of approximately 1,480 feet on the east line of salem Church Road, also frcn~in~ approximately 750 fe~ on the south line of Timbercreek Drive, and located in the seutheae~ quadrant of :he intersection of these roads, al~o lying at the western terminus of Plum Street and the northern t=rminus of Chipping Drive. Tax Nap 80-15 (1) Parcel ($h~ts ~9 and Mr- Jaebb~on presented a ~u~mary of Ca~ 95~N0~1~ and stated the applicant is requesting a 120 day deferral. Approximately 'fifteen person~ stood in eDDes~tlon to the II.r, D~niel stated he received a phone o~11 from the applicant's agent requesting a deferral end he had suggested that the representative discuss the deferral with the leadershi~ representing area citizens. He further stated area citizen~ are opposed tu a de£arr~l and he will not support a deferral. Mr. McHale stated due to opposition to the deferral, the reques~ would b~ placed in its regular sequence on the agenda for discussion. 95~0214 In Bermuda Magi~ter±al Distri¢=, CARLTO~ A. A~D RENZAL requests rezoning from Agricultural (A) to ~ensral (C-5) of 1.0 acre and ts Community Business (C-3} o~ 2.3 acres and from Community Business (C 3) to General Busine~ (C-5) of 1.2 acres. A utility trailer and truck rem%al facility is planned. However, with approval of this request other C-3 or C-5 uses wsuld be perm~t~e~. The ~enelty such amendment will be ~ontrolled ~y zoning condition~ Ordinance s~andards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial/office use. This request lies on 4.5 acres fronting approximately 210 fee: on the south line of East Hundred Road~ approximately $00 feet east cf Rivers Boulevard. Tax Map 118-9 [1) Parcel 22; Ta~ ~ap 118-9 (2) Westov=r Farms, Lots 45 and 46; and Tax Map 11B-~3 {1) Purcel ~ and Part of Parcel 6 (Sheet Mr, Jacobso~ presented a summary o~ Case 95SN0214 and statsd the Planning Commission and staff recommends approval and acceptance c~ the Dro££erad con~it~ons. He noted the request conforms to the ~a~tern Area Plan Amendment. Mr. ~ary Wright~ representing the applicant, stated the recommendation is accep~a~ls. There was ns e~oelt~on On motion of 5Ir. McHal~ s~cond~d by Dr. Nicholas, the Board approved Case 95SR0214 and accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. The public wa~tewater system shall he used for all new structures. 2. Existing structures to eonn~et to the public wastewater system when existing facilities ars within 200' of the closest property line. 3_ Access to Route 10 shall be 1X~ited to one (1) entrano~/oxit 1ocs=ed towards the western property line. ~oweYer, if requested by the developer, an alternative location may be approved by the Transportation Depar~ent. The e~act location of this access shall ~e approved ~y the Trsn~portation Bepertment~ 4. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy perm,7 for any development that woul4 qonorate a significant increase in traffic above the traffic generated by the current specialty retail u~s within ~he existing etructure~ ns determined by the Transportation D~partment, the A. Conmtrnctio~ of an additional lane of pavement along th~ eastbound lanes of Route 10 for tho ~ntire property frontage. B. Conetru=tlon of additional pavement along the ~a~tbeund lanes of R~ut~ 10 at ~he aDprcvo~ access to provide a s~parate right turn lane. At ti~e of ~ite plan review, this requirement may be eliminated by the ~ransportation Department if anticipated traffic generation doe~ not warrant :~e turn lane based on Transportation Department standards. C. D~dication to the County of Chesterfield, free a~d unrestricted, any additional right of way (or easement) required for the improvements iden~ifled 5. Prior to site plan approval, 100 feet of right~of-way on the ~outhside of Route 10, measured Stem the centerline of that part of RoOts 10 immediately adjacent to the property ~hal! be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the baneflt of Chesterfield County. 6. U~e~ ~hai1 be restricted to tkose permitted in the C-3 ~u4 I-1 Districts plus th~ ~ollowing: Auction sales ~er furniture only Boat sal~, service, repair and rental c. Display h~uses or "shell" houses d. Motels e. Motor vehicle sales, service, repair and rental f- $~tellite dishes g. Utility trailer and truck rental~ h. Whole,ale trade of any products permitted to b~ sold at retail. 7. For any utility trailer or truck rental use, the following restriction~ shall apply: 95-487 7/26/95 Wi~h t~e exception of one (1) utility trailer, or on~ (l) truck with a carqo area that does not exceed sewenteen (17) feet in length, all other ~antal vehicles shall be parked a minimum of 100 f~t from the ultimate right of way of Route 10. In Bermuda MagiEt~rial District, TME CKE~TEP~TIELD COUNT~ P~A~NING COH~ISSIO~ requests rezoning from Residential and Neighborhood ~usiness (c-~) to ~esidential Multi-family (R-MF) with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a public park, plus exceptions tG multi-family development standards on 19.9 acres and rez~ning from General Industrial (I-2) to Agricuktural (A) on 3.3 acres. Contlnua~i~n of an existing multi-family complex (Falling Creek Apartments) plus a now public park ara planned. The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning condition~ or O~dinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property lies on two (2) parcels totaling 22.6 acres, one (1] Park~le Road and lying et the intersection of these roads, and the second parcel fronting in two (2) places for approximately 250 feet on the east line of Jefferson Davis also fronting approximately 350 feet on the west line of Route I-9~- Ta~ ~ap 53-11 (11 Parcel ~l aud Ta~ Map ~-1~ (1) Parcels 3 and 7 (Sheet 16). Mr. Jasobson presented a summary of case 955NU149 and ~o one condition and acceptance of proffered oondition~. ~ote~ the request conforms to the Jefferson Davis ~ichwav Corridor Plan. Mr. Thoma~ Jacobsen, representing the applicant, ~tated the recummenda~iun is accep~abl~. There was no opposition historical significant= uf the site and stated this ureu Can become a beautiful historic park that will benefit the tourist a~traction. He expressed appreciation %o everyone presente~ an artis~ rendering of what a ~estoration of the site might look like. with the exception of dwelling unite located wi=him =~e 100 yea~ floodplain, the plan entitled F~lling Creek Apartments, pregared by LaPra~e Brothers Civil Engineer~ ~a~t~r Plan for multi-family ~eveloDment on ~tandards depicted on this plan. (NOTE: Multi-family dwellings within ~he !00 year floodplain may only bo rebuilt on thooe portions of the property lying out~id~ th~ floodplain.) And, further, the Board accepted the £ollowing Conditions: R-MF and A Tracts 1. Excluoive of an area of approximately 0.1 acre which is occupied by the private sewerage Dumping station servinq a portion cf Falling Cr~k Apartments, within sixty (60) days of the approval of thio request the land and easement dedications contained in the deeds dated February 28, 1995, (easement No. 9~-0~1~ and easement No. 94~0313) preps~sd ~y the Cheotorfield County Right of Way Offic~ ~hall be fully executed and delivered to the Chesterfield County Right of Way Office for recordation. Vote: Public wastewater shall be used. 95SN0280 In ~idlethla~ ~agisterial District, WINDY HILL~ LTD. (HILTON ~ILLI~) req~e~ Conditional Use to allow the e~pannion of an existing golf driving range located on adjacent property. The density cf such amsndment will be controlled by condition~ or ordinance etandard~. The Comprehensiv~ Plan designates the property for reslden~ial use of 1.0 units per Aqricultural (A) District on 7.4 acres lying approximately 75U feet off the northwest line of Midlothian Turnpike, 13 (l} Pa~el llS (sheets 5 and 6). ~r. Jacobsen presented a sununary of Case 9~SN0250 and stated t_he Planning Commission and staff reeommen~ approval subject to cenditicnu. On motion of ~LT. Barber, seconded by Dr. Nicholae, the Board approved Case 95SN0~S0 subject to th~ following conditions: a.m. and 12:00 midnlght~ Monday through Sunday. 2. L~htlng ohall comply with the Zoninq ordinance, Section No alcoholic beverages shall be permitted. vot~: Unanimous in Dale ~ag£sterial W=~ER ~EMORIAL BAPTIST CKURCH/DEBORAK L. DAVIS requests Conditional Use to permit a private school in an Agrisul=ural (A) District. The density of such amendment will be controlled by zoning condition~ or ordinance s=andardso T~e Comprehensive Plan designates the property for residential use of 1.51 to ~.00 units pe~ This ~eq~est lies o~ 9.5 acres known aa 78Q0 Salem Church ~oad. Tax Map 66-14 (1) Parcels ~7 and 52 (Sheet 9~-~89 ~r. Jacobsen presented a summary Of Case 95SN0282 and th~ ~lannfng Cotillion and ~taff r~comm~nd~ approval suhject to conditions and acceptance cf one proffered condition. Mr. Daniel stated Ms. D~bbie Dav~s, representing the appllcan%, had to leave ~he meeting. He farther started the Board to support the request. ·kere was no opposition present. on motion cf ~r. Daniel, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, the Board 1. Except where the requirements cf the underlying Agricultural [A) zoning are mere resLrictive, any new development for school use shall conform to the rsquirements cf the Zoning Ordinance for commercial uses in Emerging Growth Areas. With the exception o£ playground areas which accommodate swing~ jungle gyms, or similar such facilities, all active playfields, courts cr similar active recreational facilities which could accommodate organized spor=s such as football, soccer~ basketball, etc. shall be located minimum of 100 feet from adjacent properties. Within thi~ ~tbaek, land,capiaS ~hall b~ provided in accordance with Sestion 21.1-228 (a) (4) of the zoning ordinance- Any playground area~ shall be locate~ m~nimum of forty (40) feet from all property line~ Any private school use shall he conducted in wi~h ohureh uee on the property. (CPC] 4. This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Webber Memorial ~aptist Church and Deborah L. Davis and shall not be transferrable nor run with the land. (CPC) {~OT~; These conditions would not apply to any permitted And, further, the Board accepted the following proffered condition: Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any development anticipated to generate traffic that would warrant a left and/or right turn lane based on Transportation Department standards, additional ~avements shall ~e osnstrus~sd along Sale~ Church Road at the approved access to provide a left and/or right ~urn 1ans. The ~evsloper ~hall dedicate, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County, any additional r~ght-cf-way (or r~qu~red for these improvements. Vote: Unanimous (Amended) In ~a%oaca ~agisterial Distri¢5, DOUGLAS SOW=RS requssb~ ~ezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9). A mingle family ramiden~ial subdivision wi~h a minimum lo~ size Of 9,000 square feet is planned. The applicant has agreed to limi~ development to a maximum of ~40 lots, yisldin~ a density of approximately ~.7 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan dezignatez the property for r~sidential use of 1.51 to ~.0 units per acre. This request lies on 90.6 acres fronting approximately 2,210 feet on th~ ~outh line cf Lucks Lane, approximately 110 feet east of Exbury Drive. Tax Map 37-4 (1) Parcels 14 and 17 end Fax Map 37-8 (1) Parcels 2 and 4 (Sheets 13 and 14). ~l~. Jacobsen presented a strmmary of Ca~e 94~0219 and stated the Planning Conu~i~ion recomm~mds denial because of ma~o~ concerns regarding land ns~ compatibility and they feel the request creates undue density in relationship to community facilities that are available within thig area. He further stated staff recommends approval subject to the applicant addressing the impact on health, ~afety, and welfare of County citizens by providing for necessary capital facilitie~ consistent with the Board of Supervisors' policy. ~e noted the Planning Commission and ~taff received a petition of 16! signatures of residents opposing this rezoning and staff has also received a petition o~ 359 signatures of re=idents that were opposed to R-9 zoning, generally in the Lucks Lane Corridor. He noted the request ce~formu to the Powhite~Route ~85 Development Area Land Use and Transportation Pla~. Mr. Andrew ~cher~er, representing t~e appliuant, submitted info,etlon to the Board ~howing area densities, lot sizes, property in the immediate area, ~eals the ~roDosed zoning is lowered the density, has agreed ts provide 12,000 square foot in ~he cash proffer i~ tho main issue and majo~ change in this requegt, since the case was o~iginally before the Board; that the previou~ request proposed a full cash preffer and the School System; and the applicant feels the amount of capital facilities. proposed in addition to the read improvemenzs being made on the proposed property by the applicant. Mr. Scherser stated the applicant is providing a collector road through the WOO~ Subdivisions and due to congestion problems in tho~e higher standard %hen a ~ypical subdivision road. He further made in good faith by the applicant. and their po$i=ion is far responsible grsw~ in the County. area residents will not support anything l®s~ than the full cash proffer amount from the applicant and they feel the main Lane Corridor and in support of the position he outlined. He submitted into the rece~d a copy of the p~tition. 95-491 7/26]95 Mr. Jim Cutler, Vice President of Community and Public behalf of the residents of Smoketree with the unanimous support of the Smekstraa Executive Board and noted six members of the Board are present tonight. Me further stated the key issue in this ease is ~ensity; that they £eel the Board of Supervisors should weigh the many variables to determine reasonable density; and that the remaining land in the area needs to he carefully controlled. Me stated this request is proposing the most dense single-family development presently allowed by the County; that this property is in- fill acreage and was not the first choice for development; that they support two ~nits per acre; that they feel a mawimu~ of lS0 hones is fair; that over 350 citizens signed a petition last year opposing any rezoning of the area less than R-12; and that over 200 citizens from adjacent neighborhood~ ~igned a petition in support of their po~itlon for this request. He further stated they feel they have presented a fair position that is censlste~t with the tw~ should ensure develepmen~ i~ controlled so it will not be des~rustive to the community as a whole; that they f6~l developer~ do not hav~ th~ right to build to densities that will adversely impact the health, u=f~ty, and ~alfare of the co~unlty; that allowing the meet dense development is not responsible; and requested the Board to deny the request. Ms. Susanne Steele ~tat~d ~h~ is a r~sident of ~aint Woods and she feels the County needs to llm~t growth in th~s ~S. ~onna Pollings stated ~he is ~ resident of =xbury Subdivision and County staff has indicated the proposed road improvements is of nc uulua te the County and are not necessary unless the development actually takes place. She zsned for thi~ area and the increase in t~affic when the~e let~ are developed and stated the proposal is tee dense for thi~ area and does not offer full cash proffers and in the ab~ence of full ueeh proffars and the appropriate density, the County would be committing the current and future residents ts a Tsduced quality of life. She further stated numerous issues need to be addrmssed r~lating to th~ i~pact on schools and requested the Board to not defer, but to deny the request. Mr. Michael Schleinkofer mtated he ima r~midmnt of Hills and he supportm low density housing; that he is opposed to the proposed request; and ek-presmed ccncernm relative to the impact on his property value if the proposed request is approved_ He requested the Board not to defer the request. Ms. Christy Me.anna mtat~d mhe in a remident of Subdivision and her family moved to Chesterfield Ceunty to %he high density of this request end requested t~e Boa~d to deny the Su~ivision and e~prassed concerns relative to the additional to support a deferral, but %o consider a mlnimu~ of R-12 lots and a maximum denslty cf 2.0. ~e submitted into the resord a petition with approximately ~0 ~ignatures of area residents in support of the 2.0 maximum density. and he feels citizen input should be taken into consideration and requested the Board not to Suppor~ a de£~rral, But to deny the recfuest. There was brief diocuesien relative to the relationship b~twa~n local government, builders, and comments addressed by citiTens in the neighborhood regarding this Mr. Barber excused himself from the me,ting. Ha. Ronda Winqfield Haddar stated she ~s a resident of Smoketree Subdivision and e×pre~sed ~oneerns relative to the negative impact un area schools if the proposed r@qum~t the maximum cash proffer; that greater density inevitably leads to greater impacts, which usually leeds to a lower ~uallty of llfe; and that a maximum density of 2.0 ~nits per ecrm is adequate for thi~ area. Mr. Barber returned to the m~ting. Ms. Deborah Erin ~tated sh~ is a resident of Subdivision and she fe~lo area ~chools and road~ a~ not adequate for the impacts that the prepared re~uest will M~ Bonnie Kin~ stated ~he i~ a resident of Smoketree Subdivision and expressed concerns relative to the large amount of traffic currently in the area and th~ increase in traffic if the proposed request is approved. Ks. Kathy Harrison stated she is a resident of Smoketree Subdivision and expressed concerns relatlvs to the rapid development in the area and stated that density and population needs to be controll~_ She further stated she feels anything zena~ leas =ham R-15 for this area will have neuatlve impact on the health, safety~ and welfare of area citizens. She requested the Board not to s~ppert a deferral, but to deny any request for this area other than R-lZ density of 2.0 units per acre. Mr. Leui~ Lombard orated t~ Board should make a decision in th~ best interest of the majority of citizens. the increased traffic in the area if the pro~es~d approved. ~r. Schorzer orated the applican~ receqmiz~ the COnCerns of area citizens and the a~plicant ~iane tu reevaluate their point should the ease be denied. He mca=ed he supports a deferral, but requested the Board to vote on the request at this time. When asked, Hr. ~cCracken stated the projected impac: of this development on t~a road ~y~te~ would bs approximately additional ~rips on area read~. He further stated the collector road is necessary to solmly serve the development and ~he road ia not serving any area tran~pertatiom meeds. ~r. Warren stated the level of oamment~ e×pres~d reflects the tremendous ability of resld~nts to l~arn th~ process and the i~portanoe of planned~ managed growth. He further crated he feels com/~ents expressed by ~r. $¢herzer indicating the applicant's willingness to continue te address the concerns expressed by area residents is a fine gesture, however, he 9~-493 7/~6/95 does not support a deferral of the request~ but does support d~nlal at this time. Dr. Nicholas commended ~he citizens for their input and for the qesture made by MT. Scherzer, on behalf of the applicant. he has had many discus~ion~ with Mr- Sober,er about the request. Me further stated the Planning Ccmmlssion unanimously voted to deny the request and it hu~ been his intention not to defer the request. He stated the request, if approved, would have an adverse impact on area roads due to the densi:y of =he project, =hat there are currently 3,TOO lots zoned for residential use in the Monacan a~aa schecl district, and after hearing the comments expresse~ ~y urea citizens, he recommends denial of the request. Dr. Nicholas then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Warren, for the Board to deny Case 94SN0219. Vote= Unanimous 955N0212 In Dale ~agisterlal District, Bg~/~ TED P~TRICK requests ~ezoning from Agricultural {A) to Residential (R-9). A slngI~ family residential ~ubdivision with a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feat is planned. The applicant has agreed to llmit development to a maximum of ~?~ lot~, yi~ldinq a density cf approximately 2.4 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan design~t~ the p~ope~ty ~o~ residential use of 1.51 to 4.00 meats per acre. This request l~es on approximately 1,480 feet on the east line of Salem Church Road, also fronting approximately 7SO feet on the south line of Timbercreek Drive, and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these reads, also lying at the western terminus of Plum Street and the northern terminus of Chipping Drive. Tax MaD 80-1~ (1) Parcel 13 (Sheets 2i and 31). Ms. Beverly Musselman, Planning Administrator, ~resented summary of Case 95SN0212. Mr. Barber returned to the masting. Ns. ~usselman stated the ~lanninq Co~ission recommends denial because of concerns r~luaive ~u ~ensity and %he impac~ on the quality of life for area residents; the impact on traffic~ drainage, and schccls$ an~ the amount cf property which lies within floodplains and wetlands. She further stated staff recommends approval, subject to Proffered Conditions 16 and ~6 being modified and noted Proffered Condition 16 contained several typographical errors end Proffered Condition 1~ would not provide for th~ typical rear yard. S~e stated the applicant has submitted revisions tonight, however, stuff has net had an opportunity to review the changes in detail; that it appears the t~rpographical errors in P~offered Condition 16 have been corrected; and ~ubmitted into the record a copy o£ t~e changes. She ~tate~ t~ BOa~d would need to suspend its rules to consider %he ~mended Premiered Conditions and noted the cc~£or~s to the Central Area Land Us~ and Tran~Dortation Plan. There was brief discussion relative ~o the location and of the ftoodplain~ and wetland~ on the property. 95-494 7t26/95 ~r. Andrew $¢herzer, representing the spptiuant, stated the · applicant requested a deferral to addr~ concerns associated concsrn~ the applicant is willing to physically delineate the we%lands. He submitted informatlsn showlnq the density cf area property and stated the applicant is proposing a density of 2.35 lots per ac~e; that the average density of surrounding subdivisions is 2.96 loth p~r acre and the wetlands were included in those densities; that the majority of subdivisions in the County have wetlands; that the applicant does not feel house sizes relate to zoning; and that the applicant proffered deed restrictions similar to those recorded in Ashton Woods South. Mr. Warren excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Ssh~rzer then mtated the applicant is ~itling to meet health, safety, and welfare needs cf the citizens; tha~ the applicant provided a buffer along Salem Church Road; and briefly reviewed the pro,fared conditions e~Sare~ by the applicant. He mtated issues of new zoning can be emotional~ consideration to ~he request. Mr. Joe Aprils, vice President of Salem Woods Homeownar'~ initially notified by th~ applicant r~gar~ing the proposed petition of approximately 677 signatures in opposition ts safety of children in the area. He requested the ~surd to deny the request. immensely and she feels the quality of lif~ is pattern slow down; that she feels the density of this request is toe high; t~at ~he does not feel there are ~suilities available a: this ~ime ts handle the impao~s of South and he is also sp~aking on behalf of Kr. Thomas ~arbin, relmtiv~ to ~sst ownership of the property; the topography of property; the property not being economically viable to develop; and the amount of property affeef~d by the wetlands. He requested the Board to deny the ~equest. road mud this request increasing that traffic and the quality of lif~ ~eing negatively impscte~ by the development. She requested the Board to deny the request_ 95-495 7/26/95 Ms. Lynn B~U~O stated ~he is a resident of Ashton Woods South ~ubdivi~ion and e×pres~ed concerns relative to the drainaqe problem in the area and requested the Board to deny the request or r~and it to the Planning C~mmi~ion to conduct the mesessary studies om the wetlands. She also expressed request i~ approved. Ms. ~velyn Bourke stated her property i~ adjacent to P~ectors Creek and expressed concerns relative to drainaqe in the area and the negative impact this development wo~ld ha¥~ on the proper=y value of her home. she requested the Board to deny the request. Mr. LeU Lombard stated he does not feel a decision should be made on this request until the necessary studies on the wetlands are conducted. Ms. Vicki Aprils expressed concerns relative to the wetlamd~ and sta~ed she £eels the applicant has had sufficient time to con,act the necessary studies on the wetlands and density and e~o doe~ mat fool the a~l~san~ has adequately addressed the concerns of the citizens. Mr. 3ce Coffei stated he resides on Old Warson Drive and expressed concerns relative to the manner in which the applicant has addressed their concerns and requested the Benrd to deny the request. Mr. George Hemrlcus stated he is a resident of Salem Woods S~l~livision and expressed concerns relative to safety, traffic, and overcrowding of area schools and requested the Mr. Scherzer stated the applicant has been a homsbuildsr in the County for the past eighteen years and resides in the County; that there is a need for diversity as it relates to home size; that when they became aware of the e~istenee of the Homeowners Associations in the area, they notified them of the request; and that homes in the area range in size and the proffered conditions address the minimum home size. ~e further mtated the applicant is willing to have the wetland delineation conducted; that he feels the applicant has attempted to address the concerns of area residents; and ~equested t~e Bua~ ts defer t~e ~e~uas~ if additional information is needed. ~r. Daniel stated at the tine Ashton Woods ~outh was develope~, issues were ra~se~ re~ard~ng in,ross an~ egress and the Chesapeake Bay Act was not in effect. ~e further stated th~ applicant did not accept either the Plamninq Commission or staff recommendation and the Planning Commission denied the request based om health, safety, and welfare issues and indicated he is concerned about the impact uhis development would have on ~u~lic safety services. There was brief discussion relative :o public safe=y items for police end fi~e so,vices. ~r. Daniel sea=ed ~e feels the issues surrounding =~e floodplains ~re health and ~afety related und he has recommended to th~ applicant tha~ the request ba reworked. He expressed concerns relative to the ingress and egress and t~affi¢ in the area end stated he does not ~he ~eel request is worthy of approval. ~e further stated he feel~ the request should be ~enied based sn heslth, ~afety, and welfare concerns of the citizens. ~ 95-496 7/26/95 the Board to de~y case 95SN0212. Vote: unanimous ~. On motisn of ~r. Daniel, ~con~ed by Mr. Berber, the adjourned at 11:58 p.~. ~ntil August ~3, 199~ at ~:0O county Administrator ~5-497