Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05-28-1997 Minutes
Mr. Arthur S. Warren~ chairman Mrs. Re~y B. H%L~phrey, Vic~ Chr~. Mr. Edward ~. sarber Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. S. L. ~uHale, III Mr. Lane ~. Ramsey County Administrator Staff in Attendance= Ns. Marily~ Cole, Assr, County Adm~n~strato~ M~. Faith L. Davis~ Clerk to the Boa~d ~L~. Bradford S. ~amme~, Deputy CO. Adi~in.~ Management Services Kr. Russell Harri$~ Public Affairs Environmental Engineering Dr. William Nelson~ Dir., A==e~ment of Real Estate Oir., Budget & Management Captain Dennis Turlingten, ~r. Warren called the scheduled meeting to order at ?:00 p.m. at Lloyd ¢. Bird ~igh School auditorium. 1. INVOCATION Reverend Gerald O. ~enn, Pastor of Evangelistic C~urch, gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCB TO TKE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF Mr. Wil Carnee led the Pledg~ of Allegiance to the Flag of 97-~5S 5128197 3. REO~T~ FOR 978N0174 In Midlothian Magisterial District, ARCON DEVELOPM~T L L regussts r~zuning and amsn~tmant of zoning di~rict map from Residential (R 1~) to Residential Townhuuse (R-TH) District. The C0mD~ehansive Plan suggests that Dro~sr=y is appropriate for r~sldential use of 7.01 units per acre or mo~e. Thi~ r~quest lies on 1Q.O acres fronting approximately 600 feet on the north llne of Rockaway Road, approximately 100 feet =~t of Old Ben Air Road, also lying a~ the ~estern termlnu~ of Waters Mill Drive. Ta× Map 10-13 {1) Parcel 7. Mrs. Bev~r~ly Mu~nelman presented a sugary of Case and stated that the Planning Co~/~ission and staff approval an~ aCaeptance of the proffered conditions. She noted the request conforms to the Northe~R Area Land Use and TransDortatlon Plan. ~r. JQhn Frederiokson, regresentlng ~le appli=~nt, stated that these townhouses will be larger than typioal townhou~e units. ~e ~r~her stated that thi~ particular design townikouse has never been construe=ad in the County and that t~ey are excited ~bout providing th~ community with these to~nhouses. reoo~endation i~ acceptable. ~r. Jim Morris~ representing Mr. Mark Carnes, the adjoining will be addressed in the su~ivision review Mr. Barber ~xpressed appreciation to M~. Frederick~on for addressing the necessary issues ~urrounding thi~ request and agreeing to make improvements to Old Bom Air Road to ~ake it who are living longer and heal~hier lives and tAat this development will offer those accommodations. H~ s~ated that anticipated to be widened in the future. Ee further stated that adgacent p~operty ownerm to t~im development are in nupport of th~ proposed request. Mr. Barber then ~ade a ~otion, ~econded by ~r. Daniel, for thm proffered condition~: 1. In conjunction wi~ recordation of the first m~divimion plat, thirty-five (35) fee~ of right-of-way, on the north side of Rockaway Road meamurmd f~om the cmnta~lin% of that Dart of Red,away Road i~edia~ely adjaG~nt to the Property, shall be dedicated, frae and ~e~tricted, and for ~h~ benefit of Chestarfiel~ County. Direc~ access to Rockaway Road shall ~e limlte~ to one public road. The exact location of this access shall mpproved by ~hm Transpor=mtion Department. 97-356 ~o provide an adequate roadway sy~t~m'at the time of complete development, hhe Developer shall be responsible fo~ the following: a) Construction of additional pavement along Rockaway Road at the approved access to provide le£t and right %urn lanes, if warranted; b) Relocation of the ditch %o provide adequate shoulder along the north side of Rockaway Road far the ~ntire Property frontage; and Dedication te ~hes~erfield County, free and unrestricted, any additional right-of-way (or ammements) required for the improvmm~nts identified. 4. Prior to shy road and drainag~ plan approval, a phasing plan for the required roadway i~prevements, am identified in Proffered Condition 3 above~ shall be submitted to and approve~ by the Transportation Department. 5. The publio water an~ ~astewater eye=ems shall be umed. 6. The applicant, subdivider, Or assignee(s) mhall pay eithe~ the time of buildin~ per,it application, for infrastructure i~pr~vements within ~he sa~vic~ die~rict for ~he ~rmperty for eaoh dwelling unit developed in ~emm of 24 units: a. For unit~ dmmxgna~ed as elderly housin~ units as defined in these Proffered Conditions, the amount ~pproved ~y the Board of Supervisors net to exceed $3089 per lot adjusted upward byany Incr~as~ in ~he ~ars~%l & Swift ~uildln~ cost in,aM bstwmen July 1995 and July 1 of the Fiscal Year in which the payment is made if paid after June 30, 1996. For all other units, the ~mount approved by the Board Of S~pervisors not te ~xceed $5175 p~r unit adjust~ upward by any !ncremse in the Marshall & Swift building cost index between July 1~ 199~ ~uty 1 of the Fim~al ~ear in which the payment is mede if paid after June 30~ 7. A ~a~iNtt~ of SO residential Townhouse dwelling units shall b~ pe~mitted. (2~000) ~ross mquare feet and a front width of not less than twenty-five (eD) ~eet; 5xeep~ all end unitm shall have a tot area of not ]~sE than three ~housand ~oss square feet and a w~dth cf sst less than forty feet. 9. Dwelling units shall have a minimum of 1D00 square feet of 10. Thirty (30) dwelling unitm shall be designated for elderly requirement that no pe~on under 19 years of age shall re~id~ in th~$e units. 97-~57 At the time or reeordetion of the subdivision~ the lots de~ig~ate~ for elderly retirement housing shall De noted on the record plat. In conjunction with recordation of the subdivision, restrictive covenants ~hall be ~eoorded on those lots designated for elderly retirement housing indicating the restriction. Ail structures shall have an architectural style, development. Architectural plans depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Deparnment tentative subdivision review. Vote: Unanimous In ~atoesa Hagisterial District, ~HOOS~ITH ~ROT~$, requests Conditional Use and amendment of zoning district map to permit a sanitary landfill in Rgricultur~l (A} and Heavy Industrial (I-~) Districts. ~xpansion of an e~istin~ sanitary landfill is planned. The density of such ~mendment will controlled by zoning oondi~iuns or Ordinaries standards. The g~ueral industrial use. This re~ue~t lis~ on ]~4 acres lying approximately 500 feet off the southwest line o~ Iron ~ridge ~oad, measured ~rom a porn= approximately 500 feet south of I~onbridge Parkway. GPIN 773-648-061g. acceptance of the proffere~ conditions. Me noted the requem~ conforms to the recently adopted Central Area Land Ume He further ~tated that since the Planning consideration of th~ request, the applicant has held se~eral meeting~ with the community and modified several proffers thim request would go through the same site plan prooe&e as other industrial/o~mmeroial projects, plus the County hud an additional si~ing plan approval process for landfills. Board of Supervisors making a land use decision at this ~ime; taking another formal action later, e~ter development of more detailed environmental information, regarding the technical aspect~ of the Landfill; and the Board having the opportunity this evenin~ to impose additional conditions. Mr. John Ceqbill, E~quire, representing the applicant, recognized ~r, Butch Ueyce and Mr. La~y Bu~delett, representing Jsyce Engineering; ~Lr. Cecil Sears, repro=eating Cambridge Environmental, Incorporated; and ~r. Tom McKinley and Mr. Ti~ Gor~ki, representing Shsssmith Brothe~, who were present at the meeting to en~we~ any questions and to address various aspects surrounding this request. He stated that efficient landfill for over twenty years that has rellevsd the Coun=y of its obligation to p~ovide ~olid waste services to its citizens and, at th~ same time, has provided a convenient and economical location for the disposal of that waste. Me further stated that thi~ LaDdfi11 operation is an example of a successful Dublin/private partnership. He stated that th~ issue at this time is whether the applicant, who has been good corporate citizen and neighbor, hue the right to continue in its business on land that they have cloned for years. He zu~mltted a booklet to each Of the D~ard m~bera r~garding 97-$55 various detailed information about the Shoosnith Landfill. further stated that the ~h~o~mith Landfill provides over $18 million in banefit~ to the County on an annual basis. He stated that the request wa~ recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff. He further ~tat~d that the applicant has met with members of the Planning Commission, oltizens, ~nd county staff in an effort to address all concerns an~ ha~ proffered ever twenty conditions. He stated that there is ne adverse affect on r~idential development in this area as a result of the presence of this Landfill and that evidence shows that propertie~ in the area appear te appreciate at the same r~te as other residential properties in the County. He further ~tated that this public hearing is only ts determine the appropriateness of the land use. He briefly reviewed D~. Greens education and work experience background. He stated that the recommendation is asceptable and requested the Board's favorable consideration of the request. ~e read and entered into the record two letters - one from Mr, Bernard L. Savage, President of $~vage & Company the request. Landfill; Landfill buffering; the scale house; the &coeds Foad; in=Dectiens; the entire Landfill itself; dell construction; gravel piping; ground monitoring w~lls; black pipe on side asphalt plant; and the T~S facility. projected ten to twelve year life of the existing Landfill; the lifetime ~nd durability of the Landfill liner; whether the Landfill; and dry cell versus wet cell landfills. Shoosmith Landfill inotudinq assessing the impact of l~nd gases on air quality in areas neighboring the Landfill; basic about cancer and its known causes; and ri~k~ associated with air quality a£feoted by landfill emissions. When asked, aha cancer causing elements in the gas, ara not high enough to There was opposition pre~nt. corporate citizen over the years and requested the Board's relative ~o the harmfulness of landfill gases and to the regarding expansion of the Landfill. 97-359 ~r- Bill Hastings expressed concerns relative to toxics in the existin~ Landfill~ the health and safety of citizen~ living within the Landfill area; the expansion of borrow pit~; and the quarry site. He presented piotur~ to t~e Board concerning the flow 0f water into Swift Creek and requested the Board to deny the request. Mr. Tom Watson expressed concerns relative to pollution in landfills. He entered into the record a petition of eiqhty- eight signature opposed to the Landfill; a letter from the Department of Envirsnmental Quality; information pertaining to the Groundwater Protection Standard Permit amendment; results of chemical analysis of organic constituents; a copy of federal regulation~ relating to the environmental pro~ec~ion agency; and a copy of Part V of the Solid Waste Disposal Facility Standards. Ms. Mary ~ippler ex, reseed concerns relative to the lea~ing of leachate from landfills; groundwater pullution; the monitoring of landfills; and the thirty year post-closure period Of the Landfill_ she requested the Board to deny th~ r~qu~st and entered into the record a cody of her remarks and various information regarding negative environmental health impacts from expansion of the Shoosmith Landfill. MS, Laura Burns s×pressed concerns relative to the health impacts of the Landfill being expanded and requested that the ~oard deny the rsgusst. ~s. Carol Leff~rt entered into the record a copy of a petition of approximately twelve si~ua%ures in oppositiQn Of the request. She expressed concerns relative to the to~ic chemicals in th~ Landfill and the negative impact that the chemicals will have on the citieens. She requested that the Board deny th~ request. Mr. Jin Wiltinghsm e×pr~ne~ Concerns relative to the land soaks of the Landfill as it ~elates to borrow pits in the area of Fieldston~ ~ubdlvislon and requested thm~ ~h~ Board further study the expan~io~ of the Landfill before taking action. ~s. D~ana Pa~ker requested that the Board consider the safety, h~alth, and welfare of the cltizsns of the county when conslderinq thzs request. Shm entered into the record a copy of h~r remarks and a petition of apDroHimetaly 250 signatures opposed to the request. Mr, Wil Carne~ stated that he ~upports the rec/uest~ commeDded Shoosmi%h for their contributions to the County, and requested that the Board support the ~equest. Ms. Alice Bokeque~t ~tated that she has been a County resident for appro×~mately twenty five years; expressed apprecia=ion tn Mr. McHale for his support of th~ citizens regarding this request; and requested tha~ the Board d~ny the re~ueet. ~r- Leu Delveceo~ vice President of Highlan~ Homeowners Association, stated that they are requesting that a risk assessment b~ conducted to determine the potential impact ~o =~e ~esidents due to expansion of th= LundfilI. H~ further stated that h~ fe~ls a qualified consaltant shuul~ ~e retained ~y the County to review the Part A and ~art B submittals to DEQ for this application. He requested tha~ a citizens ad,leery board be appointed to further study th~ expansion of this Landfill_ He stated that he feels it is inaDDrcpriah~ to locate s 5andfili of this size at it~ c~ent location. Mr. Roger Hines, a previous adjacent property owner of the Landfill, commended the Board and the applicant for their efforts in addressing the oence~hs of citizens surrounding this request and uo~m~nded the Board for t~k~ng this request seriously, Ee stated that the citizens of the County created the trash that goes into this Land~ill. requires another landfill, it ~hould be located in a different a~ea of the County. she expre~se~ soneern~ relative to the Landfill liner and to %he adverse affect of groundwater in swi£t Creek if the Landfill is e~panded. She stated that the citizens of Chesterfield County need to tak~ r~pon~ibility for the trash created in the County, Me. MaryAnn Bletoher expressed concerns relative to the durability of the liner at the Landfill. ~r, Dill Graves, President of the Chester Civic A~sociati~n and President of th~ Central Chesterfield Business C~nncil, read into the record a letter h~ submitted to ~r. ~c~ale exlor~ssing their support of the request. Mr. Phil Gett~ representing his family, stated that they are the closest neighbor to ~he existing ehoosmith Land£ill. He further stated that they feel the applicant holds the hi,hast regard to the County and its residents and ha~ the best interest of tho conmunity at hand. He requeste~ that the Board approve the request. Nr. Steve Pewzy, a reeiden= of Arbor Landing, stated that he feels the question at hand is whether a new landfill is the best possible uss for this property. He further stated that because this area is on~ of th~ fastest growing residential ar~as in the County, he does not feel a ne~ landfill is the best use for this property. Mr. Scott McRobert~, with the Chesterfield business Council, sta~ed tha~ the Chesterfield Business Council ~oard of Directors voted to endorse the petition for the expansion of the Landfill. ~e further stated that they support the request because the Rhoosmith property is appropriately ~sned a~d h~$ ~e stated that the current Landfill operation is efficient, well engineered, and in compliance with all environmental protectlun regulation~. He further stated ~hat ~hc expan~io~ env±rcnmentally sound solid waste disposal. ~e requested the Government, stated that they support the request and entered the Shoesmith Landfill has been a good neighbor mud responsible company for over twenty years. She stated that the economic benefi~ from the existing Landfill produces an $ls million chesterfield county, she reques=ed the Board's favorable consideration of the request. Mr. La~ry B~lchar abated that the opportunity to e×pa~d the Landfill will allow C~este~field County to continue :c promote the County as a great commercial and industrial base into the next century and will continue to provide efficient and snfe waste disposal, without a ta~ burden on the citizens of the County. He requested the Board's favorable consideration of the request. 5128/97 Mr. Sunny Currin stated that ho supports the e~ansion of the Landfill b~caus~ the County needs a waste disposal area to accommodate the growth of the County; that the Sheoamith Landfill is the only landfill in the County that previde~ a eotid waste disposal area; that the Landfill i~ a vital partner in promoting the County as an industrial leader; and that the Landfill provides a significant contribution to the County's economy. He requested the Board to approve the request. Mr. John Burton, a resident Of Bradley Bridge Road and an owner of sixty-five acr~ along Swift Creek, expressed ce~oerns relative to th~ pollution of Swift Creek ~om the Landfill. ~e requested that tho Board consider the health, safety, and welfare of the o~tizens and requested that the Board deny the r~quost. ~ r~quested that %he Board further study issues surrounding tbs expansion of the Landfill. Ms. Angels Pulley inquired as to the percent of solid waste that is brought into the Landfill from outsid~ Ches~erZield county and expressed concerns relative to heavy metal build-up in landfills and to the health, safety, an~ welfare o~ ~he citizens. Mr. clano Martin requested the Board's favorable consideration of the request. He ~tated that he served on a SaSe and ~ealth Beard for the State cf Vir~ini& for twelve years and that the presentation by ~s, Green was factual. Mr. biek Arthur, Chaptin Kanager e~ the Virginia Waste Induetrim~ Association, stated that Shoosmith Brothers has conti~us~ to work with local and State authorities on issue~ of concern and that they have and will csntlnue to comply with comprehensive regulations. He further stated that Shocsmith has voluntarily not accepted cut of State wagte; that they have volun~arily restricted the current and new Landfill height; and that the same amount of waste collect p~r day will not change with expansion approval. He stated that Shoot,itt ham been good cooperate citizens and requested th~ ~o~r~ to approve the request. ~r~ wilson Shannon, Paster of First Baptist church Cent~alia, seated that he supports expansion of the Landfill and requested the Landfill and stated that there is no need %0 enlarge the existing Lmndfill aTea and that operation of the current Landfill will last inte the n~xt m~ntury~ she entered into the M~. Travia ThiqDin expressed ceneern~ ~elative to the health and safety issues and to th~ impact on area property values if the Landfill is expanded. ~e ~equestcd that the expanded landfill be relocated away from the citizens of the County and that the Board deny this request. He stated t~et good corporate citiz~n~hip~ with its economic value, shoul~ never be viewed as inherently more important than geed individual citizenship and its overall value and importanue tc thc Mr. ~arry Rosepsrat, a resident of Arbor Landing, ~tated that the role of government is to protect th~ ~ealth and welfare of the p~o~le that they service. He further ~tated that ek~ansicn of the Landfill is a health issue. ~e read an excerpt ~rom the Environmental Protection Agency regarding landfills ~ausing er contributing to air p~llution that may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. He ~equested that the Board further study the expansion of the Landfill before taking any action. Ms. Virp~ni~ Virag requested that the Board consider the safe~y add welfare of the citizens and further study the expansion before nonsideringtho requeet. Mr. David Burnes e~pr~ssed concerns relative to, the Bhuosmith property becoming ~:waste-land for years ~nd years after it has closed and to Landfill gases and Carbons. He stated that the potential hazards sf the Landfill need to be c0nsid~red. It was generally agreed to recess for five minutes. Ms. Zadi Friend Moseley, a resident of Bradley Bridge Read, stated that she hue lost two family members from cancer and expressed concerns relative to sboesmit~ trucks hauling dirt ulong area roads to cover the Landfill. ~s. Terry Tinges ~tated that she feels expansion of th~ Landfill s~euld be s~udi~d ~y an independent exp~rt. She e×pre~sed concerns relative to the health~ ~afety, and w~lfar~ ~r. Dnvid ~oaen~r stated that when he bought a home in the County four years ago h~ was told by a realtor and the County that the Shoosmith Landfill would bs closing in a matter of yearm. ~ e×pr~seed concerns relative to t~e odor from 5andfill and to the health, safety, and welfare of County citizens. D~- Penny Sp~eaker expressed concerns relative to to×in~ in the L~ndfill an~ to the potential impact these toxins will have c~tizens. She requested the Board to further ~tudy th~ issues surrounding the expansion of the Landfill before considsr~n~ Mr. Jim Daniels ~tated that he feels there would still this request should stand On Shoosmith'~ operatione ever coneideration of the request. recognized for that excellence. Me further stated that the proposed landfill sit~ is located the center of 25,060 county repidents. Ee stated that he feel~ location an~ the County getting into ~ore recycling. Be expressed concerns relative to the rush in approving this request when there is apprs~imately ten to twelve years left on petition of approximately 280 siqnatures in opposition cf the 97-363 Mr. Keith Jonas, a resident of Woodland Pond, inquired as to th~ type~ of studies that have been conducted regarding water quality and the amount Of water currently being pumped out of concerns relative to the durability of the Landfill liner and allow furthe~ studi~s regarding the expansion. Mr. Art Thurston, a resident of Glebe Point, requested that the Board restrict the use of the Landfill ts Chesterfield County only and stated that he feels this request i~ being too quickly. He expro~ssd appreciation to Mr. M~Mate far his efforts surrounding this regu~t_ Mr. Don Hilki~ stated that he feels the County shoul~ establish a co~ission to get competitive bids far solid ~as~e and look for th~ v~ry be~t alternatives to the expansion. Me requested the Board to table consideration of this ~equest to allow further study of the expansion. Mr. Bob Schrum stated that he understands =he concerns that have bean expressed this evening, however, he has the utmost confidence in the operations of shoosmi=~ Brothers &~d in the county for its ability to regulate and govern the Landfill. ~s. Traci Williamson requested the ~oard to work with Shoosmith Brothers in regards to when this expansion site rsaahee its full capacity. ~he requested the Board's favorable consideration of ths request. ~s. Betty Hunter clapp briefly discussed Environmental Protection Agency standards and ex]pressed concerns relative to the Landfill liner. She stated that she would like information regarding the p~cffered condition~, ~p~cifically, as it relates to the monitoring of Swift Creek and the water and odor monitoring program. She requested th~ Board to defer the request to further study issue~ surrounding expanelem cf ~he Landfill. Mr. Walter Marsh stated that the Co~nty should protect the h~alth and safety sS its ciblzen~ however, the Landfill has a very small health risk and is in a good location, He further stated that citizens need a place to dump t~eir trash. F-r. John Truehurt, an adjacent property owner to Shoosmith B~etharu, stated that he ha~ never had a problem with his wall water and t~at the operation cf the Landfill is very clean. Me requested the Board's favorable consideration of the request. Mr C~gbill stated that Tarmac pumps ~ater Out of the quarry, pursuant tua permit from the Department of ~ines ~nd they also have a health department permit. Me further stated that there are requirements %: ensure nothing leaks out of the Landfill. He stated that there are small amounts Qf brace elements that go into this facility, which are att regulated by the State. He stated that this facility is a solid waste, non-hazardous Landfill and that the County and Shoos~ith Brothers have listened to the citizens about their concerns surrounding this request and have agreed to over twenty proffered conditions. Me further stated that the Landfill is the only landfill, in the State oS virginia, that ha~ agreed to limit is waste stream to Virginia; that in February, 1~97~ ~ighty-one percent of the trash tha~ Game into the Landfill was from Chesterfield; that in ~a~ch, 1997, seventy-eight percent of the trash ~ame from Chesterfield; and tha~ in May, 1997, oi~ht~t~o percent of the trash ca~e from Chesterfield. Me stated that no out-of-State waste is accepted in~o the Shoosnith Landfill. He further stated that this r~quest is an emotional issue; that it has been shown this evening that there is no detriment andangernent to public health and safety b~ this expansion; that the land use is clearly in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan; and that the use will not diminish area property values. Be stated that the proffered conditions provids assurances.that all applioable'regulations and ordinances will be addressed and complied with in the ~uture, with respect to the Landfill operation. He further stated that a siting ordinance and a D~Q permit process will follow approval of this land use. He requested the Board's favorable consideration of th~ input. She stated that she has conducted a lot of independent research on some additional conditions she feels should be imposed upon thiz r~que~t. She f%rther stated that the siting process, which will csme to the Board at a la%er time, provides residents ~ith another opportunity to review technical details and express any other conoer~s ~s the Board. She stated that the Planning Commission voted 6-1 in support of this request. she fur=her state~ t~at she £eels the Planning Commission did their d~e diligence to put all the issues ou thc tabl~ and forward ~hem to the Board of Supervisors. She stated that she has an obliqation to prot~ct the hsalth, safety~ and property values of County citizens. She further stated that she w~uld specifically prohibit the taking cf borrow material from sundial Farm. Mr. Ccgbill stated that shoosnith did not intund to take borrow material from ~undial Farm ts use at the Landfill, but does i~tend to build some p~nds an the Farm. Ha furthe~ ~tatsd that he will amend tko restrictive covenant and have i% recorded against the Sundial Farm propsrty. When asked, he stated that if the restrictive covenant is chan~ed, the condition, as wrltten~ cannot be accepted. He further stated that the applicant would provide thc revised remtrintiva covenant to =he County Attorney for review and ~ucord it with th~ same conditions in the previous covenant. He no%ed revised restrictive covenant would speoi£ioally restrict borrow that will require the applicant to perform an annual Health Risk Analysis, at their expense, of th~ Landfill and submit ~uch information to th~ County. She read the condition into the record as follows: "The owner/developer shall conduct, at defined) for the solid waste management facility (the 'Analysis"). The Analysis zhall be fo~ the purpose of determining on an annual basis the% =he operation of the solid imminent risk tQ the public health an~ safety of citizens residing in the vicinity of the solid wast~ management facility. The Analysis s~all consist ufa review and analysis facility. The owner/deYeloper shall ~ubmit ~he Analysis tO County by June 1 of each calendar year. The Analysis shall facility." There wa~ brief discussion relative ~o scientist, ~ired by applicant, beinq the person ~ho data,minas whether data is relevant, 97-365 Mr. Cogbill stated that the applicant concurs with the condition imposed by Mrs. Humphrey ~elating to the applicant conducting an annual Health Risk Analysis. Mrs. Humphrey imposed a second condition relating to an enforcement clau~e for matari~l violations. She rea~ thm condition into the record as follows: "In the ~vent of e material violation of tkis Conditional Use Permit or a material permit violetlcn~ as determined by the DEQ, that has not been cured within 90 days of written notice to the owner/developer by the Csunty, the County may cancel this Conditional Use Permit by notice to the owner/developer. ~he De~iod for cure of the violation shall be extended so 5cng as th~ owner/develsper is diligently and continuously using its best efforts in cooperation with the DEQ~ which will reasonably lead to a case of the violation within a reasonable perlcd of time. There shall be no extension for cure of a uislaticn which, in the opinion cf DES, poses an imminent ri~k to the health or ~afety of the public or the environment unless sufficient environment within the 90-day cure period." ~r. Cogbill stated that the applicant concurs wi~qh the condition imposed by Mrs. Humphrey relating to enforcement. the County's ability ts inspect the Landfill. She further stated tha~ she feels the County should have the authorit~ to imposed ~ third condition relating to the Ceu~ty'~ ability to inspect the Shoosmith Landfill- She read the condition in~o ~he record as follows: "The owne~/devel~per shall allow County inspections of the solid waste management facility at reasonable times and with reasonable notice through the life and post-closure of the solid waste management facility to include observing the taking of any and all samples of air, waste, surface water, lea~hate er groundwater at the solid waute management facility. The purposes of such inmpection(m) shall be to ensure compliance wi~h all County, State and Federal ordinances, statutes or regulations." Mr. Cogbill stated that the applican~ concurs with the csndition imposed by Mrs. Humphrey relating to the county's ability to inspect the Landfill. ~en asked, Mr. Micas stated that the li~t of ordinances, statutes, and regulations in t~is condition include requirements contained in the Board of ~upervi~ors $i~ing approval for this facility. Mr. ~ioas stated ~hat it is too late to accept new proffered conditions this evening. He further ~tat~d that the Board can impose conditions that reaecnablyrelate to the application. He suggested, in order to address the Sundial Farm situation, that the Soard include a condition which indicate~ that upon filing the siting application~ that one of the conditions of operation will restrict borrow activity cn Sundial Far~. ~r. Cogbill stated that he is willing to agree with t~e Beard thi~ evening and amend the current restuictive covenant inpose~ by ~he applicant to include the language sf restricting borrow activity on Sundial Farm. ~ further stated that th~ applicant has already limited %he Sundial Farm property to agricultural and residential uses, specifically excluding certain agricultural uses that would be offensive ts citizens. Mrs. Humphrey accepted Mr. Cegbill'~ recommendation to a~end the restrictive covenant to include language of restricting borrow activity on Sundial Far~. 5/28/97 9?-366 When asked~ Mr. Cogbiil stated that the applicant is not willing to prohibit pon~ construction on the Shooemith property oo~th of Piney Branch. After brief discussion with the applicantr.Fuc~' Cogbill stated that, with respeot'~to wh~re the Shoosmithp~operty, south of Piney B~anch, abuts Fieldstone Subdivision, the applioan~ willing to provide 500 feet of bufferinq_ He suggested that where there im no residential development a~ja~ent to Piney Branch, the Board not impose a buffer restriction. T~ere was ~rief discussion relative to the buffering of property b~tween Fieldstene Subdivision and the Landfill being 200 ~eet. Nr, Gogbill stated that a ne~ covenant ~ill be written to address the 300 feet buffer re~trictian. applicant provided the same protection for Amntel ~ubdivision. ~fr- Cogbill stated that the applicant would agree to record a reotr~mtive covenant on the Shoosmith property, mouth of Piney Branch, that placed a ~OO foot buffer adjacent to Field,tone and A~stel Bluff Subdivisions. Mrs. Humphrey stated that thes~ na~ conditions and ~he applicants agreement to modify restrictive aovenant~ on Sundial Far~ and the Shoo~mith property, south ef Piney ~ranch, have done a lot to address csncern~ brought to the Board by citizens. She ekpressed appr~ciation tO Mr. Cogbill and applicant for ~heir willlngnes~ to work with th~ residents re~arding those concerns. She stated that the applicant has dem~nntrat~d that the proposed Landfill e~ansion will nob negatively impact the property values and livelihoods in the vicinity of the Landfill. She Surther stated that this request has provided adequate buffering and will not i~pe~e normal and orderly development o£ the surrounding community. She stated that S~oosmith Brothers have made provisions for adequate public facilities pertaining to the Landfill such as improving turn into the Land£ill access point. She briefly rovi~wed some of the proffered conditions and stated that this Landfill expansion complies with Chesterfield County's Comprehensive Plan. She further stated that th~ County chose, as a local government, to not get i~to the landfill business. ~he stated that th~ proffered conditions, submitted by the applicant, addresses all reasonable concerns including environmental issues. She briefly reviewed the three conditions aha imposed including the County's ability to inspect the Landfill; an enforcement claus~ for material violations; and the applicant conducti~ an annual Health Risk Analysis. She 5t~ted that the applicant has agreed to place a coYenan~ restriction on Sundial Farm and the Shoosmith p~oD~ty, ~outh ~f ~iney Branch. Mrs. Eumphrey then made ~ motion for the ~ea~ to approve Case ~7SC0~6 ~ubjeot to the eon~ition~ and acceptance of proffered conditions 1 through 23 and 2~ through 26 and. to reject proffered condition 24. Kr. venial sba=ed t~at it is his intention to seocnd the motion. He further stated that he met with many individuals as this zoning request progreese~ and that there has bee~ a high degree cf frustration. He stated that h~ Canno~ let comments SUCh as '~this Baar~ cf Supervisor~ is polities as usual'~ go by end that he personally r~sents any type of all~gations that were made abc~t approval of this request being based on money. ~e ~urth~r stated that the County is not m regulatory agency and that the State has never given these powers to the County. Ke expressed appreciation ts the applicant for working with the community and agreeing to have these conditions impose~ upon them, which do border on regulatory requirements and ar~ allowing the County ts assist and participate. Es stated that zoning ±s only the first step in operating a landfill and that the real operation will not be~in until all the steps have been taken that ~atisfies all the State end federal regulatory agencies. He further stated that all the information gathered thi~ evening will be presente~ ts the regulatory agensies and that tbs real issue at this time is land use. 5e stated that the Board cannot deny soDeene the use of a property when the State code, as well as the constitution, clearly allows people in this ~tate to use land for the highest u~e- ~e stated that when the Arbor Landing and Woodland Pond zoning requests were approved~ the Landfill was never an issue. s~atsd that this request is in accordance with the proposed land use plan and reiterated ~rs. Humphrey's somme~ts tha~ Chesterfield County; in tAe 1980's~ made a conscientious decision that the taxpayers for the entire county were better of~ through privstizing landfills rather than making them a County responsibility. ~o stated that he would not be comfortable wit~ a "no ~ote" on this request this evening. Mr. Daniel then seconded the motion made by FLrs. Humphrey. Mr. Barber stated that by request of Mrs. Humphrey and area eitizen~, each of th~ ~eard members met for s number of hours prior to this public hea~inq for the purpose of understanding the ~etaiI of this request as it is very difficult to ~nderstand all the details at a public he,ring. ~e further stated that the Board stepped O~tside of protocol this evening in the same effort to allow for the opposition to have an equivalent type of time as ~he applicants He stated that with the three minute allotments and with the knowledg~ ahead of time that a number of people would be able to speak in a row, it Was decided that there would be a concerted, opposition point of view. He referenced a petition that was circulated in the County stating that they want County ~o maintain its reputation of being one of the best places to live and work in Virginia and urging the Board to make decisions that firs% protect the health, safety, and welfare of County residents. B~ further stated ~hat it was the right cf the peoDl~ to n~rCulate this petition, however, he feels the petition left little room to look at the Eequest in a favorable light, He stated that he received approximately 250 of these form letters and ~hat he contacted ueveral persona in his District who signed the petition, but who were told there would be te~ic and o~t-of-Stat¢ waste accepted into the Landfill. ~ further stated that he feels that is an unfair raprasent~t±on of the request as those two issues have be~n proffered out u~ the proposed application. Me Etated that the process at this time is a two step process -- the question of whether or not thi~ Landfill is an appropriate use in this area and the ~ssemblage and review of al/ the t~chnloal information that people have requested. He further stated that there is a process ~n place that brings those answers to the table and if the answers are insufficient the applicant is encumbered to go back and recalculate and come ~p With other systems t~at answer tho~e exact technical questions. when a~k~d, Mr. Jacobsen stated that no new informution hum cone forward thi~ ~vening tha~ would change staff's recommendation regarding this request. F~. Barber stated that %he original application was to ~xpand the e×i~ting Landfill, ~hich would have been lo~ated much elsser to existing and potential residential development. We further stated that when Nrs~ Humphrey became..invelved in ~his reguest, she asked th~applioant not to ~ureue that request, but to move tAe ek~pansion to this new location, further from area subdivisions, He stated that, politically, this could be a difficult decision for Mrs. Humphrey, but hefsels she was motivated by moving the expansion to a bett~r location for the Oo~nity. ~e ¢omnended Mrs. Humphrey for her ~fforts re~ardin~ this request and for imDo~ing %he additional conditions. Me stated that ha is willin~ t= ~upport the motion because he has seen the work that ha~ gone into this r~qu~t; that from a lan~ uae qusstlon, it is th~ appropriate th±n~ to do~ and that he haz confidence in the siting pro~ss ~hat the federal, State, and local ~overnments, and lo,al citizen~ will have a voic~ in. ~r. Mc~ale stated that the decxsiens he makes on the Board are has own and that hs take great e~ept~on to any suqqestion to the contrary. Ke further ~tated that he do~s not geel, in spi~e u~ significant diligence on the part of the applicant and County staff, that all th~ iggue~ have 'been answered surrounding the ~pact of landfills on th~ local community. He situation to ~upport this request and that his remaln~nq documentation, enforcement, and inspection. ~e further stated that he feel~ the County is e reglllatsry aqency in some s~n~ h~ feel~ ~trongly that the Seato has not. addressed some issues because ~he County does not have the ability to specifically perform waste inspections amd =hat =he county does no~ have the proposed to the ap~lioant, Would have the ability to conduct proposed conditions that r~qulr~ th= owner~operator of th~ notified of any violations. He s=ate~ that h~ also proposed a condition that would gi~e the County the ability to problem with the Landfill. He expressed sonoern~ relative to burrowing operations in th~ area behind Fieldstone Subdivision ~. Warren stated that he watched the entire wlanning Commission ~ubli~ he,ring and met with County ~esidcnts regarding this request. He further stated that there have been this Board took office. He stated that ha will support the ~7-969 ~/2S/97 ~r. Warren then called fo~ the vote on the motion made by Eumphrey, s~ccnded by Mr. Daniel, for the Board to approve Case 97SN0206 subject to the following oonditimns: Thc owner/developer shall allow County inspsction~ of the solid waste management ~acility at reasonable ti~s and with reasonable notice throughout th~ life and post- closure of the solid waste management facility to in~lude observing tko taking ef any and all samples of air, waste, surface water, loachat~ or groundwater at the solid waste management facility. The purposes of SUCh ~hall be to assure compliance with all County~ Sta~e Federal ordinances, statute~ or re~ulatioos. ~. Th~ owner/developer shall tendnct, at its sole expense, annual 5ealtb ~isk Analysis (as herein ~efin~d) for th~ solid waste management f~cility (the "Analysis"). The Analysis shall De for the purpose of determining on an annual basis that the operation of the solid waste management facility does no~ pos~ a substantial or inuninent risk to the public health and safety of citizens residing in the vicinity of the solid waste management facility. The Anmlysis shall conmimt of a review and analysis of ell relevant environmental da~a, inoludin~ air mmimmionm~ available and applicable to the solid waste management fasility. The nwner/dsvsloDer shall submi~ ~he Analysis to th~ County by June 1 of e~ch calendar year. The Analysis shall analyze relevant data gathered du~isg tk~ immediately preceding twelve months of operation of the ~olid wast~ management facility. 3. In the event of a material violation o~ this Conditional Use Permit or a material permit violation, as d~termined by the DEQ, that has not been cured wi%his 90 days written noti~ to th~ o~u~er/developer by the Connty, the County may cancel this Conditional Use Permit by notice to %k~ ewner/d~v~loper- ~h~ period for cur~ of the violafion shall be extended so long aa the owner/developer is diligently and continuously using i~s bes~ effort~ in cooperation with Yke DEe, which will ~ea~o~ably lead tm a cure of ~ke violation within a reasonable period of time. There shall be no extension for cure of a violation ~hich! in the opinion of DEQ, poses an imminent risk to the h~alth or safety of the public or thc en¥ironment unless suf£i~i~nh actions have Dean taken to proteo~ the public and the environment within the 90-day c~re period, And, further~ the Board accepted the following proffered conditions: The ~rcpsrty owner and appliuant in this rezoning case, pro~fer that t~e development of ~he Prop~r%y Number 114-14 {l)14, will be in accordance with the following conditions if, and only if, ~ho request ~or a an existinq sanitary landfill in an A zoning district and an I-3 zoning dimtrlct is granted. In the event said request, ae herein set fc~th~ is ~enied or modifie4, the proffers shall, st the applicant's option, be null and void and of no further force and effect. 'Exhibit shell be the map prepared by Joycs Engineering loc., revised March 21,1~97 shewing "~hass I" and "~hase II" of the Waste ~anegement Area (as hereinafter defined) and other features of the area around the Property (the map hereinafter referred to as "Exhibit 'A'"). 97-5?0 1. The ~Waste ~anaga~ent Area" which, for the purposes of th~s~ pro£fe~s, shall be the area in which solid waste disDesal activities shall occur, shall be limited to the elevation of ~O feet'above mean sea level afte~ all r~gulated closure activiti~ have been completed, 2. ~he access to %he solid waste management facility shall be restricted to the existing solid waste management facility entrance/exit via Ironbridge Read. 3. Upon ~iting approval by the County and the Pa~t permit by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ~), and prio~ to any disposal of solid waste in the quarry pit, a landscaped berm shall be established between the quarry an~ swift Creek, with an elevation of cna (1) foot above the elevatio~ of a ~00-year flood. ~he exact location and landscapm treatment of thim ber~ ~hall be approved ~y the Chesterfield ~nvlronmsntal tngineering Dep&rt~ent ("ePEE") and the Chesterfield ~lanning Department. Thi~ Conditional Use P~rmit shall be granted to and facility by Shoosmith Brothers, Inc. Yt shall net be transfemable nor run with the land. Copies of all rsport~ required by the DEQ throughout the life and post-closure period of the ~olid waste management ~acility ~hsll be submitted to the Chesterfield County ~otid Waste ~anager within (lO) days of submission to DEQ. 6. T~e ~wner/~eveloper shall be responsible for construction of additional pavemen% alon~ the w~tbound lane~ of Irenbridge Road at the approved access to provide for an adequate left turn lane. Prior to any site plan approval, a phasing plan for this improvement shall be submlt~sd to and approved ~y ~he Chesterfield Department of TramsportatioD 7. No ~art B application, as it may ~e amended time to time, to permit use of the quarry area for solid waste disposal shall be ~ubmit~e~ to the QEQ until at leas~ ten years after the DEQ permit issuance for Phase I, as shown on Exhibit "A". In no case shall any solid waste disposal activities be ~onduct~d within the quarry pit until all commercial quarryinq activitie~ have ceased. Thi~ provision shall in no way restrict the owner/developer f~em removing material as necessary for son-traction of cells £o~ waste disposal or for cover material_ $. The owner/developer shall be rssponslble for the installation of a traffic light at the of %ronbridge Road and the solid waste management facility entrance/exit if approve~ by SD©T and warranted by the virginia Department of T~ansportation~ 9. Rhoosmith Brother~, Inc. ~hall prohibi~ any vehicles under thsi~ o%rnership or control fr~m transporting solid wast~ to the soli~ waste management ~acility via Lewis Road except when the source of th~ solid waste is a site adjacen~ to Lewis Road and served via Lewis Road. ~7~$71 10. Shoosmith Brothers, Inc.. shall require its I~ssee, TPS~ Inc., not to use Lewis Road fo~ dmliwmry of materials to its facility. Ail such a~ess shall restricted tu zhe Ironbridge Road solid management facility entrance. ii. The right-of-ways of Ironbridge Road and Lewio Koad, south along Lewi~ Road tn its intersection with Lake Dale ~0ad; along Tronbridge Road must of Lewis Road to the intersection of Edenshire Road; end along Ironbridge scad, w~st from Lewis Road, to the intersection of Courtyard Road, shall be moni=ored by Shccsmith Brothers, Ins- on a r~gular basis to prevent the accumulation of trash and other debris. A plan £er regular removal of trash and d~brls shall b~ ~ubm~tted in conjunction with the submission of the application for approval of this solid waste m&n&qement facility for r~view and approval. Shoosmith Brothers, Inc. shall submit an application to the Virginia Department of Transportation for participation in the Virginia "Adopt a ~ighway" Program fo~ these roads as described above and if accepted s~all implement ~he plan. b~tween the edge of the Waste Management A~a and subdivision lscated on Tax ~ap Parcel Number 11~ 13. Solid wae=e disposal operations shall be restricted between the hours of midnight and ~:~0 a.m. truck~ swne~ and operated by Shouamith Brothers, Inc. shall be admitted to the solid waste management facility and deliveries shall no~ exueed an average of two v~hicle~ per hour during these restricted hour~. 14- Shoosmith Brothers, Inc, ~hall not accept stock farm animal carcasses for disposal in t~e Waste 15. Shoosmith Brothers, I~c. ahall not ~auae barge or rail service to be extended which wo~ld transport soli~ waste to the solid waste ~anaqemen% facility. 16. The solid ~aste management facility shall oo~ply with all stat~ and federal ntatut~s and regulations for ~uch facilities as dete~-mlned by Chesterfield County. F~r~her, the solid Waste management facility shall co~ply with all requirements contained in %he ~ca~d of Sup~rvisor'~ written siting approval for this facility. Throughout the life and post-closure period of the solid waste management facility, t~a owner/developer shall provide documentation tc ~ns~re that all regulated activities have been conducted in accordance wit~ Supervisors' written ~iting approval for this facility. 17. Shoosmith Brothers, Thc. shall not accept waste that Virginia and transported to the Waste Management Area by commercial or government haulers. 5/28/97 ~7-37] 20. 21. Agricultural (A} zoning ara mor~ re~trictive~ ~olid waste manaqement ~aeilitlea and activitie~ within the agriculturally zoned portion of the property shall conform te the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for us~s in the Heavy Inddstrial Districts in Emerging Growth Area~, provided that a minimum of a $00 foot setback shall bm maintained between the edge of the Waste Management ~3~ea and any existing er future lo=s reccrde~ in any subdivieicn located on Tax Map Parcel Nu~be~ !13-6 (1) ~, and further provided that the set,ack from feet outside the ~00 year floodplain of Swift Greek. The owner/developer shall not file a completed application for t~is facility with the County for approval of siting of a Solid Waste Management Facility and for Waste M~ter~al ~anagement and Disposal approval until the following condition is The owner/developer shall submit information e~uivalent to tha~ required by DEQ to conduct a Part preliminary review. The Solid Waste Manager ~hall, upon receipt, ~ubmit the Part A information to DEQ for their Drellminary comments. Upon receipt of DEQ' ~ ee~m~nt~, the County Solid ~ast~ ~anaqer shall complete the preliminary review of the Part A information within %$0 day$~ unless the owner/developer a~ee~ to an extension of ~h~ day p~riod. Subsequently, the owne:/ ~eveloper shall submit information equivalent ~o that required by D~Q for a Part B review to the solid Waste Manager for preliminary r~view. The Soli~ Waste information to DEQ for their preliminary commentS. Upon receipt of DEQ' s comments, =he solid wast~ manager ~hall complete the preliminary rzview of the Part B information within l~o days, unless the day period. After the preliminary review Dy the County Solid Waste Manager is completed, for approval. On that portion of khe Property zoned Agricultural (A), the limits, of th~ Waste Management Area shall be a minimum 0f 100 f~t outside the 500 floodplain, on tha~ portion of ~he property zoned Heavy Industrial (I-3), the limit~ of th~ t~ ¢~t~rline cf Swift Cr~k. At l=ust 180 days prior to th~ submission of the application for siting approval of t~is solid waste management facility, a plan for monitorin~ Swift mu~itted to CDEE for review and written commen=. If CDEE hem failed to provide written comment at th= end of 1~0 day~ aftgr the date of submission, application for siting U~pruval for this solid waste shall be to estaDlish Daseline wat~ quali~y 97-375 information for Swift Creek in the ¥i~inity of the proposed $61id waste management £acility and to detect any water qaali~y dsgradatlon attributable to the solid waste management facility adjacent to the proposed and existing solid waste management facility sites. An independent consultantr acceptable to CDEE, shall, at no cost to cD,E, collect and test water samples at monitoring points on Swift Creek. The sample test results shall submitted to C~E~- Th~ monitoring pla~ ~hall include: a. The number and location of monitoring points; b. tko frequency of sampling; o. the parameters to be analyzed; d. the sampling methodology; and e. measures to address water quality degradation facility. The Board of Supervioors may condition the siting approval of this solid ~asts managemes~ facility to require compliance with the water quality moniPoring plan. 32, At Ieas~ 180 days prior to ~ubmiseion of application for upprova~ of the siting of th~m ~elid waste management fasility, an odor management plan shall be ~ubmitted to the County for review and written oo~m~n~. ~f the County has ~ailed provide written comment at the end of 180 days after the ~te of submission, the application for the siting of this solid waste management facility, to for review and approval by the Board of Supervisors the 1S0-day p~riod- In approving an application far this facility pursuant to the County's Siting of Solid Waste Management Facilities and Waste Material Management and disposal ordinances (hereafter '~siting approval"), the Soard of Supervisors may condition the sitin~ approval of this solid waste management facility ~o require compliance with the odor management plan to mitigate odor di~eutly a~trlbutable to the solid waste management facility. 23. Bl~t tests shall be conducted to Verify that auoaleratlen forces fro~ the quarry operation will ba less than the .~ g d~ign limit for seismic au~ivity. Such data shall be provided to DEQ and less than .22 q design limit. Such info~m&tion ~hall be submitted for review and approval in =onjunction with the application for siting approval for the proposed solid waste management facility. The Board of Sapervisors may condition the siting approval to require compliance with any plan and may impose additional oonditiens to mitigate the impac~ of blasts on the soI~d waste management facility opera=ion. OOndition 24) 97-374 26. After the DEQ i~ua~ its final permit for this solid Wests management facility, and any and all appeals arising therefrom have been exhausted or have cx~ired by their own terms, the owner/developer forms acceptable to the County Attorney that satisfy The unenferceabillty or illegality of any proffers set forth herein, in w~ole or in part, ~hall not affect the validity of ~he conditional Use Permit or the validity o~ enforceability of any other proffers or the unaffected portion of any ~uch proffer and any such proffer Or portion of a proffer herain finally found to be unenforceable or illegal be ~ever~d fro~ the balance of proffers and deleted. EXHIBIT C Description of Covenants The existing permitted landfil~ property (see the pla% a=taohed hereto as Schedule C-l) Re~tr~tion A~ainst Parcal A. Th~ restric%io~ us~ permitted in an '~A" agricultural district and a r~£dentia% dlstrict~ or for conservation purposes~ ~o~ever, the cevenant~ shall prohlbi% u~e~ permitted by right in an indumtrial or commercial di~t~iet on either property. Also, the propar~y may nat be used ftr a sanitary landfill operation, a construction~demolition/debris landfill operation! e ~ine~&l mining operation, a quarryinq operation er a junkyard oparation. The districts and use~ permitted or restricted ar~ a~ defined by the chesterfield County. Restriction A~einst Parcel ~. Shoesnith Brethe~ will not increase the height on Parcel ~ beyond 380 fmmt above mean sea level after all regulated closure ectivitle~ have been completed. Restriution A~ain~t Parcel ~. Brothers will not increase the height on C beyond ~O fee= above mesh see level after all r~gulat~d closure activiti~g have completed. Enforcement. The restrictlon~ run to the ben,fib of Chesterfield County. restrlotlen~ may b~ enforced if a majority of the Board of Supervisors ~otes to enforce'the restrictions. Once the Beard of Supervisors votes to enforce the re~tric~ions, the County Attorney may seek any acti0~ at law or in equity, or by injunction, to enforem the restrictions. Term. Th~ uss restriction stays in effect for forty years after all landfill upera~ion~ cease in th= proposed solid waste management facility. Ayes: Mr. Warren, ~rs, Humphrey, Mr. Nays: ~r. NcHale. Barber, and Mr. Daniel. 97-375 Er- HcRale requested staff to look into the picturss, submitted by ME. Hastings, which appear to be a ford on swift Creek, ts ensure that there is not any violation of County code or Corps of Engineers regulations. 4. ADJOURNMENT On ms,ion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. ~umphrey~ the Beard adjourned at 1:~0 a.m. until June 4, 1997 at 4:o0 p.m. for e ~Streat with the Chesterfield Business Council at the Chestsrfield County Airport. Vote: Ununinous Larfe B. Ramse~ Arthur ~. Warren 5/2~/97 97-376