The URL can be used to link to this page

06/24/74 Packet ~ DUN [ Y .r't E.:~ I"gRFI ELD~, 'VA. * FOR OFFICE USE ONLY , * Board of Supervisors ~ Case No .... * Board of Zoning Appeals Fee Receipt APPLICATION TO THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OR BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS T~ FOLLOWING INFORMATION SHALL BE TYPED OR PRINTED AND COMPLETED IN FULL 1. EXPLAIN FULLY THE REQUEST DESIRED A) REZONING: From Agricultural ( ) To R-15 ( ) Type of use(sy proposed: Residential o~e.f~l~house A) NAME OF APPLICANT: ~OADM/X~R ¢~PORATIO~ OR ASSIGNS B) MAILING ADDRESS: ~',.Z D) NAME OF ~ C TELEHONE NO.': 233-9823 RESENT OWNER OF PR~cH THIS REQUEST WILL OCCUR: See Supplemental attached and ~,'. a i?~ . ~ i;:tion E)MAILIN~ ADDRESS: F) 'TELEphONE NO.: G) NAME OF PERSON TO BE NOTIFIED IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT ~ND/oR PROPERTY OWNER: H) ADDRESS: I TELEPHONE NO.: IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, EXPLAIN: (A Cop~ of pending contract or option agreement shall b__e attached h~reto and made a part of this application. ) -- Photostat of two contracts attach, ad hereto ^) c) F) LOCATION OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION (Following information shall be obtained from the Office of the County Assessor, Room 213) Parcel ~1 - 26 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Midlothian B) TAX MAP NO. Parcel #2 - 26 SEC, NO,Both #8 D)"' SUBDIVISION NOo -- E)- BLOCK NO. - .... LOT OR P~l-3, ~2-4 G) STREE~ .. ,, _ SOURCE OF TITLE F0~R ALL PROPERTIES INVOLVED DE~D BOOK 'Parcel'~l'' 407 PAGE Parcel #1 - 421 __ . .... -~arce~ ~2 - 6~u-' Parcel ~2 ~ 1068 STATE THE REASON FOR THIS REQUEST: houses Zone the prop.erty, in..o=dar._~._~ STATE HOW THIS REQUEST WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OR THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD: We ~ropose to construct one ,family residences that will be comparable with houses XP the ,adjointn~ ~ubdivision - EXPLAIN ANY EXISTING USE PERMIT~ SPECIAL EXCEPTION, CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE GRANTED PREVIOUSLY 0N THE PARCEL IN QUESTION: A) EXISTING LAND USE (S): None B) EXISTING STRUCTURE (S) USE: C) EXISTING ZONING: A.f;ricu!tural TYPE B) C) D) D) TOTAL ACREAGE OF-THE REQUEST: 24.66 GIVE NAMES OF ALL OWNERS ADJACENT~ ACROSS THE ROAD OR HIGHWAY AND FACING THE PROPERTY AND ANY OWNERS ACROSS ANY RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM SUCH PROPERTY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY AFFECTED IS SITUATED AT OR WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE INTERSECTION OF ANY TWO OR MORE ROADS OR HIGHWAYS, AT OR WITHIN ONE HUNDRED FEED OF THE INTERSECTION OF ANY ROAD OR HIGHWAY WITH A RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAy OR AT OR WITHIN ONE HUNDRED FEET OF THE INTERSECTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAYS OF ANY TWO RAILROADS, GIVE NAMES OF PROPERTY OWNERS AT ALL CORNERS OF ANY SUCH INTERSECTION. (Following information MUST BE obtained by the applicant from the office of the County Assessor~ Room 213). A) PROPERTY OWNER' S NA, ME: Estate of Robera and Ella 0~a MAILING ADDRESS: c'o ih~mas S. Ow n ' Rt ~; 'B M :,' TAX MAP NO,: 26-8 SUBD. NAMe: LOT or PARCEL:_/%)_,_~ t BLOCK: _, SECTION: PROPERTY OWNER ~ S NAME: Owen W. MAILING ADDRESS: 200 Hazelmere Road Richmond Vii: inia 23235 TAX MAP NO.: .... 26-8, SUBD~ NAME: LOT or PARCEL 5 BLOCK: .. SECTION: PROPERTY OWNER'S ~ Ai,~E~ield Land & T._imber Corporatio~] MAILING ADDRESS: ~. " . . LOT or PARCEL:__ ~_ 8 BLOCK: SECTION: PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME:_ R. L. Bailey, Jr. MAILING ADDRESS: 1 2 num ut A Ri 1 nd V ; 2 TAX MAP NO.: 26 SUBD. NAME: LOT or PARCEL_:__ (1) 22 BLOCK: SECTION: -2- E) P ' ROPERTY OWNER ~' S NAME: David N. Gri~oo4 MAILING ADDRESS: 11801 Bondurant Drivel Richmond235 TAX MAP NO.: 26-7 SUBD. NAME: Stoneheng~ LOT or PARCEl,-: 1 & 1-A BLOCK: ~ N SECTION: B - F) PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: James ~. Hastin_~s MAILING ADDRESS: 11811 Bondurant Drive gtchmond Va 2 2 TAX MAP NO.: 25.-7 SUBD. NAME: Stonehenge LOT or PARCEL: 2 BLOCK' -N SECTION: B G) PROPERTY OWNER,S NAME: Jose-h E. B~e lin. Jr _ MAILING ADDRESS: 1 21 B ndu ant Dr~ e Richm d V TAX MAP NO. :_26-_~ ~' SUBD. NAME~ Stonehenge LOT or PARCEL: 3 BLOCK-~---- N SECTION: B H) PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: Willie W. Hudson MAILING ADDRESS: 11831 Bondurant Drive, Richmond, Va. 23235 TAX MAP NO.: 26-7 ~SUBD. NAME :_Stoneh.n~ , , _ LOT or PARCEL: 4 BLOCK: N SECTION: B I) PROPERTY OWNER' S NAME: Jamea A. ~uddeth MAILING ADDRESS: 11831 Bon~ur, nt Drive Richmond TAX MAP NO : 26-7 3235 ' SUBD. NAME: Stonehen. ge LOT or PARCEL-~ BLO~-~: N SECTI~J'N: B -- J) PROPERTY OWNER' S NAME: Robert E. Robertson '~ ----___ SUBD. NAME: Stonehenge LOT or PARCEL: ~ BLOCk: -: SECTION. ' K) PROPERTY OWNER' S NAME: _~narco c/o Bon Air Realty MAILING ADDRESS: ~. O. Box 2068, Richmo~ 23235 TAX MAP NO.: 26-7 _SUBD~]- Stonehenge' - LOT or PARCEl] 13 BLOCK: J SECTION: B ' L) PROPERTY OWNER, S NAME: James E. Morris MAILING ADDRESS: 11751 ~ollingbrOok rive, ~,ic on TAX MAP NO.: 26-8 LOT or P ,~ ...... - ARCEL. 13-A BLOCK: ' ~ SECTION: '"~ ~ ' M) PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME :_ Glouster F. Strause ' '_ 26-4 ...... SUBD. N~ME: ge LOT or PARCEL: 3 BLOCK: J SECTION: g ..... N) PROPERTY OWNER' S NAME: Charles N. Leith MAILING ADDRESS: 11731" TAX MAP Rollingbrook Dri__~ve, Richmond~ Virginia 23235 .... NO.: 26-4 LOT or PARCEL: 4 ...... SUBD, NAME: ~to~he,ge SLOCK: j SEC TIO~.~: B ' -- FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE USE THE BACK OF PAGES 2 & 3 -3- Continuation on P~verse Hereof - .. ........... MAILI3~,: ti)DP~Sl~':' ~. : ',I.1741"' Boll'tngbr'6blc' Drive, Richmond, Va. 23235 ............... TAX-~P I~0. 126~4 .......................... ................. s~. ,~: S~oneh~nge ............ LOT or PARCEL: 5' ::.-B~'I(: J SECTION lO) THE APPLICANT HEREWITH DEPOSITS THE FEE REQUIRED. A FEE SCHEDULE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPAI'~TM~:,~T~~ ~w~ ROOM 307. 11) CHECK OR MONEY ORDER MUST BE MADE PAYABLE TO: TREASURER~ COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD ENCLOSE WITH THIS APPLICATION EITHER THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY TAX MAP OR A SURVEYED PLAT OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL. 13) ENCLOSE WITH THIS APPLICATION ANY PERTINENT SITE PLANS OR TENTATIVE PLATS. NOTE: INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS MAY DELAY THE SCHEDULING OF REQUESTS. I/WE HEREBY DEPOSE AND SAY THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE ST£[TE, m~[T~' ;~¢=' q A}[D THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ANY EXHIBITS TRANSMITTED ARE TRUE: April 22, _ _ , 1974 . SIGNATURE OF AGENT -- (Name of person other than, but acting for the applicant, filling out all or a part of this appli- cation) BROADMOC~ CORPOI~ATIOI~ OR, ASSIGNS By: .... f SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT (Same name as used in Item 2-A, Page 1 ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS MY COMMISSION EXPIRES__ Aug~is~~ ~.~ 22nd DAY OF April _,1974 , 1977 . -4- COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF RICHMOND COUNTY OF HENRICO COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD June 25, 1974 Mr, ]~ugene T. Jensen Executive Secretary State Water Control Board P. O. Box 11]43 RiclnT~ond, Virginia 23Z30 Dear Mr. Jensen: Enclosed is a plan showing facilities within Planning District 15 to serve the communities therein. This proposal has been developed by the City of F~ichmond, Henrico County and Chesterfield County. The relative facts now shown on the plan of irJterest are enumerated below: l. The present c. ontract between l~ichmond an.d Hcnrico for sewerage disposal will be te'rminated August 31, 1974. 2. 2% new interim contract fo]: sewerage disposal for term not to exceed eight years will be executed after a plan for a Henrico County regional sewage treatnaentplant to serve ali of Henrico, Gooch. land, Hanover, New Kent and Charles City Counties has been approved and at least Step I funding assured by the State Water Control Board and the Envirom-nental Protection Agency with an effective date of September 1, 1974. 3. The State %¥ater Control Board and Richmond Regional Planning District Commission 15 are requested to approve applications for the following projects: a) b) e) d) Expansion of Richmond sewage treatment plant. The construction of the Henrico County sewage tre.atxnent plant and system at Deep Bottom with Segment 17 discharge.. Gaznbles Mill Crossing. to be designed primarily as an interconnection between the Henrico and Richmond Systems and to serve an area of the Citsr currently flowing into' the Shockoe Combined System. Fulton Bottom River Crossing (to be designed as an interconnection frona I{ichn~ond sexvage treatnnent plant and }tcnrico System). Expansion of Falling Creek sewage treatment plant and construction' of l~roctor's. Creek sewage treatment plant. Mr. Eugene T. Jensen Page Two June 25, 1974 f) g) Interconnections between plants in Henrico, Chesterfield and the City of Richmond. All treatment facilities ~x, ill be conventional ':secondary facilities" in accordance with the State Water Control Board regulations and 'non- degradation shall not apply. h) The State Water Control Board accept this plan as compliance with the Board's rule relative to a plan of action required at 80% of design load. 4. Contract between Henrico and the City will be renegotiated as follows: a) Henrico will make lump sum payment to Richmond'for City's net equity in facilities to be used by County allowing maximum usage of facilities previously constructed. b) Henrico will contract with Goochland and Hanove'r Counties to relieve City of previous commitments to these localities on a cost of service basis. c) Itenrico will contract with New Kent and Charles City Counties to provide service on a cost of service basis. d) Rate structure under interim contract will provide for operation and maintenance and depreciation expense on treatment facilities used to provide service to areas outside City on north side of River. We believe this general plan is in substantial compliance with the directives of the State Water Control Board of May 5, t974. An early written reply would be appreciated to allow each of us to promptly begin planning the implementation of this proposal. Very truly yours, W. J. LeidSnger City Matlager Richmond, Virginia IE. A. Beck Manage .r County of Ilenrico M. W. Burnett County Administrator County of Chesterfield BOARD OF SUPERVISORS |R¥1N G. HORNER, CHAIH~IAN CLOVER HiLL DISTRICT LEO MYERS, ViCE BEHMUDA DISTRICT COU NTY CHESTERFIELD, CHESTERFIELD VIRGINIA June 26, 1974 Mr. Eugene T. Jensen Executive Secretary State Water Control Board P.O.Box 11143 Richmond~ Virginia 23230 Dear Mr. Jensen: The County of Chesterfield approves and endorses the City of Richmond and the County of Henrico sewage treatment facilities plan as set forth in the letter agreement dated June 25~ 1974, which has been prepared by them to comply with the State Water Control Board directive of May 5~ 1974, subject to the following: That Chesterfield County treatment facilities be conventional secondary facilities. That Falling Creek sewer treatment plant expansion and construction of 'Proctors Creek sewer treatment plant be allowed to proceed as scheduled. That the County of Chesterfield receive the same priority rating as other jurisdictions in the area. MWB:w Very truly yours~ ;//_~ M. W. Burnett County Administrator Be it Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia: 1. That the Board approves and agrees to fund a sewer system in Clover Hill Magisterial District consisting of a trunk sewer up Millers Run, a force main from Bailey's Bridge Pump Station to Millers Run trunk, and a gravity trunk along Swift Creek from Bailey's Bridge Pump Station to a point north of Route No. 360. 2. This resolution is conditioned upon Sea Pines Company providing sufficient guarantee that revenue bonds in the amount of 2.25 million dollars can be sold, and that the proceeds of the bond sale shall be used in the construction of sewer facilities for the Brandermill project. 3. That all parties shall proceed in a timely manner. Brandermill A Sea Pines Community P.O. Box 287, Midlothian, Virginia 23113, Area Code 804/739-2225 BY HAND June 24, 1974 Mr. M. W. Burnett Executive Secretary County of Chesterfield Chesterfield County Courthouse Chesterfield, VA 23832 Dear Mr. Burnett: As we have discussed, we agree that a guarantee for the Sewer Revenue Bond from the Brandermill joint venture and the Sea Pines of Virginia holding corporation is not sufficient guarantee to make the bonds readily marketable on the municipal bond market. Through working with Mark Smith of Wheat First Securities, Inc. we have arranged for the guarantee of the Sea Pines Company, the parent organization which holds ownership in all of the Sea Pines' projects. Attached is a proposed guarantee format. As you know, the real strength of the bond issue and Brandermill lies in the fact that the Richmond Metropolitan Area is a growth area with Chesterfield County receiving a significant portion of that growth. The facilities being financed by the bond are designed to serve the area in general and not solely Brandermill. Therefore, regardless of Brandermill's success, the facilities financed by this bond will be revenue generators serving the growth of the county. The combination of the Sea Pines Corporate Guarantee, the financing commitment from The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, and the growth of Chesterfield County brings the project and the county the strength necessary to build Brandermill. WSMcN:cd Attachment Harry H. Frampton, III Executive Vice President General Manager Sea Pines Plantation, South Carolina, Hilton Head Plantation, South Carolina, River Hills Plantation, South Carolina, Amelia Plantation, Florida, Brandermill, Virginia, Big Canoe, Georgia, Nantahala Lake Park, North Carolina, Palmas Del Mar, Puerto Rico Sea Pines Company, a Delaware corporation, hereby agrees, in connection with the issuance of Sewer Revenue Bonds pursuant to a Proposed Sewer Agreement for Developer Participation dated as of December 13, 1972, as modified June __, 1974, between Brandermill and the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, a copy of which is attached hereto, that it will provide a guarantee which is satisfactory to it and to the County, its financial advisor and the underwriters of such sewer revenue bonds and is sufficient, in the opinion of such underwriters, to make such sewer revenue bonds readily marketable securities on the municipal bond market. SEA PINES COMPANY By CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ELECTORAL BOARD OFFICE OF GENERAL REGISTRAR CHESTERFIELD. VIRGINIA 23832 BOARD MEMBERS CECIL B, TURNAGE, CHAIRMAN June 14, 1974 GENERAL REGISTRAR /t Mr. C. G. Manuel Assistant Administrator Chesterfield County Chesterfield, Virginia Dear Mr. Manuel: The Electoral Board desires to appear before the Board of Supervisors on June 26, 1974. The reason for the request is to discuss the changing of names of some of the voting precincts, of which the Board has previously been informed by letter. We will appreciate your granting us some time on that date. Sincerely, ' ...... "~'"' '~M~".'~orothy B. Meldrum Secretary DBM:kcg CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ELECTORAL BOARD OFFICE OF GENERAL REGISTRAR CHESTERFIELD. VIRGINIA 23832 BOARD MEMBERS CECIL B, TURNAGE~ CHAIRMAN DOROTHY B. MELDRUM, SECRETARY WILLIAM C. P'OUT'Z, MEMBER May 16, 1974 GENERAL REGISTRAR VIRGINIA C. GORDON Mr. Melvin W. Burnett County Administrator Chesterfield Courthouse Chesterfield, Virginia Dear Mr. Burnett: Since the use of personal names to designate voting precincts has been a subject of criticism in recent and past elections, the Electoral Board, this date, May 16, 1974, has redesignated certain precincts as follows: Winfree' s Store Wagstaff Circle Homer's Store ~y oopy of this letter, it is requested that the Ccmtmonw~alth's Attc~ handle necessary notifications required by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Yours very truly, Cecil B. Turnage, Chaibman Dorothy B. Meldrum, Secretary Will~m C. Foutz~ ~ O'~osto2f'i~l.d O:~un~ W..lectoral Board D~:kcg CC: The Honorable Oliver D. Rudy Cc~ronwealth ' s Att__nrney ALEXANL'}ER B. MCMURTRIE COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS COM~IONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA HOUSE OF' DELEGATES RICHMOND November 14, 1973 THIRTY-SIXTH DISTRICT Mrs. Virginia Gordon Electoral Board Chesterfield Courthouse Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mrs. Gordon: I would like to suggest that the names of the following precincts be changed as stated below: Wagstaff Circle should be changed to Providence as this is the place the people now vote. Many people believe since the name of the precinct is Wagstaff Circle that they are suppose to vote at Wagstaff Circle. As you can see this can be very confusing. Horner's Store Changed to Tomahawk. I feel this should be changed as there is no longer a Horner's Store, and this is very confusing for new residents in this area. I would appreciate anything you can do to take care of this matter for me. With kindest personal regards, i remain Sincerely, ABMcM/jg 14100 Stevenhurst Drive Chester, Virginia ~3831 15 April 197~ Mrs. Virginia Gordon Electoral Board Chesterfield Courthouse Chesterfield, Virginia 23831 Dear Mrs. Gordon: I suggest the names of the following precincts be changes as follows: 1. Winfree's Store be changed to Union Branch. Since the people vote at Union Branch Elementary School, this change would elemlnate any possible confussion on the part of the voters. 2. Homer's Store be changed to Tomahawk. Since Homer's Store no longer exists, this change would be beneficial to new residents in this area. B. Wagstaff Circle changed to Providence. The people now vote at Providence Jr. High School. Many residents of this precinct, espeacially new residents, believe they areto vote at Wagstaff Circle. As you can see, this is confusing. With kindest personal regards, I remain, Sincerely, WBC/rhc William B. CoX June 12, 1974 (B.S.) May 21~ CASE NUMBER: 74S048 APPLICANT: Broadmoor Corporation REQUEST: Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15). PROPOSED USE: Single family subdivision. TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: Midlothian Magisterial District, Tax Map Sec. '2~-8' (2) Parcels 3 & 4 (Sheet 7). GENERAL LOCATION: South of Stonehenge Subdivision Section B in the vicinity of the eastern terminus of Bondurant Drive. ACREAGE (SUBJECT PARCEL):~ EXISTING ZONING: Agricultural (A). EXISTING LAND USE (SUBJECT PARCEL): Vacant and wooded. ADJACENT AND AREA~ ZONING AND LAND USE: .Adjacent property is for the most part zoned Residential ~R-'~5) wi~=h ~he exception ofproper~y ~to the east and south which is zoned Agricultural (A). The majority of adjacent property remains undeveloped and wooded with the exception of property to the north (Stonehenge) which has been developed for ~ngle family residential use. UTILITIES: The use of public water is feasible and will be required in development of this parcel. Public sewer will be made available in approximately nine (9) months along Falling Creek and will probably be required in the development of the parcel. DRAINAGE AND EROSION: The parcel drains towards Falling Creek and although no particular off-site drainage or erosion problems are in existence, tributaries to Fa~ling Creek will have to be p~otected. REQUIRED OFF-SI~E EASEMENTS: will be required. On and off-site sewer and drainage easements PUBLIC FACILITIES: Development of the parcel in question should have minimal impact on existing area public facilities. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: It ia anticipated that development as indicated and allowable under the zoning requested should have no impact greater than normally anticipated for single family residential development. GENERAL PLAN: Single family residential development for the area encompassing the parcel in question. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The rezoning requested is compatible with existing area zoning and the applicants have indicated that it is their intention to construct one (1) family residences that would be comparable with houses in the adjoining subdivision (Stonehenge). CASE HISTORY AND PAST COM~-fSSION AND BO]~--U--E~fZON Fo~ T~!S ~EO~UEST -- C.P.C. 5 21 74: Recommended Approval of the request with the understanding that--lo~-si~es would not be less than 25 000 square ft. nor would lot widths be less than 110 feet. ' , 2 Item ~2, Liuee D. E. & F: ~arce! tl c~me~ b~ ~illiam A. ~10 ~entbrtdge Road, Richmond, Ym. 23227 Phone #~ 35§-0119 ~arcel ~2 Outed b~ Vernon E. lnae ~I17 Riverside Dr~ve Richmond, Va. 2322? ~one #: 272-,5877 C \ .\ llllllllllllllll .// II Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County Chesterfield Courthouse Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Gentlemen: ll711 Rexmoor Drive Richmond, Virginia 23235 June 5, 1974 I am writing to request that you deny the requested rezoning of land adjacent to the Stonehenge ~ubdivision from agricultural to residential. I further request that the Board of Supervisors fully charge the Planning Commission with the job of planning for the County, rather than simply with zoning. I would like to cite several reasons which I believe will illustrate why the rezoning should be denied and why I believe the Planning Commission is derelict in its duties. At a meeting of the Planning Commission on May 21, 1974, the proposed rezoning in question was discussed. Without reiterating in detail the specific issues, suffice it to say that area residents opposed the rezoning on the basis of (1) overloading the schools in the Midlothian area; (2) over- loading the residential streets in the Stonehenge subdivision, which were not designed for large volumes of traffic; (3) contributing to the overloaded Route 60 at Route 147 intersection; (4) lack of assurance of compatibility of the proposed new subdivision; and finally and most importantly (5) a lack of coordinated planning for the area in general, and specifically around the Stonehenge subdivision. I concurred with each of these arguments against the proposed rezoning. During the Planning Commission's discussion of the case, Mr. M. W. Burnett advised the audience that adequacy of roads and schools had never been, and he hoped they never would be, a cause for denial of rezoning. He noted that other public bodies, notably the Virginia Department of Highways and the Chesterfield County School Board were responsible for adequacy of roads and schools, respectively. He denied that the Planning Commission could withhold approval of rezoning on the basis of compatibility and could not require assurance of a particular level of quality in development. However, earlier in the meeting the audience had seen Mr. Hobson lose a request for rezoning for reason of failing to assu~e the Commission of a particular price range development. Mr. Burnett did not address in any way the Planning Commission's perceived responsibility for overall coordination of development. One or more of the Commissioners specifically agreed with Mr. Burnett and none disagreed. Board ~f Supervisors - 2 - June 5, 1974 I was extremely disappointed at the depth of the Commission's analysis of each rezoning case and at their apparent lack of perception of their planning role. At no time was there any discussion of the merits of adequacy of public facilities. Several times the Commissioners compared Chesterfield County with fast-growing Northern Virginia counties by way of illustrating the need for upgrading residential zoning. However, there were many of us in the audience who hope we won't have to repeat all the mistakes of our Northern Virginia neighbors. There are few examples in Chesterfield of our progress in planning. We have seen Cloverleaf Mall developed adjacent to one of the most congested intersections (Route 60 at Route 150) in the metropolitan area. We are seeing the land that will eventually be necessary to expand that intersection being sold and developed. We are seeing sizable shopping centers developed at Robious Road at Hugenot Road and Hugenot Road at Route 60, with no improvement in adjacent roads or intersections. We see Route 60 being developed into a carbon copy of Broad Street/Leesburg Pike/Rockville Pike and a thousand other tacky strips around the nation with no attempt being made to preserve any aesthetics. The list of specific examples of poor planning could go on for several pages. The point is clear, Chesterfield County is being subverted from the possibility of a well planned, rapidly developing county by a Zoning Board which has magically been renamed a Planning Commission. I respectfully implore you to deny this rezoning request and others in the area until the Planning Commission begins to discharge its responsibility by developing a planned, coordinated approach to growth in Chesterfield County, including the adequacy of all public facilities and a cognizance of the quality of life of all residents. Sincerely yours, Roy L. Fauber THIS CONTRACT, made this 3rd day of April, 1974, by and between i WLLLIAM A. STAFFORD and MATILDA ~OY STAFFORD, his wife, parties of the i first part, hereinafter referred to as"Sezler"~ and BROADHOOR CORPORATION OR ASSIGNS, party of the second part, hereinafter referred to as "Purchaser". W I TNE S S E TH: That for and in consideration of the sum of ONE THOUSAND DOLI~ ($1,000.00) paid by Purchaser to Seller's Agent, the receipt of which is ii reby acknowledged, Seller agrees to sell and Purchaser agrees to buy the foll~'~ing described property upon the hereinafter described terms, to-wit: Approximately 13.75 acres, more or less, of land iQ the Midlothian Magisterisl District of Chester- field County, Virginia, being known as Parcel 3 on Chesterfield County Tax l~p 26-8. The exact acre- ag~ and boundaries t~reOf are to be determined by plat to be prepared by Bremner, Youngblood and Sharp, Inc., Surveyors, and the property shall be conveyed by reference to such Bremmer, Youngblood and Sharp, Inc. plat, which shall be prepared at the expense of the Purchaser prior to settlement. The purchase price of said property shall be determined at a rate if; THREE THO~ SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($3,750.00) per acre., the ~Xact' acreage to be determined as aforesaid by survey of Bremner, Young- blood and sharp, Inc., Surveyors. The purchase price determined as aforesaid shall be paid ss follows: ~OtlRTEEN TflOU~ND FIVE HUNDRF2) DOLLARS ($14,500.00) shall be paid in cash on the date of settlement, allowing a credit for the ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00) down payment hereinabove mentioned. If such FOURTEEN THOUSAND. FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($14,500.00) down payment should amount to more than twenty-nine (29) per cent of the total purchase price, then such initial ,be reduC~ price. The balance 'Of,sa~d p~urchale price shall: be 'evtdenced"~,by a megOti, ,le d~.ferred purchase ~money dee'dj. Of. trust note'to be. executed by PUrchaser, :~ ~ayable in three equal annual installments: (1) The first annual installment shall become due and payable .one year from date of settlement. (2) The second annual installment shall become due and payable two years from date of settlement. (3) The third and final payment shall .be due and payable three !iyears from date of settlement. Said note shall bear interest at the rate of eight (8) per cent ~iper annum on the principal balance from time to time outstanding and shall be payable on the date each annual principal payment is due. Said note shall also contain the statutory provision "subject to ilall upon default". Said note shall be secured by a First Lien Deed of Trust conveying 13.75 acres, more or less, which is full acreage being sold; Purchaser shall have the right to prepay any portion of the aforesaid note at any time without penalty with appropriate abatement of interest~ Exclusive of the down payment and upon payment of one-third (1/3) of the principal and appropriate interest either by prepayment or annual installment, Seller shall release one-third (1/3) of the property to purchaser. The location of the land to be so released, shall be in the discretion of the Purchaser and he shall bear the expense of such release. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, there shall not be released from such deed of trust any portion of the land thereby conveyed which would cut off reasonable ingress to and egress from any unreleased portion thereof. The deferred purchase money deed of trust shall contain langUage which shall obligate the noteholder and Trustees to accomplish such release or'releases promptly. ~ ~ ~ -~' ~:~ ' ~' Upon settlement of this contract, Purchaser shall have the right to proceed with development of all or any portion of the real estate hereby sold. Such development shall include, but shall not be limited to surveying, soil tests, construction of roads, installation of water lines, -2 - and removal of timber. Seller agrees to require the Trustees in the pur- chase money deed of trust to unite in any subdivision plat or plats which Purchaser may wish to have recorded in connection with the proposed development of the subject land immediately upon request by Purchaser, but any expense involved shall be borne by Purchaser. It is agreed between Seller and Purchaser that this contract is contingent upon the following: (1) That Purchaser is able to have subject property rezoned from its present zoning to R-15 Residential Zoning. (2) That Purchaser is able to purchase, at a price satisfactory to owner and Purchaser, approximately 18.0 acres contiguous to the above mentioned Parcel 3 and identified as Parcel 2 on Tax Map 26-8; and pro- vided Purchaser can purchase, at a price satisfactory to owner and Purchaser, approximately 10.91 acres contiguous to the above referred to Parcel ~ and known as Parcel 4 on Chesterfield County Tax Map 26-8. (3) That the present street in the Subdivision of Stonehenge known as Bondurant Drive does abut one or more of the three parcels referred to in this contract and that said Bondurant Drive can be extended, by Purchaser, to connect with one or more of the three parcels referred to in this con- tract, to the satisfaction of the State of Virginia Highway Department and the County of Chesterfield, without Purchaser having to acquire additional land, other than the three parcels referred to above. Settlement on this contract shall be made at the law offices of Minor, Saunders & Benedetti, 412 Libbie Avenue, Richmond, Virginia, on or before July 1, 1974, provided the title is free from valid objections (subject to any restrictions now on the property) and provided there are no recorded easements on subject property which would interfere with its orderly development into residential building lots. Ail real estate taxes shall be pro-rated as of the date of settle- ment. The parties to this contract hereby acknowledge and agree that the -3 - offices of Lytle Realty Company and W. S. Pinchbeck, Inc. are the agents who brought about the sale of the property sold herein and Sellers as evidenced by their signature agree to pay Lytle Realty Company and W. S. Pinchbeck, Inc. for se~¢ices rendered, a commission amounting to SIX (6) PER CENT of the gross sale price, provided this transaction is consummated and settlement made as heretofore referred to. In case either of the parties hereto defaults, however, the party so defaulting, either PurchaSer or Seller, agrees to pay the said commission. No verbal agreement is considered a part of this contract, but any signed addition will form a part of same. This offer null and void if not accepted by Midnight, April 5, 1974. This contract shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their heirs, successors and assigns. It is further agreed that within thirty (30) days after Purchaser has been delivered an accepted copy of this contract, pertaining to the above mentioned Parcel 3 property, Purchaser will notify Seller's agent whether Purchaser has or has not been able to consummate the purchase of the above mentioned Parcels 2 and 4. At such notification, and if Purchaser has not been able to consummate the purchase of said Parcels 2 and 4, Put- · chaser must either release Seller from all obligations to sell under this contract or Purchaser must advise Seller's Agent in ~rriting that Purchaser is willing to proceed with the purchase of Said Parcel 3 without the acquisition of Parcels 2 and 4. Seller is hereby made aware of the fact that the President of W. S. Pinchbeck, Inc., namely W. S. Pinchbeck, is also the Vice President of ..... ~urchaser~ B~o~j~lq.r~C~orp~ra~on, and wj~ll therefor~ haue~a.£inancial interest in the property herein purchased. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the individuals have hereunto set their signatures and seals and the said Broadmoor Corporation has caused its name to be here- unto signed and its corporate seal to be hereto affixed and attested by duly authorized officer. -4- ATTEM BROADMOOR COR~A~ION OR ASSIGNS __- · S. Pinchbeck, Vice P~sident (SEAL) William A. Stafford Seller Mat'ilda Foy Sta'ffo~d- // Seller (SEAL) STATE OF yIRGINIA CITY 0~ RICHMOND, TO-WIT: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this o~ day of April, 1974 by W. S. Pinchbeck, Vice President of Broadmoor Corporation, on behalf of the corporation. My Commission expires: August 16, 1977 Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF RICHMOND, TO-WIT: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this April, 1974, by William A. Stafford and Matilda Foy Stafford. My Commission expires: day Notary Public THIS ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT dated the 10th day of April, 1974, by and between VERNON E. INGE and CATHERINE K. INGE, his wife, parties of the first part, hereinafter referred to as SELLER and BROADMOOR CORPORATION or ASSIGNS, party of the second part, hereinafter referred to as PURCHASER. W I T N E S S E T H: It is agreed that the property to be conveyed to Purchaser as described on Page 1 of contract dated April 10, 1974, shall be subdivided of record by Jut'y 1, 1975 rather than February 1, 1975. In the event Seller desires the one (1) acre of land prior to subdivision of the land, such conveyance will be made at the Seller's request and at the Purchaser's expense, any date after January 31, 1975. It is understood and agreed that if one (1) acre parcel of land is conveyed to Seller, the said one (1) acre parcel will not be situated whereby the orderly subdivision and development of said described acreage in contract gat.ed April 10, 1974 known as Parcel 4 of Tax Map 26-8 or two (2) additional parcels 2 and 3 of Tax Map 26-8 will be hindered or prohibitive. Purchaser agrees to provide a 50' right of way to designated acre of land; such right of way may be relocated at the discretion and expense of the Purchaser to conform with the orderly development of this land. The Seller agrees to comply with the Purchaser's restrictions that will pertain to the property when subdivided and in the event the restrictions are not recorded by January 31, 1975, the deed conveying the aforementioned one (1) acre parcel of land will contain restrictions that will apply to the remaining land or subdivision. In addition to the usual subdivision restric- tions for the protection of the Purchaser and future property owners, the following will apply: _ (1) A Ranch style home shall have a minimum of 2,000 square feet excluding carports, garages, and patios. (2) Two Story, Tri-Level, Bi-Level or other plans shall have a minimum of 2,450 square feet. (3) Plans and specifications shall be approved by Purchaaer prior to any improvements built or placed on the land. Purchaser must approve or decline plans and specifications within fifteen (15) days. In the event Seller and Purchaser cannot agree on plans and specifications, they are to be submitted to two local registered architects and Purchaser and Seller agree to abide by their recommendations. Each party to select one architect and expense for their services shall be borne by Purchaser. Page 3 of subject contract stipulates that the offer is null and void if not accepted by Midnight, April 16, 1974. Such date is hereby ~xtended to Midnight, April ~ , 1974. WITNESS the following signatures and seals at Richmond, Virginia, ~this 16th day of April, 1974. ATTEST ....... ~.~ ~e~etal-y BR(~tDMOOR COPd~ORATION OR ASSIGNS Purchaser William W, Durrett, President Ca'therine K. Inge, Seller STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF RICHMOND, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /? ';- day of April, 1974, by William W. Durrett, President of Broadmoor Corporation, on behalf of the corporation. My commission expires: Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF RICHMOND, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ..... - day of April, 1974, by Vernon E. Inge and Catherine K. Inge. Notary Public THIS CONTRACT, made this 10th day of April, 1974, b~ and between VERNON E. INGE and CATHERINE K. INGE, his wife, parties of the first part, hereinafter referred to as SELLER and BROADMOOR CORPORATION or ASSIGNS, party of the second part, hereinafter referred to as PURCHASER. W I T NE S SET H : That for and in consideration of the sum of FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) paid by Purchaser to Seller, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and to be held in escrow by Seller until settlement is made and applied to the purchase price or refunded if contingencies of this contract referred to below are not satisfactorily met to permit consum- mation of this purchase. Seller agrees to sell and Purchaser agrees to buy the following described property upon the hereinafter described terms, to-wit: 10.91 acres of land in Midlothian District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, per survey made by William G. Schmidt dated December 22, 1972, and being known as Parcel 4 on Chesterfield County Tax Map 26-8. LESS AND ACCEPT, that when subject property is subdivided into residential building lots, which procedure is purchasers intention, then Seller shall de- signate any two (2) lots derived from such. Subdivision of the land involved in this contract, which purchaser shall convey back to Seller at no cost to Seller, free and clear of any liens or encumbrances. The subject land must be subdivided of record by February 1, 1975, and if not subdivided by said date, then, Purchaser shall convey to Seller one (1) acre of subject land which one (1) acre Seller shall have the right to designate. Seller shall notify Purchaser of the designated acre by registered mail and Purchaser shall convey said acre to Seller without cost to Seller within 15 days of notification by registered mail. This agreement shall survive settlement of the subject property. The purchase price of said property to be FORTY THOUSAN~ NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($40,900.00) to be paid ~.n cash at settle- ment date. It is agreed between Seller and Purchaser that this con- tract is contingent upon the following: (1) That Purchaser is able to have subject property rezoned from its present zoning to R-15 Residential ~n~g. (2) That Purchaser is able to purchase, at a price sat- isfactory to owner and Purchaser, approximately 13.75 acres contiguous to the above mentioned Parcel 4 and identified as Parcel 3 on Tax ~ap 26-8; and provided Purchaser can purchase, at a ~rice satisfactory to owner and Purchaser, approximately 18 acres, mcre or less, contiguous to the above referred to Parcel 3 and known as Parcel 2 on Chesterfield County Tax Map 26-8 (3) That the present street in the Subdivision of Stonehenge known as Bondurant Drive does abut one or more of the three parcels referred to in this contract and that said Bondurant Drive can be extended, by Purchaser, to connect with one or more of the three parcels referred to in this contract, to the satisfaction of the State of Virginia Highway Department and the County of Chesterfield, without Purchaser having to acquire additional ]and, other than the three parcels referred to above. Settlement on this contract shall be made at the law offices of Vernon E. Inge, 2922 Hathaway Road, Richmond, Virginia, on or before July 1, 1974, time being of the essence as to the closing date, provided the title is free from valid objections (subject to any restrictions now on the property) and provided there are no recorded easements on subject property which would interfere with its orderly development into residential buildJ.ng lots. All real estate taxes shall be prorated as of the date of settlement. The Purchaser ag~e~_.tq pay_an~ ~ea[ estate co~ission involved in this transaction and the price in this contract reflects a ne~_ price to Seller. This offer null and void if not accepted by Midnight, ~pril 16, 1974. This contract shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their heirs, successors and assi.n-. It :s ~ ~rtn~ agreed that wlthir, thirty ,30) days after ?urchaser has been delivered an accepted copy of thts conzrnc%, pe~za nznc %o the .~bove mentioned Pa~:el 4 ot'o~erty, Purcha:~er wi. Il r:¢ tiff Seller- whether Purchaser k~s o~ '~as not been atle ~o consummate the purchase of the a~ove mentioned Parcels 2 and 3. At such notification, an~! if Purchaser has not been able to consummate the purchase of said Parcels 2 and 3, Purchaser must either release Seller from all obligations to sell under thig contract or Purchaser must advise Seller in writing th-,t Purchaser is willing to proceed with the purchase of said Parc,-,l 4 without the acquisition of Parcels 2 and 3. Seller is hereby made aware of the fact that the Presi- dent of W. S. Pinchbeck, Inc., is also the Vice President of Purchaser, Broadmoor Corporation, and will therefore have a financial interest in the property herein purchased. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Sellers have hereunto set their signatures and seals and the said Broadmoor Corporation has caused its name to be hereunto signed and its corporate seal to be hereto affixed and attested by its duly authorized officers. BROA,r.)MO~%R CORPORATIO~i OR ASSIGNS Purchaser ............ "( SEAL President SecretaI-. Vernon E Inge, Sell-er-~ ' Catherine K. Inge, Selle~-- (SEAL) (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF RICHMOND, t~-wit: The £oreclozna Instrument was acknowledoed before me this /'/~ day of April, lq74, by W. S. P£nc~b~n-~; ~e j Presid~nl ot~ B~ 3admoor Corporation, on behalf of the corporation1. My cof~nlss].on exp±res: Notary P]blic STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF RICHMOND, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~_~day of April, 1974, by Vernon E. Inge and Catherine K. Inge. My commission expires: /"'Z~4-~(~. 1,.~, /~2~ Notary Public Publisher of THI~ RICHMOND TiMi~$.D . This is to cee-'- Riehvnond, ¥'a .......... .~e ~a~. publiShe~ ~y that the ..... ' .................. PuOliShed l, ,~ {~ The ~;~"~C~ed.. . ' ..... n~ond ~, . 'uispat~ " ~.. , o~ate ofVir~' a newspaper ............................. ~,, ~ ~ '"~* .... g~ ~9 ....................... ~e ~2 ~_ ............... ~..~.E~ ...... expires ?5/?? TAKE NOTICE That the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, 26 June 1974, at ll:O0 A.M. to consider the following amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the County of Chester- field, Virginia: Add the following Section 4-3: "(h) Two family dwellings" and delete the wording of existing Section 4-4 (m) reserving the Section number, and to consider the following amendments to the Subdivision Regulations: Add to Section 4.2 SUBDIVISION the following: "(4). Fronts on an existing State highway with right-of-way, measured from the centerline, equal to one-half of the right-of-way shown on the General Plan, but in no case less than 25 feet from the centerline." Copies of these amendments are on file in the Planning Department, Room 307, Office Building, Chesterfield Courthouse, Chesterfield, Virginia, for public examination between the hours of 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P,M. of each regular business day. Michael C. Ritz, Director of Planning County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, Virginia "~~ T A K E N O T I C E That the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, 26 June 1974, at ll:O0 A.M. to consider the following amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the County of Chester- field, Virginia: Add the following Section 4-3: "(h) Two family dwellings" and delete the wording of existing Section 4-.4 (m) reserving the Section number, and to consider the following amendments to the Subdivision Regulations: Add to Section 4.2 SUBDIVISION the following: "(4) Fronts on an existing State highway with right-of-way, measured from the centerline, equal to one-half of the right-of-way shown on the General Plan, but in no case less than 25 feet from the centerline." Copies of these amendments are on file in the Planning Department, Room 307, Office Building, Chesterfield Courthouse, Chesterfield, Virginia, for public examination between the hours of 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P,M. of each regular business day. Michael C. Ritz, Director of Planning County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, Virginia MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: June ?, 197~ Administrator Mr. M. W. Burnett, County a J Mr. M. C. Ritz, Planning Director SUBJECT: Request for Variance, R. D. Lethco, Tax Map Sec. 28-8 (1) Part of Parcel 16. In Clover Hill Magisterial District, Mr. R. D. Lethco, 2034 Greenfield Drive, Richmond, Virginia; Telephone: 272-76?8 requests a Variance to build a dwelling on a parcel of l~nd which has not public road frontage. Mr. D. E. Ranson presently owns parcel 16 and will convey part of it, Parcel "A", to the applicant if this Variance is approved. The Health Department reports Parcel A is suitable for installation of a subsurface drainfield. This property is zoned Agricultural (A). Adjacent property is zoned in a similar manner except that to the west which is zoned Residential (R-T). This property and adjacent property are developed with single family dwellings, and in most cases are very heavily wooded. Staff notes that the properties in this general area, which lie between Ruthers Road and Turner Road, are quite large and very deep. Staff believes that present con- struction in this area should take into consideration future land development, so that buildings are not sited in the path of future roads and/or utility lines. This parcel and adjacent property are occupied as shown on the attached tax map. If this request is approved, we recommend that the applicant acquire a twenty (20) foot wide road easement for ingress and egress to Ruthers Road from the northwest corner of Parcel "A". FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM June 10, 1974 Mr.MW.Burnett, County Administrator Mr. M. C. Ritz, Plannin~ Director Request for Variance, Dennis Wellman, Tax Map Sec. 66-3 (1) Part of Parcel 2. In Dale Magisterial District, Dennis Wellman, ~603 Little Creek · Lane, Telephone: 271-1017 requests a Variance to build a dwelling on a parcel of land which has no public road frontage. If this Variance is approved, Mr. Wellman, the present property owner, will divide Parcel 2 in half and create Parcel A. The Health Department reports Parcel A is suitable for installation of a subsurface drainfield. Parcel A is zoned Agricultural (A). All adjacent property is zoned Agricultural (A) with the exception of the property to the east which is zoned Residential (B-7). At present, all adjacent property is either vacant and wooded or occupied by single family residences. The Subdivision of Watch Run will be built to the east of this prop- erty. Presently, access to Parcel A is over a thirty (30) foot unimproved road easement from Little Creek Lane to Point B as shown on the attached tax maD. Prom Point B to Parcel "A", access is along Watch Mun. This access is barely pasmble, and it appears it floods over with minimum rainfall. Staff believes that permanent access to this parcel and adjacent property to the north and south, should be as noted on the attached tax map. Also, that any future buildings constructed on this property should be located to face this permanent access road, rather than the present Watch Run access road. .. ~.th~3~ Va~nce is .~P~JtKgJf~e~ we recommend that a twenty (20) foot. wlae^road easement be ~'~om Parcel A to Point B for {ngress and egress to Little Creek Lane. ~706 x CHESTERFIELD COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA Request for Lot Evaluation Applicant Phone Phone Address $~dress ~ot Block Section' Street --Subdivision Applicant /~--7 Desires to ha~e a. lo~ opinion ~at is S~ject to re- evaluation prlor to lssu~ce of Building Pe~it. /~ Is applying for Building. Pe~t:9 ? Type of Cohstruction /~ ~elling ~7 Other /~TBouse pl~ not final /7 Auto. Washer /7 Garbage Disposal /~ P~lic Wa=er /~ Ind, well Actual or potential bedroom, ~ Estimated water cons~ption~0D~d. Recommendations: Based on present standards, it is our opinion that this lot has: AVOm LE L7 Soil for septic tank and drainfield instai~ation. Remarks:_ Tiiis is not a Dormit-to 1~~11 a septic tank. Date Posted Grid HARRY L. THOMPSON JULIAN E. SAVAGE WILLIAM S. SMITHERs, JR. WILLIAM R. MARSHALL~ JR. LAW OFFICES THO~IPSON, SAVAGE, S~ilTHE:RS, PRESS & ~VlARSHALL Mr. Melvin W. Burnette County Administrator County of Chesterfield Chesterfield Court House, Virginia 5911 WEST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23230 May 23, 1974 NAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX S447 RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23230 TELEPHONE 28S"4OO? 23832 Re: Town & Country Apartments & Townhouses ~v. Cit~, of Richmond and Coun.ty of Chesterfield Dear Mr. Burnette: In accord with our telephone discussion, please find enclosed the Application and claim of Town & Country Apartments and Townhouses for refund of $11,100.O0 paid under protest to be presented to the Board of Supervisors and to be set for consideration at 3:00 P.M. on June 26, 1974. Thank you for your courtesies and cooperation. HLT/ncg enclosure cc: Mr. Richard Davison OLIVER D, RUDY Commonwealth's Attorney June 4, 1974 The Honorable Frederick T. Gray Chesterfield County Courthouse Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Re: Assistants CIVIL MORRIS E. MASON CRIMINAL HERBERT C. GILL, JR, PHILLIP V. DAFFRON / Town and Country v. City and County Dear Fred: We have received and for your information, I am attaching hereto copy of letter dated May 23, 1974, from Harry Thompson, together with application to Board. of Supervisors for re- fund of the sewer connection fees paid under protest. You will note this hearing is scheduled for June 26, 1974. My offhand thouaht is Town and Country should commit themselves to the vaiidity of the April 10, 1969 development participation agreement. It occurs to me if they maintain that agreement to be fully executed as the City Court held, then I believe the statute of limitations has expired. In any event, I suggest that we get together to discuss the procedure now being pursued by Town and Country. Give me a call when you can. Very truly yours, Morris ~. Mason Assistant Commonwealth,s Attorney lkb Enclosures cc: M. W. Burnett / VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD APPLICATION OF TOWN & COUNTRY APARTMENTS & TOWNHOUSES, A PARTNERSHIP (BEN COHEN, INDIVIDUALLY, BEN COHEN AS TRUSTEE, ZELDA G. COHEN, ROSALIE C. DAVISON AND RICHARD DAVISON, PARTNERS TRADING IN THE ABOVE STYLE AND SOMETIMES T/A MOUNT ROYAL. BUILDING COMPANY, FOR REFUND OF MONIES PAID UNDER PROTEST Your petitioners make application and claim against the County of Chesterfield for refund or payment to them of the sum of ELEVEN THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($11,100.O0) with interest thereon at the legal rate until paid, pursuant to the laws for such cases made and provided, and set forth the following: 1. Your petitioners paid $11,100.O0 under protest to the County of Chesterfield on October 7, 1971. The sum was arithmetically derived as' that representing sewer connection fees for 37 apartment units at $300.00 each. The amount was paid under protest because your petitioner then believed, as it continues to believe, that being then a City resident it was entitled to sewer service, including connection, from the City of Richmond in like manner which the City of Richmond then provided and now provides other City residents simi- liarly situated. This amount was paid to the County under protest because of the failure, neglect or refusal of said City to act upon your petitioners re- quest for sewer connection, and upon the County of CheSterfield's assertion that said connection fees were due it. On October 8, 1971, your petitioner withdrew its application for said 37 units, and requested return of the $11,100.O0 paid under protest. 2. Your petitioner filed a declaratory judgment action in the Cir- cuit ..,Ciourt of the city of Richmond, DivisiOn I', against the County of Chester- field and the City of Richmond, which action went to trial and judgment in favor of your petitioners, whereby the City of Richmond was ordered by the Court to grant your petitioners sewer service and connections, that the rate payable was the City rate, that there were no connection fees due said County by your petitioners, and the County of Chesterfield was ordered to refund to your petitioners the $11,100.00 paid under protest.~' Subsequently, the County of Chesterfield successfullyappealed the Trial Court's decision to the Su- preme Court of Virginia. The City of Richmond did not appeal. On appeai~ the' Supreme Court issued its decision dismissing the County of Chesterfield as a party to that litigation, not on the merits'of the case, but upon the proce- dural failure of your petitioners to apply first to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield under Code Section 15.1-554 for refund of said sum paid under protest. 3. Said City not having appealed the Trial Court's decision, the said City is now under the adjudicated obligation to your petitioners~to pro- vide~your petitioners with sewer service and connections, therefore, your petitioner is not required to apply to the County of Chesterfield for sewer service, nor is there presently any outstanding application for sewer connec- tions by your petitioners to the County, wherefore the County of Chesterfield' ought, in right and justice, to refund to your petitioners the amount paid under protest. Respectfully submitted, Town & Country Apartments & Townhouses, a partnership, etc. (also trading as Mount Royal Buil ding Co~mpa~ / ~. Thompson,~/~nsel -Harry L;' Tnhompson Of Counsel: Thompson, Savage, Smithers, Press & Marshall 5911 West Broad Street Post' Office Box 6447 Richmond,.Virginia 23230 EZq~-NEERING A~D UTILITIES DEP~T~NT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGEND~ FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JUNE 26~ 1974 II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XII. XIII. Approval of water contracts: i~ $100 171.45 W74-38CD Belfair Townhouses Contractor: Shoosmith Bros. W74-41CD Olde Coach Village, Section "C" Phase $42,010.00 Contractor: Lewis H. Easter & Company Review results of sewer survey in Rayon Park Disposition of well lot in Pocoshock Heights. Request from Women's Council of the Richmond Board of Realtors to mail flyers with utility bills. Approval of sewer contract: S71-31CD Sturbrook Apartments $43,854.00 Contractor: C & T Mechanical Corporation Re-allocation of sewer connections for campground project on 1-95 at Willis Road. Execution of Agreement with Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company for 8-inch sanitary sewer crossing 3167' north of Mile Post A-21 at Petersburg 'Discussion of sewer extension to serve Falling Creek Farms. Sewer survey of Trampling Run drainage area in the vicinity of Route 10 and Jessup Road. Consideration of EcolSciences and W. E. Gates' proposals. Discussion of report from Health Department and petition requesting sewers in the Elkhardt Road area. Execute engineering agreement dated June 14, 1974 with Austin Brockenbrough & Associates. Request for se~r connection at 21800 Ferndale Avenue for Mrs. T. D. Cox. Agenda - Engir~"~ring and utilities Depart~nt Page 2 June 26~ 1974 XIV. Resolution authorizing condemnation proceedings against the following properties: Project S73-31T/D Ellen M. Fisher (Widow) Offer $327.50 Project S73-31T/Xi Sarah Bland Brown and Thomas~ Brown Project S73-31T/W Rosa B. Arvin (Widow) Project S73-31T/A E. S. Bruce and C. H. Bruce Project S73-31T/B (wife) Offer $25.00 Project S73-31T/I Helen J. Kanipes $50.00 Project S73-31T/0 Carrie L. Childress ~$25.00 Project S73-31T/P William H. Childress & Glady_s T. Childress, (wife) Offer $25.00 Project S73-31T/Q Ann K. Henley R25.00 XV. Discuss the County's policy on the use of debris screens on channels feeding ponds and lakes. XVI. Request condemnation for drainage easement across property of Gregory Estate. $50.00 $5o.oo $50.00 Harry W. Roberts an~ Leo S. B. Roberts XVII. Miscellaneous Robert A. Painter County Engineer June 21, 1974 ST. ANN'S CATHOLIC CHURCH 17111 IEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY COLONIAL HEIGHTS, VIRGINIA 28884 June 19, 1974 Office of the County Administrator Chesterfield~ VA 23832 Dear Miss Burnett: I would like to have a renewal of the Bingo and/or Raffle Permit which I received from the Board of Supervisors of Chester- field County~ on July 11~ 1973. I am enclosing a check for $10.00 to cover the cost of this renewal. jge Enclosure Sincerely yours, Rev. William F. Ruehl BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County that the application of St. Ann's Cgtholic Church for permission to conduct Bingo, games and/or raffles, having been received by the Board and duly considered, permission is hereby granted said applicant, St. Ann's Catholic Church , to conduct Bingo games and/or raffles subject to the conditions as set forth in said permit. STREET L!G~IT REPORT FO~ 6/12/74 me Recommend approval of a 7000 lumen mercury vapor light at the following locations provided any additional cost of installation be paid by the respective civic associations: 1. On new pole at entrance to Stonehenge Subdivision at Courthouse Rd. 2. Rochelle Rd. & Castlebury Rd. ~ Be 3. Rochelle Rd. & Wood Dale Rd. Recommend that existing light, at Brentford & Bloomfield be moved one pole down the street because property owner in front of light is opposed to it. C. Recommend denial of request for light at the following locations because of lack of density. 2. End of Richmond St. in Chester. OLIVER D. RUDY Commonwealth's Attorney Assistants CIVIL MORRIS E. MASON CRIMINAL HERBERT C. GILL, JR, PHILLIP V. DAFFRON June 21, 1974 Mr. C. G. Manuel Assistant County Administrator Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Jack: I am enclosing a copy of a letter which today from the Compensation Board which shows that they have re- considered my budget and have granted it as requested. As you may or may not know, Philip Daffron has submitted his resignation effective July 1, 1974. Consequently, the salary of his replacement will be reduced down to $10t500~ I would appreciate it if you would bring~this matter to the attention of the Board on Wednesday and have them pass a simple resolution a~rovin the changes in my budget made bv~ .the Compensation Board in their letter to me of June 19, 1974. I would also appreciate it if you would send me a copy of that resolution so that I could forward it on to the Compensation Board. You will note that this really amounts to an overall reduction in my budget for the fiscal year 74-75. y true,ours, Oliver D. Rudy Commonwealth' s Attorney ODR:dcf Enclosure FRED G. POU ARD CHAIRMAN JOHN M. RASNICKo JR. [XlECLJ?. IVI[ · ECR&"I'ARY GoMMONWEALTH' oF R61Ni& JOSEPH Bo J&ME~ V/. Ho FORST EX.OFFICIO MEMEERI COMPENSATION BOARD P. O. BOX 1177 RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23209 June 19, 1974 Mr. Oliver D. Rudy Attorney for the Commonwealth Chesterfield County Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Rudy: At a meeting of the Compensation Board held on yesterday, your letter of June 13, 1974, was presented. The Compensation Board reconsidered your letter very carefully and, subject to concurrence of your Board of Supervisors, approved the following changes in your budget for the 1974/75 fiscal year: A Salary of $10,500 for an assistant to replace Mr. P. V. Daffron,_who will resign effective June 30, 1974; An increase in the salary of Mr. H. C. Gill, Jr., Assistant, from $12,500 to $13,584. JMP, Jr./kl CC: Board of Supervisors//.. PLEASE NOTE: Very truly yours, The Compensation Board must be advised by the Board of Supervisors of its concurrence in the above salary increase before the State's part can be certified for payment. k IN COOPERATION WITH THE ~TAT£ HEALTH DEPARTMENT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY HEALTH DEPA..i'MENT CHESTERFIELD, VIR~GINIA 2:3832 June 24, 1974 Mr. M. W. Burnett, Administrator County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, Virginia Dear Mr. Burnett: Enclosed is a revised proposed Chesterfield County Health Department budget for 1974-75. Due to the shortage of funds for the state's share of the budget, some adjustments had to be made. With the exception of the dental assistant position the new positions were deleted. We are, therefore, requesting 100% county funding for a nurse and a sanitarian position for the coming fiscal year. Salaries, travel and benefit costs would amount to $21,018.00. The revised cooperative budget amounts to $572,786.00. The county's share of 45% plus the supplement would be $278,772.00. I will be glad to discuss this further at your convenience. Sincerely, W. P. Wa~ Director WPW:cc Enclosure PROPOSED 1974-75 BUDGET CHESTERFIELD COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Proposed Expenditures Salaries Nages Soil Scientist Contractual Services Travel Supplies and Materials Equipment Current Charges: Rent - Building Other Benefits: FICA Retirement Group Insurance Hospitalization Total Cooperative Budget County Supplement Total County Commitment Budgeted $398,341 17,102 10,000 40,672 30,600 12,050 5,573 22,331 1,250 20,366 8,001 1,136 7,3,44. $572,786 County's Share $179,253 7,696 4,500 18,302 13,770 5,423 1,608 10,048 563 9,165 3,601 520 3,30,5 $237,754 -2- Personnel: Position Name Budgeted Salary Director Nurse Sup. Nurse Sup. Nurse Sup. Sanitarian Sup. Sanitarian Sup. Clerk-Steno Dentist Clerk-Typist Clerk-Typist Clerk-Typist Clerk-Typist Clerk-Typist Sanitarian Sanitarian Sanitarian Sanitarian Sanitarian Sanitarian Wagner, W. P. Falkos, J. K. Long, E. M. Horner, D. O. Spencer, R. M. Wilson, T. E. Carsley, C. W. Shroyer, D. C. Mumma, M. D. Vandevander, D. F. Martin, L. D. Partin, S. L. Smith, M. J. Graham, T. H. Wester, J. W. Mann, J. L. Massie, E. H. Cope, S. J. Clark, R. G. Home Health Aide Burns, N. H. Home Health Aide PHN PHN PHN PHN PHN PHN PHN PHN PHN PHN PHN PHN PHN PHN PHN PHN PHN Berry, J. J. Traylor, M. E. Hellman, I. S. Redmond, S. N. Messersmith, C. F. Yates, M. B. Hope, M. A. Chadbourne, C. E. Duncan, W. W. Teeslink, B. H. Harris, J. R. Howell, E. P. Knudson, B. B. Jones, M. H. Barnes, J. H. Ritter, S. A. Rowlett, J. S. Lane, E. R. $ 20,040 9,600 7,694 9,589 9,610 8,770 7,544 19,600 6,144 6,122 5,444 5,520 5,280 9,312 8,880 7,860 8,S12 11,472 11,472 5,640 5,880 9,816 10,992 10,992 8,784 9,168 10,192 9,996 10,092 10,912 10,272 9,960 9,636 9,852 8,704 9,852 8,704 9,204 -3- Position Name Budgeted Salary County's Share PHN PHN PHN PHN Gardner, M. K. Dyson, R. L. Dell'Aria, B. S. Canada, B. H. Total Salaries Less Anticipated Personnel Turnover Additional 5% Salary Increase Adjusted Salaries New Position: Dental Assistant Plus Benefits $ 9,852 8,175 8,816 8,864 $393,420 $~9,671 3,749 +5,905 $398,341 $176,596 +2,657 Supplemental Positions: (1) Sanitarian A Plus Benefits ~ Travel (1} Nurse A Plus Benefits 5 Travel $10,809 $10,209 $21,018 COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD INTRACOUNTY CORRESPONDENCE June 25, 1974 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. M. W. Burnett J. R. Condrey~/ Loan to Central Stores Large quantities of meters and copper pipe were ordered to avoid price increases. As a result, the Central Stores Fund has a cash deficit. Please ask the Supervisors on June 26 to approve the following resolution: "On motion of Mr. , seconded by Mr. it is resolved that the Treasurer be and hereby is authorized to transfer an amount not to exceed $40,000.00 from the Meter Installation Fund to the Central Stores Fund.%% JRC:gc COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD INTRACOUNTY CORRESPONDENCE June 24, 1974 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. M. W. Burnett Mr. J. R. Condrey%%~/ I! ,s 1973-74 Budget Chah~ge The Nursing Home prepared its 1973-74 budget based on a 90% occupancy rate. The Nursing Home actually had 95-100% occupancy; therefore, their revenue and expenditures are running higher than the budget. Please ask the Supervisors on June 26, 1973-74 Nursing Home budget as follows: 1974 to amend the I. EXPENDITURES II. Appropriate $67,945.00 from the Unappropriated Surplus of the Nursing Home Fund to: a. Administration 22-191-109.0 Clerical b. Patient Care Service 22-192-111.3 Other Nursing Personnel c. Ancillary Services 22-193-111.0 Physicians d. Dietary Service 22-194-143.0 Dietary Personnel 22-195-119.2 f. Housekeeping 22-196-119.1 Laundry Personnel Housekeeping Personnel REVENUE Increase account 22-000-730.0 $67,945.00. $3,821.00 15,007.00 16,445.00 6,329.00 19,564.00 ~ 6t779.00 $67,945.00 , Patient Service by JRC:mm COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD INTRACOUNTY CORRESPONDENCE June 21, 1974 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. M. W. Burnett, County Administrator Mr. J. R. Condrey, Central Accounting ~~ 1973-74 Budget Changes On April 25, 1973, the Board approved the purchase of a fence at Camp Baker. Please ask the Board on June 26, 1974 to increase 51-185-600.1, Improvement to Sites, by $800.00 in the T. F. Jefferess Memorial Fund (51) and appropriate $800.00 from the unappropriated Surplus of the T. Fo Jefferess Memorial Fund to 51-185-600.1, Improvement to Sites. JRC:mm COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD INTRACOUNTY CORRESPONDENCE June 21, 1974 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. M. W. Burnett, County Administrator Mr. J. R. Condrey, Central Accounting~~ 1973-74 Budget Changes Please ask the Board of Supervisors on June 26, 1974 to make the following changes in the Library Budget (Fund 13): Ie a~ Decrease: 13-185-105.0 Librarians 13-185-109.0 Clerical 13-185-119.0 Janitor Service 13-185-251.0 Data Processing 13-185-315.0 Books County b. Increase: 13-500-205.1 Professional Fees 13,500-601.1 New Buildings $16,000.00 7,000.00 6,000.00 1,000.00 !O,ilOlO0'O0___ $40,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 II. Also ask the Board to appropriate $120,000.00 from the Unappropriated Surplus of the Library Fund to 13-500-601.1, New Buildings. The Board authorized the Treasurer to borrow up to $700,000.00 for Library Construction, but none of this money was appropriated JRC:mm COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD I NTRACOUNTY CORRESPONDENCE June 21 1974 , TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. M. W. Burnett, County Administrator Mr. J. R. Condrey, Central Accounting ~~ 1973-74 Budget Changes Please ask the Board of Supervisors on June 26, 1974 to increase the School Bond Anticipation Fund (48) by the following: 48-500~000.0 School B~nd Anticipation 48-500=205.1 Professional Service 48-500-600.0 Purchase of Land 48-500-601.1 New Buildings and Additions $80,000.00 200,000.00 ,?0o,ooo.o0 $1,980,000.00 TO do the above, please ask the Board to appropriate $1,980,000.00 from the Unappropriated Surplus of the Bond Anticipation Fund (48) to the above accounts. The Board has authorized the Treasurer to borrow up to $~,500,000.00 in anticipation of the sale of bonds JRC:mm COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD INTRACOUNTY CORRESPONDENCE June 21 , 1974 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. M. W. Burnett, County Administrator Mr. J. R. Condrey, Central Accounting ~- 1973-74 Budget Changes Please ask the Board of Supervisors on June 26, 1974 to appropriate $550,015.00 from the Unappropriated Surplus of the General Fund to the following accounts: A. Recreation: 11-187-600.0 Improvement to Sites (This is for Rockwood Park) B. ~apital Outlay: 11-500-602.0 Safety Village 11-500-601.7 Airport Total $150,000.00 32,300.00 .337,71.5. 37o,015.,p0 $520,015.00 *See separate memo re: Utilities assuming cost of certain utilities at Airport. JRC:mm COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD INTRACOUNTY CORRESPONDENCE June 21, 1974 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. M. W. Burnett, County Administrator Mr. J. R. Condrey, Central Accounting~.~ Assumption of Airport cost by Utilities Since January, we have been discussing the problem of getting Utilities to agree to assuming the cost of installin9- certain water and sewer systems in the Airport. Will we be able to meet with Bob Painter before June 26th to resolve this matter? If not, we need to ask the Supervisors to appropriate additional funds to the Airport account to cover the cost of the contracts for utilities. JRC:mm COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD INTRACOUNTY CORRESPONDENCE June 20, 1974 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. M. W. Burnett, County AdminiStrat°r Mr. J. R. Condrey, Central Accounting~~ Appropriations for 1973-1974 We failed to ask the Supervisors to appropriate the full school expenditures for 1973-74. Please ask the Supervisors on June 26, 1974 to appropriate the remaining $300,000.00 in budgeted appropriations in Fund 41, School Operating, to 41-421-000.0, Instruction. At May 31 the amounts for 41-421 were as follows: Planned Budget for 1973-74 $12,899,991 Appropriated 12,599,991 To be Appropriated 300,000 JRC:mm COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD I NTRACOUNTY CORRESPONDENCE June 20, 1974 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. M. W. Burnett J. R. Condrey~-/ Rate of mileage reimbursement for 1974-75 The State is increasing the rate of mileage reimbursement to its employees to 12¢ per mile on July 1, 1974. Please ask the Board of Supervisors on June 26, 1974 to increase the County rate to 12¢ per mile effective July 1, 1974. The School Board has also authorized an increase to 12¢ a mile. JRC:mm COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD INTRACOUNTY CORRESPONDENCE June 20, 1974 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. M. W. Burnett, County Administrator Mr. J. R. Condrey, Central Accountin~~ 1973-74 Budget for Nursing Home Construction Fund Please ask the Board of Supervisors on June 26, 1974 to approve the following Budgetfor The Nursing Home Construction Fund: 25-500 NURSING HOME CONSTRUCTION 25-500-205.0 25-500-301.0 25-500-403.0 25-500-601.0 Total Architect Fee Bedding and Linen Furniture and Fixtures New Buildings $12,000.00 4,000.00 5,000.00 550,000.00 $571,000.00 To do the above, please ask the Board to appropriate $571,000 from the unappropriated Surplus of the Nursing Home Construction Fund (25) to the above accounts. The Board has already authorized the Treasurer to transfer up to $600,000 from the General Fund to the Nursing Home Construction Fund. JRC:mm DOUGLAS B. FUGATE, COMMISSIONER MORRILL M, CROWE, RICHMOND, VA. LE ROY EAKIN, JR., McLEAN, VA. HORACE G. FRALIN, ROANOKE, VA; THOMAS R. GLASS, LYNCRBURG, VA. LEONARD R. HALL, BRISTOL, VA. DOUGLAS G. JANNEY, FREDERICKSBURG VA. ROBERT S; LANDES, STAUNTON, VA. WILLIAM T. RODS, YORKTOWN. VA. '-ON7 :ALTFF OF DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, VA. 23219 June 18, 1974 JOHN E. HARWOOD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF Ei~JGINEER W. S. G. BRITTON, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION A. K. HUNSBERGER. DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING H. GORDON BLUNDON, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMMING AND PLANNING J. M. WRAY, JR., DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS Secondary System Add it ions Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County Chesterfield Court House, Virginia 23832 Gentlemen: As requested in resolution by your Board on February 27, 1974, the following additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are hereby approved, effective June 1, 1974. ADDITION LENGTH KIMBERLY ACRES - SECTION I SUBDIVISION Okehampton Drive - Beginning at its intersection with Hopkins Road westerly 0.05 Mi. to its intersection with Exwick Lane thence westerly 0.11 Mi. to Cotfield Road thence westerly 0.02 Mi.. to a Dead End. 0.18 Mi. Exwick Lane - Beginning at its intersection with Okehampton Drive southerly 0.05 Mi. to Exwick Court. 0. O5 Mi. Cotfield Road - Beginning at its intersection with Okehampton Drive 0.10 Mi. southerly to a cul-de-sac. 0.10 Mi. Exwick Court - Beginning at its intersection with Exwick Lane 0.05 Mi. westerly to a cul-de-sac. 0.05 Mi. Copies: Mr. A. S. l~attox Mr. J. P. Mills, Jr. Mr. A. S. Brown Mr. L. R. Treat, Jr. Mr. L. H. Dawson, Jr. Mr. E. L. Covington, Jr. - Chesterfield incerely, ......... ty Commiss loner A HIGHWAY IS AS SAFE AS THE USER MAKES IT IN ACCOUNT WITH ATTORNEYS At [-AW COURTHOUSE SQUARE June 7, 1974 Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County Chesterfield, Virghaia For legal services rendered in connection with the application of Virginia Electric and Power Company for the cancellation of contracts for electrical services ~vith Chesterfield County, including researching the Statutory Constitutional provisions, preparation of objections and briefs in the State Corporation Commission, preparation of a brief on appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia and argument of the case before the State Supreme Court, services involved the work of Frederick T. Gray and Walter E. Rogers over the period of 1November 10, 1972 thru October 8, 1973 $8,910'00 ADVANCES: Xerox copies 138.80 To Clerk of Supreme Court of Virginia- filing appeal 1.50 Long distance phone calls 6.32 To Clerk of Supreme Court of Virginia Binding fee 5.00 Printing of brief for Supreme Court 247.27 9: E. FIELD: NG L. WILLIAMS R. COLSTON CHR}~TIAN LAW OFFICES TELEPHONe~ ~REA CO~E BO4 June 7, 1974 RICHMOND OFFICE LINITED VIRGINIA BANK BUILDING Mr. M. W. Burnett Executive Secretary Chester field"- County Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Me1: I am enclosing a statement for services rendered in the VEPCO case which covers the case in the State Corporation Commission and in the Supreme Court. I have time records reflecting a total of 57 1/2 hours of my time and 104 1/2 hours of Walter Rogers' time. I have computed the bill on the basis of $55.00 an hour for each of us which is somewhat below the minimum that our partners ask of us. I am I hope you will find the bill satisfactory. / Slncer.~ Wi. th kind regards, FTG:mc Encl. The Board of Supervisors passed the following resolution on ....... ~_/~_...~.l /~_~__197~ . If you have any questions please call %he County kdministrator's Office. 7 On motion of Mr. Myers, seconded by Mr.O'Neill, it is resolved_ . that ~his Board accepts the offer of Mr.JoRichard Seeds, set ~ ~ ' ~e forth in his proposal dated April 4, 1974, to purchase A~J~acr s of land at the Chesterfield Airport Industrial Park~ upon terms and conditions therein for the purchase price of $10~000 per acreo And be it further resolved, that the Commonwealth's Attorney, petition the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia, for approval and ratification of this sale of land by the County to Mr.J.Richard Seeds and on such approval the Chairman and clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute a. good and sufficient deed' therefor. Ayes: Mr. Horner, Mr.Myers, Mr.Apperson,Mr.Krepela and Mr°O'Neill° dUDGES CHA~4 BE~S CHESTEI~F! ELD, VI~GI NIA 23832 June 13, 1974 D W. MUF~PHEY Mr. C. G. Manuel Assistant County Administrator Chesterfield Courthouse Chesterfield, Virginia Dear Mr. Manuel, On July 1, 1974, the State will establish the Magistrate System for the ~elfth Judicial District. Under the act authorizing the establishment of this system, it is required that the State furnish forms, books, postage, or other supplies deemed necessary for the efficient operation of the office. Each 'county and city having a General District Court shall provide suitable quarters and equipment necessary for the operation of this office. I previously discussed with you the necessity of having an office space in the court building, and I would appreciate it if you could arrange to have this r~om available or~9~ to that time as well as procur~ from the Board of Suoervis,grp such authorization as necessary to orovide the furniture and equipment needed. Sincerely yours, Ernest P. Gates Chief Judge EPG/sbh CC' Mr. John B. Trueheart Chief Magistrate P. O. Box 35 Chasterfield, Virginia F.D. NO. ! ~.,~ESTERFIELD FIRE DEPARTMEN~'''' CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA INCIDENTAL REPORT TO: Mr. M.W. Burnett DATE: 6~,,26,,74 ...... FROM: Robert L. Eanes SUBOECT: Ettrick Fire Station Please word fire station alterations as follows~ "Handle on a time and material basis plus 10% .... profit, not to exceed $8,000." Thank you, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IRVING. HORNER, CHAIRMA# (:LOVRR HILL DISTRICT LEO MYERS, VlCK CHAIRIIAN BIR#UDA DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS J. RUFFIH APPERSON DALI[ DISTRICT A. LDRtCH J. KREPELA. M IDLOTHIAN DISTRICT E. MERLIN O'NEILL, SR. I,I ATOACA DISTRICT COUNTY OF C,HESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA M. W. BURNETT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR June 24~ 1974 Mr. M.W. Burnett County Administrator County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Re: CHESTERFIELD Ettrick Fire Station Alterations to bay Dear Mr. Burnett, As you recall, prior to your leaving for vacation, I was having some difficulty obtaining contractors to give us a price on raising the roof two (2) feet to accept the new aerial ladder. Through the efforts of Mr, MUmma, he has obtained one contractor who will do this job for $8,000 o~a cost plus 10% basis. Briefly, the existing roof on one bay will be removed and a new roof of pre-fabricated A-roof tresses installed, The only other alternative is the erection of a 20~x40~ Butler type bUilding behind the present station at the following prices: T,M. Graves Const. Co. W.F. Hamm Cons. Co. $11,390.00 $11,469.00 I would suggest that we raise the roof. A suggested source of income ~s revenue from the $29,500 received from the sale of the four used fire units. The contractor recommended is Mr. William L Haydt, 234 North South Street, PetersbUrg, Virginia 23803. This job has not been bid for the following reasons: unable to find contractors interested in bidding on the job and due to ~.he time shortage, Mr. M.W. Burnett June 24, 1974 Page 2 Effective July 1, 1974, the County firefighters will be assigned to the station, Anything you could do to ex- pedite an answer will be appreciated, Respectfully, Chief of Department CHESTERFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT RLE: j b cc: Mr. Leo Myers, Chairman, Fire Committee Mr E~ Merlin O~Neill, Supervisor, Matoaca District COLONEL E. P. GILL CH!EF OF POLICE E. T. SMITH CAPTAI~ OF IDI~TECTI¥£S W. E. MARTIN CAPTAIN OF POLICE COU NTY OF CHESTERFIELD CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, June 24, 1974 Mr. M. W. Burnett County Administrator Chesterfield County Chesterfield, Virginia Re: Dog Warden Appointments Dear Sir: I recommend the following named individuals for the position of Deputy Dog Warden and Special police officer effective July 16, 1974: 1. John Kofron Aldridge. Mr. Aldridge is 29 years old, w/m, single, resides at 7303 River Road, Matoaca, Va., where he has lived for the past 25 years. He received his GED certificate while in the U. S. Navy. He has been employed since April 1969 as a Disc-Jockey am~ouncer for the WPVA Ra~io Station in Petersburg, Va. 2. Gary Michael Treakle. Mr. Treakle is a w/m, 23 years old and resides at 2220 East Tremont Court, Richmond, Va. He is single and is a high school graduate as well as he has taken courses at Tidewater Community College and Virginia Commonwealth University, majoring in law enforcement. He is presently a youth leader for the Chesterfield Detention Home and formerly worked as a project supervisor for the Reception and Diagnostic Center and has also worked at the Gilbert Animal Hospital in Portsmouth as an assistant veterimarian there. 3. Thomas Everett Radcliffe. Mr. Radcliffe is a w/m, 27 years of age and resides at 21505 Chesterfield Ave., Ettrick, Va. He is married and has three children. He is a high school graduate. Mr. Radcliffe has been living in Massa- chusetts but returned to this area to look after his blind fmther. He is presently employed as a salesman for Citizen Home Insurance Company in Petersburg. Mr. Radcliffe will be replacing Warden Mills who will be promoted to Supervisor of the Dog Warden Department replacing Warden John Herndon who is transferring to the Police Department on 7/1/74. Mr. Treakle and Mr. Aldridge will be filling the new Deputy warden positions allocated in the new budget year, 74-75. EpG/jc Respectfully, Colonel E. P. Gill Chief of Police LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY CLAIM INVEsTIGATIoN REPORT I, Warden t',/, .~'- ,1/}. ~/.,!'6~,. ..... . on this date investigated the claim of for /. '~ no, which occurred on ~,~,',,,~, I estimate value Authority ~.,..{,,. { o Description (k~nd~/age, W~zght) ' ~ 19P~/in Chesterfield County. each, total value $. ', ':,3.r, I ' I (~, did not) witness the actual (killing --~' ...... ,----, '~-~- --~ - ----of the animals claimed. The guilty (d~g, dogs) (~$~e, have not) been (caught-f-~killed) and are described as follows: ~ ~/a.r//A/a~,~ I~.~.~/~ .~p.{ ~i~ ~/~ c!; .~,~,~.,~ t Da~ge was done in the following ~nner: -~ ~IT; "~ ' ' As a result of maiming, ~ ,, of the total claimed above were destroyed by the owner, or by me at the owner's request. FOllowing are witnesseS: I have investigated this claim as thoroughly as possible. I (have, h~) viewed the remains of the animals claimed. I (have, t~m~t) viewed the area where said animals were att~acked along with other physical evidence and I (have, ~) questioned available witnesses. Respectfully, · - . ,;, ~ .... -."'t-'.._ .... AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL, HORTICULTURAL, FOREST AND OPEN SPACE REAL ESTATE AN ORDINANCE to amend Chapter 11, Article 1, of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, by adding thereto new Sections, Sections 11-11.i:1 through 11-11.1:8; Section 11-11.!:1 declaring public interest in special land use for taxation; Section 11-11.1:2 providing for classification; assess- ment and taxation based on real estate use; Section 11-11.1:3 providing a procedure for appiying for special land use; Section 11-11.1:.4. providing for extensi6n of tax on qualifying property; Section 11-11.1:5 providing imposition of roll-back tax with interest; Section 11-11.1:6 providing for report of any change in use of qualifying property, and penalities for failure to report; Section 11-11.1:7 providing for application of Title 5~ of the Code of Virginia to local assessments and taxation; Section 11-11.i:8 providing for effective date ordinance to become operational. Be it ordained by the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, that Chapter 11, Article 1, of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, be amended by adding theret~o Sections 11-11.1:1 through 11-11.1:8 to read as follows: Section 11-11.1:1 The County of Chesterfield finds that the preservation of real estate devoted to agriCultural, hOrticultural, forest and open space uses within its boundaries is in the pUblic interest and, having heretofore adopted a land-use plan, hereby ordains that such real estate shall be taxed in aCcordance with the provisions of Article 1.1 of Chapter 15 of Title 58 of the Code of Virginia and of this ordinance. Section 11-11.1:2 (a) The owner of any real estate meeting the criteria set forth in Sections 58-769.5 and 58-769.7(b) of the Code of Virginia may, on or before~November one of each year, apply to the ~=:~:~c__~ n~ ~e =~=-.=~_Li~ for the classification, assessment and taxation of such property for the next succeeding tax year on the basis of its use, under the procedures set forth in Section 58-769.9 of the Code of Virginia. Such application shall be on forms provided by the State Department of Taxation and. supplied by the ............. ~ ........ ~=~.~a and shall include such additional schedules, photographs and drawings as may be required by the ................ ..~. ........ onus. An appl~catmon fee of ten dollars shall accompany each application. (b) A separate application shall be filed for each parcel on the land book. Section 11-11.1:3 Promptly upon receipt of any application, the -~c-"~..'ss~er. . -- ~-- . ~-~ .~ ..~'~.-~ shall determine whether the sUbject property meets the criteria for taxation hereunder. If the Commissioner of the Revenue determines that the subject property mee such criteria, he shall determine the value of such property for its qualifying use, as well as its fair market value. In determining whether the subject property meets the criteria for grlcultural use" or "ho ' ~~_~_~~t/ rtlcultural use" ¢~ ~ may request an opinion from the Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce; in determining whether the subject property meets the criteria for "forest use" he may request an opinion from the Director of the Department of Conservation and EconomiC Development; and in determining whether the subject property meets the criteria for "open space use" he may request' an opinion from the Director of the Commission of Outdoor Recreation. Upon the refusal of the Commissioner of Agriculture and commerce, the Director of the Department of Conservation and Economic Develop- ment, or the Director of the Commission of Outdoor Recreation to issue an opinion, or in the event of an unfavorable opinion which does not comport with standards set forth by the respective director, the party aggrieved may seek relief from any court of.record wherein the real estate in question is located. If the court finds in his favor it may issue an order which shall serve in lieu of an opinion for the purposes of this ordinance. Section 11-11.1:4 The use value and fair market value of any qualifying property shall be placed on the land book before delivery to the treasurer and the tax for the next succeeding tax year shall be extended from the use value. Section 11-11.1:5 There is hereby imposed a roll-back tax, and interest thereon, in such amounts as may be determined under Virginia Code Section 58-769.10, upon any property as to which the use changes to a nonqualifying use. Section 11-11.1:6 (a) The owner of any real estate liable for roll-back taxes shall report to the -r, on forms to be prescribed, any change in the use of such property to non- qualifying use and shall pay the roll-back tax then due. On failure so to report an~ pay within sixty days following such change in use, such owner shall be liable for an additional penalty equal to ten per centum of the amount of the roll-back tax and interest, which penalty shall be collected as a part of the tax. In addition to such penalty, there is hereby imposed interest of one-half per centum of the amount of the roll-back tax, interest and penalty, for each month or fraction thereof during which the failure continues. (b) Any person making a material misstatement of fact in any application filed pursuant hereto shall be liable for all taxes, in such amounts and at such times as if such property had been assessed on the basis of fair market value as applied to other real estate in the taxing jurisdiction, together with interest and penalties thereon, and he shall be further assessed with an additional penalty of one hundred per centum of such unpaid taxes. Section 11-11.1:7 The provisions of Title 58 of the Code of Virginia applicable to local levels and real estate assessment and taxation shall be applicable to assessments and taxation hereunder mutatis mutandis ~ncluding, without limitation, provisions relating to tax liens a,~u the correction of erroneuus assessments, and for such purposes the roll-back taxes shall be considered to be deferred real estate taxes. Section 11-11.1:8 This ordinance shall be effective for all tax years beginning on and after emm4~-~=~Wn=~ Ju~u=zy 1, i~ 7 4~ . June ZO 1974 To: Honorable Board of Supervisors From: Real Estate Assessor If adopted, the Land Use Ordinance will cause an additional work load on the Assessor's Office to the extent that it will be necessarf to adopt a set m~thod for handling applications. Since this will be a continuous program, we feel it adva~tag~ou~ to start it from the beginning as .follows: The hiring of one person for the purpose of: (a) The handling and processing of applications. Co) ~hst be capable of working with a planim~ter. (c) Must be capable of understanding and working with maps and aerial-photographs. soil maps, tax II. The hiring of a qualified Forester for a period of time as may .be ne- cessary each year, for the purpose of: (a) Establishing the type of timber on an applicants propertY. (b) Establishing the approximate .age, marketability and value of timber per acre. III. The temporary hiring of a Soil Scientist for a period of time as may be necessary to: (a) Determine class of soil and amount of area that class of soil covers on each parcel of land which application has been made. Co) Establishing a workable and satisfactory color code system for aiding in the classifying of soil types under agriculture , horticulture and forest use. (c) To apply color code system under ~) to all county soil maps at a scale of ir = 800'. (d) To briefly train newemployee in workingwith all types of maps as may be necessary inworkingwith land use system. It will be necessary to have additional equipment: (a) /%vo sets of all 1" = 400' section maps reduced to 1" = 800' on.. paper. Co) Two sets of all soil maps at 1" = 800' reproduced on paper. (c) Two sets of 1973 aerial-photograpks taken by Soil Conservation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture at 1' = 800'. Estimated cost: One additional employee $7,S00. II. III. A Forester covering an approximate 600 acres per day @ $100 per day, to cover approximately 57,720 acres = 96.2 days $9,620. A Soil Scientist who will cover an approximate 1,000 acres per day of land covered under applications @ $5.00 per parcel from 5 - 30 acres + .10 per acre from 31 acres up Estimate - 1000 applications @ 100 acres eacJ% = $12.00 per parcel Color coding 216 soil maps $35.00 per sheet = $12,000. $ 7,560. IVe (a) &Mo t~x maps - 188 sheets each @ (b) &Mo soil maps 216 sheets each @ (c) Two aerial-photos - estimate Total .123 $ per copy = .123 ~ per copy = $ 46.25 53.I4 lO00.OO $40,000.00 It has been the experience of the several counties that have adopteclthis ordinance to expend $50,000 in the first yemr of implementation. It is the opinion of this office that the sum of $50,000 be addecI to the present 1974 budget of the Offide of the Real Estate AssesSor if adopted. Res~pectfull7 submitted: g&mes Co Falconer, Estate gssessor JCF/fc COOPERATIVE 'EXTENSION SERVICE VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY P. O. Box AF Chester, Virginia 23831 June 19, 1974 Mr. M. W. Burnett County Administrator Chesterfield County Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Burnett: I hear that Chesterfield County is seriously considering an ordinance authorizing use-value assessment. You may find the enclosed of interest. Sincerely, Marshall Jones Extension Agent pl Enc 1 o sure ~In Educational Service o/ the ?irginia Polytechnic Institute and Slate University, l/irginia's Land- Grant University, ~witb U. S. Department of /I~riculture and Local Governments Cooperating USE-VALUE ASSESSMENT IN VIRGINIA* --Some Questions and Answers-- Use-value assessment in Virginia is authorized by legislation adopted by the 1971 General Assembly and amended by the General Assembly durin§ the 1973 and 1974 Sessions. The law is found in Sections 58-?69.4 to 58-769.16 of the Code of Vir§inia of 1950, as amended. This is local option legislation; many parties have an interest in it. The information contained in the questions and answers that follow will, it is believed be useful to at least some among the interested parties. 1. What does use-value assessment of real estate mean? It means that qualifying real estate is valued, assessed, and taxed in accordance with its value in the use actually being made of it, which is the use-value, rather than its value for an alternative use, which would be its fair market value. Doesn't the revised State Constitution state that "[a]ll assess- ments of real estate and tangible personal property shall be at their fair market value"? Yes, it does. But the Constitution contains a special provision authoriztn§ use-value assessment. To wit: The General Assembly may define and classify real estate devoted to agricultural, horticultural, forest or open space uses, and may by general law authorize county, city, t~n, or regional government to allow deferral of or relief from, portions of taxes other- wise payable on such real estate if it were not so classified, provided the General Assembly shall first determine that classification of such real estate for such purposes is in the public interest for the pre- servation or conservation of real estate for such uses. 3. Why can use-value assessment only be applied by local option? This is because the Constitution contains a special sentence To wit: No such deferral or relief shall be granted within the territorial limits of any county, city, town, or regional government except by ordinance adopted by the governing body thereof. *Prepared by J. Paxton Marshall, Extension Specialist--Public Policy, Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension Division, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 (June 1974) 9id the General Assembly find classification of real estate in agricultural, horticultural, forest, and open space use to be "in the public interest"? Yes. The General Assembly found it "is in the public interest" --to encourage the proper use of such real estate in order to assure a readily available source of agricultural, horticul- tural, and forest products and open space within reach of concentrations of population; --to conserve natural resources in forms that will prevent erosion; --to protect adequate and safe water supplies; --to promote proper land use planning and the orderly develop- ment of real estate for the accommodation of an expanding population; and --to promote a balanced economy and to reduce the pressures which force the conversion of real estate to more intensive USeS , , , , And, the General Assembly also stated: It is the intent of this article to provid~,,~or ,the ~lassi- fication,, and permit..the assessment and..taxa~iqn~ o~, such ~al estate in a manner that will p~q.mq.t~ ~be. prese~ation of it ultimately for the publicben~f!t. (Emphasis supplied.) 5. What is the basic difference between fair market value and use-value? Fair market value means the price that a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in an arm's length transaction. Such a trans- action takes place when each party to it acts without pressure or restraint to their own maximum interest. Use-yal. ue means the value that a tract of real estate has in the use an owner is making of it and is the value that the capi- talized net earnings from the real estate indicate could be paid for it to be continued in the same use, say, agricul~ure or forestry. Fair market value and use-value are the same when the real estate is not subject to and not expected to b'e subject to an alternative use, say, a subdivision or recreation home sites, Thus, the difference between fair market value and use-value is the value immediately possible or expected to be obtained within the near future by shifting real estate tO an alternative use. Such an alternative use has customarily bee~ thought of as shifting land from an agricultural use to a suburban-type use. -2- 6. What real estate qualifies for taxation at use-value? Only real estate qualifies that meets prescribed quail- fication standards when devoted to --agricultural use, --horticultural use, --forest use, or --open space use. These 4 types of real estate are acutally subclasses of all real estate and as required by the State Constitution are designated by the General Assembly for use-value assessment. Does a real estate tract have to have a minimum acreage to qualify? Yes. The minimum acreage is -- 5 acres for agricultural use, -- 5 acres for horticultural use, --20 acres for forest use, and -- 5 acres for open space use. 8. Are there other conditions for a tract to qualify? Yes. The use of the real estate must meet the prescribed qualification standards as required by law. Who has the responsibility for prescribing the qualification standards? The law assigns the responsibility for prescribing the qualification standards --for agricultural and horticultural use to the Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce, --for forestry use to the Director of the Department of Con- servation and Economic Development, and --for open space use to the Director of the Commission of Outdoor Recreation. 10. How were the standards established? They were established by the respective commissioners after a public hearing was completed as required by law. The hearing was conducted in June 1973 at 4 locations in Virginia. The standards were published on August 10, 1973, by the State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee. (If a copy of the prescribed qualification standards is not attached to this material, a copy may be obtained by writing Stuart W. Connock, Chairman, State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee, Department of Taxation, State Office Building, Richmond, Va. 23215.) -3- 11. What is the State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee? The State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee was created by the law authorizing use-value assessment. The Committee is composed of --the State tax Commissioner, --the Dean of the College of Agriculture of V.P.I. & S.U., --the Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce, --the Director of Conservation and Economic Development, --the Director of State Planning and Community Affairs, and --the Director of theCommission of Outdoor Recreation. The Committee is responsible for publishing before October 1 of each year a range of suggested use-values within each Jurisdiction which has adopted an ordinance authorizing use-value assessment. 12. What has to happen before taxation in accordance with use-value applies within a county, city, or town? The local governing body must do 3 things. 1. Have adopted a land use plan. 2. Hold a public hearing on the proposal to authorize use-value assessment. 3. Adopt the necessary enabling ordinance. 13. What qualifies as a land-use plan? The law authorizing use-value assessment is not clear on this, The law says: Any county, city or town in the Commonwealth which has adopted a land-use plan may adopt an ordinance to provide for the assessment and taxation [of real estate in accordance with use]. But the qualification standards established by the respective commissioners require that a Land Use Plan shall have been made and adopted officially in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 11~ Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. The relevant sections of Article 4 are provided with this set of questions and answers as Appendix A. 14. May a local governing body prepare its own ordinance authorizing use-value assessment? Yes. Or it may adopt a version of the model ordinance which has been prepared for this purpose. A copy of the model ordinance is included with the material published on August 10, 1973, See question 10. -4- 15. Does a local governing body have any reason to prepare its own ordinance? Yes, it does. It may want to incorporate into the ordinance 1 or more of the options that a local governing body may exercise in authorizing use-value assessment. 16. What are the options available to a local governing body? The local governing body has 3 options to consider. It may a.dPPt taxation in accordance with use-value for any 1 or any combination of the 4 types of qualifying real estate. It may authorize a fee to be collected on ~h appli- cation for use-value filed by an owner of qualifying real estate. It may ~tablish a penalty for failure of an owner of qualifying real estate approved for use-value assess~ ment to report that the use of such real estate has been changed from a qualifying use to a non-qualifying use. 17. Why would a local governing body Dot adopt use-value assessment for all 4 types of real estate authorized for such assessment? Local people may not favor taxing some of the 4 types in accordance with use-value. They may react this way because the decrease in assessed valuation on certain qualifying classes of real estate could be so large that it would result in a major realignment of tax costs within the jurisdiction. Each juris- diction must make its own decision about the types of real estate to which use-value assessment may apply. 18. Why would a local governing body apply a fee to each application that is filed? "- The local government has additional administrative costs that result from use-value assessment. Among the costs are these~ 1. Determining for each qualifying tract the acreage in the various soil conservation capability classes. 2. Recording in the Land Book the 2 assessed values for each tract--the fair market value and the use value, 3. Carrying out the other administrative duties arising from the ordinance. These costs are imposed on the publi=, if they are not paid by the recipient of use-value assessment. So a fee places the cost for servicing the application on the recipient. If such a fee is not charged,'the total cost is borne by the public. -5- The fee for this purpose is more equitable when it has 2 parts-- a fixed parC, say, $5 or $10 per application and a variable part, say, 10¢ per acre or 1/20 of 17, of the total appraised value. The per acre charge ha~s the advantage chat it can be figured by the applicant at the time of filing. When the fee is based on the total appraised value it must be figured by the local assessing officer. The use of a fee based on a fixed part and a variable part will permit the administrative costs to be shared more equit- ably among the owners of large and small tracts of qualifying real estate. 19. Why are 2 assessed values recorded in the Land Book? 20. This is because the law requires that the tax records must show the fair market value and the use-value of each qualifying tract. This is so the amount of tax deferred and subject to potential roll-back, or possibly forgiven, may be determined. Why is there 8% simple interest applied annually to deferred taxes which are rolled back? This is because the deferred tax is, in effect, a loan from the taxpayers of the local Jurisdiction to the owners of the qualifyillg real estate. This loan is outstanding until such time as the deferred taxes become due under the roll-back provisions or are forgiven, which occurs after the real estate remains in the qualifying use for 6 tax years. It is customary to charge interest on loans. When the deferred taxes are forgiven the interest is also forgiven. 21. What is meant by deferred tax? Deferred tax is the difference in any tax year between the tax owed based on fair market value and the tax due and payable based on use-value. All or some part of the deferred tax becomes due as the roll-back tax when the use of a tract of real estate is changed to a non-qualifying use. 22. Would you show in an example how the deferred tax works? Yes. Here is an example that illustrates...the ~e.ferred tax, Assume a 100 acre tract of qualifying real estate, residence excluded, such that $1,000 = assessed value per acre based on fair market value 250 = average assessed value per acre based on use-values 40% = assessment ratio applicable to all real estate $ 3.00 = tax rate per $100 of assessed value $ 400 = assessed value per acre based on fair market value $ 100 = assessed value based on use-value $12,00 = tax owed per acre on basis of fair market value $ 3.00 = tax due and payable per acre on basis of use-valu~ -6- Assume the total tax due and payable for the 100 acre tract on the basis of use-value is paid, then $1,200 = tax owed on basis of fair market value $ 300 = tax paid on basis of use-value $ 900 = deferred tax, subject to potential roll-back 23. What is meant by the roll-back tax? The roll-back tax is the .sum of all the deferred taxes that become due if a tract of real estate in qualifying use is changed to a non- qualifying use. The roll-back tax applies in the tax year in which the change in use occurs and for the 5 tax years immediately preceding, if use- value assessment has been applied for and granted in each tax year of such 6 year period. Thus, the maximum roll-back period is 6 tax years. 24. Would you show an example of how the roll-back tax works? 25. 26. Yes. An example which is presented in table form attached as Appendix B of this set of questions and answers illustrates how the roll-back tax works and the amount of roll-back potential in each year for 15 tax years. To simplify the example the data used are the same as those used in question 22 and are assumed to remain constant over the 15 year period. If the roll-back tax becomes due during the 15th year, the amount of roll-back due is $6,912 of which $5,400 is the sum of the deferred taxes due and $1,512 is the sum'of the interest due. NOTE: The residence is excluded. See Appendix B. Do the examples presented for questions 22 and 24 apply equally to real estate tracts qualifying for agricultural, horticultural, forest, or open space use? Yes. But please remember that these examples are based on assumed data. In actual practice, each qualifying tract of each type will have a different outcome. Why is the value of the residence excl~d~d in the example of the deferred tax, question 21, and the example of the roll-back tax, question 24? It is excluded because use-value assessment does not_ apply to the residence or the land occupied by the residence on a tract of qualifying real estate. Both the residence and the land it occupies are valued, assessed, and taxed at fair market value, n.0.t at use-value. The law also requires all structures, such as barns or silos, on the real estate to be assessed at fair market value. -7- 27. When does the recipient of use-v61ue assessment actually have the deferred taxes forgiven? 28. 30. 29. A recipient of use-value assessment for the tax year beginni~g July 1, 1975 will have n__o deferred taxes or interest forgiven until July 1, 1981, the beginning of the ?th tax year. Until that date all deferred taxes and interest are owed and payable, if the use of the real estate changes from a qualifying' to a non-qualifying use, On July 1, 1981 the deferred taxes and interest for the tax year beginning July 1, 1975 will be forgiven, if the real estate is still in the qualifying use. Having the deferred taxes and interest for- given does not depend upon the real estate being continuously in the same ownership or upon an application being filed every year. Does use-value assessment apply equally to qualifying real estate whether it is owned by a "dirt" farmer or a "gentleman" farmer? Yes. Use-value assessment applies to the qualifying tract of real estate. It does not apply to the real or perceived condition of the owner. Arguments that seek to apply use-value assessment to '~irt" farmers confuse real property tax policy with a tax on perceived wealth or income. The purpose of use-value assessment is to use a Fax volicy that applies to specific types of real estate to encourage keying such real estate in qualifying uses "ultimately for ~the public benefit," in accordance with the intent of the law, How does an owner of a tract of qualifying real estate find out if it qualifies for use-value assessment? This can be a 3-step process after the necessary ordinance is enacted. Apply for use-value assessment on a standard form available from the local assessing officer. The application%rill be approved by such officer, if the real estate meets the qualification standards; if there is a question and the real estate is said not to qualify, step 2 may be taken by the applicant. Request an opinion from the head of the agency responsible for establishing the standards applicable to the real estate at issue. If the opinion is unfavorable to either side, step 3 may be taken by either side. 3. Go to the local court of record serving the area where the real estate is located and obtain a judgment. What would a general summary statement be on the standards for real estate to qualify for agricultural use and horticultural use? The tract at issue must be in a use consistent with the Land Use Plan and zoning ordinance cf the local jurisdiction, -8- 31. 32. 33. be certified as being used in a planned program of soil management and conservation practices, be a minimum of 5 acres that has been in production of agricultural and horti- cultural products for sale for at least 5 years, with production yielding at least 1/2 the local county or city average for the 3 years immediately past. What would a general summary statement be on the standards for real estate to qualify for forestry use? The tract at issue must be in a use consistent with the Land Use Plan and zoning ordinance of the local Jurisdiction, be a minimum of 20 acres and have at least 107. normal stocking of well-distributed, commercially-valuable forest trees of any size sufficient to provide a minimum of 7.5 square feet of cross section at the breast high diameter. What would a general summary statement be on the standards for real estate to qualify for open space use? The tract at issue must be in a use consistent with the Land Use Plan and zoning ordinance of the local Jurisdiction, be a minimum of 5 acres clearly identified and consturctively main- tained a) on a non-profit basis for use by members of the public (except golf courses operated for profit as a public service), b) to con0erve land or other natural resources, c) for a floodway or drainage area, d) as an officially designated historic or scenic area, e) as an area officially planned or approved by the local planning commission or governing body to be left in an undeveloped natural state for the purpose of directing the growth or timing of growth of the community. How many applications for use-value assessment must an owner of qualifying real estate file? An owner must file 1 application for use-value assessment for each tract of real estate entered in the Land Book in his name for which such assessment is applied for. Thus, more than 1 application will be required if a real estate unit, say, a farm, is comprised of more than 1 tax tract. A new application must be filed for each tax tract before the November 1 preceding each tax year for which use-value assessment is desired. 34. Are there any penalties associated with use-value taxation? Yes, there are 2. 1. There is a~_~alty for misstatement of fact on the application for use-value assessment. This penalty is -9- 35. 36. 37. the amount of the deferred taxes subject to potential roll-back plu~ any penalties and interest applicable to delinquent taxes plu~ 100% of the taxes deferred. There is a penalty for failure to report to the local assessing officer within 60 days that the use of a tr~c~ of real estate has been changed from aqua. lifyin a non-qualifying upe. This penalty is the amount of deferred taxes subject to roll-back plus. any penalties and interest provided for by the local governing body in the ordinance. The minimum penalty might be 10% of the total of roll-back plus penalties and interest due. May a tract of real estate on which use-value assessment is in effect be sold without losing such assessment? Yes. Assessment in accordance with use-value is extended to the qualifying real estate, not the owner. Therefore, such assessment "rums with the land". Ail deferred and potential roll-back taxes are continued with the tract on the Land Book records regardless of the owner or the number of times the tract is sold so long as the tract remains in a qualifying use. But eac~ owner must file the required applicStion by the November 1 pre- ceding e~ch. tax year for which use-value assessment is desired. If an owner does n~.g continue to apply for use-value assessment, the liability for any roll-back taxes and interest potentially due continues on the real estate until the 1st day of the 7th tax year following the !as~ application approved. May an owner of a qualifying tract of real estate hell-off a part of the tract for a non-qualifying use? Yes. A portion of a qualifying tract of real estate being taxed in accordance with use-value assessment may be sold-off. In such an event, a proportionate share of the potential roll-back tax becomes due for that part sold-off. Use-value assessment may continue on the unsold portion so long as the tract meets the qualification standards. The net effect of this provision is to allow owners of qualifying tracts of real estate to subdivide such real estate while continuing to be taxed on the remaining unsubdivided part in accordance with use-value. This is subject, of course, to the condition that the land is not rezoned to a more intensive use upon application of the owner. Why would a local governing body decide to direct a general reassess- ment of real estate within the county (city, or town) in the year following adoption of an ordinance authorizing use-value assessment? This action could be taken for the following reasons. 1. To assure the jurisdiction that all real estate had a current assessment at fair market value. -10- 38. 39. 2. To assure the jurisdiction that uniformity exists among the fair market values on all types of real estate. To assure the Jurisdiction that the deferred, hence the potential roll-back, taxes are based on a current fair market value. To assure equitable taxation among taxpaying groups. One group is the taxpayers whose taxes are deferred as a result of their applying for and their real estate qualifying for use-value assessment. The other group is the taxpayers who pay an amount in additional tax toward the total of taxes necessary to equal the taxes deferred in the jurisdiction. Does the use-value assessment legislation have any provision to assure that the real estate b~ing granted use-value assessment taxation will be continued in such use and preserved "ultimately for the public benefit"? No. The recipient of use-value assessment is not required to agree to carry out any performance standard. Thus, the owner of real estate receiving use-value taxation has no obligation to the community which grants the privilege of such taxation. The law authorizes the use of a tax policy to assist in achieving a particular aspect of a land use policy. But the law contains no performance standard and no requirement that such a standard be established and adopted. The owner of qualifying estate may change its use to a non-qualifying use any day, subject to payment of the roll-back tax and interest due. How has use-value assessment affected the tax base of the counties that have adopted such assessment? This is shown in Appendix C for the first 4 jurisdictions that adopted use-value amendment, Fauquier, Prince William, and Loudoun Counties, and the City of Virginia Beach. The data are for the tax year beginning July 1, 1973, the first year authorized by the law. -11- APPENDIX A The following sections are from Article 4, Chapter 11, Title 15,1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. These sections relate to the preparation of a Land Use Plan. Sec. 15.1-446. Comprehensive plan to be .p~epared; scope and purpose.-- The local [planning] commission shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the territory within its jurisdiction. Such plan, with the accompanying maps, plats, charts, and descriptive, matter shall show the [planning] commission's long range recommenda- tions for the general development of the territory covered by the plan. It may include, but need not be limited to, (1) the designation of areas for various types of public and private development and use, such as different kinds of of residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, conservation, recreation, public service, flood plain and drainage, and other areas, which part of the plan may be known as a Land Use Plan; (2) the designation of a comprehensive system of transportation facilities such as streets, roads, highways, parkways, railways, bridges, viaducts, waterways, airports, ports, terminals, and other like facilities; (3) the designation of a system of community service facilities such as parks, forests, schools, playgrounds, public buildings and institutions, hospitals, community centers, waterworks, sewage disposal or waste disposal areas, and the like; and (4) the designation of areas for urban renewal or other treatment. The comprehensive plan shall be general in nature, in that it shall designate the general or approximate location, character, and extent of each feature shown on the plan, but it may indicate where existing lands or facilities are proposed to be extended, widened, removed, relocated, vacated, narrowed, abandoned, or changed in use as the case may be. Sec. 15.1-447. Investigations to be made in preparation of plan; implementation of plan.--(1) In the preparation of a comprehensive plan, the local commission shall investigate such matters as the following: (a) Existing development, use of land, trends of growth or changes, natural site characteristics, history of community population changes, population densities, employment and economic factors, existing community facilities, traffic conditions, parking conditions, drainage conditions, flood control and flood damage prevention measures, transportation facilities, school and recreational facilities, and any other matters relating to the subject matter and general purposes of the comprehensive plan. -12- (b) Probable future economic and population growth of the community, requirements for land areas for agriculture, forestry, urban growth, industry, transportation, water supplies, schools, parks, administrative buildings, and other public purposes. (2) The comprehensive plan may be implemented by the preparation and recommendation, as provided in this chapter [11 of the law], of the following: (a) The official map; (b) A long-range development program of public works; projects based on the comprehensive plan and related to the financial resources of the community, which program should be reviewed annually; (c) Detailed plans of specific projects included on the official map; (d) A subdivision control ordinance; and (e) A zoning ordinance and zoning districts map. A local governing body may approve and adopt the Land Use Plan before approving and adopting the comprehensive plan in total. The following section setsforth the authority for such action. Sec. 15.1-452. Adoption of parts of plan.--As the work of preparing the comprehensive plan progresses, the local commission may, from time to time, recommend, and the govern- ing body approve and adopt, parts thereof; any such part shall cover one or more major sections or divisions of the county or municipality or one or more functional matters. -13- 0 000000000 000000000000000 000000000 000000000000000 0000 O0000000000 000000000000000 000000000000000 000000000000000 O0 O0 O0000000000 000000000000000 000000000000000 O0 O0000 O000 O0 O0 O00000000000000 000000000000000 -I4- 4.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 u'~ 0 ~ 0 ~0 .¢,0- 0 0 o ! 0 ~ u'~ ~ 0 0 -. t~ CO 0 C~ r~ -- u~ o o4 ..~ ! -15- 'D3 0 By-Laws BUSINESS MEN and HOME OWNER'S and LAND OWNER'S ASSOCIATION On the 23rd day of September, have gathered here tonight for the purpose of setting up a Committee to be called BUSINESS MEN AND HOME OWNER'S AND LAND OWNER'S ASSO- CIATION. This is a non-profit organization in Which not even the President, Vice-President, or Secretary- Treasurer will be paid. The term of office for these officers shall be left up to the majority at this meeting. The purpose of this ~committee is to fight the back 'issues as well as an~ issue~ that arise in the future and to show and point out the dark side of ALL ISSUES that may arise concerning this group, such as the issue F. W. Alley has been fighting concerning authority for open space. It is for this purpose that we are organizing' th~ above mentioned group. The By-Laws of this Committee or money that is received must be used for this purpose-to point out the truth of the other side' Of the issue and let the people know ALL THE TP~UTH. If this Committee sees fit to adoPt these By-Laws, these By-Laws come into effect when it is signed by the newly voted President. Majority rules, but it has to be at'least 70%of the majority to change the rules. The real reason for forming this Committee is to g the home-owner and small business ma. ~e right to question issues through the means of a paid AD, and the money in the committee will be a volunteer donation. All money is to be used for the pnrpose of reimbursement to any officer for the cost of Newspaper Ads or for any typing services from this day on, or investigation service. We will ask for volunteers for our committee and hopefully among our volunteers there will be lawyers, but if this is not the case, then occasions may arise when we will have to purchase the services of alawyer. This will have to be agreed upon by the President; Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer. In the future, if this committee is adopted, anyone who volunteers to donate to this committee automatically becomes a member regardless of the amount of his donation. We will be asking for new members, and urge each of you to do likewise. We will hold meetings on the 23rd day of September each year to let all members know about our treasury as well as the progress we have made. A record listing the names, addresses, phone numbers, and amount donated must be kept by the Secretary-Treasurer. This list is necessary to pro- vide officers and members with the necessary way to contact each member. Each member has the right at any time to re- quest a financial statement from the Secretary- Treasurer, at a meeting. This amount shall not ex- ceed the amount of the Treasury. P~¢sident &~ _ ~%;~ ~~..~ Vice-President ~~ ~~/~ Secretary-Treasurer ~~~~..J Witness.- Witne~ :~~~~~ FWA:eJ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY POLICEMEN'S PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM AN ORDINANCE to amend and re-enact Chapter 8A-6 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, setting forth the eligibility for retirement and amount of pension under the Chesterfield County Policemen's Pension and Retirement System. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chester- field County, Virginia that Section 8A-6 is hereby amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Section 8A-6. Eligibility for retirement and pension. Any member who has attained the age of fifty-five (55) years and twenty-five (25) years creditable service with the Chesterfield County Police Department shall be eligible for retirement. Creditable service shall mean one year credit for each year as a member of the Police Department before chartering of the Chesterfield Police Benevolent Association and one year's service for each year as a member of the Chesterfield Police Benevolent Association and one year's service for each year after this plan is adopted. Each year a member of the Chesterfield Police Benevolent Association is in the Armed Forces involuntarily shall count as one year creditable service providing the member returns to the Police Department after being Honorably Discharged from the Armed Forces. Upon retirement, a member shall receive an annual retire- ment allowance which shall equal two per centum (2%) of the highest three (3) years average income multiplied by the number of years of his creditable service. When any member shall have reached the age of sixty (60) years or over and has twenty-five (25) years of creditable service, he shall be eligible for retirement and his minimum retirement payment shall be Two Hundred Fifty and No/100 Dollars ($250.00) per month. If any member after retirement shall die, leaving a widow, then the widow of such member during her widowhood, shall receive an annual allowance payable monthly, equal to one-half (1/2) of the member's retirement payment. Said widow receives this amount until she reaches eligibility age for receiving maximum Social Security Benefits. If he leaves no widow, or the widow dies or remarries, then such child or children, if any, of the deceased member, under the age of eighteen (18) years, shall be paid such allowance until such child or children die or a~in the age of eighteen (18) years, whichever shall occur first. If more than one child survives the deceased member, the allowance shall be divided among them and paid in such manner as the Retirement Board may determine. If a member hereafter dies in service at any time before retirement from a cause determined by the Retirement Board to be compensable under the Virginia Workmen's Compensation Act, there shall be paid an annual allowance payable monthly, to the widow of such member during her widowhood, if he leaves a widow, equal to one-half (1/2) of the members pension if he had retired at his earliest retirement age. (average of highest five (5) years income multiplied by the number of years of creditable service plus the number of years member would have been required to work to reach his earliest retirement age.) If he leaves a widow and child or children under the age of eighteen (18) years of age, then the widow shall receive full amount of pension until child or children reaches the age of eighteen (18) years. If he leaves no widow, or the widow -2- dies or remarries, then such child or children, if any, of the deceased member, under the age of eighteen (18) years shall be paid full allowance until such child or children die or attain the age of eighteen (18) years, whichever shall occur first. If more than one child survives the deceased member, the allowance shall be divided among them in such manner as the Retirement Board may determine. Any benefits payable under the Virginia Workmen's Compensation Act shall offset against any benefits payable under the retirement system. Any member at any time before retirement who becomes permanently disabled without misconduct from a service connected disability which prevents him from carrying out any duties as a member of the Police Department shall be retired and receive an annual retirement allowance payable monthly which shall equal one and one-half (1 1/2%) per centum of the average of highest five (5) years income multiplied by the number of years of creditable service plus the number of years member would be required to work to reach his earliest retirement age. Any benefits payable under the Virginia Workmen's Compensation Act shall be offset against any benefits payable under this system. Any member at any time before retirement who has ten or more years of creditable service, who becomes permanently disabled without misconduct from a disability which prevents him from carrying out any duties as a member of the Rtice Department shall be retired and receive an annual retirement allowance payable monthly which shall equal one and one-half per centum (1 1/2%) of average of highest five year (5) income multiplied by the number of years of creditable service plus the number of years member would have been required to work to reach his earliest retirement age. -3- MEMORANDUM DATE: June 20, 1974 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. M. W. Burnett, County Administrator Mr. Michael C. Ritz, Director of Planning Request for Variance, Mrs. Jack D. Yera~, Tax Map Sec. 51-8 (5), Blk. A, Lot l, B¼t~wood Place In Clover Hill Magisterial District, Mrs. Jack D. Yeratt, 2701 Brampton Way, Telephone 275-4761, requests a variance to build a dwelling on a lot which has no public road frontage. Mrs. Yeratt has agreed to purchase lot 1 from the present property owner, Mrs. Rebecca Wood, subject to approval of this request. Mrs. Yeratt then plans to re-subdivide lot 1 and create lot 4, see attached tax map. It is on lot 4 that Mrs. Yeratt requests a variance. Staff finds that this lot 1 is zoned Agricultural (A), and that a single family dwelling occupies the southern part of th~ property. Ail adjacent property is zoned Agricultural (A) except that to the south which is zoned Residential (R-T). Adjacent property is either occupied by single family dwellings, or vacant and being used in an Agricultural manner. The Health Department reports that lot 4 is suitable for instal- lation of a subsurface drainfield. Also, the report Finds that the subsurface drainfield for the existing dwelling will have to be relocated, if the access road to lot 4 Passes over and across this area. The Health Department further notes that the well which serves the existing dwelling will have to be closed, and the dwelling connected to public water. This lot and adjacent property ~we occupied as shown on the attached tax map. Staff recommends disapproval of this request. However, should the Board grant this request, we recommend it be subject to the following conditions: a. Planning Commission approve the resubdivision of lot 1. b. A 25 ft. wide road easement be reserved along the eastern boundary line of lot 1, from Jessup Road to the southeast corner of lot 4. c. The drainfield serving the dwelling on lot 1 be relocated; and the existing well be closed and the dwelling connected to public water. 2701 Brampton Way Richmond, Va. 14 June 74 Planning Director ATTN: Mr. Shivo County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, Virginia Dear Mr. Shivo: Variance approval is requested to obtain a building permit to establish a dwelling on rear of property located at 6000 Jessup Road. Attached Plat is submitted for your information. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, ,.-'--Al' 78.°,_,=~'/4/ .2o Clover' Hi Address Address Desires to have a lot opinion that is sub4ect to re- evaluation prior to issua~.c~ of Building Permi~i is auD!ying for Building Permit - Co struction .. , ED:ailing / / Other ~./7 House pl~n not final : 3:.',:,'t.O .... ,' o ,,,I~o~er /7 Garbage Disposal /ff Public water /7 Ind. well "~ .... ~' ~ bedroom~__Estimated water consumptio~O0 qpd. Based on present standards it is our opinion that . ...... =.~., v 0=,:-~.:_,.~ /-7 r', n~ o,'", T ,-,.-:r ~, ~',- -, :~o ~_~,~z~ /7 iqOT SUITED - ' for seotic t~.k an---d drainfie!d instai~ation. .....,...__:, ~:.~ not a per:nit to'-i~.-a-~l. ~ a sep~2ic tank. ."~ e, ~"-' / , Date f~ 0 0 0 0 0 I I ~o OO o~o oo oo0 ..D- oo oo OO ~-~o o~ (Do ooo~ 0 0 ~0 c~ oo 000~ OO O0 ~0 o 0 O0 oo O0 .1~00 O0 0 0 t~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0~.~ oo oo O0 i=~ I 0 o o 0 o ~'1 0 ,.~ ,'t 0 0 0 OoO oo oo I I 000 o o o 0 0 0 00o~ O0 (DO 0 0 oo O0 Oo .~,, 00 ~ e~ o o m 0o ~ .~0o oo 0,~ 0~o~ 0 o C) 0 OO 0 I..,~ .1~ 0 CD ,.~- Oo I~ ,,1~. oO I ! oO O0 .~'.. 0o o00 H I--I I-.-I 00 O0 oO oO 0oc~ Oo 0 ! I H H I ! o~ ~ O0 &'- 0o O0 o00 o0o o 0 0 o o0 o~ oO 0 0 O~ oo 0 o~ oo ~0 ~ i.-~, o (DO Oo 0 o ~o 00c~ ~o~ oo o oo ooo~ 0 0 0 0 oo o~ .,~ oo 0 0 I"o.~'~, I I O0 O0 oo O0 000 ~o O0 O0 0o0 oo o t~ i~. o O0 O0 0 o OO h~ o~o 0-~ .D~ ~ ~.m h~ o ~ o o o o 00 o~ ~o .D~ ~'- o0 0 0 o o oo oo 0 oo o 0 la, OO O0 00o Oo O0 O0 o oo oo n n 1-1. 0 '"t i.-,t I-I oo~ ! ! ~n 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 (n 0 O. ® 0 0 0 0 m 0 o ~ .~ ~ an adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, held in the Board Roo~n at the Courthouse on June 26, 1974, at 9:00 A.M. RE SOL_U_T!ON On motion of ....... , seconded ..~,, it is RESOLVED that this Board accept the offer of M~rshall W. Cole, Jr. and Marjorie B. Cole, his wife, set forth in his proposal dated to purchase 3.36 acres of the Chesterfield Airport Industrial Park land upon the terms and conditions therein for the purchase price of $10,000.00 per acre. Be It Further Resolved that the Commonwealth Attorney petition the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia, for approval and fa' ifzcstion of this sale of land by the County to Marshall W. Cole, Jr. and Marjorie B. Cole, his wife. ' Exe.cUtive