04-23-1980 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
April 23, 1980
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. R. Garland ])odd, Chairman
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Vice Chairm~m
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. E. berlin O'Neill, Sr.
Mr. Nicholas M. Mmiszer
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Philip Hester, Director of
Parks and Recreation
Mr. C. G. ~i~nuel, Asst. Co. Ad~J~n
Mr. Steve bficas, Co~ty Attorney
Mr. Jeffrey IV~zzy, Director of
Cramanity Developumnt
Mr. Robert Painter, Utilities Dir{
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Budget Director
It is here noted that the meeting scheduled for April 22, 1980
at 4:00 p.m. was not held by the Board.
Mr. Dodd called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at
9:10 a.m. (EST).
Mr. Daniel gave the invocation.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the
minutes of April 9, 1980, were approved as amended.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
Mr. Bill George, of the YMCA, was present and thanked the
Board for their support of the Student Government Day. He
introduced the students present who would be participating,
and they indicated the County official they would be
representing on Government Day. He stated the students
would be conducting a Board meeting at 4:00 p.m. on May 8th
with a dinner to which the Board was invited at 5:30 p.m. at
Lloyd C. Bird School.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
Whereas, The South Richmond Chesterfield YMCA is
organizing a day to allow high school students to
participate in their County government; and
Whereas, These selected students shall portray the
roles of County officials on the 8th day of May, 1980;
Hence, The Student Government Day will be recognized
to the citizens.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors, that the 8th daf of May, 1980~ be
declared as "S~udent Government Day" in accordance with
the South Richmond Chesterfield YMCA, and'calls attention
to all citizens of this observance.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: bir. O'Neill.
Mr. Dodd stated he felt it was ~mportant to have students
involved in government and thanked them for their interest
and participation in this program.
Mr. Painter presented the Board with the sewer and water
financial reports.
80-195~'
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved the request of Lewis & Ownes, Inc. and appropriated
$3,207.50 from 367 Surplus to 38'0-1-69247-2142 for an
additional engineering fee for Water Bond Project W79-24B/6(7)92~
which relocates the line from the original plan because of
rock formation.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill. rs. Girone.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd Me. Daniel, Mr Bookman and M
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
made the following adjustments of appropriations for sewer
projects as follows:
1. S78-32T - Walthall area - Unappropriated from
380-1-78322-4393, $3,483.45 and from 380-1-78322-2142,
$20.81 for a total of $3,504.26 to 573 Fund Balance.
2. S79-67C - Beechwood Subdivision - Appropriated from
573-1-00640-0000 (Advances by Developers) $243.00 to
380-1-79671-4393. This is money received by a home
owner for extra work required under this contract.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
Mr. Charles Quaiff, Superintendent of Accounts and Reoords
for the Utilities Department, stated that the Department had
a number of sewer connections which have been paid but the
customers are not paying the monthly service charge. He stated
some of the customers involved are conneoted to the system
but others are not. He stated that the Department would like
to rectify this situation as these $5 fees have accumulated up to
$4,000 in delinquent accounts. He stated he has worked with
the County Attorney who advises that these people have
violated the contracts, the County cannot discontinue
servzce to those who are not connected and it would be
impractical to disconnect service for those who are connected.
Mr~ Bookman inquired if this policywereto be follow~dCot~ty-wida.
Mr. Quaiff stated it would. Mr. Dodd inquired if this would
affect a developer who had prepaid 300 connections in any
given development. Mr. Quaiff stated this would involve
only the $5 service charge which is not being paid by customers
at this time. Mr. Daniel stated he felt it would be appropriate
to send a registered letter to these customers advising them
of what the County was planning to do and give them a chance
to pay the fee. Mr. Quaiff stated the Department had been
sending delinquent letters but they would send correspondence
indicating the action to be taken ~y the County in this
regard. After further discussion of the matter, it was on
motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that
the following procedure and policy be established regarding
the payment of monthly service charges:
1. Accounts where the connection fee has been paid and the
service is not connected, refund the connection fee to
the applicant. When service is desired, the connection
fee will then be paid at the prevailing rate at the
time of application.
2. Accounts where the connection fee has been paid and
service has been connected,
afterPrOceed with legal action
to collect the account the customer has been
notified of the action to be taken.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs.
Absent: Mr. O' '
Nezll.
Girone.
80-196
3. Mr. Quaiff stated that the Board, on November 13, 1963, adopted
V. policy authorizing the issuance of temporary sewer permits
for the purpose of allowing the builders to install the
sewer lines from the building to the County's sewer lateral,
which would make it possible for them to grade and seed the
property without having to disturb the area for the inspection
of the sewer. He stated the fee is $10.00 at this time. He
added this policy is causing a number of problems and is
difficult to administer for about 75% of those using it.
After consideration of the matter, it was on motion of Mr.
Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that the resolution
of November 13, 1963 be rescinded,which will require the
builder to Pay the entire connection fee at the time he
wishes to connect the house sewer to the County's lateral
and not pay $10.00 for a temporary sewer permit.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
Mr. Painter stated the County had received a request from
residents in the Halfway House Heights area for a $300 sewer
connection fee. There was no one present to discuss this
matter. Mr. Dodd inquired if there were any signed contracts.
Mr. Welchons stated there were not, only survey cards had
been sent. Mr. Dodd presented the Board with a copy of a
legal opinion from the County Attorney. He added that he
felt only contracts should be honored and not survey cards.
Mr. Bookman stated he, too, felt contracts should only be
considered for reduced connection fees. On motion of Mr.
Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board denied the request
from residents of the Halfway House Heights area for a $300
sewer connection fee and further that if contracts were
produced, the County would ~honor those at the prevailing
rate when they were signed.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
3. Mr. Painter presented the Board with a list of developer
VII. sewer and water contracts executed by the County Administrator.
3. Mr. Willis Pope, Right-of-Way Engineer, stated the County
VIII. had made an offer in the amount of $85.00 to Harry L. and
1. Frances S. Villemagne for a slope protection easement across
their property at the Falling Creek dam. He stated
Mr. Villemagne's counteroffer was $6,000. He stated this
easement was to protect the dam from erosion and rip rap
would be placed to insure that this would not occur.
Mr. Sam McEwen, attorney representing Mr. Villemagne, stated
that his client was concerned with aesthetic values. He
stated that rip rap will make this beautiful area ugly. He
stated that lots along Falling Creek are selling for $14,000
while others across the road from the lake are valued at
$9,500. He stated his client would be willing to accept
$3,000 if the County would use the access road through his
property to accomplish their work which will require
bulldozing. Mr. Daniel stated he was not aware of this
condemnation situation until a few days ago and he would
like to investigate the matter further with Mr. Villemagne
and his attorney. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr.
Bookman, the Board deferred consideration of this matter
until May 14, 1980.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
3. Mr. Dodd stated he had a request from Mrs. Theodore Cogbill
IX. to defer consideration of easements across her property until
11:00 a.m. when she and her attorney would be present. It
was generally agreed to honor this request.
80-197
VIII
Mr. Meiszer stated this date and time had been scheduled to
consider an ordinance vacating Ontario Drive in Ben Air
Hills Subdivision. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by
Mr. Bookman, the Board deferred consideration of this
ordinance until May 28, 1980.
Ayes: Rr. Dedd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
awarded the contract for the installation of a backflow
prevention device to K and M Plumbing and Heating Company
in the amount of $7,890 for the Nursing Home and further
authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents for this contract which funds are to be paid from
the Nursing Home reserve fund.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
On motion Of Mrs. Girone, seoonded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
authorized the Utility Department to write off the following
utility accounts as uncollectable accounts receivable:
1. Shore Construction Company $ 111.06
2. B. S. Marshall, Inc. 233.25
3. C. W. Hunicutt 47.53
4. Southfield Land Co., Inc. 41.37
5. G. M. Development Corporation 5,624.00
6. Shenandoah Corporation 3,908.92
Ayes: Mr. Dodd,' Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill. '
Mr. Ramsey stated that on November 15, 1976, the Board of
Supervisors approved sewer contract S75-41CD, Oak Forest-
Matoaca Middle School project. He stated the terms of the
contract with the developer were that the total payment of
$56,000 would be paid in 4 installments of $14,000 each. He
stated two of the payments have been made, the last of which
was made May 30, 1978. He stated the construction of the
sewer line was completed in 1977 and paid for with school
bond funds. He stated the sohool system has attempted to
collect the funds from the developer and the developer is
now asking for an extension of time in which to pay the
$28,000. He stated he would like to pay $14,000 in August,
1980 and in March, 1981. Mr. Micas stated they would prefer
to have the developer assign a certificate of deposit which
the developer has mentioned in hie letter to the County to
be cashed by the County at maturity. He stated the developer
would be obligated to pay any additional amount due or the
County would refund any excess. Mr. Bookman inquired if this
was agreeable with the developer. Mr. Micas stated this was
the County's suggestion. Mr. Daniel inquired if any provision
had been made for interest. Mr. Micas stated it had not but
the County could include this as well~ He stated the statutory
interest is 8%. After further consideration of the matter,
it was on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by }fr. Daniel,
resolved that James W. Huneycutt, developer involved in
sewer contract S75-41CD, be required ~o assign the Certificate
of Deposit mentioned in his letter, as filed with the Board
papers, to the County to be cashed by the County at maturity,
with the understanding that the developer Would be obligated
to pay any additional amount due or the County would refund
any excess as well as the developer paying 8% interest per
annum.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
80-198
denied the request for a street light at the intersection of
Lake Forest Road and Nile Road because it did not meet the
established criteria and further the Board approved the
installation of street lights at the following intersections
with any associated costs to be expended from the Bermuda
District Street Light Funds:
1. Intersection of Sloan Drive and Mount Blanco Road, and
2. Intersection of Brandywine Avenue and General Boulevard,
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr, Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the installation of street lights at the intersection
of Adkins Road and Wycliff Road and at the intersection of
Wedgemere Road and Newby's Bridge Road with any associated
costs being expended from the Clover Hill District Street
Light Funds.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel~ Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
~e ~otion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
nzed the request for the installation of a street light
at the intersection of Pat Lane and Kay Road because it did
not meet the established criteria and further approved the
installation of a street light at the intersection of Benslsy
Road and Wentworth Street with any associated costs to he
expended from the Dale District Street Light Funds.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
denied the request for the installation of a street light
on Springlake Road because it did not meet the established
criteria and further the Board approved the installation of
a street light at the intersection of Kentford Road and
Salisbury Road with any associated costs to be expended from
the Midlothian District Street Light Funds.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
It was generally agreed to defer consideration of the
requests for street lights in Mataoca District until the
Supervisor from the District was present.
It was generally agreed to defer consideration of legal
action against the developer of Ivey Acres until the
Supervisor from the District was present.
Mr. Bookman stated that the Pocoshock Townhouses were in
code violation because of the fire wall a~d that the 40 units
needed to have an exception to the code which would he heard
by the Board of Zoning Appeals. He stated the code violation
occurred when the units were built in 1973 and he did not
feel the new owners or existing owners should have to each
pay a $50 fee to have the exception made. After further
discussion of the matter, it was on motion of Mr. Bookman,
seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that one $50 blanket fee
he charged for ail 40 units from the Civic Association and
that the fee jointly paid by tlaymond 3andecka and Gwean
Osborne be refunded as well as any others which have been
paid.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
Mr. James Zook stated several departments would like to apply
for LEAA (Law Enforcement Assistance Administration)
~rants--for a Police Juvenile Unit in the amount of
71,880, a Mental Health Substance Abuse Program in the
amount of $36,957 and a Police Training Program in the
amount of $19,989. He stated if the projects were funded
the County would be required to match federal funds at 10%
of the total project cost. A question was asked as to
why the Offender Aid and Restoration Program was not being
applied for this year. Mr. Zook stated that OAR was asked
to submit an application but they chose not to do so.
Mrs. Girone inquired if the school system was aware of the
substance abuse program. Mr. Zook stated they were in favor
of this. He stated the Board has a position in the budget
for this program and if funded, the grant would cover the
position. Mr. Zook stated that the Police Department has
money in their budget for the training portion of their
grant and that each program would be funded 90% federal,
10% County for the first 3 years~ 50%-50% the next year, and
the County would have total financial responsibility thereafter.
Mr. Zook stated these grants were to test new projects to
ascertain if a need existed. Captain Mason Chatkey, Police
Department, stated that their request would require the
employment of four additional employees, that the more experienced
employees would handle the program with new patrol level personnel
being hired and indicated the County has neverhad this specialized
youth program before. Mr. Bookman inquired if there would be
an overlapping of the specialized youth program and the
substance abuse program, bit. Zook stated the specialized
youth program would handle youth after the problem and the
substance abuse program would be a preventive measure.
Mr. Bookman inquired what effect the Police grant would
have. Mr. Zook stated he felt the departments involved and
the budget department should have a meeting to determine
goals of each program. Mr. Meiszer stated the Board should
not just apply for these programs because it was federal
funds but because they felt a need existed for each program.
Mr. Daniel stated he felt very strongly about the juvenile
unit and the need existed. After further discussion of the
matter, it was on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr.
Daniel, resolved that the County Administrator be authorized
to submit a Police Juvenile Unit application in the amount
of $71,880, a Mental Health Substance Abuse Program application
in the amount of $36,957 and a Police Department Training
application in the amount of $19,989 in that priority and to
accept funds if approved by the Division of Justice and
Crime Prevention.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
Mr. Dexter Williams stated there had been some changes in
the proposed Secondary Road budget. Mr. Daniel stated he
was not aware the Salem Church Road project was taken out
and stressed the point that it was needed. Mr. Williams
stated there had been a $460,000 decrease in the budget and
the Beach Road project had been deleted as well. Mr. Dodd
inquired if the Beach Road and Enon Church Road projects had
been deleted entirely. Mr. Muzzy stated they would be
stretched out over several years in order to accumulate
enough money for the projects. Mx. Daniel stated he was not
in complete agreement with the plan because of the reduction in
funding for the Salem Church Road project but it seems
the Board has no other choice but to approve what had been
submitted in order to obtain funding for the other projects.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the Secondary Road budget as presented this date, a
copy being filed with the Board papers,
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
80-200
On motion of Mr. Bookman~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, the following
resolution was adopted:
Whereas, revenues accruing to the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation are substantially less than what
has been recently anticipated; and
Whereas, costs of highway construction have increased at
an accelerating rate; and
Whereas, these two occurrences have caused the Virginia
State Highway and Transportation Commission to reduce its
Secondary Road Construction Allocations for 1979-80 and
1980-81; and
Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
previously appropriated $60,000 to Beach Road Project
0655-020-189, M501 from County revenue sharing funds to be
matched by the State.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors concurs with the reallocation
of $60,000 in County revenue sharing funds and $60,000 in
State matching funds from project 0655-020-189, M501 to the
FYS0-81 secondary road improvement budget deficit; and
Further, Be It Resolved that the aforementioned County
revenue sharing funds will be made available to the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation on July 1, 1980.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Book-man and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel the following
resolution was adopted: '
Whereas, revenues accruing to the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation are substantially less than what
has been recently anticipated; and
Whereas, costs of highway construction have increased at
an accelerating rate; and
~nereas, these two occurrences have caused the Virginia
State Highway and Transportation Con~nission to reduce its
Secondary Road Construction Allocations for 1979-80 and
1980-81; and
Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
previously appropriated $65,405 to Enon Church Road Project
0746-020-196, M501 from County revenue sharing funds to be
matched by the State.
NoW, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors concurs with the reallocation
of $49,000 in County revenue sharing funds and $49,000
in State matching funds from project 0746-020-196, M501 to
the FYS0-81 secondary road improvement budget deficit; and
Further, Be It Resolved that the aforementioned County
revenue sharing funds will be made available to the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation on July 1, 1980.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel~ Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the following
resolution was adopted:
Whereas, revenues accruing to the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation are substantially less than what
has been recently anticipated; and
80-201
k~ereas, costs o£ highway construction have increased
at an accelerating rate; end
Whereas, these two occurences have caused thc Virginia
State Highway and Transportation Commission to reduce its
Secondary Road Construction Allocations for 1979-80 and ]980-
81;
Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County concurs with the transfer of $110,000 from previous
secondary road allocations for Beach Road Project 0655-020-
189, MS01 to the FY80-81 secondary road improvement budget
deficit.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
waived the rezoning fee for the Forest View Rescue Squad for an
request which will be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and }~s. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
approved the naming of the street to the Chesterfield County
Nursing Home and Mental Health Center, Lucy Corr Drive,
subject to approval by Ms. Corr.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. O'Neill.
It was generally agreed by the Board to recess for five minutes.
Reconvening:
Mr. O'Neill joined the meeting.
Mr. Ramsey was present to discuss the budget changes.
He stated, for informational purposes only, there is approximatel~
$200,000 left in the park bond funds contingency account after
all the projects are accounted for. Mrs. Girone stated she
was concerned about the architect fees. Mr. Daniel stated
that the Meadowbrook High School project indicated funds for
architect fees for bleachers and questioned this need. Mr.
Hester stated the funds were for architects fees and bleachers.
He stated the architect fees should be less than normal
because the County was paying them on an hourly basis and
not basing the fees on a percentage of the project cost.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the department were using a basic
backstop for all fields or if a different design for each
was being made. Mr. Hester stated a standard backstop would
be used at all the fields. He stated the architects were
working with the lighting, the fields~ the fencing, etc.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the $200,000 remaining in the contingency
account included the Dale Park funds. Mr. Ramsey stated the
park was accounted for and the $200,000 was the remainder.
Mrs. Girone asked that staff prepare a breakdown of the
architect fees showing how much we have paid and what is
anticipated to be paid. Mr. Ramsey stated that would be
shown in the next report the Board received at the next
meeting on park projects.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
a. Reduced Planned Budget Expenditure account 330-1-95421-
4393 Rockwood Park Construction Contracts by $70,000
and increased Planned Budget Expenditure account
330-1-95416-4393 Monacan High School Construction
Contracts by $70,000.
80-202
Vote:
Reduced Planned Budget Expenditure account 330-1-95446-4696
Midlothian Contingsncy by $21,500 and increased Planned
Budget Expenditurs account 330-1-95407-4393 Robious
Complex Construction Contracts by $21,500.
Reduce Planned Budget Expenditure account 330-1-95446-4692
Dale Contingency by $4,000 and increased Planned Budget
Expenditure account 330-1-95443-4393 Meadowbrook High
School Construction Contracts by $4,000.
Reduced Planned Budget Expense account 330-1-95446-4692
Bermuda Contingency by $10,000 and increased Planned
Budget Expenditure account 330-1-95401-4393 Point of
Rocks Parks Construction Contracts by $10,000.
Unanimous
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ the Board
reduced Planned Budget Expsnditure account 330-1-92140-4123
by $5,535 and increased Planned Budget Expenditure account
330-1-92140-4393 Construction Contracts by $5,535, which is for
change orders involving the new administration building.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mrs. Girone~ seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
made the following budget changes for Social Services:
a. Decreased General Fund Contingency Account 111-1-31400-4123
by $5,000;
b. Increased Planned Budget Revsnue account 111-1-00012-1043
Hospitalization Contributions by $5,000;
c. Increased Planned Budget Expenditure account 111-1-08420-
2134 Hospitalization by $10,000.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Ramsey stated the Board should approve the School budget
today. Mr. Bookman inquired if the interest and the general
fund money was included in the $70,799,463 figure. Mr. Ramsey
stated it was, that the total budget was $70,799,463. On motion
of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is hereby resolved
that the 1980-81 School Operating Budget bs adopted as
presented in a total amount of $70,799,463 with $40,500,000 being
financed by the General Fund.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Ramsey stated the Budget Department would bring the
resolution outlining where t~e funds would be distributed for
the school system at a later date.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
made the following budget changes for the County Garage:
a. Increased Planned Budget Revenue account 717-1-00011-0702
Sales of Services and Supplies by $200,000.
b. Increased Planned Budget Expenditure accounts 717-1-31450-
3221 Materials and Supplies by $50,000 and 717-1-31450-3311
Fuel by $150,000.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. O'Neill, the Board
accepted the request of Hampden-Sydney to withdraw their
bid in the amount of $21,696.96 for a surplus fire engine, old
unit #53, and to accept the bid of $20,000 from the Burrowsville
Volunteer Fire Department which was the next highest bid.
80-203
Vote: Unanimous
10.
12.A.
Mr. Meiszer stated the next item of businmss was
consideration of a contingency contract with Management
Improvement Corporation of America (MICA). He stated that MICA
would perform management review services and would begin
with the Purchasing and Warehouse functions. He stated they
would require an annual retainer of $2,000 and in the event
they did not provide the County with any benefits, the retainer
would be refunded to the County. He stated they would perform
the work and implement the recommendations and improvements
for the County. Tha Board stated they did not have adequate
information and it was generally agreed that this matter be
deferred until later in the day or until ~fay 14, 1980 if it
were not reconsidered this date.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, be it
resolved that pursuant to Section 28-1016 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the County Attorney is
directed to enforce the County's liens for delinquent real
estate taxes on the following parcels of land:
1. A parcel of land located in the Clover Hill Magisterial
District of Chesterfield County, designated as Lot 12,
Block A, Plan of Clover Hill Farms, Section C.
2. A parcel of land located in the Matoaca Magisterial
District of Chesterfield County, designated as
a parcel on Happy Hill Road consisting of 2.08 acres.
A parcel of land located in the Dale Magisterial
District of Chesterfield County, designated as
a parcel near Bethia and Courthouse Roads consisting
of 2.00 acres.
A parcel of land located in the Midlothian Magisterial
District of Chesterfield County, designated as a parcel
on Old Bon Air Road consisting of 0.53 acres.
A parcel of land located in the Clover Hill Magisterial
District of Chesterfield County, designated as a parcel
off of Hicks Road consisting of 1.93 acres.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Meiszer stated that members of the Heritage Commission,
the Museum Committee and the Bicentennial Committee have
requested that the Board appropriate funds and commission
Mr. Sidney E. King for a painting to commemorate the 200th
anniversary of the British burning the old Courthouse. He
stated the painting would be of Baron vonStuben drilling
troops on the grounds of the Courthouse. He stated that
the Board could consider having a second painting also
completed for the new administration building. Mr. Daniel
stated he was in support of both paintings, that art would
be lasting and would increase in value. He stated that he
felt the County was obligated to include art in the new building.
Mr. Bookman inquired what the second painting would be. Mr.
Meiszer stated that could be determined later. He stated
April, 1981 would be when the first painting would need to
be completed and he did not know how much time the artist
would need for the second painting or if he were available to
do another. After further discussion of the matter, it was
on motion of Mrs~ Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved
that Mr. Sidney E. King be corrm~issioned to complete a painting
by April, 1981 in commemoration of the 200th anniversary of
the British burning the COurthouse, that $500 be appropriated
from the $5,000 appropriation to the Bicentennial Committee and
that the second painting be discussed at a later date.
Mr. Dodd inquired if public contributions or taxpayers money
should be used for this purpose.
Vote: Unanimous
80-204
12. B.
Mr. Meiszer stated that members of the Heritage Commission,
Bicentennial Committee and the Museum Committee also reqBested
that the Board approve the development of a master plan for
landscaping the Courthouse grounds. Mrs. Girone stated that
there was a employee in Conm~unity Development who could work
on this plan. After further discussion, it was on motion
of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, resolved that
staff develop a plan, with its long term impacts and costs
for Board consideration at a later date.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Oliver Rudy, attorney representing Mrs. Theodore Cogbill,
was present to discuss action which the Board was considering
regarding the drainage problem in Deerfield Subdivision
and Mrs. Cogbill's property. Mr. Richard McElfish, Environmental
Engineer, presented slides indicating the drainage problem,
the existing homes, homes affected hy the water and lots which
would be available for development once the drainage problem
was solved. He stated that most of the problem exists because
of the high water table in the basically flat area. He stated
the County and the Highway Department have determined that
this water flow through Mrs. Cogbill's property is a natural
water course. He stated if the County acquired the 16 ft. wide
permanent easement and the 10 ft. wide temporary construction
easement and extended the present drainage system, the entire
area could be drained, including the area by the 7-11 Store.
He stated the developer would have to pay for improvements and
the cost of acquiring easements through negotiation or
court action.
Mr. Rudy stated this was a matter of fairness. He stated he
did not feel it was fair for the County to condemn Mrs.
Cogbill's property to improve this drainage situation. He
stated the developer should have been made to provide some
relief for this problem which he did not do and that by
improving this drainage, his property which has not been
able to be developed will be Suitable for development. He
stated he did not feel the County could legally condemn in
this case. He stated the dumping of this water on her
property did not serve her and the County will be using
government power to promote Private enterprise. He stated
the developer has blocked the drainage pipe causing the
problem and the County is looking at }~rs. Cogbill for a
solution when it should be seeking relief from the developer.
He stated the County wants her to give easements now, but
what will prevent further requirements or improvements of
the drainage situation in years to come. He stated the
County is now proposing to use this area to drain even the
7-11 property and this is additional water that would come
on Mrs. Cogbill's property. He stated everyone is focusing
on Mrs. Cogbill as the cause of the water and mosquito
problem in Deerfield and she has not done a thing. He
stated the water could be channeled another way and since the
developer has to pay for it, inquired why the Board was
involved in this issue. He stated Mrs. Cogbill has agreed
to proposal #2 as suggested by J. K. Ti~mons which would
allow a drainage pipe across her property to her property
line. Mr. Dodd stated he had never seen a letter from 3. K,
Timmons or from Mrs. Cogbii1 agreeing to this alternative,
Mr. Rudy stated the County staff had received a copy. He
stated further that this entire situation is unfair in that
it is not two individuals working this out but government
against one individual, Mrs. Cogb~ll presented the Board
with a copy of a map and possible alternatives to solve the
drainage problem.
Mr. C. B. Wilson, the property owner adjacent to M~s. Cogbill
onto whose property the water would then proceed, was present.
He stated that there is a stream in the middle of Mrs. Cogbill's
property which is fed by a natural stream. He stated
80-205
13.
he h&d contacted the State Water Control Board (SWCB) and
they indie~ted they would be willing to intervene as this may fall
into the anti-degradation rules of high quality water being
interferred with, He stated that he was concerned with
government entering into a private matter, what type of
precedent would be set in the future which would allow this
type of situation to be repeated, and that
any recozmnendation until the SWCB examines
stream.
he is opposed to
the water in the
Mr. Daniel stated this was the first major problem he had
been advised of when coming into office in January. He
stated that years ago off-site easements were not required to
start a development, that this would not be allowed to happen
today and that he has not looked at this problem as helping
a developer to expand his development hut rather to eliminate
a health hazard that exists in the area. He stated he has
looked to solve this problem with a method that does include
due process of law and recognition of property rights. He
stated he felt the route suggested by Mrs. Cogbill should be
explored, that ha is concerned with the information regarding
the stream which Mr. Wilson has mentioned, that the 7-11
property being drained in this direotion is a surprise, and
that all of this information and more needs to be compiled
before a decision can be made. He stated that he did not
feel it was proper to say that nothing should be done because
there is a problem and he would like to find the proper way
to remedy it. He stated that the problem seems to become
larger and larger the more it is discussed. He added that
this should be an indication of what needs to be addressed
in the future to prevent such problems from occurring again
and again. Mr. Bookman stated he felt the Board needed to
have all this information and inquired why the Board was not
furnished with copies of letters referred to today.
After further consideration of this matter, it was on motion
of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. O'Neill, resolved that this
item be deferred until May 28, 1980 in order to allow sufficient
time in which to compile all information needed in order to
make a decision. Mr. Daniel stated that any action that
could be taken today, would Only solve today's problem and
the entire matter needs to be discussed further. He stated
~eWOUld like to meet with the staff of Community Development,
developer, the County Attorney, Mr. Rudy or Mrs. Cogbili and
Mr. Wilson to discuss this matter further. He stated that
he would also like the developer of Deerfield to be present
at the May 28, 1980 meeting, He stated he agreed that the
developer should pay the costs involved but it '
Board's objective to have this problem i Demr~%]~til~ t~e
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
awarded the bid for parking/car bumpers for Bird and Point of
Rocks Parks to Richmond Block who submitted the low bid of
$8,546.25, which bumpers have steel stobs and the funds to
come from the bond funds for this purpose, and further the
County Administrator is authorized to execute any necessary
documents for this contract.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board
approved the request for a bingo and/or raffle permit from
Sing Out South for calendar year 1980.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
appointed ~r. Roger Burns to the Airport Advisory Board
effective immediately until February 14, 1982; reappointed
Mr. Ronald C. Morris to the Personnel Appeals Board effective
immediately until December 31, 1982; and Mr. Elmer R. Condrey
80-206
was reappointed to the Chesterfield County Industrial Devm]opmen~
Authority until July 1, 1984 which appointment is effective
July 1, 1980~ all of which are representatives of Clover Hill
District.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd stated he felt the membership of the Mental Health
and Mental Retardation Services Board should consist of 10
members rather than 15. It was generally agreed by the
Board that the membership of the Mental Health and Mental
Retardation Services Board be changed from 15 to 10 and that
the first three members whose terms expire will not be refilled~
provided that they are from Clover Hill, Dale and Midlothian
Districts. It is noted that there is a vacancy each for the
Bermuda District and Matoaca District which will not be filled.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. O'Neill, the Board
appointed Mrs. Julia Daffron to the Heritage Commission
representing Dale District and whose term will be effective
irmmediately and who will be serving at the pleasure of the Board.i
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs, Cirone, the Board
appointed Mr. William Howell as an alternate for Mr. C. L.
Bookman on the CETA Policy Committee effective immediately.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd appointed Mr. E. Merlin O'Neill, Sr., Mr. Harry Daniel
and Mr. Nicholas M. Meiszer as members of the Police Liaison
Cormnittee and authorized them to meet from time to time as
the need may arise to improve communications with the Police
Department.
It was generally agreed to defer consideration of requests
for street lights at Winterbourne Drive and Willowdale Drive
and at Beechnut Avenue until May 14, 1980.
Mr. O'Neill inquired about the street light installed on
Haltoway Avenue and asked that staff check to see if it was
installed in the proper location or if it should have been
installed next to the Parr and the School.
Mr. O'Neill stated that consideration of legal action against
the developer of Ivey Acres should not be discussed until
May 14, 1980. Mr. Micas stated that the conditions are
deteriorating and the job will be larger the longer the
developer waits.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. 0'Neill~ the Board
reappointed Mr~ Melvi~ W. Burnett to the John Tyler Co~m~unity
College Board representing Chesterfield County effective
July 1, 1980 until June 31, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd stated that the Board should make an appointment to the
Health Committees representing Chesterfield County.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. O' '
Nemll, Mrs. Joan
Girone was appointed to the Chesterfield-Colonial Heights
Social Services Board effective immediately and whose term
will expire on June 30, 1980.
Vote: Unanimous
80-207
Mr. Meiszer stated the Highway Department had formally
notified the County that the following roads had been
accepted into the State Secondary System effective April 15,
1980:
Length
Salisbury Subdivision~ Silbury Hill Section
Trilithon Road - Beginning at its intersection with
Brigstock Road (State Route 1014) and going 0.16 mile
westerly to intersection with the eastern portion of
Sarsen Court, then 0.02 mile westerly to western
portion of Sarsen Court, then 0.09 mile westerly to
a cul-de-sac. 0.27 mi.
Sarsen Court - Beginning at eastern portion of
Trilithon Road and going 0.04 mile northerly then
turning and going 0.03 mile westerly then turning and
going 0.04 mile southerly to intersection with western
portion of Trilithon Road. 0.11 mi.
~hady Creek Subdivision, Sections 1 and 2
Mill Race Road - Beginning at its intersection with
Castlewood Road (State Route 1628) extending westerly
0.05 mile to the intersection of Mill Race Circle, then
westerly 0.09 mile to the intersection of Carryback
Drive, then westerly 0.09 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.23 mi.
Carryback Drive - Beginning at its intersection with
Shady Creek Road, extending northerly 0.08 mile to the
intersection of Mill Race Road. 0.08 mi.
Trace Court - Beginning at its intersection with Shady
Creek Road, extending northerly 0.03 mile to a cul~
de-sac. 0.03 mi.
Mill Race Circle - Beginning at its intersection with
Shady Creek Road, extending northerly 0.07 mile to the
intersection of Mill Race Road then northerly 0.04 mile
to a cul-de-sac. 0.11 mi.
Shady Creek Road - Beginning at its intersection with
Castlewood Road (Route 1628) extending westerly 0.05
mile to the intersection of Mill Race Circle, then
westerly 0.06 mile to the intersection of Trace Court,
then westerly 0.07 mile to the intersection of Carryback
Drive, then westerly 0.06 mile to a temporary
turnaround. 0.24 mi.
Smoketree Subdivision, Sections A and B
Smoketree Drive - Beginning at its intersection with
Courthouse Road, State Route 653, and going 0.65 mile
westerly to intersection with Poplar Ridge Road then
0.22 mile westerly to intersection with Old Carrollton
Road then 0.13 mile westerly to intersection with
Gordon School Road then 0.07 mile westerly to
intersection with Pleasantview Road then 0.05 mile
westerly to intersection with Smoketree Court then
0.10 mile westerly to a dead end. 1.22 mi.
Old Carrollton Court - Beginning at intersection with
Old Carrollton Road and going 0.10 mile southwesterly
to a cul-de-sac. 0.10 mi.
Stillbrook Road - Beginning at intersection with
Poplar Ridge Road and going 0.11 mile southwesterly to
intersection with Stillbrook Court then 0.07 mile south-
westerly to intersection with Old Carrollton Road then
0.11 mile southwesterly to a cul-de-sac. 0.29 mi.
80-208
17.
Length
Stillbrook Court - Beginning at its intersection
with Stillbrook Road and going 0.04 mile northerly
to a cul-de-sac. 0.04 mi.
Smoketree Court - Beginning at its intersection with
Smoketree Drive and going 0.06 mile southerly to
a cul-de-sac. 0.06 mi.
Pleasant View Road - Beginning at its intersection
with Smokatree Drive and going 0.10 mile southwesterly
to the centerline of Commonwealth Natural Gas
easement. 0.10 mi.
Gordon School Road - Beginning at its intersection
with Smoketrea Drive and going 0.20 mile south-
westerly to its intersection with Pleasant Hill
Drive then 0.06 mile southwesterly to a temporary
turnaround. ' 0.26 mi.
01d Carrollton Road - Beginning at intersection with
Smoketree Drive and going 0.07 mile northerly to
intersection with Stillbrook Road then 0.06 mile
northerly to intersection with Old Carrollton Court
then 0.06 mile northerly to intersection with
Poplar Ridge Road then 0.05 mile northerly to tie
into Ashley Woods Subdivision, Section B. 0.24 mi.
Poplar Ridge Road -Beginning at intersection with
Smoketree Drive and going 0.14 mile northwesterly
to intersection with Stillbrook Read then 0.19 mile
westerly to intersection with Old Carrollton Road then
0.13 mile souttlwesterly to a cul-de-sac. 0.46 mi.
Mr. Meiszer presented the Board with a copy of the report
prepared by the Auditors on the Treasurer's Office Turnover,
George W. Moore, Jr., Outgoing Treasurer, for the period
July 1, 1979 through November 9, 1979.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the
Board went into Executive Session to discuss a prospective
business or industry where no previous announcement has
been made of their interest to locate in Chesterfield as
permitted by Section 2.1-344 (4) of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
Mr. Meiszer introduced Mr. Ron Bessent, Youth Services
~oo~in~tor, for_the County. The Board welcomed Mr. Bessent
o nne uounty and Mr. Bookman stated that the Substance
Abuse meeting which was held was very interesting and informative.
80S057
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, Mr. A. L. Hendricks
requested a mobile home permit to park a mobile home on
property which he owns. Tax Map 49-10 (1) parcel 8 and
better known as 10707 Hull Street Road (Sheet 14).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested withdrawal of
his application. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr.
Daniel, the Board accepted the request for withdrawal.
Vote: Unanimous
80-209
80S043
In Midlothian Magisterial District, Haigh Jamgochian requested
a Conditional Use to permit a landfill in an Agricultural (A)
District and in a General Business (B-3) District on a 20
acre parcel fronting approximately 800 feet on the north line
of Midlothian Turnpike and located directly across from its
intersection with Wadsworth Drive. Tax Map 28-2 (1) part of
parcels 3 and 3-1 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated that the applicant has requested
withdrawal of this request. On motion of Mrs. Oirone, seconded
by Mr. Bookman, the Board accepted the request for withdrawal.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Balderson stated the Board would begin hearing cases
for which there was no opposition in order to expedite the
meeting and allow applicants with no opposition to he
heard rather than waiting unnecessarily.
80S033
In Matoaca Magisterial District, H. Kenneth Carroll requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of
a 2.90 acre parcel fronting approximately 180 feet on
Hampton Avenue and located approximately 290 fee~ north of
its intersection with River Road. Tax Map 180-16 (1)
parcel 28 (Sheet 52).
Mr. Jeff Thomas of Charles Townes & Associates was present
representing the applicant. He stated there did exist some
water problems and they would be working with the Environmental
Engineering Department to eliminate them. Mr. O'Neill stated
he was aware of the drainage problem which has not
completely been taken care of and he would like staff to be
informed that building permits should not be issued until
the situation is improved. He stated the problem was behind
some other properties and asked that Mr. McElfish be made aware
of it. There was no opposition present. On motion of
Mr. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Bookman, this request was approved
as recon~nended by the Planning Commission.
Vote: Unanimous
80S034
In Matoaca Magisterial District, M. Dean Whittington requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of a
2 acre parcel fronting approximately 350 feet on the southwest
line of Hickory Road and located approximately 650 feet
northwest of its intersection with Southlawn Avenue. Tax
Map 181-7 (2) Grassland, part of lots 5 and 6 (Sheet 53/54).
Mr. Don Vance was present representing the applicant. There
was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. O'Neill, seconded
by Mr. Daniel, this request was approved as recommended by
the Planning Commission.
Vote: Unanimous
80S035
In Midlothian Magisterial District, Winterfield Corporation
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25)
of a 44 acre parcel fronting approximately 1600 feet on the
east and west line of Winterfield Road and is located on the
Chesterfield-Powhatan County line. Tax Map 1 (1) parts of
parcels 4 and 5-1 (Sheet 2).
80-210
Mr. Doug Cokeman was present representing the application
and stated public water would be used in this development.
There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone,
seconded by Mr. Bookman, this request was approved as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Vote: Unanimous
80S036
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Floyd L. Morris requested
rezoning from Residential (R-15) to Agricultural (A) of a
1.393 acre parcel fronting approximately 225 feat on Old
Bermuda Hundred Road also fronting approximately 365 feet on
Interstate-95 and located in the northwest quadrant of
the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 116-15 (1) parcel
7 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Morris was present. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, this request
was approved as recormmanded by the Planning Commission.
Vote: Unanimous
80S039
In Midlothian Magisterial District, H & R Block Company
requested a Conditional Use Planned Development on a 3.25
acre parcel fronting approximately 120 feet on the south line
of Midlothian Turnpike and located approximately 340 feet
west of its intersection with Mt. Pisgah Drive. Tax Map
16-9 (1) parcel 9 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Mike Boyle was present representing H & R Block Co.
There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone,
seconded by Mr. Bookman, this request was approved subject
to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning
Commission:
A permanent 94 day exception to the 21 day limitation
in any 120 day period for temporary signs shall be
granted.
2. This sign shall be on display from January 1 through
April 25 of any calendar year only.
3. The plan submitted with the application shall be considered
the Master Plan for sign placement and size. No
exceptions to this plan shall be permitted.
4. This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be granted
to and for H & R Block exclusively, it shall not be
transferrable nor run with the land.
5. The Planning Commission shall grant schematic approval of
the Master Plan in conjunction with approval of this
request.
Unanimous
Vote:
80s040
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Safeway Stores, Incorporated
requested a Conditional Use to permit retail sales in a
General Industrial (M-2) District on a parcel fronting
approximately 130 feet on Route 10 and located approximately
1500 feet west of its intersection with Harbour East Drive.
Tax Map 117-10 (1) part of parcel 20 (Sheet 33).
80-211
Mr. Leonard Corsentino was present representing Safeway Stores.
He stated that this request would allow for the sale of
produce, shrubbery~ fertilizer, etc. and would be handled each
year in the same manner. Mr. Dodd inquired about the tent
to be placed there. Mr. Corsentino stated it would be
very well constructed and would have a pleasing appearance.
Mr. Dodd stated that the County was very pleased to have
Safeway Stores in Chesterfield. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, this request
was approved subject to the following conditions as recormnended
by the Planning Comiseion:
1. The asphalt surface of the site shall not be disturbed.
2. The use shall run from March 1st to September 30th of
any calendar year only. No wintertime operation shall
be permitted.
3. Any tent and display case erected on the site shall be
temporary in nature. Any tent or display ease shall be
removed from the site during the period of 0etober tst
through February 28th.
4. From October 1st to February 28th, the site will revert
to its original use as a parking lot.
5. Only two signs, no larger than eight (8) square feet each~
shall be permitted for this use. These signs shall not
be illuminated or luminous.
6. No additional exterior lighting shall be permitted.
7. The site shall be maintained in a neat orderly fashion.
8. The above comments notwithstanding, the site plan
submitted with the application dated 2-6-80 and
prepared by S. Fineran shall be considered the plan
of development.
9. This Conditional Use shall be granted to Safeway Stores,
Incorporated, exclusively. It shall not be transferrable
nor run with the land.
10. This Conditional Use shall be granted for the purpose
of allowing sale of produce. No other merchandise shall
be sold from the premises.
11. This Conditional Use shall be granted for a one year
period only. Upon expiration of the conditional Use, I
the applicant may reapply and upon satisfactory demonstratio~
that the use has not adversely affected adjacent property ~
owners, the Planning Con~nission and Board of Supervisors ~
may renew the permit.
Vote: Unanimous
Mrs. Girone excused herself from the meeting.
80S041
In Matoaca Magisterial District, Calvary Baptist Church requested
a Conditional Use to permit multi-family development (2 duplexes)
on a .84 acre parcel fronting approximately 170 feet on the
north line of Aldridge Avenue and located approximately 200
feet east of its intersection with Jefferson Davis Highway
and better known as 2542 Aldridge Avenue. Tax Map 163-7 (4)
Boulevard Heights, Block A, Lot lA (Sheet 49).
80-212
A gentleman was present representing the applicant. He stated
the conditions were agreeable. There was no opposition present~
On motion of Mr. O'Neill, .seconded by Mr. Bookman~ this
request was approved subject to the following conditions as
recon~nended by the Planning Commission:
1. A minimum of two parking spaces shall be provided for
each unit. These spaces shall either be paved or graveled.
2. All parking spaces and interior driveways shall be set
back a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet from the
ultimate right-of-way of Aldridge Avenue. Parking
shall be designed to prevent the projection of any
vehicles south of the front building line.
3. The above comments notwithstamding, the plan prepared
by Charles C. Townes & Associates, dated February 1~
1980, and submitted with the application shall be the
plan of development.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, ~ir. BoOkman and Mr. O'Neill.
Absent: Mrs. Girone.
Mrs. Girone returned to the meeting.
80S054
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, Douglas M. Newcomb
requested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to Light
Industrial (M-l) plus a Conditional Use Planned Development
of a 1.24 acre parcel fronting approximately 300 feet on the
west line of Turner Road and located approximately 170 feet
south of its intersection with Belmont Road. Tax Map 40-15 (1)
~arcel 5 (Sheet 15).
Mr. Newcomb was present. Mr. Bookman stated he had reviewed
this plan and felt it would be an asset to the area. There
was no opposition presant. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded
by Mr. O'Neill, this request was approved subject to the
following conditions as recommended by the Planning Cormmission:
1. The uses permitted shall be limited to the manufacturing
of vibrating conveyor belts~ No other business or
manufacturing operation shall ba permitted.
2. Prior to the release of any occupancy permits, forty-five
(45) feet of right-of-way measured from the centerline
of both Belmont and Turner Roads for the lengths of the
property adjacent thereto shall be dedicated to and
for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted.
3. The front facades of the building shall employ earth tone
colors and brick or stone panels shall be incorporated
in the design and constructed so as to break the monotony
of the metal facing. A colored rendering shall be
submitted for approval in conjunction with schematic
plan review°
The area lying between the building and Turner Road shall
be landscaped with appropriate ground cover In addition
a minimum of twelve (12) evergreens (ornamental trees '
and shrubs) having an initial height of six (6) feet shall
be placed between the building facade and Turner Road°
Evergreens having an initial height of six (6) feet shall
be planted between the customer and employee parking
area and Turner Road. These evergreens shall be of
sufficient density so as to screen the parking spaces from
property to the east. That area lying between t~e truck
loading area and Turner Road shall be completely screened
from view of property lying to the east. This shall be
accomplished with a combination of a solid board fence and
evergreens having an initia'l heigkt of six (6) feet~ A
landscaping plan depicting these requirements shall be
submitted for approval in conjunction with schematic plan
approval.
80-213
10m
11.
(NOTE:
0nly one access to Turner Road shall be permitted.
This access shall be confined to the employee and customer
parking area, as shown on the plan prepared by S ~
dated March 31, 1980. Truck access shall not betafz
permitted. Ail truck delivery shall be confined to the
Belmont Road access.
Upon approval of this request, the following exceptions
to the bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance shall
be permitted:
a. A thirty (30) foot exception to the one hundred (!00)
foot setback requirement from residentially zoned
districts.
b. A twenty-five (25) foot exception to the required
fifty (50) foot setback for buildings and parking
along Turner Road.
c. A fifteen (15) foot exception to the thirty (30) foot
rear yard setback requirement.
A deceleration/acceleration lane shall be provided along
Belmont Road. This lane shall tie into the existing
pavement and curb and gutter on property to the east
(7-Eleven).
One sign not to exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in
area and a height of ten (10) feet shall be permitted~
This sign shall neither be luminous nor illuminated~
This sign shall employ subdued colors and blend with the
architectural style of the building. Prior to erection
of the sign, a rendering shall be submitted to the
Division of Development Review for approval.
The above noted conditions notwithstanding, the site pisn
prepared by Staff dated March 31, 1980, shall be considered
the plan of development.
The above noted conditions notwithstanding all bulk
requirements of the Light Industrial (M-i) District
shall be applicable.
All parking and driveways shall be paved.
Per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, schematic
plans must be submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval.)
Vote: Unanimous
80S055
In Midlothian Magisterial District, the Department of
Community Development requested an amendment to a previously
granted Conditional Use (Case #77A151) for a 50 acre parcel
fronting approximately 300 feet on the north line of
Midlothian Turnpike and located approximately 1150 feet east
of its intersection with Sonthlake Boulevard. Tax Map 17-6
(1) parcels 7 and 9 (Sheet 8).
Mr. M. W. Burnett was present representing the applicant.
He stated that the Hospital will construct their road as
soon as the connecting road is constructed and that property
is currently being considered for re~oning. There was no
opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by
Mr. Bookman, this request was approved subject to the following
conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. Temporary occupancy of the hospital structure shall be
granted when all applicable code, provisions,
regulations and conditions are met with the exception
of the construction of the Route 60/Greenfield Drive
connector road.
80-214
2. A public road having a right-of-way width of not less
than 60 feet shall be constructed from U. S. 60 to
whatever through road is planned for Parcel 10 on
Tax Map ]7-2. This road shall be built to State
standards and taken into the State system prior to
the issuance of a final occupancy permit. The
road shall be designed and constructed to align and
tie into the aforedescribed road, once road and
drainage plans for that road have been spproved.
Vote: Unanimous
80S042
In Midlothian Magisterial District, Nicholas L. and Bobbie Jo
Eubank requested a Conditional Use to permit a stock farm
(2 horses) in a Residential (R-15) District on a 2.56 acre
parcel fronting approximately 180 feet on Old Buckingham Road
also fronting approximately 420 feet on Black Heath Road and
located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these
roads and better known as 1500 Black Heath Road. Tax Map
16-7 (2) Ayrshire, Lot 15 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Barry Disney was present representing MK. and Mrs.
Eubank. He stated that the property was purchased with the
idea of having horses there, that the area is located away
He stated that it would be unfair if they were not permitted this
from Old Buckingham Road so as not to,cause undue problems~
that the animals are show horses and will not be kept in
a field causing odor problems and that the property is wooded~ ~
use of their land as other horses are kept in the area.
Mrs. Gayle Smith~ an adjacent property owner, stated that some
of the woods would have to be cut and an odor problem would
exist. She stated that she has two small children and is
also concerned about their safety.
Mrs. Girone stated she had received some complaints from
area residents regarding the motorcycles that the Eubanks
allow to be driven in the area presently and that with the
additional impact of the horses in the area, the residents
could not handle it. Mr. Disney stated that there would not be
any additional horses brought to the property amd that it
would seem the use of motorcycles in the area would be
decreased because of the horses. Mrs. Girona stated she
had discussed this matter with Mrs. Eubank and she would not
indicate there would ba less noise from the motorcycles
because of the horses, She stated she had been considering a
one year trial period. Mrs. Eubank stated that the motorcycles
would be minimal with the horses on the premises and that
she is aware of the neighbors concerns and would try to
lessen the impact. Mrs. Girone stated that if this request
were granted, any building which might be constructed, may
not be usable if the renewal were not approved~ Mrs. Eubank
stated she wa~ aware of this matter. After further consideration
it was on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. O'Neill
resolved that this request be approved subject to the following
conditions:
This Conditional Use shall be issued to and for Nicholas
L. and Bobbie Jo Eubank and shall not be transferrable
nor run with the land.
2. No more than (2) horses shall be kept on the property.
3. The pasture area shall be located at least seventy-firm
(75) feet from any residence. The area shall be
appropriately fenced in order to properly secure the
horses.
80-215
4. The pa~%~e area shall be cleaned and made free from
manure when necessary. In addition, fresh straw and
disinfectant shall be applied to eliminate the
proliferation of odor and the propagation of insects_
No commercial activity with respect to the keeping of
these animals shall be permitted.
6, This Conditional Use shall be valid for a period not
to exceed one (1) year from date of approval and may
be renewed upon satisfactory reapplication, which must
demonstrate that the keeping of these horses has not
(and will not) adversely affected adjacent properties.
7. The barn which will house these horses shall be located a
minimum of seventy-fi~e (75) feet from any structure
or public rights-of-way.
8. The above conditions notwithstanding, the plan submitted
with the application shall be considered the Master Plan
for this development.
79S099 (Amended)
In Dale Magisterial Districts S & D Associates requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-7) plus
a Conditional Use to permit construction of 192 multi-family
units on a 25 acre parcel (approximately) which lies
approximately 600 feet off the north line of Beulah Road
measured from a point approximately 3200 feet southwest of
its intersection with Hopkins Road. Tax Map 66-7 parts of
parcels 2 and 4 (Sheet 22).
Mr. Durwood Felton was present. Ha stated they would like
to proffer the condition that the multi-family units be
condominiums for sale and not for rent and submitted a letter
to this effect. He stated that after reviewing all the
alternatives they felt this would be best for the area,
single-family dwellings would bm on the remainder of the
land~ the condominiums would be located entirely in the
center of the parcel and the condominiums would relisve the
concerns of the adjacent property owners who were opposed to
the rental units. He stated this would allow for higher
quality construction of the buildings, the single family
area would have larger lots, the condominiums would be
restricted to one and two bedrooms, there would be separate
common areas such as swimming pools, tennis courts, etc. for
the single family homeowners and the condominium owners and
that the condominiums would range in price from $40,000-
$50,000 and the homes approximately $40,000.
Mr. O'Neill questioned the price of the $40,000 homes. Mr.
Felton stated it was Just an estimate. Mr. O'Neill stated
he felt the adjacent landowners might be concerned about
what type home could be constructed for $40,000. Mr. Bookman
stated he had some townhouses which were shifted to single
family units and this was not a very good situation.
Mr. Felton stated they would be constructing the units over
a two year period and there would be 12 units per building
and 16 buildings.
Mr. Kelly Miller, representing Fuqua Farms and Mr. and Mrs.
Meeks, was present. He stated this was the first time he
had heard of this proposal, that his clients are and have
been against this since 1973, that they are concerned about
multi-family use and the density in the area. He stated
the applicant is trying to receive the maximum profit from
the land which is understandable but if taken into consideration,
the residents and their investments represent much more than
the applicants. He stated petitions have been received by the
80-216
County from more than 475 people in the area who are opposed~
He stated this is the fifth time he has been present for basical];
the same proposal for which they are opposed. He stated the
applicant has stated he would put restrictions in the
deeds that these units cannot be rented, but he feels this
could not be upheld in Court which means it is an empty, hollow
promise. He stated most condominiums are bought by speculators
who wish to rent them. He stated they were concerned also
with school problems, the traffic in the immediate area, the
building construction, the detrimental effect it would have
on the aesthetics of the area and the reduction of property
values. He stated General Plan 2000 and the County's comprehensi
plan are against this and it would be spot zoning. He stated
zoning was provided so that it would promote health and safety
of residents which this does not do, as it will provide
congestion in the streets, add to the police and fire
responsibilities, it will not be convenient and harmonize
the community and it will overcrowd the land population in the
area. He stated that his clients are in favor of straight
Residential (R-7) zoning only.
Mrs. Jean Meeks cited traffic congestion and the market value
of her home decreasing as reasons for opposition. Ms. Pat Lor~
and Mr. George Rossenson stated they were opposed because of
the traffic increase, the overcrowded school conditions and
inferior construction. Mr. Rossenson stated the applicant
has been presenting the same pictures for the condominiums as
were presented for the apartments and townhouses. Mr. Bob
Hoffman, Mr. H. B. Foreman and Mr. David Pierce voiced their
opposition because of the hazardous intersection of
Beulah and Hopkins Roads, the safety of the children in the
area and the increased traffic on a road which could not
handle it.
Mr. Joyner, the applicant, stated that they would be dedicating a
road right-of-way for widening of the road, they would donate
land to straighten out the curve, that 360 units could be
developed for single family and 400 units could be developed
using zero lot lines and this request is for 411 units on
91 acres. He stated density in the County allows for
124 units per acre and his request is 7.6 units per acre. He
stated the Planning staff had recommend this, that they
could go with existing zoning. Mr. 3oyner stated they would
include the no rental clause in the deeds. Mr. Micas stated
this would only take care of the initial sale and after that
they could be rented as you cannot control the subsequent
sales. Mr. Joyner stated the association which could be
established could control this by their own rules. Mr. Micas sta
that was correct and the County could review the bylaws of
the association.
Mr. Joyner stated several years ago when he originally
applied for this rezoning he was asked to withdraw it which
he did. He stated Dale District needed this type of housing.
Mr. O'Neill compared the difference in bedrooms from complete
single family units and the request. He stated
there was not a large number difference between the two.
Mr. O'Neill inquired how many square feet was plannned for
the single family units. Mr. Joiner stated between 960 and
1100 square feet.
Mr. Daniel stated he understood the frustration of both
parties. He stated as a matter of record, this case was
d~ferred to allow the applicant's engineers to ascertain if
an alternative to the multi-family units was feasible and it
appears to them that it is not. He stated he felt Dale
District had enough apartments, actually too many, at this
time. He stated he felt it would bm in the best interest of
the safety, health and welfare of the area not to have
additional multi-family in the area. Mr. Bookman stated
that if the applicant Were to consider making thm R-7 area
R-9 ~ere would be less density.
80-217
Mr~ Dodd stated that sometimes when certain characteristics
develop in an area it is hard to change them. Mr. Daniel
stated that the surrounding area is R-12 and this request is
actually incompatible with the area. Mr. O'Neill stated he
felt if this request were denied, the residents will be
disappointed with what is approved later. He stated that
housing today, is not following the same trend that it did
at the time they bought their homes. After further discussion
of the matter, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by
Mrs. Girone, resolved that this request be denied as well as
the proffered conditions submitted by the applicant.
Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
Nays: Mr. O'Neill.
79S142 (Amended)
ImClover Hill and Midlothian Magisterial Districts,
Midlothian Development Corporation requested rezoning from
Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-7) of 1240.3 acres; to
Townhouses-For-Sale (R-TH) of 56.9 acres; to Office Business
(0) of 15.0 acres; to Community Business (B-2) of 54.5 acres;
and to Light Industrial (M-i) of 144.6 acres; and a Conditional
Use to permit construotion of 1185 multi-family units for rent
on 98.7 acres of the Residential (R-7)property; construction
of 403 two-family units for sale an 80.8 acres of the
Residential (R'7) property; construction of 463 multi-family
units for sale on 92.6 acres of the Residential (R-7) property;
construction of 607 condominiums on 76.0 acres Df the
Residential (R-7) property; and a Conditional Use Planned
Development encompassing the entire 1511.3 acres. This
property lies in two separate tracts. The west tract fronts
~pproximately 4200 feet on the west line of Coalfield Road~
is partially bordered by Old Hundred Road on the south and is
bordered by Little Tomahawk Creek to the west. The east
tract fronts approximately 2600 feet on Genito Road, is bordered
on the west by proposed Route 1-288, partially on the north by
Issac Walton Park and the east line lies 5200 feet from its
west line. Tax Map 26 (1) part of parcel 6; Tax Map 36 (1)
parcels 7 and 8; Tax Map 37 (1) parcel 2 and parts of parcels
1, 3, 5, 9 and 12; Tax Map 37-3 (1) parcel 16; Tax Map 37-7 (!)
parcel 1; Tax Map 48 (1) parcel 48 and parts of parcel 46.
(Sheets 7 and 13).
Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy, Director of Community Development, gave a
brief su~cnary of the process used to assess the impacts of the
proposed development. He stated that upon the initial
application of the subject development as well as the Charter
Colony Development, staff was asked to consider the impacts of
the development on school facilities, utilities, transportation~
and other public facilities such as libraries, parks and fire
stations. Mr. Muzzy stated that a prime concern being expressed
about this development was the County's obligation to provide
sanitary sewer service. He stated that the approval of the
zoning would not obligate or require the County to provide
sewer service. The zoning approval is an overall master plan
for the development of the property but the specific details
such as sewer service must still be resolved. He stated that
from the staff's point of view the planned unit development
process is a positive approach for the County as it better
allows the planning of further services than fragmented zoning
requests.
Mr. Morris Mason, representing Mr. Joe Mat%iko and John Smith~
stated they were conceraed with conditions #46 and ~54.
Mr. John Smith stated the two concerns were basically the
consideration of drinking water and the protecton of the Swift
Creek watershed as well as the possibility of closing Coalfield
Road. He stated he felt the roadway was located too close
to the watershed and that the closing of a major road guch as
Coalfield, would present a hardship.
80-218
Mr. Bookman stated he felt this was the way to plan and
develop in Chesterfield County. Ne added that this would
be phased into the area. Mrs. Girone stated she was proud
of the work by the developer and staff in this matter,
that the impacts had been addressed and the Midlothian reside~ts
are fortunate to have this development with this much planning
in the County. She stated that when growth does come, we
are fortunate to have cooperation from all concerned. There
was no opposition present. Mrs. Girone stated Mr. Smith's
comments could be noted in the record and discussed By Planning
Co~ission.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs~ Girone, this
request was approved subject to the following conditions
and with the applicant proffering certain conditions as listed,
all of which was recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. Working interpretations of any and all conditions and/or
exceptions to the application shall be made by the
Planning Com~nission at the request of the Department of
Community Development, upon submission review and
approval of schematic plans as required by Section 21-34
(L) (4) c of the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the
Commission may conditionally approve schematic plans
to ascertain that they will be in conformance with the
approved Master Plan and other applicable ordinances.
2. The application form and all EXHIBITS A through N shall
be considered the application and Master Plan. It shall
be the policy of the Planning Commission to interpret
the Master Plan, as a statement of intent and purpose~
The Master Plan shall be modified by the conditions as
imposed and approved herein and to conditions imposed by
schematic plan approval.
Approval of the l~aster Plan does not imply that the
County gives final approval of any particular subdivision
road section.
4. Except where expressly referred to herein, approval of
this appliaation does not guarantee that the developer
can build or construct facilities in the future in
accordance with present regulations. If future County
standards are more or less restrictive than those
established herein, the County may require construction
to adhere to the more restrictive standards.
5. A copy of any covenants, deed~restrictions and amendments
related to homeowner associations shall be approved by
the Division of Development Review and the County
Attorney's Office for adherence to County Ordinances
prior to the recordation of such documents.
6. No uses shall be permitted which would use any water or
sewer system other than Chesterfield County public
utility system. Approval of this request does not
obligate the County to extend any water or sewer lines.
Ail extensions and necessary improvement costs shall
be bo=ne by the developer. Approval of this request
does not obligate the County to approve the plans for
water and sewer extensions, as described in EXHIBIT N~
Prior to construction, water and sewer plans must be
submitted to and approved by the Utilities Department.
7. Notwithstanding, the exception to use and bulk regulations
granted herein, approval of the application by the Board
of Supervisors does not obligate the Planning Commission
to approve a particular schematic plan which is not in
conformance with the spirit, intent and purpose of this
request.
8o Open space required to satisfy density and/or lot require-
ments for a single tract, development and/or individual
lot shall not be counted as required open space for any
other tract, development and/or lot.
80-219
9. Land area in common space, which is required to make up
for reduced lot size, shall be land reasonably usable
for open space or otherwise left substantially in its
natural state,
10. The dedication of common open space to any community
association and the improvements therein shall be
continually reviewed by the Planning Commission throughout
the life of the development in order that the areas do
not become a burden at any one time on the lot owners
of Evergreen.
11. The number and location of fire hydrants shall be determine
by the Chesterfield Fire Department. The developer
shall bear the cost of installation for hydrants.
12. Ail individual residential subdivisions having fifty-nine
(59) or more lots shall have a second public road access
prior to the recordation of any subdivision plat. No
more than fifty (50) building permits shall be issued
for each development until the second access is
constructedto VDt~T standards. A third public road
access shall be provided prior to the recordation of
more than 239 lots and prior to the issuance of more ·
than 200 building permits.
13. Street lighting standards, equipment, and maintenance
of other than standard COunty street lighting, shall be
provided 5y the developer (or his assignees) at his
(their) expense. If the County agrees to pay for
street lighting current, the Board shall first approve
the street lighting plan as to the County's commitment.
14. Dwelling units of the multi-family type may be transferred ~
from one tract to another with multi-family housing as longI
as the calculated density in that tract designated in
the application and the calculated multi-family dwelling
units designated by the application for the whole project
are not exceeded as shown in Exhibit D of the application.
15. All parking areas of thirty (30) spaces or more and all
nonresidential parking areas shall contain appropriate
landscaped areas as deemed necessary by the Planning
Co~nission at the time of schematic plan review and
approval.
16. Ail internal public roads shallhava a minimum of
two (2) lanes, each of which shall have a minimum of
twelve (12) feet of pavement~ This comdition may be
modified at the time of schematic plan review and
approval.
17. To avoid potential algae and~ ~iltation problems, the
minimum depth of any lake, pond or other water impoundment
area shall not be less than 3~ feet within ten (10)
feet of the shoreline.
18. Ail Single Family A dwellings shall have a required
front yard of thirty (30) feet except that the required
front yard may be reduced to tem (10) feet for a
maximum lineal distance of thirty percent (30%) of the
front lot width provided that the=e shall be no openings
in any wall of any enclosed structure parallel to the
street~between thirty (30) feet and ten (10) feet from the
front lot line and that such reductions may not be
made on more than three (3) adjacent lots nor on more
than forty percent (40%) of the lots in the Single
Family A category. At least two (2) parking spaces
(one of which shall be enclosed) shall be provided on
each lot. In no case shall the front yard on a
corner lot be less than thirty (30) feet. (This
condition supersedes Exhibit B, Single Family A, Article
9, Section 21-107 Required Conditions, (3) Front
Yards, Required.)
80-220
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26°
27.
28.
In Single Family A tracts, fencing up to seven (7) feet
in height shall be permitted in any rear or side yard
provided it is wholly within the property lines and conforms
to all yazd requirements. Fencing higher than three (3)
feet six (6) inches shall not be permitted in any front
or corner side yard. (This condition supersedes Exhibit
B, Single Family A, Article 9, Section 21-107, Additional
Required Conditions (1)).
In Single Family B tracts, houses with front yards less
than than thirty (30) feet shall not occur on through
streets, shall be grouped on cul-de-sacs with a maximum
of twenty (20) houses and shall not include openings in
walls of living or bedroom areas generally parallel to
streets. (This condition is in addition to the required
front yards specified in Exhibit B, Single Family B, Article
9, Section 21-107 Required Conditions, (3) Front Yards).
In Single Family B tracts, fencing up to seven (7) feet in
height shall be permitted in any rear or side yard.
Fences higher than three (3) feet six (6) inches shall not
be permitted in any corner side or front yards~ (This
~ndi~io~ supersedes Exhibit B, Single Family
ticie ~,Additional Required Conditions
In Single Family C tracts, houses with front yards less
than thirty (30) feet shall not occur on through streets
and shall be grouped on cul-de-sacs with amaximum of
twenty (20) dwellings. (This condition is in addition
to Exhibit B, Single Family C, Article 9, Section 21-107
Required Conditions (3) Front Yards).
In To~nhouse tracts, houses with front yards less than
twenty-five (25) feet shall not occur on through streets
and shall be grouped on cul-de-sacs with a maximum of
thirty (30) houses. (This condition is in addition to
Exhibit B, Townhouse Lots and To~nhouses, Article 10,
Section 21-113 Required Conditions, (3) Front Yards).
A second public road access shall he provided where there
are more than fifty (50) multi-family t~aits. No more than
fifty (50) units shall be constructed until the
second public road access is completed.
A third public road access shall be provided where more than
239 Iaulti-family units are constructed and the access shall
be completed prior to the construction of the 201st unit.
A fifty (50) foot radius shall be provided at the end of
all stub roads in multi-family and condominium tracts.
This condition may be modified at the time of schematic
plan review and approval.
%n multi-family a~d condominium tracts, a minimu~ of
thirty (30) feet of pavement width shall be provided on
all access roads leading from public roads and a minimum
of twenty-five (25) feet of pavement width shall be
provided on all other rivate streets and driveways. As
used herein, the term ~access read" shall be those roads
designated as such by the Department of Communtiy
Development. (This condition supersedes Exhibit
Mulfiple Family and Condominitun~, p. Access).
In multi-family and condominium tracts, all roads, driveways
and parking areas shall be paved, curbed and guttered.
(This condition supersedes Exhibit B, Multiple Family and
Condominiums, Q. Vehicular Area Paving).
Any apartment buildings or condominiums constructed along
any public road shall front that road except in areas
where open space and buffers screen the units from the
public road.
80-221
In multi-family and condominium tracts, parking shall be
provided at a ratio of two (2) spaces per dwelling unit°
A centrally located storage area for boats, trucks,
campers, travel and utility trailers shall be provided,
the total of which may be subtracted from the total number
of required spaces. (This condition supersedes Exhibit
B, Multiple Family and Condominiums, M. Parking).
30. In multi-family and condominium tracts, recreation areas
and facilities shall be available and readily accessible to
the residents of the tract, either provided within the
tract or in other parts of the planned development of which
the tract is a part and shall be indicated on the schematic
plans submitted for approval. There shall be at least
one swimming pool for each one thousand (1000) dwelling
units of all kinds in the tract or planned development,
at least one (1) tennis court for each five hundred (500)
dwelling units, play fields, tot lots, picnic tables and
other such amenities as provided in the total comunity.
The service area of of each facility shall not exceed a
one (1) mile radius, end the required recreation facilities
shall be built and operational by the time sixty (60)
percent of the dwelling units in the service area are
~mplece. (This condition supersedes Exhibit B, Multi-
family and Condominiums,
31. In multi-family and condominium tracts, an all weather
fire lane, in accordance with the Chesterfield Fire
Prevention Code, shall be provided to afford access to
each building for fire fighting activities and equipment.
32. In multi-family and condominium tracts, the developer shall,
provide an adequate number of trash containers, the number
of which shall be determined by the County Health
Department. All outdoor trash receptacles shall be
screened from view by a solid board fence or evergreen
planting. Trash collection shall be on a regular basis
in order to prevent any health problems.
33. In Village Centers, twenty-five (25) percent of the tract
shall be in co.on open space exclusive of buildings and
paved vehicular areas. Portions of the tracts devoted to
pavement for pedestrian use and other landscape elements,
whether functional or aesthetic in nature, may be included
as open space. Where residential units are within or
overlook areas which include nonresidential uses, any
pedestrian or landscaped areas, including usable or
landscaped roof top areas, within such portions of the
tract may be included in the total open space of the
tract. This condition may be modified at the time of
schematic plan review and approval. (This condition
supersedes Exhibit B, Village Centers, Article 14, Section
21-152 ReqUired Conditions (7) Cormmon Open Space).
34. All stated conditions herein relative to multi-family
and condominium use shall be applicable to residential
units located within Village Centers. (This condition is
in addition to Exhibit B, Village Center, Section 21-152
Required Conditions, (11)).
35. In Village Centers, in addition to the uses normally
permitted in 0ffice Business (0) Districts, the use
exceptions shall be limited to the following:
1. Bank
2. Barbarshop
3. Beauty Shop
4. Bicycle sales and rental
5. Book or stationery store
6. Brokerage
7. Catering establishment
8. Drug Store
80-222
9. Florist shop, greenhouse, nursery
10. Furniture store
11. Governmental offices
12. Hospitals, rest, nursing and convaleseent homes
13. Locksmith
14. Messenger or telegraph service
15. Museums
16. Nursery schools, child or day care centers and
kindergartens
17. Office supply store
18. Optometrists sales and services
19. Post Office
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
All retail type uses shall be combined into a shopping mall or
center type complex and total square footages shall be limited
as outlined in the application. (This Condition supersedes
Exhibit B, Village Centers, Article 14, Section 21-148 Uses
Permitted.)
36. The tracts which are designated as "Business" shall be
rezoned to the Convenience Business (B-l) classification
(as opposed to the requested Community Business (B-2)
classification), with the following use exceptions being
permitted:
Automobile service statiom
2. Contractor's offices and display rooms
Fraternal, philanthropic or other charitable uses
4. Funeral homes or mortuaries
5. Health clubs
6. Laboratories and other reseach and development
facilities
7. Schools - commercial, trade, music, dance, business,
vocational and training
Recreational establishments, indoor and outdoor
(related primarily to employees in the tract; such
as handball courts, exercise rooms, teDAlis courts;
etc.)
9. Convention censer or exposition hall
10. Hotel. motel, or motor court
11 Clubs, lodges, and grounds for games or sports
12 Social, recreational, and community buildings
13 Office-warehouses when thewareheuse area does
not exceed 10,000 square feet
14. Theaters, except drive-ins
15. Cocktail lounges, dining halls, night clubs
16. Veterinary hospitals, boarding kennels, or clinics
provided that there are no outside runs or kennels
17. Mass transportation
(This condition supersedes Exhibit B, Section 2 Article 16,
Section 21-158, Uses Permitted.) '
37. In Offices/Light Industry tracts, outdoor storage shall be
located at least one hundred (100) feet from any public
street and appropriately screened from view of any public
street. A plan for the screening of the use shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission in conjunction with
schematic approval. -
38. In tracts designated as Offices/Light Industry (M-l), the
following use exceptions shall be permitted:
Photography studio
Radio and television broadcasting studios and office
exclusive of towers
Restaurants, not including drive-in establishments
Savings and loan associations
Shoe repair shop
Tailoring and dressmaking shops
Taxidermy
Telephone boeths
Telephone exchanges
Travel arranging and transportation ticket services
Grocery
Cleaners
80-223
1. Recreational establishments (indoor and outdoor)
2. Contractor's offices and display rooms
3. Boat sales, including outdoor storage and display
provided that not more than five (5) boats shall be
visible from a public street
4. Carpenter and cabinet shop
5. Electrical, plumbing and heating shops sales and
services '
6. Business offices
7. Radio and television broadcasting studios and offices~
exclusive of towers
8. Radio, television and other home entertainment,
ssles and service
9. Appliance stores
10. Savings and loan institutions
11. Furniture stores
12. Philanthropic and charitable institutions
13. Schools, colleges, libraries and museums
14. Churches
15. Maintenance buildings associated with the operation
and maintenance in the area of Evergreen including
storage and servicing of trucks and earth moving
equipment, workshops, greenhouses, and material
storage, provided that all exterior areas shall be
visually screened and there shall be no offensive
operation of said facility as covered in Section
21-185 (b) of the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance
16. Hospitals, clinics, sanitariums, medical and dental
laboratories
17. Building materials, storage and sales
18. Contractor's shops and storage yards
19. Electrical, machinery equipment and supplies manu-
facturing
20. Furniture and fixtures manufacturing
21. Ice manufacturing
22. Other fabricatsd metal products manufacturing not
otherwise specifically listed in the Chesterfield
County Zoning Ordinance
23. Mass transportation
24. Transportation equipment manufacturing
25. Textile mill products manufacturing
26. Tobacco manufacturing
27. Wholesale greenhouses
28. Restaurants
29. Telephone booths
30. Paint and wallpaper sales
31. Telephone exchanges
32. Automobile service stations
33. Government offices
34. Commercial storage yards and/or buildings for boats,
buses, large trucks, campers, travel and utility
trailers
35. Hotels, motels, or motor courts
36. Convention center or exposition hall
(This condition supersedes Exhibit B, Section 3 Article 19,
Section 21-181 Uses Permitted.) '
39. A 100 fooh buffer shall be maintained along Office/Industrial
Tract 1002 with the exception of areas bounded by industrial
zoning. No buffer shall be required adjacent to proposed
1-288. This buffer may be reduced at the time of schematic
approval should the Cozmmission determine that the development
will not be detrimental to adjacent properties and an
appropriate landscaping/screening plan is submitted and
approved.
40. A 100 foot buffer shall also surround Office/Light
Industrial Tract 1001 with the exception of the areas
adjacent to General Business (B-3) and/or industrial
zoning. No buffer shall be required adjacent to proposed
Route 1-288. This buffer may be reduced at the time of
schematic approval should the Commission determine that the
development will be Of no detriment to adjacent properties
and an appropriate'landscaping/screening plan is submitted
and approved.
80-224
41. A minimum of three (3) acres of land shall be dedicated
to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and
unrestricted, for the purpose of constructing a fire
station. The location of this station shall be
determined and approved prior to the approval of any
subdivision or schematic plan.
42. A qualified Soil Engineer shall design building
footings and foundations to fit existing soil
conditions on lots in the tracts numbered:
43.
A. 101 D. 302 G. 397 J. 404 M. 601 P. 703
B. 203 E. 305 H. 402 K. 501 N. 602 Q. 704
C. 204 F. 306 I, 403 L. 502 O. 702 R. 801
A qualified Soil Engineer shall test on-site road'fill
material to insure accordance with VDH&T standards,
especially in relation to California Bearing Ratio, on
road rights-of-way in tracts numbered:
A~ 101 E. 204 I. 307 M. 502 Q. 703
B. 102 F. 302 J. 403 N. 601 R. 801
C. 103 G. 305 K. 404 O. 602
D. 203 H. 306 L. 501 P. 202
44. Final construction plan shall show a complete drainage
plan that shall include provision for positive fall outlets
for each lot in the tracts numbered:
A. 203 E. 407 I. 1002
B. 204 F. 502
C. 304 G. 701
D. '305 H. 802
45~ In Tract 202, a water tank site shall be dedicated to
and for the County of Chesterfield, free and t~restrictado
This site shall be a minimum of 150 feet by 150 feet and
shall be located on the highest elevation of Tract 202. Thi.
dedication shall be accomplished prior to the recordation
of any subdivision in Tract 202 or whenever the Utilities
Department requests dedication.
46. A north/south collector road through Evergreen West shall
be constructed. This road shall be constructed as a
continuous four-lane collector road with divided median
and shall have a minimum right-of-way width of not less
than seventy (70) feet. This road shall not connect to
Coalfield Road, but shall more or less parallel Coalfield
Road. This road shall connect to the proposed north/south
road through "Charter Colony", property to the north.
The road shall be located as far west of Coalfield Road
as possible. This road shall eventually intersect Old
Hundred Road. This road shall be constructed for its
entire length and taken into the State system when forty
(40) percent of Evergreen West is developed.
47. Thirty-five (35) feet of right-of-way, for the entire
length of Evergreen West and East which abuts Coalfield
Road, measured from the centerline shall be dedicated
to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and
unrestricted. This dedication shall be accomplished prior
to the release of any building permits.
48. From the intersection of Relocated Coalfield Road and
existing Coalfield Road southward to Old Hundred Road,
Relocated Coalfield Road shall be constructed as a four
80-225
lane divided median roadway with a minimum right-of-way
of ninety (90) feet. This road shall be constructed in
conjunction with any nonresidential development occuring
within those tracts abutting Relocated Coalfield Road.
This road shall be completed and taken into the State
system prior tO receiving occupancy for any nonresidential
structures within that area.
49. An east/west collector road which shall stub into
property to the west and align with Queensgate Road to the
east shall be constructed as a continuous two-lane
collector road and shall have a minimum right-of-way width
of not less than seventy (70) feet to provide for future
widening.
50. Luck's Lane from the terminus of State maintenance to
Relocated Coalfield Road westward shall be constructed as
a four (4) lane road with a minimum right-of-way of ninety
(90) feet. This road shall be constructed and taken into
the State system when forty (40) percent of the
residential units in Evergreen East are developed.
51. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along both
sides of Luck's Lane and the east/west collector road
described in Condition 49. Ail existing vegetation shall
be retained and in cleared areas of 200 square feet or
greater, a landscaping plan shall be developed, submitted
and approved in conjunction with the schematic plan
approval for any portion of the development adjacent to
the buffer. No direct private or individual commer6ial
access shall be permitted to either of these roadways.
Access shall be limited to public rights-of-way. This
condition may be modified at the time of schematic plan
review and approval.
52~ At the time of tentative approval or schematic approval of
any development, dedication of right-of-way in accordance
with the Chesterfield General Plan shall be accomplished.
However, if it is determined by VDH&T or County staff
that right-of-way over and beyond the designated right-of-
way is required, such dedication shall be aocomplished.
53. No individual residential lots shall front Existing or
Relocated Coalfield Road. No individual private access
or commercial access shall be permitted on either
Existing or Relocated Coalfield Road. Access shall be
limited to public rights-of-way. A buffer having a width
of not less than one hundred (100) feet shall be provided
along Existing Coalfield Road for the entire length of
Evergreen West and Industrial Tract 1002. A fifty (50)
foot buffer shall be maintained on both sides of Relocated
Coalfield Road in Evergreen West and along Existing
Coalfield Road adjacent to Tract 706. No development
shall occur within these buffers. These buffers shall
consist of retention of existing vegetation and in
cleared areas of two hundred (200) square feet or greater,
a landscaping plan shall be developed, submitted and
approved in conjunction with the schematic plan approval
for any portion of the development adjacent to the
buffer. This Condition may be modified at the time of
schematic plan review and approval.
54. Two hundred and fifty (250) feet of right-of-way shall
be dedicated for the lengths of the property which this
development is sdjaeent to Powhite Parkway. This right-
df-way shall be limited access. Dedication shall be
accomplished at such a time that the VDH&T determines it
necessary. Until such a tim~ that staff's plan (dated
November 20, 1979) is superseded by the Highway Commission,s
· approval of the engineering design and location plans,
staff's plan shall be the guide in determining said
dedication.
(Note: At such a time that Powhite Parkway is extended,
Existing Coalfield Road shall be stubbed off at the north
right-of-way of Powhite Parkway.)
80-226
55. Prior to the approval of any schematic plans or subdivision
plans, the overall Master Plan shall be redrawn to
reflect any conditions imposed which changes the
development layout. The Division of Development Review
shall approve this plan and insure compliance with all
conditions and zoning requirements.
56. An additional twelve (12) feet of pavement shall be
provided along existing Coalfield Road for the entire
length of Tract 1002. This lane shall be constructed to
State standards and taken into the State system. This
additional lane of pavement shall be for the purpose of
providing right and left turn movements.
The developer shall provide space suitable for the
provision of a "park and ride" lot. The location of this
lot shall be in the vicinity of the proposed commercial
center fronting Relocated Coalfield Road. If deemed
suitable this "park and ride" lot may be incorporated as
part of the required parking area for the cormmercial
center. This shall be determined at the time of schematic
plan approval.
58. The developer shall be required to retain drainage on
site for a fifty (50) year fully developed condition with
a release rate not to exceed a ten (10) year undeveloped
condition. This condition may be modified at the time
of schematic plan review and approval.
591 The developer shall specify the type of fertilizer to be
used and the rate of application.
60. Prior to the start of any construction, development plans
shall be submitted to the Swift Creek Watershed Committee
for their review and approval.
The developer has proffered the following conditions:
1. The applicant has proffered the following condition
relative to school sites: "We have set aside 17.6 acres
for an elementary school site which we will agree to
donate to the Chesterfield County School Board at any
date they desire. We have also set aside a 63 acre high ~
school site and a 42 acre middle school site. We will
agree to sell these two sites to the County on the following
basis: We will hold these two sites for purchase by
the Chesterfield CoUnty School Board for a period of
ten years. The School Board may purchase either, or
both sites at any time prior to December, 1990. The
purchase price of these sites will be determined by
utilizing a base price of $6,000 per acre up through
December, 1980. This base price will increase every
twelve month period after December, 1980 b ~
y 10% per year~
compounded (1981 - $6,600 per acre; 1982 - $7,260 per acre;
1983 - $7,986 per acre; etc.) It is our feeling that
this time frame and the financial consideration involved
offer favorable consideration to the School Board and the
County in general."
2. The applicant has also proffered the following condition
relative to project phasing: "We would like to proffer
with our zoning application that our development would
be phased over at least a 15 year period. We would
like to propose to the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors that Evergreen will not grow at a
faster pace than 15 yeara, consequently, the impact of
our development on the County can be projected on a
firm basis during this period of time. We would
like to propose that the number of occupancy permits
issued in the Evergreen project will not exceed a total
of 300 per year for the period of 1980 to the year 1995.
It should be Understood that we agree not to exceed the
aggregate total of 300 per year but if there are years
when less than 300 occupancy permits are issued, then the
annual deficiency can be made up in subsequent years as
80-227
long as the total number of permits for the project do
not exceed the 300 figure multiplied times the number
of years the development is in process. For example, in
our fift~nYear, if we have only applied for 1000 occupancy
permits ' the prior four years, we will be allowed to
request up to ~ ~u~n ~e~ts during the fifth year,
consequently, y ~n h the fifth year total
of no more than 1500 permits or 5 times 300 permits."
7ote: Unanimous
.80S037
In Midlothian ~gisterial District, Chesmid, Incorporated requested
rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Community Business (B-2) of
7 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the cas ' a
of Salisbury Drive and located an, v~+~- o=~ ~ t l~ne
intersection with Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 15-12 (1) parcels
B3-1, 34, 34-1, 34-2, 34-7, 34-9, and part of 34-4 (Sheet 7).
~r. John Smith was present representing Chesmid, Inc. He presented
~lides of the Midlothian ar~a and the area surrounding their
)roposed development indicating zoning and stated he felt there
could be a free flow of traffic from Route 60 into the area. He
~tated he did not want a deferral of the entire project bur would
~ike to have the center portion zoned to B-1 and the Board could
lefer the remainder if they wished to do so.
Ir. MeFarley, a member of the Administrative Board of the
It. Pisgah Church, stated the Church opposed this request. He
tared there are historical sites in the area, there are cemeteries
he bulk of the property zoned in the area is residential, the
eighborhood is quiet and stable, no architect or landscaping
lans have been presented, and an accurate traffic count has
ot been made. He stated the Route 60 property is zoned
~ifferently but that is farther away in another direction.
{e stated the only business zoning in the area is for the C
P building. He stated the residents have been left to
uess what will happen to the area because plans have not
~en presented, that Mr. Smith has proffered some conditions
tt the llth hour which they have not been able to completely
~eview, that the zoning being requested will have a tremendous
mpact on the area and the residents and that this has been
vague, non-specific approach from the beginning. He
tated the purpose of zoning is to preserve existing
haracteristics of the land and to provide for uses compatible
ith the character of the surrounding area. He stated that
oning is not allowed so that one can use his land to damage
djacent lands which would be the case. He stated they felt
his would be spot zoning, that Mr. Smith will not be the
eveloper and that is why his plans are so unclear and
equested that the Board deny this application.
~. Clarke Jones, a member of the Board of Directors for the
~eater Midlothian Civic League, stated this rezoning would
~riously impact, the stable community of Midlothian, that
hey have not objected to large subdivisions in the area but
hey feel this would be detrimental to the area. He stated
he residents felt the Board would do what is just in this
ase and deny the request for rezoning.
r. Rudy stated he represented an adjacent property owner, v~t. ?hrray,
ho owns property to the north of the 50 ft. road way proposed.
~ s~ated his client is also in opposition to this request and
nrtner stated that they would prefer this case be decided today
[thout any deferrals. He stated that the Board should consider
~e stability of the area, the historical significance and the
~gal significance and deny the request. He stated a master plan
~s not been designed and the planning is not adequate for this
~quest. He stated that this was an example of piecemeal zoning,
~at this will impact the people tomorrow, and the people have
~ied to work out their concerns up front while the applicant
80-228
has had a total lack of respect for the people in the M' ·
~dlothia~' . · .
area as well as insulting the zntellzgence of the Board
~%%idA%~%ct~el~rd~,~!~d she was conca~n~d about how this rezoningl
~ Bookman M~oF~y assessment aha Its possible zoning.
Mr. stated that it might affect her assessment and that
there would exist a possibility that she could apply for rezoning
for business and receive it but she would be the one who
would have to apply for rezoning, it could not be accomplished
)y anyone else. She stated that the residents are apprehensive
~ecause they do not know what is planned or who the developer
is, that they have seen vague proposals, and they are concerned
about how and what will be developed. She stated she was
not against progress, but asked that the blight on this
residential community be stopped.
Mr. Robert Jones stated three generations of his family
lived on Salisbury Drive, with the fourth on its way. He
stated that he would like his children to grow up in the
same atmosphere he did, walking to school, ate. He stated
no plans had been presented which would indicate to what
extent the development would be constructed. He stated this
was an historic village with the first coal field in Virginia
and the first railroad and he was opposed to this request.
Mr. John Smith stated a new home in this area has not been
constructed for many years, he explained the 50 ft. right-
of-way road which narrows to 20 ft. at Mr. M~ra¥'s property,
etc. He stated he had not received any reaction from the
Planning staff, and that he had planned to discuss this with
~r. T. T. Crump on the Planning Commission but their meetings
~ad been cancelled on several occasions. He presented the
Board with an outline of the development and a letter proffering
~hat they would accept. He stated there would not be an
~BC store in the development, that they would include in
~riting protective clauses for the area residents and that
:hose changes would provide the residents with conveniences
:hey do not have. He stated there were certain financial
:easons why he needed to have a portion of this zoned today.
{r. Micas stated the Board could not consider any financial
conditions as reasons for approval or disapproval.
Mrs. Girone stated she has discussed this with all concerned and sh~
has never changed her opinion that a Conditional Use Planned
Development was the best for this land use change. She
~tated no plans with buildings or sketches have been presented
for this development. Mr. Bookman inquired if the Board
~ould consider Conditional Use Planned Development today.
~r. Micas indicated it could not. Mr. Bookman stated he felt
~omething might be considered in the Conditional Use Planned
)evelopment by the applicant. Mr. Smith stated he would
like to have B-1 zoning on the center portion of the property
md would consider Conditional Use Planned Development on
:he remainder. Mr. O'Neill stated that he did not feel the
.and would be developed residentially and that perhaps a compromisel
~onld be made. Mrs. Girone stated that this matter was
~ecoming too confused and it was on her motion, resolved that
:his request be denied as submitted. Mr. O'Neill stated the
mtter could be deferred 60 days and sent to the Planning
:o~m~ission with the applicant amending it for a
~onditional Use Planned Development and if he did not submit
~zs amendment, it would return to the Board and the Board
~ould act at that time. On motion of Mr. O'Neill, it was
~esolved that this request be deferred for 60 days. Mr.
~mith stated there were other owners involved but he would
~ccept a Conditional Use Planned Development on their behalf.
4rs. Girone stated she felt it would be best if the request
)efore the Board were considered as submitted. A vote on
~r. O'Neill's substitute motion for a 60 day deferral which
~ould allow the applicant time to file an amended request
~as as follows:
80-229
~yes: Mr. Nezll.
ays: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone.
'he vote was as follows on Mrs. Girone's motion to deny the
roposal as submitted as recommended by the Planning Commission:
otc: Unanimous
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized
2he Utilities Department to extend Sewer Contract No. 7(7)9571,
{alfway House Heights area, to serve three additional houses on
llokomin Avenue and three additional houses on Melba Street which
~otal extension will be approximately $24,000 ($15,000 for the Melba
;treet extension and $9,000 for the Elokomin Avenue extension) with
~he understanding that the property owners sign contracts or this
~pproval is voided and further the Board appropriated $23,000
~rom 573 Surplus to 380-1-79571-4393 and $1,000 from 573 Surplus
380-1-79571-2142 for this extension.
'otc: Unanimous
~ motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
ncreased the selling price of land at the Chesterfield Airport
ndustrial Park from $15,000 to $17,500 for those parcels
ocated opposite the property adjacent to the runway and
rom $20,000 to $22,500 for those parcels located adjacent
o the runway all of which is to be effective immediately
or any new clients purchasing land, any on-going negotiations
o be at the rate discussed at the time when negotiations
egan, and further that the Director of Economic Development
otify the Board of the economic conditions which would
ecessitate the adjustment of land prices at the Industrial
ark in the future.
ote: Unanimous
motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
ient into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters as
~ermitted by Section 2.1-344 (1) of the Code of Virginia,
.950, as amended.
'otc: Unanimous
~econvening:
motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
djourned at 5:45 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. on May 14, 1980.
ore: Unanimous
icholas M. Meiszer
ounty Administrator
· aYzand Dodd ~-~ '--~
Chairman
80-230