Loading...
09-26-1984 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES September 26, 1984 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman Mr. G. H. Applegate, Vice Chairman Mr. R. Garland Dodd Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. Jesse J. Mayes Mr. Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley R. Balderson, Dir. of Planning Mr. William Correll, Construction Coor. Mr. Kenneth Cronin, Asst. Dir. of Personnel Mrs. Doris DeHart, Volunteer Coordinator Mr. William Diggs, Real Estate Assessor Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst. County Administrator Mr. William Howell, Dir. of Gen. Services Mr. Ronald Livingston, Clerk of Circuit Ct. Mr. Robert Masden, Asst. Co. Admin. for Human Services Mr. Richard McElfish, Environmental Eng. Mr. R. J. McCracken, Transp. Director Mr. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Public Info. Officer Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy, Asst. Co. Admin. for Community Develop. Mr. F. O. Parks, Dir. of Data Processing Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Exec. Asst., Co. Adm. Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities Mr. George Woodall, Dir., Econ. Develop. Mr. James Zook, Chief, Comprehensive and Community Planning Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:00 a.m. (EDST). 1. INVOCATION Mr. Daniel introduced Rev. Robert B. Lineberger, Pastor of the Lutheran Church of Our Savior, who gave the invocation. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the minutes of September 12, 1984 were approved, as amended. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Abstention: Mr. Dodd as he was not present at the September 12, 1984 meeting. 84-537 3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS Mr. Hedrick stated he did not have any comments at this time. 4. ITEMS TO BE DELETED OR HEARD OUT OF SEQUENCE Mr. Daniel stated that in regard to 9.H., Acceptance of Bid for Powhite Bond Anticipation Notes, staff is waiting for the bids to be opened and that it may be necessary to bring this item up out of sequence when staff calls with the necessary information. Mr. Daniel stated that in regard to 9.I.2., Public Hearing to Consider Conveyance of Right of Way for East Avenue to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, staff recommends this item be de~erred until October 10, 1984 at 7 p.m. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board deferred 9.I.2., Public Hearing to Consider Conveyance of Right of Way for East Avenue to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation until October 10, 1984 at 7:00 p.m.; deleted 9.I.4.c., Condemnation of Sewer Easement Across Property of Sherman T. and Junie J. Garrett; deleted 9.I.5.f., Acceptance of Deeds of Dedication from Heirs of Charles Daniel and Glen W. and Virginia R. Butler for Construction of East Avenue; deferred 9.D., Board Policy Relating to Individual Board Members' Involvement in Zoning Process, until 2 p.m. today; deferred 9.E.3., Appointment to the Richmond Metropolitan Authority, until October 10, 1984; and approved the agenda, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 5. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION 5.A. RECOGNIZING MR. ANTHONY L. PULLANO UPON HIS RETIREMENT Mr. Cronin introduced Mr. William Diggs. Mr. Diggs recognized Mr. Pullano and outlined his dedicated and loyal service to the Real Estate Assessor's Office. On motion of the Board the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Anthony L. Pullano retired from the Assessor of Real Estate Department, Chesterfield County, on September 1, 1984; and WHEREAS, Mr. Pullano has provided 10 years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss Mr. Pullano's diligent service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of Supervi- sors pUblicly recognizes Mr. Pullano and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appre- ciation for his service to the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be presented to Mr. Pullano and that this Resolution be perma- nently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous 84-538 Mr. Daniel recognized Mrs. Pullano who was also present. presented Mr. Pullano with the framed resolution. He 5.B. RECOGNIZING MRS. BESSIE V. RICHTER UPON HER RETIREMENT Mr. Cronin introduced Mr. Ron Livingston. Mr. Livingston recognized Mrs. Richter and outlined her dedicated and loyal service to the Circuit Court Clerk's Office. On motion of Board, the ~ollowing resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mrs. Bessie V. Richter retired from the Circuit Court, Chesterfield County, on September 1, 1984; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Richter has provided 12 years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss Mrs. Richter's diligent service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of Supervi- sors publicly recognizes Mrs. Richter and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appre- ciation for her service to the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mrs. Richter and that this resolution be perma- nently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel recognized Major Richter who was also present. presented Mrs. Richter with the framed resolution. He 6. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS Mr. Hedrick stated there were no hearings of citizens scheduled for this meeting. 7. DEFERRED ITEMS 7.A. PUBLIC WATER IN OMAHA, CARSWELL AND KINGSDALE ROAD Mr. Welchons stated the Board had authorized the Utilities Department to conduct a survey for Omaha, Carswell and Kingsdale Road area and he stated 10 of the 16 residents signed contracts to connect to public water. He stated the Health Department had also conducted a survey and found ~ive wells to show some contamination. He stated the cost to extend public water to this area is estimated to be $40,000 and the project is not included in the 6-year Capital Improvements Program; therefore if approved, funds planned for other improvements to the system will have to be temporarily allocated to this project. Mrs. Girone referred the Board to page 116 of the agenda, 9.I.l.d., Consideration of Establishing a Policy to Route All Requests for Water and/or Sewer for Existing Homes through the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Daniel stated that Consideration of Establishing a Policy to Route All Requests for Water and/or Sewer for Existing Homes through the Capital Improvements Program is a report and is not an agenda item for business. He stated the item before the Board is the request of the deferred item regarding the water for the Omaha, Carswell and Kingsdale Road area. 84-539 Mrs. Girone stated she is in favor of this proposal and mentioned her concerns regarding contaminated wells, the need for the County to service those areas, the funds in the water account and the legality of denying public water, etc. Mr. Daniel stated this item was deferred from the last meeting because Mr. Dodd was absent from the meeting. When asked, Mr. Welchons stated Mrs. Reed had not been counted as one of the 10 signing contracts since she owns a vacant lot. Mr. Dodd stated that Mrs. Reed would contract for public water which would qualify the project under criteria established. Mr. Applegate inquired if it is illegal to deny public water. Mr. Micas stated there exists absolutely no legal obligation for the County to extend public water or sewer to anyone whether the existing well or septic system does or does not work and there is no affirmative legal duty that requires County to extend service to suit a citizens' needs, it is a legislative decision that the Board makes. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the Board has a moral obligation to serve the citizens who have contaminated wells and the decision should not be based on an arbitrary formula. She stated there comes a point in time when people are ill, cannot use their wells, etc. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the Board agrees with this; however, there may arise some occasions where the County would not be able to serve a citizen due to an uneconomical situation when under any circumstances it would not be feasible to serve a citizen who has a contaminated well, some alternatives would have to be addressed as well as the funding mechanism. He stated he does not believe since he has been on the Board, a series of applicants in a group have been denied public water because they did not reach the arbitrary 70%; the Board has waivered on many occasions because of the circumstances to get public water to the citizens. He stated he feels the Board has acted very responsive and responsible by checking other information to help the Board make the proper decision whether or not the figure is obtained. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that the Board approve the installation of public water for the Omaha, Carswell and Kingsdale Road Area and appropriated $40,000 from 563 surplus to 380-1-64414-4393. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick indicated he was not aware of anyone being ill in the County because of a contaminated well but he stated he would check the County records and present the Board with a report. He indicated there are solutions to the problem other then just the extension of public water. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Hedrick stated there were no public hearings scheduled for this meeting. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9.A. REQUEST FROM CHRISTMAS MOTHER COMMITTEE Mr. Hodge stated that Mrs. Dorothy Armstrong, 1984 Christmas Mother for Chesterfield and Colonial Heights, was unexpectedly delayed. He introduced Rachel Holmes, Chairman of the Christmas Mother Program and Mrs. Beverly Dowdey, Christmas Coordinator, who were present. He stated the Board has supported this program for many years in the past and that it is impressive to see how 84-540 the volunteers in the community work along with staff and schools to make this program a success. He stated some County Departments often adopt children or families for Christmas. He stated $2,500 has been budgeted by the County for this program but the Committee is also requesting permission to approach the different County departments to ask for their support in sponsoring families or children this year. He stated all the beneficiaries of this program live in Chesterfield or Colonial Heights. Mr. Daniel stated he would like to thank the Christmas Mother Committee, all the members of the County staff and the public who have worked with this program over the years to help make Christ- mas an enjoyable time for those less fortunate. On motion of Mr. Apptegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved an appropriation of $2,500 to the Christmas Mother Program and supported the request of the Christmas Mother to solicit participation by County staff in this endeavor. Vote: Unanimous 9.B. AGREEMENT WITH THE VIRGINIA CENTER FOR PERFO~4ING ARTS Mr. Hodge stated $20,000 was budgeted for services with the Virginia Center for Performing Arts which would allow students, in the County schools in the fields of literature, music, the arts and the theatre programs, to attend a number of performances during the year. He stated the schools have worked with the Center to arrange a variety of programs that would be beneficial from instructional as well as cultural standpoints. He stated there is a lot of flexibility in the program and that all of the schools in the County would participate in this program. Mrs. Girone asked Mr. Hodge why the $20,000 was not in the school budget. Mr. Hodge stated that when the $20,000 for this program was originally budgeted this year staff was not sure if the program were to be a school program or a County program; however, after looking further into the program staff determined it was better to handle this program through the schools and next year it would probably be budgeted through the school program. Mr. Mayes asked if this should be a supplement for the school budget. Mr. Hodge stated technically this could be a transfer to the schools for this designated purpose. After further discussion, it was generally agreed that the County Administrator should execute a contract this year with the County schools handling the appropriation next year. On motion o~ Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board apprgved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a contract with the Virginia Center for Performing Arts for 1984-85 in the amount of $20,000. Vote: Unanimous It was generally agreed that this program be included in the school budget next year if the School Administration so desires as it is a school program. 9.C. AIRPORT RESTAURANT LEASE On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board ap- proved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a lease for an optioned five year period for the Airport Restaurant with JJC Corporation, a copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick complimented Mr. Hodge and Mr. Howell on negotiation of the lease. 84-541 9.E. APPOINTMENTS 9.E.1. LANDFILL COMMITTEE On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Cynthia Green was appointed to the Landfill Committee representing Midlothian District, whose term is effective immediately and will expire on March 13, 1986 which is the unexpired term of Ms. Melody Gray. Vote: Unanimous 9.E.2. MUSEUM COMMITTEE On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, Mr. Cary Adams was appointed to the Chesterfield County Museum Committee, whose term is effective immediately and is at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors. Vote: Unanimous 9.F. PART TIME POSITION FOR MUSEUM COMMITTEE Mr. Stith stated the Chesterfield County Museum, Inc. has re- quested a donation of $8,000 for a part time person to work at the museum and to organize and coordinate their volunteer efforts. Mr. Mayes stated the Chesterfield County Museum is becoming one of the County's finest assets and recommended approval of the request. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board appropriated $8,000 from the contingency fund to the Chesterfield County Museum, Inc. for the part time position. Mr. Applegate inquired how the museum operates, what the hours are, how many people visit the museum, what was the general plan when the museum was established and if the County contributes to its operation, etc. Mr. Hedrick stated the County built and maintains ownership of the museum, has contributed to a museum publication that is under way, and has made other contributions. Mr. Mayes stated right now the museum is under development having just completed one phase and he felt later the museum would be self-sustaining. Mr. Stith introduced Mr. J. Royall Robertson, member of the Chesterfield County Museum, Inc. He stated the museum has been an item of interest in the County for a long time, in 1974 the Museum Committee decided to build a museum and in 1980 the museum was opened during the bi-centennial. He stated many people visit the museum, and the hours of opening are Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday from 12 noon to 4 p.m. and Sunday 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. except for some holidays. He stated a slide presentation has been prepared on the history of Chesterfield County which can be viewed at the museum, and that an exhibition of an old time country store is being set up in the basement of the museum and there are many other things being completed and the dream of the museum is constantly being fulfilled. Mr. Hedrick stated the Board would be making a direct contribution to the Museum Committee and it could be considered on an annual basis at the Museum Committee,s request. Mr. Mayes stated he felt this should be based on need by the Committee. 84-542 Mr. Robertson stated the Museum Committee is now attempting to supply volunteers to the museum and the jail. Mrs. Girone inquired what part the County's Volunteer Coordinator plays in serving the museum and the jail. Mr. Hedrick stated Mrs. DeHart has talked with the Museum Commit- tee and offered assistance but the Museum Committee has operated that function themselves without the County being directly involved. Vote: Unanimous 9.G. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 9.G.1. CONTRACT FOR DATA PROCESSING BUILDING Mr. Zook stated the Selection Committee for the Data Processing building received seven (7) proposals. He stated the Committee recommended Torrence, Dreelin, Farthing and Buford as the firm to negotiate with for this project because their past experience is good and their present ability to meet County needs is best in consideration of the other firms. He stated part of the contract with this firm and the other firms will be an analysis of the site in terms of its suitability, and they will conduct an architectural program which is an interview process with the County's Department of Data Processing from which the building design evolves. He stated this program will also include a forecast of needs as well with a preliminary design for the site and the building which will allow for future expansion. Mr. Zook stated the contract is in the amount of $65,000 and there may be additional costs for survey, geo-technical engineering and design which would amount to $15,000. Mr. Hedrick reminded the Board that this item was for design only and staff is still working out the financial aspects of the arrangement and there are funds to pay for the design in the existing 1984-85 budget. Mr. Mayes stated he was interested in the forecast of needs and asked if the list is available. Mr. Zook stated the forecast of needs list has not been developed yet. He stated staff is anticipating looking at a 12,000 square foot building which should meet the needs of the department through 1989, this assessment is going to be verified by the architect as part of their scope of services, the architect will interview the people within the department to determine what is necessary, etc. He stated this information will be provided to the Design Committee. There was discussion regarding other space needs at the County. Mr. Daniel mentioned concern for the time limits and growth potential for the building. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized the County Administrator to enter into contract with Torrence, Dreelin, Farthing & Buford for the scope of services for design of the Data Processing building negotiated by staff at a cost not to exceed $65,000, plus up to $15,000 for additional services relative to land survey, printing and geo-technical survey and other design expenses and further transferred $208,600 from the undesignated capital projects account to the Data Processing building account. Vote: Unanimous 9.G.2. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS Mr. Dodd expressed concern that new poles are being installed where street lights have been requested, at the County's cost. 84-543 Mr. Daniel requested the County Administrator talk with representatives of Vepco to determine if there is any way to reduce the street light installation cost. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved the costs for street light installations at the following locations with funds to be expended from the District Street Light Funds as indicated: 1. Chester Station and Coastline Circle - $1,167 - Bermuda 2. Enon Church Road and Rivermont Road - $1,695 - Bermuda 3. Hybla Road and Melissa Mill Road - $1,782 - Clover Hill 4. 9504 Iredell - $704.00 - Midlothian Vote: Unanimous 9.G.3. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS Mr. Daniel requested staff evaluate alternate/appropriate sites since the street light request for 3704 Harvette Drive does not meet the criteria as many homeowners in this area signed the petition for a street light. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the installation of street lights at the following locations with funds to be expended from the District Street Light Funds as indicated: 1. Intersection of Kempwood Dr. and Sussex Drive, Clover Hill 2. Intersection of Able Road and Ghent Drive, Dale 3. Ferndale Avenue at Church Parking Lot, Matoaca 4. 2500 Arrowfield Road at entrance, Matoaca with any excess cost to be considered for payment by the reserve organization. 5. Between 3411 and 3413 Watson Street, Matoaca Vote: Unanimous 9.A. CHRISTMAS MOTHER PROGRAM Mr. Daniel suspended all rules governing the Board meeting and recognized Mrs. Dorothy Armstrong who has just arrived to speak about the Christmas Mother Program Committee. Mrs. Armstrong distributed letters concerning the Christmas Mother Program to the Board as well as a financial report of the Committee. She briefly outlined the history of the Christmas Committee and stated the goal of the Committee is to see that no child is without gifts on Christmas and that no family will be hungry on Christmas Day. She stated the Committee probably will have to meet the needs of about 3200 people this year and its budget is $29,000. She indicated that in 1983 the Committee met the needs of approximately 3200 people with $27,000 being donated. She emphasized the need for contributions to be forwarded early to the Committee. Mr. Daniel informed Mrs. Armstrong that the Board had already approved the $2,500 donation to the Christmas Mother Program and supported staff participation. Mrs. Armstrong expressed appreciation to the Board and other groups for their support of this program. 9.G.4. EXTENSION AT ROUTE 360 AND WALMSLEY BOULEVARD On motion of Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors is interested in the extension of the existing right turn lane on the eastbound lane of Rt. 360 at Walmsley Boulevard. 84-544 Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors appropriates $7,000.00 from the Clover Hill District 3¢ Road Fund for the extension of the right turn lane on the eastbound lane of Rt. 360 at Walmsley Boulevard. And further, be it resolved that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to extend the turn lane on an accounts receivable basis. Vote: Unanimous 9.G.5. RESTRICTING THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC ON KINGSDALE ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date of October 24, 1984 at 9:00 a.m. for a public hearing to consider the restriction of through truck traffic on Kingsdale Road (Route 1495). Vote: Unanimous 9.G.6. FUNDING OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN Mr. Balderson stated that earlier this year the Board approved a strategy for completing the update of the County's Comprehensive Plan for Land Use and Transportation and commensurate with this strategy was the proposal for hiring a consultant for transporta- tion planning which cost is estimated at $30,000 with a final completion date of September, 1985. Mr. Daniel asked if the funding of this project is to be taken from the general fund balance. He requested the County Administrator to keep the Board abreast of the general fund balance, including all contingent liabilities and how it is monitored against the target for the year end fund balance. He inquired what the absolute minimum year end fund balance is for 1985. Mr. Hedrick stated that the bottom line number that staff has been working with in the general fund balance is around $5,000,000±. Mr. Daniel stated it appears this figure was quickly being reached. Mr. Mayes inquired if all of Matoaca District were included in the southern area. Mr. Balderson stated the areas were not divided by magisterial districts but by geographical boundaries. He stated some of Matoaca District is in the western area with the majority being in the southern area. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized the County Administrator to enter into contract(s) for transportation consulting services required to complete the revision of the Chesterfield Plan for Land Use and Transportation amendment and appropriated $30,000 from the General Fund-Fund Balance. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick indicated staff had approached the Board about adding several hundred thousand dollars to the contingency account. He stated Board had opted not to do this as a self-discipline action. He stated secondedly, hopefully, staff will not be coming to Board for additional expenditures from the fund balance as he felt most items had been anticipated. He stated if Board members think they are going to have upcoming projects, they need 84-545 to put money into the contingency account as opposed to taking funds from the fund balance. 9.G.7. PROCEEDINGS OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 9.G.7.a. CARBONIC INDUSTRIES CORPORATION There was some discussion regarding the limit of Industrial Development bonds and Mr. Woodall explained the effect of these resolutions and action by the Industrial Development Authority. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority), has considered the application of Carbonic Industries Corporation (the Company) for the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, construction and equip- ping of a carbon dioxide liquefaction plant facility (the Proj- ect) to be located at 1201 Bellwood Road, in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on September 19, 1984; and WHEREAS, The Authority has requested the Board of Supervi- sors (the Board) of the County of Chesterfield (the County), to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section 103 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code); and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with respect to the Project have been filed with the Board; and BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, for the benefit of the Company, to the extend required by Section 103 (k), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 104 (k), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefore, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. The Bonds shall not be issued unless they shall have received an allocation of the State Ceiling (as defined) in Executive Order Number 50 of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, dated August 1, 1984, and nothing in this resolution shall be construed as any assurance that such allocation will be available or, if available, will be made. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous 9.G.7.b. ALVIN WILSON HODGES Mrs. Girone mentioned concern for the disposal of the ink from 84-546 this plant and if the County considers this in its approval process. Mr. Woodall explained the review process and indicated it was considered but there was little waste in this operation. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Authority"), has been empowered by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, to act as an Industrial Development Authority on behalf of the County of Chesterfield, as provided in Section 15.1-1378 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended; and WHEREAS, the Authority has considered the application of Alvin Wilson Hodges requesting the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000.00 (the "Bonds") to assist in the acquisition, con- struction and equipping of an ink manufacturing facility (the "Project"), located in the southwest quadrant formed by the intersection of Walmsley Boulevard and Seaboard Railroad Line in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearinq thereon on September 19, 1984; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution recommending the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing, and a Fiscal Impact Statement are attached to the draft of this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. The Board of Supervisors approves the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000.00 by the Authority for the benefit of Alvin Wilson Hodges for lease to J. M. Fry Company and Southern Printing Ink Corp., as required by Section 103 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or Alvin Wilson Hodges, J. M. Fry Company or Southern Printing Ink Corp. Further, neither the Commonwealth, nor the County of Chesterfield, nor the Author- ity shall be obligated to pay the bond principal or the interest thereon or other costs incident to issuance except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth nor the County of Chesterfield is pledged to the payment of the principal of such bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto. 3. The Bonds will not be issued unless the Company receives an allocation from the State ceiling, and nothing in this resolu- tion shall be construed as any assurance that such allocation will be available, or, if available, will be made. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel disclosed to the Board that he is an employee of Philip Morris which company is involved in the next item. He stated a letter is on record in the Commonwealth Attorney's Office and in the County Administrator,s Office written to his Vice President which says that in no way can he participate in the decision making process relating to the financial issues of the project. He declared a conflict of interest and excused himself from the meeting pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act. 84-547 9.G.7.c. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED Mr. Woodall stated this approval is for pollution control devices for two plants. There was some discussion of the equipment and its applicability to the public sector as well as the inclusion of this equipment in the State limit. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority), has considered the application of Philip Morris Incorporated (the Company) for the refunding of the Authority's $5,500,000 Pollution Control Revenue Bonds (Philip Morris Incorporated Project), Series of 1975 (the Pol- lution Control Bonds) issued to finance, in part, the cost of acquiring, constructing and installing certain air and water pollution control and solid waste and sewage disposal facilities (the Pollution Control Project) at the Company's manufacturing plants located at 3601 Commerce Road, in the City of Richmond, Virginia and at 4100 Bermuda Hundred Road in Chester, Chesterfield County, Virginia (the County) and has held a public hearing thereon on August 28, 1984; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Supervi- sors (the Board) of the County, to approve the issuance of the refunding of the Pollution Control Bonds to comply with Section 103 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code) and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Act; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the refunding of the Pollution Control Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a record of the public hearing and "fiscal impact statements" with respect to the Project have been filed with the Board; and BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, approves the issuance of the refunding of the Pollution Control Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, for the benefit of the Company, to the extent required by Section 103 (k), to permit the Authority to assist in the refinancing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the refunding of the Pollution Control Bonds, as required by Section 103 (k), does not constitute an endorsement of the refunding of the Pollution Control Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the refunding of the Pollution Control Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the refunding of the Pollution Control Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Dodd. Absent: Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting. 9.G.7.d. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County 84-548 of Chesterfield (the "Authority") has considered the request of Virginia Electric and Power Company (the "Company") for the approval of a plan of financing with respect to certain air and water pollution control facilities and sewage and solid waste disposal facilities (collectively, the "Facilities") located at the Company's Chesterfield Power Station in Chesterfield County, Virginia, the Company's Bremo Power Station in Fluvanna County, Virginia, the Company's Yorktown Power Station in York County, Virginia and the Company's Chesapeake Energy Center located in the City of Chesapeake, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on August 28, 1984; and WHEREAS, Section 103 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the "Code"), provides that the governmental units having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial develop- ment bonds and over the area in which any facility financed out of the proceeds of industrial development bonds shall approve the issuance of such bonds; and WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of Chesterfield County, Virginia (the "County"), a portion of the facilities are to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board") constitutes the elected legislative body of the County; and WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the plan of financing for the Facilities; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the plan of financing, a record of the public hearing with respect thereto and a copy of the fiscal impact statement with respect to such plan of financing have been filed with the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, as follows: 1. The Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, approves the plan of financing of the Facilities by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield to the extent required by Section 103 (k) of the Code and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. 2. The approval of the plan of financing of the Facilities as required by Section 103 (k) of the Code does not constitute an endorsement to any prospective purchaser of the obligations issued pursuant to such plan of financing of the creditworthiness of the Facilities or the Company, but, as required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the bonds, notes or obligations of the Authority shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay such obligations or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Common- wealth of Virginia, the County or the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. The maximum aggregate face amount of obligations out- standing at any one time to be issued by the Authority with respect to the Facilities is $60,000,000. The initial owner and operator of the Facilities is Virginia Electric and Power Compa- ny, One James River Plaza, Richmond, Virginia. The Facilities will be located at or adjacent to the respective Power Station which they will serve. The Chesterfield Power Station is located at the end of State Route 615 in Chester, Virginia. The Bremo Power Station is located on State Route 656, Bremo Bluff, Virginia. The Yorktown Power Station is located at 338 Waterview Road, York County, Virginia and the Chesapeake Energy Center is located at 2701 Vepco Street, Chesapeake, Virginia. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous 84-549 There was some discussion held regarding the facilities proposed by the companies and its possible application to County government as well as the allocation of funds to localities. Mr. Daniel reviewed the action taken by the Board with regard to Industrial Development Bonds at the September 12, 1984 meeting. 9.G.7.e. MIDLOTHIAN ASSOCIATES On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority"), has considered the application of Midlothian Associates (the "Company") requesting the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $9,500,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, construction and equip- ping of a hotel facility consisting of approximately 130,000 square feet (the "Project") to be located on the Martin Tract, 700 feet west of Johnston-Willis Hospital, on the north side of Route 60, in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on August 28, 1984; and WHEREAS, Section 103 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of industrial development bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds; and WHEREAS, the Authority issues it bonds on behalf of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"); the Project is to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County; and WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, a copy of the AuthoritY's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing, and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF Chesterfield, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Company, as required by Section 103 (k) and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Virginia Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Company. 3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations Section 5f.103-2 (f) (1), this Resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption. 4. The Bonds shall not be issued unless they shall have received an allocation of the State Ceiling (as defined in Executive Order Number 50 of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, dated August 1, 1984), and nothing in this resolution shall be construed as any assurance that such allocation will be available or, if available, will be made. 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous 84-550 9.G.7.f. SAN-J INTERNATIONAL, INC. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority"), has considered the application of San-J International, Inc. (the "Company") requesting the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, construction and equipping of a food manufacturing facility consisting of approxi- mately 44,000 square feet (the "Project") to be located approxi- mately one quarter of a mile north of the City of Colonial Heights, Virginia on the west side of U.S. Highway 1, in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on August 28, 1984; and WHEREAS, Section 103 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of industrial development bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds; and WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"); the Project is to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County; and WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing, and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Company, as required by Section 103 (k) and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Virginia Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Company. 3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income tax Regulations Section 5f.103-2 (f) (1), this Resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption. 4. The Bonds shall not be issued unless they shall have received an allocation of the State Ceiling (as defined in Executive Order Number 50 of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, dated August 1, 1984), and nothing in this resolution shall be construed as any assurance that such allocation will be available or, if available, will be made. 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous 9.G.7.~. JERRY L. WAUFORD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: 84-551 WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority o~ the County of Chesterfield (the Authority), has considered the application of Jerry L. Wauford (the Applicant) to be leased to Pre Con, Inc. (the Company) for the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,250,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the financing of the Applicant's acqui- sition, construction and equipping of a manufacturing facility (the Project) to be located at 13600-13850 Jefferson Davis Highway, Bermuda District, in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on August 28, 1984; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Supervi- sors (the Board) of the County of Chesterfield (the County), to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section 103 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code); and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with respect to the Project have been filed with the Board; and BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, for the benefit of the Applicant, to the extent required by Section 103 (k), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 103 (k), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Applicant, but, as required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. The Bonds shall not be issued unless they shall have received an allocation of the State Ceiling (as defined) in Executive Order Number 50 of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, dated August 1, 198418, and nothing in this resolution shall be construed as any assurance that such allocation will be available or, if available, will be made. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous 9.H. POWHITE BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES BID ACCEPTANCE Mr. Daniel stated the information for this item is not available as yet and indicated the Board would pass on this item temporarily until the bids are received. 9.I. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 9.I.1. REPORTS 9.I.l.a. WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL REPORTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with the water and sewer finan- cial reports. 84-552 .I.l.b. DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS {r. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water Lnd sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. ).I.l.c. TESTING OF WELLS AND SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION r. Welchons presented the Board with a report on the testing of Lndividual wells and the source of contamination. .I.l.d. ROUTE REQUEST FOR WATER/SEWER THROUGH C.I.P. 4r. Welchons presented the Board with a policy to route all requests for water and/or sewer for existing homes through the ~apital Improvements Program. Dn motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board ~ccepted the reports as presented. Note: Unanimous ~r. Daniel requested the Board review all reports and projects ~nd relate any changes, concerns, etc. to the County Administrator. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the Board should meet Lnd decide when we will deal with these issues. ).I.3. WATER AND SEWER ITEMS 9.I.3.a. ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT FOR SEWER SERVICE FOR RT 1 AREA 9n motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved an addendum to the Agreement, dated August 19, 1969, between the ~ounty and the City of Colonial Heights which provides sewer service for the Route 1 area and transfers ownership of a portion of the system to the City. ;ote: Unanimous .I.3.b. WATER EXTENSION TO SAMBAR ROAD Dn motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the extension of public water to the residents of Sambar Road and ~uthorized the design and construction of the project with $6,000 ~eing appropriated from 563 surplus to 380-1-64464-4393. ~here was some discussion regarding the costs, the policy of ~xtending water, subdivisions being approved without public water and sewer, the difference between the districts, the drilling of ~eep wells versus shallow wells, etc. Vote: Unanimous 9.I.3.c. WATER EXTENSION TO IRVENWAY LANE 9n motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board au- thorized the Utilities Department to survey the Irvenway Lane ~rea to determine the number of residents that will sign a ~ontract to connect to public water if it were made available. ~r. Hedrick reviewed the rationale for the policy of having 70% ~f residents in an area agree to connect to public water. He stated the Board might want to consider a policy requiring people to connect and take advantage of an extension. Mr. Daniel suggested this be included in the list of matters to be ~onsidered. Vote: Unanimous 84-553 9.I.3.d. WATER EXTENSION TO MYRON AVENUE On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board au- thorized the Utilities Department to survey the Myron Avenue area to determine the number of residents that will sign a contract to connect to public water if it were made available. Vote: Unanimous 9.I.3.e. REQUEST TO EXTEND PUBLIC WATER ON PARKWAY LANE It was generally agreed that this item be de~erred until an opinion could be obtained from the County Attorney as to whether the residents of Parkway Lane could qualify for the $500 connection fee if the Board approved the extension of public water for the Parkway Lane area today but did not install the lines until later. 9.I.3.f. SEWER SURVEY RESULTS IN JIMMY WINTERS ROAD AREA On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board authorized the Utilities Department to proceed with the installation of public sewer in the Jimmy Winters Road area. Vote: Unanimous 9.I.3.g. SEWER EXTENSION TO NORTH LAKE HILLS AREA On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board authorized the Utilities Department to survey the North Lake Hills area to determine the number of residents that will sign contracts to connect to public sewer if it were made available. Vote: Unanimous 9.I.3.h. SEWER EXTENSION TO ENGLEWOOD AREA On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred consideration of the extension of sewer to the Englewood area until October 24, 1984 when additional information is received. Vote: Unanimous 9.I.4. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS 9.I.4.a. CONDEMNATION ACROSS PROPERTY OF ROBERT & BLANCHE BURKS On motion o~ Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board au- thorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceed- ings against the following property owners if the amount as set opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owners by certified mail on September 27, 1984 of the intention of the County to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. An emergency existing, this resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon passage pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia. Robert E. Burks & Blanche May Burks 533 South Courthouse Rd. $1,230.00 Vote: Unanimous 84-554 9.I.4.b. CONDEMNATION ACROSS PROPERTY OF CONSOLIDATED SALES CO. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceed- ings against the following property owner if the amount as set opposite its name is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owner by certified mail on September 27, 1984 of the intention of the County to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. An emergency existing, this resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon passage pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia. Consolidated Sales Company, Inc. Robious Road $5,326.00 Vote: Unanimous 9.I.4.d. AGREEMENT WITH BALDWIN CONTRACTORS, INC. Mr. Welchons introduced Mr. Ken Alexander from Baldwin Contractors, Inc. who was present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an agreement with Baldwin Contractors, Inc. for the use of County property located in the City of Richmond at the intersection of Walmsley Boulevard and Mark Road for a temporary road detour. Vote: Unanimous 9.I.4.e. COUNTEROFFER FROM ROY T. AND VIRGINIA FUQUA On motion o~ Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board accepted the counteroffer of $2,200.00 from Roy T. and Virginia H. Fuqua for an easement for a water line and sewer force main across their property at 14100 Hull Street Road to serve the Woodlake Development which funds will be reimbursed by Investors Woodlake Associates. Vote: Unanimous 9.I.5. CONSENT ITEMS 9.I.5.a. SEWER CONTRACT FOR MIDLOTHIAN VILLAGE On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board ap- proved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer contract: Number of Connections: Total Construction Cost: Estimated County Cost: S84-139CD/7(8)4395, Midlothian Village Developer: Fi-Tech, Inc. ContraCtor: Best Backhoe & Excavating Co., Inc. 2 $40,606.45 31,582.57 (Refunds from connection fees for off-site sewers) Code: 574-1-00556-0000 Vote: Unanimous 9.I.5.b. SEWER CONTRACT FOR ASHLEY VILLAGE, PHASE On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board ap- proved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer contract: 84-555 S84-143CD/7(8)4435, Ashley Village - Phase I Developer: Rolling Hills Development Corporation Contractor: Piedmont Construction Co., Inc. Number of Connections: Total Construction Cost: Estimated County Cost: Code: 574-1-00556-0000 50 $40,327.00 4,707.05 (Refunds from sewer connection fees for off-site sewers) Vote: Unanimous 9.I.5.c. SEWER CONTRACT FOR SPIREA SUBDIVISION On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board ap- proved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer contract: S83-78CD/7(8)3782, Spirea Subdivision Developer: Charles H. Vette Contractor: J. Steven Chafin, Inc. Number of Connections: 6 Total Estimated Project Cost: $23,245.00 Estimated County Cost: 8,405.05 Code: 574-1-00556-0000 (Refunds through sewer connection fees) Vote: Unanimous 9.I.5.d. SEWER CONTRACT FOR LAPETITE ACADEMY ROBIOUS ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board ap- proved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer contract: S83-18CD/7(8)3182, LaPetite Academy - Robious Road Developer: George W. Farley Contractor: Piedmont Construction Co., Inc. Number of Connections: Total Construction Cost: Estimated County Cost: Code: 574-1-00556-0000 1 $19,736.00 19,671.25 (Refunds from sewer connection fees for off-site sewers) Vote: Unanimous 9.I.5.e. WATER CONTRACT FOR SMOKETREE OFF-SITE WATER LINES On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board ap- proved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for Patterson Excavating Co. in the amount of $74,480.62 based on 16" Class 51 Ductile Iron Pipe for W83-46B/6(8)3467, construction of a 16" transmission line from Briarcliff Subdivision to connect with the existing 16" water line at Smoketree Drive and Courthouse Road and further the Board appropriated $92,000.00 from 567 Bond Surplus to 380-1-63467-4393 which includes a 10% contingency and three (3) 16 inch gate valves to be furnished by County. Vote: Unanimous 9.I.5.g. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED ALONG SOUTH LINE OF TOTTY STREET On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board ap- Iproved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed accepting, on behalf of the County, a 5' strip of land along the south line of Totty Street from Walter L. Cross and Celestine D. Hicks. Vote: Unanimous 84-556 9.I.5.h. DEEDS ON KNIGHTBRIDGE ROAD AND NORTH ARCH ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board ap- proved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed accepting, on behalf of the County, a 5' strip of land along Knightbridge Road and a 20' strip of land along North Arch Road from Archway 60 Associates. Vote: Unanimous 9.I.3.e. REQUEST TO EXTEND PUBLIC WATER ON PARKWAY LANE On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board authorized the Utilities Department to survey the Parkway Lane area for the extension of public water to determine how many residents will connect if it were made available with contracts to be sent to the citizens to connect to the County system under the current rate ($500) with contracts containing a provision stating that the connection contract between the citizen and County will be void unless the Board of Supervisors reauthorizes the construction of the project by either the County or a developer no later than December 31, 1984. Vote: Unanimous 9.J. REPORTS Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a report on the State Road Acceptance/Abandonment, a report on Waste Disposal, a report on the Contingency Fund and a report on After School/Play Care Program. Mr. Hedrick stated the report on Waste Disposal is comprehensive in nature and suggested the Board take this report under advisement and give staff some direction at the next Board meeting. Mr. Daniel stated the Board will receive all reports under advisement. It was generally agreed the Board should discuss this prior to action being taken. 9.K. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters and to consult with legal counsel relating to an administrative investigation of police conduct as permitted by Sections 2.1-344 (a) (1) and (6), respectively, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: 9.G. ACCEPTANCE OF BID FOR POWHITE BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES Mr. Hodge apologized for interrupting the Executive Session. He stated staff has received bids submitted by six financial organizations for extension of Powhite Parkway with the low true interest rate of 7.250366%, submitted by First National of Chicago, Southeast National Bank and Davenport and Company of Virginia. He stated there was a number of local investors in the groups submitting bids. He stated Wheat First Securities, financial advisors for the County, have recommended the County accept this bid. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF $22,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES, SERIES OF 1984, OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA; FIXING THE INTEREST RATE TO BE BORNE 84-557 BY SUCH NOTES AND OTHERWISE APPROVING THE DETAILS OF SUCH NOTES; APPROVING THE FORM OF SUCH NOTES; APPROVING THE FORM OF AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND THE DISTRIBUTION THEREOF; RATIFYING CERTAIN ACTS AND PROCEEDINGS; AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH NOTES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: SECTION 1. Findings and Determinations. Pursuant to a resolution adopted by this Board on August 8, 1984, entitled "A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF $22,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST OF HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXTENSION OF THE POWHITE PARKWAY AND IMPROVE- MENTS TO CONNECTING PORTIONS OF ROUTE 288; AND AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF A LIKE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES IN ANTICIPA- TION OF THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SUCH BONDS", a Notice of Sale (the "Notice of Sale") of $22,000,000 principal amount of General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes, Series 1984 (the "Notes"), was duly published on September 14, 1984 in The Bond Buyer, a financial newspaper published in the City of New York, New York. The Notice of Sale provided that sealed proposals for the purchase of the Notes would be received by or on behalf of Chesterfield County, Virginia (the "County") at the office of the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Virginia, James Monroe Building, 101 North 14th Street, 3rd Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219, until 11:00 A.M., local time, on September 26, 1984, at which time and place all proposals would be publicly opened. Pursuant to the Notice of Sale, 6 proposals for the purchase of the Notes were received, each accompanied by a certified or bank trea- surer's or cashier's good faith check payable to the order of Chesterfield County in the amount of $440,000. The names of the bidders submitting each such proposal, the purchase price for the Notes specified in each such proposal and the "True" or "Cana- dian'' interest cost to the County resulting from each such proposal are as follows: NAME OF BIDDER First National Bank of Chicago Southeast National Bank Davenport & Company of Virginia Morgan Stanley & Company and Associates 3. The Northern Trust Co. The Chase Manhattan Bank N. A. Se Citicorp Capital Markets Group Morgan Guaranty Trust Company Solomon Brothers, Inc. PURCHASE PRICE INTEREST SPECIFIED COST $22,025,300 $22,001,320 $22,000,000 $22,007,920 7.250366% 7.6233 % 7.70166% 7.7317 % $22,004,840 7.986 % $22,015,620 8.0622 % After due consideration of all such proposals, this Board finds that (a) First National Bank of Chicago, Southeast National Bank, Davenport & Company of Virginia (the "Purchaser") is a 84-558 responsible bidder, (b) of the proposals received, the proposal of the PUrchase (the "Proposal") is the proposal to purchase the NOtes at the lowest "True" or "Canadian" interest cost to the County, computed by doubling the semiannual interest rate (co- mpounded semiannually) necessary to discount the debt service payments from their respective payment dates to the date of the Notes and to the price bid, not including interest accrued, if any, to the date of delivery, and (c) the proposal is the highest and best proposal received, is in accordance with the provisions of the Notice of Sale, and should be accepted. SECTION 2. Acceptance of Proposal. The Proposal, being a proposal to purchase the Notes at the price of twenty-two million twenty five thousand three hundred dollars and 00/100 ($22,025,300) plus accrued interest from the date of the Notes to the date of delivery thereof to and payment therefor by the Purchaser, with the Notes to bear interest at the rate per annum specified in Section 4 hereof, is hereby accepted and the Notes are hereby awarded to the Purchaser. SECTION 3. Good Faith Checks. The good faith checks of the unsuccessful bidders shall be returned forthwith. The good faith check of the Purchaser will be deposited by the County and the proceeds thereof credited against the purchase price due for the Notes upon their delivery or retained as and for liquidated damages in the event the Purchaser fails to take up and pay for the Notes in accordance with the Proposal. SECTION 4. Details of the Notes. The Notes shall be dated as of October 9, 1984; shall be in fully registered form; shall be in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof; shall bear interest from their date at the rate of seven and three hundred seventy five/thousandths per centum (7.375%) per annum, payable on April 1, 1985 and semiannually on each October 1 and April 1 thereafter; and shall mature and become due and payable on October t, 1986. Central Fidelity Bank at its principal office in the City of Richmond, Virginia, is hereby appointed Registrar for the Notes (the "Registrar"). The principal of, and premium, if any, on the Notes shall be payable at the principal office of the Registrar. Interest on the Notes shall be payable by check of draft mailed by the Registrar to the registered owners of the Notes (hereinafter the "Registered Owner or Owners") at their respective addresses as such addresses appear on the books of registry kept by the Regis- trar as of the fifteenth day of the calendar month next preceding each interest payment date. The Notes shall not be subject to redemption prior to October 1, 1985. The Notes shall be subject to redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturity at any time on or after October 1, 1985, in whole at any time, or in part from time to time on any interest payment date, upon payment of the principal amount of the Notes or the principal amount thereof to be redeemed, together with the interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption, plus a premium of 1/2 of 1% of the principal amount of the Notes or the principal amount thereof to be redeemed if the same are redeemed on or after October 1, 1985 and prior to April 1, 1986. The Notes are subject to redemption at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof on or after April 1, 1986. In the event less than all of the Notes are called for redemption, the particular Notes or portions thereof in installments of $5,000 to be redeemed shall be selected by the Registrar by lot. If any Note or any portion of the principal amount thereof shall be called for redemption, notice of the redemption thereof, specifying the date and number of such Note, the date and place or places fixed for its redemption, the premium, if any, payable upon such redemption, and if less than the entire principal 84-559 amount of such Note is to be redeemed, that such Note must be surrendered in exchange for the principal amount thereof to be redeemed and the issuance of a new Note equalling in principal amount that portion of the principal amount thereof not redeemed, shall be mailed not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption by registered or certified mail to the Registered Owner of such Notes at his address as it appears on the books of registry maintained by the Registrar. When notice of redemption of a Note (or the portion thereof to be redeemed) shall have been given as aforesaid, and payment of the principal amount of such Note (or the portion of the principal amount thereof to be redeemed) and of the accrued interest and premium, if any, payable upon such redemption shall have been duly made or provided for, interest thereon shall cease from and after the date so specified for the redemption thereof. Upon payment of the costs of any transfer taxes or other governmental charges relating thereto, if any, any Note may be exchanged at the principal office of the Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount ot Notes of other authorized principal amounts and of the series of which such Note is one. Any Note is transferable by the Registered Owner thereof, in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, at the principal office of the Registrar but only upon payments of the costs of any transfer taxes or other governmental charges relating thereto, if any, and upon the surrender thereof for cancellation. Upon such transfer a new Note or Notes of authorized denominations and of the same aggregate principal amount of the series of such Notes is one will be issued to the transferee in exchange therefor. The Note shall be executed, for an on behalf of the County, by the facsimile signature of the Chairman of this Board, and shall have a facsimile of the corporate seal of this Board imprinted thereon, attested by the facsimile signature of the Clerk of this Board. The County Administrator shall direct the Registrar to authenticate such Notes and no such Note shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose unless and until the certificate of authentication endorsed on such Note shall have been manually executed by an authorized officer of the Registrar. Upon the authentication of any Note the Registrar shall insert in the certificate of authentication the date as of which such Note is authenticated, such date to be the date upon which such Note is actually authenticated if the date of such actual authentication is an interest payment date or to be the interest payment date next preceding the date upon which the Note is actually authen- ticated if such Note is not actually authenticated upon an interest payment date or to be the date of the Notes if such Note is actually authenticated prior to the first date upon which interest is payable upon the Notes. The execution and authentication of the Notes in the manner above set forth is adopted as a due and sufficient authentication of the Notes. A CUSIP identification number may be printed on the Notes, but no such number shall constitute a part of any Note or a part of the contract evidenced by the particular Notes upon which it is printed and no liability shall attach to the County or any officer or agent thereof (including the Registrar or any paying agent for the Notes) because of or on account of any such number or any use made thereof (including any use thereof made by the County, any such officer or any such Registrar or agent) or by reason of any inaccuracy, error or omission with respect thereto or in such use. All expenses in relation to the printing of such numbers on the Notes shall be paid by the County; provided, however, the CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of such numbers shall be the responsibility of and shall be paid for by the purchaser of the Notes. 84-560 SECTION 5. Form of Notes. The Notes shall be in substan- tially the form set forth below: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE SERIES OF 1984 REGISTERED CUSIP NO. REGISTERED No. R- $ REGISTERED OWNER: PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: Chesterfield County (hereinafter referred to as the "Cou- nty''), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, for value received, hereby promises to pay to the registered owner of this Note shown above (the "Registered Owner"), or registered assigns, on October 1, 1986, the principal amount shown above (unless this Note shall have been duly called for previous redemption and payment of the redemption price shall have been made or provided for), upon presentation and surrender of this Note at the principal office of Central Fidelity Bank in the City of Richmond, Virginia (hereinafter referred to as the "Registrar") and to pay interest on such principal amount from the date of authentication hereof at the rate of seven and three hundred seventy five/thousenths per centum (7.375%) per annum, such interest being payable on April 1, 1985 and semiannually on each October 1 and April 1 thereafter until the payment of such principal amount, by check or draft mailed by the Registrar to the person in whose name this Note is registered on the books of registry kept and maintained by the Registrar as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the calendar month next preced- ing each interest payment date. Both principal of and interest on this Note are payable in such coin or currency of the United States of America as at the respective dates of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. This Note is one of a duly authorized issue of Notes (herein referred to as the "Notes") of the aggregate principal amount of Twenty-Two Million Dollars ($22,000,000) of like date, denomina- tion and tenor herewith, except for number, and is issued for the purpose of financing the costs of a public improvement project of and for the County, under and pursuant to and in full compliance with the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including Chapter 5 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the same being the Public Finance Act), an election duly held in the County under such Chapter 5 on June 12, 1984 and resolutions duly adopted on August 8, 1984 and September 26, 1984, by the Board of Supervisors of the County under such Chapter 5. The full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevo- cably pledged to the payment of the principal of and interest on this Note as the same become due. The Notes of the series of which this Note is one are subject to redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturity at any time on or after October 1, 1985, in whole at any time, or in part from time to time on any interest payment date, upon payment of the principal amount of the Notes or the principal amount thereof to be redeemed, together with the interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption, plus a 84-561 premium of 1/2 of 1% of the principal amount of the Notes or the principal amount thereof to be redeemed if the same are redeemed on or after October 1, 1985 and prior to April 1, 1986. The Notes are subject to redemption at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof on or after April 1, 1986. In the event less than all of the Notes are called for redemp- tion, the particular Notes or portions thereof in installments of $5,000 to be redeemed shall be selected by the Registrar by lot. If this Note or any portion of the principal amount hereof shall be called for redemption, notice of the redemption hereof, specifying the date and number of this Note, the date and place or places fixed for its redemption, the premium, if any, payable upon such redemption, and if less than the entire principal amount of this Note is to be redeemed, that this Note must be surrendered in exchange for the principal amount hereof to be redeemed and the issuance of a new Note equalling in principal amount that portion of the principal amount hereof not redeemed, shall be mailed not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption by registered or certified mail to the Registered Owner of this Note at his address as it appears on the books of registry maintained by the Registrar. When notice of redemption of this Note (or the portion hereof to be redeemed) shall have been given as aforesaid, and payment of the principal amount of this Note (or the portion of the principal amount hereof to be redeemed) and of the accrued interest and premium, if any, payable upon such redemption shall have been duly made or provided for, interest hereon shall cease from and after the date so specified for the redemption hereof. Subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges, if any, provided in the proceedings authorizing the Notes of the series of which this Note is one, this Note may be exchanged at the principal office of the Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of Notes of other authorized principal amounts and of the series of which this Note is one. This Note is transferable by the Registered Owner hereof, in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, at the principal office of the Registrar but only in the manner, subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges, if any, provided in the proceed- ings authorizing the Notes of the series of which this Note is one, and upon the surrender hereof for cancellation. Upon such transfer a new Note or Notes of authorized denominations and of the same aggregate principal amount of the Series of which this Note is one will be issued to the transferee in exchange herefor. This Note shall not be valid or obligatory unless the certificate of authentication hereon shall have been manually signed by an authorized officer of the Registrar. It is hereby certified, recited and declared that all acts, conditions and things required to have happened, to exist and to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Note and the issue of which it is a part do exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and due time, form and manner as required by law, and that the Notes of the issue of which this Note is a part do not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County, by its Board of Supervisors, has caused this Note to be executed by the facsimile signature of the Chairman of such Board; and facsimile of the corporate seal of such Board to be imprinted hereon, attested by the facsimile signature of the Clerk of such Board; and this Note to be dated as of October 9, 1984. (SEAL) 84-562 Attest: Clerk of the Board of Chairman of the Board Supervisors Supervisors CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Note is one of the Notes delivered pursuant to the within-mentioned proceedings. , Registrar By: Authorized Officer Dated: ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the within-mentioned Note of Chesterfield County, Virginia, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints , Agent, to transfer the same on the books of registry in the office o~ the Registrar, with full power of substitution in the premises. Date: Registered Owner Witness: Signature Guarantee: NOTE: The signature of this assignment must correspond with the name as written on the face of the within Note in every particular, without alteration, enlargement or any change whatsoever. SECTION 6. Execution and Delivery of the Notes. The Chairman and Clerk of this Board, the County Administrator, the County Treasurer and other appropriate officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to take all such action and to execute such instruments as shall be deemed by them to be necessary or appropriate to effect the printing, execution and issuance of the Notes and the delivery of the Notes to the Purchaser in accordance with the terms of the Proposal, the Notice of Sale, the resolution referred to in Section 1 hereof and this resolution upon receipt of the purchase price therefor as set forth in Section 3 hereof, and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of such sale. SECTION 7. Preliminary Official Statement; Official State- ment; Certification Concerning Official Statement. The Chairman of this Board and County Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the Purchaser copies of an Official Statement of the County relating to the Notes, in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement of the County relating to the Notes, dated September 14, 1984 (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), presented at this meeting, after the same has been completed by the insertion of the inter- est rate to be borne by the Notes and by making such other insertions, changes or corrections as the County Administrator, 84-563 based on the advice of the County's financial advisors and legal counsel deems necessary or appropriate; and this Board hereby authorizes such Official Statement and the information contained therein to be used by the Purchaser in connection with the sale of Notes. The County Administrator and the Director of Budget and Accounting of the County are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the County and deliver to the Purchaser the certificate referred to in the Official Statement under the caption "Certificate Concerning Official Statement". SECTION 8. Ratification. The action of the County Adminis- trator in causing the ~Notice of Sale to be published as described in Section 1 hereof, and in causing the Notice of Sale, a Pro- posal for Purchase of $22,000,000 General Obligation Bond An- ticipation Notes, Series of 1984, and the Preliminary Official Statement to be distributed, and the form and contents of the Notice of Sale, such Proposal and the Preliminary Official Statement, and all actions and proceedings heretofore taken by this Board, the County Administrator and the other officers, employees, agents and attorneys of the County in connection with the authorization, issuance and sale of the Notes, are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved. SECTION 9. Filing of This Resolution. The County Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of this resolu- tion, certified by the Clerk of this Board to be a true and correct copy hereof, with the Circuit Court of the County. SECTION 10. Invalidity of Sections, Paragraphs, Clauses or Provisions. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this resolution shall be held invalid or unenforceable for any reason , the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 11o Headings of Sections. The headings of the sections of this resolution shall be solely for convenience of reference and shall not affect the meaning, construction, inter- pretation or effect of such sections or of this resolution. SECTION 12. Effective Date. effect upon its adoption. This resolution shall take The Board being polled, the vote was as follows: Mr. Applegate: Aye. Mr. Daniel: Aye. Mr. Dodd: Aye. Mrs. Girone: Aye. Mr. Mayes: Aye. Mr. Daniel stated the Board motion has been approved on a roll call vote to accept the lowest bid for the Powhite Extension from First National Bank of Chicago, et al, for 7.250366%, true interest rate for the full $22,000,000 issue for two (2) years. 9.K. Executive Session It was generally agreed the Board would return to Executive Session to discuss personnel matters and to consult with legal counsel relating to an administrative investigation of police conduct as permitted by Sections 2.1-344 (a) (1) and (6), respectively, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Reconvening: The Board recessed to the Airport Restaurant for lunch. Reconvening: Mr. Daniel stated the first item of business would be 9.D., Board Policy Relating to Individual Board Members' Involvement in the 84-564 Zoning Process, which the Board deferred from the morning session. 9.D. BOARD POLICY RELATING TO INVOLVEMENT IN ZONING PROCESS Mr. Daniel stated in January, 1984 the Board of Supervisors, realizing that there are certain responsibilities that they have in relationship to the County Administrator, adopted two written policies at their organizational meeting--one dealt with the way Board conducts business and meetings and the second with the relationship of policy and legislation to the Board of Supervisors in carrying out policies and procedures by County Administration. He stated since then a few Board members have suggested that a draft of a written policy dealing with the zoning process be prepared. He stated he has attempted to prepare such a resolution for the Board and explained the zoning process. He stated this in no way impairs any Board member from carrying out their own elected or legislative responsibilities. He stated this resolution puts into writing the procedures that should be followed by the Board of Supervisors in dealing with zoning matters. Mr. Dodd stated he felt a Board of Supervisors' member could not serve on the Planning Commission and support this resolution. He stated he felt a Board representative no longer needs to serve on the Planning Commission. He also referred the Board to page 2, paragraph two (2) of the resolution and asked that the phrase "in any manner" be removed from the resolution. Mrs. Girone stated this policy would prevent the Board members from discussing zoning cases until after they have been heard by the Planning Commission. She stated she had very serious concerns for a policy that would put up a wall between her and the citizens she was elected to represent. She stated she felt the constitutional rights of the citizens to access their representatives are being abridged. She stated the proposal infringed upon the liberties of the citizens of Chesterfield and unduly hinders a government process and she would vote no on the issue. Mr. Mayes felt this would notify all, that Board members are not to make commitments prior to the zoning issue coming through the proper procedures. He stated he felt these guidelines are beneficial. Mr. Applegate stated he did not know if the process is or is not being adhered to but this paper clearly outlines the steps. He stated he did not feel this would be denying constituents their due process. Mrs. Girone stated she did not see anything about commitment in the paper as referred to by Mr. Mayes and perhaps the paper is not written all encompassing. Mr. Mayes outlined his concern and stated he felt it was covered. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that the Board adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE BOARD CONCERNING THE PROPER INVOLVEMENT OF BOARD MEMBERS IN THE ZONING PROCESS Chesterfield County, as a rapidly growing and urbanizing locality, will be experiencing increased property development to meet the expanding residential, Commercial and industrial needs of its citizens. As development momentum accelerates, greater pressure will be placed on individual members of the Board of Supervisors to become involved in all aspects of the zoning process. At the same time, it is of paramount importance that the Board recognize and respect the administrative and advisory functions of County staff and the~ Planning Commission in the zoning process. It is particularly critical that members of the Board of Supervisors, understanding the legislative and policy-making function of the Board, do not interfere or become 84-565 involved in zoning issues until such issues are properly before the governing body. Both before and after the filing of a zoning application, staff members of the County Planning Department meet with developers to insure conformance with County ordinances and )olicies. Through this process, the County staff endeavors to ~romote overall zoning and planning policies adopted by the ~oard. After staff review, the Planning Commission, as an independent advisory body established pursuant to Section 15.1-437, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, considers the application in a public hearing, and makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, based on the comments and concerns of the developer, County staff, and the public and on the overall zoning policies and practices of the County. Involvement of Board members in either of these initial phases of the zoning process tends to limit the ability of County staff to successfully negotiate and resolve developer concerns, and of the Planning Commission to make meaningful recommendations to the Board. Premature involvement can also unnecessarily create delay, uncertainty and instability in the orderly processing of applications which tends to affect public confidence in the zoning and application review process. Furthermore, involvement of Board members in a zoning case prior to a decision by the Planning Commission, is inconsistent with the clear policy statements, adopted in January, 1984, not to interfere in the administrative activities of the County administration and staff but instead to dedicate its efforts toward the formulation of general legislation and policy. Therefore, be it resolved by the Board that it shall be Board policy that no individual member of the Board shall become involved in a zoning case until the Planning Commission has made its recommendation on the case. Prior to action by the Planning Commission, members of the Board shall not discuss the particulars of the zoning case with the developer nor attempt to direct the activities or decisions of County employees or Planning Commission members concerning the outcome of the case. Members of the Board shall not direct the activities of any County staff member relating to a zoning case before the Board except when acting as a Board consistent with general law and County regulations. Ayes: Nays: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Dodd. Mrs. Girone because this policy separates the people from those elected to represent them and she would not support this resolution. Mr. Dodd stated he was not shirking his responsibility of serving on the Planning Commission and did not want it to appear he was. He stated he felt as well as others that the Board representation on the Planning Commission was no longer necessary. Mr. Daniel appointed Mr. Mayes and Mr. Dodd to serve as a committee along with the County Attorney to prepare a resolution regarding the Board's representation on the Planning Commission for action at the October 10, 1984 meeting. Mr. Daniel stated that Mr. Mayes would be the presiding officer during the zoning session per the procedures of the Board of Supervisors. 9.L. REQUESTS FOR MOBILE HOMES Mr. Dodd stated that he is in the mobile home business, although not directly related to sales. He requested anyone purchasing a mobile home from his company to make it known, in order that he could excuse himself from the meeting to prevent any conflict of interest. 84S165 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Clayton L. Ramey, requested a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which he 84-566 owns. Tax Map 81-16 (5) Central Park, Block 9, Lots 33 and 34 and better known as 10032 Brightwood Avenue (Sheet 23). ~Mr. Dodd stated Mrs. Ramey contacted him prior to this meeting to indicate Mr. Clayton L. Ramey is ill in the hospital and unable to be present and had asked Mr. Dodd to handle this request. There was no opposition present. Mr. Dodd stated the request is !for an area where there are no mobile homes. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board denied this request. !Vote: Unanimous 84S166 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Sarah E. Madison, requested a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which belongs to Clayton Ramey, son of the applicant. Tax Map 81-16 (5) Central Park, Block 9, Lots 35 - 36 and better known as 10030 Brightwood Avenue (Sheet 23). .Mr. Dodd stated the individual in this case is a relative of Mr. Ramey. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board denied this request. Vote: Unanimous 84SR181 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Dalton R. Garris, requested a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which he owns. Tax Map 67-3 (1) Parcel 12 and better known as 2679 Drewry's Bluff Road (Sheet 23). Mr. Garris was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request for a period of five (5) years subject to the following standard conditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous 84-567 84SR182 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Jesse and Hilda Scruggs requested a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which they own. Tax Map 118-9 (4) Westover Farms, Lot B, and better known as 331 East Hundred Road (Sheet 33). Mrs. Scruggs was present. She asked that the request be approved for five (5) years instead of two (2) years as recommended by staff. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request for a period of five years subject to the following standard conditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. e No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous 84SR183 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Mr. Fred O. Parker, III irequested a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which belongs to Mrs. Hawley, mother of the applicant. Tax Map 136-14 (1) Parcel 3 and better known as 2508 Sculley Road (Sheet 44). Mrs. Parker was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request for a period of five (5) years subject to the following standard conditions: 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. 84-568 e No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous 9.M. REQUESTS FOR REZONING 83S201 In Midlothian Magisterial District, RICHMOND HONDA COMPANY requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit motor vehicle sales, service, and repair in a Community Business (B-2) District on a 9.09 acre parcel fronting approximately 610 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 1,200 feet west of Wadsworth Drive. Tax Map 28-2 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated that staff had recently discovered that notification was improper for this case when presented to the Planning Commission and the Board because of an error on the Tax Map that did not show the proper relationship of the subject property to the adjacent property; therefore, some adjacent property owners were not notified. He stated the Planning Department and the County Attorney had determined the case should be referred back to the Planning Commission. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board referred this case back to the Planning Commission. Vote: Unanimous 84Sl12 In Matoaca Magisterial District, GLENN M. HILL requested rezoning from Residential (R-15) to Residential (R-9) on a 16.8 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,060 feet on the west line of Bailey Bridge Road, also fronting approximately 80 feet on North Bailey Bridge Road and located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 63-9 (1) Part of Parcel 8 (Sheets 20 and 21). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the R-9 and R-12 zoning. He stated the Board of Supervisors had deferred this request from the August 22, 1984 meeting to give the area residents an opportunity to discuss the request before the Matoaca Advisory Board. Mr. Billy Davenport was present to represent the residents of Swift Creek Farms which is the subdivision located just south of the area requested to be rezoned. He stated there are 16 houses on 22 plus acres in Swift Creek Farms and Mr. Hill wants to build 42 to 48 houses on 16.8 acres. He distributed a copy of the Swift Creek Farms subdivision restrictive covenants to Board members and referred the Board's attention to paragraph eighteen (18), which run with the land and are binding upon the subsequent owner or owners of each and every lot and each and every other portion of the land shown on the plat. He noted that the covenants are in force for twenty-five years from the date of the recordation. 84-569 He also presented the Board with a petition signed by 61 families from the Swift Creek Farms area and stated they oppose the rezoning request, copies of which are filed with the papers of this Board. Mr. Mayes asked Mr. Micas if paragraph eighteen (18) in the restrictive covenants is still legal. Mr. Micas stated there is some question as to whether these restrictive covenants affect the request before the Board but more importantly the Board decision should be based on appropriate land use for the area and not necessarily whether these covenants do or do not allow a developer to build under R-9 or R-12. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred consideration of this request until November 28, 1984, to allow staff to research the status of the restrictive covenants and subdivision plat for Swift Creek Farms. Vote: Unanimous 84Sl15 In Matoaca Magisterial District, ROBERT J. SEARCY requested a Conditional Use to permit a two-family dwelling in a Residential (R-7) District on a 0.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 82 feet on the west line of Harrowgate Road, approximately 150 feet north of South Street. Tax Map 163-1 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 49). Mr. Balderson stated this request was deferred from the August 22, 1984 meeting to allow staff an opportunity to determine the history in respect to an easement across the property. He stated the findings are that there was originally an easement across this property that bi-sected it; however, there is now a recorded easement which gives access along the southern property line back to the properties in the west. He stated the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommends approval. Mr. Dennis Lowman was present to oppose this request. He stated he owns the property to the west and said his opposition is not to Mr. Searcy building but to him building a duplex since there are no duplexes in the immediate area. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan filed with the application, revised 5/15/84, shall be considered the plan of development. (P) Ail driveways and parking areas shall be gravelled with six (6) inches of 21 or 2lA stone. Driveways and parking areas shall be delineated by a permanent means (i.e., timber curbs, etc.). (P) The parking area shall be served by a driveway which, if designated as one way, shall have a width of twelve (12) feet and, if two way, a width of 24 feet. The driveway and parking area shall be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the right of way. (P) The proposed structure shall be set back a minimum of fifty (50) feet from the Harrowgate Road right of way. (P) (Note: The Zoning Ordinance requires that a total of four (4) parking spaces, a minimum of ten (10) feet by twenty (20) feet, be provided.) In conjunction with building permit application, a site plan shall be submitted reflecting the conditions stated herein. (p) The proposed duplex shall have a minimum setback of fifteen (15) feet from the southern property line. Vote: Unanimous 84-570 84S079 In Midlothian Magisterial District, MURRAY OLDSMOBILE COMPANY, INC. requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions in a Community Business (B-2) District on a 16.21 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,040 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 225 feet west of Grove~ Road. Tax Map 16-11 (1) Parcel 14 and Tax Map 16-12 (1) Parcels 8 and 9 (Sheet 7). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission recommends approval subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. He stated an addendum has been prepared and submitted to the Board and the applicant has met with staff and has indicated some concern over the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, specifically the conditions dealing with signs and access. A representative for Murray Oldsmobile Company stated the conditions would permit 250 square feet of signage whereas the applicant is asking for 321 square feet of signage. He stated the entrance condition would be subject to schematic review at which time engineering data would be submitted to show that the isite distance along Route 60 was suitable for the entrances the iapplicant proposes. He stated that, after running a profile on !the western entrance, the entrance which staff recommends, does ~meet the minimum requirement for site distance. He stated the applicant would like to keep a one way entrance east of the western property line whereas staff is recommending a two way entrance at the western property line. He stated the applicant does not plan to use the western parcel in development of the auto agency and if applicant has to shift the entrance to the western parcel, it would cut up the parcel so it would not be usable for sale to someone else. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated June 18, 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) The automobile dealership shall have an architectural style, as depicted in the elevations prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated June 18, 1984. Buildings erected on Parcels A, B and C shall employ subdued colors and be of a decorative treatment such as split block, wood, brick, etc. Architectural rendering shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. (P) Within the fifty (50) foot setback along Midlothian Turnpike, ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted. This landscaping shall not be within the sewer and water easements. The Planning Commission may reduce the setback to twenty-five (25) feet if, at the time of schematic plan review, detailed grading and landscaping plans are submitted which insure the ability to properly maintain utility lines and minimize the visibility of parking areas. (P & U) A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the southwest property line where adjacent to Residential (R-15) zoning. There shall be no facilities or other improvements permitted within this buffer area. If existing vegetation is insufficient to screen the use on Parcel B (3.3 acres), additional landscaping shall be accomplished. (P) An overall site landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review for each individual site. This landscaping plan shall be for all landscaped areas shown on the plan, plus the landscaping required in Conditions 3 and 4 and the islands within parking areas for the purpose of dividing the expanse of pavement. (P) 84-571 ±0. 11. 12. Ail driveways and parking areas shall be curbed and guttered. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian access. (EE) Exterior lighting shall not exceed a height of forty (40) feet for the proposed dealership and Parcels A and C, and a height of fifteen (15) feet for Parcel B (3.3 acres). Lighting shall be positioned so as not to project light into adjacent properties or Route 60. (P) SIGNS One (1) sign, not to exceed fifty (50) square feet in area, shall be permitted along Route 60 identifying the commercial park and the tenants therein. be Two (2) additional freestanding signs shall be permitted along Route 60: one (1) identifying the dealership and one (1) identifying Parcel A (2.2 acres). The dealership sign shall not exceed an aggregate area of 150 square feet and the Parcel A sign shall not exceed an aggregate area of fifty (50) square feet. Parcel B (3.3 acres) shall be permitted one freestanding sign, located on the Parcel, not to exceed an aggregate area of fifty (50) square feet. These signs shall not exceed a height of thirty (30) feet. Freestanding directional signs and attached building signs shall be as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance for B-2 Districts. de Ail signs shall be similar in color, design and lighting. Signs may be illuminated, but shall only be luminous if the signfield is opaque with translucent letters. fe Prior to erection of any signs, a sign package showing typical signs, colors, materials, etc. shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. (P) Uses permitted on Parcel A (2.2± acres) shall be limited to all B-2 uses plus the following exceptions: g. h. i. Boat sales Cocktail lounges and nightclubs Drive-in restaurants Hotels, motels, motorcourts or tourist homes Motor vehicle sales, service and repair Monument sales Indoor recreational establishments Utility trailer and truck rental Veterinary hospitals, boarding kennels or clinics exclusive of outside runs) Wholesale trade Commercial automobile parking Motor vehicle wash (P) Uses permitted on Parcel B (3.3 acres), shall be limited to all B-2 and M-1 uses. (P) Uses permitted on Parcel C (1.21 acres) shall be limited to an automobile dealership. (P) Uses permitted on Parcels A, B and C shall be designed with similar character and style as that of the proposed automobile dealership. The Planning Commission, through schematic plan review, shall approve the site and architectural designs to insure compatibility with that of the dealership. (P) 84-572 13. An additional lane of pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed along Route 60 for the entire length of the Route 60 frontage. In conjunction with the first schematic plan review, a plan shall be submitted which shows the ultimate pavement widening and the phasing of these improvements. The phasing shall be accomplished to preclude having any gaps in pavement along the frontage. This plan shall be approved by the VDH&T and the Transportation Department prior to the release of a building permit. (T) 14. A left turn lane shall be constructed on the westbound lane of Route 60 at the crossover. This construction shall be in accordance with VDH&T standards. (T) 15. In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission, a collector road plan shall be submitted which shows extension of the proposed public road to Grove Road. The proposed public road shall align with the extension of the public road in Crossroads Business Park (i.e., Busy Street). (T) 16. Prior to obtaining any building permits, road and drain age plans for the proposed public road shall be submitted to Environmental Engineering and VDH&T for approval. This road shall be constructed in conjunction with the phasing of this development. A phasing plan shall be submitted to the Transportation Department for approval in conjunction with the first schematic plan submission. The proposed public road shall have a minimum right of way of seventy (70) feet for a distance of 165 feet south of the northern property line. This section shall be designed and constructed with two (2) twenty-four (24) foot lanes, face of curb to face of curb, separated by a divided median. There shall be no access within this section. The remaining length of the public road shall have a minimum right of way of sixty (60) feet and shall be constructed as a forty (40) foot typical section, face of curb to face of curb. The right of way shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, prior to the release of a building permit. This dedication shall be accomplished through recordation of a subdivision plat. (T & EE) 17. The western access shown on the Master Plan shall be relocated to the western property line and designed and constructed to allow shared access with adjacent property to the west, in the future, provided adequate sight distance is available along Route 60. In conjunction with schematic plan submission, profiles shall be submitted to the Transportation Department and VDH&T showing available sight distance. If sight distance cannot be obtained at the western property line, the proposed access shall be located a minimum of 400 feet from the proposed public road and designed as a one-way entrance. (T) (NOTE: Entrances must conform to VDH&T specifications.) 18. Other than the proposed public road and the western access, there shall be no other access to Route 60. (T) 19. No loud speaker paging system shall be used. This condition may be modified at the time of schematic plan approval. (P) (NOTE: Schematic plans must be approved by the Planning Commission prior to release of building permits.) Vote: Unanimous 84S128 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, DAVID M. WOODFIN requested Conditional Use to permit office-warehouses in an Agricultural (A) District on a 3.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 300 feet on the east line of Warbro Road, approximately 450 feet south of Genito Road. Tax Map 48-3 (1) Part of Parcels 4, 5 and 6 (Sheet 13). 84-573 . Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended )roval subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. · Vernon LaPrade was present to represent the applicant. He he understood the Planning Commission had approved the ~equest without condition 96 recommended by the Planning staff. ~r. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended that ~ondition 96, as recommended by staff, be deleted. ~here was no opposition present. motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board ~pproved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Potts and Minter, dated May 10, 1984, shall be considered the plan of development. (P) A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along Warbro Road. With the exception of a single access to Warbro Road, a private well, and a drainfield, there shall be no other facilities permitted in this buffer. The buffer shall be landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site plan review. (P) Other than mini-warehouse use, there shall be no other commercial or industrial activity permitted on the site. (p) One (1) sign, not to exceed eight (8) square feet in area and a height of ten (10) feet, shall, be permitted identifying this use. (P) Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (EE) The above conditions notwithstanding, all bulk requirements of the General Business (B-3) District shall apply. (P) : Unanimous 84S129 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, MARWAY ASSOCIATES requested amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 80S093) to permit a theater in a Convenience Business (B-l) District on a 1.52 acre parcel lying approximately 330 feet off the northwest line of Hull Street Road, approximately 600 feet northeast ot Old Hundred Road. Tax Map 62-6 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheet 20). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this request. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: The proposed theater shall have no more than 363 seats unless the required number of parking spaces for retail/office use plus theater use is provided within Market Square Shopping Center. However, the Commission may allow additional seats at the time of schematic plan review 84-574 if a time schedule for staggered theater shows is submitted which insures that parking problems will not occur. (P) Vote: Unanimous 84S130 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, THOMAS C. AND DEBORAH J. THOMAS requested amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use (Case 83S183) to permit relocation of a riding ring and encroachment of a driveway within the required fifty (50) foot buffer. This request lies in an Agricultural (A) District on a 20 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the north line of Woolridge Road, approximately 4,300 feet northeast of Otterdale Road. Tax Map 60 (1) Parcel 46 (Sheet 19). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Pete Nikas was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Thomas Thomas. was also present. Mr. Nikas distributed a copy of a three-party deed to the Board members, copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board. He stated the applicant has chosen to move the boundary line rather than the road since staff had recommended that the road be located a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the eastern property line. Mr. Micas stated this item needs to be referred back to the Planning Commission for readvertising and reconsideration since it involves additional land. There was no opposition present. After much discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that this request be referred back to the Planning Commission because of the additional acreage. Ayes: Nays: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Mr. Dodd. 84S132 In Bermuda Magisterial District, ROBERT J. SEARCY requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Community Business (B-2) to Mobile Home Park (MH-1) on an 18 acre parcel fronting on the east line of Jefferson Davis Highway in two (2) places for a total of approximately 760 feet, approximately 720 feet south of Leighworth Boulevard. Tax Map 133-11 (1) Parcels 4 and 5 (Sheet 41). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request subject to conditions listed in the staff report. He stated subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, a notification was received from Mr. Searcy requesting that the B-2 portion of the request be removed from consideration meaning the B-2 portion of the property as it exists would remain zoned B-2. He stated the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval was based on the fact that the B-2 portion was to be removed and there would be no commercial zoning adjacent to the residential mobile home park. He stated staff recommends this request be referred back to the Planning Commission since the applicant wishes to make a substantial change from the original application reviewed by the Planning Commission and the ramifications of this change are such that they may require the Planning Commission to make some other decisions in this matter. Mr. Dodd stated he had not voted for this request on the Planning Commission and he would not vote today. He indicated there may be an appearance of a possible conflict of interest since this is a potential competitor. Mr. Searcy was not present. There was no opposition present. 84-575 On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board referred this request back to the Planning Commission. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Mayes. Abstention: Mr. Dodd. 84S131 In Bermuda Magisterial District, ATLANTIC BAPTIST BIBLE COLLEGE, INC. requested amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use (Case 83S044) to expand a private college plus amendment to the approved Master Plan. This request lies in an Agricultural (A) District on a 42.8 acre parcel lying approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Koyoto and Okuma Drives. Tax Map 135-1 (1) Parcel 4 and Tax Map 135-2 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 42). Mr. Balderson apologized to the representatives of the Atlantic Baptist Bible College for presenting their request out of sequence. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request subject to the conditions of the staff report. Mr. Charles Ayres was present to represent Atlantic Baptist Bible College. He stated that on July 27, 1983 the Board had granted the college's request for an expansion of a Conditional Use for this site and recommended that they obtain access to the proposed extension of East Avenue. He stated his client did so by acquiring a 16 acre parcel at a cost in excess of $60,000 and stated the present request is for the 16 acre parcel to be under the same Conditional Use. He stated that Environmental Engineering has added to their recommendations that all driveway and parking areas shall have curb and gutter and stated that since this was not a requirement when the other Conditional Use was approved in July, 1983, the applicant would like to request that the Board delete this recommendation. He stated that even though acreage has increased by 60%, the master plan has not increased. He stated there was some question to their restrictive easement to Route 10 and they would like not to have to barricade Kyoto Drive. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Atlantic Baptist Bible College, Inc., exclusively, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. (P) e The following conditions notwithstanding, the Master Plan prepared by Austin Brockenbrough and Associates, dated March 29, 1984, shall be considered the plan of development. (P) e · There Shall be no further expansion until such time that public water and sewer are available and serves this site. No more than twenty (20) persons shall reside on the campus until public sewer is extended. (H) There shall be no new construction nor shall enrollment exceed 345 students until East Avenue is constructed to State standards from the access into this site, northward to Route 10. A fifty (50) foot buffer, consisting of existing vegetation and supplemented where necessary to effectively screen this use, shall be provided along the north, south and west property lines. The existing driveway from Koyoto Drive and the proposed driveway from East Avenue shall be permitted to encroach into these buffers, as shown on the Master Plan. Other than these two (2) driveways, there shall be no other facilities permitted within these buffer areas. The limits of the 100 year floodplain shall be maintained as a buffer along the eastern property line adjacent to Johnson Creek. (p) 84-576 Ail exterior lighting shall be low level and positioned so as not to project light into adjacent properties. (P) Any outside public address system shall not be used before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. (P) Vote: Unanimous 84S133 In Dale Magisterial District, DENISE M. AND MICHAEL J. FUST requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a child care center and exceptions to bulk requirements in a Residential (R-7) District on a 2.17 acre parcel fronting approximately 250 feet on the north line of Walmsley Boulevard, approximately 20 feet west of Newington Drive. Tax Map 40-7 (1) Parcels 60, 61 and 63 (Sheet 15). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this request subject to conditions in the staff report. Mr. Mayes asked permission to make an announcement. He advised Mr. Searcy, who just arrived, that case 84S132 had already been before the Board for consideration and was remanded back to the Planning Commission and case 84Sl15 was approved. Mr. Skitch Rudy was present to represent the applicants who have recently taken over the operation of this day care center. He stated the applicants would like to delete the requirement for curb and gutter around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas and substitute movable concrete curbs, a photo of which was presented to the Board and is filed with the papers of this Board. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Landmark Surveyors, Inc. shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant an exception to the required number of parking spaces. Parking shall be provided on a ratio of one (1) for each twenty (20) children enrolled up to a maximum of six (6) spaces plus one (1) for each employee on the site at any one time. Further, the parking and driveway shall be redesigned to provide an area for pick-up and drop-off. This area shall be connected to the main building by a sidewalk to preclude the need for children to cross any driveway. (P) (Note: Based on the information submitted with the application, it will be necessary to provide additional parking spaces on the site. Staff will not approve parking along the driveways, which is to be utilized for drop-off and delivery. Further, all parking spaces must be located a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the ultimate right of way of Walmsley Boulevard. Permanent barriers, such as concrete curb and gutter, must be installed to preclude parking within the required setback areas.) (P) Within twelve (12) months of date of approval, concrete bumper blocks shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Access to this property shall be confined to an entrance only to be located near the eastern property line and an exit only to be located approximately 100 feet from the western property line. All other existing access points shall be closed. (T) 84-577 (Note: VDH&T will require submission of profiles to verify adequate sight distance). Additional pavement shall be installed along Walmsley Boulevard as deemed necessary by VDH&T and the Transportation Department. (T) Thirty-five (35) feet of right of way measured from the centerline of Walmsley Boulevard for the entire length of the property frontage shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted prior to the release of an occupancy permit. (T) A single sign, not to exceed ten (10) square feet in area and a height of eight (8) feet, shall be permitted identifying this use. This sign shall employ subdued colors and may be externally lighted, but may be internally lighted only if the signfield is opaque with translucent letters. Prior to erection of the sign, colored renderings shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P) The conditions herein notwithstanding, all bulk requirements of the Convenience Business (B-l) District shall apply. (P) In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval subject to final site plans reflecting the conditions stated herein. (P) Vote: Unanimous 84S135 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, PARAGON GROUP, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business (B-2) and Office Business (0) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on 33.25 acres, plus amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 81S046) to amend Condition #4, relative to shared access. This request includes a total of 34.59 acres fronting approximately 695 feet on the north line of Hull Street Road also fronting approximately 1,530 feet on Genito Road, and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 49-10 (1) Parcel 20 (Sheet 14). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request subject to the staff report. Mr. Andrew Wetherbee was present to represent the Paragon Group, Inc. He stated his applicant felt there was a need for a shopping center at this intersection and that 70% of the space shown on the shopping center plan has been committed for lease. Mr. Berry Riggs was present representing the residents of the Genito Forest, Lake Genito and Genito Estates Subdivisions. He stated the residents were concerned about lowering area property values, excessive traftic congestion on Hull Street and Genito Roads, unnecessary noise and light pollution, and loss of natural and scenic integrity of their community. He presented a petition to the Board signed by area residents, a copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board. He stated that the residents would request that Condition #2 in the staff report be revised to provide a 150 foot undisturbed buffer adjacent to the residentially zoned property, would request that a privacy fence be provided and for the fence to extend the entire length adjacent to the residentially zoned property and the entire length of the northeast boundary of the office business zoning. He stated the request for the privacy fence to be at least 8 feet high, that it be of solid construction and if not solid construction that evergreens be planted to provide year around screening, and requested that the 8 foot fence be installed prior 84-578 construction. He requested that the three stub roads in Forest remain undisturbed to prohibit all direct access the residential and business areas. He stated the ~nts of this area are entirely opposed to the applicants uest; however, they feel the proposal is more acceptable if conditions as stated can be meet. much discussion, on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by · Girone, the Board deferred this request until October 24, 1984 to give the Paragon Group, Inc. an opportunity to meet with residents of the area. : Unanimous 84S136 In Midlothian Magisterial District, GEORGE O. GRATZ requested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3) on a 2.3 acre parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on the west line of Grove Road, approximately 250 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 16-12 (2) Sunny Dell Acres, Lots 1 and 2 (Sheet 7). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this request. Mr. Hubbard was present to represent Mr. Gratz. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr· Applegate, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous 84S137 In Bermuda Magisterial District, B. FORACE AND ANN J. HILL requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business (B-2) on a 0.66 acre parcel lying 'approximately 260 feet off the north line of West Hundred Road, approximately 950 feet west of Old Bermuda Hundred Road. Tax Map 117-12 (1) Part of Parcel 22 (Sheet 33). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request. Mr. Hill was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous 84S138 In Midlothian Magisterial District, BERNARD L. AND JUDITH F. MATHEWS requested Conditional Use to permit an office building in an Agricultural (A) District on a 0.51 acre parcel fronting approximately 105 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 2,400 feet west of Otterdale Road. Tax Map 14 (1) Parcel 35 (Sheet 6). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission has recommended denial of this request. Mrs. Judy Mathews was present. She stated she would like the 8 square foot sign as recommended by staff changed to a 16 square foot sign. 84-579 Mrs. Girone stated that she had previously talked with Mrs. Mathews who indicated she was going submit a sketch of the site prior to today's meeting. Mrs. Girone reminded her that the problem with this request was the exit/entrance. Mrs. Mathews stated she would accept the exit/entrance guide recommended by staff. Mrs. Girone stated she felt Mrs. Mathews would need to present the Board a sketch of the site with exit/entrance as well as written comments from the Highway Department before the Board could make a decision on the proposal. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, Board deferred this request until October 24, 1984 to allow Mrs. Mathews time to prepare and present the Board with a sketch showing the exit/entrance and the dimensions of the sign. Vote: Unanimous 84S139 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, VERNON E. LaPRADE requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit an automobile tire sales and service business plus bulk exceptions in a Community Business (B-2) District on a 0.61 acre parcel fronting approximately 132 feet on the north line of Hull Street Road, approximately 550 feet west of Courthouse Road. Tax Map 49-7 (1) Part of Parcel 6 (Sheet 14). Mr. Vernon LaPrade was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Potts and Minter, dated June 15, 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) The structure shall be as depicted in the elevations submitted with the application dated June 12, 1984. (P) In conjunction with the approval of this request, the tollowing bulk exceptions shall be granted: Se A twenty-five (25) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot parking setback requirement along Route 360. Within the twenty-five (25) foot setback, a three (3) to four (4) foot high undulating earth berm shall be installed. This berm shall be landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site plan review. be Signs shall comply with the elevations, prepared by Goodyear Visual Merchandising dated 7/16/84. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (EE) Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along Route 360 for the entire property frontage, as deemed necessary by VDH&T and the Transportation Department. (T) In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan. (P) Vote: Unanimous 84-580 84S140 In Matoaca Magisterial District, JAMES E. COLE requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) on 69.4 acres, plus Conditional Use to permit a convenience store in an Agricultural (A) District on 1.29 acres. This request lies on two (2) tracts of land. The first tract fronts the north line of Bradley Bridge Road in two (2) locations for a total of approximately 231 feet, also fronts approximately 800 feet on LewiS Road and is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. The second tract fronts approximately 50 feet on the south line of Bradley Bridge Road approximately 880 feet west of Lewis Road. Tax Map 131-14 (1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheet 40). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the residential portion of the request subject to the condition in the staff report. There was no opposition present. Mr. James E. Cole was present. He stated he would like to be granted the Conditional Use to permit a convenience store which had been denied. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board denied the request for a Conditional Use to permit a convenience store and approved the request for rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) and accepted the following proffered condition: Ail lots will have a minimum of 25,000 square feet. Vote: Unanimous 84S150 In Matoaca Magisterial District, ATLANTIC MANAGEMENT requested amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 79S079) relative to sign conditions. This request lies in a Convenience Business (B-l) District on a 1.39 acre parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on the south line of Iron Bridge Road across from Krause Road. Tax Map 95-12 (1) Part of Parcel 4 (Sheet 31). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission has recommended deferral of this request for 30 days. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board deferred consideration of this request until October 24, 1984. Vote: Unanimous 84S153 In Midlothian Magisterial District, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS requested amendment to a previously granted rezoning (Case 76S222) to permit encroachment into required buffers, and Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk exceptions in an Office Business (O) District on an 8.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 515 feet on the west line of Branchway Road across from Southlake Boulevard, also fronting approximately 500 feet on the east line of Courthouse Road approximately 1,020 feet north of Edenberry Drive. Tax Map 17-13 (1)' Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated this request represents a land use and road change to permit the extension of Southlake Boulevard westerly 84-581 across Branchway Road to intersect with Courthouse Road. He stated the property owner has indicated that~if this occurs there should be certain amendments to previously granted zoning to accomplish development of the property on either side of the extended roadway. He stated these proposals were entertained by staff and Board authorized staff to make the application that would make amendment to this zoning thereby facilitating the development of the property taking into consideration the extension of Southlake Boulevard. Mr. McCracken stated the matter before the Board is the difference between the staff recommendations and what the developers have indicated, mainly direct access to the Southlake Boulevard Extension. He stated the latest traffic counts indicated 2,000 vehicles per day currently make a right turn from Courthouse Road onto Branchway with significant traffic increases expected on Southlake Boulevard Extension. He stated the short distance between Courthouse and Branchway makes direct access to Southlake Boulevard Extended undesirable. ~s. Girone commended staff members who had worked to resolve this traffic problem. Mr. Doug Woolfolk was present to oppose this request. He stated he had purchased the residue property on the south side of the Southlake Boulevard Extension and that the property had a number of water and sewer easements and an old ingress-egress easement. He stated the problem is getting relief from some of the previous easements agreed upon by Mr. Timmons and Mr. Taylor. Mr. Woolfolk stated he had a letter from Mr. Taylor stating that he does not want him to use this easement nor to have an exit onto Branchway Road, feeling that some of Mr. Woolfolk's traffic may come into his rear entrance and exit on Courthouse Road which happens now. Mr. Woolfolk stated he needed this entrance to make his project viable. Mr. Timmons was present to speak to the conditions in the staff report. He stated this request actually represents two pieces of property and referred the Board's attention to Condition #4 and Condition #6 to determine if this applied to both parcels. Mr. McCracken stated Condition ~4 and Condition #6 would apply to the property to the south of Southlake Boulevard Extension only. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plans prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated July 2, 1984, and by Clower Associates, Inc., dated July 24, 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2~ In conjunction with the approval of this request, the following exceptions to bulk requirements shall be granted: A thirty-five (35) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot parking setback requirement along Courthouse Road. (p) bo A ten (10) foot exception to the thirty (30) foot building setback requirement along Southlake Boulevard Extended. (P) Within the fifteen (15) foot setback along Courthouse Road, a combination of landscaping and/or berming shall be accomplished to minimize the view of driveways and parking areas from Courthouse Road. A detailed plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan submission. (p) The tract north of Southlake Boulevard shall utilize the existing entrances/exits through Windsor Executive Center. The tract south of Southlake Boulevard Extended shall not 84-582 have any access onto Branchway Road but shall use the access shown onto Southlake Boulevard Extended. Prior to release of a building permit, forty-five (45) feet of right of way measured from the centerline of Courthouse 'Road, thirty (30) feet of right of way measured from the centerline of Branchway Road, and sixty (60) feet of right of way for Southlake Boulevard Extended shall be conveyed to the County of Chesterfield unencumbered. (T) Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along Branchway Road, south of Southlake Boulevard Extended, as deemed necessary by VDH&T and the Transportation Department. (T) Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (EE) In conjunction with approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic approval of the Master Plan. (P) Vote: Unanimous 10. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adjourned at 5:20 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. on October 10, 1984. Vote: Unanimous Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator 84-583