Loading...
11-28-1984 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES November 28, 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. Kenneth Cronin, Asst. Personnel Dir. Mrs. Doris DeHart, Volunteer Coordinator Mr. Robert Galusha, Personnel Dir. Mr. James Gillentine, Nursing Home Admin. Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst. County Administrator Dr. Burt Lowe, Dir., Mental Health/Retard. Mr. Robert Masden, Asst. Co. Admin. for Human Services Mr. Richard McElfish, Dir., Env. 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. Richard Nunnally, Extension Agent Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of Budget & Acctg. Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Exec. Asst., Co. Adm. Mr. Robert Wagenknecht, Library Director Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities Mr. B. R. Wilkinson, License Inspector Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:00 a.m. (EST). 1. INVOCATION Mr. Daniel introduced Dr. Melvin W. Parker, Pastor of Salem Baptist Church, who gave the invocation. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the minutes of November 14, 1984, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the minutes of November 16, 1984, as submitted. 84-687 Vote: Unanimous 3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS Mr. Hedrick introduced and welcomed Ms. Bobbi Cabrey who is a student intern at Channel 6 and is covering the Board meeting with Mr. Eric Allen. Mr. Welchons introduced Mr. Herbert W. Evans, Bacteriologist with the Utilities Department, who received the "Fuller Award" from the American Water Works Association (AWWA). He stated this award is given annually to a member of the Virginia Section for distinguished service in the water supply field. He stated since Mr. Evans has become a member of AWWA he has dedicated many hours of service as chairman of the membership committee, served as chairman of the education committee, serves as trustee which will eventually lead to the chairmanship of the Association, etc. Mr. Hedrick and the Board congratulated Mr. Evans on his accomplishments. 4. ITEMS TO BE DELETED OR HEARD OUT OF SEQUENCE On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board deferred Item #7, Beach Road Recreational Access Project, until December 12, 1984; deferred 9.D.1, Appointments to the Personnel Appeals Board, until the end of the meeting; deferred 9.E.2.a., Public Hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate a portion of a 16 foot drainage easement across lot 29, block C, Heatheridge, Section 2, until 7:00 p.m. on January 9, 1985; added to Item #9.G., Executive Session, Personnel Matters; and further adopted the agenda as amended. Vote: Unanimous 5. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION 5.A. EXTENSION SERVICE VOLUNTEERS Mr. Richard Nunnally stated that the Extension Service relies heavily on volunteers to make contacts and provide services to residents in the County. He stated last year there were over 8,000 volunteer man-hours given and these people work directly with approximately 8,000 County residents handling their requests for information. He introduced Mrs. Mary Cooper, Mrs. Sarah Gregory and Mr. Gilbert "Gil" Marders who were present and stated another volunteer, Mrs. Ann Dancy, could not be present today. He briefly outlined the outstanding services provided by each volunteer. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mrs. Sarah Gregory has been an active volunteer and supporter of Extension Service programs for many years; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Gregory has taught upholstering to Chesterfield residents for each of the past nine years; and WHEREAS, Her efforts and example have had great impact on hundreds of Chesterfield residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors commends and expresses appreciation to Mrs. Sarah Gregory for her outstanding contributions to the citizens of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel presented Mrs. Gregory with the executed resolution. 84-688 On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mrs. Mary Cooper was one of the original members of the Keep Chesterfield Clean Committee; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Cooper has continued her dedicated service in community improvement for the past five years; and WHEREAS, She has consistently worked toward improving our environment thus making Chesterfield County a better place to live. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors commends and expresses appreciation to Mrs. Mary Cooper for her outstanding contributions to the citizens of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel presented Mrs. Cooper with the executed resolution. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Gil Marders became an Extension Service volunteer in 1981; and WHEREAS, Mr. Marders has donated over 700 hours of volunteer time to Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, He has given direct service to over 2,000 Chesterfield County residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors commends and expresses appreciation to Mr. Gil Marders for his outstanding contributions to the citizens of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel presented Mr. Marders with the executed resolution. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mrs. Ann Dancy has been an active volunteer and supporter of Extension Service programs for more than five years; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Dancy has served the Extension Homemaker Organization as a club, County and area officer; and WHEREAS, She has given many hours in support of the 4-H Educational Center's fund raising campaign; and WHEREAS, She has consistently demonstrated dependability, reliability and dedication. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors commends and expresses appreciation to Mrs. Ann Dancy for her outstanding contributions to the citizens of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel presented Mr. Nunnally with the executed resolution on behalf of Mrs. Dancy. He stated further that the Board would like to express appreciation to all the volunteers, and especially those recognized this date, for the many hours of time which could never be repaid. 5.B. DR. BETTY B. HUNTER, MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION Mr. Cronin introduced Dr. Burr Lowe, Director of Mental Health 84-689 and Mental Retardation Services. Dr. Lowe introduced and briefly outlined Dr. Hunter's outstanding service with the Department. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Dr. Betty B. Hunter will retire from the Mental Health/Mental Retardation Services Department, Chesterfield County, on January 1, 1985; and WHEREAS, Dr. Hunter has been a faithful and dedicated employee of Chesterfield County since January, 1976; and WHEREAS, Dr. Hunter's nine years of selfless dedication to the citizens of Chesterfield County will be missed by Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Dr. Hunter's faithful and dedicated service and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for her service to the County and wishes her a long and happy retirement. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be presented to Dr. Hunter and that this Resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel presented Dr. Hunter with the executed resolution. 5.C. MRS. ELIZABETH SKINNER, LUCY CORR NURSING HOME Mr. Cronin introduced Mr. Jim Gillentine, Administrator of the Nursing Home. Mr. Gillentine introduced and briefly outlined Mrs. Skinner's outstanding service with the Nursing Home. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mrs. Elizabeth Skinner will retire from the Lucy Corr Nursing Home, Chesterfield County, on December 1, 1984; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Skinner has faithfully served the citizens of Chesterfield County for ten years; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Skinner's dedication to her job and individual contribution to the mission of her department will be especially missed by the citizens of Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Mrs. Skinner be publicly recognized by this Board of Supervisors and extended, on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, their appreciation for her service to the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be presented to Mrs. Skinner; that this Resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia; and that Mrs. Skinner enjoys a long and fruitful retirement. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel presented Mrs. Skinner with the executed resolution and recognized members of her family who were present. 5.D. MR. CHARLES R. QUAIFF, UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Mr. Cronin introduced Mr. David Welchons, Director of Utilities. 84-690 Mr. Welchons introduced and briefly outlined Mr. Quaiff's outstanding service with the County. He stated further that the Virginia Section of the American Water Works Association presented Mr. Quaiff with a plaque for his outstanding contribution with that Association as well. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Charles R. Quaiff will retire from the Utilities Department, Chesterfield County, on January 1, 1985; and WHEREAS, Mr. Quaiff's 32 years of service to the citizens of Chesterfield County have been characterized by professional excellence and selfless dedication; and WHEREAS, During Mr. Quaiff's 32 years of service he has served as a charter member of the Chesterfield County Federal Credit Union; served as President of the Chesterfield County Employees' Association; and contributed many hours of his time to other worthwhile programs dedicated to the advancement of excellence within the working environment; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will especially miss Mr. Quaiff's exceptional abilities to bring complex issues to the citizens of Chesterfield County and explain them in terms readily understandable to the lay person. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of Supervisors proudly recognizes Mr. Quaiff and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his long service to the County, and wishes for him and his family a long and happy retirement. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be presented to Mr. Quaiff and that this Resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel presented Mr. Quaiff with the executed resolution. 5.E. JOSEPH A. TRUCHAN, UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Mr. Cronin introduced Mr. David Welchons. Mr. Welchons introduced and briefly outlined Mr. Truchan's outstanding service with the County. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Joseph A. Truchan will retire from the Utilities Department, Chesterfield County on December 1, 1984; and WHEREAS, Mr. Truchan has-provided 16 years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss Mr. Truchan's dedicated service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Truchan and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his service to the County, and wishes him and his family a long and happy retirement. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be presented to Mr. Truchan and that this Resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. 84-691 Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel presented Mr. Truchan with the executed resolution. 5.F. PROCLAIMING DECEMBER AS "READING MONTH" Mr. Wagenknecht stated Governor Robb had declared December as "Virginia Reading Month" and the public library and school system would like the Board to adopt a similar resolution. He stated the two systems are working together in the celebration of this designation. Ms. Jan Rozzelle, Program Specialist for Secondary Reading in the School System, stated appreciation for the Board's support for the past three years, stated she was proud that the County and State supported reading month as she is unaware of any other state that does this, etc. She stated the theme is "Virginians are reading for literacy, leisure and lifelong learning". She stated the students in the County are in the top three in the state and this is a result of the excellent school system and the support of parents. She stated our libraries ~process over 1,000 new library cards a month. She stated during the month of December, 1984, a program will be conducted which will continue through December, 1985, which will encourage reader registration for students through the schools but also encourage other members of the community as well. She invited the Board to participate in the activities scheduled. She stated on Monday, December 3, 1984, they will be participating in a "DEAR" activity which means "Drop Everything And Read" and at 9:15 to 9:30 a.m. they will be reading. She stated during the month there will be guest readers in the schools, students from the County have been invited to participate in the State kick-off for Reading Month which will involve a parade on Saturday, December 1, 1984. She distributed additional information on Reading Month. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Reading undergirds excellence in critical and creative thinking, enhances intellectual and personal development, and serves as a medium for the continuous and expanding learning expected in an information-based technological society; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield Reading Month has proven to be a uniquely successful avenue for stimulating public interest in the improvement and enjoyment of reading; and WHEREAS, The observance of Chesterfield Reading Month has resulted in the unparalleled cooperation of the business, industrial, civic, and lay community in support of a countywide educational endeavor; and WHEREAS, Reading is a leisure and learning pursuit of value to adults, adolescents, and children in lifelong educational and personal endeavors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby designates the month of December, 1984, as CHESTERFIELD READING MONTH, and urges all citizens to personally participate in countywide extension, and improvement of reading. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel presented the executed resolution to Mr. Wagenknecht and Ms. Rozzelle. He stated further that the County is fortunate to have employees who are enthusiastic which results in the high educational scores in the school system. Mr. Dodd presented Mr. Wagenknecht with a petition for a future library in the Enon area. 84-692 6. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS Mr. Hedrick stated there were no citizens scheduled to address the Board at this meeting. 7. DEFERRED ITEMS Mr. Hedrick stated there were no deferred items to be discussed at this time. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS o ORDINANCE RELATING TO LICENSE INSPECTOR ISSUING SUMMONS Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the County Code by amending Sections 12-33 and 14.128 relating to the license inspector. Mr. Hodge explained the proposed ordinance is to clarify an existing ordinance to permit the license inspector to issue summons to those individuals and businesses who intentionally violate the licensing requirements of the County. He stated it is not intended to cause any hardship to those honest citizens and businessmen who inadvertently overlook their obligations or who have recently moved into the County. He stated citations will be issued which will provide a certain period of time for an individual to purchase their tags without penalty. He stated if the citations are ignored, then a summons which would include court costs would be issued. He stated if that is also ignored then warrants may be issued for the arrest of the violator. Mr. Hedrick stated the County did follow this process until several years ago when there was a change in the Commonwealth's Attorney and he is requiring this change in the law in order to prosecute based on those summons. He stated neighboring localities do follow this procedure as well. He stated the current process causes the County to loose approximately $20,000 a year as well as incur indirect costs of $20-25,000. He stated this adoption would streamline the procedure and enforce the laws that exist. Mr. Dodd inquired what methods would be used to check vehicles. Mr. Hodge stated the staff would be working shopping centers, they will use road blocks during non-peak travel times, they will work nights and weekends, etc. He stated they would still give warnings and if they are ignored, the staff would issue a summons. Mrs. Girone stated that a person cannot get a County decal if they have not paid their personal property taxes and this is a check point as people try to avoid paying their personal property taxes. She stated she felt this expedites the entire process and cuts down on the bureaucracy of the government. Mr. Applegate inquired if this paper were approved, would the manpower increase. Mr. Hodge stated this should actually help because if something is not done to streamline the process, additional help may be necessary. Mr. Hedrick stated additional employees would not be necessary due to the adoption of this ordinance. Mr. Applegate inquired about subjecting license inspectors to hazardous situations. Mr. Hodge stated there is that possibility, but they are directed to allow anyone causing problems to proceed forward and to obtain their license for action later. Mr. Applegate inquired if additional training would be offered in this new capacity. Mr. Hodge stated that is part of the program. Mr. Hedrick stated for clarification that in the case of road blocks, police personnel will still be present for traffic control purposes. He stated currently the officer controlling traffic has to issue the summons, then two officers are necessary. Mr. Mayes inquired if the licence inspector has the same protection under the law as a police officer. Mr. Micas stated he does not have general police powers and all County employees, 84-693 in certain context, are subject to being sued. He stated because the license inspector will not be performing police functions other than issuing summons, he would have the same protection a police officer would for the function of issuing summons only. He stated if he did something beyond that function, he would loose his protection. Mr. Mayes inquired if there could be a circumstance where he would use another police power. Mr. Micas stated this ordinance does not anticipate that he would ever perform police functions other than issuing summons. He stated that Mr. Hodge indicated the procedure that would be followed involving an irate person. He stated that potential of an irate citizen exists today and passing this ordinance does not increase that potential. Mr. Mayes stated he had a problem with extending police powers to a person who is not trained to handle these situations. He inquired about the difierence between the two ordinances. Mr. Hodge stated that those people who intentionally. violate the ordinance will continue to do so but this ordinance will compress the time frame for obtaining the required decals, etc. He stated this will help the staff enforce what the County requires but it is also for the citizens as it will make everyone pay what they are supposed to and not just the law abiding citizens. Mr. Hedrick stated under the current situation, we issue summons but it requires that we go through the Magistrates Office and swear out a warrant, it is time consuming, it takes additional personnel, it involves the Magistrates Office, the Police and Sheriff's Department's time, etc. He stated this will save money, and it will be simpler and easier to enforce. He stated this is basically the methodology used by the City of Richmond and Henrico County as well as most of the urbanized jurisdictions. He stated he did not know of any confrontations involving citizens and inspectors. Mr. Mayes inquired if this was an extension of police powers. Mr. Hodge stated he did not consider this an extension of police powers any more than a fireman who inspects a business facility has the authority to issue a summons. Mrs. Girone stated this is nothing new, that when Mr. Watson became Commonwealth's Attorney he questioned the wording of the Code. Mrs. Mary Culley was present and stated she was in support of the ordinance and suggested the inspectors wear a blazer with the County decal displayed for identification purposes. Mr. John Smith stated that he was in favor of this type of ordinance but not necessarily this methodology. He related experiences with out of state contractors, indicating they do not secure County licenses, they work illegitimately, etc. He stated he felt every citizen should support the government and pay their share and it should be enforced by the County staff. Mr. Dodd presented a letter from Mr. Robert Copeland who was opposed to this ordinance. Mr. Daniel stated he had debated this issue and since it has been done in the past, he could support it now, but if anything arises regarding this being an extension of police powers to a governmental organization he would also look to repeal it. He stated he did not intend to extend this type of power to other departments because it has been done in this instance. Mr. Dodd stated he was concerned with the extension of police powers to this office but also with the loss of revenue to the County. He stated he felt the identification approach would be a good idea. Mr. Mayes stated government has three legs on which to stand: 1. eminent domain which the courts handle; 2. taxation which the tax people handle; and 3. police power which the police should handle. 84-694 He stated when they are mixed, it subjects the County to possible problems and everything is all right until something happens. He stated the only salient factor in favor of this is that if this is allowed, that the inspectors have a uniform or some form of visible identification. He stated he felt the inspector is being subjected to a hazard initially and the County to the possibility of a suit in the future. He stated he felt the Board was not clear on how this is to be done and what might happen afterward. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 12-33 and 14.1-28 RELATING TO THE LICENSE INSPECTOR BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia: (1) That Sections 12-33 and 14.1-28 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended as follows: Sec. 12-33. License Inspector. The license inspector is authorized to enforce the pro- visions of this chapter and any ordinance of the county requiring license taxes to be paid to the county, review any and all records of the commissioner of the revenue other than income tax returns and examine and audit the returns of all persons whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be liable for payment of any license tax levied by the county, do any and all acts authorized by Chapter 57, Acts of Assembly, 1956, as amended by Chapter 490, Acts of Assembly, 1962, and shall at all times be under the supervision and control of the board of supervisors or its agents. Police powers are hereby conferred upon the license inspector and all deputy license inspectors, while engaged in performing their duties as such under the provisions of this chapter, and they shall exercise all the powers and authority of police officers in performing those duties. The license inspector or deputy license inspector shall ascertain the name of each person engaged in conducting any business, occupation or profession in the county without having obtained a license therefor and the name of each person having a slot machine in any place mentioned in this chapter without having obtained a license therefor. The license inspector or deputy license inspector may issue a summons or have a warrant of arrest issued for any such person, charging him with a violation of the provisions of this chapter and may serve a copy of such summons or execute such warrant upon such person in the manner provided by law. He shall return the original to the general district court with the matter and time of service or execution stated thereon. Sec. 14.1-28. Violations. It shall be unlawful to violate any provision of this article and every person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable as provided in Section 1-6. Police powers are hereby conferred upon the license inspector while engaged in performing his duties under the provisions of this article and he shall exercise all the powers and authority of police officers in performing these duties. The license inspector may issue a summons or have a warrant of arrest issued for any person charging him with a violation of the provisions of this article and may serve a copy of such summons or execute such warrant upon such person in the 84-695 manner provided by law and make return thereof to the proper court as provided by law. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Nayes: Mr. Mayes. Mr. Dodd mentioned the fact that identification should be considered by the Board. Mr. Daniel stated the County Administrator could handle this matter. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9.A. PRESENTATION OF RICHMOND RENAISSANCE Mr. Randy Evans, Executive Director of Richmond Renaissance, introduced Mr. Clarence Townes, Deputy Director, who was present. Mr. Clarence Townes gave a brief history of this private/public partnership which was established to provide a forum for quiet discussion to draw resources together to impact on an economic and better way of living for the citizens of the City and the region. Mr. Evans reviewed projects such as Brown Island, the Sixth Street Market Place, Belle Isle, the facade of buildings on ~Broad Street, the 2nd Street Business District, etc. that are underway or planned by Richmond Renaissance and presented sketches of each. Mr. Daniel requested that Richmond Renaissance also look into the improvement of the southside of the James River as well. The Board further thanked Mr. Evans and Mr. Townes for their reviewing the projects and plans with the Board. 9.B. CONSENT ITEMS 9.B.1. HOLIDAY SCHEDULE FOR 1985 On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following County Holiday Schedule for 1985: New Year's Day Lee-Jackson Day/Martin Luther King, Jr. Washington's Birthday Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Columbus Day Veterans' Day Thanksgiving Day Day After Thanksgiving Day Christmas Eve Christmas Day New Year's Eve January 1 January 21 February 18 May 27 July 4 September 2 October 14 November 11 November 28 November 29 December 24 December 25 December 31 Vote: Unanimous 9.B.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Petersburg Street in Chestermill, Bermuda District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that Petersburg Street in 84-696 Chestermill, Bermuda District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Petersburg Street, beginning at the intersection with Daniel Street, State Route 1546, and running southerly 0.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope easements. This road serves 6 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guaran- tees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 foot right-of- way for this road. Chestermill is recorded as follows: Plat Book 45, Page 3, January 23, 1984. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Groundhog Drive in Edgehill Townhouses, North Creek, Section F, Midlothian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that Groundhog Drive in Edgehill Townhouses, North Creek, Section F, Midlothian District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Groundhog Drive, beginning where State maintenance ends, Groundhog Drive, State Route 1706, and going 0.03 mile southwesterly to a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope easements. This road serves 24 townhouse lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guaran- tees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 foot right-of-way for this road. Groundhog Drive is recorded as follows: Deed Book 1606, Page 1489, April 18, 1983. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Early Settlers Road and Red Lion Place in Heritage Village, Section A and remaining portion of Early Settlers Road, Midlothian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that Early Settlers Road and Red Lion Place in Heritage Village, Section A and remaining portion of Early Settlers Road, Midlothian District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Early Settlers Road, beginning at intersection with Robious Road, State Route 675, and going 0.08 mile southwesterly to intersection with Red Lion Place, then continues 0.37 mile southwesterly to tie into Johnston Willis Drive, State Route 777; Red Lion Place, beginning at intersection 84-697 with Early Settlers Road and going 0.05 mile northwesterly to tie into existing Red Lion Place, State Route 1952. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope easements. These roads serve 50 lots and as a connector road between Robious Road and Johnston Willis Drive. And be it further resolved that the Board of Supervisors guaran- tees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 foot right-of- way for Red Lion Place except Early Settlers Road, whereby we guarantee a variable 60 foot to 115 foot right-of-way. This section of Heritage Village is recorded as follows: Section A. Plat Book 38, Pages 2 and 3, January 9, 1981. Early Settlers Road is recorded as follows: Deed Book 1649, Page 1486, April 5, 1984. Deed Book 1675, Pages 1629 and 1630, September 19, 1984. Vote: Unanimous 9.B.3. STATE ACCEPTANCE OF LANDFILL DRIVE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Landfill Drive, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that Landfill Drive, Matoaca District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Landfill Drive, beginning at its intersection with Iron Bridge Road, State Route 10, and running westerly 0.18 mile. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope easements. Also, by virtue of this road serving a public facility, a County landfilL, it may be added to the system as an addition under Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guaran- tees to the Virginia Department of Highways an unobstructed, 60 ifoot right-of-way for this road. : Unanimous 9.B.4. REQUESTS FOR BINGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMITS On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved the requests for bingo and/or raffle permits for calendar year 1985 for the Optimist Club of Bermuda, the Virginia Physical Therapy Association, the Clover Hill High School Keynotes and the Robert E. Lee Post 2239 VFW. Vote: Unanimous 9.C. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 9.C.1. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved the street light installation cost approvals for the following locations with the funds listed to be expended from the district street light funds as indicated: 84-698 1. 7010 and 7021 Walmsley Boulevard, $145.00 - Clover Hill 2. Buford Road and Buford Commons, $421.00 - Midlothian Vote: Unanimous 9.C.2. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved the installation of street lights at the following locations with any necessary funds to be expended from the Matoaca District Street Light Funds: Intersection of Jackson Street and Rutledge Avenue Intersection of Wilcox Street and Fitzhugh Street Vote: Unanimous 9.C.3. TRAFFIC SIGNAL STUDY On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County is concerned about the growing traffic congestion on Route 60 from Chippenham Parkway to Winterfield Road and on Route 147 through the Village of Bon Air; and Whereas the Board of Supervisors is desirous of having a detailed traffic investigation of these corridors conducted to insure the traffic signals along the corridors are performing in an effec- tive manner. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to perform a detailed traffic investigation of the signal systems along Route 60 and Route 147. Vote: Unanimous 9.C.4. ZONING OF POCOSHOCK HILLS, SECTION Mr. Balderson stated the County had received a petition from residents of Pocoshock Hills requesting that the Board of Supervisors review the construction of a combination of duplexes and single family residences in a subdivision. He stated they are concerned about single family residences not being subject to the same conditions and proffers of zoning as applied to the duplexes. He further stated that if the Board wishes to review the matter further, staff should be authorized to bring this forWard as a Conditional Use Planned Development which would be reviewed by staff and the Planning Commission. He stated the property was originally zoned R-7 and in 1981 a developer received approval for duplex development within the R-7 district with the intent of building a combination of single family homes and duplexes within the subdivision. He stated that this has been occurring. He stated conditions were imposed on the duplexes and proffers accepted, however, no conditions were Imposed on the single family construction. He stated there were some violations of the conditions for the duplexes. Mrs. Yvonne Oakley, a resident of Pocoshock, stated there had been meetings regarding the development and they were assured no low housing would be constructed but it was not put in writing. She stated that the duplexes were to give the appearance of single family development, etc. She explained the installation of dual meters which indicated duplexes, they were 84-699 installed in a random manner, etc. She stated the developer had health and financial problems and sold out. She stated the new developer began building duplexes again and in a random manner as well. She presented the Board with a plat of the area. She stated the neighborhood has become a patchwork of duplexes and single family houses. She presented pictures of the area as well as a display of the construction. She requested a moratorium in the area until something could be decided. Mr. Mayes inquired if the developer was violating the conditions or covenants. Mr. Balderson stated the conditions in some cases for the duplexes were not followed but these were being handled through the zoning violations process. Mrs. Girone inquired if there were a plan for which lots would have duplexes or single family. Mr. Balderson stated the parcel was subdivided but there was no requirement as to which type of building would be constructed where. Mr. Dodd inquired if a moratorium on the property could be placed. Mrs. Oakley stated that on the 10th of October they submitted their petition and on the 31st of October, the developer proceeded to obtain a building permit and has laid a footing on the only lot mentioned in the petition. Mr. Micas stated that zoning violations can be enforced but the concerns expressed by the residents are not zoning violations. He stated a moratorium could not be placed on the property as a developer cannot be penalized for violations on other property. Mr. Applegate stated he would like to cease the building permits until the situation is corrected. He stated if that is not legally proper, then it be double advertised for a Conditional Use Planned Development for the Planning Commission and Board in order to have the matter expedited as soon as possible. He stated he felt he also needs to meet with the developer as he felt some control on the balance of the development should be accomplished. There were approximately 15 people present in favor of action by the Board. Mrs. Oakley stated she also had letters from residents who could not be present. Mr. Mendenhall stated that he felt there were some violations on the property under discussion with a back porch on an easement, etc. Mr. Daniel stated this should be handled administratively through the staff. He added further that if additional conditions are felt to be necessary by the residents, they should be addressed at both hearings before the Board and the Planning Commission. There was discussion regarding the responsibility, the timing of the construction, etc. in this matter. Mrs. Oakley stated that they were upset that the developer was given privy to the petition they had submitted and was able to obtain a building permit on the one lot they were concerned about. She stated he will be able to go in and obtain more permits for what he wants before the hearings are held. Mr. Daniel stated this is the only thing that can legally be done. Mrs. Oakley stated some of the neighbors were not notified of the duplexes being built there. Mr. Applegate stated he would get back with the people in the near future after he has talked with Mr. Balderson to determine when the case would be heard. After further discussion, on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Ms. Girone, the Board authorized staff to begin the planning process for a Conditional Use Planned Development for the IIPlanning Commission and Board of Supervisors through double Iladvertising and that the developer be advised of the action which ~!is under consideration by the County for Section C of Pocoshock Hills. Vote: Unanimous 9.D. APPOINTMENTS 9.D.2. COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD The Board nominated Ms. Mary Jo Lux, Clover Hill; Mr. John R. 84-700 Grundy, Bermuda; Mr. Richard Spencer, Midlothian; and Mr. W. Clinton Pettus, Matoaca; for reappointment to the Community Services Board. It is noted formally appointments will be made at the December 12, 1984 meeting. 9.E. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 9.E.1. REPORTS 9.E.l.a. WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL REPORTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with the water and sewer financial reports. Mrs. Girone asked several questions regarding the reports and requested that staff review the reports with the Board. It was generally agreed that the Board would have a work session on the water and sewer reports at the most appropriate time. 9.E.l.b. DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. 9.E.2. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.E.2.b. ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF POWDERHAM Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance vacating a 20 ft. drainage easement across Lot 18, Block F, Powderham, Section C. There was no one present to discuss the matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a 20 foot drainage easement across lot 18, Block F, Powderham, Section C, Midlothian Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 38, at pages 16 and 17. WHEREAS, Powderham has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a 20 foot drainage easement across lot 18, Block F, Powderham, Section C, Midlothian Magisterial District, Chesterfield, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 38, pages 16 and 17, made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, Incorporated, dated November 4, 1980. The easement petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A 20 foot drainage easement across lot 18, Block F, Powderham, Section C, as shown on a plat made by C. Aubrey Featherston, IV, dated May 30, 1984, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the easement sought to be vacated and the vacation will not abridge the rights of any citizen. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 84-701 That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the above described easement is hereby vacated and no longer necessary for public use. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee simple title in the easement hereby vacated in the property owners of the lot free and clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and V. Cassel Adamson, Jr., and Pearl R. Adamson, husband and wife, Powderham Associates, No. I, Powderham Associates, No. II, and Goochland Investments, Incorporated or their successors in title, as grantees. Vote: Unanimous 9.E.2.c. ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF WILLIAMSTOWNE DRIVE Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate a portion of Williamstowne Drive. There was no opposition present. Mr. John Guyer was present representing the people who were in favor of this vacation. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a portion of Williamstowne Drive within Surreywood, Section E, Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 21, at pages 46 and 47. WHEREAS, Surreywood Civic Association has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a portion of Williamstowne Drive within Surreywood, Section E, Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 21, pages 46 and 47, made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, Incorporated, dated November 1, 1973. The street petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A portion of Williamstowne Drive within Surreywood, Section E, the location of which is more fully shown in red on a plat by J. K. Timmons and Associates, Incorporated, dated November 1, 1973, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virqinia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and, WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the street sought to be vacated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 84-702 That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the above described portion of Williamstowne Drive is hereby vacated and no longer necessary for public use except as hereinafter outlined. The grantees hereby convey unto the County and the County hereb, reserves the entire length and width of Williamstowne Drive hereby vacated as a drainage and utility easement. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirt days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee simple title t¢ the centerline of the aforementioned street in the property owners of the abutting lots free and clear of any rights of public use except as stated above. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of th~ County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and Floyd C. Priest and Mildred Priest, husband and wife, and Philip D. Tubbs and Marth M. Tubbs, husband and wife, or their successors in title, as grantees. Vote: Unanimous 9.E.2.d. ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF JADE ROAD Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance vacating a portion of Jade Road. There was no opposition present. Mr. Frank Darnell stated 94% of the residents of Penn Acres are in favor of this vacation. Mr. Applegate expressed appreciation to Mr. Darnell for his assistance in this matter. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a portion of Jade Road in the Penn Acres Subdivision, Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, which portion is fifty (50) feet in width and one hundred and eighty five (185±) feet, more or less, in length, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 11, at page 64. ?~EREAS, by resolution dated September 12, 1984, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia instructed staff t~ begin the necessary procedures to vacate Jade Road right-of-way a 50 foot right-of-way in Penn Acres, Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court said County in Plat Book 11, page 64, made by J. K. Timmons, Civil Engineer, dated August 18, 1959. The right-of-way peti- tioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A right-of-way fifty (50) feet in width beginning on the south line of Trout Lane and running in a southerly direction for a distance of one hundred and eighty five (185±) feet, more or less, the location of which is more fully shown shaded in red on a plat made by J. K. Timmons, Civil Engineer, dated August 18, 1959, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. 84-703 WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the street sought to be vacated. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virqinia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid right-of-way be and is hereby vacated and no longer necessary for public use except as here- inafter outlined. The grantees hereby convey unto the County and the County hereby reserves a 16 foot water easement as shown on the attached plat. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereinafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1050, as amended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee simple title to the centerline of the aforementioned street in the property owners of the abutting lots on the east and west sides of the portion of Jade Road hereby vacated free and clear of any rights of public use with the exception of the rights reserved herein by the County for a 16 foot water easement. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and A. Franklin Darnell and Loring J. Wiggins and Gloria Wiggins, husband and wife, or their successors in title, as grantees. Vote: Unanimous 9.E.2.e. VACATION OF HERNDON STREET, WERTH'S ADDITION Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance vacating Herndon Street within Werth's Addition to Chester. Mr. Welchons stated letters were sent to adjacent property owners and five are in favor of the vacation, two are opposed and five did not respond. He stated the Transportation Department had reviewed the request and recommended that this action be deferred until the land use and transportation analysis of the area and the Route 10 widening through Chester is complete. Mr. Steve Fornash stated he has been a resident of the area for 15 years. He stated the area under discussion is changing from a residential area to a business area. He stated those people living on Shop Street, Herndon, and Buckingham have maintained the street and would like it to remain closed. He stated if this is opened in the future, it will definitely decrease their property value and cause traffic problems. He stated the Board should protect the rights of those individuals who have lived there and not open it up for the businesses who have come into the area. Mr. Larry Mathews, who recently rezoned a residence to office, stated when he bought the property, the existing road to the rear was a plus. He stated he would like Herndon Street to remain as it is. He stated Route 10 is very busy and likely to become more so and he likes the ability to use Herndon Street. He stated he felt this area would be business at some time in the future and discussed a more orderly flow of traffic which could come out 84-704 in the study. to Route 10. He stated this could be valuable as a rear access Mr. Dodd stated this request came from the residents due to a zoning case in the area. He stated they were concerned that this right of way would be beyond the buffering conditions. He stated all the houses to the right facing Shop Street are residential, everything on Route 10 has been residential except now there are two or three offices and it will probably continue to be zoned for office use. He stated he felt he had made commitments to the community on the zoning case that this street would be closed. He stated the possibility of it ever being used for an escape for the traffic is very speculative and he did not feel any delay would be of any benefit. On motion Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate Herndon Street within Werth's Addition to Chester, Bermuda Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 2, at pages 234 and 235. WHEREAS, by resolution dated July 25, 1984, the Board of Supervi- sors of Chesterfield County, Virginia requested the right-of-way staff to prepare the necessary documents for a public hearing to vacate Herndon Street within Werth's Addition to Chester, Bermuda Magisterial District, Chesterfield, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 2, pages 234 and 235, made by D. F. LaPrade, dated September 1905. The portion of Right of Way to be vacated is more fully described as follows: Herndon Street 40 feet in width within Werth's Addition to Chester, as shown shaded in red on a plat made by D. F. LaPrade, dated September 1905, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the right-of-way sought to be vacated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virqinia, 1950, as amended, the above described Herndon Street is hereby vacated and no longer necessary for public use except as herein- after outlined. The grantees hereby convey unto the County and the County hereby reserves the entire leng%h and width of Herndon Street hereby vacated as a drainage and utilities easement. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee simple title to the centerline of the right-of-way in the owners of the abutting 84-705 lots free and clear of any rights of public use except as herein above stated. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and Lloyd A. Fox, James E. Evans, Milton Hawkins, Fenton Hawkins Estate, Lawrence G. Mathews, Jr., Wesley F. Burton, Whaley M. Colbert, James W. Battle, Lois M. Long, Laurence C. Beazley, Steven R. Fornash, and Frances J. MacKenzie or their successors in title, as grantees. Vote: Unanimous 9.E.3.a. WATER LINES FOR QUEENSMILL, SECTION G On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: W85-11CD/6(8)5112, Installation of water lines in Queensmill, Section G Developer: Queensmill Corporation Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc. Total Contract Cost: $65,200.00 Estimated County Cost (Cash Refund): 17,587.50 Estimated Developer Cost: $47,612.50 Number of Connections: 36 And further the Board transferred $19,400 from 380-1-62000-7212 to 380-1-65112-7212 which includes a 10% contingency. Vote: Unanimous 9.E.3.b. WATER LINES IN MANSFIELD CROSSING On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: W84-168CD/6(8)4685, Installation of water lines in Mansfield Crossing Developer: Mansfield Crossing Associates Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc. Total Contract Cost: Estimated Cash Refund: Refund through connections: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: 21 $ 3,189.60 7,500.00 $10,689.60 $56,942.50 $10,689.60 $46,252.90 Code: 559-1-00556-0000 (Refund through connections) And further the Board transferred $3,600.00 from 380-1-62000-7212 to 380-1-64685-7212 which includes a 10% contingency. Vote: Unanimous 9.E.3.c. VEPCO - PERMISSION FOR OVERHANG CABLE ON ROUTE On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for Vepco to install a pole and overhang cable on a 10' wide strip of land along the west side of Jefferson Davis Highway in accordance with the sketch filed with the papers of this Board, subject to the condition that Vepco relocate this pole in the future at its expense to accommodate County utilities or future road widening if necessary. Vote: Unanimous 84-706 9.E.3.d. C & P - CABLE SOUTH OF POINT OF ROCKS ROAD On motion of Mr. App±egate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for C & P to install a buried cable in a 50' wide County right of way south of Point of Rocks Road and west of Route 10 in accordance with the sketch filed with the papers of this Board, subject to the condition that C & P relocate the cable at their expense to accommodate County utilities or road improvements if needed. Vote: Unanimous 9.E.3.e. FALLING CREEK SEWAGE PUMPING STATION SITE On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a contract between Raymond C. Webb, Sr. and Rebecca H. Webb and the County of Chesterfield for the purchase of the Falling Creek Sewage Pumping Station site, a portion of two (2) lots in Wilkerson Terrace Subdivision, for $2,500.00 subject to the necessary approvals of our engineers and government agencies for its use as a sewage pumping station site. Vote: Unanimous 9.E.3.f. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG ROUTE 1 AND 301 On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to accept, on behalf of the County, a 5' strip of land along Route 1 and 301 from Spruance Cellophane Employees Credit Union, Incorporated, a Virginia Corporation. Vote: Unanimous 9.E.3.g. W©ODLAKE SEWAGE PUMPING STATION On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator, to accept on behalf of the County, a deed of dedication from Investors Woodlake Development Corporation to the County for the Woodlake Sewage Pumping Station. Vote: Unanimous 9.F. REPORTS Mr.~Hedrick presented the Board with a report on the general fund contingency account and the general fund balance. It was generally agreed by the Board that a work session on the budget would be held on December 12th at the Courthouse immediately following the Capital Region Airport closing at 10:00 a.m. at Byrd Airport. 9.G. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went into Executive Session for consultation with legal counsel relating to use of real property for public purposes and legal matters in connection with the financing of public improvements on such real property and personnel matters pursuant to Sections 2.1-344 (a) (2), (6) and (1), respectively, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 84-707 Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: 9.D. APPOINTMENTS 9.D.1. PERSONNEL APPEALS BOARD Mr. Mayes nominated Dr. Bruce Fleming to the Personnel Appeals Board which appointment would formally be made at the December 12, 1984 meeting. It was generally agreed that the Board would recess until 2:00 p.m. for lunch at the Airport Crosswind Restaurant. Reconvening: Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order and stated Mrs. Girone would be presiding during the afternoon session per the established rules and guidelines of the Board of Supervisors. 84SR205 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Armanda W. Pulley requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which she owns. Tax Map 42-14 (4) Falling Creek, Lot 48 and better known as 3000 Falling Creek Avenue (Sheet 16). Ms. Pulley requested an extension for the permit in order to allow her time to sell the mobile home. She stated she has been trying to sell it for some time, no one has been living in it for three years, it was purchased during a family hardship, etc. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request for a period of one year 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. 84-708 Vote: Unanimous 84S064 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, JJR, A VA PARTNERSHIP requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 163.5 acre parcel lying at the western terminus of West Providence Road. Tax Map 38-9 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheets 13 and 14). Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a 60 day deferral of this matter. A gentleman, representing the applicant, requested that this case be deferred until the January meeting. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred this request until January 23, 1985 at the request of the applicant. 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 Residential (R-12) on that part of the request site located between Tax Map 62-12 (1) Parcel 5 and Tax Map 62-12 (2) Swift Creek Farms, Block B, Lot 3, and Residential (R-9) for the remainder of the request site. He stated further the Board had deferred this case previously. Mr. Hill was present. Mr. Billy Davenport stated in 1964 the zoning was approved for R-15 and the neighborhood would like for it to remain that way as well as have the covenants of the Swift Creek Subdivision upheld for 25 years as they are written. He reviewed the minutes of a previous Board meeting held regarding this parcel and presented a map indicating how the subdivision was meant to look. There were approximately 17 people present opposed to this request. He stated there currently is 22 acres with 16 houses in Swift Creek Farms and on the 16.8 acres to be rezoned, there will be between 42 and 48 homes. He stated there are no buffers between the areas, Glen Tara with R-9 zoning was approved, Route 288 is proposed to come in the area, etc. He stated their land values will continue to decrease and they are working people whose investment in their home means everything. He stated a petition signed by 64 people from the surrounding area in opposition was presented to the Board at the previous meeting. Ms. Rovenna Jones state~-she lived across the street from the development. She stated when Mr. Branch came and asked the neighbors if they were opposed they indicated they were not because they knew Chesterfield had to grow and he proposed what they thought was a qood use of the land. She presented pictures of what existed in the area and what happened when the R-9 development occurred. She requested that quality be maintained in the area. Mr. Davenport referred to one landowner who would be surrounded by this development if approved who was in Swift Creek Farms originally. Mr. Mayes stated he felt a home was the greatest investment people could make in a lifetime and with the number of people concerned he is in agreement and their interests are paramount. 84-709 On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it was resolved this request be denied. Vote: Unanimous 84S163 In Midlothian Magisterial District, HUGUENOT-ROBIOUS ASSOCIATES requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (M-l) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on a 3.3 acre parcel fronting approximately 720 feet on the south line of Huguenot Road and also fronting approximately 380 feet on the north line of Robious Road, and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 8-16 (1) Parcel 6 and Tax Map 9-13 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheets 2 and 3). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jay Weinberg was present representing the applicant. He stated they would be rezoning 3.3 acres at the southeast intersection of Huguenot and Robious Road for construction of a mini-storage facility. He stated they accept the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. He stated he has talked with Hugh Frazier, President of the Old Gun Road-Robious Civic Association. He stated this represents the highest and best use of the land because property to the north is zoned office with a conditional use planned development; the south is bordered by commercial zoning; the east by vacant agricultural land and the west by office and R-40 zoned properties. He stated this is at the crossroads of Huguenot and Robious and Robious is to be widened to a six lane, divided arterial roadway with substantial improvements and channelization put into place. He stated because it is highly unlikely this parcel will ever be developed for residential purposes, it is important that the development be done in an aesthetically pleasing manner generating a minimum amount of traffic. He presented the Board with sketches depicting the facade and layout of the plan for buildings which are red brick around all of the perimeters, buffers, solid wood stockade fencing backed up with a chain link fence, office and apartment for manager on site, landscaping, etc. He stated this is the most acceptable development that can be considered for this location and is an off-peak traffic generator. He stated the Planning Commission eliminated condition ~2 which indicated that the entrance be on the eastern most portion of the property. He stated they feel the entrance should line up with the entrance to Huguenot Village Shopping Center because the Highway Department's plans call for a painted median to preclude left turns at the eastern end of the property and when Robious is widened they have been told this will become a raised median which will encourage people to go down further and make U-turns or travel through residential streets to access this property. He stated they only anticipate about 20 vehicles per day to the facility and lining it up where the Highway Department has the median cut is the most appropriate place. He stated in addition, moving the entrance would eliminate a 4500 sq. ft. building they have proposed as well as breach security which is important for the facility. He requested that the Board approve the request as the Planning Commission did. Mrs. Girone inquired about the buffer along Huguenot Road as the Highway Department is widening Route 147 and they are taking down most of the trees that were along the railroad track. She stated there is a good natural buffer on their land. Mr. Weinberg stated condition ~8 covers that concern. Mrs. Girone inquired about the entrance and not moving it down to the end of the parcel. She stated there is 210 feet between the entrance and the corner and the County has been using about 250 ft. and what has been experienced is that the entrances are rather short and interferes with turning movements in and out. She stated she 84-710 was concerned that this 210 feet is too close. Mr. Weinberg stated with a different type of use, that fear would be justified but they have only 20 cars a day using the facility. He stated this 210 feet would literally accommodate five and they feel there is no danger of it backing up and more over if it is blocked off, you will be forcing a U-turn or residential movement. Mrs. Girone explained the road network in the area at the traffic light down the road farther. Mr. Weinberg stated the service lane would be what would be used after the roadway is improved. Mrs. Girone inquired where the building would be moved if it were eliminated. Mr. Weinberg stated it could not be moved and it does involve 4500 square feet. Mrs. Girone inquired about the plans for Robious Road. Mr. McCracken stated the current plans are for a painted median but eventually it will be a raised median with other improvements on Robious Road. Mrs. Girone inquired if there were an entrance to this site at the back, would there not be an opportunity for the Highway Department to allow a break in the median. Mr. McCracken stated with the entrance to the shopping center now, it would be difficult to have two breaks that close together. Mrs. Girone inquired if there were a time frame for the widening of that road or when there will be any money. Mr. McCracken stated the project is not in the Six Year Plan. He stated the main point is that it is a low traffic generator and from a traffic standpoint you could not get a better use. He explained the road system that could be utilized to get to the site. Mrs. Girone stated something similar to the weave that could happen here happened at the Savings and Loan in Bon Air. Mr. Weinberg stated this site does have a stack lane and there will not be as many people as at the other location at peak hours. Mr. Applegate inquired if any improvements for Robious Road were in the Six Year Plan. Mr. McCracken stated not the four laning but only at the intersection which is under construction which only goes back to the entrance road to the apartments behind the shopping center. He stated crossover locations are always subject to change by the Highway Department and it could be changed in the future. Mrs. Girone stated she felt this use of the land was excellent, it is quiet and has little traffic and is much better than other situations considered. She stated the quality of the project is far superior to other similar projects. She stated her only question was regarding the entrance. She stated she felt this was better than the Forest Hill Avenue location as stacking is provided here and it is a low traffic generator. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Apptegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J. Calvin Holcombe, dated 7/9/84, and the textual statement prepared by Glenn R. Moore, dated 7/23/84, shall be considered the Master Plan. The structures shall have an architectural style as depicted in the renderings prepared by Calvin Holcombe,~'dated 7/12/84. (P) Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along Robious Road, as deemed necessary by VDH&T and the Transportation Department. (T) Right of way shall be dedicated in accordance with approved construction plans for Robious/Huguenot Roads improvement or in accordance with the General Plan 2000, whichever is greater. (T) The proposed fence, as shown on the Master Plan and renderings, shall be properly maintained. The fencing around the perimeter of the property shall be a solid wood stockade type with a chain link fence on the interior of the 84-711 solid wood fence. The front entrance gate shall either be chain link with black P.V.C. coating with brown solid slats inserted therein, or solid wood stockade to create a solid screen when the gate is closed. (P) The uses permitted shall be limited exclusively to mini-storage, an accessory office and a dwelling unit for the manager of the facility. There shall be no other office, commercial or industrial use permitted. (P) In conjunction with the approval of this request, the exceptions to setbacks as depicted on the Master Plan shall be granted. Also, an exception to the required number of parking spaces for office use shall be granted. (P) If, in the future, existing vegetation is removed from the property which adjoins the northern boundary of the request site (i.e., between the northern property line and Huguenot Road), evergreen trees and shrubs shall be planted between the northern property line and the warehouse buildings. These plantings shall be placed where space permits including, but not necessarily limited to, the areas within the indentations of the exterior building wall facing the northern property line. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along Robious Road. With the exception of two (2) parking spaces and an entrance/exit along Robious Road, there shall be no other facilities permitted within these buffers. This buffer shall consist of existing vegetation, with the exception of underbrush or any diseased or dead plant material, and shall be supplemented with additional evergreen trees and shrubs, where necessary, to effectively minimize the view of this development from adjacent properties. A conceptual land- scaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within sixty (60) days of rough clearing and grading. (P) A single freestanding sign, not to exceed twenty-five (25) square feet, and height of five (5) feet shall be permitted identifying this use. This sign may be illuminated, but may be luminous only if the signfield is opaque with translucent letters. The sign shall blend with the architectural style of the development. Prior to erecting the sign, a colored rendering shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P) Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (EE) Vote: Unanimous 84S082 In Matoaca Magisterial District, PIONEER FINANCIAL SERVICES requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Office Business (O) to Convenience Business (B-l) of 11.65 acres; from Convenience Business (B-l), Residential (R-12) and Residential Townhouse for Sale (R-TH) to Office Business (0) of 5.4 acres; and from Residential Townhouse for Sale (R-TH) to Residential (R-12) of 14.7 acres; plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on a 74 acre parcel. This request fronts approximately 1,200 feet on the east line of Iron Bridge Road and approximately 1,950 feet on Centralia Road, and is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 96-9 (1) Parcels 5 and 6 (Sheet 31). 84-712 Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to certain conditions. He stated there was some confusion at the Planning Commission with respect to the Master Plan and with respect to the commitment to build a Gayton Crossing Development. He stated the Master Plan does not represent a Gayton Crossing style of layout but does in terms of architecture. He stated there was also some questions of the status of the existing residence of Wrexham Hall and the Planning Commission recommended as a condition that Wrexham Hall be moved off the property and relocated and not included in the development because of the style of development planned. He stated the developers are not certain whether they wish to leave Wrexham Hall on the property or move it to another site on the parcel or move it from the parcel all together. He stated staff recommends that if the Board recommends leaving Wrexham Hall on the site that another condition replace the relocation condition that would require a prior schematic plan approval and its compatibility plan be presented to the Planning Commission that shows that Wrexham Hall is sited appropriately with respect to other buildings and its location on the parcel. Mr. David Cohn, representing the applicant, introduced others present also on behalf of the applicant. He stated this is a complex case because residential, office and business uses are in one development. He stated they would like to request that condition #20 regarding Wrexham Hall be revised so that Wrexham Hall can remain at its existing location on site or that they can relocate it to a location that would be approved in advance by the Planning Commission. He stated if it is to remain on site they feel it will blend in with the colonial look of the shopping center. He stated the applicant is also willing to make a commitment to the Board that the exterior of Wrexham Hall will be preserved with quality landscaping to create a harmonious transition between Wrexham Hall and the shopping center. He stated the original shopping center that was proposed would not have been compatible with Wrexham Hall and that was why they had proposed moving it. He stated now they are working toward a Gayton Crossing look which will be compatible if Wrexham Hall remains on site but if it is determined that it cannot be developed appropriately they will move it off site. He stated they will be going back to the Planning Commission for site plan approval with regard to Wrexham Hall. Mrs. Girone inquired if it is possible to leave the question to the Planning Commission as to what will happen to the house or what will be on the site under a Conditional Use Planned Development, as well as the compatibility issue. Mr. Micas stated the Board could, depending on how specific they want to be. Mr. Cohn stated condition #10 works with #20 and they are committing that the architectural style and site design of the shopping center will be similar to Gayton Crossing. He stated they would like to add a sentence that says "The concept of the site designs for tracts D and E as submitted is acceptable". He stated the conditions that he is referring to are the conditions set out in the staff recommendation as they were amended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Cohn reviewed condition ~3 and stated they would like to have the buffers along Route 10 and Centralia Road reduced to 25 feet rather than 50 feet and, in connection with this, they will agree to use three to four feet high berms and planted materials to screen the rear of the buildings and parking areas. He stated they would like two accesses onto Route 10 and two onto Centralia Road from Tract E and that the private driveway access to Centralia Road nearest to Route 10 will be restricted to right turns into and out of Tract E. He requested that condition ~4, dealing with pavement width, be amended to require "12 ft. of" pavement in lieu of "additional" pavement. He stated they would like the last sentence of condition #5 removed as the Highway Department will decide this issue and they will comply with their requirements. Mr. Micas stated the Board could be more restrictive in their zoning conditions if they so choose. Mr. Daniel stated he felt when someone is asking for a Conditional 84-713 Use Planned Development for a tract, it is immaterial as to who comes up with the idea. Mr. Cohn stated that it was a technical point and they would accept this condition as written. Mr. Cohn stated that condition ~13 allows for only one sign for the entire 74 acres and they would like one freestanding sign on Route 10 and one on Centralia Road which are illuminated or may be illuminated with an opaque face with cut out letters. He suggested condition #13b be deleted and condition 13c have the word "sizes" added. He stated in condition ~17, if there are no loading or driveway areas abutting the southern proPerty line of tract D they would like there to be a 25 ft. buffer rather than 50 ft. and if there is loading or driveways there, they would like a 35 ft. buffer rather than a 75 ft. buffer and they would agree to berminq and planting the buffer. He stated he felt this would be consistent with condition #8. He stated they would also like no buffer along the southern boundary of Tract C because tract C is residential development and there is already requirements in the zoning ordinance for rear yards in residential developments which will back up to other rear yards in an undeveloped contiguous property. He stated they would like condition #18 amended to permit store one to be 45,000 square feet and the other store to be 58,000 square feet and that they be in the same structure or be physically attached. He stated it would permit them to bring a needed quality store to the area. He asked further that condition 18.f. be amended to permit restaurants (with or without drive in windows) as a permitted use. He stated that condition #19 indicates that parking spaces must be 10 ft. x 20 ft. and they would like tracts B, D and E to have parking spaces 9½ ft. x 18 ft. and they would agree there would be a minimum of 60 ft. from the center of the double parking isle to the center of the next double parking isle. He presented the Board with a copy of the changes requested as well as the narrative in writing for the record. Mr. Mayes requested that staff address the impact of the changes on the County's conditions. Mr. Daniel inquired if there were a layout on this conditional use. Mr. Balderson stated they have a Master Plan and an analysis but it does not reflect a layout that is a Gayton Crossing style layout but more of Bermuda Square or Rockwood Square layout. Mr. Cohn presented a sketch of the layout and stated they felt this was a Gayton Crossing layout. Mr. Mayes inquired if this layout were compatible with the overall plan of the development of the area. Mr. Balderson stated in staff's opinion in reviewing this request against the past practice of the Board in zoning and approving land use in this area it is not. Mr. Cohn stated the architecture needs to be considered as well as the layout. Mr. Hedrick inquired what the difference is between the two layouts. Mr. Balderson stated this layout is individual parcels which they intend to place individual stores on, a building and a parking area with a strip shopping center to the rear and there is an aggregate parking area for that development.and they front directly on the public street and siding up to another street. He stated the facades are different along the front, sides and rear. He stated this is a linear or strip shopping center similar to Bermuda Square or Rockwood Square. He stated in the Gayton Crossing layout, the individual shops are separate and are not in a linear strip configuration in most all cases, they front to interior driveways and interior streets, private driveways that work off of the Gayton Road and Gaskins Road public streets and the facades are similar in the front, side and rear. He stated Gayton Crossing is an internalized shopping center or a village type of shopping center similar to Sycamore Square. Mr. Mayes inquired how this shopping center would degrade the area. Mr. Balderson stated at the Magnolia Grange area there is a village type shopping center with internal streets. Mr. Daniel stated in 1981 the Board approved this zoning with a similar 84-714 concept as across the street. He stated there has been a change in concept on this location and then there became the concept of Gayton Crossing and now it is not that. He stated he felt perhaps a deferral could be granted and have all parties work this out to become a Gayton Crossing or whatever but have this conditional use nailed down with no unanswered questions. Mr. Mayes again requested staff to review the conditions as requested for changes. Mr. Cohn stated they felt this was a Gayton Crossing layout and reviewed maps that were presented to the Board indicating the phases of construction of Gayton Crossing. He stated he felt all the questions have been answered and a deferral would not solve anything. He discussed Sycamore Square and the infeasibility of constructing another site like that because of economics. Mr. Poole reviewed the changes by the applicant and their impact on the conditions in the staff report and the reasoning for each. In summary, he indicated staff felt the changes requested would be inappropriate to maintain a high quality development consistent with the area. He stated some changes requested could be accomplished by the Planning Commission during schematic plan review. Mr. Dodd inquired if there were a slide of Gayton Crossing. Mr. Mayes inquired why it should be like Gayton Crossing. Mr. Dodd stated the County had struggled with a common denominator of architecture that would be acceptable and this was what was decided. There was further discussion regarding service areas, architecture, berming, landscaping and roads. Mr. Applegate indicated the County is concerned with maintaining the integrity of the architecture in the immediate area and the first thing he sees is a transitional building five stories high that the County has built, the building this room is in is not colonial architecture at all and yet we want to place those constraints on a developer. Mr. Dodd inquired if the residential square footages to the rear were agreeable. Mr. Cohn stated they were agreeable. Mr. Daniel inquired about the townhouses and their square footages. Mr. Cohn stated they were 1,300 sq. ft. for 1 and 2 bedrooms and 1,400 sq. ft. for 3 and 4 bedrooms and will sell for $60-70,000. Mr. Daniel stated that in 1981 the Board assured the people in Hollyberry Ridge that the costs of the townhouses would be equal to or exceed their residential costs. Mr. Daniel inquired about the square footage of the houses and the cost. Mr. Balderson stated the residential homes will be ranchers with minimum of 1,300 sq. ft., two story - 1,500, the cape code - 1,500 and tri-level - 1,500. Mr. Cohn stated they would cost approximately $70,000 and are compatible with Courthouse Green South. He stated they are planning to make this comparable to a Treemont development. Mr. Daniel stated he did not feel there was a 1,300 sq. ft. rancher in Hollyberry Ridge and this was what it was to be Compatible with. Mrs. Dottie Armstrong, Chairman of the Heritage Commission, stated she was not really in favor of in opposition to the request but is concerned for Wrexham Hall and the heritage of the County, for good taste and a value system for what is maintained and what is destroyed. She stated she is concerned that no one knows what will happen to the building even at this stage, whether it would be moved or kept there. She inquired what the developers thought was compatible for Wrexham and that some of the things that are going on are not compatible as to doing away with buffer zones, etc. She stated the buffer zone could be needed along Route 10 in the future for a six lane highway for the proposed shopping center near Chester. She stated the Board needs to have vision for the future. She stated concern for the Courthouse area which is the center of the Government, reduced density, etc. She stated she felt things are slipping through the cracks as this is not a complete package. 84-715 She stated she was concerned that if Wrexham Hall is moved, will there be time to talk about it, will it be tied down in terms of the conditions of the move, etc. She stated there were no guarantees that Wrexham Hall will stand at either place as there are no conditions regarding its disassembly, who will be responsible for the move, who the owner will be, etc. She protested the arrangement that has been proposed and requested that the conditions not be downgraded. Mr. Daniel inquired about the entrances and exits on Route 10. Mr. Dexter Williams stated the original application did not include some of the road frontage that exists now but the original did include one public road entrance with a private entrance as well. Mr. Williams outlined the original plan on the map. He stated further there was also no commercial frontage on Centralia at the time of the original plan. He stated at this time this property has approximately 200 ft. more frontage than Courthouse Commons and they have five driveways. He stated they are now requesting one with full private entrance and one private entrance restricted to right turns in and right turns out because of the proximity to the intersection. Mr. Dodd inquired how the trucks will go in and out near the building. Mr. Williams stated there would have to be some changes to accommodate trucks. He stated the applicant had eliminated the service road because there would have been no way to buffer the back of the shopping center which was the reason for deleting the service road. Mr. Micas stated that on pages 9 and 10 of the textual statement there are references to the Commonwealth's Attorney which should be the County Attorney and on page 5 of the textual statement there is a condition that would restrict the minimum sale price of the single family residential units which is a direct restriction on the conveyance of property and should be deleted. Mrs. Girone inquired if the applicant would like to make a statement regarding Wrexham Hall. Mr. Cohn stated if they have agreement on the site design and architectural style of the shopping center they will commit not to develop Wrexham Hall without first obtaining Planning Commission approval of a site plan for Wrexham Hall. He stated if it stays on site, they will obtain Planning Commission approval for the site plan of the development. He stated they have already agreed that if it is moved off-site that the Planning Commission will first have to approve the location to which it is to be moved. Mr. Applegate inquired what Mrs. Armstrong thought of the home being converted to a restaurant. Mrs. Armstrong stated that she only knew of one such case and it was completely burned on the inside. She stated that it depends on how they build it, if they take proper precautions against fire, etc. She stated the other was rebuilt but not to the same standards. Mr. Applegate inquired would she rather it be moved or converted to a colonial restaurant. Mrs. Armstrong stated it depends on how tastefully it would be done, who the owners would be, the location, who will be supervising the move, what would happen to the interior, etc. Mr. Cohn stated that the applicant is committed to the preservation and maintenance of the home ~n its present location or relocation and it will run with the deed, and they will not alter the exterior from its present appearance. He stated regardless of whether it is moved intact or piece by piece their deed restriction states that it has to be put back together and preserved. He stated the interior may need redesign because of changes for electricity, plumbing, air conditioning/heating, etc. and as a practical matter no developer would replace an interior with cheap construction but preserve what could be saved. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the house would be preserved even if it is relocated as there are sufficient commitments to that. He stated, however, he is uncomfortable because aside from commercial development, there were commitments made about house size and quality and townhouse size and quality and they have not 84-716 been met with the reduction in size. He stated unless changes are made in sizes, etc. he could not support this. He stated the concept of quality in 1981 was different from this. He stated he was comfortable with the Gayton Crossing vs. Bermuda Square look but he is still not sure what the layout is. He stated he felt a deferral to properly lay it out and look at the residential square footage might be necessary. He stated the previous zoning of this parcel nailed down housing, etc. and he felt they should remain comparable to Hollyberry. Mr. Dodd stated he never thought 1,800 sq. ft. townhouses would be constructed in the area. Mr. Mayes stated he felt a lot of time, energy and money have been put into this development. He stated the changes have been reviewed by the applicant which seem to be minimal and even though the package is not put together so that it can be simple, he felt the Board should act on this today. He stated the key issue was whether or not Wrexham Hall would be preserved based on its historic value according to these papers and it will have to go back to the Planning Commission for a final decision no matter what is done. He stated he would recommend that the conditions presented by the Planning staff be approved. On motion of Mr. Mayes, it was resolved that this request be approved subject to the conditions by Planning staff. Mr. Dodd stated he would like to have the buffer to the front reduced to 35 ft. buffer with a 3-4 ft. berm instead of a 50 ft. buffer, that the "other" store have 58,000 sq. ft., that two entrances be allowed on Route 10 and Centralia Road for Tract E, that two freestanding signs one on Route 10 and one on Centralia Road be permitted, that the parking spaces be reduced to 9% ft. x 18 ft. with 60 ft. between the isles, that plans for Wrexham Hall will go back to the Planning Commission and with the change of reference to Commonwealth Attorney to County Attorney and the elimination of the price of housing in the textual statement as well as subject to those other conditions not amended. He inquired if the Board were trying to have a Sycamore Square when that is not practical, he inquired how far the Courthouse area extends, he stated the County seat is no more holy than other peoples' homes and common sense has to be used, and that this is a common sense, middle ground approach that will do what is necessary to keep a quality Courthouse area. Mr. Daniel requested that quality of the housing be included as to be comparable with Hollyberry Ridge. Mr. Dodd stated that he did not know exactly how to do that as he did not know what the square footage should be. Mr. Daniel requested that all single family housing will be built to Hollyberry Ridge quality standards in size and architecture and construction or even the original zoning in 1981 to the size, etc. for townhouses or single family. Mr. Micas stated the Board could control the quality of conditions of housing but this zoning case is broken down differently and there are already conditions which affect and limit architectural treatment and the minimum size in this zoning. He stated if they are to be changed, they have to be changed specifically and~not compared to another area. Mr. Mayes seconded the motion and called for the question. Mr. Dodd moved a substitute motion for approval subject to the following conditions, which was seconded by Mr. Mayes: The following conditions notwithstanding, the Textual Statement and Exhibits A through T shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) e Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas in Tracts B, C, D and E. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian access. However, this condition shall not apply to Tract B if developed for single family homes. (EE) 84-717 (Note: This condition should be added to Textual Statement II. Conditions.) A thirty-five (35) foot buffer shall be maintained along Centralia and Iron Bridge Roads. Within these buffers, ornamental landscaping and a 3-4' high undulating earth berm shall be installed. A fifteen (15) foot buffer shall be maintained along the length of the proposed north/south eighty (80) foot right of way and along the east/west road. These buffers shall be planted and/or bermed in a manner that will effectively screen rear yards and parking areas from view of public roads. Two private driveways shall be permitted through these buffers onto Route 10 plus two onto Centralia Road. No individual lot access shall be permitted to the proposed north/south public road from Tract A. Access to the internal public road system from Tracts B, C, D and E shall be determined at the time of schematic plan review. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review for those sites abutting these buffers. Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. This condition may be modified by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review, provided the spirit and intent of this condition is carried forth. (P) (Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement II. Condition 12. and III. Tract A, 2.; and Tract E, 4. and 5. This condition precludes individual lot or private access to Route 10 and the north/south road, and limits individual lot or private access to the east/west road and Centralia Road.) Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along Iron Bridge and Centralia Roads. In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission, a plan showing ultimate pavement widening and the phasing of the construction shall be submitted to the Transportation Department for approval. (T) (Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement II. Condition 16.) A crossover with a left-turn lane shall be constructed in Iron Bridge Road aligned with the proposed east/west road. No other new crossovers shall be constructed. (T) (Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement II. Condition 17.) If Tract B is developed for office use, a thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained between Tract A (Single family residential) and Tract B (Office). This buffer shall be landscaped to screen the view of the office development from the adjacent residential tract. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this~requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement III. Tract B, 1. Offices e.) If Tract B is developed for single family residential, all requirements outlined in the Textual Statement and conditions stated herein which apply to Tract A shall be complied with. Also, a thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained between Tract E (Convenience Business) and Tract B (Office). This buffer shall be landscaped to screen the view of the shopping center from adjacent residents. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall 84-718 10. 11. 12. 13. be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Depart- ment for approval in conjunction with final site plan submission. (P) (Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement III. Tract B, 2. Single Family Residences b.). A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained between Tracts C and D. This buffer shall be landscaped to screen the view of the shopping center from adjacent residents. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Depart- ment for approval in conjunction with final site plan submission. (P) (Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement III. Tract D, e.) Any cluster homes or condominium homes developed in Tract C shall comply with square footage requirements specified for townhouses. (P) (Note: This condition should be added to Textual Statement III. Tract C, 2. Cluster Homes and 3. Condominium Homes.) Tracts D and E shall have an architectural style and site design similar to Gayton Crossing Shopping Center in Henrico County. In conjunction with schematic plan review, colored renderings shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. (CPC) (Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement III. Tract D, a and c and Tract E, 14. and Statement.) Textual Statement III. Tract D, d and Tract E, 5. pertaining to landscaping of parking areas shall be deleted and shall be superseded by III. Tract D, f. and g. (P) Textual Statement III, Tract D, f. and g. pertaining to landscaping of parking areas shall apply to landscaping of parking areas in Tracts B and E, as well. However, this condition shall not apply to Tract B if developed for single family homes. (P) (Note: This condition should be added to Textual Statement III. Tracts B and E.) SIGNS Se Two (2) freestanding signs identifying Tracts B, D and E, not to exceed 100 square feet in area shall be permitted. These signs shall identify the nature of the development and the tenants therein. These signs may be illuminated, but shall not be luminous. These signs shall not exceed a height of twenty-five (25) feet. These signs shall blend with the architectural style of the development. Directional signs (entrance/exits) shall be permitted and shall be governed by the minimum requirements as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance under §21-60 (e). be Each separate commercial or office building shall be permitted one (1) sign attached to the facade, not to exceed a total aggregate area of 0.5 square feet for each one (1) foot of building frontage. These signs shall also blend with the architectural style of the development. 84-719 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Co Prior to erection of any signs, colored renderings shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. This package shall include typical styles, colors, areas, and lettering. de No other advertising signs, other than those identifying the name and nature of the commercial establishments, shall be permitted (i.e., advertisement of products or services). ee Residential Tracts A and C and Tract B, if developed for residential use, shall be permitted signs as governed by the Zoning Ordinance. (P) (Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement III. Tract D, h. 3 (Signage), Tract E, 3. and should be added to Tract B.) An all-weather pedestrian path shall be provided between the residential and commercial areas. The specific location and design of this path shall be determined at the time of schematic plan review. (P) (Note: This condition should be added to Textual Statement II. Conditions.) Tracts B, D and E area shall be designed to facilitate traffic movements within the tract and to preclude unnecessary use of public roads. (P) (Note: This condition should be added to Textual Statement II. Conditions.) Outdoor lighting in Tract B shall not exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet and shall be positioned so as not to project into adjacent residential properties. Lighting fixtures in Tracts B, D and E shall blend with the colonial architectural style of development. (Note: This condition should be added to Textual Statement II. Conditions, and supersedes III. Tract E, 8.) If no loading or driveway areas abut the southern boundary of Tract D, a fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the southern boundary; otherwise, a seventy-five (75) foot buffer shall be maintained. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall also be maintained along the southern boundary of Tract C. Other than pedestrian ways and drainage and/or utility improvements, no facilities shall be permitted within this buffer. If existing vegetation is evergreen, and dense enough to screen these uses from adjacent property to the south, no additional planting shall be required. However, where existing vegetation does not effectively screen the subject property, additional planting shall be required. A conceptual landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site plan review. (Note: This condition should be added to Textual Statement II. Conditions.) Within Tracts D and E, all uses permitted by the Zoning Ordinance for Convenience Business (B-l) Districts shall be permitted. In addition, the following use or square footage exceptions shall be permitted: so One grocery store, not to exceed 45,000 gross square feet. (CPC) 84-720 One other store, not to exceed 58,000 gross square feet. (BS) These two (2) stores shall not be located within the same structure or physically attached. No other stores shall exceed the 12,000 square foot limitation. b. Health clubs Ce Veterinarian clinic, provided there is no overnight boarding. d. Print shops e. Liquor store fe Ail buildings located within 200 feet of Route 10 or Centralia Road shall be limited to the following uses: banks, savings and loans, drive-in restaurants or any other use permitted in the Office Business (O) District. (CPC) (Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement III. Tract E, a through i and 13.) 19. Parking spaces and sizes for Tracts B, D and E shall be provided in accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements, except that parking spaces may be reduced to a minimum of 9½'x18' if the width of a parkinq bay (2 rows of spaces separated by a driveway) is 60' or greater. (BS) (Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement III. Tract E, 6.) 20. In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission in Tract E, the site of the relocation of Wrexham Hall or a revised Master Plan showing Wrexham Hall incorporated into the development shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. If Wrexham Hall is to be relocated, no occupancy permit shall be issued for any building in the tract until Wrexham Hall has been relocated ~rom that tract. If Wrexham Hall is to be incorporated into the Master Plan, it shall be done so in a manner that preserves and protects the historic character of the structure. (BS) (Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement III, Tract E, 13.) 21. The following changes shall be made to the Textual Statement: a. Section III, Tract A, 6. shall be deleted. Section III, Tract C, 10. and 12. shall be amended to replace "Commonwealth's Attorney" with "County Attorney". (CA) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Abstention: Mr. Daniel as he felt the conditions were not sufficient for the housing. It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes. Reconvening: 84S106 In Midlothian Magisterial District, SIGMA DEVELOPMENT, INC. requested amendments to previously granted Conditional Use Planned Developments (Cases 79S211 and 81S109) to permit the ~reestanding sign on Route 60 to be internally lighted and to permit the aggregate area of shopping center identification signs to be increased to 125 square feet. This request lies in a 84-721 Convenience Business (B-i) District on a 10.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 75 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 150 feet east of Coalfield Road; also fronting approximately 660 feet on the east line of Coalfield Road approximately 190 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 15-12 (1) Parcel 39 (Sheet 7). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to acceptance of the proffered condition. Mr. Ed Willey was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to acceptance of the following proffered condition: There shall be no temporary mobile signs displayed along the Route 60 and Coalfield Road frontage of the property. Vote: Unanimous 84S167 In Midlothian Magisterial District, CHESTERFIELD CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS requested an amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 80S059) relative to parking requirements. This request lies in a Residential Townhouse for Sale (R-TH) District on a 1.27 acre parcel fronting approximately 344 feet on the north line of Early Settlers Road, approximately 150 feet southwest of Red Lion Place. Tax Map 17-2 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mrs. Jean Copeland was present representing the applicant. She stated in the discussion of the staff case study there are a couple of errors to be clarified for the record. She stated they have 24 parking spaces rather than 22 and there is an indication there would be a total enrollment of 140. She stated condition 1 would permit a larger enrollment. She stated the capacity for child care centers is set by the Dept. of Social Services for the State of Virginia. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: Parking shall be provided based on a ratio of one (1) space for each twenty (20) children enrolled up to a maximum of six (6) spaces plus one (1) for each employee. The parking and driveway area shall be designed to provide an area for drop-off and pick-up, which shall be connected to the main building by a sidewalk. e The plan prepared by Charles C. Townes and Associates, revised 9/23/82, shall be considered the Master Plan. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan. Vote: Unanimous 84S168 In Bermuda Magisterial District, EDWIN H. RAGSDALE requested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to Light Industrial (M-l) on a 5.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 283 feet on the south line of Woods Edge Road, also fronting approximately 540 feet on Happy Hill Road, and located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 149-11 (1) Part of Parcel 3 (Sheet 41). 84-722 Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Dodd stated this is in Matoaca District and not in Bermuda District. Mr. Jeff Collins was present and stated he understood the applicant would be withdrawing this case and that a letter was being sent to the County. He stated if the case were deferred he would check with the applicant to make sure that was his desire. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it was resolved that this request be de~erred until January 23, 1985 to ascertain the applicant's desire for withdrawal or approval. Vote: Unanimous 84S169 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, WOODLAKE LAND TRUST AND INVESTORS WOODLAKE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION requested an amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 81S086) to permit residential uses in Office Business (O) Tracts. This request lies on a 24.0 acre parcel in Woodlake at Brandermill, approximately 950 feet off the north line of Hull Street Road approximately 200 feet west of Woodlake Village Parkway. Tax Map 61 (1) Part of Parcel 12 (Sheets 19 and 20). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Clarke Plaxco was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: This amendment shall permit residential land uses in part of Tracts 01 and 02. Residential land uses may consist of any of the dwelling types specified in the Textual Statement for Conditional Use Planned Development (81S086) provided all requirements as outlined in Chart III, page 15 for particular residential types; all requirements as specified in the "Multi-family Requirements - R-9 District" pages 16 through 19 for multi~amily types; and/or all requirements as specified in "Community Centers, Required Conditions," pages 25 and 26 are adhered to. (Note: At the time of schematic plan review, the Planning Commission may impose additional conditions which insure land use compatibility.) Vote: Unanimous 84S171 In Bermuda Magisterial District, PIONEER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) on a 1.53 acre parcel lying approximately 360 feet off the east line of Chester Road approximately 2,300 feet south of Centralia Road. Tax Map 97-10 (1) Parcel 7 (Sheet 32). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain proffered conditions. Mr. D. R. Farren was present and stated this was an outparcel which they did not acquire at the same time they acquired the Glen Oaks Tract. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request subject to the acceptance of the following proffered conditions: 1. County sewer and water will be used for all development. 84-723 Minimum square footage for homes as follows: a) b) c) Ranchers - 1400 sq. ft. finished Cape cods & Tri-levels - 1600 sq. ft. with 1000 sq. ft finished. Two stories - 1800 sq. ft. with 900 sq. ft. finished. The following shall be incorporated into the Declaration of Restrictions and recorded with the subdivision plat: a. No lot shall be used other than for residential purposes. Only one residence may be constructed on each platted lot as recorded, nor shall said platted lots be subdivided or re-subdivided. b. Exclusive of the main dwelling, no building, structure, outbuilding, playhouse, fence or wall shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot until the construction plans and specifications and a plan showing the location of the same have been filed with and approved by the Architectural Control Committee as to square footage, quality of workmanship and materials, harmony of exterior design and/or color with existing structures, and as to location with respect to topography and finished grade elevation. c. The Architectural Control Committee is composed of the following persons: Don Farren, Jr., Glenn Perkins, Paul Barr, Ernie Taylor, and one other selected by developers and home owners. The Architectural Control Committee will act only in the event any item in the Declaration of Re- strictions is not complied with. In the event of a death or resignation of any member of this Committee, a replacement will be appointed by the side that lost the member. d. The committee's approval or disapproval as required in these proposed restrictions shall be in writing. In the event the committee or its designated representative fails to approve or disapprove within 30 days after plans and specifications have been submitted to it, or in any event, if no suit to enjoin the construction or alteration, after notice in writing of said construction has been received by said committee, approval will not be required and the related covenants shall be deemed to have been fully complied with. e. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot except that one sign of not more than seven square feet advertising the property for sale or rent may be displayed; two signs used by a builder to advertise the property during construction and sales period may also be displayed; also, one sign may be displayed at the entrance of subdivision of not more than twenty-four square feet. f. No trailer, tent, shack, garage, barn or other outbuildings erected on any lot shall at any time be used as a residence, temporarily or permanently, nor shall any structure of a temporary character be used as a residence; provided, however, this clause shall not be construed to prevent domestic held quarters being installed over a detached garage or other outbuilding. g. No homeowner's trailer shall be parked over 12 hours in any one week on any lot or driveway so as to be visible from the street. h. No live stock, cattle, hogs, or goats, any dog kennel as defined by the Chesterfield County Code in existence as of the date of the recordation of these restrictions shall be allowed on any lot, nor shall any noxious or offensive trade or activity be carried on thereon, nor shall anything 84-724 Vote: be done thereon which shall be or become an annoyance or nuisance to a good residential neighborhood. i. No lots shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish. Trash, garbage, or other waste shall be kept in sanitary containers. All incinerators or other equipment for the storage or disposal of such materials shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition in rear yards only. Trash to be picked up by public or private service shall be kept outside the bounds of any road in the subdivision and kept wholly on the individual lots. j. No horse or pony shall be stabled or pastured on any lot or parcel of land. k. No unlicensed motor vehicle shall be parked on any lot herein for more than 60 days unless it is parked in an enclosed garage. 1. No trees measuring six inches or more in diameter at a point two feet above ground level may be removed without the written approval of the Architectural Control Committee. Approval for the removal of trees located within fifteen feet of the main dwelling or accessory buildings will be granted unless such removal will substantially increase the beauty of the property. This shall not apply to clearing of right of ways, and/or easements, for construction of roadways, drainage and utilities, or for garden or trailer space. m. The following are prohibited until it has been approved by the Architectural Control Committee: No fence shall be erected, placed, or altered on any lot. No antennae other than a television antennae shall be installed. No swimming pool shall be constructed above ground. No single story main structure shall be of slab construction. No masonry other than brick or stone shall be left exposed on any structure. n. Restrictive covenant requiring exterior finish materials to be one of the following: 1. Beaded Hardboard Siding 2. Woodsman Siding 3. Wood Siding 4. Brick Veneer All utilities are to be underground. p. These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them for a period of twenty (20) years for the date these covenants are recorded, after which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for an additional period of ten (10) years unless an instrument signed by a majority of the then owners of the lots has been recorded, agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in part. q. Once developer sells land, he is no longer responsible for these covenants. Unanimous 84-725 84S172 In Matoaca Magisterial District, C.F. CURRIN, JR. requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use exceptions in a Residential (R-7) District on an 11.8 acre parcel fronting approximately 540 feet on the west line of Iron Bridge Road, approximately 2,000 feet north of Lewis Road. Tax Map 114-1 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 31). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jeff Collins was present representing the applicant. He stated that they would like the Board to delete condition #8 or reassure them that when they come back for schematic plan approval they would not necessarily have to place that right of way at the southern boundary of the site. He explained the uses proposed, and that, for marketing purposes, they might need to come directly into two parcels and there may be the possibility of making one road a private road, etc. Mr. McCracken stated he did not feel there would be any problem with the request and development as proposed. Mr. Balderson stated that he did not feel the condition differed from that being requested. Mr. Collins stated that it made reference to the southern boundary. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Charles C. Townes and Associates, dated 5/18/84, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) Parcels A, B and C shall be limited to Convenience Business (B-l) uses plus a motor vehicle accessory store and a printing shop and shall comply with the bulk requirements of the Convenience Business (B-l) District, except where otherwise stated herein. (P) Parcels D and E shall be limited to General Business (B-3) and Light Industrial (M-l) uses and shall comply with the bulk requirements of the General Business (B-3) District, except where otherwise stated herein. (P) Buildings shall be constructed of materials other than cinder block or metal. The specific design and colors shall be approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with schematic plan review. (P) In conjunction with schematic plan review, a site landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Plants shall consist of ornamental trees and shrubs. (P) Except directional signs which shall be governed by Zoning Ordinance requirements, one (1) freestanding sign shall be permitted identifying this development and the tenants therein. This sigs-shall not exceed an aggregate area of 100 square feet and a height of ten (10) feet. Individual freestanding buildings shall be permitted building-mounted signs not to exceed an aggregate area of 0.5 square feet for each one foot of building frontage. Business signs may be illuminated, but shall not be luminous. Prior to erection of any signs, a sign package depicting typical colors, materials and styles shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. (P) Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed along Route 10, as deemed necessary by VDH&T and the Transportation Department. (T) 84-726 10. 11. The sixty (60) foot right of way, shown on the Master Plan, shall be changed to a private entrance/exit in the same location. (BS) The developer shall be responsible for installing additional pavement and curb and gutter along the entire property frontage adjacent to the eighty (80) foot right of way to provide a typical section of forty (40) feet, face of curb to face of curb. (T) Curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (EE) Prior to obtaining a building permit, a Master Drainage Plan for the entire 11.8 acres shall be approved by Environmental Engineering. (EE) Vote: Unanimous 84S173 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, GEORGE B. SOWERS, JR. AND ASSOCIATES, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 14.2 acre parcel lying approximately 200 feet off the north line of Ronaldton Road at its intersection with Francill Drive. Tax Map 27-15 (1) Parcels 2 and 5 (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request for Residential (R-9) and approval of Residential (R-15) zoning. He stated the applicant has proffered two conditions regarding overall lot size and lot size adjacent to Forest Acres. Mr. Sowers was present. There was no opposition present. Mr. Applegate stated he had met with the applicant since the Planning Commission meeting and it appeared that the staff and the Commission were concerned that what needed to happen was to protect the integrity of the adjacent subdivision and other parcels. He stated he felt the guarantees proffered by the applicant would serve that purpose. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request for Residential (R-9) subject to acceptance of the following proffered conditions: The average lot size shall be a minimum of 12,000 square feet. Ail lots adjacent to Forest Acres Subdivision shall be a minimum of 12,000 square feet. Vote: Unanimous 84S177 In Bermuda Magisterial District, EDNA MAE CLAIBORNE requested Conditional Use to operate a child care center in an Agricultural (A) District on a 1.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 125 feet on the east line of Woods Edge Road, approximately 4,100 feet south of Lawing Drive. Tax Map 134-13 (1) Part of Parcel 3 (Sheet 42). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. The applicant was not present and it was indicated that perhaps she did not understand that she had to come to another meeting. Mr. Balderson stated the applicant did indicate at the Planning Commission meeting that she was in agreement with the conditions. There was no one present in opposition. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 84-727 The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, Inc., dated August 17, 1984, shall be considered the plan of development. (p) The proposed structure shall have a residential appearance. The facades shall employ subdued colors. Prior to obtaining a building permit, colored elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P) Ail driveways and parking areas shall be delineated by permanent means (i.e., timber curbs, etc.). (P) Enrollment shall not exceed thirty (30) children. (P) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. There shall be no Saturday or Sunday operation. (P) Between the proposed parking area and Woods Edge Road, white pines, having an initial height of five (5) feet, shall be planted to minimize the view of the parking area from Woods Edge Road. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P) Prior to obtaining a building permit, thirty-five (35) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Woods Edge Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T) A single freestanding sign, not to exceed four (4) square feet in area, shall be permitted identifying this use. This sign shall not be lighted. The facade of the sign shall employ subdued colors, compatible with the proposed building. Prior to erecting the sign, a colored rendering shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (p) Vote: Unanimous 84S179 In Matoaca Magisterial District, VERNON E. LaPRADE requested amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 83S098) to permit a heating and air conditioning business and revision of the Master Plan in a Light Industrial (M-l) District on a 0.9 acre parcel fronting approximately 40 feet on the south line of Hull Street Road, approximately 220 feet east of Suncrest Drive. Tax Map 49-11 (1) Parcel 12 (Sheet 14). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. LaPrade was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan, prepared by Potts and Minter, dated August 20, 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) In conjunction with the granting of this request, the following setback exceptions shall be granted: A fifteen (15) foot exception to the required twenty-five (25) foot side yard setback requirement. A twenty (20) foot exception to the thirty (30) foot rear yard setback requirement. (P) 84-728 Building facades shall be brick or cedar siding. Plans depicting this requirement shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to the release of any building permits. (p) e Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, additional pavement, and curb and gutter shall be constructed along Route 360. (T) Ail driveways and parking areas shall be paved. These areas shall be defined by concrete curb and gutter, as deemed necessary by Environmental Engineering. (P&EE) e The access to Route 360 shall be designed to allow shared use with adjacent property to the west when it is redeveloped for a commercial use other than the existing palm reader business. (T & VDH&T) e The uses permitted shall be limited to a heating and air conditioning business. (Note: Outside storage is not permitted in an M-1 District.) In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan. (P) Vote: Unanimous The Board recessed to travel to the Brandermill Conference Center. Reconvening: 9.J. WORK SESSION ON 1985 LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE The Board met with the legislators and discussed the proposed legislative package as presented by the County staff, a copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board. The Board recessed for dinner at the Brandermill Conference Center at 6:30 p.m. Reconvening: 10. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adjourned at 8:15 p.m. until December 12, 1984 at 10:00 a.m. at Byrd Airport for the Bond Closing with the understanding that there would be a work session on the budget immediately following that meeting at the Courthouse with zoning to be heard at 2:00 p.m. and the regular agenda at 7:00 p.m. Vote: Unanimous Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator ~arry G. D~niel Chairman / 84-729