03-23-77 PacketPresent:
�. C
V 1 RG TN T- : At a r e gul ar me e t is g
o£ the Boar d o f Supervisor s o f
Che s t er f i e l d C oun ty , Yie l d a t the
C our tho u s e on Marc h 23. 3-977, a t
9:00 a.m_
Also Present:
Mr . E . Merlin O - Neill , Cllal mnri Mr _ Stanley Balderson , Ctiie£ , Dev _ Rma xl- N
Mrs. Joan Girone, Vice-CLlairmarNYrs_ Joan Dolezal, Secretary
Mr_ J. Ruffin Appersori 1`ir. Richard Flaherty, Planner =2
Mr. C_ L. Boolamarl N7r. Steve Micas, County Attorney
2fr_ Garland Dodd Mr. Dave Wel-c--hors, Engineer
Mr _ Dexter Williams , P 1 anner /Eng .
Mr _ C. 0- MMXI Xol , SLiter _ co. Ackrd r, . 14:r-. W- Lys Co. A dni m .
2 -hr _ Jamas Zook , Chief Comprehensive Plan _
Tt�e meeting is cal led to order at 9 : 10 a _ m. by Mrs . Gi-if one .
Mr- Manua l- g ive s the invocation .
On motion o£ M-27- App er s on , s e c onde d b y Mr _ Bookman , i t :Ls
r e s o 1ve d
the t the minute s o f Marc h 9 th , 1 4th and 1 7th b e and they Her eb y
are approved a s amended _
Ayes Mrs _ G irone , Mr. App er s on , M=. Bookman and Mr . D odd _
Mr _ E liner Hodge s tate s that __a i'.t e r ..car of u l c on s i d e ra t i on o f t he b i d s
receive d f or the da t o processing c ompu t er an Cl s o£ tware , i t i s h i s
recommendation the t a l l b ids 'ben!
r e j e c t e d, th i s a qu ipmen t ti e r eb i d
and he woul d r e eve lua t o t he s y s t em _ He add s the t h i s r e eve lua t ion
c oul d be g iven t o the Board f o r c on s id er a t i on a t the Apr i 1 1 3 th
me e t ing _ On motion o f Mr, . D o dd , s e c on de d by Mr _ App e r s on , i t i s
resolved th at: th e b i d s f or the c ompu t er an d s o f twar e f or da t o
pr o c e s s in g
-be r ejected , the t t h i s a quipmen t -be r eb i d and th a t
Mr. Hodge present his reevaluation at the April- 13th meeting_
Aye s : Mrs. G i r on e , M=- Ap p e r s on , Mr. Bookman and Mr. Do d d
Mr s : G iron a we 1 c ome s Mr . Dean Martin , County Nursing Home Admin -
i s tr a to r, 1=o h i s £ its t Board m e e t ing Mr _ Martin s tate s the t he
would 1 ilce approve 1 o f r en t in g on a 3 year l e a s e a Burr o ugh s T-9900
for the Nursing Home which wi 1 1 c o s t $81-5 p er month , ma in t enan c e
being included, software �.in the amount of $2, 000 w1iich is a one time
cost: an d c out d be d e l i ve r e d b y- the m i d d l e o f May. A-Eter c on s i d er a-
t ion o f tli i s ma=te=, :Lt: i s on motion o f Mrs _ G it on e, s e c and e d by
Mr _ App e r s on , r e s o l ve d the t t he C oun ty en t e r int o a tlzr e e yea r
1 ea s e agr a amen t with Burroughs £ or a T,9900 machin e a t a cost: CIE
$ 8 1 5 p e r mon th an d f or s o £twat a a t a c o s t o f $2,000.
Ayes : 14r--3. G i ton e , Mr- Ap p e r s on , Mr- Bookman and Mr _ !Dodd-
4
n Mf: Martin states that he, the Nursing Home Consultants and the
Nursing Home Committee feel it is imperative that the Controller
position be filled at the, -Nursing Home, Mrs. Girone states that
the Personnel Committee also recommended approval of this request.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Apperson, it is resolved
that the Personnel Director be authorized to advertise for the position
of Nursing Home Controller immediately with the salary to be Grade
24 which salary will range from $14,232 - $18,936.
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and W. Dodd.
Mr. Martin states that he as well as the Consultants recommended the
ARA Food Management proposal submitted for the Nursing Home. He
adds they would prepare a very good daily diet, they would relieve
the Nursing Home of dietary management, the amount of staff could
be reduced, etc. After some further consideration of this matter,
it is on motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that
the proposal from ARA Food Management for the Chesterfield County
Nursing Home be and it hereby is approved and said proposal is filed
with the papers of this Board.
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd.
?�'ft'., Martin states that the Purchasing Department will be doing the buying
for ARA Food Management and there is a 30 day notice for termination
of the contract should the County wish to do so,
On motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by Mrs. Girone, it is resolved
that an ordinance to amend Chapter 5, Article I, of the Code of the
County of Chesterfield, 1975, as amended, by adding a section number-
ed 5-1.1 providing for certain boundary lines to be considered law-
ful fences forthe
advertisedforapublicose of hearinss by g o
animals
a
provid-
ing for a penalty b
at 11:00 a.m.
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman, and Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Zook introduced Mr. Jeffrey O'Dell who presented a slide present-
ation of the historical sites he has recorded in Chesterfield
County. He states the book the Board authorized should
help citizens and others identify the historical sites and hopefully will
stimulate them to preserve these sites. He states that he has thorough-
ly enjoyed working in Chesterfield and feels this County has the
most to offer of those in which he has worked. He states that 600
entries have been recorded, including sites and buildings as well.
Mrs. Knoop inquires where the negatives of these pictures will be
Mr. O'Dell states at the he Virginia State Library. Mrs. Knoop
states that there are some groups in Chesterfield working on historic
sites and suggests that perhaps they could have a meeting and work
together on this project and suggest others that could be investigated.
Mrs. Girone asks Mr. O'Dell to investigate the possibility of using
color photographs in the historical book that he will be working on.
The Board
ionalismthe
andPlanning
expertiseDepartment
carrying out Mr.
thisO'Dell
his
profess project,
-2-
x_
Mr. O'Dell adds that the information filled out for each site will
be going to the Virginia Historic Landmarks but one copy will be
given to the County.
Mr. Dexter Williams states that the Community Development Depart-
ment has been investigating eight possible sites for park and
ride lots inthe County with the VDHT, RRPDC and the GRTC. He adds
the sites chosen to be studied should not have the
opposition as the site in Bon Air did. He stated that a model
has been completed and GRTC is currently studying this to see if
it is reasonable and then VDHT will also review the model. He
states a recommendation should be before the Board in two
months regarding the park and ride lots. Mr. Bookman states he
would like a total picture regarding the commitment of the County,
the subsidy if any, what would happen if this program failed, etc.
Mr. Williams states he will have all this information available
at the time of the recommendation.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, it is resolved
that the Highway Department be and it hereby is requested to
accept the roads in Salisbury, Hillcrest Section, into the State
Secondary System of Roads. (A copy of the roads will be typed in
the permanent minute book.)
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd.
6tWi'jn� 7114 P0AI-,,A do
Mr. Jim Zook states the m Board asked departments to
plan ahead and prepare abwhich would cover approximately a
6 year period. He adds that some complete background work should
be done on this program and suggests a seminar be made avail-
able to all department heads and their representatives with
special emphasis and possible requirement of participation for
those departments directly involved in the development of the CIP.
He states . this would involve approximately 25 people and
should be 1k-2 day seminar with another day a month later to help
the individual departments. He adds this would be eligible -
for HUD funds and he has spoken with an instructor from VPI/SU
who would conduct this seminar. After further discussion of this
matter, it is on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman,
resolved that aICIP seminar be held for all department heads and
their representatives with special emphasis and possible require-
ment of participation for those departments directly involved in
the development of the'OGIP.
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, it is resolved that
the Director of Community Development be authorized to inform
Hetra Corporation's representatives that the Board of Supervisors
specifically extends from Nov.l, 1977, to May 1, 1978, the period
within which Hetra Corporation may exercise its rights under the
aforesaid Option Agreement and extends from September 16, 1977,
to March 16, 1978, the date on which Hetra Corporation must commence
construction pursuant to the aforesaid agreement in order to avoid
repurchase by the County pursuant to Section E2(a) of the afore-
said restrictions.
-3-
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd
Mr. Manuel states this time and date has been set for a public
hearing on an amendment to the Code of Chesterfield relating to
personal property and real estate tax exemption for certified
pollution control equipment and facilities, There being no
one present to speak in favor or against the proposed ordinance,
it is on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, resolved
that the following ordinance be and it hereby is adopted:
"An ordinance to amend the Code of. the County of Chesterfield,
1975, as amended, by adding Sections 8-14.1 and 8-33 relating
to personal property and real estate tax exemption for certified
pollution control equipment and facilities."
(A copy of the entire ordinance will be typed in the Permanent
Minute Book.)
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd.
It is on motion of
Girone)
besandnitdhereby iBookman,
adoptedresolved
that the following resolution
Whereas, a tentative budget in the amount of $104,945,946.00
for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1978, was advertised in the
Richmond Times Dispatch on February 8, 1977, and
February
r14, 1977,
and in the Progress Index on February 7,
1977, 1977,
and whereas March 17, 1977, was set as the date for the public hearing an
said Budget.
Now,
therefore, be it'resolved on motion of Mrs. Girone,
seconded by Mr. Bookman, that this Board of Supervisors of
ance
Chesterfield County, Virginia, held Public , ns in for the information
with the resolution passed on February 4, 1977977,
purposes on a contemplated budget for the Fiscal Year 1977-78.
This budget is for informative
ratified1byathelBoardgofurposes Supervisodsit
is not approved, adopted or
Mr. Bookman states that the Board would be approving the dollar
amount for the School System since it is all they can do but he hopes
they will review their budget thoroughly and establish and change
priorities. He adds his constituents are violently opposed to
the staggered bus schedule. Mr. Dodd states that he supports the
budget even though he did not work on it. He adds he does fear
the next budget and his a constituents
projects for thetnew comingryeartsHend
urges the Board not to approve
adds he fears this budget as well.
Mrs. Girone thanks the staff, department heads and especially Lane
Ramsey for responding to the wishes of the Board regarding this
budget. She states that the people in the County
tato keevery the
services and programs at the point they are now, they
upset about the staggered bus schedules, and she hopes Dr. Sullins
and the School System will listen to the public. She adds that
with only a 5% increase anticipated for the school enrollment,
the
hat
10% increase in the bTagiesshould br. Anpersonadequate
statesshe
thatasks
allthas they
reevaluate their prix
been said but he feels the main concern of the people is the
reassessment. He states they feel the Board may not be able
to control the reassessment but they can control the rate.
Mr. O'Neill states that in 1973 the County was told that every-
thing was below the normal but now with reassessments things have
been brought up to what the State dictates. He adds that there
should be no major increases next year and adds that he would like
to state that this year will be the year of "NO" for new programs
and requests.
A vote
being
taken
on the motion:
Ayes:
Mr, O'Neill,
Property
Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and 'fir. Dodd.
Upon consideration of the budget for the year 1977-78, it is on
motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Apperson, resolved that
the following tax levies as advertised in the Richmond Times
Dispatch on February 8, 1977, and February 14, 1977, and in the
Progress Index on February 7, 1977, and February 14, 1977, be
and they hereby are adopted, which levies are for the year 1977
on each $100 assessed and liablc for such levies for the purpose
of meeting the requirements of the County budget; to wit:
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd,
On motion of Mrs, Girone, seconded by Mr. Apperson, it is resolved
that the Planning Commission be and it hereby is requested to hold
two public hearings on the proposed General Plan .2000 and further that
Mr. Zook be and he hereby is authorized to schedule a public hearing
for the Board of Supervisors on the proposed General Plan 2000.
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson., Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Zook states that this plan should be revised every five years
but the County does update this continuously, He adds further
that the plan is amendable but acts basically as a guidance.
On motion of Mr. O'Neill, seconded by Mrs. Girone, it is resolved
that Mr. Donald Hughes of 3200 South Street be granted a reduced sewer
connection fee of $300 for a mobile home located at 3202 South Street
because the Engineering Department did not solicit a contract and
it did not occur to Mr. Hughes.
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs, Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd.
Real
Personal
Estate
Property
Mchy.
Bermuda Magisterial District
$1.12
$3.60
$.1.00
Clover Hill Magisterial District
1.12
3.60
1.00
Dale Magisterial District
1.12
3.60
1.00
Matoaca Magisterial District
1,12
3,60
1.00
Midlothian Magisterial District
1.12
3,60
1.00
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd,
On motion of Mrs, Girone, seconded by Mr. Apperson, it is resolved
that the Planning Commission be and it hereby is requested to hold
two public hearings on the proposed General Plan .2000 and further that
Mr. Zook be and he hereby is authorized to schedule a public hearing
for the Board of Supervisors on the proposed General Plan 2000.
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson., Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Zook states that this plan should be revised every five years
but the County does update this continuously, He adds further
that the plan is amendable but acts basically as a guidance.
On motion of Mr. O'Neill, seconded by Mrs. Girone, it is resolved
that Mr. Donald Hughes of 3200 South Street be granted a reduced sewer
connection fee of $300 for a mobile home located at 3202 South Street
because the Engineering Department did not solicit a contract and
it did not occur to Mr. Hughes.
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs, Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd.
Manuel anaoordinancethis
relating toand
thedate
Boardhave
ofbeen
Equalization public
he
hearing on
Assessments. There is no one present to speak in favor or in
opposition to this ordinance. It is on motion of Mr. Apperson,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that the following ordinance be and
it hereby is adopted:
"An ordinance to amend and reenact Section 8-3 of the Code
of the County of Chesterfield, 1975, as amended, relating to the
Board of Equalization of Assessments,"
(A copy of the entire ordinance will be typed in the Permanent Minute
Book.)
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Apperson, it is resolved
that the recommendations of the Personnel and Salary Advisory
Committee be and they hereby are approved as recommended with the
exception of item #3 which was approved earlier in the meeting. (A
copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board and will be
typed in the permanent minute book.)
Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr, Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd.
Ayes:
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Apperson, it is
that this Board appropriates $64O,from the Unappropriated
of the General Fund to 11-086-144.1, Capital Area Agency
Contribution, which contribution is the County's pro rata
1976.
resolved
Surplus
on Aging
share for
Ayes: Mr, O'Neill) Mrs.. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd -
on motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, it is resolved that
a soil engineer be employed
forothehe testing ChesterfielddCountycMentaltion fHealth
the
compacted structural
Clinic at a cost not to exceed $1,100.
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs, Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd.
Be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfied County
sitting in a regular meeting on this the 23rd day of March, 1977,
as follows:
Whereas, Leo H. Myers who resigned from this Board on
January 19, 1977, has rendered a valuable service to the people of
Chesterfield County in general, and to the people of Bermuda
Magisterial District in particular through his energetic and
forceful representation of them on this Board for over five years;
and,
Whereas, it is the desire of this Board to recognize his
faithful servicespread this
Chesterfieldrecognition upon
e minute
book of the Board of Supervisorsof ounty
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that this Board extends on
(
behalf of its members and the people of Chesterfield County their
appreciation and gratitude to Leo H, Myers for his service as a
member of the Board of Supervisors and does solicit his continued
interest in'the affairs of his district and County in the years
to come.
Be It Further Resolved that a copy of this resolution be
presented to Mr. Myers and that this resolution be permanently
recorded among the papers of the Board of Supervisors of Chester-
field County.
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookmm and Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Dodd and Mr. O'Neill state that Mr. Myers did an outstanding
job as supervisor from Bermuda District and they cannot comprehend
how he accomplished so much,
On motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by Mrs. Girone, it is resolved
that the following resolution be and it hereby is adopted:
In keeping with its interest in and concern for the total
well being of young children, this Board declares April 3-9, 1977
as the "Week of the Young Child."
This declaration designates a specific time for all of us
to emphasize the importance of our children and the necessity
of their physical, social, educational and emotional development.
We further recognize the importance of the local agencies which
render essential services to children and families in our community.
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mor. Dodd.
Mr. Manuel gives a status report on the Bon Air Landfill.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Apperson, it is resolved
that this Board adjourn into Executive Session to discuss legal
matters within the jurisdiction of the County.
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr, Dodd.
Reconveniigg ;
77SO20
In Midlothian Magisterial District, E.B,P. Corporation requests
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) and (R-12)
of a 377.9 acre parcel fronting 464.4 feet on Courthouse Road,
located approximately 1,300 feet south of its intersection with
Berrand Road. Tax Map Sec. 26-12 (1) parcel 3, and 27-10 (1)
parcel 5 (Sheets 7 & 8).
Mr. Bryce Powell is present representing E,B,P, Corporation, There
being no opposition to this request, it is on motion of Mrs. Girone,
seconded by Mr. Apperson, resolved that this request be and it .
hereby is approved as shown on the revised preliminary plan prepared
by J. K. Timmons and Associates and dated January 25, 1977.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd.
77SO27
In Bermuda Magisterial District, F. G. Sloan & Sons, Inc. request
an amendment of a previously granted (case #76SO23) Conditional Use
to permit the construction of a second office building and reduce
the depth of the buffer to 25 feet. This request is in an
Agricultural (A) District on a 2.39 acre parcel fronting approximate-
ly 225 feet on East Hundred Road and being located approximately
1,200 feet west of its intersection with Meadowville Road and better
known as Riverbend Subdivision, Sec. A, Lots 13 and 14 and 117-12 (1)
parcel 1-2 (Sheet 33).
No one was present representing the applicant but Mr. Balderson
states that the applicant had agreed to the condition recommended
by the Planning Commission. There being no opposition present to
this case, it is on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman,
resolved that this request be and it hereby is approved subject
to amending condition #2 of case number 76SO23 to read as follows:
"This Conditional Use shall permit the erection and
operation of two office buildings exclusively, which will
be operated for business and professional use. This
Conditional Use will also be subject to a buffer area of
not less than 25 feet measured along the north, east
and west property lines."
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman,.and Mr. Dodd.
77SO32
In Midlothian Magisterial District, Robert E. Dunnington and
J. Sherwood Strum request rezoning from Residential (R-15) to
Office Business (0) of a 0.25 acre parcel fronting 89.25 feet on
Huguenot Road also fronting 136.10 feet on Bon Oaks Lane and located
in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax.
Map Sec. 10-2 (3) 10 Subdivision Bon Air Heights, Blk. C, Lot 10
(Sheet 3).
Mr. Arthur Barnett and Mr. Wilson, who are residents of the area
in question, state their objections because this area is residential,
they would like it to remain that way and if commerical use starts
it will gradually take the area over. No one is present to
represent the applicant.
It is on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved
that this request be and it hereby is denied.
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd.
77SO36
In Dale Magisterial District, Heritage Savings and Loan Association
requests a Conditional Use to permit the operation of a Savings
and Loan Association in an Agricultural (A) District on a 5 acre
parcel fronting 849.23 feet on Iron Bridge Road also fronting
517.81 feet on Krause Road and located in the northeast quadrant of
the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 95-8 (1) 19 (Sheet 31).
Mr. Phillip Daffron is present representing Heritage Savings and
Loan Association and states the conditions required by the Planning
Commission were acceptable. He adds that Heritage wants to blend
in with the community, there will not be any drive-in type windows,
they will be using antique furniture and that he feels the use is
outstanding for what is planned versus what could possibly come in.
Mr. Apperson states that he feels this is a good use for Castlewood
especially since the County Museum could not afford the building.
Mrs. Girone states that she feels better about the conditional use
since talking with Jeffrey O'Dell who stated that this was a good
way to preserve the old historic site. Mrs. Dorothy Armstrong
is present and asks if the land behind Castlewood would remain as
it is. Mr. Balderson states that there is another owner and it
would not enter into this case. Mrs. Armstrong expresses strong
feelings to keep Castlewood as it is. Mr. Daffron states that
Heritage plans to do this as much as is possible.
On motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, it is resolved
that this request be and it hereby is approved subject to the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission,
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd.
74AO72
Mr. Balderson states that this amendment for condition number 3 of
Duplexes for Lamar Place is being discussed here today because the
Planning staff noted violations and brought this to the attention
of the Board of Supervisors in January, 1977. The Board then passed
a resolution asking the Planning Commission to look into this matter.
The recommendation before you came from the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Britton, a resident of Wilkinson Terrace states that the
residents in this area have been the victims of wrong doings that
the Board of Zoning Appeals guaranteed would not happen. She adds
the original intent of the conditions placed on the developer of Lamar
Place have been badly battered, they have compromised until they have
lost all their privacy and are now being called wishy-washy because of
their willingness to cooperate and not be vindictive. She states
the problem is not with the patios or the definition of "natural
state" but with the loss of their nrivacy. She states the resi-
dents had agreed with the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission as distributed but in the meantime, she has had
Mr. Watkins of Watkins Nursery survey their land and he indicates that
any trees planted will not survive or grow to their potential because
of the pines that will block out the sunlight or will have to be removed.
She also adds there is very poor drainage in the area which will also
prevent trees from maturing properly. She states that the buffer
has been damaged beyond reclaim because of the nibbling the developer
has done on the buffer for the past year,
Mrs. Sherry Baker states that the Planning Commission asked Mr. Stein
to contact the residents in the area along with a nurseryman who
could work out this situation but nothing has been done. Mr. Mason
states that Mr. Stein was waiting the outcome of this meeting before
proceeding.
Mr. Mason states that this has been an unfortunate situation and
no matter what the result is, no one will be really happy or
satisfied. He states that Mr. Stein is present involuntarily and
that he has no choice but to continue to insist upon a reservation
and non -waiver of his rights. He adds that Mr. Steindeies all
violations that he has been accused of making. Mr. n
tes
the problem did not begin with the pouring of concrete patios
at the back doors of these duplexes, all of which extend only
1-3
feet into the buffer zone but was created in May,
when the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the special exception to
Cenvac, Inc. subject to compliance with several conditions, one of
which is a buffer shall be provided which shall not be less than
w40 ft. in width. He further states another problem is the buffer area shall
remain in a natural state with no,trees to be cut or removed but he
adds that there is some confusion on the definition of natural state.
He states there is another that no structures with the exception
of fences shall be permitted in the buffer area. He adds
Mr. Stein is neither the developer northe subdivider of this duplex
subdivision but the owner in fee of some of the lots in the Lamar
Place Subdivision. He adds that the Planning stafff'sintepretation
of the conditions imposed upon this subdivision, particularly
buffer area, has been throughout the course of building duplexes
totally inconsistent and he refers to "natural state", where the
utilities can be placed, the backyard and the buffer overlapping,
etc. Mr. Mason inq.uiresif ion toehearrthisssed caseaandsifuitohaduproperly
thoriz-
ing the Planning Commissionive to
been advertised. Mr.Micas
icturesnswers lofthe howaheihastcleanedbthe under -
questions. Mr. Stet shows pictures
brush but to his knowledge has not cut trees. He add hetdoeshnotowants
with the recommendations of the Planning Commission,
to be unfair but will do all has beenan to otreated unfairly erate with the andpalludes
involved, but he feels he, o
to the placing; of utilities,
Mr. Bookman states he had hoped everything had been worked out
but since it has not, he suggegaldersonperhaps
states thatethe nBoardback
ofo the
Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr.
Zoning Appeals has no jurisdiction in this matter.
Mrs. Walker states they had been fighting
shobroughce terthey
and apartmentsin the area and when this iwas
decided to compromise becalackuse of communication, interpwere tired of retation and states
there ;gas been a 1
definitions which have caused this problem. She states the
get
people trusted the County years ago but now it seems they
no relief and asks further derablthey
more discussionfconcerningnot the elected
officials. There is considerably
fences in lieu of trees, the destruction of the buffer area, trees
and the guaranteed life by Mr, Stein if he were allowed to plant
same, etc. It is on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman,
resolved after three hours of discussion that the conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission and as agreed to by all
parties present at this hearing be approved with the amendment
to condition #3 being as follows:
A.buffer area as shown on the. preliminary plan shall be provided
and maintained in the following manner:
a. The buffer area shall not be less than 40 feet.
b. Any future sale or transfer of individual lots shall note this
buffer area and make reference to it in each individual deed
and plat. The developer will file with the County restrictive
covenants and conditions which clearly state the provisions
of Conditions #3 a., b., c,, d and e.
c. No trees, two inches or more in diameter shall be cut or removed
and any existing undergrowth or weeds shall be "handcut".
d. No structures with the exception of fences and open patios
shall be permitted in the buffer area, Patios may extend into
the buffer area not more than 8 feet.
e, Trees, at least four feet in height, typical of the area shall
be planted in the buffer strips, five feet in from the property
line behind lots 9, 10, 11 ,and 12 in Wilkinson Terrace and
possibly lots 13 and 24 if the owners agree, to provide a
thicker screen and buffer from the single family area. Plans
for planting shall be submitted to and approved by the
Development Review Division prior to implementation. The
Development Review Division shall confer with a committee of
citizens, Mr. Stein and Mr. Williams in this regard with the
Planning Commission being the final arbitrator if any problems
arise.
f. The cost of the items required in e. above, shall not exceed
$2,500 and a bond for this amount shall be provided by Mr. Stein.
g. Mr. Stein shall have the nurseryman planting the trees provide
an appropriate bond.to assure that they live at least two years.
The amendment to the conditional use shall apply only to the lots
currently owned by Mr. Stein (lots,9, 10, 11 and 12), however,
Mr. Stein agreed to accomplish at his expense, appropriate tree
planting on lots 13 and 14 if the owners of those parcels will agree.
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr, Bookman and Mr. Dodd•
M O'Neil] agrees to contact one of the property owners regarding
t i.s matter.
It is generally agreed the Board recess for five minutes.
Reconvening:
On motion of Mrs, Girone, seconded by Mr, Dodd, it is resolved that
this Board go into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters,
Ayes: Mr . O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Boolanan and Mr. Dodd.
Reconvening:
On motion of Mrs, Girone, seconded by Mr. Apperson,
it is resolved
that Mr, Lane RafsChbe and he esterfield effective Ais priln1�d1977geatDarector
for the County o
salary of $18,936.
Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs Girone, Mr. Apperson and Mr. Dodd.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr, Dodd, it is resolved that
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is authorized to notify
Crosswinds, Inc. that its lease with the County will not be renewed
for the next fiscal year.
Ayes: Mr, O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson and Mr. Dodd,
Mr. O'Neill and Mr.BSe�rnlineuse extenstonlinsfrm the�areasofsRoute 60'
sion
regarding a possible
Robious Road, After consideration. of the matter, it is on motion
of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Appeson,,resolved that the Board of
Supervisors approves a contract with 0, S, Hastings, Bob Porter,
C. L, Bookman and other deareapwithers f the* tirengostwof thevproject
ice in
the Route 60-Robious Road
to be financed by the developers in
site sewer? the pumping station etforceemainThe andcost the engineering
would be refundable from sewer connection fees collected from
persons connecting directly to the sewer installed under this
proposal. Refunds shall be made in accordance with Section 20-32 of
the County Code,
Ayes: Mrs. Girone, Mr, Dodd and Mr. Apperson,
On motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by until 7Ir30Dodd,
this Board adjourns at 7:50 p,
m. Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson and Mr. Dodd,
it is resolved that
on March 30, 1977,
Ayes:
1#4r+' *00�
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
A G E N D A
March 23, 1977
9:00 a.m.
Invocation
Wei.
Approval of Minutes (March 9th, 14th and 17th)
✓II.
Status Report on Data Processing and Software
dam%,.Svc. WeJ oas
VIII A.
�/- 77
Set Date for Public Hearing on Proposed Fence 5� oa�n+
✓ �3-
Law
� u(i5� r� S 1 —
11:00 a.m.
IV.
Public Hearing on Ordinance Relating to Personal
Property and Real Estate Tax Exemption for
Pollution Control Equipment
11:15 a.m.
V.
Public Hearing on Ordinance Relating to the
Board of Equalization of Assessments
✓VI.
Jeffrey O'Dell on Historical Study of Chesterfield
,'VII.
Community Development
,/A. Park and Ride Lots
B. Request to Take Roads into the State System
C. CIP Instructional, Evaluation and Critique
Seminar
'
D. Hetra Corporation Resolution
E, Proposed General Plan 2000
VIII.
Approval of 1977-78 Budget
12:30 p.m. L U N C H
2:30 p.m. IX. Rezoning
X. Amendment to Conditional Use for Lamar Place
XI, Miscellaneous Items
Adjournment
9:00 a.m.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
�W A G E N D A
March 23, 1977
vocation
I.,,oe**�Approval of Minutes
II
R
(March 9th, 14th and 17th)
IV.
PKI. Status Report on Data Processing and Software
VII.
IAV I I . -Set Date for Public Hearing on Proposed Fence
/'� Law
11:00 a.m. ✓x. Public Hearing on Ordinance Relating to Personal
Property and Real Estate Tax Exemption for
Pollution Control Equipment
11:15 a.m. I. Public Hearing on Ordinance Relating to the
Board of Equalization of Assessments
/II.
Jeffrey O'Dell on Historical Study of Chesterfield
II.
Community Development
Park and Ride Lots
Request to Take Roads into the State System
CIP Instructional, Evaluation and Critique Seminar
u15*_ Hetra Corporation Resolution
E. ?,000 -cak�l plA,r
V.
VXV.
Approval of 1977-78 Budget
XVI.
12:30 p.m.
L U N C H
2:30 p.m. XVII.
Rezoning
XVIII.
Amendment to Conditional Use for Lamar Place
XIX.
Miscellaneous Items
Adjournment
VI.
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
INTRACOUNTY CORRESPONDENCE
March 17, 1977
STATUS REPORT: DATA PROCESSING COMPUTER & SOFTWARE
On February 22, 1977, Burroughs Corporation informed us there would be
an approximate three month delay in delivery of the new computer and a delay
of the data base management software until the first quarter of 1978. Since
that time numerous meetings have been held with the County Attorney and Bur-
roughs personnel to determine the impact of the delays on the County, interim
solutions and alternatives such as the possibility of rejecting the Burroughs
bid in favor of the IBM bid or rebidding the computer. Three alternatives
have emerged; (1) have Burroughs provide substitute but equivalent equipment
and software for an interim period, (2) have Burroughs pay some form of
penalty to the County for the delay, (3) rebid the computer and accept the
bid of another vendor such as IBM. Burroughs was requested to provide the
County with delivery dates of substitute equipment and data base software.
Additional information was requested from IBM and Federal Leasing Company for
delivery and cost of comparable IBM equipment. Letters from these companies
are attached for your review and are summarized below.
SUMMARY OF BURROUGHS LETTER
Burroughs has agreed to provide the County with substitute but equivalent
computer equipment to be delivered "on or about May 1, 1977". Burroughs will
then replace the substitute equipment with the originally ordered B-3800 at
their cost at some later date. Substitute software cannot be provided but
Burroughs has agreed to a $776 per month penalty for five years in the form
of reduced payments. The monthly payment would therefore be reduced from
$11,585 per month to $10,809 per month for the first 60 months of the 84 month
contract. This would NOT be a savings to the County because the $776 would
then be used to lease database software from an independent vendor.
� `4w�
-2-
SUMMARY OF IBM LETTER
IBM Corporation has indicated that the same computer equipment proposed
by them in December, 1976, can be provided by March, 1978. IBM can provide
the data base software immediately which is in fact being used currently by
several companies in Richmond. The total of the computer and software obtained
directly from IBM will be greater than Burroughs because it is a 5 year lease/
purchase rather than a 7 year purchase. Total cost from IBM is $17,704 per
month. IBM also indicates in their letter that computer equipment (if new,
which ours would be) can be obtained from third party agents or financed through
banks and the County would still be considered a customer of IBM. This would
make possible lower monthly payments over a 7 year period. All software and
maintenance would still be provided by IBM.
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL LEASING LETTER
Federal Leasing Company is one of hundreds of such suppliers of computer
equipment. We chose this company for cost estimates because they have an office
in Richmond and because they have handled such contracts for the State of Virgin-
ia. Federal Leasing can provide the equipment proposed by IBM on any plan suit-
able to the County. They can provide:
- Lease, purchase or any combination tailored to governments.
- Any number of years up to 7.
- Delivery by May 1 with a contract by April 1.
- Delivery by June 1 with a contract by April 14.
- A delay of payment for 1 month to permit a smooth transition.
- Can incorporate any penalty (if there is one) for the Burroughs
computer, into the life of their contract.
Offer a reduced rate for the first year to avoid budget overruns.
Because of the many variations in payment plans for equipment, the total
cost of IBM equipment and software can vary. However, using a seven year
lease/purchase plan similar to that offered by Burroughs the total cost will
not exceed $13,646 per month. This can be reduced if necessary for the first
year to stay within the budget.
-3 -
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
There are several very important factors that must be considered in any
decision to be made in this issue:
- Burroughs has failed to perform in accordance with the bid and
bid bond.
- Burroughs has attempted to offer viable alternatives by substituting
equipment and absorbing a $776 per month penalty.
- The reduction in cost of Burroughs equipment will permit the County
to lease excellent data base software from an independent firm and
stay within the departmental budget.
- Default on the bid will not alone constitute legal grounds for dis-
continuing the current contract.
- Comparable IBM equipment and software can be obtained within the next
30 days.
My recommendation in December, to accept the Burroughs bid was based on
the fact that there was not feasible way to avoid the $250,000 payoff of the
current computer. Without this factor, my recommendation would have been to
convert to IBM. My recommendation today to convert to an IBM computer with-
in the framework of the approved budget is based on:
- The air of uncertainty involving the delay of the computer, the
explanations provided and the willingness of Burroughs to offer
compensation only after serious negotiations.
- The delays in equipment in software may be an indication of more
serious problems.
- The failure to perform on the current bid must provide some grounds
for getting out of the present contract.
The discount of $776 per month is for a five year period making it
less feasible to convert to another vendor in the future.
- Whereas a bid bond was required, this should partially offset any
penalty Burroughs may attempt to impose got cancelling the present
contract.
Should the Board decide not to convert to IBM at this time it will be
almost impossible to do so at a later time. Provided there are no further de-
lays, both IBM and Burroughs can provide the capability required by the County.
n
-4-
P5
However, the IBM computer would make Chesterfield more compatible with Richmond,
Fairfax and Virginia Beach.
of utmost importance is that a decision be made as soon as possible. A
bid, if necessary, should be solicited and evaluated within 3 weeks. Delays
and uncertainties affect the direction, efficiency and moral of the staff.
Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
M
i
Reply to RICHMOND NA BRANCH
P.O. BOX 6676
RICHMOND, VA. 23230
2323 WESTWOOD AVE.
804-355.06r)4
March 17, 1977
Mr. Elmer Hodge
Director of Data Processing
County of Chesterfield
Chesterfield, Va. 23832
Dear Elmer:
This will confirm our recommendation to resolve the problem concerning data
management software. Although f' s are
this should permit you to state our intention at the meeting of the
Board of Supervisors on March 23.
Simply stated, your monthly equi ipment Rayment will be reduced by an amount
Pqual to the dif PTP11p hPtwaPn th@�4(lill }i13i-1 i rPnca fpp� ofOTT AL and DM$II.
All references to TOTAL prices are based on those confirmed by Brady during
our meeting on March 15, 1977. Naturally, this agreement would be subject
to your subsequent decision to use DMSII,to use another data management
system, or to use no data management system at all. Of course, in the event
of an upgrade, the reduction would continue until the obligation was satis-
fied.
In our letter of March 1, we agreed to deliver a substitute system con-
figuration on or about May 1, 1�977. It is mutually agreed that this date
should be adjusted to conform with the date you approve that agreement.
Delivery of a B3800 now appears to be a possibility on that date.
I know you are as anxious as we are to resolve these matters so that
we may proceed with your plans.
Very Truly Yours,
Ira O'Kennon
Account Manager
Glen H. Lyons`
Branch Manager
- ,:.-y-**--testa'-;•,,. t. s; �.+��'s_ .
International Business Machines Corporation Rich & Main Streets
Rchmond, Virginia 23277
804/ 788-9200
March 17, 1977
Mr. Elmer Hodge
County of Chesterfield
Chesterfield, Virginia 23822
Dear Elmer:
It is our understanding that you are considering installing
a new IBM System 370/138 configuration as specified in our
proposal, procured from a leasin comna_ny.
Per our telephone conversation, the service we would provide
to assist you in the installation of this system is outlined
in our proposal - Section -C, Item 1.7.
Maintenance and service will be provided as specified in
Section D, item 2.4, paragraph 2, for purchased equipment
under an IBM Maintenance Agreement. It should also be noted
that machines purchased new from IBM are under warraDly for
three months to one year, depen ent on the specific machine
type. Commencing on the date of installation, IBM will maintain
in good working order each Warranty Category A machine for one
year and warranty each Category B and C machine for three months.
(A full description of this service will be supplied at instal-
lation or on request.) The CPU -3138 is Category A; all other
units are Category B and C.
If you require any additional information, please let me know.
Yours very truly,
- C
J. F. Frisbie, Jr.
r. Marketing -Representative
JFF:kfw
March 17, 1977
Mr. Elmer Hodge, Director
Data Processing Department
County of Chesterfield
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Elmer:
This letter will confirm our telephone conversation
today. That is, Federal Leasing is presenting you with the
enclosed financial data concerning the lease -purchase of an
IBM 370/138 computer system. Federal Leasing will provide
insurance and you will be responsible for taxes and mainte-
nance.
This proposal is subject to a mutually agreeable con-
tract. Meanwhile, if questions remain or you need additional
information then please call me.
WVB/ j s t
Sincerely,
�N
l/
W.V. Beale, Jr.
Southern Regional Manager
SUITE 610 / 1970 CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD McLEAN VIRGINIA 22101 / (703) 821-8770 / TWX 7108249617
3 -/j --e I
M
FINANCIAL DATA
(A) 84 months lease -purchase level payments = $9296.00 per month
(B) 84 months lease -purchase 1-12 payments = $5,000.00 per month
!3-V _ 10, 295.66 0,'-
(C) Delivery by May 1, 1977 assuming contracts signed by April 1,
1977
Delivery by June 1, 1977 assuming contracts signed by April
14, 1977
aF tNE .av�f,ttN — do'WrX)MY
(D) If any penalties for cancellation are incurred by Chesterfield
then Federal Leasing will build the penalty into our rate per
month. The additional rate will be $18.47 per month per thou-
sand dollars of penalty.
�r7.0
cm
Configuration:
3138-I
1431
1502
✓ 3906
3907
-,4640
4722
-,,8075
3046 —
FINANCIAL DATA
✓ 1403-N1
2821-1
2540-1
3803-1
(2) 3420-3
MRX 3672
✓ MRX 3673
MRX 3670
in
Purchase
1,9900 - 120CPS
L9944-259 $26,190.00
A4011-3 Memory 2,000.00
Less Bi-directional Print 1,000.00-
$27,190.00
Annual Maintenance 1,687.00
1 Year Rental
3 Year Rental
856.00-
815.00*
In
84 Month 3rd Party Lease
27,190.00 X .018 = $489.42/month
Down Payment - 3 months payable in advance
Purchase Option - Fair Market Value at end of term
*Includes Maintenance
Burroughs Corporation
m
SOF IVARE
m
Patrick Henry Hospital -Patient Billing and A/R $2,000.00
2�44.
Burroughs Corporation
n
n
FISCAL ANALY5I5 .Sti'IMAiZY BASED ON 69,712 PATIENT DAYS FOR 1977
REVISI_D 12/16/76
ARA Proposed Chesterf ield
1977 County 1977
Food Service Director
ARA Consulting Dietitian
Payroll Costs & Benefits $ 20,145
Consulting Dietitian -County $ 6,400
Food Cost
127,837
147,993
Employee Meals
6,725
Direct Expenses
13,669
14,557
Administrative Expense
5,200
Fee $.125 P/D
8,714
Dietary Staff
105,86
121,675
TOTAL
288,155
290,625
Cafeteria Cash Receipts
9270
9,700
NET COST
278,455
280,925
Gross Cost Per
Patient Day $4.13
Cash/Credit Income
Per Patient Day $.139
NET COST/
PATIENT DAY: $3.994
Meals Per Man Hour: 4.81
Meals/`r-lour. Per
Patient Day: .63
Full -Time Equivalent
Employees: 20.20
$4.168
.139
4.029
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
E. MERLIN O'NEILL. CHAIRMAN
MATOACA DISTRICT
JOAN GIRONE. VICE CHAIRMAN
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
C. L. BOOKMAN
CLOVER HILL DISTRICT
J.RUFFIN APPERSON
DALE DISTRICT
GARLAND DODD
BERMUDA DISTRICT
In
ADMINISTRATION
C. G MANUEL
INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
C O U NTY OF C H E S T E R F I ELD
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
MEMORANDUM
March 15, 1977
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Steven L. Micas, County Attorney
SUBJECT: Fence Law
For many years, the County Code contained a "fence law"
which, for some reason, was not recodified in the new Code.
The Commonwealth's Attorney has requested that the Board
consider passage of the attached fence law. The purpose,
of course, is to provide an enforcement mechanism against
those people who allow their horses and cattle to trespass
on other persons' property and ruin their gardens and lawns.
The public hearing date must be advertised once a week
for four weeks and notice of the time and place of the pub-
lic hearing must be posted at least thirty days prior to the
public hearing at the courthouse and at every voting precinct
in the County.
SLM/j lb
cc: Oliver D. Rudy
Commonwealth's Attorney
IX,
iilow IWO,
Apt ORDINANCE TO AXIEND CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE I,
OF THE ADB OF T2M COUNTY of CHESTERFIELD,
1975, AS AMMUDEDo BY ADDING A SECTION NUM-
BERED -1.1 PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN BOUNDARY
LIMES TO BE CONSIDERED LAWFUL FENCER FAR
THE PURPOSE OF DEFINING TRESPASS BV' ANIMALS
AND PROVIDING FaR A PENALTY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
That Chapter 5, Article I, of the Code of Chesterfield
County is amended by adding Section 5-1.1 as follows:
5-1 1 no%I"nA an Considered as Lawful Fences for
Sec.
cortaln, eta .
(a) The boundary lines of each lot or tract of land within
th* County shall be a lawful fence as to any horse, mule, cattle,
hog, sheep, or goat. It shall be unlawful for the owner or
manager of any such animal to permit the same from running at
large beyond the limits of the boundaries of the lot or tract of
land wherein the ►$anti is confined.
(b) Any person violating this section shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and., Upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as
provided in section 1-6 of this Code.
LM
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 22, 1977
M
TO: G. C. Manuel, Interim County Administrator
FROM: M. C. Ritz*��ector of Community Development
SUBJECT: Park and Ride Lots
We are now prepared to begin a public hearing process
on park and ride lots in the US 1/VA 150 area, US 60/Turner
Road area, and Huguenot Road/Bon-Air area.
We would like to discuss the matter with the Board
as soon as possible. Would you schedule us for a 30 minute
portion of a Board agenda soon to discuss this matter?
Thank you.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
RMM/mr
cm
M
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
(For Intracounty Correspondence)
Mike Ritz DATE:
R. M. McElfish
March 15, 1977
Please have the Salisbury - Hillcrest resolution put on the
Board Agenda for the next meeting.
09
M
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ITEM NO.
Resolution requesting the Highway Department to accept the
following roads into the system.
A. Bri stock Road - Beginning at State Route' 1014, thence
0£ mi e to a dead end. 0.25 mi. Total
B. Whitechapel Road - Beginning at Brigstock Road, thence
U727 mile to Vistapoint Road. 0.27 mi. Total
C. Vistapoint Road - Beginning at Whitechapel Road, thence
U mi e to a cul-de-sac. Beginning at Whitechapel
Road, thence 0.23 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.39 mi. Total
These roads have a right-of-way of 50' with the exception of
Whitechapel Road which has a variable width right-of-way..
These roads serve 51 lots and the total mileage is 0.91:
40
4 • • � '� sdt isB u� �
• ///z L c 2, ,,ST
._•fGT/O//
n
1.40 XIII. B.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ITEM NO.
Resolution requesting the Highway Department to accept the
following roads into the system.
A. Bri stock Road - Beginning at State Route 1014, thence
mi a to a dead end. 0.25 mi. Total
B. Whitechapel Road - Beginning at Brigstock Road, thence
7.777 mile to Vistapoint Road. 0.27 mi. Total
C. Vistapoint Road - Beginning at Whitechapel Road, thence
-mi a to a cul-de-sac. Beginning at Whitechapel
Road, thence 0.23 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.39 mi. Total
These roads have a right-of-way of 50' with the exception of
Whitechapel Road which has a variable width right-of-way.
These roads serve 51 lots and the total mileage is 0.91.
�pK
0
o
L C R4Si
-S fG T/O Al
0
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 4, 1977
In
TO: Board of Supervisors
C. G. Manuel, Interim County Administrator
FROM: James Zook, Chief
SUBJECT: CIP Instructional,
of Comprehensive Plannin
Evaluation and Critique Seminar
XIII, C.
1. Mrs. Marilyn Weeks of RRPDC indicates that the CIP Seminar is within
the original scope of work as proposed to HUD. Therefore, it is
eligible, without program amendment, for HUD funds already ear marked
for Capital Improvements Programming.
2. Two options for format and audience are presented for your evaluation
and direction.
Option A: The seminar can be made available to as many employees
as any department head desired, regardless of the degree
to which the department participated in the CIP process.
Under this option, the seminar would be directed toward
the "average need -to -know" hence for some of the partici-
pants, the seminar maybe too general and for others, it
may be too specific. The number of participants under
this option is estimated to be about 40; however, under
the generalistic information format, it is difficult to
tellwho would be interested or to what extent each department
may participate.
The benefit to the County would be that more people would
have general knowledge of the CIP process etc. This format
could cause the seminar format to be changed to more of an
instructional format, less emphasis on group participation
and more on instructor presentation. Days required for
this type of information session may be 1 to 1 1/2.
Option B: The seminar can be made available to all department heads
or their representatives with special emphasis and possible
requirement of participation for those departments directly
involved in the development of the CIP.
Under this option, the seminar would be directed toward
the specific process that is experienced in Chesterfield and
expanding the expertise and understanding of those individuals
directly involved with inputs to the County's CIP. The
number of participants under this option is estimated at
about 25.
This option makes the seminar aspects more feasible and
encourages an exchange of information concerning the specific
problems/needs of the participating departments.
M(!Ao %W11 *4
March 4, 1977
page 2
Days required for this option would be 1 1/2 in May with
another day in June. The lag of a month will allow the
instructor to prepare case studies and work on specific
problems/needs raised by participants.
3. Either option will require coordination with the instructor prior to
the seminar to insure a "Chesterfield" focus. The cost of the instruc-
tional service under either option would be funded with monies already
ear marked for development of the the CIP (HUD funds). If space away
from the Courthouse was to be rented for the seminar, that would require
County funds, however, the location of the seminar need not be decided
at this time.
4. The instructor for the seminar would be Dr. Alan Steiss of VPI and SU.
He has developed a seminar on Capital Facilities Planning as a part of
a program to improve local government management; the program was fund-
ed by a federal grant. The Capital Facilities seminar would be taylor-
ed to Chesterfield County. A similar activity has been performed by
Dr. Steiss for other localities.
5. Someone from the County should be charged with the management of the
program so that which ever option is selected, the County will recieve
the greatest benefit. That responsibility should logically fall on
me; however, this is not required.
6. I am available to discuss the options, although, I would recommend
option B because I believe the County is better served by having a
smaller number of people with more specific knowledge of the Capital
Improvements Program Process than a greater number of persons having
general knowledge. Also, the persons learning under Option B not
only need to know more specific information, but would have the
capability of passing on the information gained to their subordinates
at the appropriate level of detail.
7. In any case, an option should be selected soon,so that the program
coordinator can properly plan the event.
JPZ/jp
W
05
n
HUNTON 8t WILLIAMS
707 EAST MAIN STREET P. 0. BOX 1535
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23212
TELEPHONE (804) 788-8200
CABLE HUNTWAND
March 14, 1977
Mr. Michael C. Ritz
Director of Planning
Chesterfield Courthouse
Chesterfield, Va. 23832
Re: Hetra Corporation
Dear Mike:
XII I. D.
Wo13cl
T"
Wa'i'l AIR
OFFICE
1730 PENN YLVANIA AVE. N. W. 20006
SUITE 1060
TELEPHONE (202) 833-1680
FILE N0.308-560-1 p
DIRECT DIAL NO (80-Q 788-8380
By Option Agreement dated April 28, 1976, the County of
Chesterfield, Virginia, granted to Hetra Corporation, a Virginia
corporation, the option for a period of eighteen months from
May 1, 1976, to purchase the real estate described therein. The
rights of Hetra pursuant to the Option Agreement terminate on
November 1, 1977.
On September 16, 1976, the County of Chesterfield, Virginia,
and Hetra Corporation closed the purchase and sale of an Agree-
ment dated April 28, 1976, for certain real estate located in
the Chesterfield Airport Industrial Park of the County and more
particularly described therein. Hetra Corporation purchased
such real estate subject to certain restrictive covenants
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chester-
field County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1067, page 706, and running
with the land in the Chesterfield Airport Industrial Park. Para-
graph E2(a) of such restrictions provides that in the event a
purchaser fails to commence construction within one year from the
date of purchase of property in such Industrial Park, the County
shall have the unqualified right and option in its sole discre-
tion to repurchase the land at the original sales price. Under
such restrictions the County has the right on and after September
16, 1977, to repurchase the real estate conveyed by the aforesaid
Agreement.
In response to your letter dated February 9, 1977, to Mr.
Jeffrey Sommers, Secretary, Hetra Corporation, we have been
HUNTON & WILLIAMS
Mr. Michael C. Ritz
March 14, 1977
Page 2
authorized by Mr. Sommers to request on behalf of Hetra Corporation
that the duly authorized officers of the County of Chesterfield
enter into an agreement with Hetra Corporation which shall -
1. Extend from November 1, 1977, to May 1, 1978, the
period within which Hetra Corporation may exercise its rights
under the aforesaid Option Agreement.
2. Extend from September 16, 1977, to March 16, 1978, the
date on which Hetra Corporation must commence construction pursuant
to the aforesaid Agreement in order to avoid a repurchase by the
County pursuant to Section E2(a) of the aforesaid restrictions.
In exchange for the commitment o
the construction commencement date and
aforesaid, Hetra Corporation will agree
to have trees cleared on 30,000 square
land purchased by Hetra Corporation pur
to reimburse the County for such expens
amount not to exceed $2,000.
f the County to extend
the Option Agreement as
to authorize the County
feet, of "the parcel -of
suant to the Agreement and
es of clearing in an
In the event that this proposal is acceptable to the County,
we would appreciate your preparing the necessary instruments for
review by us on behalf of Hetra Corporation. If these instruments
effect the aforesaid transaction in a satisfactory manner, then
we will be in a position to authorize you to proceed with such
clearing.
Please contact me if you have an questions concerning
this matter.
Yo rs t ly,
David S. Cohn
1554/513
CC: Hugh V. White, Jr., Esq..
Mr. Jeffrey Sommers
Need resolution for Mike Ritz to inform Hetra Corporation's representatives
that the Board of Supervisors specifically extends from Nov. 1, 1977, to May 1,
1978, the period within which Hetra Corp. may exercise its rights under the
aforesaid Option Agreement and extends from Sept. 16, 1977, to March 16, 1978,
the date an which Hetra Corp. must commence construction pursuant to the
aforesaid agreement in order to avoid repurchase by the County pursuant to
to Section E2(a) of the aforesaid restrictions.
.(.�""'^f•hF!!V".;AV. +'•".r r"!..j"Y `lr.l.l .,fir"'";p';'1'f�+�W.Y'•)F4A^.Y. P "-'r'
�;"'�
a
47
f v =
�.
., ..
D m
m
...
❑
_ l9
Z
V D
q
C N
Z
N m
r C
En
I
m m
m
❑
0
M ^�
M 1�
4 .�
m
Z1
N N
07
C -q
A D +'L
n Z
a] Ztp
�•
N tp
Z M
_ Z7
D M
m
N �
N
m
O
D M LINES
u
z CO 0
c Ln -3
to 0
r :r
❑in ;D Cr
u (D
z
D
A
D
•D
ND
c
Z
< (D 3N
> D
T X, I
r, 0
—j
z L)
(D
+ D
m 1: 1>
> 1p
n ;u n 7 r, 0 0
(DO
> n n
M M
4A
0
VIZ.
r%)
0
11 -1' c Q'> w m
)> Z z
wl
n
>
rl
< z
PI
r
-n
C)
PV
a) n
0 1 x
Ul >
rn rn�
> z -u Flz
ti M >
> m
Ln M.
m a x Ln
;a ;o
171 Z>
cm D
<
;o
m En z
M G) UA
X)
<
m ❑ z , '-4 tp
Ln m III
> -i
m
O I EJ
a) tv
> 0
Ej
0
RICHMOND hERSPAPERS. INC.
v4,01isher of
THE RICHMOND NEWS LEADER
MAR 1 6 1977
Richmond, Va.....................................
This is to certify that the attached...............1EGAI NOTICE
was published in The Richmond News Leader, a newspaper pub-
lished in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia.
MAR 9 1977 MAR 1 6 1977
.........................................................................................................
The first insertion being given..
Sworn to Pp¢�yubper be re me
this... IM�/�tt ..... .
Notar ublic
State of Virginia, City of Richmond:
My commission expires 12/26180
M
.................... MAJ..9...... 197.7.....
CORNELL MARTIN
SUPERVISOR, ACCTS. REC.
..........................................
TITLE
0
LM
C3
X,
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE
COUIRTY OF CtMSTERFIELD, .1975, AS ADDED,
BY ADDING SCIONS 8-14.1 AND 8-33 RELAT-
ING TO PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL ESTATE
TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTIFIED POLLUTION
CONTROL EOUSPMENT AND FACILITIES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chester-
field County:
(1) That 558-14.1 and 8-33 are added to the Code of the
County of Chesterfield as follows:
Sec. 8-14.1 Exemption from tangible personal EE20rU taxes
or ceft1f1e3,po ut on . control a nt and acs t es .
Certified pollution control equ pmsnt and face t es, as
defined by 558-16.3 of the Code of Virginia, 1950t as amended,
shall constitute a separate class of personal property and
shall be exempt from `taxation as tangible personal property
or machinery and tools.
bec. ti -'3J 'r' L10a . VU1 c�arzaa..is L%;QA. esrscuw1+ a.chvo aw.
cert n ut on ZME;0-1 e u went an3 rtified
pollution control equipment and facilMei, as a zsed by
558-16.3 of the Code of Virginia, 1954, as amended, shall con-
stitute a separate class of real property and shall be exempt
from taxation as real estate, provided; however, that the land
upon which the certified pollution control equipment and facil-
ities are located shall be subject to the real, estate tax.
n
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
E. MERLIN O'NEILL. CHAIRMAN
MATOACA DISTRICT
JOAN GIRONE. VICE CHAIRMAN
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
C. L. BOOKMAN
CLOVER HILL DISTRICT
J. RUFFIN APPERSON
DALE DISTRICT
LEO MYERS
BERMUDA DISTRICT
In
ADMINISTRATION
C.0. MANUEL
INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
804-748-1211
C O U NTY OF C H ESTE R F 1 ELD
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
MEMORANDUM
February 14, 1977
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Steven L. Micas, County Attorney
SUBJECT: Tax Exemption for Certified Pollution Control
Equipment and Facilities
Attached for your review is a proposed ordinance
exempting certified pollution control equipment and
facilities from personal property and real estate taxes.
Please note that the land upon which the facility is
located remains subject to our local real estate tax.
The ordinance codifies the status quo in ordinance form
as required by §58-16.3 of the Code of Virginia.
My recommendation is to pass the ordinance on an
emergency basis and set a public hearing within 60 days
for consideration of a permanent ordinance.
SLM/ jlb
Attachment
VII, C.
M
n
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 10, 1977
TO: C. G. Manuel, I erium County Administrator
FROM: M. C. Ritz, irector of Community Development
SUBJECT: Proposed General Plan 2000
On September 22, 1976 the Board referred the proposed General
Plan 2000 to the Planning Commission for study sessions. Those
sessions were completed in November with several recommended changes
in the proposed policies. In addition, Mr. James P. Zook, Chief of
Comprehensive Planning has met with several citizen groups and
organizations to review the "Extract", especially the issues and
proposed policies. We have distributed about 550 copies of the 50
page Extract. Copies of the full Plan report have been available
since October in all the County's libraries and our office to
check out.
The Planning Commission has not identified to date any serious
concerns or deficiences in the proposed Plan nor have our meetings
with citizens identified any controversial issues or policies. It
would seem that the Plan has not generated any opposition.
We would like the Board to request the Commission to hold two
public hearings on the Plan and request their recommendations.
Within ninety days after the Commission's adoption of a resolution
recommending the Plan, the Board must act to approve, amend or
disapprove the Plan; therefore, I recommend that the Board refer the
Plan to the Commission for hearings and schedule its public hearing
so that reasonable review time can elaspe between the Board's hearing
and the end of the ninety day period.
M
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
E. MERLIN O'NEILL. CHAIRMAN
MATOACA DISTRICT
JOAN GIRONE. VICE CHAIRMAN
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
C. L. BOOKMAN
CLOVER HILL DISTRICT
J. RUFFIN APPERSON
DALE DISTRICT
LEO MYERS
BERMUDA DISTRICT
In
ADMINISTRATION
C.6. MANUEL
INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
604-748-1211
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
February 24, 1977
MEMORANDUM TO: P-rogress-Index
FROM: Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
SUBJECT: Meetings
Coming Events
One (1) time, Wednesday, March 9, 1977
One (1) time, Wednesday, March 16, 1977
Please confirm by calling the County Administrator's Office
at 748-1211.,
shh
Attachment
C. Manuel
Interim County Administrator
i
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
E. MERLIN O'NEILL. CHAIRMAN
MATOACA DISTRICT
JOAN GIRONE. VICE CHAIRMAN
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
C. L. BOOKMAN
CLOVER HILL DISTRICT
J. RUFFIN APPERSON
DALE DISTRICT
LEO MYERS
BERMUDA DISTRICT
n
ADMINISTRATION
C, 6. MANUEL
INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
00♦ -740-1211
COUNTY OF C H ESTE R F 1 ELD
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23632
February 24, 1977
MEMORANDUM TO: Richmond News Leader
FROM: Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
SUBJECT: Meetings
Coming Events
One (1) time, Wednesday, March 9, 1977
One (1) time, Wednesday, March 16, 1977
Please confirm by calling the County Administrator's Office
at 748-1211.
shh
Attachment
C. G. anuel
Interim County Administrator
n
TAKE NOTICE
That the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors on
Wednesday, March 23, 1977, beginning at 11:00 a.m.
in the County Board Room at Chesterfield County
Courthouse, Virginia, will take under consideration
the passage of the following Ordinance:
"An Ordinance to amend the Code of the County
adding
of Chesterfield, 1975, as amended, by g
Sections 8-14.1 and 8-33 relating to Personal
Property and Real Estate Tax Exemption for Certified
Pollution Control Equipment and Facilities.
Copies of this complete Ordinance are on file in the
County Administrator's Office, Chesterfield Courthouse,
Virginia, for public examination on each regular business
day.
n
TAKE NOTICE
M
That the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors on
Wednesday, March 23, 1977, beginning at 11:15 a.m.
in the County Board Room at Chesterfield County
Courthouse, Virginia, will take under consideration the
passage of the following Ordinance:
"An Ordinance to amend and reenact Section
8-3 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield,
1975, as amended, relating to the Board of
Equalization of Assessments."
Copies of this complete Ordinance are on file in the
County Administrator's Office, Chesterfield Courthouse,
Virginia, for public examination on each regular business
day.
RICHMOND hEIR SPAPERS, UNC.
*11001isher o/
THE RICHMOND NEWS LEADER
MAR 1 6 1977
Richmond, Va.....................................
This is to certify that the attached ................... LEIM ..�(�T��,
was published in The Richmond News Leader, a newspaper pub-
lished in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia.
MAR.. ...... 1977 MAR 1 6 1977
.........................................................
The first insertion being given .................. MAR 9 1977
Sworn to a strl pe me
this � � _ l �
........�,,s.,;,�'.'.l,tf................ ..... ......�1
Not y Pubil
State of Virginia, City of Rich mond: CORNELL MARTIN
My commission expires 12126/80SUPERVISOR, ACC?S. REC.
........................................................
TI'1'I.F'
I
CM
XI,
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION
8-3 OF TSMC CODE of THE COUNTY OF CHESTER• -
FIELD* 1975, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF ASSESSM&NTS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Beard of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That S8-3 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield
is amended and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 8--3. Board of a ual.ization of assessments.
All duties and all powars conferred by law is the review
for equalisation of assessments of real estate in, the county
shall be exercised by a county board of equalization of assess-
ments, composed of fives members appointed for term of-thraee
years not to exceed one year and exoirina on December thirty -
the ci`kcvkt___d&urt isider pursuant to the prey sions of section
38-598 of the Code of Vi,rglnn:L etken-58-698 950 as
ak�� e�rt-prat-��rd-e�-lt�de-►isa«irtie+nir-es;�r'pd�nt��-be:
--for--one
yeaarr-Whe rjoe- teed ofSupertri ors shrill, In January
ensimiga ye<ar. wn• acara sna ii also nave thea power to review
all assessments and changes of 'assessments previously made by
the assessor. The board of equalization of assessments shall
have authority, on its own motion or upon protest as herein-
after provided, to chane any assessment of real estate in the
county, to add to the tax rolls any real estate erroneously
omitted, to remove properties from tax rolls when acquired by
corners not subject to taxation, and to correct errors in tax
assessment records, in accordance with the policies and pro-
cedures prescribed in this article. Vacancies on the board
of equalization of assessments shall be filled by the judge of
the circuit court for the unexpired term, Such board shall be
removable by the judge of the circuit court f6r malfeasance,
misfeasance or nonfeasance in office. The cospansation of the
members of the board of 9qualization of assessments shall be
as prescribed in the annual county budget as adopted by the
board of supervisors.
M
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
E. MERLIN O'NEILL. CHAIRMAN
MATOACA DISTRICT
JOAN GIRONE. VICE CHAIRMAN
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
C. L. BOOKMAN
CLOVER HILL DISTRICT
J. RUFFIN APPERSON
DALE DISTRICT
LEO MYERS
BERMUDA DISTRICT
M
ADMINISTRATION
C• G. MANUEL
INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
804-749-1211
VII, D,
COU NTY OF C H ESTE R F 1 ELD
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
MEMORANDUM
February 14, 1977
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Steven L. Micas, County Attorney �&_W`
SUBJECT: Appointment of Members to the Board of Equalization
The current Code of Chesterfield County provides for the
appointment of members to the Board of Equalization for three
year terms. The three year term is inconsistent with State
law and the existing practice of the Circuit Court judge to
appoint members for one year terms.
Please set a public hearing date for the attached ordin-
ance revising §8-3 of the County Code which would bring the
County into compliance with State law.
S LM/ j lb
Attachment
MINUTES
PERSONNEL AND SALARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Personnel and Salary Advisory Committee meeting 10:00 A.M., March 18, 1977
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Joan C. Girone
Mr. C.G. Manuel
AGENDA ITEM #1:
MEMBERS ABSENT•
Mr. E.M. O'Neill
Mr. R.B. Galusha
Request from Mr. A.L. Wynne, Chapter 10 Administrator, to reclassify
present position of Assistant Administrator to Business Manager,
Grade 16.
DISCUSSION:
This action if approved would result in an annual salary decrease
of $3,216. It was the concensus that the Business Manager classi-
fication was more consistent with the actual duties and responsibi-
lities of the position. This action was considered and endorsed by
the Chapter 10 Board on December 2, 1976.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Committee recommended the position of
be reclassified to Business Manager, and
be allocated to the County Classification
to be effective on Board approval.
AGENDA ITEM #2:
Request from Mr. Elmer
reclassify the present
istrative Assistant II,
a permanent basis.
DISCUSSION:
Assistant Administrator
that said classification
Plan at Grade 16. Action
Hodge, Director of Data Processing, to
position of Consultant, Grade 26 to Admin -
Grade 22, and to retain the incumbent on
On August 11, 1976, the Board of Supervisors, on the recommenda-
tion of the County Administrator, voted to establish the position
of Consultant to justify the retention of the then Data Processing
Director. The Director was considered to be unsatisfactory as a
Director, but was considered to be of value as a consultant with
certain qualifications - the most significant of these being that
his future value was measured to be worth approximately 12 months.
At the same time the Board established the position it also indica-
ted that the position would be eliminated on July 1, 1977 and
that the incumbent would be terminated at that time. Mr. Hodge
indicated that although it was true that the present consultant did
lack managerial abilities he still could make a valuable contribu-
tion on a permanent basis. Mr. Hodge felt that increased adminis-
trative requirements justified the position and that the positions
duties and responsibilities were more consitent with the Administra-
tive Assistant classification then with the Consultant classification.
Mr. Hodge recommended additionally that the present incumbent of the
Consultant position be retained as the Administrative Assistant and
that his salary be readjusted from $21,912 to $15,672 consistent with
the reduction in responsibility.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Committee recommended that the position of Consultant be reclass-
ified to Administrative Assistant II, Grade 22; that the position be
established as a permanent authorization; that the incumbent be
reclassified accordingly and his salary be readjusted from $21,912
to $- This action to be effective 1, 1977.
a
AGENDA ITEM #3:
Request from Mr. D. Martin, Administrator of the Nursing Home, to
establish a Controller position and to initiate immediate recruit-
ment to fill the position.
DISCUSSION:
This request resulted from a recommendation by the Consultants, Mr.
St.Clair and Mr. Pierce. It was their opinion that detailed
financial analysis of the Nursing Home be undertaken immediately
in order to get sound financial controls needed for proper patient
charges, cost reimbursement and financial management. They recommended
a Grade of 24 (14,232 - 18,936) be assigned this position.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Committee recommended:
a. That the position of Controller be established as a permanent
authorization;
b. That the classification Controller be allocated to the County
Classification Plan at Grade 24;
c. That the Personnel Department begin recruitment action on
Board approval.
AGENDA ITEM #4:
Request from Mrs. P. Firesheets, Interim Director of General Services,
for authorization to fill a 1977-78 position prior to July 1, 1977.
DISCUSSION:
Mrs. Firesheets indicated that she had a very able and well-qualified
man contact her in regard to a mechanic's position. She was concerned
that unless action was taken now we would stand a chance of losing this
person. Past experience has shown that good mechanics are understandably
scarce. Additionally, she indicated in order to provide adequate
maintenance that a second shift will be initiated (4:00 P.M. to 12:30 A.M.)-
this person will provide the second shift requirement. As there are
sufficient funds in the current budget th—'re will be no need to
n
M
supplement the General Services budget for this salary.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Committee recommended that the request for early fill of the
Mechanic II position be approved effective April 1, 1977.
Mr. R.B. Galusha
Recorder -Secretary
Mr. E.M. O'Neill
Chairman
March 9, 1977
Mr. Jack Manuel
Acting County Administrator
Chesterfield County Courthouse
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Dear Mr. Manuel:
On December 22, 1975, we sent a letter to you requesting your annual-?
contribution or match to the operation of this Agency for Fiscal Year 1977
in the amount of $640. Our Fiscal Year differs from yours in that it ?�
starts on October 1 of each year.
Assuming that your Board of Supervisors has already approved that
request, would you please forward the sum as soon as possible. Please
do not confuse this request with our letter of December 9, 1976, which
is for our FY 1978 beginning October 1, 1977.
Thank you for your support of our programs.
Sincerely,
G4. /4
Louis S. Barretta
Executive Director
LSB/jrb
cc: Mrs. Joan Girone
Mrs. Carrie Rogers
%r
0
nil=
4-1
Mr. Melvin W. Burnett
Chesterfield County Courthouse
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. Burnett:
You probably will soon begin planning your fiscal year 1977 budget
and, with that in mind, we are submitting data for your consideration of
matching funds for this Agency.
Enclosed are:
1. Copy of CAAA's Articles of Incorporation and Certificate of
Tax Exemption.
2. Summary of .our activities in your County. By mandate of the
Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, we are required to
provide 10 to 25% local match (depending on the program) of
which 25% must be local public cash.
3. CAAA was organized on January 1st, 1974 and has not had two
complete fiscal years as yet. in addition, our fiscal year has
been changed to October 1st through September 30th effective this
past October. A condensed operating statement is attached for all
programs since inception.
Chesterfield County was asked for and approved $445 to assist our efforts
on behalf of the County's elderly for fiscal year 1976..which was based upon
8.34 per person 60 years of age and older. This amounts to 0.01% of funds
provided within the County by CAAA as shown on Enclosure #2 for FY 76.
We are requesting $640.00 for the fiscal year 1977. This is based upon
100 per person aged 60 and over. There are 6,400 in this age bracket in your
County based upon a Census Bureau update last year (copy attached).
Thank you for your support of CAAA in years past. Hopefully, the County
can absorb this small increase and your personal support is solicited.
Sincerely,
Liv.
Louis S. Barretta
Executive Director
LSB/csm
Enclosures
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF
CAPITAL AREA AGENCY ON AGING
We hereby associate to form a non -stock corporation
under the provisions of Chapter 2, Title 13.1 of the Code of
Virginia, and to that end set forth the following:
ARTICLE I
The name of the corporation shall be CAPITAL AREA AGE14CY ON
AGING.
ARTICLE II
The purposes for which the corporation is organized are as
follows:
(a) To take, receive, accept, recover, collect and hold,
fees, allowances, rents, monies or other property, real or personal,
of whatsoever nature and wheresoever situated, which is charged,
realized, donated, given, allocated, conveyed, devised, bequeathed,
or appropriated by any Federal, State or local governmental entity,
agency or authority, to the Capital Area Agency on Aging or for its
purposes, whether subject to condition, limitation, restriction or
otherwise.
(b) To hold, own, manage, in,Test, reinvest, handle and
administer in its unlimited discretion, money and real and personal
e c.
s
property in furtherance of the purposes herein specified; pro-
vided, however, the corporation shall not engage in a trust
business.
(c) To provide and encourage for older citizens of
Planning District 15 of the Commonwealth of Virginia needed
health, recreation, education, referral and counseling services
to enable older persons to be active in the life of the community
and to live life to the fullest degree that each is able.
(d) To operate service programs for older citizens
when such operation is deemed the most feasible method for service
accomplishment.
(e) To apply for and obtain public funds and public
grants from Federal, State and local governmental entities and
agencies, and to obtain private funds from foundations, groups,
businesses and individuals necessary to the carrying on of the
functions of the Capital Area Agency on Aging.
(f) This corporation shall not have capital stock and is
not organized for profit. No part of its earnings or profits shall
inure to or be for the benefit of any member of the corporation or
individual.
(g) The foregoing purposes shall be construed as both
objects and powers and the foregoing enumeration of specific purposes
shall not be deemed to limit or restrict in any manner the powerlo cf
the corporation.
-2-
ARTICLE III
The corporation is not to be operated for profit and is to
have no members.
ARTICLE IV
No part of the net earnings of the corporation shall inure
to the benefit of, or be distributable to, its directors, officers,
or other private persons, except that the corporation shall be
authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for ser-
vices rendered anis to make payments and distributions in further-
ance of the purposes set forth in Article II hereof. No part of
the activities of the corporation shall be the carrying; on of
propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, and
the corporation shal- Iot participate in, or intervene in (including
the publishing or distribution of statements) any political cam-
paign on behalf of any candidate for public office. IJotwitlist anding
any other provision of these articles, the corporation shall not
carry on any other activities not permitted to be carried on
(a) by a corporation exempt from federal income tax under Section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (or the corre-
sponding provision of any future United States Internal Revenue
Law) or (b) by a corporation, contributions to which are deductible
under Section 170(c)(2) of the Internal revenue Code of 1954 (or the
corresponding provision of any future United States Internal Reve-
nue Law).
-3-
ARTICLE V
Upon the dissolution of the corporation, the Board of Direc-
tors shall, after paying or making provision for the payment of
all of the liabilities of the corporation, distribute the assets
of the corporation to such organization or organizations exempt
from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 (or the corresponding; provision of any
future United States Internal Revenue Law), as the Board of Direc-
tors shall determine, for the purposes of the corporation as herein-
above set forth.
ARTICLE VI
The corporation is to be governed by a Board of Directors.
The number of Directors shall be fixed by the By -Laws. Each
director shall serve for three (3) year Terms or until his successor
is duly appointed or elected. The number of the initial Board of
Directors shall be six (6). The Board of Directors shall elect
their successors. The names and addresses of the initial Board are:
Bailey E. Creps 7008 Chamberlayne Road
Mechanicsville, Va. 23111
Edward R. Buchanan 1110 Jackson Avenue
Mechanicsville, Va. 23111
Charles W. Dobson 1005 West Avenue
Richmond, Va. 23220
-4-
Elinor Curry
Uptson S. Martin
Lucy G. Crockin
ARTICLE VII
3205 Seminary Road
Richmond, Va. 23227
1605 Wilmington Avenue
Richmond, Va. 23227
7201 South Drive
Richmond, Va. 23225
The post office address of the initial registered office of
the corporation is 1200 Mutual Building, Richmond, Virginia. The
name of the City in which the initial registered office is located
is the City of Richmond. The name of its initial registered agent
is'Lee F. Davis, Jr., who is a resident of Virginia and a member
of the Virginia State Isar, and whose business office is the same
as the registered office of the corporation.
ARTICLE VIII
This Charter may be amended in whole or in part, by the vote
of a majority of the Board of Directors attending a duly called
meeting of the corporation of which due notice of the intention
to amend was given in the call of the meeting.
Given under our hands and seals this 28th day of December,
1973. t
! (SEAL)
eS E A L
(SEAL)
Address any reply to: P.O. Box 5%" 'timore, Md. 21203
FC
oa�QQ�c�� DD aQQ(B�oP
Internal Revenue Service
Date: In reply refer to:
June 17L1974 I Au -'EM 111,3-R.Pecora
Telephones (301) 962-4769
PCapital Area Agency on Aging
6 North Sixth Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Accounting Period Ending: June 30
Form 990 Required: W Yes p No
Advance Ruling Period Ends: June 30, 1979
Based on the information supplied, and assuming your operations
will be as stated in your application for recognition of exemption, we
have determined you are exempt from Federal income tax under section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Because you are a newly created organization, we are not now making
a final determination of your foundation status under section 509(a) of
the Code. However, we have determined that you can reasonably be
expected to be a publicly supported organization of the type described
in section
Accordingly, you will be treated as a publicly supported
organization, and not as a private foundation, during an advance ruling
period. This advance ruling period begins on the date of your inception
and ends on the date shown above.
Within 90 days after the end of your advance ruling period, you
must submit to us information needed to determine whether you have met
the requirements of the applicable support test during the advance
ruling period. If you establish that you have been a publicly supported
organization, you will be classified as a section 509(a)(1) or 509(a)(2)
organization so long as you continue to meet the requirements of the
applicable support test. If, however, you do not meet the public support
requirements during the advance ruling period, you will be classified
as a private foundation for future periods. Also, in the event you are
classified as a private foundation, you will be treated as a private
foundation from the date of your inception for purposes of sections
507(d) and 4940.
Grantors and donors may rely on the determination that you are
not a private foundation until 90 days after the end of your advance
ruling period. In addition, ii' you submit the required information
Form L-391 (4-73)
If /
within the 90 da�,4, 6,�,ntors and donors may contig,, L"'rely on the
advance determination until the Service makes a final determination of
your foundation status. However, if notice that you will no longer be
treated as a section 170(b)(1)(A)(vl) organization is published in the
Internal Revenue Bulletin, grantors and donors may not rely on this
determination after the date of such publication. Also, a grantor or
donor may not rely on this determination if he 'was in part responsible
for, or was aware of, the act or failure to act that resulted in your
loss of sect ion170(b)(1)(A)(vi_) status, or acquired knowledge that the
Internal Revenue Service had given notice that you would be removed
from classification as a section 17_0(b)(1).(A)(v:L) organization.
Donors may deduct contributions to you as provided in section 170
of the Code. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to you or
for your use are deductible for Federal estate and gift tax purposes
if they meet the applicable provisions of sections 2055, 2106, and 2522
of the Code.
You are not liable for social security (FICA) taxes unless you
file a waiver of exemption certificate as provided in the Federal
Insurance Contributions Act. You are not liable for the taxes imposed
under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA).
Organizations that are not private foundations are not subject to
the excise taxes under Chapter 42 of the Code. However, you are not
automatically exempt from other Federal excise taxes. If you have any
questions concerning these taxes, please let us know.
If your sources of support, or your purposes, character, or method
of operation is changed, you should let us know so we can consider the
effect of the change on your status. Also, you should inform us of all
changes in your name or address.
If the yes box at the top of this letter is checked, you are
required to file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income
Tax, only if your gross receipts each year are normally more.than
$5,000. The return is due by the 15th day of the fifth month after the
end of your annual accounting period. The law imposes a penalty of $10
a day, up to a maximum of $5,000, for failure to file the return on
time.
You are not required to file Federal income tax returns unless you
are subject to the tax on unrelated business income under section 511
of the Code. If you are subject to this tax, you must file an income
tax return on Form 990—T. In this letter we are not determining whether
any of your present or proposed activities are unrelated trade or
business 'as defined in section 513 of the Code.
You need an employer identification number even if you have no
employees. If an employer identification number was not entered on
your application, a number will be assigned to you and you will be
advised of it. Please use that number on all returns you file and in
all correspondence with the Internal Revenue Service.
Si rely your
Gerald G.Portney
District Director Form 1-391 -73)
A
Total Population (1970)
Number over age 60
Black elderly
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 30 June 1975
Capital Area
Agency on Aging
75,855
5,320 .0702% (State average 12.7%)
763
Direct services and spending in the county:
From 1 June 74 - 30 Sep 75:
Nutrition site serves an average of 45 meals per week to
senior citizens in Winterpock. With your school now
preparing the meals, we were able to save considerably
on meal cost and transportation expenses; expenditures
will approximate: $ 4,541
Transportation. A 12 -seater van for the elderly was placed
in the Department of Social Services in January 1975.
It is used to transport elderly to medical services,
shopping, nutrition site, etc. 12,697
Supplemental Security Income Alert. 190 applications received
by April 18. If averaged $360 each, meant $68,400
additional income per year into pockets of poor in
County. More since then.
From 1 Oct 75 - 30 Sep 76:
Nutrition site will serve an average of 75 meals per
week. Hopefully we may find another site. Expenditures
will approximate: 8,910
Transportation - Operating expenses: 89200
Other services:
Senior Discount Program - A photo ID card for those over age 60
(at a fee of $1) - discounts were available at more than
300 businesses in Planning District 15 by 30 June, 1975;
plans are to blanket the entire District. Lists of
participation merchants are sent to all ID card.holders.
Fees for adult education courses at public schools for those
past 60 have been eliminated.
College courses taken at State colleges & universities are free
to those over 65 with incomes below $5,000.
Transportation for the Elderly & Handicapped -
Two vans to be provided through capital grant under Section
16(b)(2) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act. Your County
is to provide $3,600 as match. They•are to be operated by
Chesterfield County Volunteers and the Association for
Retarded Children in cooperation with various other county
agencies. We have received unofficial word of approval by
the Federal government; vehicles should be available within
90 clays: 10,400
PITAL AREA AGENCY ON AGING, If
j OLI'AMERICANS ACT OF 1965, TITLE & VII
CONDENSED OPERATING STATEMENT
From Jan. 1, 1974 through Title III
March 31, 1975 Federal Funds
CAAA Administrative Budget $ 48,227
13 Funded Programs, P.D. #15 204,848
TOTALS: $253,075
TOTAL RESOURCES FOR PERIOD ---------_- _-----
From April 1, 1975 through
September 30, 1975 (2)
CAAA Administrative Budget $ 27,910
13 Funded Programs, P.D. #15 98,675
TOTALS: $126,585
Public
Cash
Non -Govt.
Resources (1)
- 0 -
$ 13,644
1,550
38,088
$1,550
$ 51,732
---------------------------- $ 306,357
$2,656 $ 4,189
3,100 6,768
$5,756 $ 10,957
TOTAL RESOURCES FOR PERIOD------------------------------------------------------ $ 143,298
From October 1, 1975 through
September 30, 1976
CAAA Administrative Budget
11 Funded Programs, P.D. #15
CAAA Administrative Budget
11 Funded Programs, P.D. #15
TOTALS:
$ 53,184 $6,525 $ 7,440
305,472 (3) 24,620 (4) 113,465
$358,656 $31,145 $ 120,905
TOTAL RESOURCES FOR PERIOD------------------------------------------------------ $ 510,706
FOOTNOTES
(1) This column includes non-public cash, in-kind resources and some program income.
(2) Interim grant to align all programs to same ending date and to change official fiscal
year dates.
(3) This column includes "Other Federal Funds" i.e. $84,691 from Urban Mass Transportation
Act for 15 vans and $12,480 from State Welfare Office for purchase of Homemaker Services,
Richmond Redevelopment & Housing Authority, $208,301 is the Title III Grant.
(4) This column reflects $22,457 local public cash as match for U.M.T.A. Grant.
TITLE VII, NUTRITION PROGRAM
From October 1, 1973 thru
Title VII
Public
Non -Govt.
Se ternber 30, 1974
Federal Funds
Cash
Resources (2)
Nutrition Admin. Budget
$ 27,935
None
None
Meals
91,315
None
4,316
Supportive Services
6,722
None
9,744
TOTALS:
$125,972
None
$14,060
TOTAL RESOURCES FOR PERIOD------------------------------------------------------- $ 140,032
1 - �. --� tr,3
From October 1, 1974 thru
September 30, 1975 _^-
u VII, NUTRITION PROGRAM (CO
Title Vri Public Non -Govt.
Federal Funds Cash Resources
Nutrition Admin. Budget $ 26,716
Meals 136,184
Supportive Services 17,280
TOTALS: $180,180
TOTAL RESOURCES FOR PERIOD -----------------
Prom October 1, 1975 thru
September 30, 1976
None
None
None
3,512
None
16,508
None
$20,020
Nutrition Admin. Budget 41,542 None 450
Meals 191,753 (3) None 12,530
Supportive Services 6,503 None 13,765
TOTALS: $239,798 None $26,745
TONAL RESOURCES FOR PERIOD -----------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES
(1) Title VII does not require public cash match.
(2) This column includes in-kind resources and contributions from participants.
(3) Figure includes $12,348 received from U.S.D.A. Commodity Foods.
NOTE: The Nutrition Program was in operation three months prior to the opening
of the Capital Area Agency on Aging.
- 2 -
c
$ 200,200
$ 266,543
December 9, 1975
LM
SCHNABEL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES
P. C.
CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS
March 21, 1977
JAMES J. SCHNABEL P. E.
ERNEST WINTER P. E.
RAY E. MARTIN PH. D., P. E.
County of Chesterfield
P.O. Boa 40
Chesterfield, Virginia
Attnt Ms. Peggy Firesheats
Subject: Soil ftfineering Services for Tasting and
Zsapection of Compacted Strucleral Fill,
Chesterfield County dental Health Clinic,
Chesterfield County, Virginia
Qentlamen t
SUITE 300
11 SOUTH TWELFTH STREET
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219
804:649-7035
We are pleased to submit berewith our proposal for sol engineering
services for testing and inspection of compacted structural fill for
support of the proposed Mental Health Clinic.
We propose to furnish the following services. -In connection with this
project:
a. Receive balk soil semmmples and Performa laboratory
tests to determine the suitability of fill material.
b. Provide on-site evaluation of subgrades for compacted
fill placsmsnt and testing Of fill Materials and con-
fection during construction of the fill within the
building area.
c. Provide a written report of our testing activities.
Services with respect to line and grade, quantity 4stisates, and materials
besides soil are not included. Th $",Proposal does not include inspection
of backfill or testing of fill plaeed beyond the proposed stractare, such
as general site fill or fill for pavement support.
The schedule of fees for engineering services and testing is as follower
A. Egginsering Services
Principal of Fire 4SO/hr _
Senior Associate of Tires 2 bra (eat) $3b/hr 7�
Associate o! Firma - $31/hr
Senior $oils Engineer - $31/hr -
County of Cheste%teld
March 21, 1977
PaJte Two
Staff Bugineer
Draftsmen
TyPing, reproduction & travel
*4rr
10 bra (eat) $22/hr $ 220
2 bra (est) $14/hr $ 28
Leap $u $ SO
Be Engineering Technician for Testing s days(est)$128/day $ 640
and fulltime inspection of fill Add $s/hr for sat., Sun.
Placement and compaction & holiday work & time in
excess of 8 bra/day
C. Soil Laboratory Testing
(see attached Price List)
Not.
$ 150
Estimated Total for Soil Bagineeriug Services, $1169
Fill Inspection i Testing, Including Reports
Time for engineering and engineering technician services will include both
field and office time. Compensation will be hosed upon the actual time re-
quired for Items (A)and (B) above. A u1niu m of 2 hours per day will apply
for engineering technician services for on-site work.
The total fee for monitoring and testing services is solely dependent upon the
contractor's rate of progress, the weather, and other conditions which are be-
yond our control. Our estimates a" based upon similar projects completed un-
der normal conditions, but it should be noted that our total fee could be more
or less. We will notify you if it becomes apparent during construction that
the total estimated fee presented herein will be exceeded.
The presonce of our field representative at the site will be only for the pur-
pose of field testing. Our work does net include supervision or direction of
the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. The earthwork con-
tractor for this project should be so advised. The contractor should also be
Informed that neither the presence of our field representative nor the testing
by our firm shall excuse his in any way for the defects discovered in his work.
It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety
on this project except for our Mit personnel. Job and site safety will be the
sole responsibility of the contractor.
Final payment will be due within 20 days after completion. The attached Stan-
dard Terms and Conditions will apply to this proposed agreement.
En
County of Chesterfield
March 21, 1977
Pine Three
M
WO apprsciate the opportunity to submit our proposal for these services.
Please acknowledge acceptance of this proposal by signing and returning
one copy of this latter.
Very truly pours,
S,qWRL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, P. C.
Ray E. Martin, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate
Enols :
(1) 8011 Test Price List
(2) Standard Terms and Conditions
(3) Professional Record
ACCEPTED: COUNTY OF CRESTRIFIELD
Titles Interim County Achnini strator
Date: March _23, 1977
13M:mt
(1)
SCMNASEL ENGRMRMG ASSOCIATES Enclosure
SOIL MECHANICS LABORATORY
SCHEDULE OF LABORATORY SOIL AND ROCK TESTING FEES
Effective April 1, 1975 04
ITEM NO. TEST UNIT PRICE
IDENTIFICATION AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
101 . . . . Moisture Content . .
102 .. $ 3.00
Natural Density and Moisture Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00
103 . . . . Liquid and Plastic Limits, Plasticity Index . . . . . . 26.00
104 Mechanical Analysis
(a) Sieve Analysis (with gisin-size curve) . . . 26.00
(b) Hydrometer Analysis (including specific gravity with grain -size curve) 43.00
(c) Combined Mechanical Analysis (including sieve and hydrometer analysis and specific
gravity with grain -size curve) . . . . . . . . . . . 62.00
(d) Amount finer than No. 200 sieve determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.00
105 . . . . Shrinkage Limit including Natural Moisture Content . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.00
106 . . . . Bar Lineal Shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.00
107 . . . . Maximum and Minimum Density of Cohesionless Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.00
108 . . . . Specific Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00
109 . . . . Permeability compacted 4" dia. sample, per each determination . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.00
110 . . . . Permeability 24/2" dia. undisturbed sample, per each determination . . . . . . . . . . 25.00
III . . . . Shrinkage and Swelling Potential of Soils (includes 103, 104(b) and 105) . . . . . . . . . 93.00
112 . . . . Organic Content Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00
113 . . . . Visual Soil Classification AASHTO or Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487) . . . . 5.00
114 . . . . Optimum lime content, four points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.00
STRENGTH AND COMPRESSIBILITY TESTS
NOTE: All triaxial, direct shear, and consolidation tests include Item 102. Item 201 required
on all tube samples.
201 Extrusion and Visual logging of tube samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10.00
202 . . . . (a) Unconfined Compressions (strength and strain at failure including moisture content) 25.00
(b) Sensitivity test as above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.00
203 . . . . (a) Unconfined Compressions (complete stress -strain curve and sketch of failure), including
moisture content, on undisturbed sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.00
204 . . . . Triaxial Compression Test, Unconsolidated -Undrained (UU)
(a) One lateral pressure, stress -strain curves . . . . . .
• 45.00
(b) Three Lateral pressures, stress -strain curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130.00
(c) Cyclic loading, per cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00
(d) With pore pressure measurement, per each lateral pressure . . . . . . . . . . . 25.00
(e) Remolding of specimen, per each . . . . . . .
• 10.00
205 . . . . Triaxial Compression Test, Consolidated -Undrained (CU)
(a) One lateral pressure at maximum of 24 hour consolidation stress -strain curves . . . . 50.00
(b) Three lateral pressures each at max. 24 hour consolidation stress -strain curves and
sketch of failure . .
. • • • • • • • 145.00
(c) Cyclic loading, per cycle . . . . . .
15.00
(d) With pore pressure measurement or applied pore pressure, per each lateral pressure . . . . 25.00
206 . . . . Triaxial Compression Test, Consolidated -Drained (CD), Low Strain Rate (4 hours or less)
(a) One lateral pressure, stress -strain curves . . . . . . .
• 55.00
(b) Three lateral pressures, stress -strain curves . . . . . . .
• • • • • • • • .00
15
(c) Cyclic loading, per cycle . . • , • 1
15.00
(d) With pore pressure measurement, per each lateral pressure . . . . . . . . . . . 25.00
207 . . . . Direct Shear, Unconsolidated -Quick, 2-1/2" dia. samples
(a) One normal load . . . .
40.00
(b) Three normal loads (includes stress deformation curves) . . . . . . . . . . . . 110.00
(c) Precut, per point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.00
(d) Repeated Failure, per point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.00
SOIL COMPACTION AND CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TESTS
301 . . . . Compaction Test, Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698)
�11r►' ''rl�
(a) Methods A and C (4" mold) .
208 . .
. . Direct Shear, Consolidated -Quick, 2-1 J2" samples
$ 55.00
. . . . . . . .
(c) Methods B and D (6" mold) . . . .
(a) One normal load . .
. . . . . .
(d) As Item (c), single point .
65.00
. . . . . . . .
(b) Three normal loads . .
$ 45.00
302 . . . . Compaction Test, Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557)
. . . . . . . . .
(c) Precut, per point
130.00
. . . . . . . . . •
(d) Repeated Failure, per point . . . .
. . 20.00
209
. . . . . .
Direct Shear, Consolidated Drained, Low Strain Rate (7 hours or less), 2-1/2" sample
20.00
70.00
(a) One normal load . .
. . . 35.00
303 . . . . California Bearing Ratio, preparation of one specimen, 4 -day soaking, penetration
. . . . . . . . .55.00
. . . . . . . . . .
(b) Three normal loads .
. .
. . . . . . . . . .
(c) Precut, per point . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 160.00
SOIL -CEMENT TESTS
. . . . . . . .
(d) Repeated Failure, per point . . .
20.00
210 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . Consolidation Test
20.00
(a) Maximum of 16 tsf loading, max. eight increments held up to 24 hours each, reporting
specific gravity, a -log p and time curves, Compression Indices, 24/2" dia. sample
125.00
(b) Additional load increments held up to 24 hours
. . . . .
(c) Same as Item (a) but with back pressure . .
10.00
211 . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . Swelling of Expansive Soil
140.00
Double odometer test, reporting swelling potential at desired load up to 8 tsf . . . . . . .
. 180.00
212 . .
. . Swell Pressure Test (includes Item 101)
(a) At Natural Moisture Content
. . . . . . . . .
(b) Desicated Sample . . . .
50.00
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 60.00
SOIL COMPACTION AND CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TESTS
301 . . . . Compaction Test, Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698)
(a) Methods A and C (4" mold) .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
(b) As Item (a), single point
$ 55.00
. . . . . . . .
(c) Methods B and D (6" mold) . . . .
25.00
. . . . . .
(d) As Item (c), single point .
65.00
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 30.00
302 . . . . Compaction Test, Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557)
(a) Methods A and C (4" mold) .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(b) Single Point, as Item (a)
60.00
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(c) Methods B and D (6" mold) .
30.00
. . . . . . . . . . .
(d) Single Point, as Item (c) .
70.00
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 35.00
303 . . . . California Bearing Ratio, preparation of one specimen, 4 -day soaking, penetration
(a) CBR value at one moisture content (requires compaction test)
. . . . .
(b) CBR value at each additional moisture content . . . . . . . . . . . .
90.00
. . . 20.00
SOIL -CEMENT TESTS
401 . . . . Compaction Test (ASTM D-558) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 60.00
402 . . . . Unconfined Compression Test, Strength at failure only, including molding 2 inch sample . . . . . 40.00
ROCK MECHANICS TESTS
501 . . . . Natural Density and Moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.5.00
502 . . . . Hammer Test (for E and compressive strength) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.00
NOTES: 1. Testing performed in accordance with latest ASTM or AASHTO Standards where applicable.
2. Price for field density, vane shear, seismic testing, pressuremeter testing, load tests, static cone
penetrometer tests and foundation or embankment instrumentation will be furnished upon
request.
3. The above prices include the preparation of test result summaries and curves where indicated.
4. Tests requiring special field or laboratory apparatus may be conducted if desired.
December 18, 1974
STANID CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDiNS Enclosure (2)
SCHNABEL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES
1. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Schnabel Engineering Associates agrees to provide professional services, including geotechnical
sampling and testing as agreed to in the scope of services. Additional investigation and sampling, and
various other geotechnical tests may be performed if requested, subject to an agreed-upon revision in
the scope of services and authorized contract amount. Our professional services will be performed, our
findings will be obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted
engineering practice. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties. express or in.
plied.
2. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION DATA
Test boring, test pit, water observational and geotechnical testing performed under this agree-
ment is intended only to represent conditions and/or physical properties at the point investigated, and
at the time when sampling was performed. Stratification lines as shown by the boring logs represent
only approximations as to the vertical variations between the various strata and may not indicate the
complete stratigraphy found upon excavation. The borings will not disclose subsurface conditions be-
low the lowest level penetrated. No warranty is expressed or implied herein as to the adequacy of the
number of test borings, test pits, and other points of observation.
3. CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL AND ROCK SAMPLES
Reasonable care will be exercised in the classification of soil and rock samples in accordance
with visual classifications by ASTM Standards. The classification of artificial fill (or absence thereof)
should be considered only an approximation of the stratigraphy based upon the limited sampling ac.
complished. Disintegrated rock classifications shown are for residual soils recording penetration test
resistance of more than 60 blows per foot to the "refusal" point defined as the point at which 100
blows for 2 inches penetration or less is recorded. Lithology and fracture conditions shown for rock
core samples represent generalized classifications based upon the specimens actually recovered.
4. SOIL AND ROCK CORE SAMPLES AND REPORTS
Soil and rock core samples will be delivered prepaid to the addressee designated in our report,
or as such disposition that you may desire. Samples may not be held beyond two months after issuance
of our report. Normally, four copies of our report will be issued unless instructions are received for
additional copies.
5. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES
It is understood that we will be supplied available information on the existence and location
of underground utilities and structures within the site. We cannot be responsible for damage to under
ground utilities and/or structures not indicated to us.
6. INSPECTION AND TESTING OF CONSTRUCTION, SAFETY
Adequate construction inspection and testing is considered essential for successful completion
and performance of this project. No construction inspection and testing is included herein unless speci-
fically agreed upon. Inspection and testing of earthwork, foundations, or construction related to our
recommendations will be performed using random sampling, inspection, and/or testing techniques. The
data obtained from testing ani ;pection will be used to develop conel >ns regarding the construction
placed by contractors on the project. It should be understood that the presence of our field representa-
tive will be for the purpose of providing observation and field testing. Our work does not include super-
vision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. The contractor should
be informed that neither the presence of our field representative nor the observation and testing by our
firm shall excuse him in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will
not be responsible for job or site safety on this project except for our own personnel. Job and site safety
will be the sole responsibility of the contractor.
7. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF REPORT
It should be understood that the report rendered under this agreement will be prepared in ac-
cordance with the agreed scope and pertains only to subject project. Use of the report and data contained
therein for other purposes is at your sole risk and responsibility.
8. SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LIMITATIONS
The limitations imposed on Schnabel Engineering Associates by practical considerations in the
determination of subsoil ccnditions must be recognized by the client and other members of the design and/
or construction team. The conclusions, recommendations, and inspection reports to be prepared by
Schnabel Engineering Associates will be prepared on the basis of relatively limited data. Variations in .
conditions may be anticipated which may require additional expenditures be made to attain a properly
constructed project. Therefore, a contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential
extra costs. Reports will be prepared on what is considered to be sufficient data; however, no warranty
is made as to the adequacy of number of tests and points of observation.
9. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT
This agreement may be terminated by either party upon receipt of written notice. In the event
of termination, Schnabel Engineering Associates shall be compensated for services performed to the ter-
mination date, including reimbursable expenses and expenses incurred in reporting completed data.
If the project is suspended in part, Schnabel Engineering Associates will be compensated for
expense resulting from remobilization of personnel and equipment.
10. INSURANCE
Schnabel Engineering Associates agrees to maintain insurance to protect itself from claims under
workmen's compensation acts, and claims for damages because of bodily injury and property damage dur.
ing the course of work under this agreement. Similar insurance will be maintained by subcontractors em-
ployed by us under this agreement. Certificates of insurance will be furnished upon request.
11. PAYMENTS.
Payment for services rendered will be due upon receipt of invoice as outlined in the letter of
agreement. A service charge of 1-1/2% per month, or fraction thereof, (18% per annum) will be applied
to past due payments under this agreement. It is further agreed that in the event suit is filed to enforce
overdue payments under this agreement, we will be reimbursed for all court costs and reasonable attorneys
fees.
12. CLAIMS BY CLIENT
In the event the Client makes a claim or brings an action against Schnabel Engineering Associates
for any act arising out of the performance of his professional services, and the Client fails to prove such
claim or action, then the Client shall pay all legal and other costs incurred by Schnabel Engineering Associ-
ates in defense of such claim or action.
-2-
M
13. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
The owner recognizes and assumes the inherent risks connected with construction, and particularly
subsurface and earthwork construction. For its part, Schnabel Engineering Associates will do its best to per-
form its services in accordance with generally accepted standards within the profession. The owner agrees
that any liability of Schnabel Engineering Associates, its partners, employees, and subcontractors, to the
owner and his architects, engineers, consultants, contractors and subcontractors on the project for negligent
acts, errors, or omissions of Schnabel Engineering Associates, its partners, employees, and subcontractors,
to the owner and his architects, engineers, consultants, contractors and subcontractors on the project is
limited in the aggregate to the greater of (1) $50,000, or (2) the total fee due Schnabel Engineering Associ-
ates for services rendered on the project. Further, the owner agrees to notify any architect, engineer, con-
sultants, contractor and subcontractor on the project who may perform work in connection with any in-
vestigation, testing, and report performed by Schnabel Engineering Associates of such limitation of liability,
and require, as a condition precedent to their performing the work, a like limitation of liability on their
part to the benefit of Schnabel Engineering Associates, its partners, employees, and subcontractors. In
the event the owner fails to obtain a like limitation of liability provision with the architect, engineer, con-
sultants, contractor and subcontractors on this project as to negligent acts, errors, or omissions of Schnabel
Engineering Associates, its partners, employees, and subcontractors, any liability of the owner and Schnabel
Engineering Associates, its partners, employees, and subcontractors arising out of an alleged negligent act,
errors, or omissions shall be allocated between the owner and Schnabel Engineering Associates in such a
manner that the aggregate liability of Schnabel Engineering Associates, its partners, employees, and sub-
contractors shall be limited to the greater of (1) $50,000, or (2) the total fee due Schnabel Engineering
Associates for services rendered on the project.
14. WARRANTY OF AUTHORITY TO SIGN
The person signing this contract warrants he has authority to sign as, or on behalf of, the Client
for whom or for whose benefit the Schnabel Engineering Associates services are rendered. If such person
does not have such authority, he agrees that he is personally liable for all breaches of this contract, and
that in any action against him for breach of such warranty, a reasonable attorney's fee shall be included
in any judgment rendered.
MEMO frum�
RAY E. MARTIN
804:649-7035
SCHNABEL
ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES
A Professional
Corporation
CONSULTING
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERS
James J. Schnabel, P.E.
PRINCIPAL
Ernest Winter, P.E.
Ray E. Martin, Ph.D., P.E.
ASSOCIATES
PROJECT ENGINEERS
Frank D. Grefsheim, P.E.
1 Alvaro Rodriguez, P.E.
J MANAGER GEOTECHNICAL
TESTING AND INSPECTIONS
Gerald C. Davit, P.E.
MANAGER GEOTECHNICAL
F INVESTIGATIONS
J. A. Padgett
MAIN OFFICE and LABORATORY BRANCH OFFICE
4909 Cordell Avenue 11 South Twelfth Street
Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Richmond, Virginia 23219
Phone: 301-652-8430 Phone: 804-649-7035
SCHNABEL
ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION
Schnabel Engineering Associates is dedicated to furnishing its clients with the highest
quality consulting geotechnical engineering services. We offer continuity of service from inception
of a project to its completion by participation in all phases of geotechnical engineering including
geotechnical investigations, laboratory and field testing, preparation of recommendations for
design, and inspection and testing of construction. We are equipped to provide all services with our
own "in-house" capability. We also provide instrumentation to monitor the performance of
foundations, slopes, sheeting, tunnels, and earthwork, and research in the field of geotechnical
and foundation engineering.
Our company owes its growth and success to a continuing policy of providing engineering
recommendations and reports based upon reliable subsurface investigations and geotechnical
testing, and competence and experience of our engineering staff. All services provided are under
the direct supervision of a member of our engineering and geologic staff. Extensive data collected
since our founding in 1956 are available on subsoil and foundation conditions in the Middle
Atlantic States.
Engineering offices and laboratory facilities are maintained at our headquarters at 4909
Cordell Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland and at 11 South Twelfth Street, Richmond, Virginia. Geo-
technical investigations and laboratory testing are usually furnished by our subsidiary, Foundation
Test Service, Inc. of the same address, or by other similarly qualified organizations.
Methods for calculating engineering fees for our services are generally in accordance with
the recommendations of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Consulting
Engineers Council. Time required for engineering and sub -professional personnel is charged on an
hourly or daily basis. Supplemental services required as subsoil investigations, sampling, laboratory
and field testing are charged on the basis of unit prices with an agreed upon estimated maximum
fee for all charges. Other bases for determining an equitable and satisfactory fee which are recog-
nized by the engineering profession may be used to fit the client's requirements.
Schnabel Engineering Associates is a professional corporation organized in the Commonwealth
of Virginia, and qualified to provide services in the various states of our practice.
We invite your perusal of our professional record and your inquiry.
View of Crystal City and National Center Complex of office buildings, apartment structures, and intercon-
necting subsurface garages adjacent to National Airport, Washington, D.C. Schnabel Engineering Associates
provided soil and foundation engineering consulting services for these structures and surrounding projects.
Eightyton capacity cast -in-place concrete piles being driven
for the Children's Hospital National Medical Center, Washing-
ton, O.C. Schnabel Engineering Associates provided compre-
hensive soil and foundation engineering services including in-
spection of pile driving for this ma%or structure.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi1111i11111111111111/
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIt111/111111
III1111111111111111111111111111111111111
IIIIIIIIIi111111111111111111111t11111111��
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIt111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111111//il
11111111111111111111111111111111111111t1
1111111111111111111/It11111111111tt11i1
1111111111111111111111111111i11I111///i1
1111111111111/11111111111111111111111111
IIIIIIIIr111tt111111rrttit III lot
1/1111//
Honeywell Office Building, Westpark Drive, Westgate Industrial
Park, McLean, Virginia. Spread footing foundations were used
for support of this structure.
View of Hirshhom Museum and Sculpture Garden, Washington, D.C. This unusual structure is supported entirely on four columns
with 8500 ton reactions transferred to the foundations. Steel H pile foundations of 120 ton capacity were used for support of this
structure.
r --
SCHNABEL
ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OFFERED
The firm offers the following services through its "in house" capability
SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING SERVICES
• Preliminary soil and foundation engineering analyses and site evaluations,
preliminary geological reconnaissance
• General soil and foundation engineering analyses for foundation design and
construction problems
• Comprehensive design and instrumentation studies for major engineering projects,
new systems, or consultation on special problems
• Survey and analysis of existing foundations or failures with regard to safe loading
or corrective measures
• Soil and foundation engineering services for earthwork projects including earth
dams, embankments, controlled fills for support of structures
• Application of engineering and geological principles to problems of subdrainage
and dewatering design, soil pollution and control, excavation sheeting and under-
pinning, dynamic loading conditions, grouting
• Pavement design for roads, highways, and airports
INSPECTION AND TESTING OF CONSTRUCTION
• Earthwork quality control testing and inspection during construction
• Inspection and testing of drilled piers and driven piles, pile load tests, and soil
and rock bearing subgrades
• Field instrumentation for measurement of behavior of foundations and earth-
work — piezometers, slope indicators pressure cells, and precise leveling
• Vibrational measurements and studies
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
• Soil test borings with standard penetration testing, rock core drilling, auger
borings, undisturbed sampling, water observations; both land and marine
• Auger boring and bulk sampling
• Menard pressuremeter testing
• Cone Penetrometer Testing
• Seismic investigations
• Field permeability testing
• Plate load tests
• Piezometer installations
• Vane shear testing
• Resistivity Testing of Soils
• Slope Inclinometer Installation
Compacted structural fill was used to support this wall bearing Oakcrest
Apartment Building in Prince George's County, Maryland. Development
of this swamp site was made feasible by this relatively low cost foundation
recommendations.
Excavation sheeting sup-
porting 52 ft. cut for the
International Monetary
Fund Headquarters Build-
ing, 19th & G Sts., N. W,
Washington, D.C. Com-
prehensive studies for
lateral support of sur -
sounding structures and
properties were provided
with the foundation re-
commendations.
SOFT TO VERY SOFT SILTY CLAY (MIOCENE)
STIFF SILTY CLAY AND CLAYEY SILT,
SOME FINE SAND LENSES (MIOCENE)
Crossection showing foundation support. Soils below
the compacted structural fill consisted of soft to stiff
consistency Miocene clay.
SCHNABEL
ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES
SOIL AND ROCK MECHANICS LABORATORY TESTING
• Classification testing
• Shear strength testing — triaxial, direct shear and unconfined compression, pore
pressure measurements
• Consolidation testing, double odometer tests, back pressure tests
• Earthwork control tests — moisture -density relations, relative density
• Special purpose tests — California bearing ratio, swelling of expansive soils,
permeability, sensitivity tests
• Rock mechanics testing — shear strength and deformation moduli
EARTHWORK, MARINE, AND TUNNEL ENGINEERING
• Highway soil engineering, embankments over soft subgrades, subaqueous fills and
excavations
• Earth dams and appurtenant structures
• Waterfront structures including bulkheads, piers, and cofferdams
• Bridge piers and approaches
• Earth and rock tunnels, culverts, pipelines
• Subaqueous structures and pipelines
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
• Preparation of Geologic Maps and profiles
• Seismology studies
• Slope stability studies in soil and rock
• Construction material prospecting
CONSULTATION AND MISCELLANEOUS
• Consultation to engineers, owners, and contractors during construction on pro-
blems related to soils and foundations
• Consultation on landslide control, groundwater and seepage, excavation sheeting
and underpinning, and foundation movement
• Expert witness services with respect to all aspects of Geotechnical engineer-
ing
• Research and development for new systems in Geotechnical engineering
View of triaxial testing apparatus equipped for pore pressure
measurements. Schnabel Engineering Associates modern
facility is equipped to handle all testing required for our
practice.
Norfolk Regional Airport Terminal Building, Norfolk, Virginia.
Spread footing foundations were used to support this struc-
ture. 0
t
View of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Building, Washington, D.C. Settnemenr sruurrrs fur urc pfWv — •"•1
foundation for this structure were analyzed. Observations were also conducted during construction. Marcel Breuer & Nolen -Swinburne
Associated, Architects; Paul Weidlinger, Structural Engineer.
SCHNABEL
ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE RECORD
The following is a partial list of clients and projects successfully completed by
Schnabel Engineering Associates. This partial list is offered to indicate the varied experience
and clientele of the firm:
PROFESSIONAL ENGAGEMENTS WITH COMMERCIAL AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PROJECTS
Crystal City Office, Residential and Commercial Development, Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, Virginia — Comprehensive soil and foundation engineering studies over span of eight
years for ten office buildings, four apartments, motor hotel, and underground garages. Estimated
cost of construction: $350 million. (Charles E. Smith Company, Builders and Developers; Weihe,
Black, Jeffries and Strassman, Architects; Heinzman, Clifton and Kendro, Structural Engineers.)
Alexandria Watergate Apartments, Montgomery and North Pitt Streets, Alexandria,
Virginia — Comprehensive soil and foundation engineering study for major apartment complex
with underground garages. Estimated cost of construction: $40 million. (Alexandria Enterprises,
Inc., Owner; Vosbeck, Vosbeck, Kendrick and Redinger, Architects -Engineers.)
Mount Eagle Development, U. S. Route 1, Fairfax County, Virginia — Comprehensive
soil and foundation engineering studies including earthwork and slope stability for apartment de-
velopment including four high-rise structures and two multi-level parking garages. (Centex Homes
Corp., Owner; Weihe, Black, Jeffries and Strassman, Architects; KCE, Structural Engineers;
Delashmutt Associates, Civil Engineers.)
International Monetary Fund Office Building, 19th and G Streets, N. W., Washington,
D. C. — Comprehensive foundation, excavation sheeting and underpinning studies for major office
building and underground garage project. Estimated construction cost: $60 million. (Vincent
Kling and Associates, Architects; Fraioli, Blum and Yesselman, Structural Engineers.)
City of Roanoke, Church Street and First Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia — Comprehen-
sive soil and foundation engineering analysis, 10 -story garage structure, consultation on temporary
earth support system, and inspection of foundation construction. (City of Roanoke, Owners; Frantz
& Chappelear, Architects; Fraioli, Blum, Yesselman, Structural Engineers.)
National Automobile Dealers Association Office Building, Tyson's Corner, Fairfax County,
Virginia — Comprehensive soil and foundation engineering study for unique office and garage struc-
ture. (NADA, Owner; Vosbeck, Vosbeck, Kendrick and Redinger, Architects -Engineers.)
Oakcrest Apartments, Marlboro Pike and Brooks Drive, Prince George's County, Maryland
— Foundation engineering study and observation and testing of compacted structural fill for support
of four high-rise wall bearing structures. Estimated cost of construction: $20 million. (Banks
Engineering Corp., Developer; Bucher -Meyers, Architects; Scullen, Keller and Marchigiani, Structural
Engineers.)
Skyline Center Development, Leesburg Pike, Bailey's Crossroads, Fairfax County, Virginia
— Comprehensive foundation engineering studies for major commercial and residential development;
consisting of five high-rise apartments, one commercial, and two office structures. Estimated con-
struction cost: $260 million. (Charles E. Smith Company, Builders and Developers; Weihe, Black,
Jeffries and Strassman, Architects; Heinzman, Clifton and Kendro, Structural Engineers.)
Georgetown Inland Office and Commercial Development, 30th Street at C & O Canal,
Washington, D. C. - Foundation engineering services for major office building and commercial de-
velopment. (Arthur Cotton Moore and Vlastmil Koubek, Architects; Irwin Cantor, Structural
Engineer; Tishman Building Corp., Construction Manager.)
Northwest I Apartments and Commercial Development, North Capitol and K Streets,
N. W., Washington, D. C. — Sursum Corda, Temple Courts, Golden Rule, and Medical Office Build-
r,
ing — Soil and foundation engineering services for site evaluations, design, and inspection of com-
pacted structural fill, caisson and pile construction inspection. (D. C. Redevelopment Land
Agency, Owner.)
Park Center Condominium Development, Shirley Highway and Route 7, Alexandria,
Virginia — Comprehensive soil and foundation engineering study for major high-rise residential de-
velopment with underground garages including inspection and testing of compacted structural fill,
inspection of caissons and subgrades. (Erkiletian Construction Company, Owner; Bucher, Meyers
and Associates, Incorporated, Architects; Heinzman, Clifton and Kendro, Structural Engineers.)
SCHNABEL
ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS
Children's National Medical Center, Michigan Avenue, Washington, D. C. — Comprehen-
sive soil and foundation engineering and foundation construction inspection services for hospital
building and underground garage structures. Estimated cost of construction: $54 million.
(Children's Hospital of Washington, D. C., Owner; Leo A. Daly Company, Architects and Engineers;
Hyman -Bateson, Construction Manager.)
Mount Vernon Medical Center, Gum Springs, Fairfax County, Virginia — Comprehensive
soil and foundation engineering study for hospital building and related facilities; inspection of
foundation construction. (Fairfax County Department of Public Works, Contracting officer;
Ellerbe, Architects and Engineers; McKee-Berger-Mansueto, Inc., Construction Managers.)
Teaching Hospital Expansion, Medical College of Virginia, Marshall and 12th Streets,
Richmond, Virginia — Comprehensive soil and foundation engineering study for major high-rise
hospital expansion program. Estimated construction cost: $62 million. (Medical College of
Virginia—Virginia Commonwealth University, Owner; Ellerbe, Architects, and Lee, King, Poole
and White, Associated Architects and Engineers.)
Joseph H. Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, 7th Street and Independence
Avenue, S. W., Washington, D. C. — Comprehensive foundation engineering study and foundation
construction inspection. (Public Buildings Service, GSA, Contracting Officer; Skidmore, Owings
and Merrill, Architects; Paul Weidlinger, Structural Engineer.)
Martin Luther King Library, 9th and G Streets, N. W., Washington, D. C. — Foundation
engineering, excavation sheeting and bracing, and groundwater analysis. Estimated cost of con-
struction: $12 million. (D. C. Department of General Services, Owner; Mies van der Rohe,
Architect; Nelson, Ostrom, Baskin and Berman and Associates, Structural Engineers.)
Norfolk Regional Airport Terminal Building, Norfolk, Virginia — Foundation engineering
study. (Norfolk Regional Airport, Owner; Shriver and Holland, Architects; Fraioli, Blum and
Yesselman Associates, Consulting Structural Engineers.)
State Office Building, 14th and Franklin Streets, Richmond, Virginia — Comprehensive
study of deep foundations, field inspections and laboratory testing. (Commonwealth of Virginia,
Owner; Ballou and Justice, Architects; Torrence, Dreelin, Farthing & Buford, Inc., Structural
Engineers.)
Model Secondary School for the Deaf, Gallaudet College, Washington, D. C. — Compre-
hensive soil and foundation engineering study, inspection and testing of earthwork and foundation
construction. (Gallaudet College, Owner; Hudgins, Thompson, Ball and Associates, Architects;
Smislova Associates, Structural Engineers.)
Franklin D. Roosevelt High School, Glendale Road, Greenbelt, Maryland — Comprehen-
sive soil and foundation engineering study. (Prince George's County Board of Education; Walton,
Madden and Cooper, Architects$ Scullen, Keller and Marchigiani, Structural Engineers.)
National Military Command Center, Pentagon Building, Arlington, Virginia — Compre-
hensive foundation engineering study for inner court addition, pile load tests on existing piles.
(Public Buildings Service, GSA, Contracting Officer; Leo A. Daly Company, Architect -Engineer.)
Dental Clinic -Dispensary, Oceana Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia — Soil mechanics
and foundation engineering study. (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Contracting
Officer; Vosbeck, Vosbeck, Kendrick and Redinger, Architects -Engineers.)
Addition to National War College, Fort McNair, Washington, D. C. — Comprehensive
foundation studies for interior addition to existing building. (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers;
McGaughan and Johnson, Architects; Fortune, Downey and Elliott, Structural Engineers.)
Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications and Parking Structure,
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland — Comprehensive soil and foundation engineer-
ing study for major addition to existing structure and parking facility. (Public Buildings Service,
GSA, Contracting Officer; J. Roy Carroll, Jr., and Partners, Architects; Severud, Perrone, Strum
and Bandel, Structural Engineers.)
Argyle Junior High School, Montgomery County, Maryland — Foundation engineering
and subdrainage study. (Montgomery County Board of Education, Owner; Shaver and Company,
Architects; Carl Walker and Associates, Structural Engineers.)
Physical Education Facility, Salisbury State College, Salisbury, Maryland — Comprehen-
sive soil and foundation engineering study. (State of Maryland, Department of Public Improve-
ments, Owner; Leo A. Daly Company, Architects -Engineers.)
National Permanent Office Building, 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D. C. —
Comprehensive soil and foundation engineering study for downtown office building with four base-
ment levels. (The Lenkin Company, Builders; Hartman -Cox, Architects; KCE, Structural Engineers.)
Jefferson Plaza Phase III Development, Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia —
Comprehensive soil and foundation engineering study for four high rise buildings and underground
garage. (Centex Homes Corporation and Arlen Development Company, Developers; Donald Lee
Sickler Associates, Architects; Robert Rosenwasser Associates, Structural Engineers.)
Lorton Road Apartment Development, U. S. Route 1 and Lorton Road, Fairfax County,
Virginia — Comprehensive soil and foundation engineering study for 20 medium rise apartmert build-
ings and slope stability. (Lorton Venture, Owners; Gasner & Levine, Builders and Developers; Mat-
thews and Wheatley, Civil Engineers.)
The Gallerie, Washington, D. C. — Subgrade inspection for foundations on rock, multi-
story commercial building. (HSL Corp., Owner; John Carl Warnecke, Architect; Ross H. Bryan, Inc.,
Structural Engineers.)
Porsche -Audi Dealership, Marlow Heights, Maryland — Soil and foundation engineering
analysis for compacted structural fill. (Vorelco, Inc., Owner; Lockman and Associates, Architects;
Smislova and Associates, Structural Engineers.)
International Square, Washington, D. C. — Soil and foundation engineering analysis and
field inspection of footing installation. (Oliver T. Carr Co., Developer; Vlastimil Koubek, Architect;
Enis Y. Basham, Structural Engineer.)
Office Building, Connecticut Avenue and L Street, Washington, D. C. — Comprehensive
soil and foundation engineering analysis for new building, subdrainage analysis, consultation regarding
rock excavation. (Miller Connecticut Associates, Developer; Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Architects;
KCE, Structural Engineers.)
Union Street Parking Garage, City of Cumberland, Maryland — Geotechnical engineering
services for field inspection of caisson installation. (City of Cumberland, Owners; John Fujiwana,
Architect; Des Man Parking Associates, Design Consultants.)
Marine Corps Exchange Facility, Quantico, Virginia — Comprehensive soil and foundation
engineering analysis for new facility, lateral earth pressure evaluations. (George M. Ewing Company,
Architects, Engineers.)
Saint Agnes Hospital Addition, Baltimore, Maryland — Comprehensive soil and founda-
tion engineering analysis for 10 -story hospital addition and multi-level parking structure. (Daughters
of Charity, Owners; Faulkner, Fryer & Vanderpool, Architects; Kraas & Mok, Structural Engineers.)
Elevated Water Storage Tank of 150,000 Gallon Capacity, Charles County Community
College, Charles County, Maryland — Soil mechanics and foundation engineering analysis. (Charles
County Community College, Owner; Vosbeck, Vosbeck, Kendrick & Redinger, Architects and
Engineers.)
Water Storage Tank, Route 246, Lexington Park, Maryland — Soil mechanics and founda-
tion engineering analysis for two alternate tank structures, a 300,000 gallon elevated tank and a 1.3
million gallong stand pipe tank. (St. Mary's County Metropolitan Commission, Owner; Charles A.
Pessagno, Sanitary Engineer.)
Improvements to Golden Beach Road, County Route 37, Saint Mary's County, Maryland —
Soil engineering study for subgrade and embankment construction. (St. Mary's County, Maryland,
Owner; Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers.)
Elevated Water Storage Tank of 1 Million Gallon Capacity, Herndon, Virginia — Foundation
engineering analysis for support of the water storage tank. (Town,of Herndon, Virginia, Owner;
Johnson & Williams, Inc., Consulting Engineers.)
Renovation of Building 108, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D. C. — Comprehensive
soil and foundation engineering analysis to evaluate increased loading on existing foundations.
(Chesapeake Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command; George M. Ewing Company, Archi-
tects, Engineers.)
Boystown Research Center, Catholic University, Washington, D. C. — Soil and foundation
engineering analysis for research center building. (Catholic University of America; Leo A. Daly
Company, Architects, Engineers.)
Forest Products Research Center, Blacksburg, Virginia — Comprehensive soil and founda-
tion engineering analysis for research center, preliminary analysis for future buildings. (Vosbeck,
Vosbeck, Kendrick and Redinger, Architects, Engineers.)
Wakefield Park Recreation Center, Fairfax County, Virginia — Soil and foundation engineer-
ing analysis for recreation building. (Fairfax County Park Authority, Owner; Jansons, Roberts, Taylor
Associates, Architects; Guldu-Fernandez, Structural Engineers.)
National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland — Comprehensive soil and foundation
engineering analysis for Uniformed Services Naval Hospital addition, medical warehouse and parking
deck, heating plant, and inspection of foundation construction. Estimated construction cost:
$250 million. (Naval Facilities Engineering Command; Ellerbe -Dalton, Dalton, Little & Newport,
Joint Venture, Architects -Engineers.)
McDonough High School, Pomfret, Charles County, Maryland — Comprehensive soil and
foundation engineering analysis for regional high school building. (Charles County Board of Educa-
tion, Owners; Chapman & Miller, Architects; Carl Hansen, Structural Engineer.)
Sanitary Collection Improvements, Patuxent NATC, Lexington Park, Maryland — Compre-
hensive soil and foundation engineering analysis for 14 new sanitary structures and aircraft wash -
racks. (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Chesapeake Division.)
Surface Weapons System Development Facility, Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahlgren,
Virginia — Geotechnical engineering services for foundation requirements for building and for sta-
bility of excavations during construction. (U. S. Navy, Chesapeake Division, Naval Facilities En-
gineering Command.)
Hospital Building and Heating Plant additions, and parking deck for Holy Cross Hospital,
Silver Spring, Maryland — Comprehensive soil and foundation engineering analysis for 8 -story
hospital addition and garage structure. (Holy Cross Hospital of Silver Spring, Owners; Faulkner,
Fryer & Vanderpool, Architects; Kraas & Mok, Structural Engineers.)
Addition to Luce Hall, U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland — Soil and foundation
engineering analysis for building addition. (The Mills and Petticord Partnership, Architects -Engineers.)
Primary Care Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia — Soil and foundation
engineering analysis, new primary care center building. (University of Virginia; Thomas A. Hanson
and Associates, Consulting Engineers.)
Naval Dispensary, Sewells Point, Norfolk, Virginia — Soil and foundation engineering
analysis for naval dispensary building. (Perkins and Will Partnership, Architects, Engineers, Planners.)
Building Additions and Elevated Water Storage Tank, Calvert Memorial Hospital, Maryland
— Comprehensive soil and foundation engineering analysis, including compacted structural fill analy-
sis. (Calvert Memorial Hospital, Owner; Vosbeck, Vosbeck, Kendrick and Redinger, Architects,
Engineers.)
SCHNABEL
ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES
PROFESSIONAL ENGAGEMENTS WITH INDUSTRIAL, WAREHOUSE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECTS
Giant Food Distribution Center, Jessup, Maryland — Comprehensive soil and foundation
engineering and subdrainage studies for major food warehouse and support facilities, inspection and
testing of compacted structural fill for support of structures. (Giant Food, Inc., Owners; Donald
Coupard and Associates, Architects; Smislova Associates, Structural Engineers.)
Harvey Hubbell, Corp. Plant, Christiansburg, Virginia — Foundation engineering study
and inspection and testing of earthwork. (Sowers, Rodes and Whitescarver, Consulting Engineers;
Fraioli, Blum and Yesselman, Structural Engineers.)
Various vertical and horizontal additions, Government Printing Office, North Capitol and
H Streets, N. W., Washington, D. C. — Comprehensive foundation engineering study for multi -story
additions to existing structures. (Leo A. Daly Co. and A. B. Engineering Co., Architects and Engineers.)
Norfolk Industrial Park, Virginia Beach Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia — Preliminary founda-
tion engineering analysis for major industrial park expansion. (City of Norfolk, Owner; Abiouness,
Cross and Bradshaw, Consulting Structural Engineers.)
Warehouse Park, George Palmer Highway, Prince George's County, Maryland — Compre-
hensive soil and foundation engineering study for warehouse and office complex. (C. C. & F. of
Maryland, Owner; Ben Dyer Associates, Civil Engineers.)
Montgomery County Liquor Warehouse, Gaithersburg, Maryland — Comprehensive soil
and foundation engineering analysis for compacted structural fill. (Montgomery County, Maryland,
Owner; William Martin O'Neil, Architect.)
Wastewater Treatment Plant, Fishersville, Virginia — Foundation engineering study for
new treatment plant and pumping stations. (Augusta County Service Authority; Johnson and
Williams, Consulting Engineers.)
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Western Branch, Prince George's County, Maryland
— Soil engineering services for compacted structural tw design and construction inspection and test-
ing. (Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Owner; Arthur Beard Associates, Consulting
Engineers.)
Sewage Lagoon, Berry, Maryland — Soil engineering study for sewage lagoon design.
(Charles County Sanitary District, Owner; Johnson and Williams, Consulting Engineers.)
Washington Cold Storage Company Warehouse, Alexandria, Virginia — Comprehensive
design study for foundation support by compacted structural fill. (Saunders and Pearson, Archi-
tects; Fortune, Downey and Elliott, Structural Engineers.)
Elevated Water Storage Tanks of 1 to 2 million gallon capacity, Charles County, Maryland,
Herndon, Staunton and Leesburg, Virginia — Soil and foundation engineering studies for various
elevated tanks and standpipes. (Johnson and Williams, Consulting Engineers.)
Levitz Home Furniture Showrooms and Warehouses, Randolph Road in Rockville, Mary- r-
land and Gallows Road, Fairfax County, Virginia — Foundation engineering studies and inspection L
and testing of compacted structural fill. (The Austin Company, Architects -Engineers and Con-
structors.)
Mason Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant, Charles County, Maryland — Comprehensive
soil and foundation engineering studies for Phase I of 70 MG Treatment Plant and Pumping Station.
Estimated cost of construction: $17 million. (Charles County Sanitary District, Owner; Johnson
and Williams, Consulting Engineers.)
Disston Corporation Expansion, Danville, Virginia — Soil and foundation engineering
study for plant expansion supported on compacted fill. (Disston Corporation, Owner; Leo A. Daly
Company, Architects and Engineers.)
Fisher Nut Company Processing Plant, Edenton, North Carolina — Comprehensive soil
and foundation engineering analysis and construction inspection for structural compacted fill
foundation. (Ellerbe - Architects, Engineers.)
Harper's Ferry and Bolivar Sanitary Sewer System, West Virginia — Foundation engineer-
ing studies for pumping station and treatment plant, seismic studies for estimates of rock excavation.
(Towns of Harper's Ferry and Bolivar, West Virginia, Owners; Johnson and Williams, Consulting
Environmental Engineers.)
Abram's Creek Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility, Frederick County, Virginia —
Soil and foundation engineering study. for treatment plant on existing landfill. (Frederick County
Sanitary Authority, Owner; Gilbert W. Clifford Associates, Consulting Engineers.)
SCHNABEL
ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES
PROFESSIONAL ENGAGEMENTS FOR PROJECTS INVOLVING EXCAVATION SHEETING
AND UNDERPINNING, SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS, WATERFRONT STRUCTURES,
DAMS, SUBDRAINAGE STUDIES, TUNNELS AND SUBAQUEOUS STRUCTURES
Metro Huntington Station, Fairfax County, Virginia — Soil engineering services for earth
tunnel and cut slopes, including dewatering and instrumentation requirements. (Washington Metro-
politan Area Transit Authority, Owners; Vosbeck, Vosbeck, Kendrick & Redinger, Architects
and Engineers.)
Subaqueous Outfall Mattawoman Interceptor Sewer, Charles County, Maryland — Soil
engineering studies for major subaqueous outfall into Potomac River. (Charles County Sanitary
District, Owner; Johnson and Williams, Consulting Engineers.)
Constitution Gardens Mall Improvements, Constitution Avenue, 17th to 21st Streets,
N. W., Washington, D. C. — Subsoil investigations and evaluation for proposed lake development.
(National Parks Service, Department of Interior, Contracting Officer; Skidmore, Owings and
Merrill, Architects and Planners.)
Earth Dam for Northern Virginia Community College, Woodbridge Campus, Prince
William County, Virginia — Soil and geological studies for major earth dam. (Northern Virginia
Community College, Owner; Vosbeck, Vosbeck, Kendrick & Redinger, Partnership, Civil Engineers.)
Whirler Crane Foundation, L & G Yard, Newport News, Virginia — Soil engineering serv-
ices for crane foundations on cellular cofferdams and stability evaluation. (Newport News Ship-
building and Dry Dock Company, Owners; Fraioli, Blum and Yesselman, Inc., Consulting Engineers.)
Parking Garage No. 1, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland — Excavation sheet-
ing, underpinning and slope stability analysis for underground garage construction adjacent to Cole
Field House. (University of Maryland, Owner; Walton and Madden, Architects; Faisant Associates,
Structural Engineers.)
Memorial Chapel and Columbarium, Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia —
Subdrainage and foundation engineering studies. (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; Keyes, Leth-
bridge and Condon, Architects; James Madison Cutts, Structural Engineer.)
Telegraph Hill Apartments, Kings Highway, Fairfax County, Virginia — Foundation en-
gineering, slopes and subdrainage analysis. (Howar Brothers, Owners; Robert Calhoun Smith,
Architect; Gurewitz and Werner, Structural Engineers.)
Dodge Center Office Building, Wisconsin Avenue and K Streets, N. W., Washington, D. C.
— Geological, foundation engineering, and groundwater study for deep rock excavation for office
building and subsurface garages. (Maloney Concrete Co., Owners; Hartman -Cox, Architects; James
Madison Cutts, Structural Engineer.)
Columbia LNG Pipeline River Crossings, Patuxent and Potomac Rivers, Maryland and
Virginia — Soil engineering studies for underwater crossings of major high pressure gas pipeline,
evaluation of existing conditions and sediment transport. (Columbia Gas Company, Owner;
Pyburn and Odom, Consulting Engineers.)
Mount Vernon Square, Section 5B, Fairfax County, Virginia — Comprehensive slope
stability, landslide correction and subdrainage studies. (Wills and VanMetre, Developers; Cook
and Miller, Civil Engineers.)
Stewart Village Shopping Center, Laurel, Maryland — Analysis of foundation failure
with recommendations to restore structural integrity. Construction observation and review of
remedial measures. (Della Ratta Company, Owner; Wright and Mok, Structural Engineers.)
Georgetown University, Prospect Street, Washington, D. C. — Slope stability analysis and
instrumentation for Prospect Street access road. (Georgetown University, Client; Carl Hansen,
Consulting Engineer.)
Radio Tower, Watkins Regional Park, Prince George's County, Maryland — Soil and founda-
tion engineering analysis for steel radio tower design. (Maryland National Capital Park and Planning
Commission.)
Longcreek Canal Bulkhead, Virginia Beach, Virginia — Sheetpile analysis for bulkhead de-
sign. (Fraioli, Blum, Yesselman, Consulting Engineers.)
Mt. Vernon Sports Complex, Fort Hunt Road, Fairfax County, Virginia — Soil engineering
study to develop slope stability requirements, and soil And foundation engineering study for indoor
sports complex. (Fairfax County, Virginia, Park Authority, Owner; Ellerbe, Architects; James
Madison Cutts, Structural Engineer.)
l
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE RECORDS OF
PRINCIPAL AND KEY ENGINEERING PERSONNEL
JAMES J. SCHNABEL, P.E., Principal
Registered: Principal Officer of Schnabel Engineering Associates, P.C.
Maryland and President of subsidiary company, Foundation Test
Virginia Service, Inc., since founding in 1956. Bachelor of Civil
District of Columbia Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1952.
New Jersey Member ASCE, ASTM, Highway Research Board, American Con -
Delaware sulting Engineers Council, International Society, for Soil
West Virginia Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Past President of
Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers. Geotechnical
consultant for over 3000 projects in the Middle Atlantic
States.
ERNEST WINTER, P.E., Senior Associate
Registered: Associate and Officer of Schnabel Engineering Associates
Maryland P.C., since founding, Master of Science, Soils and
Virginia Foundations, Hungarian State Technical University, Hungary.
District of Columbia Geotechnical consultant for over 500 projects in the Middle
Pennsylvania Atlantic States, and overseas. Author of various papers
on subjects of embankment and building settlement, and field
measurements. Member ASCE, ACI, NSPE and ACEC.
RAY E. MARTIN, Ph.D., P.E., Senior Associate
Registered: Associate and Officer of Schnabel Engineering Associates,
Virginia P.C. in charge of Richmond office. Geotechnical consultant
District of Columbia for numerous projects in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia,
New Jersey North Carolina and the District of Columbia. B.S. and M.S.,
New York Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
West Virginia University, and Ph.D., West Virginia University. Author
Maryland of various papers on geotechnical engineering subjects.
North Carolina Member ASCE, NSPE, VSPE, and ACEC.
GERALD C. DAVITS P.E., Associate
Registered: Associate of the firm and Manager, Geotechnical Testing and
Maryland Inspections, Schnabel Engineering Associates. B.S.C.E.,
Virginia University of Missouri at Rolla and graduate studies at
District of Columbia George Washington University. Mr. Davit has experience in
Missouri geotechnical engineering inspections and testing throughout
the United States and as Project Engineer in Metropolitan
Washington, D.C. Member ASCE, NSPE, MSPE, and ASTM
FRANK GREFSHEIM, P,E., Associate
Registered:
Project Engineer for Schnabel Engineering Associates.
Maryland
MSCE, University of Minnesota, with advanced graduate
Virginia
work at Northwestern University. Mr. Grefsheim has
Indiana
considerable experience as a soil engineer in the
Minneapolis area and as a Project Engineer for numerous
projects in the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. and
Cincinnati, Ohio Areas. Member ASCE, NSPE, and MSPE.
ALVARO RODRIGUEZ,
P.E., Senior Soils and Foundation Engineer
Registered:
Project Engineer for various projects in Metropolitan
Virginia
Washington area. M.S.C.E., University of Nebraska and
National University, Bogota, Colombia. Registered
Professional Engineer in Colombia, S.A. Member of
Colombian Society of Engineers, and Associate Member
ASCE.
J. A. PADGETT, Staff Geotechnical Engineer
Manager, Geotechnical Investigations, Schnabel Engineer-
ing Associates and Vice -President of subsidiary company,
Foundation Test Service, Inc. M.E., Civil Engineering,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Associate Member, ASCE.
RAYMOND A. DeSTEPHEN, Staff Geotechnical Engineer
Registered E.I.T.: Staff Geotechnical Engineer and Assistant Project Engineer
Ohio Richmond Branch. M.S.C.E., Ohio State University.
Associate Member ASCE.
VICTOR OMELCHENKO, Staff Geotechnical Engineer
Registered E.I.T.: Staff Geotechnical Engineer. M.S.C.E., Ohio State University.
Ohio Associate Member, ASCE, Member Tau Beta Phi and Chi Eplison.
BRIAN W. BEARD, Staff Engineering Geologist
Staff Geologist and Assistant Manager Geotechnical
Investigations. B.S. Geological Sciences, Pennsylvania
State University, Mr. Beard also has over three
years experience in engineering geologic work. Member:
Geological Society of America.
CHARLES E. TEALE, Staff Geotechnical Engineer
Registered E.I.T.: Staff Geotechnical Engineer and Assistant Manager of
New York Geotechnical Testing and Inspections Department. M.E.,
Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Member ASCE.
-220--
ABEL ENIC EERING AtGDCIATES
\\\ ConsApIrrdg Engineers `\ `
` Sil anics ar toundationk\
2,30 �`
R E S O L U T I O N
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County sitting in a regular meeting on this the
Z3 day of March, 1977, as follows:
WHEREAS, Leo H. Myers who resigned from this Board
bfts
on January �`� , 1977 rendered a valuable service to the people
of Chesterfield County in general and to the people of Bermuda
Magisterial District in particular throughole his energetic
and forceful representation of them on this Board for over five
years; and,
WHEREAS, it is the desire of this Board to recognize
his faithful service and to spread this recognition upon the
minutes book of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board extends
on behalf of its members and the people of Chesterfield County
its appreciation and gratitude to Leo H. Myers for his service
as a member of the Board of Supervisors and does solicit his
continued interest in the affairs of his district and County
in the years to come.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution
be mailed to Mr. Myers and that this resolution be permanently
recorded among the papers of the Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County.
WEEK OF THE YOUNG CHILD
In keeping with its interest in and concern for the total well being
of young children, this Board declares April 3 - 9 as the "WEEK OF THE
YOUNG CHILD".
This declaration designates a specific time for all of us to emphasize
the importance of our children and the necessity of their physical, social,
educational, and emotional development. We further recognize the importance
of the local agencies which render essential services.to children and families
in our community.
En
M
JOAOIN4
� CHESTERFIELD - COLONIAL HEIGHTS
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Ma CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
�
April 25, 1977
Mr. C. G. Manuel
County Administrator
Chesterfield, Virginia
Dear Mr. Manuel:
Enclosed for your information is a copy of the report regarding the
Chesterfield -Colonial Heights Child Abuse Multidiscipline Team presented
to our Board of Social Services this month. Our Department feels fortunate
that we were represented on the subcommittee of the Governor's Advisory
Committee on Child Abuse that developed the guidelines and standards for
teams. The standards will be made available State-wide in the future.
The team concept formalizes the cooperative working relationship we have
always had with the other community service agencies. We appreciate
your continued support of this Department.
Sincerely
)1Lucy' Corr
LC/fd
Enclosure
M
M
The Chesterfield County - Colonial Heights Department of Social Services
has provided for several years protective services to those families in
which children are alleged to be abused or neglected. The Department has
had full cooperation and assistance of other county disciplines providing
family and children services. In July, 1971, a worker was hired with
responsibility for protective services. Currently, we have three workers
with average caseloads of 50-60. We receive an average of 30 new referrals
monthly.
During the past three years the State Department of Welfare has placed much
emphasis on the child abuse and neglect program. In July, 1975, new child
abuse legislation was enacted. It did not change our agency's method of
providing the vital service to children and families in our community? however,
the law made provisions for a state wide hotline, central registery, and
multidiscipline teams.
On September 10, 1975, an information -sharing meeting was held with the
administrators of the various community service agencies, at which time the
concept of multidiscipline teams was discussed. The law stipulates:
"The local department shall foster, when practicable, the creation,
maintenance, and coordination of hospital and ccmmmity-based
multidiscipline teams. The purpose of multidiscipline teams shall
be to promote, advocate, and assist in the development of a
coordinated service system directed at the early diagnosis,
comprehensive treatment, and prevention of child abuse and neglect."
It
was the general
consensus
of those
in attendance that the team approach would
be
valuable to our
community-
It was
decided that the team would be composed'
of representatives from each agency, who are involved on a daily basis with
children who are allemed to be abused or neglected and their families.
Page Two
M
In January, 1976, the first team meeting was held, at which time the
following goals and objectives were formulated:
(1) Prevention
(2) Training - community and team
(3) Identifying available community resources
(4) Professional responsibilities
The focus of the team has been in the area of program development. A
pamphlet was developed by the team and dissiminated by the Chesterfield
Jaycettes. We have viewed films and had guest speakers. A subcommittee
was formed to identify available community resources, as it is felt that
we need an updated resoure file of the community resources.
The following agencies are represented: social services, mental health,
public health, mental health and mental retardation, schools, probation,
police department, minister, and citizen.
The team will continue to focus on program development; however, will take
an additional focus in the area of case consultation. It is felt that the
case consultation aspect will enhance services to children and their families.
Attached is the model for the Chesterfield -Colonial. Heights Team.
In many cases, if the family receives the appropriate services it can remain
in tact and the children protected. This can be done most effectively through
interdisciplinary cooperation. The family is involved with several agencies
and cooperation by all is needed to identify and treat children and families
at risk. The family may require services such as housing, day care, medical,
educational, or legal; therefore, we must work together cooperatively.
Page Three
We realize that mistreatment of children cannot be eliminated, but
we can control, treat and limit the extent of this problem. It requires
a high sense of ccmummity concern and responsibility.
Suzanne Fleming
4-77
Modr-L
For
GiV(, ;MpL�u3 4o i'EAw�
*Orn,,%4.004
Me,ftbtrs ;:ll psrMAntnt
Pei& i':OAS on +CAn,
C1mw,f+i Lt And A.fitnd All
on CG}in9 S .
iv�L�:on: PIAwn:n,,
l.`OOrdinAi:ea7,
f
Cow,pouj 4 PfrmAnEn4 - vtsbw
or cons64141A9 %E,4bfVS rtpnasef:n
rAnst ei Prtvf^##vt . 4tg4mlAt
rCiwrCCS • C•eSS- SEc-4;v,1 e4 60"t3
Fa nt n : nude ASSE-SSmtn#,. PM -
grAw, plAan:+9 , vfsvuvet. d£ut.lip*ca'
+TA:n.n-e+1 cvft nuut4y ZJu6A4:IN,
f uAlu :i ;WV
J
u 1TATiari CP --
w;kh f.xpt►+&'s6 rE9u;r,cj for
And ceneutit:+� n„c"crs wr:A
jy,owlCJ9L nLCdtd �e,r yptC:# G CA34
Fvae.�+on : O:Agnos:s, �rFAintnf'
plenn;n�, rcv:trus p1Ans. m*k E dc-
Con,.�•tAd1A+:on3 on rtsoaU&16 a fn LA
NOT r. '. CorL &
r► Ac.COrclAACE+ LV.4 COw►,nua: /Could
Ana i n�LrLbiS . E: SGV Lp+nw, : �' ">c' �
be c#Lvclepta t:r6t,w:44% +hc`"n"�
E.uoluin� even, :t•. �
/ SAAG��eo�nq VrovpS�
PI:tcc.A I i EAAE S%,. P
PU614- Ascr%6 Cs bOR44
Pf i V 4L AtSLAC: ES - boAvclS
L I%u: L OrISPM-Z. i onS
vO%uh{.gru` Groups
min;S�'►A�orS O�
vjOLf4,nA OrQhnfLAt:
F4nc-4;afia = MEO Pu;0l:ca11y 5
*o plans, d:scus�
o rE.solvE, :e4-LeAc EAC- Pro6itMs
d: acus o. Act ttpon vEcOonol xi-
4.5'Low4 o} -I.EArn .
m
m
county- .Board ftoorw-,av
Chesterfield--Cb#rt,b*4se,'
Virginia, . ivill, -take`. -i r.
consideration the 'rlslwtft-and
thlib 'trantinof Conditional
Uses on the c6h 6f land
di,,,,b,d
t
, $020 In MidiMag
Dist,, E.&P. 'Coep re"aft
rftoftft from Agri (A) to, Res
fronti 0
woat:z S 05 . inteurtsuewdul=" Zla
th
Berraqd Rd'T' M, 98-12 (D -Oar 3,
2740 (D Par S.
?78MJnBermuda Wg Dist,
F. G. SLOAN & SOX9j INC.,
requostan imen'thnoot of (case
No. "8023) Cobd U0016"Mit,
construction of; 24d',6ffice
biWdiw 4 deduce depth, of
buffer to 26 ft. Thie request Win
Agri, tA ' ) Dist on 2.39 acre par
fronting , 'on 9-. Hundred Rd.
5 located W of,tattrsection.with
Me adowv1116 R4., and kro*n as
*46-endlubdivision,'6*6. A,
Ws Mand 14 and 11742 (1) Par
2 1n Midlothian Mag
Dis , R E T E. DUN-,
NINGTON * J. SHIPRWOOD'
STRUM r*e9t,reloning from
Res.(Ft-15) to Off This (0) of 0.25
acres par fronting on Huguenot
Rd. fronting, on Boni Oaks, La,
located in 6W..-weOrtut of In-
tersectl6n, of these rdaft. Bon
Aft Hdi0ft'Alk ZIA, 10 ",-
.*SM Dist,
HERITAGE SAVINGS& LOAN
'ASS'N requests Cond, the to
)permit operation of !iivilip - &
Loan Ass'n in Agri (A) D18t,on 5
acre par fronting •on Iron
Bridge Rd. fronting an Krause
Rd. located in NE quadrant of
intersection of these roads. T M
,Ctipfes of these amendinents
*0'odfile in the
M'
unity 6evpelop7,
,,,,,I?ffice Building, -
permit; to wit:
Condition No. 3--vipla tion of
r*q%iir9d1 buffer area; and
Condition,, f4i i—failure, to
adeqttAely'. -oonstruct proper
drainage laaftisa.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
E. MERLIN O'NEILL. CHAIRMAN
MATOACA DISTRICT
JOAN GIRONE. VICE CHAIRMAN
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
C. L. BOOKMAN
CLOVER HILL DISTRICT
J. RUFFIN APPERSON
DALE DISTRICT
GARLAND DODD
BERMUDA DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATION
C.G MANUEL
INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
C
O
U
NTY
OF C H ESTE
R
F1
E
LD
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
March 2, 1977
MEMORANDUM TO: Progress -Index
FROM: Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
SUBJECT: Meetings
Coming Events
One (1) time, Wednesday, March 9, 1977
One (1) time, Wednesday, March 16, 1977
Please confirm by calling the County Administrator's Office
at 748-1211.
jsd
Attachment
C. G. Manue
Interim County Administrator
n
• BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
E. MERLIN O'NEILL. CHAIRMAN
MATOACA DISTRICT
JOAN GIRONE. VICE CHAIRMAN
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
C. L. BOOKMAN
CLOVER HILL DISTRICT
J. RUFFIN APPERSON
DALE DISTRICT
GARLAND DODD
BERMUDA DISTRICT
AW.11NISTRATION
C G MANUEL
INTERIM COUNTY A'.7MINISTRATOR
C
O
U
NTY
OF C H ESTE
R
F1
E
LD
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
March 2, 1977
MEMORANDUM TO: Richmond News Leader
FROM: Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
SUBJECT: Meetings 8B
Coming Events
One (1) time, Wednesday, March 9, 1977
One (1) time, Wednesday, March 16, 1977
Please confirm by calling the County Administrator's Office
at 748-1211.
j sd
Attachment
C. G. XanTifel
Interim County Administrator
*r✓
TAKE NOTICE
That the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, on Wednesday,
March 23, 1977, beginninq at 2:30 P.M., in the County Board Room
at Chesterfield C__"-rthouse, Virginia, will take under consideration
the rezoning and the granting of Conditional Uses on the parcels of
land described herein.
775020 In Midlothian Mag Dist, E.B.P. Corp requests rezoning from
Agri (A) to Res (R-9) & (R-12) of 377.9 acre par fronting on Court-
house Rd located S of intersection with Berrand Rd T M 26-12 (1)
Par 3, & 27-10 (1) Par 5.
775027 In Bermuda Mag Dist, F.G. SLOAN & SONS, INC., request an
amendment of (case #765023) Cond Use to permit construction of 2nd
office building & reduce depth of buffer to 25 ft. This request is
in Agri (A) Dist on 2.39 acre par fronting on E Hundred Rd located
W of intersection with Meadowville Rd, and known as Riverbend Sub-
division, Sec. A, Lots 13 and 14 and 117-12 (1) Par 1-2.
775032 In Midlothian Mag Dist, ROBERT E. DUNNINGTON & J. SHERWOOD
STRUM request rezoning from Res (R-15) to Off Bus (0) of 0.25 acres
par fronting on Huguenot Rd fronting on Bon Oaks La located in
SW quadrant of intersection of these roads. Bon Air Heights Blk C,
Lot 10.
775036 In Dale Mag Dist, HERITAGE SAVINGS & LOAN ASSN requests
CondTse to permit operation of Savings & Loan Ass'n in Agri (A) Fist
on 5 acre par fronting on Iron Bridge Rd fronting on Krause Rd located
in NE quadrant of intersection of these roads. T M 95-8 (1) 19.
Copies of these amendments are on file in the Department of Community
Development, Room 307, Office Building, Chesterfield Courthouse,
Chesterfield, Virginia, for public examination between the hours of
8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. of each regular business day.
n
TAKE NOTICE
M
That the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County on March 23,
1977, beginning at 2:30 P.M. in the County Board Room at Chester-
field Courthouse, Virginia, will hold a public hearing to allow
Mr. Harry Stein, representing Grantwood Incorporated, an opportunity
to show cause as to why a Special Exception, 74AO72, to construct
two family dwellings on a parcel of land, should not be ammended
for violation of conditions of said permit; to wit:
Condition #3 - violation of required buffer area; and
Condition #7 - failure to adequately construct proper drainage
facilities.
Copies of this case are on file in the Department of Community
Development, Room 307, Office Building, Chesterfield Courthouse,
Chesterfield, Virginia, for public examination between the hours
of 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. of each regular business day.
rrrpinl Will nolo a
Ia io pl oW Mr, }HIarry
isentuq Graniwoal
as tois vau S�ciaol
111072. to construct tao
q$ as a Parcel of land,
De a1"i7s r d for
conditions of said
►. 7 • violation of
r area; and
�. 7 • failure to
construct Proper
!ties.
case are on file in the
Of Comunity
Room 7.'Office
curthouse,
RICHMOND NEA SPAPERS, INC.
disher of
THE RICHMOND NEWS LEADER
MAR 1 6 1977
Richmond, V .....................................
This is to certify that the attached ............. .IEQAL NOTICE
was published in The Richmond News Leader. a newspaper pub-
lished in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia.
MAR 9 1977
............................................. MAR 1 6 1977
........................................................
The first insertion being given ..................................MAR 9 1977
Sworn to ank
Picrore me
this /
.......... .. ..u-,-� . '.......
Not ' Public CORNELL MARTIN
State of Virginia, City of Richmond:
My commission expires 12/26/80 ....................SU?..$OR, ACCTS. IAC
.....................................
T1'I'1.F:
RICHMOND NEUSPAPERS, INC.
Aisher of
THE RICHMOND NEWS LEADER
MAR 1 6 1977
Richmond, Va............:.........................
L NOTICE
This is to certify that the attached .................... N
LE _; �..
............
was published in The Richmond News Leader, a newspaper pub-
lished in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia.
MAR 9 1977 MAR 1 6 1977
.........................................................................................................
The first insertion be* ven ............................. ' MAR 9 1977
.............................
Sworn to crt e e me
this 41 1( '�
...........:. 1:1:.7...... 4........ ..... ... .......
Nota y Publi CORMELL MARTIN
State of Virginia, City of Richmond:
My commission expires 12/26/80 SUPERVISOR, ACCTS; REC.
TITLE
B. S. - March 23, 1977
�4w *40
TAKE NO TI CE XVII.
That the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, on Wednesday,
March 23, 1977, beginning at 2:30 P.M., in the County Board Room
at Chesterfield Courthouse, Virginia, will take under consideration
the rezoning and the granting of Conditional Uses on the parcels of
land described herein at the times indioAf-Pa_
2:30
Qo`P f177S_0 Ln Midlothian Magisterial Distr
requests rezoninq from Aqricultural (A)
(_R-12) of a 377.9 acre parcel fronting
located approximately 1300 feet south o
Road. Tax Map Sec. 26-12 (1) Parcel 3,
(Sheets 7 & 8).
ON
464.4 feet on Courthouse Roa
its intersection with Berr
and 27-10 (1) Parcel 5
x/2:35
77SO27 In Bermuda Magisterial District, F. G. SLOAN F ",IS, INC.,
request an amendment of a previously granted (case #7 3) Con-
ditional Use to permit the construction of a 2nd offi: folding and
reduce the depth of the buffer to 25 feet.• This requ(_• is in an
Agricultural (A) District on a 2.39 acre parcel frontin- approximately
225 feet on East Hundred Road and being located approxirn:ately 1200
feet west of its intersection with Meadowville Road, and better
known as Riverbend Subdivision, Sec. A, Lots 13 and 14 and 117-12 (1)
Parcel 1-2 (Sheet 33) .
2:40
V/77SO32 In Midlothian Magisterial District, ROBERT E. DUNNINGTON AND
J. SHERWOOD STRUM request rezoning from Residential (R-15) to
Office Business (0)sof a 0.25 acre parcel fronting 89.25 feet on
Huguenot Road also fronting 136.10 feet on Bon Oaks Lane and located
in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax
I.lap Sec. 10-2 (3) 10 Subdivision Bon Air Heights B1k C, Lot 10
(Sheet 3).
•45
77SO36 In Dale Magisterial District, HERITAGE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASS N
requests a Conditional Use to permit the operation of a Savings & Loan,
Ass'n in an Agricultrual (A) District on a 5 acre parcel fronting
849.23 feet on Iron Bridge Road also fronting 517.81 feet on Krause
Road#and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
these roads. Tax Map 95-8 (1) 19 (Sheet 31).
Copies of these amendments are on file in the Department of Community
Development, Room 307, Office Building, Chesterfield Courthouse,
Chesterfield, Virginia, for public examination between the hours of
8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. of each regular business day.
APPLICANT AND/OR AGENT MUST BE PRESENT AT HEARING.
All persons favoring or opposing
are invited to appear at the time
the granting of the above requests
and place herein state
t ley R. Bal er on, Jr.
•�`_ P �ncipa1 Plann
• Com•=E „3 a. 775020
AP?LIC:.';T: E. B. P. CORPORATION
March 23, 1977 (B.S.)
Fe,b.rt arp-15;-}g=7q--(E ; a
3antiarp-}8;-14��--EF: P
^P.OPOSED USE: The rezoning from Agricultural (A) to
res�cen:ial (R-9) and Residential (R-12). The applicant intends
to subdivide this property for single family residential use.
C E':S?=-E L^CATION & TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: In Midlothian Mar_,ist«sial
Dis_r�ct, this parcel fronts along the west line of Courthouse
Road, and is located approximately 1,300 feet south of its inter-
sectio with Berrand Road. Tax Map 26-12 (1) Parcel 3 and 27-10
(1, Parcel 5 (Sheets 7 & 8).
ACRL'F,C=, rXISTING ZONING, EXISTIi; �,
G L?�1`ID USE (SUBJECT PARCEL): This
;asci contains approximately 388 acres, is zoned Agricultural
(A) anal is presently wooded and vacant.
AD: CE'.T ; '-.REA ZONING & LAND USE: Adjacent
ens=, property the
north,
south and west is zoned '�gricultural(A) and forthemost
' oar= is occupied by single family dwellings or remains vacant.
Prcpert�: to the northwest is zoned Residential (R-25) and nt.
Residential (R-15#. These properties are wooded and vacant.
UTILITIES, SOIL PROFILE, DRAINAGE & EROSION, REQUIRED OFF-SITE EASEMENTS
Pu:,lic .;rater and sewer is available for development of this parcel.
It is estimated that development of this parcel under the R-9 and
R -l2 cl::ssifications with use of public water and sewer would permit
a density of approximately 990 units.
The Utilities Department currently reports that an average single
family residence uses 240 gallons of water per day. Therefore,
approxi-ately 237,600 gallons per day would be utilized by this
dei:elop,-..ent. These are per unit flows, not design flows, because
Pea'-- 'low plus fire service flow must be considered for design
purposes. These is an available water treatment capacity of 10
million, gallons per day (b1DG) from Swift Creek serving this area.
The Co ,,�ntv Engineer calculates per capita sewage flow at 100 gallons
per da:: (GPD) for design purposes. Based on an average of 3.5
per -sons per single family dwelling uhit, approximately 346,500
gallons par day of sewage affluent would be generated for treatment
by ::*ne Proposed subdivision. These sewage treatment figures are
greater than the water used because of infiltration and inflow.
The Falling Creek sewage trunk, which will serve this project,
will connect to the Falling Creek Treatment Plant.
It is anticipated that drainage and erosion control measures may be
necessa r: nor the development of this property, however, until a
more detailed site plan is submitted, no specific recommendations or
cor:-.ents can be made at this time. It is anticipated that off-site
water, sewer and drainage easements will be required.
a ma=ority, f the soils on this parcel( -e sandy '.oamy in
t.ce t+,ti1 s areas being land wet. the soils are
spited for foundations and drain: ields, however, there are
areas ;,:sere severe erosion hazards exist and other areas which
are nol:rly suited for foundations and unsuited for septic tanks
and' 14rainl'ields. The Health Department recommends strongly that
a•.:blic sewer be used and that drainage be reuqired for foundations
in to.,: areas. Also, they note that erosion in road ditches may
be severe on steep slopes. Overall, chances of erosion on the
er.=ire parcel vary from slight to moderate.
PU3L:2 F.2ILITIES: Based on the 1977 average of 0.90 public school
s:.-.:-`er-s for single family dwellings, approximately 891 pupils
generated by this developmen`. This subdivision is
H•i =hin the 1,•;atkins Elementary, Robious Junior High School and
'iidlothian High School attendance zones.
TR NS?OR":TION & TRAFFIC: Single family development under the re-
c•.:ested Residential (R-9) and R-12) rezoning would result in the
ce-nera:ion of approximately 8,910 average daily traffic, based on
an es --Nate of 9.0 ADT per single family residence. These vehicular
move-.ents would be distributed over Courthouse, now adjacent to
t::e proposed development.. The extension of other roads and other(
collec:ors from the north will be necessary in order to provide
access for this development. It should be noted as indicated in
t'--- Highway Department's 1974 Secondary Road Traffic Counts,
the following average daily traffic on area roads have been experience
Courthouse Road, 4,432.
GE':ERAL PLAN: This parcel lies in an area designated for single
fa7dly residential use.
REQUEST Al;ALYSIS: The applicant is proposing that the property be
rezoned frcm Agriculutral (A) to Residential (R-9) and Residential
(R-12) with the intent to subdivide the property for single family
residential use. As of this writing, no tentative subdivision
plan has been presented.
ALTER',ATI'.ES & MITIGATING MEASURES: Property to the north, south ani..--'
west is zoni2d Agricultural (A), are large parcels, and have a good
potential for future subdivision. Staff notes that the property
to the northwest has been rezoned Residential (R-25) and
Residential (R-15) and have a good potential for future subdivision.
Staff notes that the Stonehenge Subdivision, which is zoned Re-
sidential (R-15, lies immediately north of the Residential (R-25)
zoned property.
The Board c` Su,ervisors in considering the rezoning of property
adjacent and to the northwest of the subject site, (W. S. Pinchbeck,
Carltcn Suh:ivision) were petitioned by residents of Stonehenge
Su:,division which is located further to the north to consider a
residential zoning classification higher than requested. The
applicant criginally requested that the property be rezoned to
the Residential (R-15) classification. Since the property was
directly acjacent to Stonehenge, the residents expressed concern
2.
• that althou(, Stonehenge was also zoned ( sidential (R-15)
lct sizes that .o :1d be permitted (15,000 square acct) under
tl:e-eauested rezoning might not be cempati.ble with the lot
sits (some in e::cess of 30,000 square feet) in Stonehenge.
Therefore, they op_:,ose the rezoning and went- on record as
establishing their feeling that further residential rezoning in
the area should be compatible with the Stonehenge development.
In this case, the Board approved rezoning to the Residential
(R-25) classification, thereby guaranteeing approximation of
the minimum lot sizes in Stonehenge.
In assessing the appropriate zoning for the parcel in question;
it should be noted that this property differs from the Carlton
site insomuch as it is considerably removed from most of Stone-
he^,ze. Staff belives that the Commission should consider
approving appropriate zoning whereby a transition resulting
in the appropriate reduction of minimum lot area requirements
would be acceptable.
The applicant has allowed Staff to review a preliminary plan of
development for the parcel in question. This plan indicates that
an area in the south central portion of the parcel will be set
aside and reserved for 2 public school sites. In addition, a main
access road to the north of these school sites is proposed,
extendinga:estwardlyfrom Courthouse Road, generally bisecting
the parcel north to south. Staff is of the opinion that developing
the parcel for single family residential use and establishing a
proper zoning pattern in this area can be accomplished by zoning
the northern half of the parcel to a classification (R-15) more
co-,,natible with the Carlton and Stonehenge development further to
the north. The southern portion of the parcel could then be re-
zoned to a classification (R-9) permitting higher density which
would be appropriate with emerging single family development to
the south and east.
In further reviewing the preliminary plan, Staff was concerned
that the east/west access road is not adjacent to the proposed
school sites. It is felt that direct non -intersecting access
should be provided to best accommodate school oriented traffic.
This is particularly true if a high school and a technical school
facility are placed on the parcel.
STAFF RSCC"•fF?:DATION: The northern half of the parcel should be re-
zon_a :.esidential (R-15) there y providing a reasonable minimum
lot size co^parison with developing property to the north. The
southern portion of the parcel could then be rezoned Residential
(R-9) thereby appropriately accommodating development, uti .izing
pu'-lic water and sewer as will be the trend in future development
of property to the south and east.
It is also recommended, however, that the Commission's final deter-
mination of the application be deferred for a period of 30 days in
order to allow the Applicant an opportunity to prepare a revised
preliminary plan reflecting the reorientation of the main access
drive so that a reasonable zoning district boundary can be estab-
lished.
3.
CASE HISTORY AND
P'7�( COMMISSION AND BOARD ACT1(
FOR THIS REQUEST
C.P.C. 1 18 77: At the request of the. Applicant, the Commission de-
ferred this case 30 days. The purpose of the
deferral was to provide time for the Applicant,
Planning Staff and the Commission to discuss proposed
school sites on this property with the School Board.
C.P.C. 1 25 77: The Planning Commission at their Subdivision session,
met with representatives of the School Board Administra-
tion and reviewed preliminary plans for possible locatio
of school sites on the parcel in question. It was the
consensus of the Commission that formal approval of
these sites would be deferred to a later date.
STAFF AND APPLICANT
1 31 77: Members of Planning Staff met with representatives of
the Applicant and reviewed a revised preliminary plan
prepared by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated Janus --
25, 1977. This plan indicated the configuration of
portion of the parcel reserved for possible development
of future school sites, and also showed the location of
a collector road bisecting the property east to west.
It was the understanding of both Staff and the Applicant
that this east -west collector street and the location
thereof shown on the above noted plan would be the
separation between recommended and accepted R-15 rezonin,
for the northern half of the parcel and recommended an
accepted R-9 rezoning for the southern half of the
parcel. Based on this plan, Staff would recommend
approval of rezoning of the parcel in question as
indicated.
C.P.C. 2 15 77: It was resolved to recommend approval of R-9 and R-15
zoning as shown on the revised preliminary plan
prepared by J. K. Timmons and Associates and dated (I.
January 25, 1977.
4.
Ll -
C4
Mi
Vi
14
ZS -i
20,
m
m
.�•.•`\� .-s,
I ,J
'.7rch 23, 1977 (B.S.)
3antaarp-}6; -}937-fe7p7e7}
CASE NUMBER: 77SO27
APPLICANT: F. G. SLOAN AND SONS, INC.
REQUEST AND PROPOSED USE: An amendment of a previously granted Condition
al Use (Case Number 76S023) to permit the construction of a second
office building and reduce the depth of the buffer to 25 feet.
GENERAL LOCATION TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: In Bermuda Magisterial District
this parcel lies along the north line of West Hundred Road and is.
located approximately 1200 feet west of its intersection with Meadow-
ville Road. Tax Map Sec. 117-12 (2) Riverbend Section A, Lots 13 & 14
and 117-12 (1) Parcel 1-2 (Sheet 33).
ACREAGE, EXISTING ZONING EXISTING LAND USE (SUBJECT PARCEL): This parcel
contains approximately 3.39 'acres, is zoned Agricultural (A) and is
occupied by one residential single story frame structure.
ADJACENT AND AREA ZONING AND LAND USE: The majority of the adjacent pro-
Cl'i perty is zoned Agricultural (A) with the exception of the property to
the east and southeast, which is zoned Community Business (B-2). Most
property remains vacant and wooded with the exception of scattered
parcels occupied by single family dwellings.
UTILITIES, SOIL PROFILE, DRAINAGE AND EROSION, REQUIRED OFF-SITE EASEMENT
Public water is available and would be feasible in the development of
this property. Public sewer is located along Johnson Creek on Enon
Church Road and existing capacity is limited. Soils in the area are
well suited for foundations and roadways. Off-site drainage and
sewer easements would be required.
PUBLIC FACILITIES: The proposed amendment to the previously granted
Conditional Use permit should exercise no detriment to existing and
area public facilities.
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: Although good sight distance is present along
this section of Route 10, it should be noted that as the commercial
development continues, further congestion from intersecting traffic on
Route 10 will be experienced. At present, the road is a relatively
smoothly traveled artery serving Chesterfield. Much property fronting
Route 10 already has been zoned for industrial and commercial use,
but relatively little of this property has been developed. Permitting
expanded commercial development and the elimination of buffers along
Route 10 will further compound future traffic problems on this major
arterial. Once commercial development increases, it is reasonable to
assume that the problems experienced in the Route 1 corridor and
on Route 60 east of Buford Road will become the problems of Route 10
between Chester and Hopewell.
GENERAL PLAN: This parcel lies in an area designated for single family
residential use.
REQUEST ANALYSIS: The Applicant, who is also the property owner, is re-
questing an amendment to a Conditional Use (Case Number 76SO23) pre-
viously granted on this property. The Applicant is requesting that
Condition Number 2, which states that "this Conditional Use hall per -
1.
rnit the erectie, and operation of a single(, :fice building whic`,
will be operated for business and professional use" be amended to
read "this Conditional Use shall permit the erection and operation
of two office buildings which will be operated for business and
professional use". Also, that this same condition which states
that "this Conditional Use shall also permit the operation of a
contractor storage yard which shall be maintained on the parcel,
with an area surrounded by a buffer of existing vegetation. This
buffer shall have a depth of not less than 25 feet along the east
and west property lines".
ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATING MEASURES: A preliminary site plan has
been presented which indicates the location of the proposed additional
building and the 25 foot buffers desired by the Applicant. The
additional building would be behind an existing office building and
would therefore not be easily visible from Route 10. A large stand
of trees would remain in the 25 foot buffer area surrounding the
site. If the Commission sees fit to recommend approval of this
request, they should do so with the admonition that additional develop-
ment of the parcel behond the two office buildings would represent
over -development of the parcel at this line and constitute unwarranted
commercial us of this area.
i
CASE HISTORY AND
PAST COMMISSION AND 'BOARD ACTION
FOR THIS REQUEST.
C.P.C. 1 18 77: At the request of the Applicant, this case was deferred
30 days. The Applicant requested the deferral because
he could not be present at the hearing.
The Commission also expressed concern of the Applicant's performance
relative to acquiring necessary building permits and approval thereof
for construction on the parcel. The following chronological summary
addresses this matter.
11 5 76 Applied for Building Permit
11 8 76 Building Inspector made footing inspection
11 17 76 Member of Planning Staff visited site to check descrepancies
between conditions and information on site plan and Building
Permit. Noted 2nd building (even though only 1 was permitted)
and this building was too close to the property line.
Mr. Sloan was told he would have to apply to amend his Use
Permit before his building permit could be issued.
11 19 76 Application filed to amend the Use Permit
12 14 76 Returned Building Permit to the Building Inspector
12 15 76 Building Permit issued
2.
C.P.C. 2 15 77 Approval of the request is recommended subject to
amending condition number 2 of case number 76SO23 to read
as follows:
This Conditional Use shall permit the erection and
operation of two office buildings exclusively, which will
be operated for business and professional use. This
Conditional Use will also be subject to a buffer area
of not less than 25 feet measured along the north, east
and west property lines."
3.
I' w
�••_•..�•.ypp. *ipi�0.j� =All/ii 1CI11111tU1[rr.
�TT.juTlrflia�. tTT7?TT7�_� Q C�_ � ----- ! _l`--� -��• �---�-_ ___—„_
s 0 •> rli lilll1,111 + (11111+ f
• IIIIIII111lfr11111111111r6
o F_
3-3
1
' 'QF
w
r
•
- • ----- opo .
77;0`
}00
O
� r
� � r
d
J��
L
o
t�
Z
o
�}
}00
-1-5-, - 7377- -(-C. Y. C
CASE NUMBER: 77SO32
APPLICANT: ROBERT E. DUNNINGTON and J. SHERWOOD STRUM
REQUEST AND PROPOSED USE: The rezoning from Residential (R-15)
to Office Business (0). The Applicant proposes to convert
an existing single family dwelling into a real estate office.
GENERAL LOCATION TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: In Midlothian Magisterial
District, this lot fronts along the south line of Huguenot
Road and the west line of Bon Oaks Lane and is located southwest
of the intersection of the aforementioned roads. Tax Map Sec.
10-2 (3) Bon Air Heights, Blk. C, Lot 10 (Sheet 3).
ACREAGE, EXISTING ZONING, EXISTING LAND USE, (SUBJECT PARCEL):
This lot is approximately ',-acre in area, is zoned Residential
(R-15) and is occupied by a single family dwelling.
ADJACENT AND AREA ZONING AND LAND USE: All adjacent property is
zoned Residential (R-15) and is occupied by single family
dwellings with the exception of property across Huguenot Road
(City of Richmond) which is occupied by a Fire Station.
UTILITIES, SOIL PROFILE, DRAINAGE AND EROSION, REQUIRED OFF-SITE
EASEMENTS. Public water and sewer is on site and available for
development of this property. The soils on this property are
gravelly loam, gently sloping and have only a slight chance
for erosion. The soils are well suited for the proposed use.
This request will not require off-site easements.
PUBLIC FACILITIES: Development of the proposed use will have no
detrimental effect on either existing or future area public
facilities.
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: The intersection of Huguenot Road
and Bon Oaks Lane is a heavily travelled intersection. It is
noted that the Highway Department's 1975/1974 Primary and
Secondary Road Traffic Counts record the following average daily
traffic on area roads:
a. Huguenot Road and Bon Oaks Lane intersection, east -west
11,235 ADT;
b. Huguenot Road and Bon Oaks Lane intersection, south, 670
ADT.
GENERAL PLAN
This lot lies in an area designated for commercial use.
REQUEST ANALYSIS: The Applicant has entered into a contract of sale
agreement with Charles P. Cardwell, present owner of this
property. This contract of agreement is subject to the Board of
Supervisors approving this request. The Applicant plans to con-
vert an existing single family dwelling into a real estate office.
He states that the building will be modified and renovated, both
exterior and interior, in order to retain a residential appearance.
He states that the project will have off street parking which will
be paved, and that the yard will be landscaped; see attached plat
and frorlL elevation drawing.
1. (Over)
Ir
ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATING MEASURES: Generally speaking
the area encompassing the subject parcel is a residential
neighborhood where no commercial uses have heretofore been
permitted. Although the subject parcel fronts Huguenot Road
which is a heavily travelled arterial highway, this in itself
is no reason for granting the zoning requested. Adjacent and
area property which also fronts along the south side of
Huguenot Road in the vicinity of the subject parcel, is being
maintained as viable residential property. In this respect,
commercial rezoning or use of the subject parcel would not
be in keeping with the neighborhood.
Of greater concern is the potential adverse effect such
rezoning would present for area traffic and land use compatibility.
Specifically, commercial zoning and use of the subject parcel
could result in setting a precedent by allowing unlimited strip
commercial use along Huguenot Road.
Although the Applicants have indicated that they are willing to
accept a Conditional Use for commercial conversion of the
existing dwelling as opposed to rezoning to the Office Business
(0) District, Staff is of the opinion that the potential problems
as outlined would still occur.
.CASE .HISTORY .-AND
...
PAST COMM-ISSION.AND BOARD ACTION
FOR THIS REQUEST
C.P.C. 2 15 77: Denial of any commercial rezoning or use of
the parcel is recommended.
2.
un
aI
W9
o
=-
��
IN
I
•-= IIIA) �!II''! II -_ - _�._. � illl �'i,(r � .-
-_-
- •'I�I loll►,.... �'�' �----...� I I,I.i • • ..
�- .t• I IIS! I.. ,'•I •
_ iii II I !lt •�Il�l---_-.-_.: �.-� �-
1, i,ll'tl� � _ •� � W' �
I,
1
I 3T5
{�d°i
�J'1 tw
PROPOSED PP,OFESSIOCJAL REAL ES`I"A-?-
'T
'asn TPTquapTsaa
ATTweg aTbuTs JOJ pageubTsap PaaP up uT saTT TaoaPd STgJ :NVUd `WRNS:
'IQK SZZ'6
- ggnos 'PPog PTTPaquaO
ggTM
UOTgOaS-TZ)aUT
sqT
qP
OT
agnou
(p)
-'ZQV 09S'Z
- gsPa''peog PTTeaguaO
ugTM
uoTgoasaaquT
SqT
gP
OT
egnog
(o)
!J,GV STO'Z -
gsPOggaou 'peog asnezx
ugTM
UOTgoasaOgUT
SqT
qP
OT
agnoH
(q)
i i,av
O W 9
- gseaggnos
'gsaMtlgaou 'pPog asnPax
ugTM
uoTgoasaaguT
sgT
gP
OT
agnog
(P)
: speoa
Paae uo PaouaTTadxa aaP sdTzg ATTPp abPaaAP buTMOTTo3 Oqq 'squno0 OTgJPzy
PPog AaPPuooas PUP AauwTad VL6T PUP SL6T s,guawgzedaQ Aumgb., @q4 uT
pagPoTpuT SP 'pagou aq pTnogs qI 'uoTgoasaaguT paTaAPz: ATTAeGq e ST PPOd
asneax PUP Peog abpTzg uOal Jo UOTgoasaaauT aus :JIaaVEL QNV NOILIVIUOdSNVTJL
'SOTgTTToP3 oTTgnd Paae aangnj ao buTgsTxa aaggTa uo goPdwT
TPUOTgTppP ou asTo.zaxa pTnous Taoaed STuq 3o guawdOTOAGO :SSISI'IIOK3 OIagn,
'paaTnbaa
aq you TTTM sguawasea a4Ts-J3O 'SAPMpPOa PUP SUOTgPpuno3 jog poor) azP
Agaadoad STgq UO STTos aus 'UOTgonzgsuoo jog 6UTjP@T3 og aoTad pagPOOT
aq gsnw Paze PTOTJuTPzp Mau P 'asn pasodoad aqq jog PabaPTua aq oq SPLI
wagsAs Nueg oTgdos buTgsTxa aqq pup pasn you sT jamas 3i 'asn pasodozd
aqq jog pagTns TTOm aae sTTOS •UOTSoza JO; aouPuo 4gBTTs P ATuO ggTM
buTdOTs ATquab PUP wPOT APues alp Agaadoad sTgq uo sTTos @ql 'aaauTbug
aqW go aoTJJO aua. oq paggTwgns aq gsnw uPTd Toaguoo uOTsoaa Pup abeuTPap
P 'saTgTTTOP3 APMOATap zo buTxaed jog squawanoadwT agTs AuP og aOTzd
'goaCozd sTtlg jog camas buTPTAoad og pzPbaz uT guawgaPdaQ
saTgTTTgn AqunoO aqq ug M ageuTpz000 PTnogs gueoTTddv aus 'Agaadoad
goaCgns auq pup aaMas buTgsTxo auq uaaMgaq apPab aqq go asnPoaq goaCoad
STIJq JOJ oTgTseaj aq you APw aaMas 'Agaadoad sTgq oq zaMas buTaq og
OOO'SC$_ATagPwTxoaddP gsoo pTnoM gI 'peog asnPax buoTP Agaadozd STug woaJ
gaaJ +00911 pagPOOT sT zaMaS 'PaaP abPuTPaG xaaaO s,aogooad @qq uT saTT
TOO --Pd sTLIJ-Agaadoad STUq anaas og agTs uo aTgPTTPAP ST zagPM oTTgnd
:S.LNSviuSVH S,LIS-330 QSIHDOMi 'NOISOU2 QNV 2!)VNIVdG 'S'II3OUd iIOS 'SSI.LIgIJLi
'gUPOPA SUTPwaa
ao 'sbuTpTTnq TPToaawwoo ao guawuaanob Aq PaTdn000 aaggTo sT pup (V)
TPangTnoTzbV pauoz ST Agaadoad guaoPCpV :SSn QNVq QNK ONINOZ VZUV QNV INSOVrQ`.
'buTpTTnq AaossaooP auo Pup buTTTaMp ATTwPJ aTbuTs P Aq
paTdn000 ST PUP (V) TPangTnoTaby pauoz sT 'PaaP uT saaoP S ATagPwTxozddP
sT Taoaed sTus : (ZSOHVd ZOSL'SnS) SSn QNKI ONISSIXS 'ONINOZ ONI,LSIXS '29f1SUDO
'(1£ gaauS) 6T TaoaPd (T) 8-56 'oaS dPW xey 'speoa pauoTguawaao3P aqq go
uoTgoasaagUT aqq go gseaugnos PagPooT sT PUP 'pPog asnezx Jo auTT gseaggnos
aqq pup pPoH paapunH gsaM 90 auTT gsPaugaou auq buOTP sguOJJ TaoaPd sTgq
'40114STG TPTaagSTbPW aTPQ uI :NOISVOIJIZNSQI dVW X` J, QNK NOIS`.4OOrI rlV'dSNS:
gDUPaQ UPoq PUP SbUTAPS
P go uoTgPaado aqq gTwaad oq asn TPUOTgTPUOD V :SSn OSSOdOdd QNV ZSSnSS'(,
NOIIVIOOSSK MVOq Qt1Fl SONIAVS aDVLIUaH :,LNVOIZdd`�
9COSLL :?ISs_ildnN ZSV,-
('S'a) LL6T '£Z uo
'Z
•a
�� uo Pa
q.
PUP sbuTAPS P sp asn JOJ Taoapd a q.
aanqonaqs BUT* O UOs.PooT
gSTxa eqq 'o lOTJagUT atI4 JTzanuoo
9q4 o4 pagOTagSGI aq TTPus asp TPuOT4TpuOD STuy 'Z
'puPT 01;4 u4TM una aou aTgPaaajsupaq
aq qOu TTpus PUP 'UOT4PTOOSSV uPOU PUP SbuTnPS abPgTaaH
Jog pup oq paqupab aq TTPus asp TPuOTgTpuoO STus •T
:UOT4Pa9pTsu03 109 paaa990 91P SUOT4Tpuoo
buTMOTTOJ aus •Taozed aqq go asn paaTsap aanoas
04 p9pu04UT sUOT4Tpuoo agPTadoaddP Jo uOT'TsodtuT auk _ _ _
oq goaCgns papuaunuooaa ST gsanbaa aqq 90 TPno
addV :LL ST I 'O'd'O
ZSSMSU SIHZ UO3
N01,LDV GUVQH QNV NOISSIMiOO SSVd
QNV UOISIH aSKO
•TPno.zddP asp TPuoTgTpuoO gbnoagq
paaqupapnb aq upo 94TS DU4 3o UOTgPnaasaad pup aouPuaquTPw 04 9nT4PTaa
squatuaaTnbaa oTJToads pup butuoz T_g TPUOT-4uanuoa UPgq anTg0Tagsaa a.T'OW ST
ssaooad asp TPUOT4TpuoO 9q4 'aanaMOH 'uOT4POTgTssPTO T_g 9q4 Oq Agaadoad
auq auozaa oq aq pTrtOM asp TPuOT4TpuOO pa4s9nb9a 9u4 O4 anTgPuaagTP uV
• %JPiu pup T
STgq buTnaasaad aog supaut P squasaad pup spua asagq egpngadaad TTTM uoTgm
asn P squasaadaa UOTqPOTTddp goalgns aqj •anTPn TPDTJ0 STLI OTSUT.lgUT
S4T buTZTSpgduIa agTs STuq Jo 90uPU9gUTPW PUP UOTgPn.IasaacI punoap paaaquao
'saTgaPd pagsaaaquT snOTaPn u4TM SUOTSsnosTp AJUUTWTTaad 'uoaaau4 p94POOT
aangonags pup agTs auq 90 A4TnbTgUP auq buTq ON •uOTgsanb uT TaoaPd 9T4
go asn TPT0.zaunuoo Tpnquana 90 Mqua40d PUP AqTTTgTssod au-. paaapTsuOO
s1eq 3jpgS buTuuPTd 'autTq autos a03 : SaHnSVaW ONIZKOIZIW QN`d SSnIIVNUaIUE
PDTao STH a q buTan pa uP oupa aAT oPa 'P STLjq�sPO �o sanTpn
t u 3 �[ q u g ��P gsoui p sTu� axput O4 suPTd
4uP0iTdd� aqj •aouPU94UTPW allTgnoi 'asanoo 3o 'gdaoxa 'sT ATquasaad 4T su
AgTTToPj sTuq daax oq auop aq TTTM buTggAaana gPuq pagPgS sT aT 'Aapututns uI
•sxupq TPUOTquanuo0 uT uaas ATTPutaou saaqunoo ao 'sabpo 'sgTnPn ou
aq ITTM 9a9u4 -4PT4q sagP4s YuPOTTddv auy •buTuaoul uoua aajjoo ao paq pup
s5uT4aau1 A4Tununuoo TTPuts Jog pagsruan,g aq TTTM uiOoa buTuuTp aqI •sanbTgUP
potaad uT acTJJO auq gSTuan,j c4 gdaoxa appw aq TTTM sabuPuo ou buTpTTnq auk
apTsuT 4Pu4 pagPoTpuT sT 4I •sa9mOT3 pup sgnaus go Arm aqq uT pauupTd air
tu
squaanO.zdWT buTdPospuPT anTsuagxa 'OsTV •uPTd agTs p9u0Pg4P @LR uo uMogs
SP AumNTPM 4aous P uT buT� nd �daoxa apTs�no auk o� auop aq TTTM buTg4ON
Sagoupaq aaggo
go buTsnoq anbTun SqT gg7m buTdaax uT uOTqp0OTsTgq qu aoTj;O UvOq pup
sbuTnPS P usTTgpgsa off. sasodoad qupoTTddv aqj 'SUOTqPaauab aangnl Jog
9bP4Taay aqq go gapd sP butpTTnq ST
u4 uTpquTput oq aTgTssad buTqqAaana
OP TTTM A@qq gPuq pup 'Aq:noD pTaTJa@gsauO oq anTPn TV0T.zogsTq gPaab JO
sT 'poQMaTgsPO sP uMoux ATuounuoo ST uOTgM 'Aqaadoad sT
u4 qpuq paqou sPLj
gUPOTTddV aqj, 'AgTTTOPJ uPOZ PUP sbuTAps P oq aouapTsaa ATTwPj OTbuTs
buTI,.STxa UP gaanuo0 0q--PTd qupoTTddv aqq ' aspo sT- uI : SIS2'IKNV ZSSflosL
i
'£
•pagPuTwnTTz
.zou snoutuInT aq .zaggzau TTpgs pup ApM-90-ggbi.z
ppo.z Aup wOjJ gaa3 ST upgg ssaT aq qou TTags subzs
asags •T@DaPd agq uo paopTd aq TTpgs 'azTs ut gaag
V Aq gaag E 'subzs paopj aTgnop Z upgq .zaggo 'subzs ON •c,
• sgzuuad bu-rpTTnq
Aup go aoupnssz agq og JOTad quauidoTanaQ AgzununuoD
3o quawgjpdaa agq Aq pano.zddp pup oq paggTwqns
aq TTpgs Taojpd agq jog buzdpospupT sp TTaM sp sP@JP
buTNjpd pup sApManz.zp T7p butMogs 'upTd agzs TuuTJ V •�
•paggTwaad aq TTpgs aoupu
-04UTPW Tpurzou pup uozgPJOgs@a go uozgdaoxa agq g4TI" .
spuno.zb .zo buzpT —a4-4 0-4suozgp.zagTp JOTJa ON • £
pip/``��
A
��btl1N3� !e
� r ♦
w
'` � ntttBttlfrtfli!
. ,� � •�_ tltftllflPtil!llilltililg
.Z - 1111 ' �� 11 �►TMt�t}414}}43111/Ii/i
�\ �Uy ,T*t++ttttftt�
�ita'
it
i
i 0131J83IS3H)
a
•
70 �
�� .��:..- �lllll�ll�l� -�
B R
M
L );�
Z/ -2'x 2.1-i'
9-9'x 1"'q
1 1. Basement under
1st floor except LR,
,lrT.,r adjoining hall and
lv+ 6 y �Acc kitchen.
/o -'VX 11-2 <
8
2. Fireplaces .n
�-- all major
f ; r 9a. x N -J .
-lx?-c"t
13 ?
1s 'x
QR
C fP��% a
X750
fib/ MEMORANDUM
11"o XVIII.
DATE: March 16, 1977
TO: Chesterfield County Board of ervisors
FROM: Stanley R. Balderson, Jr Chief,
Development Review
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Recommendation for Amendment of Condition
Number 3 - Duplexes Lamar Place.
On February 23, 1977, the Planning Commission resolved to recommend that
the Board of Supervisors approve an amendment to Condition number 3 to
read as follows:
A buffer area as shown on the preliminary plan shall be provided and
maintained in the following manner:
a. The buffer area shall not be less than forty (40) feet in width.
b. Any future sale or transfer of individual lots shall note this
buffer area and make reference to it in each individual deed and
plat. The developer will file with the County, restrictive cove-
nants and conditions which clearly state the provisions of Condi-
tions #3 a., b., c., d. and e.
C. No trees, 2 inches or more in diameter shall be cut or removed and
any existing undergrowth or weeds shall be "handcut".
d. No structures with the exception of fences and open patios shall
be permitted in the buffer area. Patios may extend into the
buffer area not more than 8 feet.
e. Trees, at least 4 feet in height, typical of the area shall be
planted in the buffer strips, 5 feet in from the property line,
behind lots in Wilkinson Terrace, to provide a thicker screen and
buffer from the single family area. Plans for planting shall
be submitted to and approved by the Development Review Division
prior to implementation. The Development Review Division shall
confer with a Committee of Citizens, Mr. Stein and Mr. Williams
in this regard.
f. The cost of the items required in e. above, shall not exceed $2,500
and a bond for this amount shall be provided by Mr. Stein.
Ayes: Messrs. Howard, Belcher, Bookman, Currin and Williams.
SRB/jp
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 11, 1977
TO: Chesterfield County Plannin mmission
FROM: Stanley R. Balderson, Jr., Chief of Development Review
SUBJECT: Lamar Place Conditional Use violation
On May 1, 1974, the Chesterfield County Board of Zoning Appeals
conditionally granted Cenvac, Inc., a Special Exception (74A072),
to construct two family dwellings on a parcel of land located
northeast of the intersection of Belmont Road and Sue Jean Drive,
in Clover Hill Magisterial District. This development is now
owned by The Grantwood, Incorporated, Mr. Harry Stein, President,
and is known as Lamar Place.
The Special Exception granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals was
subject to ten (10) specific conditions. On January 26, 1977,
residents of Wilkerson Terrace Subdivision filed a peition with
the Planning Department which states that Harry Stein, the present
owner/developer of Lamar Place, has violated the following conditions
of the Special Exception 74AO72:
Condition #3 - A buffer area as shown on the preliminary plan shall
be provided and maintained in the following manner:
a. The buffer area shall not be less than forty (40)
feet in width.
b. Any future sale or transfer of the parcel or in-
dividual lots subdivided from the parcel shall
note that buffer area and make reference to it
by deed and plat.
C. The buffer area shall remain in a natural state
with no existing trees to be cut or removed.
d. No structures with the exception of fences shall
be permitted in the buffer area.
Condition #7: The Applicant shall see to the vacation of the Sherman
Road stub as it extends south of the parcel if approved
by the Board of Supervisors. Such vacation shall be
subject to a drainage easement being retained within the
right-of-way as indicated by the Chesterfield County
Engineering Department. Construction of drainage
facilities within this easement shall be accomplished
by the owner/developer of the project prior to the
issuance of any building permit. Such construction
shall be at the direction of the County Engineering
Department.
5.e,4•6,, z '
The petition alle* the following:
"We protest the pouring of concrete pat's within the
buffer area, some of which extend into said area as
much as four (4) to six (6) feet. It is difficult
to measure exactly as the present owner/developer
seems to over -react to residents of the area.
It is presently recorded that there has been one
transfer of property from the owner/developer, to a
private owner of a parcel or individual lot. We ask
that we be allowed to see reference in the deed or
plat on this transfer relating to the protection of
said buffer zone.
We protest the permanent damage done to the existing
flora in the buffer area by equipment, trash, and
trespass by construction crews and refer to the phrase
in 3-c, 'shall remain in a natural state'.
We protest the trimming of privately owned shrubs which
extended over private fencing, well within the buffer
zone, for no discernable reason.
We protest the lack of precaution being taken against
excessive erosion during of after construction. Ad-
jacent property owners downhill from this project have
watched their shrubs and flowers washed as much as n
twelve to eighteen inches from their original sites.
The petition also states that during the Board's hearing, verbal
assurance was given and recorded that the ratio of buildings
constructed would be three one-story buildings for every two
two-story buildings. The petition notes that at this point
there are nine buildings constructed or under construction,
and only two of these are one-story.
Staff has reviewed the petition and visited the site. We find the
following conditions to exist:
a. The buffer area has been plated as forty (40)
feet in width, however, as noted in c. and d.
below, the buffer has been encroached upon and,
in effect, reduced in width.
b. Lots have been transfered, and the buffer area
was not made reference to by deed and plat. This
excludes lots 1 through 5 and 18 through 19 which
do not require a buffer area.
c. The buffer area has not been left in a natural state;
an undetermined amount of trees, bushes and shrubs
have been cut and removed. This is evident by the
grading and seeding work in the buffer area, to
include the laying of straw to pervent erosion.
2.
Staff walked the entire buffer area and finds that where it is still
in its natural state, it is thick with underbrush, weeds, vines and
other foreign growth. This growth is a potential health hazard and
is very unsightly. Staff believes that the removal of this growth
is necessary for the health and safety of residents of Lamar Place
as well as adjacent property owners.
d. Several patios have been built in the buffer area. We found the
following patios encroaching upon the buffer area:,
1. Lot 11: The left patio, when completed, will extend into the
buffer area approximately 47 inches.
2. Lot 13: The right patio extends into the buffer area approxi-
mately 72 inches.
3. Lot 14: The left patio extends into the buffer area approxi-
mately 37 inches.
4. Lot 16: The left patio extends into the buffer area approxi-
mately 25 inches.
Staff notes that in residential district, under normal conditions,
uncovered patios are allowed to extend into rear yards an unlimited
distance. Staff finds that the patios in question are uncovered, 9
feet by 8 feet in size and do not detract from property values. In
most cases, the dwellings have been built along the forty (40) foot
buffer line; therefore, if there is to be a patio, it must extend
into the buffer area. Staff believes that in this case, it is reason-
able to permit patios to extend into the buffer area not more than
8 feet.
e. Sherman Road has been vacated, but the proper drainage facilities
were not initially provided. This resulted in a serious drainage and
erosion problem which the County Engineer documented and brought
to the attention of the developer on several occasions.
Presently, the roads have no more than a stone base still requiring
a triple shot surface treatment. The curb and gutter is complete.
There is still some minor drainage work needed at the outfall pipe
which ties into the culvert beneath Simmons Drive. Most of the
area is stripped requiring seeding as soon as the weather becomes
warmer. Erosion control has been newly implemented and is adequate
at this time.
In view of the above situation, Staff is of the opinion that the Planning
Commission should recommend to the Board of Supervisors an amendment to
Special Exception 74AO72 be made as follows:
Amended Condition #3 to read:
A buffer area as shown on the preliminary plan shall be provided and
maintained in the following manner:
a. The buffer area shall not be less than forty (4) feet in width.
b. Any future sale or transfer of individual lots shall note this
buffer area and make reference to it in each individual deed and
3.
plat. The deveper will file with the Coy restrictive covenants
and conditions which clearly state the provisions of Condition
#3 a., b., c., d. and e.
c.No trees, 3 inches or more in diameter shall be cut or removed.
d. No structures with the exception of fences and open patios shall
be permitted in the buffer area. Patios may extend within the
buffer area not more than 8 feet.
e. A seven (7) foot high solid board fence shall be constructed along
the rear line of the buffer area, or trees typical of the area
shall be planted in the buffer strips to provide a thicker "screen"
and "buffer" from the single family area. Plans for the fence or
planting submitted to the Development Review Division prior to
implementation. Implementation shall occur by May 1, 1977.
Sdttw3to
¢9z C• % !%.
4.
r
.
n
Ma-rch 219 1977
Statement to the Honorable E. Merlin O'Neillt Chairman, Board of Supervisors,
Chesterfield Countyq on behalf of the residents of Wilkinson Terrace with re-
ference to the proven violations by GRANTW OOD9 INCORP ORAT1?D in the Lamar Place
Development:
Since February 22.E 1977, when we appeared before the Planning; Commission
on the above matters we have been contacted twice by Mr. Stein of GRANT7100D. Roth
contacts were by phone and consisted of: 1. Had wet seen the article in the News
Leader on February 23rd on the hearing? and 2. About a week later IIr. Stein said
that he would call with a, definite time to meet with him and a nurseryman to dis-
cuss recommended tree plantings in the buffer zone. There has been no contact
since them but we residents have received a notice from the County that an
appeal was being filed by Mr. Mason on Mr. Stein's behalf before the Supervisors
on the ammendments agreed upon in the February meeting; of the Planning Co -,mission.
In as much as such an appeal would delay decision by the County govern-
ment on this case and therefore delay planting of the trees which 11r. Stein had.
w�erbally agreed to consider plantings we feel that we cannot rely on "good
ith" or "good neighbor" assurances on Mr. Stein's partq and hereby �rish to
lay before our County government our solution to the violations on the rant of
GRANTS700D9 INCORPORATED.
A. Remove all patios from the entire buffer zone.
B. Replace the shrubs in the entire buffer zone.
C. Erect a six-foot stockade fence of pressure -treated northern cedar
no less than fifteen feet from the back line of the buffer zone for a
total approximate distance of 1,099 feet9 to be installed by the firm
designated by the Wilkinson Terrace citizens.
We have decided not to accept RTr. Stein's verbal offer to plant trees
for the following reasons, some of which were stated to us by a professional
nurseryman:
1. No nursery can offer more than a year's guarantee on any plantings
and. any replacement plantings after three months would cost half the
original price of the tree being; replaced. This is a poor f,uarantee
when considered against a guarantee of 30 years for fence posts9 20
years for the fence.
2. Plantings would require constant monitoring and can; and according to
the nursery we contactedg such care includes propering watering. 41ith- .
out "proper care" the guarantee is void. The fence requires no care,
but weathers to a soft silver as it ages, blending well with the
terrain and. vegatation.
1 '�
i
'%JW ''40
3. The area considered for plantinv has poor drainage, mrl.inc success-
ful planting very doubtful.
4. The area considered for planting has a, poor record for giro%%Ith wliich
is why the "natural state" growth consisted of more ;Tial) shrubs and vines
than large trees.
5. Trees :•rill NOT rtive maximum privacy for either party.
',7ith each hearinrt, each appeal9 each delayq there is less chance of any
successful. planting this Sprinft. Such a point was made by our fir. oup February*
22ndt 1977, and we were assured verbally -hat plantin,n would be made no later
than ]day9 1977. This seems less and less likely.
We invoke the protection of our County Government as vie invoked it in T'Tay
of 1976 when the C & P Telephone Co. was in the process of cutting an eirht foot
swath through the buffer zone to lay underground cables. Such action was in
violation of the building permit for the property in question and had such
action been allowed. to continue, C ec P would have been required to replace
each and every tree they removed.. Are we to understand that GRAT?T',JCOD is
exempt from such action by the County government? If soy vrhy?
'tile further invoke action by our County Governrent on the rernoval of the
patios from the buffer zone. Such action has been taken. in the past in other
jurisdictions of the state. A case in Richmond that comes most readily to
mind is the case of a nearly completed -hvo-story brick dwelling, on Hermitage
Road near Nottoway which a builder had to relocate because the foundation
intruded into the required set -back for the buildin;; regil1ations.
At the hearin;fit last month, IJr. PIason indicated that as i,'r. Stein's repre-
sentative he felt that we were asking too much as the homes in the Terrace had
back yards one hundred to one hundred fifty feet deep anyway. "le don't. (hir
back yards average ei,,,;hty some feet with a few less than that; and we are
measuring from the back doorsq not the patios.
At this time we wish to draw the Commission's attention to the fact that
we,2 independently, have had to contact the nurseries and the fence companies
for recommendations and prices; that vie have not heard from 11r. Stein or his
representatives with this information; that further violation; of the buffer
zone are continuing with respect to trash accumulation.
After the meeting in Februaryq our group received a good deal of flattering,,
comment from 1.'r. Bookman and 11r. Stein. However, like George Chapman, vie are
learning* that "flatterers look like friends, as wolves like dolts."
2
A L L -- S E A S O N S L A W N S E R V I C E S
Route 2 Box 81
Richmond, Virginia 23233
2'70-946
March 22, 1977
Ir.. Harry Stein
3426 W. Cary Street
Richmond., Virginia
Dear Mr. Stein,
We appreciate the opportunity to do additi.oral work for you at La Mar
Place Subdivision on Belmont Road; Richmond, Virginia.
We would like to meet with you, the neighbors of La Mar Place and the
planners at your convenience to discuss the landscaping behind lots
#99 #10, #11, #12, X13 and #14.
We feel certain we can complete the work by Play 15, 1977, barring
extreme weather conditions.
Very truly` yours,
V. 1
Larry T. Pressel
Owner, All-Seasons Lawn Services
LTP/mp
MIIIIIIIIIIIII
n
MORRIS E. MASON
ATTORNEY & COUNSELLOR AT LAW
COURT HOUSE SQUARE - PEOPLES BANK BLDG.
P. O. BOX 204
CHESTERFIELD. VIRGINIA 23832
PHONE (804) 748-2229
March 11,1977
The Honorable E. Merlin O'Neill
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
RE: Show Cause issued to Harry Stein, president Grantwood, Inc.,
to appear and show cause, if any he can, why new conditions
should not be imposed upon the subdivision of Lamar Place
for violations of the required buffer area and failure to
adequately construct proper drainage facilities.
Dear Mr. O'Neill:
There is scheduled to come before the Board of
Supervisors at its March 23 regular meeting the above referenced
matter which is identified as your case number 74A072.
It has been reported that these alleged criminal
violations of the Chesterfield Zoning Regulations represent some
sort of a procedural compromise between the Board of Supervisors
and the County staff responsible for enforcement of the zoning
regulations. This case, as some of the Board members may know,
has proceeded through the Planning Commission at its February 22
meeting in which certain recommendations for adding on conditions
and altering others will be recommended to you at your March 23
meeting. For clarification of Mr. Stein's position before the
Planning Commission, I am attaching hereto a copy of my letter
addressed to Mr. Balderson under date of March 2, 1977, together
with a copy of the Memorandum of Reservation and Nonwaiver of
Rights referred to in the said letter. Because of the rather
unusual posture of this case as it comes before you and the unor-
thodox jockeying for position and possible consequences that ob-
viously will survive the hearing, Mr. Harry Stein has no choice but
to continue to insist upon a reservation and nonwaiver of his rights
at the hearing scheduled before you on march 23. Making this posi-
tion known now, i.f it be your pleasure, can serve to dispense with
the formal opening statement of Mr. Stein's reservation and non -
waiver of rights as expressed in the attached memorandum.
The problems confronting you and the people involved
did not begin with Mr. Harry Stein pouring 8' X 9' concrete patio
n
en
E. Merlin O'Neill, Chairman Page 2 March 11,1977
pads at the back door of these duplexes, all of which extend into
the back yard and some of which overlap by 1 to 3 feet into the
overlapping buffer area. This problem was created in May 1974
when the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the special exception to
Cenvac, Inc. subject to compliance with several conditions one
of which is that a buffer shall be provided which shall not be
less than 40 feet in width. Another is that the buffer area shall
remain in a natural state with no trees to be cut or removed; the
third is with respect to the buffer that no structures with excep-
tion to fences shall be permitted in the buffer area. Pertinent
to these conditions at the hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals
was also the condition recommended by the Planning Office but was
subsequently scratched by the Planning Office because of the obvious
conflict created and which condition reads as follows: "Exclusive
of the buffer zone all yard requirements normally and customarily
applied under the R-7 classification shall be observed." Under this
zoning regulation, this scratched condition is mandatory and may
not be encroached upon except in development under conditional
uses and that a part of such yard requirements may be included as
part of an established buffer area. The scratching of this condi-
tion obviously had the effect of aiding the grant by erroneously
removing the obvious conflict. You are aware that the Board of
Zoning Appeals has no authority to waive, limit, restrict or amend
a mandatory requirement of the zoning regulations. And it is for
this reason that the buffer restrictions under the special excep-
tion must be read and construed in conjunction with the mandatory
requirements of the zoning code. This code permits what your
staff has determined to be a criminal violation and this finding
by your staff is the motivation for bringing this cause to you in
the form authorized by you. This procedure seeks to accomplish
indirectly what can not be accomplished directly. The zoning code
provides both criminal and civil procedures and remedies for vio-
lations.
Mr. Harry Stein is neither the developer nor the
subdivider of this duplex subdivision. He neither owns nor has
any interest or obligations with respect to the subdivision and
its development. He is merely the owner in fee of the lots in
Lamar Place Subdivision. The staff's interpretation of the con-
ditions imposed upon this subdivision particularly concerning the
buffer area has been throughout the course of building duplexes in
Lamar Place totally inconsistent in an "on -again off -again" fashion.
For example, the term "natural state" has been applied by way of
attempted enforcement numerous times with a different and often
inconsistent meaning. The last application, by way of meaning,
permits a removal of underbrush. Another example leading to
serious consequences to the builder is the requirement that the
VEPCO lines must be installed along the street front of the dwell-
ings as opposed to concealment within the buffer contrary to uses
fir►' "'�
E. Merlin O'Neill, Chairman Page 3 March 11,1977
permitted as a matter of right and law within a buffer. The
point of all of this is that it could have been avoided when
the special exception was granted in 1974 if your County staff
had clarified the present conflict between the mandatory require-
ments of a 25 foot backyard and its relation to the overlapping
buffer area established as a condition of the special exception.
The prospect of your action concerning this case
leaves me deeply disturbed and my heart cries out from every
quarter of my body beseeching you not to find Mr. Harry Stein
guilty of these criminal violations, and having, as it were, this
plea to you as the only control within my grasp, I am constrained
to admonish: Let him among you who is convinced in his heart
beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of Mr. Stein move to
ordain his conviction, and let him among you who is satisfied
in his heart that the motives of the accusers are pure and free
from eager self -gratification move to impose the punishment that
has been recommended to you. My subconscious prays for abatement
of this unholy process and my conscious mourns its beginning. This
is my plea.
If you have questions or if you are not fully
satisifed, be true to yourselves first of all and secondly to the
public trust you hold. If you experience the slightest twinge
to a single fiber among your heartstrings, you will know what
your answer must be.
The import of this case and its profound impli-
cations lead me to urge that you seek additional counsel for
other independent views and recommendations, and for this reason,
I have taken the liberty of furnishing a copy of this letter to
the Honorable Oliver D. Rudy, but this is not by way of limitation
upon your search for honest answers and opinions. A continuance
of this case from March 23 to April 20 might well be considered
by you if additional time be needed. Mr. Stein would certainly
have no objection to this action. I am
Sincerely,
Morris E. Mason
MEM:rfh
Encls.
CC: Joan Girone, Vice Chairman
C. L. Bookman
J. Ruffin Apperson
Garland Dodd
Oliver D. Rudy, Commonwealth Attorney