09-10-1986 PacketTAKE NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 15.1-538 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, two members of the Board of
Supervisors have requested that a special meeting of the
Board of Supervisors be held and that such special meeting shall
be held on Wednesday, September 10, 1986 at 2:00 p.m. in the
Administration Building, Room 502, at the Chesterfield County
Courthouse to discuss general County business.
Teste:
copy of this notice this 10th day of September, 1986, and waive
any and all further notice requirements of Section 15.1-538 of
the Code of Virginia.
Supervi so~~' ~.~Q District
TAKE NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 15.1-538 of the Code o~
Virginia, 1950, as amended, two members of the Board of
Supervisors have requested that a special meeting of the
Board of Supervisors be held and that such special meeting shall
be held on Wednesday, September 10, 1986 at 2:00 p.m. in the
Administration Building, Room 502, at the Chesterfield County
Courthouse to discuss general County business.
Teste:
I,~, certify that I have received a
copy of this notice this 10th day of September, 1986, and waive
any and all further notice requirements of Section 15.1-538 of
the Code of Virginia.
District
TAKE NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 15.1-538 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, two members of the Board of
Supervisors have requested that a special meeting of the
Board of Supervisors be held and that such special meeting shall
be held on Wednesday, September 10, 1986 at 2:00 p.m. in the
Administration Building, Room 502, at the Chesterfield County
Courthouse to discuss general County business.
Teste:
I, ~,~~~~~, certify that I have received a
copy of this notice this 10th day of September, 1986, and waive
any and all further notice requirements of Section 15.1-538 of
the Code of Virginia.
District
TAKE NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 15.1-538 of the Code o
Virginia, 1950, as amended, two members of the Board of
Supervisors have requested that a special meeting of the
Board of Supervisors be held and that such special meeting shall
be held on Wednesday, September 10, 1986 at 2:00 p.m. in the
Administration Building, Room 502, at the Chesterfield County
Courthouse to discuss general County business.
Teste:
Joan'S. Dol~zal, Clerk
to the Board of Supervi~s ~
I, ~, certify that I have received
a
copy of this notice this 10th day of September, 1986, and waive
any and all further notice requirements of Section 15.1-538 of
the Code of Virginia.
P~ict
'
TAKE NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Section 15.1-538 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, two members of the Board of
Supervisors have requested that a special meeting of the
Board of Supervisors be held and that such special meeting shall
be held on Wednesday, September 10, 1986 at 2:00 p.m. in the
Administration Building, Room 502, at the Chesterfield County
Courthouse to discuss general County business.
Teste:
J6an~ S .- Doiezal,~Clerk ~ v ~.~..
to the Board of SuperviSOrs
I, c~~~ %% ~.A~ , certify that I have received a
copy of this notice this 10~ day of September, 1986, and waive
any and all further notice requirements of Section 15.1-538 of
the Code of Virginia.
Supervisor, ~~~-~., District
REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
TO: JOAN S. DOLEZAL, CLERK TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
We, ~ of ~
Magisterial Distr~c~ an//~of
~ Mag'~sterial District, pursuant ~o Section
15.1-538 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, hereby
request that a special meeting of the Board of
Supervisors be held on Wednesday, September 10, 1986 at 2:00 p.m.
and that such meeting shall be held in the Administration Build-
ing, Room 502, at the Chesterfield County Courthouse to discuss
general County business.
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE; September !0, 1986 ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT:
Work SeSsion with Planning Commission
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
A work session has
Commission for 2:00 p.m.
distributed on Monday.
been scheduled with the
on Wednesday. An agenda
Planning
will be
PREPARED BY;.
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO ~
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
COUNTY Ol~
CHESTERFIELD
VIRGINIA
MEMO
TO:
I~OM:
DATE:
The Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors
Richard L. Hedrick, County Administrator'-~~
September 9, 1986
Agenda for Work Session on September 10, 1986
Attached is a proposed agenda for discussion by the Board
and Planning Commission members on September 10, 1986 at
2:00 p.m. in Room 502 of the Administration Building.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
RLH/tp
Attachment
GENERAL ISSUES AGENDA
General Direction Regarding Quality of Life and Economic Development.
Now is the time to define, to achieve, and to maintain a quality environ-
ment in which to live and do business. Quality of life may be compre-
hensively viewed to include the amenities and necessities of living, such
as suitable housing, retail, recreational, and educational activities and
employment opportunities. Growth and development, therefore, may be seen
as a part or as contributing to the quality of life. Yet, many perceive
growth and development as detracting from life's quality. Chesterfield
needs to identify its prescription for success. This direction will
serve to focus the action of all parties to the growth and development
process in Chesterfield.
The Pace and Quality of Development.
There are those who believe that Chesterfield's rapid growth experience
has and will continue to negatively affect Chesterfield as a good place
to live. Very few Chesterfield citizens would say that Chesterfield is a
better place due to the 100,000 people who have located in the County
since 1970. The time is at hand to consider quality rather than quantity
as an objective. Adequate pace and composition or "balance of growth"
should be considered and a community definition for the quality of
development expected is required.
Role of the Planning Commission and Staff (Planning and Zoning).
The Commission perceives an interest in the Board toward Economic De-
velopment, decreasing density, increasing quality and planning more
logically. However, recent actions of the Board with respect to the sign
ordinance and "road stripping" indicate that consensus on where we are
headed is needed.
The Commission feels that more emphasis needs to be placed on Planning,
yet it is consumed by demands of a zoning agenda. Expectations of the
Commission/staff should be articulated and directions set; dialogue
should be more frequent on policy direction.
Community Involvement in the Process.
Public concern about Chesterfield's growth and development is escalating.
Residents expect a more rationa] and organized approach to assessing and
approving development. Expectation will change to demand, which will
take the form of a no growth philosophy, affecting local referendum and
elections. The no growth philosophy may have negative effects on quality
of public services and economic development pursuits.
The residential citizen is becoming increasingly concerned and active,
the development community is also concerned about the quality, the pace,
and the costs of development. The challenge is to effect community
participation in the process of defining directions and in the process of
developing the community.
SPECIFIC ISSUES AGENDA
Underground Utilities - Street Lights. Presently, although Chesterfield
County does not currently require underground electric service in new
subdivisions, the vast majority of new developments include underground
service. Thus, requiring underground service should not be a major
impact. Staff is also of the opinion that street lights should be
required as part of the development process.
· The issue is whether or not underground utilities should be
required.
me
Mobile Homes. In the recent past, the public has expressed concern about
the number of mobile homes that exist in Chesterfield County. A dichoto-
my exists between the goals of affordable housing and a balanced tax
base. The County at present has no policy with respect to mobile homes
that addresses the number that should be in the County. The quality of
mobile home parks is regulated by County ordinances. (MH-1, MH-2) This
issue can be further developed in the next six months and be included in
the Planning Department's work program proposed for the coming fiscal
year. A report would, if requested by the Board, include the question of
the mobile home park environment as well as addressing the question of
the quantity of mobile homes which should be encouraged in Chesterfield.
· The issue is whether or not a study of mobile homes is of high
enough priority given other possible work iter~ to merit special
study in the near term.
General Plan 2000. Draft copies of the Chesterfield Plan 2000 for all
areas of the County will be complete by February 1986. The public
hearing processes are expected to continue through July and August,
depending upon the degree of public interest. In the coming fiscal year,
depending on adequate funding, we will provide a single document and a
single map that would present the entire Plan for the County without
having to refer to multiple documents. This would ease use for County
staff and citizens.
· Information item.
Rezoning to Achieve Land Use Consistency. The County will continue to
face situations where the zoning on undeveloped properties is detrimental
to the orderly development of the community. A policy with respect to
the County's approach for rezoning property should be developed because
the Board has several decisions which will need to be made in the coming
six months with regard to rezoning to achieve land use consistency.
· The issue is whether or not staff should initiate rezonings
to achieve compatibility between recently adopted land use
plans and zoning.
Bo
Road Separations. Residential development fronting along County arteri-
als have severe negative effects on the function of the transportation
system and the desirability of these residences as the area begins to
urbanize. We would recommend that the previously considered ordinance
regarding road stripping be reevaluated and revised (if necessary), and
advertised for public hearing by the Planning Commission.
· Staff proposes bringing this issue back for reconsideration.
Private Septic and Well Systems. Dry sewer policy, minimum lot size for
well and septic systems and cost implications of utility service to
existing septic/well served development should be developed. The County,
in 1977, produced a study which identified all the subdivisions in the
County which existed without public water or sewer and the estimated
costs for providing public service. While this study should be updated,
it is apparent that the County, for fiscal reasons, should seriously
reevaluate its policy for allowing development on well and septic sys-
tems. It is recommended that a study be commenced to formulate a policy
that addresses the extent of the problem in Chesterfield and recommend a
solution. Such a report will take three months of Staff time to develop,
and considerable time will be needed for review with the community before
and during the public hearing process.
· Information item.
Signs. This past year the Commission recommended to the Board a compre-
hensive amendment to the Sign Ordinance. The Board adopted the Ordinance
for two areas of the County, called special sign districts. Current
understanding is that the Ordinance would' be reevaluated, altered if
necessary and perhaps extended to the balance of the County. (This issue
was added to the list at the January 31 meeting of the Committee.)
· The issue is whether or not the Special Sign District should
be extended; and if so, where?
e
Protecting Future Road Rights of Way. In the very near future, the
County needs to take actions to assure that adequate right of way is
provided for new roads (limited access and arterial roads). As we
continue the transition from a suburban to an urban environment, the
County, in concert with the development community, should develop a
partnership for reservation/dedication of needed right of way. If roads
are to occur in Chesterfield in the correct location and in a timely
fashion, a public/private sector partnership is required. Such an
objective should be a high priority for the County and initiated in the
next budget year. The study would take six months to complete. Agree-
ments with the development community, as well as the Highway Department,
will be required. In addition, a solution of the issue may require
changes in State legislation.
· Information item.
Policy Plannin~ Group. For some time there have been discussions on the
need for a policy group to look at County development issues beyond the
zoning of property. We suggest that this is the opportune time for
formation of such a group. It is recommended that the Board appoint a
policy review group consisting of Board of Supervisors' representation,
Planning Commission representation, staff support, several private
development community representatives and several citizens' representa-
tives. This group should be charged with reviewing the above issues and
submitting their thoughts to the Planning Commission and Board of Super-
visors. While developing thoughts on the specific issues outlined above,
the group should also be charged with presenting their thoughts on the
overall future growth and direction of Chesterfield County. It is
suggested that the group's life span be fixed to a fairly short time
frame (8 - 12 months), and that a full report on the growth and develop-
ment issues be submitted by the sunset date. A review of the above
identified specific issues should be requested shortly inasmuch as
actions are being programmed. If the Board is interested in pursuing
this matter, staff recommends that time be set aside in a work session to
discuss further. At that time, we will present a proposed budget to fund
the effort.
· The issue is whether this idea should be pursued separately
from a similar Charter provision.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
R. GARLAND DODD , CHAIRMAN
BERMUDA DISTRICT
HARRY G. DANIEL, VICE CHAIRMAN
DALE DISTRICT
G. H. APPLEGATE
CLQVER H ILL DISTRICT
JOAN GIRONE
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
JESSE J. MAYES
MATOACA DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
P.O. BOX 4O
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RICHARD L. HEDRICK
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Joan Dolezal, Duputy Clerk to the Bc,~
James P. Zook, Director of Planning
May 30, 1986
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting between Board of Supervil
Planning Commission
ors and
sors
The County Administrator has authorized me to proceed with a joint
meeting between the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Attached is some background information. I am requesting that you
contact all Board members and Planning Commission members, the
County Administrator and Executive Assistant to the the County Admin~
istrator to arrange a meeting (all afternoon and evening) at a place
acceptable to the Chairman of the Board. Preferably away from the
Courthouse but Room 502 may do very well with the exception of dinner.
Please arrange a time between the 14th and 30th of July. I will be
arranging a meeting with the subcommittee to set the agenda.
cc:
Mr. R. L. Hedrick, Country Administrator
Mr. Pete Stith, Executive Asst. to County Administrator
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
R. GARLAND DODD , CHAIRMAN
BERMUDA DISTRICT
HARRY G, DANIEL , VICE CHAIRMAN
DALE DISTRICT
G. H. APPLEGATE
CLOVER HILL DiSTRiCT
JOAN GIRONE
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
JESSE J. MAYES
MATOACA DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
CH ESTERF]ELD COUNTY
P.O. BOX 4O
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
COUNTY ADM INISTRA, TOR
RICHARD L. HEDRICK
Board of Supervisors and the Planning Com/L
FROM; James P. Zook, Director of Planning
DATE: May 31, 1986
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting Agenda
For a variety of reasons, the meeting we had worked s, \deligently to
plan has not yet occurred. I have reviewed the agenda~and find that
while many of the issues we thought important for discussion are still
important; other issues have arisen in the past four months.
I feel to be most beneficial the meeting needs to address current is-
sues., Therefore, I would like to call one more meeting of the comm--
ittee to finalize the agenda.
I have 'attached three papers as "food" for thought. Attachment A is
our prior agenda to use. Attachment B are studies/action recommended
by our consultants as a result of the plan amendment process, And,
Attachment C is a list of ordinance amendments which are thought to
be particularly important.
I would appreciate your careful reading of the attachments before the
meeting, However, at the outset of the meeting, I will breifly pre-
sent the material, After the presentation we will set to work to re-
vise the agenda, if necessary, t would like to get together the week
of June 16, 1986 to set the agenda, we will call soon to match sched-
ules.
I am anxious to proceed with this effort and will begin the process
to arrange a meeting for a day/evening meeting between the Board of
Supervisors and the Planning Commission during the time period of
July 14th to 30th.
cc: Mr. Harry Daniel, Dale Supervisor
Mrs. Joan Girone, Midlothian Supervisor
Mr, Kelly Miller, .Dale Planning Commissioner
Mr. John O'Connor, Clover Hill Planning Commissioner
Mr..Richard L. Hedrick, County Administrator
Mr. Pete Stith, Executive Asst. to County Administrator
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
R. GARLAND DODD , CHAIRMAN
BERMUDA DISTRICT
HARRY G. DANIEL , VICE CHAIRMAN
DALE DISTRICT
G. H. APPLEGATE
CLOVER H ILL DISTRICT
JOAN GIRONE
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
JESSE J. MAYES
MATOACA DISTRICT
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
P.O. BOX 40
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RICHARD L HEDRICK
MEMORANDUM
To:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Richard L. Hedrick, County
James P. Zook, Director of
May 29, 1986
Administra
Planning
Joint Meeting between BOard of Supervisors~and
Planning Commission
I have reviewed the previous agenda (Attachment A) and find that while
many of the specific issues are still relevant, other issues have a-
risen through the preparation and public interaction in the process of
Plan revision. These later issues, in part, are more important than
those previously identified.
Attachment B is a list of studies/actions recommended by our consultz
ants in the plans, also indicated is the priority for action of the
Planning Commission. Since one of the stated purposes of the joint
meeting is what priorities would be established for the coming two
year period, I feel we ought'to expand the Board/Commission meeting
to include discussion of these items. ~Also,'your initiative for in-
creased administration discretion for the Planning Director ~tO reduce
Zoning case load may need discussion. Further, Attachment C identi-
fies a list of ordinance amendments which need attention. The chang-
es which address work load relief are priority.
Recommendations:
County Administrator to authorize the Planning Director to call the
joint subcommittee together to consider additional issues and to re-
vise joint meeting agenda as may be desired.
Further, to have the County Administrator meet with the Subcommittee
along with the Planning Director.
~Joint Meeting between ~S and PC
Page two
That the Planning Director send the subcommittee advance information
and be authorized to set the meeting the week of June 19, 1986.
Further, that the Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors be author-
ized at this time to poll the Board and the Planning Commission to
set a date between the 14th and 30th of July to hold the meeting and
further be authorized to establish a place (preferably away from the
Courthouse) where a session from 1:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. could be
held comfortably.
note:
For your information, I have attached a chronology of actions on this
meeting. (Attachment D)
~ATTkCHMENT D
June 4, 1985
David Thomas requests joint meeting
Appoints David Thomas and John O'Conner
July 1, 1985
Geoffrey Applegate appoints Harry Daniel and
Joan Girone to joint subcommittee.
August 26, 1985
After 3 to 4 meetings the joint subcommittee
sends issue paper to Board- assess that Board
gain concensus on issues and then to plan and
hold a joint meeting of the Board and Commission.
Board holds work session on issues, identified
specific work items and agreed to develop agenda
to meet with Planning Commission.
January 31, 1986
Joint Subcommittee meets to plan agenda for meeting.
February 14, 1986
Joint meeting agenda finalized
Effort to schedule meeting and send out agenda not
approved. (Mr. Dodd has problem with too much on
going with Budget, etc.)
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS'
R.GARLAND DODD, CHAIRMAN
BERMUOA DISTRICT
HARRY G. DANIEL,VICE CHAIRMAN
DALE DISTRICT
G. H. APPLEGATE
CLO~F..R ~tt..t. DISTRICT
JOAN GIRONE
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
JESSE J. MAYES
MATOACA DISTRICT
CHESTER FIELD COUNTY
P.O. BOX 40
CHESTERFIELD,VIRGINIA 23832
COUNTy ADMINISTRATOR
RICHARD L. HEDRICK
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Members, Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
The Honorable Members, Chesterfield County Planning Commission
Committee on a Joint Meeting Between the Board of Supervisors
and Planning Commission
February 14, 1986
Joint Meeting Agenda
On January 31, 1985, the Committee on the meeting between the Board of Super-
visors and the Planning Commission decided the following:
The Board and the Planning Commission meet as soon as possible for an
afternoon/dinner/evening session. The Commission and Board will be
polled to determine the date.
2. Schedule:
Agenda
Specific Issue Agenda (Attachment A)
Lunch
General Issue Agenda (Attachment B)
Closure
(2 hours)
(1 hour)
(2 hours)
(1 hour)
Attached are issues which are recommended for discussion. Issues vary
from the specific/short term to the general/long term. Source of the
issues are two previous papers, an August 19, 1985 memo from the Board
and Planning Commission Subcommittee to Geoffrey H. Applegate and a
November 20, 1985 memo from Jeff Muzzy to Board of Supervisors.
Purpose of the joint meeting is to discuss issues and to decide if and
what actions should be accomplished in the coming two year period to
address issues. Participants should come to the meeting prepared to
discuss issues (attached) with ideas for addressing issues.
e
A consultant facilitator is not necessary, Staff is to facilitate the
meeting.
The Subcommittee felt there was a need for a separate meeting at some
point in the future of the Commission and the Board to discuss the
Economic Development Program and policy issues. The appropriate time may
be subsequent to the Economic Development Program being adopted by the
Board.
Attachments
Committee Members:
Harry Daniel, Dale Supervisor
David Thomas, Bermuda Planning Commissioner
Joan Girone, Midlothian Supervisor
John O. O'Connor, Clover Hill Planning Commissioner
Sig:i lfor the Committee:
~'.' Zook,' D~tor of Planning
cc:/ Richard L. Hedrick, County Administrator
2 BD1F27/dem
Attachment A
SPECIFIC ISSUES AGENDA
Underground Utilities - Street Lights. Presently, although Chesterfield
County does not currently require underground electric service in new
subdivisions, the vast majority of new developments include underground
service. Thus, requiring underground service should not be a major
impact. Staff is also of the opinion that street lights should be
required as part of the development process.
Mobile Homes. In the recent past, the public has expressed concern about
the number of mobile homes that exist in Chesterfield County. A dichoto-
my exists between the goals of affordable housing and a balanced tax
base. The County at present has no policy with respect to mobile homes
that addresses the number that should be in the County. The quality of
mobile home parks is regulated by County ordinances. (MH-1, MH-2) This
issue can be further developed in the next six months and be included in
the Planning Department's work program proposed for the coming fiscal
year. A report would, if requested by the Board, include the question of
the mobile home park environment as well as addressing the question of
the quantity of mobile homes which should be encouraged in-Chesterfield.
General Plan 2000. Draft copies of the Chesterfield Plan 2000 for all
areas of the County will be complete by February 1986. The public
hearing processes are expected to continue through July and August,
depending upon the degree of public interest. In the coming fiscal year,
depending on adequate funding, we will provide a single document and a
single map that would present the entire Plan for the County without
having to refer to multiple documents. This would ease use for County
staff and citizens.
Rezoning to Achieve Land Use Consistency. The County will continue to
face situations where the zoning on undeveloped properties is detrimental
to the orderly development of the community. A policy with respect to
the County's approach for rezoning property should be developed because
the Board has several decisions which will need to be made in the coming
six months with regard to rezoning to achieve land use consistency.
Road Separations. Residential development fronting along County arteri-
als have severe negative effects on the function of the transportation
system and the desirability of these residences as the area begins to
urbanize. We would recommend that the previously considered ordinance
regarding road stripping be reevaluated and revised (if necessary), and
advertised for public hearing by the Planning Commission.
Private Seotic and Well Systems. Dry sewer policy, minimum lot size for
well and septic systems and cost implications of utility service to
existing septic/well served development should be developed. The County,
in 1977, produced a study which identified all the subdivisions in the
County which existed without public water or sewer and the estimated
1 BD1F27/dem
Attachm~,c A (Continued)
costs for providing public service. While this study should be updated, it is
apparent that the County, for fiscal reasons, should seriously reevaluate its
policy for allowing development on well and septic systems. It is recommended
that a study be commenced to formulate a policy that addresses the extent of
the problem in Chesterfield and recommend a solution. Such a report will take
three months of Staff time to develop, and considerable time will be needed
for review with the community before and during the public hearing process.
Signs. This past year the Commission recommended to the Board a compre-
hensive amendment to the Sign Ordinance. The Board adopted the Ordinance
for two areas of the County, called special sign districts. Current
understanding is that the Ordinance would be reevaluated, altered if
necessary and perhaps extended to the balance of the County. (This issue
was added to the list at the January 31 meeting of the Committee.)
Protecting Future Road Rights of Way. In the very near future, the
County needs to take actions to assure that adequate right of way is
provided for new roads (limited access and arterial roads). As we
continue the transition from a suburban to an urban environment, the
County, in concert with the development community, should develop a
partnership for reservation/dedication of needed right of way. If roads
are to occur in Chesterfield in the correct location and ~in a timely
fashion, a public/private sector partnership is required. Such an
objective should be a high priority for the County and initiated in the
next budget year. The study would take six months to complete. Agree-
ments with the development community, as well as the Highway Department,
will be required. In addition, a solution of the issue may require
changes in State legislation.
e
Policy Planning Group. For some time there have been discussions on the
need'for a policy group to look at County development issues beyond the
zoning of property. We suggest that this is the opportune time for
formation of such a group. It is recommended that the Board appoint a
policy review group consisting of Board of Supervisors' representation,
Planning Commission representation, staff support, several private
development community representatives and several citizens' representa-
tives. This group should be charged with reviewing the above issues and
submitting their thoughts to the Planning Commission and Board of Super-
visors. While developing thoughts on the specific issues outlined above,
the group should also be charged with presenting their thoughts on the
overall future growth and direction of Chesterfield County. It is
suggested that the group's life span be fixed to a fairly short time
frame (8 - 12 months), and that a full report on the growth and develop-
ment issues be submitted by the sunset date. A review of the above
identified specific issues should be requested shortly inasmuch as
actions are being programmed. If the Board is interested in pursuing
this matter, staff recommends that time be set aside in a work session to
discuss further. At that time, we will present a proposed budget to fund
the effort.
2 BDiF27/dem
Attachment B
GENERAL ISSUES AGENDA
I. General Direction Regarding Quality of Life and Economic Development.
Now is the time to define, to achieve, and to maintain a quality environ-
ment in which to live and do business. Quality of life may be compre-
hensively viewed to include the amenities and necessities of living, such
as suitable housing, retail, recreational, and educational activities and
employment opportunities. Growth and development, therefore, may be seen
as a part or as contributing to the quality of life. Yet, many perceive
growth and development as detracting from life's quality. Chesterfield
needs to identify its prescription for success. This direction will
serve to focus the action of all parties to the growth and development
process in Chesterfield.
2. The Pace and Quality of Development.
There are those who believe that Chesterfield's rapid growth experience
has and will continue to negatively affect Chesterfield as a good place
to live. Very few Chesterfield citizens would say that Chesterfield is a
better place due to the 100,000 people who have located in the County
since t970. The time is at hand to consider quality rather than quantity
as an objective. Adequate pace and composition or "balance of growth"
should be considered and a community definition for the quality of
development expected is required.
Role of the Planning Commission and Staff (Planning and Zoning)
The Commission perceives an interest in the Board toward Economic De-
~velopment, decreasing density, increasing quality and planning more
logically. However, recent actions of the Board with respect to the sign
ordinance and "road stripping" indicate that consensus on where we are
headed is needed.
The Commission feels that more emphasis needs to be placed on Planning,
yet it is consumed by demands of a zoning agenda. Expectations of the
Commission/staff should be articulated and directions set; dialogue
should be more frequent on policy direction.
4. Community Involvement in the Process.
Public concern about Chesterfield's growth and development is escalating.
Residents expect a more rational and organized approach to assessing and
approving development. Expectation will change to demand, which will
take the form of a no growth philosophy, affecting local referendum and
elections. The no growth philosophy may have negative effects on quality
of public services and economic development pursuits. · ....
The residential citizen is becoming increasingly concerned and active,
the development community is also concerned about the quality, the pace,
· and the costs of development. The challenge is to effect community
participation in the process of defining directions and in the process of
developing the community.
1 BD1 F27/dem
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
R~RLAND DODD ,CHAIRMAN
~MUDA ~DISTRICT
HAmRY G. DANIEL, VICE CHAIRMAN
DALE DISTRICT
G. H. APPLEGATE
CLO.VER HILL DISTRICT
JOAN GIRONE
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
JESSE J. MAYES
MATOACA DISTRICT
,.,HESTERFIELD COUNTY
P.O. BOX 4O
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
CouNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RICHARD L. HEDRICK
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Chesterfield County Planning Commission
· plann'i~g.~'~~
James P Zook, Director of ~
April 28, 1986
Staff Recommendation Relative to the Priority of
Implementation Actions
Staff has conducted a review of all of the actions recommended by the Consul-
tants to correct existing problems and to better accomplish the recommended
goals of the four Plans now under consideration by the Commission. Many of
the recommended actions involve revisions to the County's Zoning and Subdivi-
sion Ordinances. Other actions identify the need for further planning stud-
ies. In other papers, Staff has identified and briefly outlined each of the
recommended actions.
Virtually all of the recommended actions have merit, but with limitations on
Staff resources it is necessary to determine an order of the recommended
planning efforts in terms of priority to Planning Department's future work
programs.
Staff has evaluated all of the recommended actions'and has ranked them
relative to their priority:
HIGH
- initiated and completed in one to two years.
MODERATE -
initiated within two to three years; completion dependent
upon scope of tasks.
LOW
initiated within four to five years; completion dependent
upon scope of tasks.
HIGH
O
Route 10 Development District (Courthouse Complex to Chester)
Route 360 Development District (Courthouse Road to Turner Road)
With the acute development pressures these segments of the Route 10
and Route 360 Corridors are experiencing, Staff is of the opinion
that these areas warrant critical attention and a unique regulatory
response. Although it may be ultimately desirable to develop a
County-wide application of Special Corridor Standards, Staff
believes immediate efforts should be directed only to these
corridors. Doing so will provide an opportunity for further
evaluation to determine the merit of a wider application.
Develop Standards for Landscaping Treatment within ROW to be Programmed
in Future Construction Projects
Improve and Expand Special Sign District Regulations to all Major Trans-
portation Corridors
Require Additional Setbacks: Review Setback Requirements Based Upon
Design and Engineering Studies
It is likely the recommended actions above would also be
incorporated into the proposed development standards for Route 10
and Route 360 Corridors. In addition, the Consultants have
consistently recommended amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to
permit density bonuses based upon a system of performance criteria.
Develop the High Intensity Development Sector and Corridor Concept
With major highway construction projects now underway, Staff is of
the opinion that policy regarding appropriate development and
intensities around the County's major interchanges is critical.
Further, refinement of the Sector/Corridor Concept should be
considered in relation to planning efforts involved with the
proposed Route 10 and Route 360 Development Districts.
Lake Chesdin Overlay District (Watershed Resource Management Study)
Presently, the Commission has under consideration one request for
rezoning in the Lake Chesdin Watershed. Staff believes development
in the Lake Chesdin area will accelerate in the next few years. As
one of the County's major drinking water sources, special
development safeguards are critical to enact.
Revise Agricultural Zoning Classification
Require Site Plans in Agricultural Districts
2 JZ3AP219/jab
Remaining pockets of Agriculturally-Zoned land have created
compatibility problems in areas of predominant residential
development. Some of the uses now permitted by right in this
district are inappropriate for the more 'rural environs of the
County. Staff is of the opinion that revision of the present
Agricultural Zoning District should be undertaken in conjunction
with the Lake Chesdin Watershed Study.
Revise Subdivision Ordinance to Prohibit Road Stripping
Staff is of the opinion the this practice increases the number of
conflict points and congestion on County roadways and severely
undermines the ability to design a well planned collector road
network.
MODERATE
o Revise Office Zoning Classification
o Revise Commercial Zoning Classifications
Revise Industrial Zoning Classifications
Revisions to the existing zoning classifications for Office,
Commercial and Industrial uses to reflect market trends would reduce
the number and necessity of requests for Conditional Use Planned
Development, provide greater flexibility and enhance the overall
quality of such development. Recommended actions relative to
density bonuses based upon performance criteria would be
incorporated into the revisions of these land use classifications.
Develop Community-Scale Plan for Chester
Design hearings for the proposed widening of Route 10 through
Chester are tentatively scheduled for early 1987. Staff believes
that subsequent to the completion of the Highway Department's design
for the widening of Route 10, a detailed subarea plan for Chester is
needed.
o Develop Design Standards Handbook
Develop Transportation Design Standards Handbook
A comprehensive catalog of development standards required by Ordi-
nances and/or policy would assist the development community and
Staff. Similarly, driveway location and transportation design
standards are important to develop.
3 JZ3AP219/jab
Develop a Community-Scale Plan for Ettrick
A detailed subarea Plan is recommended for Ettrick. Such a plan
would focus on the commercial revitalization of Chesterfield Avenue
and consider housing and college town needs of Virginia State
University.
Develop a detailed study of the 301/1-95 Corridor
The revitalization of the 301/1-95 Corridor is likely to require a
major Staff commitment from both the Planning Department and the
Economic Department.
Undertake an Environmentally-Sensitive Area Study
Develop Standards for an Overlay District
Environmentally-Sensitive Areas
for Designated
o Conduct a Lake Chesdin Management Study
o
Develop a County-wide Greenway System
Staff is of the opinion that all of these planning studies are
important to initiate immediately. Staff recognizes, however, the
completion of such studies and the development of subsequent
regulations and implementation measures will require a long period
of time to complete. Ail of the planning efforts would require
cooperation with other departments, specifically, the Environmental
Engineering Department and Parks and Recreation Department.
Amend the Plan for Public Facilities to Add Open-Space and Recreation
Requirements for Private Development
The update of the Plan for Public Facilities is already part of the
Planning Department's future work program. When Staff begins this
process, this recommendation will be incorporated into the revision.
LOW
Revise Residential Classifications
Staff believes measures to allow greater flexibility such as the
averaging of lot sizes, are presently practiced through the
Conditional Use Planned Development process.
4 JZ3AP219/jab
o
Develop an Historic Overlay District for the Village of Matoaca
Staff recently completed the community-scale Plan for the Village of
Matoaca which was endorsed by the Board in February 1985. The Plan
identifies historic resources and suggests actions for their
preservation. Although Staff agrees that local regulatory
protections are needed, acute development pressure is not likely to
occur for several years.
Develop a Community-Scale Plan for the Village of Midlothian
Although such a plan is desirable to assure the community focus and
historic integrity of the Village, Staff believes these issues are
well understood by the community at large. Significant development
has occurred in Midlothian in recent years and virtually all of
these projects have undergone Conditional Use Planned Development
whereby conditions relative to scale and architectural compatibility
were imposed.
Develop a Subarea Plan for the Chesterfield Courthouse area.
A Plan for the Courthouse Complex was developed a number of years
ago.~ Major construction projects for new County facilities will
commence in the near future. Staff~'~ecO~e~ds that the Plan be
revised to reflect the location of these facilities and their
relationship to the larger Courthouse area.
Develop an Historic Overlay District
Staff believes there is a need for comprehensive local protection of
historic and cultural resources, particularly in the Villages of
Midlothian, Matoaca and the Courthouse area. In the interim of
specific protections, however, the Conditional Use Planned
Development process has served to guide development in these
sensitive areas.
o
Develop a County-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Ways Plan
Staff believes such a study has merit, particularly, in the less
developed areas of the County where there are greater opportunities
for right-of-way acquisition. Also, a bike ways system would be an
important component in the County-wide system of recreational
resources and the proposed Greenway system. Such a study, however,
should be undertaken by the Parks and Recreation Department.
5 JZ3AP219/j ab
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
R. GARLAND DODD , CHAIRMAN
elERM UD,A DISTRICT
HARRY G, DANIEL . VICE CHAIRMAN
DALI= DISTRICT
G. H. APPL~EGATE
CLQVER HILl_DISTRICT
JOAN GIRONE
MIOLOTHIAN [DISTRICT
JESSE J. MAYES
MATOACA DISTRICT
.,HESTERFIELD COUNTY
P.O. BOX 4O
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RICHARD L. HEDRICK
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Chesterfield County Planning Commission
James P. Zook, Director of Plannin~ ~
May 1, 1986
Suggested Ordinance Amendments
On April 28, 1986, we presented you with a handout listing approximately 50
potential Amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. We also
presented you with a brief written description of each potential Amendment.
At our work session, we suggested that it was not possible to address all 50
Amendments simultaneously due to the existing workload and staffing level.
Staff suggested that 10-15 Amendments be evaluated as the top priority. These
initial Amendments were selected to:
1. Save time
2. Simplify the zoning process
3. Some would improve the quality of development
4. Some Would require minimal staff effort
Enclosed for your use is another copy of the summary of suggested Ordinance
amendments. Those marked with an asterisk (*) were suggested as our top
priority items. Please advise me or Bill Poole by May 16 of any additions or
deletions that you have for either the top priority list or the overall list
of suggested amendments. I will report your individual comments to the
Commission on May 20 and ask you for a Resolution supporting the top 10-15
Ordinance amendments.
After May 20, I will discuss the top priOrity amendments with the Board prior
to beginning detailed Staff research on the project. _
If you need additional information, please contact me at 748-1050 or Bill
Poole at 748-1053.
Enclosure
BP1AP240/cal
SUGGESTED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
I. IMPROVE DEVELOPMENT QUALITY
* A. Road Stripping
B. Commercial Subdivisions
C. Outside Storage/Dumpster Screening
D. Parking for Drive-in Establishments
* E. Parking Lot Setbacks Along Major Arterials
F. Parking Lot/Site Lighting
* G. Parking Lot Paving
* H. Parking Lot Access
* I. Parking Lot Landscaping
J. Setbacks for Service Stations
K. Business in Residential/Agricultural Districts
SUGGESTED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
II. MINIMIZE UNNECESSARY USE OF CUPD
* A. Parking for Nursery Schools
B. Parking for Commercial Recreational Facilities
* C. Parking Space Area
* D. Setbacks Along Major Arterials
* E. Parking Lot Buffers
* F. Parking Lot Access
* G. Parking Lot Landscaping
* H. Office Park/Research and Development/Mixed Use Districts
SUGGESTED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
III. STREAMLINE THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
* A. Minor Resubdivisions
B. Approval of Variances
C. Material Extraction
D. Second Dwelling on a Parcel
SUGGESTED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS'
IV. UPDATE THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO:
A. New Uses
1.
2.
* 7.
* 8.
Definition of Drive-in Establishments
Parking for Automobile Service Stations and Public
Garages
Parking for Office Warehouses
Parking for Nursery Schools
Handicapped Parking
Machine Shops
Storage of Used Tires
Office Park/Research and
Districts
Towers
Clarify, Resolve Inconsistencies'
1. Corner Side Yard
2. Nursing Home'and Home for Adults
3. Nonconforming Use
* 4. Side Yard Fence Height
5. Parking for Office Buildings
6. Drive-in Establishments
7. Greenhouses
* 8. Parking Lot Buffer Strips
9. Security Fence (Swimming Pools)
10. Junkyard Definition
Development/Mixed
Use
SUGGESTED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
IV. UPDATE THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO:
Housekeeping Items
1. Zoning District Maps
2. Site Plans for Agricultural Uses
3. Mobile Home Permits
4. R-TH and R-MF Districts
BP1AP189/cal
Me
Be
GENERAL ISSUES AGENDA
General Direction Regarding Quality of Life and Economic Development.
Now is the time to define, to achieve, and to maintain a quality environ-
ment in which to live and do business. Quality of life may be compre-
hensively viewed to include the amenities and necessities of living, such
as suitable housing, retail, recreational, and educational activities and
employment opportunities. Growth and development, therefore, may be seen
as a part or as contributing to the quality of life. Yet, many perceive
growth and development as detracting from life's quality. Chesterfield
needs to identify its prescription for success. This direction will
serve to focus the action of all parties to the growth and development
process in Chesterfield.
The Pace and Quality of Development.
There are those who believe that Chesterfield's rapid growth experience
has and will continue to negatively affect Chesterfield as a good place
to live. Very few Chesterfield citizens would say that Chesterfield is a
better place due to the 100,000 people who have located in the County
since 1970. The time is at hand to consider quality rather than quantity
as an objective. Adequate pace and composition or "balance of growth"
should be considered and a community definition for the quality of
development expected is required.
Role of the Planning Commission and Staff (Planning and Zoning).
The Commission perceives an interest in the Board toward Economic De-
velopment, decreasing density, increasing quality and planning more
logically. However, recent actions of the Board with respect to the sign
ordinance and "road stripping" indicate that consensus on where we are
headed is needed.
The Commission feels that more emphasis needs to be placed on Planning,
yet it is consumed by demands of a zoning agenda. Expectations of the
Commission/staff should be articulated and directions set; dialogue
should be more frequent on policy direction.
Community Involvement in the Process.
Public concern about Chesterfield's growth and development is escalating.
Residents expect a more rational and organized approach to assessing and
approving development. Expectation will change to demand, which will
take the form of a no growth philosophy, affecting local referendum and
elections. The no growth philosophy may have negative effects on quality
of public services and economic development pursuits.
The residential citizen is becoming increasingly concerned and active,
the development community is also concerned about the quality, the pace,
and the costs of development. The challenge is to effect community
participation in the process of defining directions and in the process of
developing the community.
SPECIFIC ISSUES AGENDA
Under~round Utilities - Street Lights. Presently, although Chesterfield
County does not currently require underground electric service in new
subdivisions, the vast majority of new developments include underground
service. Thus, requiring underground service should not be a major
impact. Staff is also of the opinion that street lights should be
required as part of the development process.
· The i~sue is whether or not underground utilities should be
required.
0
Mobile Homes. In the recent past, the public has expressed concern about
the number of mobile homes that exist in Chesterfield County. A dichoto-
my exists between the goals of affordable housing and a balanced tax
base. The County at present has no policy with respect to mobile homes
that addresses the number that should be in the County. The quality of
mobile home parks is regulated by County ordinances. (MH-1, MH-2) This
issue can be further developed in the next six months and be included in
the Planning Department's work program proposed for the coming fiscal
year. A report would, if requested by the Board, include the question of
the mobile home park environment as well as addressing the question of
the quantity of mobile homes which should be encouraged in Chesterfield.
The issue is whether or not a study of mobile homes is of high
enough priority given other possible work items to merit special
study in the near term.
General Plan 2000. Draft copies of the Chesterfield Plan 2000 for all
areas of the County will be complete by February 1986. The public
hearing processes are expected to continue through July and August,
depending upon the degree of public interest. In the coming fiscal year,
depending on adequate funding, we will provide a single document and a
single map that would present the entire Plan for the County without
having to refer to multiple documents. This would ease use for County
staff and citizens.
· Information item.
Rezoning to Achieve Land Use Consistenc~. The County will continue to
face situations where the zoning on undeveloped properties is detrimental
to the orderly development of the community. A policy with respect to
the County's approach for rezoning property should be developed because
the Board has several decisions which will need to be made in the coming
six months with regard to rezoning to achieve land use consistency.
· The issue is whether or not staff should initiate rezonings
to achieve compatibility between recently adopted land use
plans and zoning.
Road Separations. Residential development fronting along County arteri-
als have severe negative effects on the function of the transportation
system and the desirability of these residences as the area begins to
urbanize. We would recommend that the previously considered ordinance
regarding road stripping be reevaluated and revised (if necessary), and
advertised for public hearing by the Planning Commission.
· Staff proposes bringing this issue back for reconsideration.
Private Septic and Well Systems. Dry sewer policy, minimum lot size for
well and septic systems and cost implications of utility service to
existing septic/well served development should be developed. The County,
in 1977, produced a study which identified all the subdivisions in the
County which existed without public water or sewer and the estimated
costs for providing public service. While this study should be updated,
it is apparent that the County, for fiscal reasons, should seriously
reevaluate its policy for allowing development on well and septic sys-
tems. It is recommended that a study be commenced to formulate a policy
that addresses the extent of the problem in Chesterfield and recommend a
solution. Such a report will take three months of Staff time to develop,
and considerable time will be needed for review with the community before
and during the public hearing process.
· Information item.
Signs. This past year the Commission recommended to the Board a compre-
hensive amendment to the Sign Ordinance. The Board adopted the Ordinance
for two areas of the County, called special sign districts. Current
understanding is that the Ordinance would' be reevaluated, altered if
necessary and perhaps extended to the balance of the County. (This issue
was added to the list at the January 31 meeting of the Committee.)
· The issue is whether or not the Special Sign District should
be extended; and if so, where?
Protecting Future Road Rights of Way. In the very near future, the
County needs to take actions to assure that adequate right of way is
provided for new roads (limited access and arterial roads). As we
continue the transition from a suburban to an urban environment, the
County, in concert with the development community, should develop a
partnership for reservation/dedication of needed right of way. If roads
are to occur in Chesterfield in the correct location and in a timely
fashion, a public/private sector partnership is required. Such an
objective should be a high priority for the County and initiated in the
next budget year. The study would take six months to complete. Agree-
ments with the development community, as well as the Highway Department,
will be required. In addition, a solution of the issue may require
changes in State legislation.
· Information item.
e
Policy Planning Group. For some time there have been discussions on the
need for a policy group to look at County development issues beyond the
zoning of property. We suggest that this is the opportune time for
formation of such a group. It is recommended that the Board appoint a
policy review group consisting of Board of Supervisors' representation,
Planning Commission representation, staff support, several private
development community representatives and several citizens' representa-
tives. This group should be charged with reviewing the above issues and
submitting their thoughts to the Planning Commission and Board of Super-
visors. While developing thoughts on the specific issues outlined above,
the group should also be charged with presenting their thoughts on the
overall future growth and direction of Chesterfield County. It is
suggested that the group's life span be fixed to a fairly short time
frame (8 - 12 months), and that a full report on the growth and develop-
ment issues be submitted by the sunset date. A review of the above
identified specific issues should be requested shortly inasmuch as
actions are being programmed. If the Board is interested in pursuing
this matter, staff recommends that time be set aside in a work session to
discuss further. At that time, we will present a proposed budget to fund
the effort.
· The issue is whether this idea should be pursued separately
from a similar Charter provision.
CHESTERFi ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE: September 10, 1986 ITEM NUMBER: 4.A.
SUBJECT:
Amendment to the June 26, 1985, Board of Supervisors'
Minutes
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
BACKGROUND
On June 26, 1985, the Board of Supervisors considered zoning
request 85S035 by William B. DuVal. Mr. DuVal's case was on a
large parcel of land generally at the intersection of Route 360
and North Spring Run Road. The Board approved Mr. DuVal's
request after discussion relative to house sizes. The Planning
Commission had recommended one set of house sizes and the
applicant had offered several alternatives.
Staff's understanding of the Board's action, after the lengthy
discussion, was reflected in Condition 17 which states the
following:
17. SIZE OF HOMES
The following minimum square footages shall govern house
sizes. Required amenities shall include attached covered
porches, covered stoops, breezeways and garages, which shall
ATTACHMENTS: YES I"1
PREPARED BY; .
%~. William ~ole ~-
Director of Planning (Acting)
SIGNATURE:
~'Y ADMINISTRATOR
0 2
Amendment to the June 26, 1985, Board of Supervisors' Minutes
September 10, 1986
Page 2
not be included in computing minimum square footage:
One story (Ranch style) . . . 1,200 finished sq. ft.
Two story . . . 1,660 gross sq. ft.
One and one-half story . . . 1,430 gross sq. ft.
As Mr. DuVal began to develop the project, he advised that he did
not feel Condition 17 accurately reflected the Board's action.
Staff has carefully reviewed the minutes, tapes of the meeting
and handouts that the applicant presented to Board Members at the
meeting and agree that a correction is in order to accurately
reflect the Board's decision.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board amend page 85-431 of their
minutes so that Condition 17 of Case 85S035 reads as follows:
17.
The following minimum square footage shall govern house
size. Required amenities shall include attached covered
porches, covered stoops, breezeways and garages, which shall
not be included in computing minimum square footage:
One story (Ranch style). . . 1,200 finished square feet
Two story . . . 830 gross square feet on
the first floor
One and one-half story . . . 830 gross square feet on
the first floor
AG2A195/jab
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
Office of
NEWS AND INFORMATION SERVICES
PAULINE A. MITCHELL
Director
(804) 748-1192
TO: RICHARD L. HEDRICK
FOR: COUNTYADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCE DR. JOHN N. PASTORE, CHAIRMAN
HENRICUS FOUNDATION
TO SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE SEPTEMBER 19TH 375TH ANNIVERSARY PROGRAM
P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
ITEM NUMBER-
SUBJI~CT:
Authorization to Issue Up to $5,500,000 in Supplemental
Lease Purchasing Financing to Fund the Construction of
the County Courts Building
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
In 1985 the County completed a lease/purchase financing
transaction to finance the cost of constructing the new Data
Processing, Human Services, and Court Buildings. Since the
completion of the initial financing transaction, it has become
apparent that the funds generated will need to be increased to
cover the entire cost of construction. The need for additional
funds is principally the result of final square footage size and
planning the Courthouse to meet future space needs. Staff
anticipates that the amount of additional Lease Purchase
financing required will be no more than $5,500,000, although the
precise figure cannot be determined until construction bids are
received. Under the Virginia Public Procurement Act the County
is required to seek supplemental financing proposals from
interested financial institutions or underwriters and select the
financing proposal which best serves the financial needs of the
County through a competitive selection process.
(Continued)
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO []
Steven Lo Micas
County Attorney
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR
Agenda Item
September 10, 1986
Page 2
In order to obtain the additional financing required to complete
construction of the Court Building, staff recommends that the
Board authorize the County Administrator to 1) solicit
supplemental financing proposals from financial institutions and
underwriters; 2) accept the proposal determined to be the best
proposal according to criteria established in the solicitation;
and 3) issue up to $5,500,000 in supplemental financing to fund
construction of the Courts Building, subject to the Board's
acceptance of terms and conditions set forth in the closing
documentation. This action will allow the County Administrator
to secure up to $5,500,000 in additional funds for the completion
of the Courts Building. The Board will grant final approval of
the financing terms and conditions contained in the closing
documents by subsequent resolution at the time of closing. Staff
anticipates that the closing will occur in early 1987.
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE: September 10~ 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
8oa.
SUBJECT:
Resolution recognizing Clifton Stargardt on attaining
the rank of Eagle Scout.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF iNFORMATION
This resQlution was requested by,~r. Applegate.
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO []
PREPARED BY;
M.D. Stith, Jr.
Executive Assistant to
the County Administrator
SIGNATURE:
"~. OVUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR
4
RECOGNIZING
CLIFTON STARGARDT
EAGLE SCOUT
Whereas, Clifton Stargardt, son of Lt. Col. and Mrs. Kenneth H.
Stargardt of Kendlewick Drive, has attained the rank of Eagle
Scout, which is the highest rank awarded to a young man in the
Boy Scouts of America; and
Whereas, Clif has been a member of Troop 874 sponsored by St.
Lukes United Methodist Church of Chesterfield, Virginia since
September of 1981, and has held several offices in the troop and
has been very active in the advancement of the younger Scouts;
and
Whereas, Clif was the first boy in the troop elected by his
fellow troop members to be a candidate for the Order of The
Arrow, which is a group of honor campers in Scouting; and
Whereas, Clif is a member of the Manchester High School Show
Choir, the National Honor Society and the school sponsored bands,
was selected for Boy's State and has been a member of the
Virginia Association of Competitive Swimmers team for several
years; and
Whereas, growing through his experiences in Scouting, learning
the lessons of responsible citizenship and priding himself on the
great accomplishments of his County, Clif is indeed a member of a
new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be
very proud.
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, the Chesterfield County Board of
Supervisors hereby extends its congratulations to Clifton
Stargardt and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have
such an outstanding young man as one of its citizens.
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER'
SoB.
Resolution recognizing J. RuffinApperson for
outstanding community service
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Resolution will be prepared for distribution
on Monday, September 8, 1986 for Board
review.
ATTACHMENTS
YES []
SIG NAT URE:
PREPARED BY;
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
_/
~ ] P~. ~OSED ITEM 8.B.
RESOLUTION
RECOGNIZING J. RUFFIN APPERSON FOR HIS OUTSTANDING
SERVICE IN THE MATOACA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS,
Mr. J. Ruffin Apperson has for the past two years
served as the first president of the Matoaca
Magisterial District Advisory Council and while serving
in this capacity has been responsible for outstanding
achievements; and
WHEREAS,
Mr. Apperson served as an elected representative from
the Dale District on the Board of Supervisors of
.Chesterfield County from January 1, 1964 through
December 31, 1979; and
WHEREAS,
Mr. Apperson volunteered many additional hours of
service to the citizens of Chesterfield County-as a
representative on various service and planning
organizations such as the Ruritan Club and as historian
for the American Legion; and
WHEREAS,
As a resident of the Matoaca Magisterial District, Mr.
Apperson has continued his service to the people of
Chesterfield as,.president of the Matoaca Magisterial
District Advisory Council; and
WHEREAS,
During his leadership in the Matoaca District the
first concrete plan for a grade separation in
Ettrick was developed and approval of the Southern Area
Land Use Plan as well as numerous other projects
benefitting not only the Matoaca Magisterial District
but the entire County were accomplished.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board
of Supervisors recognizes Mr. Apperson's tremendous
community work and applauds his successful term as
president of the Matoaca Magisterial District Advisory
Council and wishes him success in his continued service
to the citizens of Chesterfield County.
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
10 .A.
Central Planning Area Land Use and Transportation
Plan - Public Hearing.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION;
BACKGROUND
The Board of Supervisors authorized Harland Bartholomew and
Associates to prepare a land use and transportation plan for the
Central Planning Area. After extensive public and Staff review,
the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 27, 1986,
and recommended the Plan for Board adoption.
The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing to consider the
Plan on July 9, 1986. The Board deferred its consideration of
the Plan to September 10, 1986, and directed Staff to evaluate a
number of issues. A listing and discussion of the issues are
contained in the attachment.
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO []
William D. Poole
Director of Planning (Acting)
SIGNATURE:
0 7
Central Planning Area Land Use and Transportation Plan - Public
Hearing
September 10, 1986
Page 2
The recommended Plan provides for infill development in the
Central Area at densities and intensities consistent with exist-
ing development in the area. The Plan also recommends the
reservation of sufficient road rights-of-way to provide for
future road widening. Staff has met with citizens in the Salem
Church Road area to discuss alternatives to the proposed
collector road between Salem Church and Lewis Roads. Agreement
has not been reached on a recommended proposal although a number
of alternatives have been discussed. Neither Staff nor the
community feel that a consensus will be reached soon. There is a
consensus that the Board should adopt the Plan at this point.
Both sides of the collector road issue were presented in July.
Staff has no further comments to add unless the Board has
questions on this matter.
The Plan recommends that an overlay zoning district be estab-
lished for the Route 10 corridor to preserve the functional
capacity of the arterial and encourage high quality future
development. Under the Board's direction, the proposed overlay
district extends from Chester to the Richmond City line. The
Commission placed particular emphasis on its endorsement of the
concept of the overlay district and the creation of special
corridor standards to effect development along Route 10. With
the acute development pressures this corridor is experiencing,
Staff is of the opinion that this area warrants critical atten-
tion and a unique regulatory response. If adopted by the Board,
Staff will prepare standards for development of the corridor and
will recommend revision of appropriate County Ordinances to
accomplish the recommendation.
Staff has continued to review the recommended Plan and has
prepared additional revisions to the Plan to address Board
concerns. The revisions proposed by Staff represent minor
changes to the Plan Map and the Goals and Strategies needed to
implement the Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
I. Board of Supervisors adopt the Central Planning Area Land
Use and Transportation Plan as recommended by the Planning
Commission and revised by Staff.
II. Direct Staff to proceed expeditiously to revise Ordinances
to improve development standards along the Route 10 Corri-
dor.
Attachment: as noted
AG2A161/jab
BOARD OFSUPERVlSORS
R. GARLAND DODD , CHAIRMAN
BERMUDA DISTRICT
HARRY G. DANIEL, VICE CHAIRMAN
DALE DISTRICT
G. H. APPLEGATE
CLQVER HILL DISTRICT
JOAN GIRONE
MIDLOTH lAN DISTRICT
JESSE J. MAYES
MATOACA DISTRICT
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
P.O. BOX 40
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RICHARD L. HEDRICK
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Members, Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
Richard L. Hedrick, County Administrator
William D. Poole, Director of Planning (Acting)~
John R. McCracken, Director of Transportation ~
September 3, 1986
Land Use and Transportation Plan for the Central Plannin~ Area
The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing to consider the Land Use and
Transportation Plan for the Central Plannin~ Area on July 9, 1986. The Board
deferred its consideration of the Plan to September 10, 1986, and directed
Staff to further review a number of issues.
The following revisions to the Planning Commission's recommended Land Use and
Transportation Plan for the Central Plannin~ Area are proposed to address
concerns expressed by the Board of Supervisors, and to address other issues
identified by Staff since the Board's public hearing on the Plan:
1. Issue: Proposed connector road between Salem Church and Lewis Roads.
Response: Staff has prepared a summary of the' issues and options for
achieving efficient collector road service in the Salem
Church/Lewis Road area. Staff is continuing to work with
citizens, but it does not appear that a mutually acceptable
solution exists at this point.
Issue:
Development at major highway interchanges in the Central
Planning Area and the need for detailed planning to address
concerns of access and intensity.
Response: Staff proposes that the following policies and actions be
included in the Plan to address concerns relating to
development at major highway interchanges:
Policy 1'.105: Encourage large scale developments adjacent to
interchanges along Chippenham Parkway and/or Route 288.
REC~E~ C~FI31~L P!A~NING ~ GOALS ~ID POLICIES
Goal 1.1. Createareas of opportunity to focus economic development tn
locations with access to the regional transportation system, av~tl~hility of
labor force, and proximity to the ex/Rting industrial base ~-~ other resourc-
es.
Policy 1.101. Encourage new employment opportunities at planned
locations in the vicinity of the County Airport.
Policy 1.102. Encourage land uses in the vicinity of the County
Airport which are compatible with airport related noise impacts, and
which protect the environs of the Airport from inappropriate future
residential development.
Policy 1.103. Reserve ~existing vacant land in the 1-95/U.S. 301
corridor for industrial, office and commercial uses which contribute to
expansion of the area's economic base.
Policy 1.104. Encourage redevelopment along U.S. 301 to provide for
offices, commercial and business services, incubator facilities and
related uses supporting other economic development in the 1-95/U,S. 301
corridor.
Policy 1.105. Encourage large scale developments adjacent to
interchanges along Chippenham Parkway and/or Route 288.
Goal 2.1. Pro~ote high lualit7 office/industrial devel0~meut as tho
pr/mary generator of economic growth in the are~,
Polic~ 2.101. Concentrate initial efforts on developing an expanded
industrial base in the 1-95/U.S. 301 corridor and the County Airport.
Polic~ 2.102. Design of office development in the 1-95/U.S. 301
corridor shoUld be characterized by low to mid-rise structures, and
integrated with supporting commercial uses with higher intensity uses
located in development nodes at major intersections or in 'coordinated
multi-purpose centers.
Polic~ 2.103. Establish improved development standards for office
and industrial uses that provide design treatments such as additional
setbacks, landscaping, fencing and screening, variations in building
height and massing to enhance the visual order, create transitions, and
project adjacent lower intensity land uses.
Goal 2.1. I=~rove the aesthetic and 'functionm]~ character of develo-~--~t
along the e ' . r---
ar a s ~ajor corridors to create an attractive cOnt~orary environ-
ment suitable for co~ercial~ office n~d business service usc,
Policy 3.101. Encourage the assemblage of property to provide
tracts with adequate road frontage and depth to accommodate higher
intensity development.
1 CPLAN/MY79/jab
!
!
!
I
I
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Policy 3.102. Encourage attractive and efficient grouping of
commerCial uses at appropriate locations and discourage the formation of
commercial strip development.
Policy 3.103. Encourage mixed-use development and planned multi-
purpose centers where compatibility can be maintained.
?olicy 3.104. Establish improved standards of design for landscap-
ing, signage and building treatment in all future development, along U.S.
301 and Route 10.
Goal 4.1. Create a future development pattern which can be achieved in
stages so that initial growth is capable of being phased, into a larger
rive development pattern, coordinatedvith provision of public services.
~olicy 4.101. Plan for provision of full urban services for all of
the Central Area with the exception of the extreme southwestern fringes
which fall Outside the urban service area defined by the County's Plan
for Public Facilities.
Policy 4.102. Develop coordinated, phased improvement plans for
public facilities which will expand their service areas in accordance
with ultimate development defined in the Plan, as opportunities for
economic growth generate additional development.
Policy 4.103. Target priority public improvements, particularly,
transportation facilities and utilities to serve potential areas of
opportunity for economic development in the 1-95/U.S. 301 corridor and in
the vicinity of the County airport.
Policy 4.104. Outside of areas planned for urban development, limit
expansion of public facilities to those improvements required to maintain
non-urban levels of service.
Goal 5.1. Within areas of urban development, delineate residential areas
to provide a variety of livin~ environments which contribute to
identity and provide amenities which maintain lon~-term t,~!it~ of develop-
Policy 5.101.
'residential areas.
Protect the character of existing single-family
Policy 5.102. Encourage variety in housing types in accordance with
a careful and systematic approach to locations and relationship to
surroundings.
?olicy 5.103. Provide for an appropriate transition from residen-
tial areas to commercial or industrial areas by buffering and land use
variations.
.?olicy 5.104. Provide a focus for community identity by enhancing
the character of the existing community of Chester.
2 CPLAN/MY79/jab
Goal 6.1. Reserve floodplain and other areas of seVere development
limitations for ver~. lov-intensity, non-urban use~hich is Compatible~rlth the
l~m~ted land capabilities of these
Polic~ 6.101. Establish procedures for formally designating
environmentally-sensitive areas and defining specific guidelines for
their'use and development.
Polic~ 6.102. Incorporate a mechanism for environmental assessment
into the zoning and development approval process where designated
environmentally-sensitive areas are involved.
Policy 6.103. Preserve the integrity of floodplain areas through
continued participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and
restrictions on development in flood prone areas.
Policy 6.104. Encourage maintenance of "greenways" along streams
through mechanisms such as Conservation easements and cluster develop-
ment.
I
!
!
!
!
I
I
!
I
I
Goal 7.1. Provide an efficient, cost-effective, convenient aha saf~
transportation syste~.
policy 7.101. Implement traffic improvements such as, but not
limited to signalization, turning lanes, vertical and horizontal align-
ment changes to improve sight distance, and pavement markings to increase
overall capacity and the safety of County roadways.
policy 7.102. Improve facilities where lane widths or bridge cross
sections are substandard; railroad crossings are hazardous; and vertical
and'horizontal alignments are substandard.
Policy 7.103. Design an integrated system of arterial and collector
streets.
Polic~ 7.104. Continue to preserve designated rights-of-way widths
in accordance with the Plan.
~olicy 7.105. Continue coordination and consultation with the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation with regard to estab-
lishing priorities and identifying alignments and right-of-way needs for
existing and proposed facilities.
policy 7.106. Density and intensity of development adjacent to
interchanges shall be determined by land use compatibility, impact on
public facilities and efficient and convenient access.
3 CPLAN/MY79/jab
l~COl~]~ STRATEGIES Alfl) ACTIONS FOR ~HE CENT~IAI. AP, FA
Strategy 1: Enhance industrial development opportunities in the
1-95/U.S. 301 corridor and in the vicinity of the County Airport as a basic
generator of growth.
Action i.101. Undertake a detailed corridor study for the entire
1-95/U.S. 301 corridor, extending to the Richmond City line.
Action 1.102. Develop appropriate implementation strategies to
provide a coordinated redevelopment program for the U.S. Route 301
corridor.
Action 1.103. Undertake a vacant land inventory and insure that an
adequate supply of land is zoned for industrial use in the Central Area
in accordance with the Plan.
Action 1.104. Program public improvements within the target areas
so that available industrial land can be fully served by utilities, and
the local road network provides efficient access to I~95 and Route 288.
Action 1.105. Rezone properties between Courthouse Road and the
planned alignment for Route 288 for Light Industrial uses with Condition-
al Use Planned Development in accordance with the Plan.
Strategy 2: Provtdm for upgrading and redevelopment of obsolescent uses
alon~ U.S. 301 and Route 360.
Action 2.101. Consider adopting special zoning provisions, applica-
ble to older arterial commercial areas as an overlay district or supple-
mental regulations, providing for: greater intensity of use or mixed use
development when properties are assembled to provide a minimum are of
five acres with at least 500 feet of frontage; flexibility in yard and
setback requirements for irregular parcels; and application of specially
designed site development standards.
Action 2.102. Consider designation of specific redevelopment areas
within the corridor as part of the County's Community Development Small
Cities Program to provide financial and technical assistance for private
redevelopment which would create new businesses and jobs in accordance
with the Plan.
Action 2.103. Develop special sign district standards which would
insure that new development would enhance the area~s identity.
Action 2.104. Cooperate with VDH&T to upgrade the standard of
roadway improvement on-U.S. 301 and Route 360 in conjunction with other
redevelopment efforts.
4 SPLAN/M483/jab
Strategy 3: Strengthen the Zoning and Site Plan process to encourage
coordinated high-quality nonresidential development.
Action 3.101. Develop a Design Standards Handbook that provides
detailed supplemental guidelines for site development including specific
elements for traffic and parking, landscaping, drainage, building cover-
age and orientation, and other major elements. These standards should be
developed in a series addressing the particular requirements of various
types of development ranging from low-intensity office and neighborhood
commercial centers, to multi-story office complexes and industrial parks.
Action 3.102. Develop prototypical case studies 'of application of
site design standards to assist in designated redevelopment areas.
Action 3.103. Consider the develOpment of a land use compatibility
matrix to assist in the site plan review process in determining the need
for and extent of buffering between adjacent uses.
Action 3.104. Revise the existing zoning classifications for
Office, Commercial and Industrial uses to provide greater flexibility and
enhance the overall quality of such development.
Action 3.105. Develop Special Corridor Standards for the Route 10
corridor and consider their application through an Overlay Zoning
District.
Action 3.106. Overlay Zoning District Development Standards shall
apply to all major interchanges along Route 288 and/or Chippenham
Parkway.
Action 3.107. An access plan and traffic impact analysis shall be
prepared and approved for all projects in proximity to interchanges along
Route 288 and/or Chippenham Parkway.
Action 3.108. Amend the County Zoning Ordinance to create mixed use
zoning districts such as mixed commercial/office activity and mixed
commercial/industrial developments.
Action 3.109. Assess alternatives for removal of overhead utility
lines in the Route 10 Corridor.
Strategy 4: Pursue mechanisms to encourage a higher standard of develop-
ment in urban residential areas.
Action 4.101. Encourage the use of planned developments by stream-
lining the review process for smaller tracts of land (under 100 acres).
Action 4.102. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate a system of
density bonuses based upon established performance criteria.
Action 4.103. Provide and encourage the use of cluster development
with specific zoning and subdivision provisions to permit a reduction in
lot sizes when accompanied by preservation of natural features or open
5 SPLAN/M483/j ab
space.~ The preservation of natural areas would be accomplished through
dedication ~of public land or permanent conservation' easements to be
incorporated into a County-wide "greenway" system.
Action 4.104. Establish other procedures to permit variations from
subdivision design and improvement standards which would preserve natural
features and.landforms in residential areas.
Action 4.105. Require additional setbacks for all lots abutting a
major road to insure that adequate setbacks will be maintained in the
event future road widening is required.
Strategy 5: Preserve the character and integrity of existing single
fm~l~ residential areas.
Action 5.101. Create two agricultural zoning classifications to
replace the existing Agricultural Zoning regulations. Amend the Zoning
Ordinance to require minimum lot-size standards in the "agricultural
district," and to create an "agricultural-residential district."
Action 5.102. Consider reclassifying all agriculturally zoned
property in the Central area to the "agricultural-residential" classifi-
cation or to a residential designation.
Action 5.103. Review undeveloped residentially zoned parcels in the
Central area to determine appropriate zoning classification and consider
a comprehensive rezoning.
Strategy 6: PreServe the identit~ of the eo~nity of Chester and the
Chesterfield Courthouse area and encourage their lon~-termvitalft~.
Action 6.101. Prepare a detailed Community Plan for Chester as a
basis for guiding future development and prioritizing needed improve-
ments.
Action 6.102. In concert with the Plan, prepare specific design
guidelines to address storefronts, sidewalks, landscaping and signage to
maintain and enhance the sense of community in Chester.
Action 6.103. Develop a detailed subarea plan for the Chesterfield
Courthouse area to reflect the location of new County facilities within
the Courthouse Complex and their relationship to the larger Courthouse
area.
Action 6,104. Consider the development of a Historic Overlay
District or other mechanism for the Courthouse area to provide local
protection of important historic and cultural resources.
6 SPLAN/M483/Jab
Strategy 7: Estab!~sh procedure8 for defining and resulattn~ develolment
standards for environmentally-sensitive areas.
Action 7.101. Adopt provisions by which development in significant
environmentally-sensitive areas can be regulated through the designation
of overlay zoning districts. These provisions should require that: the
basis for designation of a specific areas be defined through environmen-
tal studies; the criteria for environmental significance be specified;
and that development regulations address the specific environmental
criteria. Thus, under such procedures an undeveloped stream corridor
with steep wooded bands could be designated as a sensitive area based
upon its value as a significant ecological communitY which would be
severely impacted by disturbing the vegetation along the stream banks.
In this case, standards for limiting removal of vegetation and retaining
the natural slope in future development might be adopted.
Action 7.102. Consider the preparation of an environmental easement
for all future developments within designated environmentally-sensitive
areas to determine impacts of development and mitigating measures.
Exceptions could be provided for construction of individual residences
which do not exceed specified thresholds of impact.
Strategy 8: IncreaSe roadway and intersection capacity and safety.
Action 8.101. Monitor major intersections and frequent accident
locations to determine signalization warrants and other safety improve-
ments.
Action 8.102. Identify existing roadways warranting pavement
marking.
Action 8.103. Request the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation to prepare preliminary engineering studies for Route 10
between Chippenham Parkway and Route 288.
Action 8.104. Develop driveway location and design standards and
compile into a County Design Standards Handbook.
Action 8.105. Encourage State legislation to change highway appro-
priations formulas and continue to lobby for funding for additional road
improvements.
Action 8.106. Initiate collector road studies in subareas, as
development proposals are submitted and as Staff time permits.
Action 8.107. Request Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation study .the possible eastward extensiofl of Route 288 to Inter-
state 295 and design a full access interchange at Interstate 95 and Route
288.
7 SPLAN/M483/jab
Strategy 9: Preserve rights-of-way as identified by the Plan,
Action 9.101. Review setback requirements for new development on
the basis of ultimate right-of-way to insure compatibility.
Action 9.102. Implement a program to provide engineering consultant
services to the Transportation Department to enhance their ability to
analyze rights-of-way needs relative to specific development proposals.
Action 9.103. Strengthen requirements on all development proposals
to insure adequate right-of-way is obtained for future road needs.
Action 9.104. Consider program development for the advance adqui-
sition of rights-of-way through the County's Capital Improvements
Program.
8 SPLAN/M483/j ab
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
10 .B.
MEETING DATE' September 10, 1986 ITEM NUMBER;
SUBJECT: Statement of Support for the Governor's Transportation Proposals
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OFINFORMATION'
The Board is requested to approve the attached statement and
resolution expressing support for the Governor's transportation
proposals.
BACKGROUND:
The Senate and House Finance Committee will hold a joint public
hearing on the Governor's road tax proposals on September 11,
1986 at 9:30 a.m. in House Room D at the General Assembly. The
Governor's Commission on Transportation has recently concluded
its study of Virginia's transportation needs. The major findings
and recommendations of this Commission are as follows:
The Commonwealth has more than $10 billion in present day
highway construction needs and will face an additional $10
billion in needs within a twenty year planning perspective.
Virginia's ports, airports, rail, and mass transit systems
will have needs of more than a $1 billion during the coming
decade.
(Continued on Page Two)
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO []
R. ~. 'HcCracken
Director
Transportation Department
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I N! STRATOR
Board Agenda Item
Statement of Support for the
Governor's Transportation Proposals
September 10, 1986
Page Two
· Meeting current highway construction needs and the needs of
mass transit, seaports, and airports will require
approximately $6-7 billion from State sources during the
coming decade.
· A test case should be brought before the Virginia Supreme
Court in order to clarify the use of 9D pledge bonds for
transportation purposes.
· Constitutional and statutory changes necessary to give
localities the flexibility to raise revenue and otherwise
participate in meeting local transportation needs should be
enacted.
· The construction allocation formula adopted by 1985 General
Assembly should be used to distribute funds to meet the
Commonwealth's road system needs.
· All new revenues generated for construction as a result of
any legislation passed in the 1986 Special Session, as well
as revenues left over in the current Highway Maintenance and
Construction Fund after maintenance needs have been
addressed, and interest on trust fund balances should flow
into a new "transportation trust fund".
· The existing Highway and Transportation Board should be
reconfigured and expanded into a Virginia Transportation
Board in order to maximize and coordinate the investment and
management of new revenues.
· Eighty-five percent of all new revenues should be earmarked
for meeting critical highway needs. The remaining 15%
should be earmarked for ports, airports, and mass transit
needs.
In the Board's previous statement to the Commission on
Transportation, concern was expressed about the County's growing
list of transportation needs and the inadequacy of current
funding levels to address those needs. The need for an adequate,
stable source of funding for transportation needs was also
identified. A list of the Board's priorities for transportation
improvements was submitted to the Commission for their
consideration. The critical needs list prepared by the
Commission has identified many of these priorities. Staff is of
the opinion that the Commission has taken a very conservative
approach on identifying current needs and that additional
Board Agenda Item
Statement of Support for the
Governor's Transportation Proposals
September 10, 1986
Page Three
improvements above those identified will be needed within a ten
year time frame.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution
expressing support for the Governor's transportation proposals
and that the Chairman of the Board present the resolution and
attached statement at the Senate and House Finance Committee
public hearing.
I AM, GARLAND ]3ODD, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR
BEFORE YOU TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD TO EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT
FOR THE GOVERNOR'S TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM,
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING COUNTIES
IN THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE NATION, OUR HIGHWAYS CONTINUE TO
GROW MORE AND MORE CONGESTED EACH DAY, IN SPITE OF THE INCREASE~'-
DEMAND BEING PLACED ON OUR HIGHWAY NETWORK, WE ARE FACED WITH
PROJECTIONS FOR A DECLINING CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, RECOGNIZING
THIS TREND, OUR CITIZENS OVERW~HELMINGLY APPROVED TWO BOND
REFERENDUMS TOTALLING $52 MILLION~i FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
~ SEi
POWHITE PARKWAY EXTENSION AND ~TION OF ROUTE 288, EVEN WITH
THESE TWO NEW FACILITIES, WE HA~'~Y OTHER CRITICAL NEEDS WHICH
MUST BE ADDRESSED WITHIN A REASON TIME FRAME IF WE ARE TO
CONTINUE TO ENdOY OUR QUALITY OF ~IFE AND ECONOMIC GROWTH, WE
CAN NO LONGER ACCEPT HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT SIX YEAR PLANS WHERE
EACH
YEAR WE WAIT TO SEE HOW MANY MORE PROdECTS HAVE DROPPED FROM THE
PLAN BECAUSE OF A LACK OF FUNDS, THE TIME HAS COME FOR ACTION,
THE FACTS ARE CLEAR, IF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FAILS TO PROVIDE AN
ADEQUATE, STABLE SOURCE OF REVENUE, THERE WILL BE NO HIGHWAY
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND IN TURN OUR ECONOMIC GROWTH WILL HALT
AND OUR QUALITY OF LIFE WILL SUFFER, VIRGINIA MUST DEAL WITH ITS
TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS TODAY NOT ONLY FOR OUR OWN WELL BEING BUT
FOR OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FULLY
SUPPORTS THE GOVERNOR'S AND COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION'S
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDRESSING VIRGINIA'S TRANSPORTATION NEEDS,
I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD OUR RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT,
I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS,
-2-
of Supervisors held at the
Courthouse on September 10,
1986 at 7:00 p.m.
WHEREAS, a comprehensive transportation network is essential
to the economic growth and prosperity of Chesterfield County and
the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
WHEREAS, congested highways, inadequate ports and airports
threaten this economic growth and the quality of life now enjoyed
by our citizens, and
WHEREAS, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia has
established a Commission to analyze and confirm Virginia's
critical transportation needs and to develop alternatives for
planning and financing a comprehensive transportation system that
will address Virginia's needs through the next decade, and
WHEREAS, this Commission has determined that the
Commonwealth has more than $~ billion in present day~.h~ghway
construction needs, and ~ / ~I
WHEREAS, within a twenty ~ar planning perspective the
Commonwealth will face an addi~onal $10 billion in highway
construction needs, and A1 \
WHEREAS, the Commission has ~e6~rmined that the commonwealth
will have more than $1 billion i.~ needs for ports, airports, and
mass transit within the coming d cade, and
WHEREAS, the Commission ha: identified present day critical
needs within Chesterfield Count' and which must be addressed in
order to provide an adequate tr~lsportation system, and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Chesterfield County support
improvements to the transportation network and have
overwhelmingly approved $52 million in local funds for the
improvement of the highway system in Chesterfield County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County applauds and supports Governor
Baliles ~ for ~ leadership in addressing Virginia's
transpor~ation needs ~,~
Vote:
Certified By:
Joan S. Dolezal, Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors
COUNTY OF
CHEST£RFIELD
VIRGINIA
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DAT]i:
The Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors
Richard L. Hedrick, County Administratof~~
September 9, 1986
Revised Agenda Item 9 10.B., Statement on Governor's
Transportation Proposals
Enclosed for your review is revised agenda item ~ 10.B.
consideration at the Board meeting tomorrow.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
RLH/tp
Attachment
for
REVISED 9/8/86
.,,I, GARLAND DODD, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR
BEFORE YOU TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD TO EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT
FOR THE GOVERNOR'S TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM.
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING COUNTIES
IN THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE NATION. OUR HIGHWAYS CONTINUE TO
GROW MORE AND MORE CONGESTED EACH DAY, IN SPITE OF THE INCREASED
DEMAND BEING PLACED ON OUR HIGHWAY NETWORK, WE AREFACED WITH
PROJECTIONS FOR ADECLINING CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM. RECOGNIZING
THIS TREND, OUR CITIZENS OVERWHELMINGLY' APPROVED TWO BOND
REFERENDUMS TOTALLING $52 MILLION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
POWHITE PARKWAY EXTENSION AND A SECTION OF ROUTE 288,
THE CRITICAL NEEDS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION HAS
IDENTIFIED THE NEED FOR A GRADE SEPARATION. ON CHESTERFIELD
AVENUE, WIDENING OF MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE, IRONBRIDGE ROAD, WEST
HUNDRED ROAD, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 288 AND ROUTE 895.
MANY OTHER CRITICAL NEEDS WERE ALSO IDENTIFIED, TOTALLING
APPROXIMATELY $500 MILLION DOLLARS, THESE NEEDS MUST BE
ADDRESSED IF WE ARE-TO CONTINUE TO ENJOY OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND
ECONOMIC GROWTH. WE CAN NO LONGER ACCEPT HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT SIX
YEAR PLANS WHERE EACH YEAR WE WAIT TO SEE HOW MANY MORE PROJECTS
HAVE DROPPED FROM THE pLAN BECAUSE OF A LACK OF FUNDS. THE TIME
HAS COME FOR ACTION, THE FACTS ARE CLEAR. IF THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY FAILS TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE, STABLE SOURCE OF REVENUE,
THERE WILL BE NO HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND IN TURN OUR
MIC GROWTH WILL END AND OUR QUALITY OF LIFE WILL SUFFER,
VIRGINIA MUST DEAL WITH ITS TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS TODAY NOT
ONLY FOR OUR OWN WELL BEING BUT FOR OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS,
PROVIDING SUFFICIENT REVENUE FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION IS AN
ESSENTIAL FIRST STEP IN ADDRESSING OUR HIGHWAY NEEDS, HOWEVER,
FOR THE BOARD TO FULLY SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSALS, PROGRESS
MUST BE MADE ON ACCELERATING ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION ONCE FUNDING IS
PROVIDED, TAKING 6 OR 7 YEARS TO DEVELOP A PROJECT FROM DESIGN
TO CONSTRUCTION IS UNACCEPTABLE, THE PROJECTS ADDRESSING OUR
CRITICAL NEEDS SHOULD BE COMPLETED BY 1990, MANY OF THE HIGHWAY
DEPARTMENT'S POLICIES WHICH SERVED US WELL IN THE PAST ARE NO
LONGER APPROPRIATE, ESPECIALLY WHEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS
CONSIDERED, THE DEPARTMENT MUST ACQUIRE CORRIDORS FOR HIGHWAYS
IN ADVANCE OF NEED AND CONSTRUCT PROJECTS WHICH ENCOURAGE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THE OLD POLICY OF REACTING TO RATHER THAN
ANTICIPATING NEEDS MUST NOT GUIDE OUR FUTURE, WE ARE ENCOURAGED
BY THE GOVERNOR'S INITIAL STEPS IN THIS DIRECTION AND WOULD
SUPPORT THE FORMATION OF A TASK FORCE OF THE FEDERAL, STATE,
LOCAL, AND PRIVATE SECTORS TO CONTINUE THESE EFFORTS,
FINALLY, PARTICIPATION BY LOCALITIES IN ADDRESSING TRANSPORTATION
NEEDS SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED, CHESTERFIELD AND OTHER COUNTIES HAVE,
MADE SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION, WITHOUT
STATE RECOGNITION OF THIS SUPPORT, WE HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO
'-2-
C~N~'~NUE, WE URGE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO DEVELOP A MATCHING
PROGRAM FOR LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS,
I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD OUR RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT,
I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS,
-3-
REVISED 9/8/86
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: At the
regular meeting of the Board
of Supervisors held at the
Courthouse on September 10,
1986 at 7:00 p.m.
WHEREAS, a comprehensive transportation network is essential
to the economic growth and prosperity of Chesterfield County and
the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
WHEREAS, congested highways, inadequate ports and airports
threaten this economic growth and the quality of life now enjoyed
by our citizens, and
WHEREAS, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia has
established a Commission to analyze and confirm Virginia's
critical transportation needs and to develop alternatives for
planning and financing a comprehensive transportation system that
will address Virginia's needs through the next decade, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has identified present day critical
needs within Chesterfield County including a grade separation for
Chesterfield Avenue, widening of Midlothian Turnpike from
Providence Road to Huguenot Road, widening of Ironbridge Road
from Chippenham Parkway to the Chesterfield Courthouse, widening
of West Hundred Road through Chester, widening of Hull Street
Road from Turner Road to Courthouse Road, construction of Route
288 and Route 895, as well as. the Chippenham Parkway/Jahnke Road
interchange, and ~I~'~ I~ ~1~i~11~
WHEREAS, the construction of these projects must be
completed by 1990, and
WHEREAS, new initiatives must continue to be developed for
acceleration of VDH&T's construction of the projects, and
WHEREAS, new policies must be developed by VDH&T to promote
and encourage economic development within the Commonwealth, and
WHEREAS, local contributions to highway construction must be
recognized by the Commonwealth and a matching fund provided, and
WHEREAS, better access and expansion of Richmond
International Airport are essential to the ~conomic growth of the
Richmond Region, and ~ ~ ~, ~ ~.~~
WHEREAS, the need for construction of sight and sound
barriers on projects within urbanized areas has been expressed by
citizens within the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County supports Governor Baliles in
his efforts to provide an adequate, stable source of revenue for
the Commonwealth's transportation needs.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, tkat the Board encourages the
Governor to continue his effort to accelerate the construction of
these critically needed projects.
Vote:
Certified By:
Joan S. Dolezal, Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
APPOINTMENTS
COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD
ITEM NUMBER'
10.C.1.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
At the meeting on August 27, 1986 the Board nominated J.
Norbert Federspiel to the Community Services Board representing
Clover Hill District. Formal appointment should be made at this
time. Term is effective immediately and will expire December,
1988.
PREPARED BY;
ATTACHMENTS: YES 0
SIGNATURE
COUNTY ADM I N! STRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE : September 10, 1986
SUBJECT:
NOMINATIONS FOR THE YOUTH
ITEM NUMBER:
10.C.2.
SERVICES COMMISSION
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The Board of Supervisors is requested.to nominate members to the
Youth Services Commission. There are vacancies in the following
Districts:
Dale
1 adult member
Clover Hill
1 adult member
3 year term to expire June 30, 1989
3 year term to expire June 30, 1989
ATTACHMENTS: YES I-1 NO ~
PREPARED BY;,,.
M. D. Stith, Jr.
Executive Assistant to
the County Administrator
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR
01o. I
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER;
CAMP BAKER MANAGEMENT BOARD
10.C.3.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
At the August 27, 1986 meeting, Ms. Peggy Baugh was nominated to
serve on the Camp Baker Management Board representing the Clover
Hill District.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
It is requested that the Board appoint Ms. Peggy Baugh to serve
on the Camp Baker Management Board for a two year term to become
effective immediately.
ATTACHMENTS: YES r-I NO I~
Executi~ve Assistant
'to the County
Administrator
SIGNATURE: ,,
COUNTY ADMI N! STRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE' September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER; ll.B.
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing to consider Adoption of an Ordinance to
Ban Leaf Burning in certain areas of the County
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Recommendation: That the Board consider an ordinance to ban leaf
burning in the more populous areas of the County, and provide County
leaf collection in these areas on a scheduled basis. This proposed
ordinance has been advertised to advise the public of the scheduled
hearing. The "no burning" area is proposed for health and public
safety reasons. Staff will advise the public through the printed
media of all changes and collection times.
Background: Leaf burning is currently permitted in the County between
November 1 and December 1, and between March 16 and April 15, except
that no burning is allowed from 12:00 noon on Friday until 8:00 A.M.
on Monday. During each leaf burning season there is considerable
public concern over the adverse health and aesthetic impacts of smoke.
Many citizens have expressed an interest in banning this practice
altogether.
The Board approved $165,000 for leaf collection in the FY 1987 budget.
These funds will be used to acquire an additional collection truck
as well as hire part-time workers to supplement regular crews during
the leaf collection season.
X ~ilfiam H. ¢~o~eA
Director of General Services
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO []
SIGNATURE: ~
COUNTY ADMINI STRATOR
Page 2
September 10, 1986
Staff Comment: Staff. has proposed an area of the County which would
be designated a "no burning" zone. This area encompasses the most
populous areas of the County. Burning would be prohibited within
this area at all times. The no burning area will be divided into
five collection zones. Collections would be made in each zone five
times during the period November 3 to April 24. There would be a
four week interval between collections in each zone. Staff proposes
to place extra trucks and crews in service during the peak leaf season,
however; it is still possible that backlogs may occur.
014
Z
133
0
Z
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE
OF T~IE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED,
BY AMENDING SECTION 10-24, ARTICLE IV,
RELATING TO BURNING OF LEAVES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
Sec. 1~)-24. Article IV. That §10-24 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as follows:
Article IV. Burning of Leaves
Section 10-22. When prohibited. (No Change)
It shall be unlawful for any person to burn leaves in the open
during the period beginning April 16 and ending October 31 of any
year, and during the period beginning December 2 and ending March
15 of any year. (4-25-84).
Section 10-23. When Permitted). (No Change)
(a) It shall be lawful for pesons to burn leaves on property
where they reside during the period beginning March 16 and ending
April 15 of any year, provided, that during this period, it shall be
unlawful to burn leaves from 12:00 noon on Friday until 8:00 a.m. on
Monday. It is further provided that during this period, it shall be
unlawful if burning occurs within three hundred feet of any woodland
or brushland, unIess it takes place between the hours of 4:00 p.m.
and 12:00 midnight (1-27-82; 3-9-83; 4-25-84).
Sec. 10-24. Prohibited when pick-up service available.
(a) Within the bounds of any area designated by the board of
supervisors and duly proclaimed by the board as an area in which a
county leaf pickup service shall be provided by the board [on-~-~nee
a-~k-4~is~ during the periods when leaf burning under section
10-23 above would be otherwise permitted, it shall be unlawful to
burn leaves at any time.
(b) In the event the board of supervisors shall choose to make
the pickup service mentioned in paragraph (a) above available in a
designated area, it shall do so by describing such area by
~] reference to commonly recognized roads, subdivisions and
landmarks in a notice published once a week for two (2)'successive
weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in said area and by
posting such notice in at least five (5) public places within the area
so designated.
Sec. 10-25. Penalites. (No Change)
Any person violating any provision of this article shall, upon
conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be liable to a fine of
not more than five hundred dollars for each violation.
gmw534:85G19
RIC~IM {}N l} NE~
Pabl~sher
THE RICHMOND NEWS LEADER
Th~ ~' to certify that the a~tacne
was ~ub~shed ~n ;Fhe R~chnmnd News Leader, a newspaper
l~shed ~n ~he C~ty of R~chmond, $ta~e of V~rg~nia.
,ertion being yen
y Public
State ef V~rgin~a, City of Rich mond:
0
rt'
0
r~
~ C~CKS PAYA~ TO
'102586
E PR~RESS INDEX
15 Franklii _~eet P.O, Box 71
Phe~e - 732.~56
NOW DUE. IF NOT PAID W~THI~ 14
DAYS A~OU~T D~E W~LL 8~
Chesten~ield, County
TAKE NOTI
field VA
PAY
.... 08--~-TAKE NOTICE" That the Bo~pd of SuPepvisops of Chestepfi
eld CountY~ Vip~ini~ ~t ~ ne~ul~p meetin~ on Se~tembep 10~ 1~
86 ~t 7:00 ~.m. in the County Bo~pd Roo~ at Chestep~ield Coupth
ous~ Chestepfield~ Vip~ini~ ~ill hold mublic he~pin~s to con
September 9, 1986
To the Board o£ Supervisors:
We would like to take this opportunity to voice our feelings
about the lea£ burning in Chester£ield County.
I am presently under the care o£ a physician £or allergies.
My £irst severe attack o£ asthma occurred after moving to the
county twenty years ago. Tests show I am particularly a££ected by
smoke o£ any kind. Since I have a 7 year old child to care for,
remaining indoors throughout the entire leaf burning season is
totally un£easible. I cannot nor' should I have to £ind a ride with
someone else for my child when she wishes to play soccer, 3oin an art
class, ballet class, or scouts in order to preserve my health. Normally,
I am able to function like anyone else, but when I have trouble
breathing, I tire quickly, become irritable, and am no longer able
to give my best to my family, £riends, and work.
Recently, my husband also developed asthma brought on by an
extended respiratory in£ection. He, too, ia under a physician's care.
He must drive home £rom work through the smoke £illed areas o£ the
County £or 20 minutes before reaching home. Then he has to use an
inhaler prescribed by his physician in order to open the constricted
bronchi, asthma feels like a 300 pound person sitting on your chest.
Our neighbors have 3 children all su££ering £rom allergies. Do
we not have an obligation to all youngsters to provide them with the
same fresh air most of us en3oyed as children? We may have been
exposed to leaf burning, but it was never so thick that it hung in
one large cloud-formation over our heads as it does now in the
northern section of our County. We request that the Board ban
burning of leaves in the highly populated areas of Chesterfield
County.
Thank you £or your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Mrs. W._ ~. Banks
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
September 9th, 1986
We, the undersigned residents of Smoketree Subdivision, support the
"NO THROUG~ TRUCK TRAFFIC" issue in Smoketree Subdivision, whether the
trucks come down Smoketree Drive or come through Stonehe~ge. We feel
trucks coming through Smoketree poses a great threat of danger to our
=hildren. As has been said before, these t~acks must pass two (2) schools,
~he children's playgrou.nd and the Recreation Center. Besides children
~nd grown-ups on bicycles, many of our reside_~ts are joggers and walkers
~asily clipped by speeding trucks.
Some of us have personally seen these big dump tr~¢ks r~n stop signs
:hey rarely, if ever, keep to our 25 m.p.h, speed limit.
If Lucks Lane is too dangerous for trucks, let them use Route 60,
~oute 360, Coalfield Road and Courthouse Road. What about the d~u~ger to
~ur children and ourselves? Arcnet we more important?
If they zoom tt~rough here because they are paid for the truckload,
~hat price wall we pay if even one of our children are maimed, or worse,
illed? I certa/nly hope you are not willing to find out.
Please ban all trucks from going through Smoketree.
September 9th, 1986
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCEPt:
We, the undersigned residents of Smoketree Subdivision, support the
"NO THROUGH TRUCK TRA3FIC" issue in Smoketree Subdivision, whether the
trucks come down Smoketree Drive or come through Stonehenge. We feel
trucks coming through Smoketree poses a great threat of danger to our
children. As has been said before, these trucks must pass two (2) schools,
the children's playground and the Recreation Center. Besides children
and grown-ups on bicycles, many of our residents are joggers and walkers
easily clipped by speeding trucks.
Some of us have personally seen these big dump trucks run stop signs and
they rarely, if ever, keep to our 25 m.p.h, speed limit.
If Lucks Lane is too dangerous for trucks, let them use Route 60,
Route 360, Coalfield Road and Courthouse Road. What about the danger to
our children and ourselves? Aren't we more important?
If they zoom through here because they are paid for the truckload,
what price will we pay if even 9ne of our children are maimed, or worse,
killed? I certainly hope you are not willing to find out.
Please ban all trucks from going t~hrough Smoketree.
:vol
Sept. 9th, 1986
TO WHO~4 IT M~AY CONCERN:
We, the undersigned support the "NO THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC" issue
in Smoketree Subdivision, whether the trucks come down Smoketree Drive
or come through Stonehenge. We feel trucks coming through Smoketree
poses a great threat of danger to our children. As has been said before,
these trucks must pass two (2) schools, the children's playground and
the Recreation Center. Besides children and grown-ups on bicycles,
many of our residents are joggers and walkers easily clipped by
speeding trucks.
Some of us have personally seen these big dump trucks run
stop nd rarely, if ever, keep to our 25 M.P.H. speed limit.
If Lucks~ Lane is too dangerous for trucks, let them use Route 60,
Route 360, Coalfield Road and Courthouse Road. What about the danger
to our children and ourselves? Aren't we more important?
If they zoom through here because they are paid for the truckload,
what price will we! pay if even .one of our children are maimed, or worse,
killed? I certainly hope you are not willing to find out.
Please ban all trucks from going through Smoketree.
'~hank you for your time. ~~~~~. C/<~~
September 9th,~ 1986
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:.
We, the undersigned, residents of Smoketree Subdivision, support the
"NO THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC" issue in Smoketree Subdivision, whether the
trucks come down Smoketree Drive or come through Stonehenge. We feel
trucks coming through Smoketree poses a great threat of danger to our
children. As has been said before, these trucks must pass two (2) schools,
the children's playground and the Recreation'Center. Besides children
and grown-ups on bicycles, many of our residents are joggers and walkers
easily clipped by speeding trucks.
Some of us have personally Seen these big dump trucks run stop signs ~and
they rarely, if ever, k~ep to our 25 m.p.h, speed limit.
If Lucks Lane is too dangerous for trucks, let them use Route 60,
Route 360, Coalfield Road and Courthouse Road. What about the danger to
our children and ourselves? Aren't we more important?
If they zoom through'here because they are paid for the truckload,
what price will we pay if even one of our children are maimed, or worse,
killed? I c~rtainly hope you are not willing to find out.
Please ban all trucks from going through Smoketree.
Thank you for your time.
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE; September 10, 1986 ITEM NUMBER: ll.C.
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to Chapter 20
of the County Code.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Staff requests the Board amend Section 20-1.31 of the water
ordinance to permit a reduction in the connection fee for
existing residences when the Board approves an extension funded
by the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program,
administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The County has received a Community Development Block Grant
from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development
to install water lines to serve the existing residents in Rayon
Park. As part of the conditions for receiving the grant, the
County may not charge the residents a connection fee, although
there will be county costs involved in setting the meter.
Planning Staff has advised that funds are available to pay a
connection fee of $100 on this project.
Staff recommends the Board amend Section 20-1.31 to allow
the standard $1000 water connection fee to be reduced by up to 90
percent on projects funded through the Federal Community
Development Block Grant Program. Revised Section 20-1.31 is
attached. ~_~~
Recommend Approval PREPARED BY;.
ATTACHMENTS: YES 131 NO I-II
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
20-1.31
(a)
Extensions to serve developed areas.
Ail extensions of water lines to serve developed areas
shall be paid for by those persons desiring such
extension, unless (1) such extension project has been
formally added as a part of the utility capital
improvement program by the Board of Supervisors or (2)
the Board of Supervisors approves an extension after
70% of the homeowners in an existing subdivision sign
contracts to connect to the extended water lines
serving their subdivision. Prior to approval of any
such project, the health department must certify that a
significant portion of the homes have failing well
systems and that it is economically impractical to
repair existing well systems.
(b)
(c) ~
When the Board of Supervisors approves an extension
funded through the Federal Community Development Block
Grant Pro~ram, administered by the Commonwealth of
Virginia, connection fees may be reduced by up to 90%.
If the total project cost of an extension to a
developed area is fully paid for by the consumers
served by such extension, each connection fee for such
participating consumers who hook up to the county water
system within 30 days of availability shall be reduced
by up to 90%, provided that the cumulative reduction in
connection fees shall not exceed the construction costs
of the extension. If the cumulative reduction in
connection fees exceeds the construction cost of the
extension, the amount of each connection fee reduction
available to each participating consumer shall be
reduced by an equal amount until the cumulative
reduction in connection fees is equal to or less than
the construction costs of the extension.
(d) ~e~ In those limited circumstances where the extension of a
water line using county funds will promote the economic
development of the county and where it is not practical
for the properties to be served to fund all or a
portion of such extension costs, the county may agree
to fund such extensions upon terms and conditions
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
L.
MEETING DATE : September 4, 1986
ITEM NUMBER;, 11. D.
SUB4ECT:
Through truck traffic restrictions on Smoketree Drive
and Lucks Lane
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The Board is requested to adopt a resolution requesting the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to restrict
through truck traffic on Smoketree Drive and Lucks Lane.
BACKGROUND:
On December 12, 1984, the Board adopted a resolution requesting
VDH&T to restrict through truck traffic on Smoketree Drive from
Courthouse Road to Durrington Drive. Lucks Lane was identified
as an alternate route. VDH&T subsequently advised the County
that they would recommend denial of the restriction. VDH&T's
study revealed that only 13 of 88 trucks observed on Smoketree
Drive made through trips. Of the 8 reported accidents on
Smoketree from January, 1982 through February, 1985, none
involved trucks. Also, Lucks Lane was not considered an
acceptable alternate route because of its narrow pavement width,
lack of shoulders, and poor vertical and horizontal alignment.
Ten accidents were reported on Lucks Lane, one involved a truck.
Courthouse Road had 18 reported accidents, 3 involved trucks.
(Continued on Page Two)
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO []
PREPARED BY:_
R~. J. McCracken
Director
Transportation Department
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI N! STRATOR
Board Agenda Item
Through Truck Traffic Restrictions on
Smoketree Drive and Lucks Lane
September 10, 1986
Page Two
On January 8, 1986, the Board adopted another resolution
requesting VDH&T to proceed with the restriction on Smoketree.
VDH&T conducted a public hearing on April 8, 1986 and has now
advised staff that they will not recommend the restriction if
Lucks Lane is the recommended alternate route. VDH&T has
indicated, however, that there is a "good possibility" that a
restriction on both Smoketree Drive and Lucks Lane would be
supported.
On August 11, 1986, the Board set this date for the public
hearing to consider restriction of through truck traffic on
Smoketree Drive and Lucks Lane. If the Board wishes to proceed
with these truck traffic restrictions, the attached resolution
should be adopted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution
requesting VDH&T to restrict through truck traffic on Smoketree
Drive and Lucks Lane.
DISTRICT: Clover Hill and Midlothian
021
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: At the
regular meeting of the Board
of Supervisors held at the
Courthouse on September 10,
1986 at 7:00 p.m.
WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has
received requests from citizens to restrict through truck traffic
on Smoketree Drive (Route 2770) between Courthouse Road (Route
653) and Durrington Drive (Route 2566) and on Lucks Lane (Route
720) between Courthouse Road (Route 653) and Coalfield Road
(Route 754) by any truck or truck and trailer or semi-trailer
combination except pickup or panel trucks; and
WHEREAS, the Board has conducted a public hearing on the
question.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation to restrict through truck traffic on Smoketree
Drive between Courthouse Road and Durrington Drive and on Lucks
Lane between Courthouse Road and Coalfield Road.
Vote:
Certified By:
Joan S. Dolezal, Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors
~OT
MIOLOTHIAN
MIDILOTHIAN
QUEENSMILL
CREEKI
I
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG ENDA
MEETING DATE
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: ll.E.
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing to Consider the Sale of the Old
Utilities Department Storage Yard at 5025 Walmsley
Boulevard in the City of Richmond.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff requests the Board to authorize the sale of 5.55 acres
with improvements located at 5025 Walmsley Boulevard to David B.
Allen, Inc. for $50,000.00. The sale will be contingent on the
purchaser being able to obtain approval by the City of Richmond
for 16 building lots on the property.
Staff has received an offer from David B. Allen Inc. in the
amount of $50,000.00 for the purchase of 5.55 acres with
improvements at 5025 Walmsley Boulevard in the City of Richmond.
The subject property was acquired by the County in 1959 by
condemnation for $8,000.00. The building was constructed in 1963
for $37,807.63, making the total cost to the County $45,807.63.
The property was acquired by the City of Richmond in 1970 by
the annexation case. Since the City did not need the facility,
the County repurchased the property for $42,240.00 in July, 1970.
In 1981 a new maintenance facility was constructed along
Courthouse Road Extended, and this facility was no longer needed.
(Continued one,Next Page)
ATTACHMENTS: YES [~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR
Agenda Item
September 10, 1986
Page 2
Since there is no one there to watch the building, vandalism has
increased. The County has the continued expense of maintenance
and insurance.
Numerous attempts to sell the property have been made,
including sealed bids. The only offer over $50,000.00 was
withdrawn when the prospective purchaser discovered that the
property could not be used for his purposes.
Another offer of $50,000.00 was approved by the Board on
April 10, 1985, but the purchaser became insolvent and could not
perform under the contract. Since the property is zoned
residential, R-3, by the City and since the City will not support
rezoning, Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve
the sale and authorize the County Administrator to sign the
contract and authorize the Chairman of the Board and County
Administrator to execute the deed on behalf of the County upon
approval of the final document by the County Attorney's Office.
City of Richmond
Recommend Approval
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
i!.F.
UTILITY PUBLIC HEARING - Ordinance to Vacate a 12-Foot
Alley within the Village of Bensley
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Staff is requesting the Board to adopt an ordinance to
vacate a 12-foot alley within the Village of Bensley.
We have received an application from Florence G. Gagne'
requesting the vacation of a 12-foot alley within the Village of
Bensley. This has been reviewed by Staff and approval is
recommended.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance to
vacate a 12-foot alley within the Village of Bensley.
District: Bermuda
Recommend approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
C ~-U N~Y ~DM I N I STRATOR
COUNTRY CLUB
'WDAL~
KINGSLi
5.WHIT EWATE R C[
~ ' I LLWOOD
RD
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986 ITEM NUMBER: 12.A.
Final approval of site for a group home serving
5 persons with mental retardation.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OFINFORMATION:
On October 9, the Board of Supervisors reviewed several poten-
tial sites which MH/MR was considering as locations for group
homes. One of the sites which was deemed acceptable was
a duplex located at 4105 and 4107 Stella Court (Dale District).
MH/MR has been unable to identify any other site which meets
legal and VHDA requirements, and is suitable for our purposes.
When a group home is developed through VHDA, the property
is purchased with a loan from VHDA, and loan payments as
well as utility costs are covered through VHDA Section 8
rent subsidies. Other operating costs will be covered with
existing MH/MR funds by restructuring the staffing patterns
in MH/MR residential programs.
Attached is the VHDA "Sixty Day Letter", so called because
the Board of Supervisors has sixty days in which to decide
to approve or reject the project. If no action is taken
within sixty days, the project is approved by default.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
above described project.
Certify approval to VHDA for the
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR
VIRGINIA
HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
13 SOUTH 13TH STREET ·
RICHMOND
VIRGINIA 23219-4188
JOHN RITCHIE, JR.
Executive Director
TELEPHONE 804/782-1986
August 27, 1986
Mr. Garland Dodd, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
RE:
Chesterfield M/R
County of Chesterfield
Dear Chairman Dodd:
Pursuant to Section 36-55.39(B) of the Code of Virginia, a copy
of which is enclosed, you are hereby notified that the Virginia
Housing Development Authority is considering the financing of
the multi-family residential housing development described in
the enclosed Attachment "A", which is to be situated in your
locality. Should you desire additional information regarding
the development proposal, please contact Ms. Susan Moorman,
Chesterfield MN/MR, P. O. Box 90, Chesterfield, VA 23832.
If you desire to disapprove the development proposal, you may
do so by certifying to the Authority in writing within sixty
days of the date hereof. A certified copy of any resolution
disapproving the development proposal should accompany the above
certification. We would ask that any such certification be in
the form attached hereto though the statement of any reasons
for your ad'tion is optional.
You will note that Section 36-55.39(B) also provides that the
governing body of a locality may, by resolution, approve the
proposed housing development. If you desire to approve the
development, we would ask that such approval be in the form
attached hereto. A certified copy of the resolution approving
the development must accompany the approval form.
VerK truly yours,
// ~Yames T. Dise
~z/Development Officer
cc:
Robert L. Hedrick, County Administrator
Ms. Susan Moorman
7
ATTACHMENT A
The proposed development will consist of the rehabilitation of
approximately 5 units to be financed under the HUD Section 8
Program to be located at 4105 and 4107 Stella Court in the County
of Chesterfield.
§ 36.55.39. Procedure prior to financing of housing developments
undertaken by housing sponsors. -- A. Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of this chapter, HDA is not empowered to finance any housing
development undertaken by a housing sponsor pursuant to §§ 36-55.31,
36-55.33:1 and 36-55.34:1 of this chapter unless, prior to the financing of any
housing development hereunder, HDA finds:
(1) That there exists a shortage of decent, safe and sanitar housing at
rentals or prices which persons and families of low income or moderate income
can afford within the general housing market area to be served by the proposed
housing development.
(2) That private enterprise and investment have been unable, without assis-
tance, to provide the needed decent, safe and sanitary housing at rentals or
prices which persons.or families of low and moderate income can afford or to
provide sufficient mortgage financing for residential housing for occupancy by
such p,e, rsons Or families.
(3) .that the housing sponsor or sponsors undertaking the proposed housing
development in this Commonwealth will supply well-planned, well-designed
housing for persons or families of low and moderate income and that such
sponsors are financially responsible.
(4) That the housing development, to be assistedpursuant to the provisions
of this chapter, will be of public use and will provide a public benefit.
(5) That the housing development will be undertaken within the authority
conferred by this chapter upon HDA and the housing sponsor or sponsors. ·
B. HDA shall also find, in connection with the financing of the new con-
struction or substantial rehabilitation of any proposed multi-family residential
· housing development, that the governing body of the locality in which suc
housing development is to be located h~ ~t - '~-' ..... h
...... , w~mm s~x~y aays a~er written
notification of the proposed financing has been sent the governing body by
HDA, certified to HDA in writing its disapproval of the proposed multi-family
residential housing development. The foregoing notwithstanding, no such
finding need be made if HDA shall have received from the governing body its
certified resolution approving the proposed housing development. (1972, c. 830;
1975, c. 536; 1978, c. 297; 1982, c. 175.)
The 1978 amendment designated the
former provisions of this sect. ion as subsection A
and added subsection B.
The 1982 amendment added the second sen-
tence of subsection B.
CERTIFICATION 'OF DISAPPROVAL
In accordance with Virginia Code Section
36-55.39(B), the Board of Supervisors of the County of
, Virginia, hereby certifies to
the Virginia Housing Development Authority its disapproval
of the proposed multi-family residential housing development
called
in its resolution duly adopted on
a certified copy of which is attached hereto.
as expressed
, 19 ,
Optional:
reasons:
Such development is disapproved for the following
Board of Supervisors of
, Virginia
By:
Its Chairman
C~RT~FIC..T~.ON OF APPROVAL
In accordance with Virginia Code Section 36-55.39{B),
the Board of Supervisors of the County of ,
Virginia, hereby certifies to the Virginia Housing Development
Authority its approval of the proposed multi-family residential
housing development called
as expressed in its resolution duly adopted on'
].9 ~ a certified copy of which is attached hereto.
Board of Supervisors of
, Virginia
Its Chairman
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE: September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER;
12.B.
SUB4ECT:
Increased Compensation to Volunteer Fireman Responding
to Calls
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARYOFINFORMATION: The Chesterfield Chiefs' Association has requested
that the one dollar ($1.00) per call paid to volunteers be increased to
three dollars ($3.00) per call. The juStification for this request is:
1. Increase and or stabilize the number of volunteers per call.
2. More adequately reimburse expenses of members (car insurance, gas,
clothing cleaned, etc.)
3. Aid in retention of members.
4. Serve as a symbol of support for volunteer participation by the county.
An additional $29,000 is required to fund this cost starting Dec. 1, 1986,
which begins the next payment cycle for the volunteer payment. The Fire
Department has budgeted $29,000 in the current budget predicated on a
dollar per call. The administration had negotiated an agreement with
the Chairman of the Volunteer District Chiefs' Assoc. to include this
request in the 87-88 budget. However, some members of the Board of
Supervisors have expressed a desire to fund the request this fiscal year.
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO
PREPARED
Rob~e~t ~. Eanes~
September 5, 1986
SIGNATURE: ~
COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
12.C.
Approval of Short-term Operational Agreement for the
Northern Area Landfill
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The current five-year contract with Walter C. Link, Inc.
("Link") for the operation of the Northern Area (Warbro Road)
Landfill expires on September 14, 1986. Following competitive
sealed bidding in December of 1985 for a new five-year contract,
Staff advised the Board that Link was the lowest responsible
bidder for the new contract. On February 12, 1986, the Board
authorized the award of the new contract to Link.
The new operation contract with Link has never been execut-
ed, however, in view of a lawsuit filed by the lowest bidder,
S.G.S. Construction Company, Inc. and its owner Robert L. Snow.
Based-on reports of significant performance deficiencies, Staff
had concluded that Snow was not a responsible bidder.
(Continued)
ATTACHMENTS: YES I-I
PREPARED BY;
Steven L. Micas
County Attorney
SIGNATURE:
Agenda Item
September 10, 1986
Page 2
On March 17, 1986, Snow filed suit in federal court charging
that the Board had discriminated against Snow on the basis of
race in awarding the landfill contract to Link. The County filed
extensive affidavits establishing the regularity of the award
process and asked the Court to dismiss the lawsuit. On August
26, 1986, the Court granted the County's motions and found that
the "County conducted a bidding process free from racial animus."
During the litigation, the County has delayed the actual
execution of the new five-year contract with Link since a victory
by Snow in its lawsuit could have resulted in the voiding of the
new contact with Link. In that event, the County would be
exposed to a possible claim by Link for lost profits and other
damages. Even though the County has now won the lawsuit, Snow
has until September 25, 1986 to appeal the Court's decision. In
view of the uncertainty of appeal, it is recommended that the
County delay execution of the Link contract until September 26,
1986.
Since Link's current contract expires on September 14, 1986,
and the appeal period ends on September 25th, Link will operate
the landfill during this period under an extension of the old
landfill contract with payment to be made on a per diem basis
based on the new contract amount. On September 26, 1986, if no
notice of appeal has been filed, the new five-year contract would
be executed with Link.
However, the short-term extension is only reasonable if link
is protected against the payment of his required performance bond
if the long-term contract is never entered into. The cost of the
new five-year bond is approximately $4,000. No portion of the
bond premium can be refunded and a delay until September 26, 1986
in a purchase of the new bond could result in an increase in the
premium amount. The Purchasing Department has advised this
office that the award of the operations contract from September
15 to 25 on an emergency basis is appropriate under the circum-
stances of this case.
Recommendation: This office recommends that the Board
authorize the County Administrator to execute an agreement with
Link for the extension of the existing landfill contract until
September 25, 1986, with an added provision that, subject to
certain conditions, the County will pay Link $4,000 to cover the
cost of its performance bond in the event the new five-year
contract is never executed.
cd1763:85C16
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
k
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER'__
Changes in Sheriffs Office
12 .D.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
Agree with need to move magistrates. Prior Board of Supervisors
had requested this change. Also will aid Police and Sheriff in
processing prisoners. Recommend approval for authorization to do
further study.~'-
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Background:
The Board of Supervisors is requested to approve in concept
moving the Magistrates Office, hiring additional deputies and
building a 2,200 square feet addition to the Jail.
The Sheriff would like to relocate the Magistrates office from
the courtroom area to the Jail. Moving this office would
minimize potential contact between the public and prisoners. The
additional space needed at the Jail is 900 square feet to house
the Magistrate.
In addition,' the Sheriffs' Office would take over the
responsibility of booking and administering breathalyzer tests
from the Police Department. This will allow Police officers to
return to their patrol duties more quickly. These changes also
require the hiring of six deputies and the addition of
approximately 900 square feet to the Jail. The remaining space
requirement of 1,300 square feet would provide additional lobby
and administrative space necessary to handle the public. The
total additional space needed is 2,200 square feet.
PREPARED BY; ....
ATTACHMENTS: YES r'l NO I~1
SIGNATURE .'
COUNTY ADM I N! STRATOR
~genda Item-Changes in Sheriffs Office
September 10, 1986
Page 2
Action Required: The Board of Supervisors needs to approve the
concept of moving the Magistrate, hiring additional deputies, and
adding a 2,200 square feet extension to the Jail. If the Board
approves the concept, sta~f~J~!!_~d_~_~- cost-benefi~~As~_~
the proposed changes and bring a report to the Board. Staff will
also include this item in the Capital Improvement Program which
is currently being developed.
L~ne B. ey r
Budget and Accounting
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
12 .E.
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Appomattox
River Water Authority (ARWA)
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Mr. Zook and Mr. Muzzy were alternates on the MPO.
Muzzy served as alternate on ARWA.
Mr.
It is recommended that Mr. John McCracken and Mr. Richard
Sale be nominated as alternates to the MPO and that Mr. Richard
Sale be nominated as alternate on the ARWA.
PREPARED BY;
ATTACHMENTS: YES []
NO ~-
SIGNATURE
COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR
Ap mttox
I iver
rater
Authority
21300 Cheadin Road Petersburg, Virginia 2380c3
August 1, 1986
TO: THE BOARD f~ff~'~
FROM: RICHARD D. HARTMAN
SUBJECT: i) Fencing at Dam
2) Amendment to Service Agreement
Phone (804) 590-1145
1)
2)
Two quotations were obtained for fencing at the Dam. Russell Fence
Company started work on July 29 and was finished on July 31, 1986.
The total price was $3,518.63 for 410 feet of six foot high fence
and two walk gates
Dinwiddie County approved the second amendment to the Service
Agreements at a special meeting on July 30, 1986
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE: September 10, 1986 ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: Street Light Installation Cost Approval
12.F.1.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OFINFORMATION:
CLOVER HILL DISTRICT: Location approved June 25, 1986
Intersection of Cadillac Trail and Claybar Trail
Cost to Install Light - $1,484.00
DALE DISTRICT: Location approved September 12, 1984
Intersection of Edgemere Blvd. and Falstone Road
Cost to Install Light - $1,997.00
Location approved Januey 8, 1986
Intersection of Vauxhall Road and Vauxhall Court
Cost to Install Light- $829.00
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO []
Richard ,[~j McElfish, P.E.
Director
Environmental Engineering
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI N ISTRATOR
August 25, t9~6
9121Midlothian Turnpike
Richmond, Virginia 23235
Douglas Salyers
Enviornmental Engineering
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. Salyers:
\,,~ ], VIRGIItlIA POWER
Thank you for your letter of July 9, 1986, regarding estimate number 05-84130-00.
We have completed our estimate to install (1) 8000 Lumen High Pressure Sodium luminair
at Cadillac Trail and Claybar Trail.
The cost to the County for the installation of this light with 355' of wiring is $1484.00,
described as follows:
Total cost of job
Less revenue credit
at 4:1 ratio
Cost to County
$1905.00
$421.00
$1484.00
This cost will be effective for ninety days from the date of this letter. If we do
not receive your authorization to proceed with this work within the ninety day period
we will cancel this project. Should you require this work to be performed at a later
date, please make a new request and a new cost will be submitted to you.
The necessary engineering and construction work is being scheduled to provide for connection
of your service by November 25, 1986. (This connection date may vary slightly in the event
of bad weather.) In order for us to be able to provide service by the above connection date,
the items checked below must be completed by October 25, 1986.
1/ Letter of authorization returned to Virginia Power
Aquisition of Right-of-Way and/or State Highway Permits
Should there be any questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to
call me at 320-7811, Ext. 2039.
Sincerely,
Lee Hilldrup
Servi ce Representative
04.
II
Dear
Thank you lor your letter
to installSooo Lo.etas ~_z~,tZr .
The cost to you for the installation o!
wiring is $ lj ~ q T, o o , described ~ lollows:
Labor and materials
q-lq-g~. We have completed our estimate
Total Cost of 3ob
Less revenue credit at t~:l ratio
Cost to Co~,~+7
3~g, oo
m l,qg-/, oo
This cost shall be effective lot ninety days from the date of this letter.
If we do not receive your authorization to proceed with this work within the ninety
day period, we will consider this to be your request to cancel this project. If you
require this work to be performed at a later date, new request for service will
be necessary and a new cost will be submitted to you.
Sincerely,
Mr. Douglas W.'Salyers
Environmental Engineering
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Virginia Power
11200 Iron Bridge Road
Chester, Virginia 23831
August
Dear Mr. Salyers:
Thank you for your letter of January 21, 1986
regarding estimate number 07-13812.00. We have completed our
estimate to install 8000 Lumen Nigh Pressure Sodium Luminair
at Vam~all Road and Vam~all Court
The cost to the County for the installation of this light with
185 £eet of wiring is $829.00 , described as follows:
Total cost of job
Less revenue credit
at 4:1 ratio
Cost to County
.$1,289.00
460.00'
$ 829.00
This cost will be efective for ninety days from the date of this
letter. If we do not receive your authorization to proceed with this
work within the ninety day period we will cancel this project. Should
you require this work to be performed at a later date, please make a new
request and a new cost will be submitted to you.
The necessary engineering and construction work is 'being scheduled
to provide for connection of your service by October 13f 1986 . (This
connection date may vary slightly in the event of bad weather.) In order
for us to be able to provide service by the above connection date, the
items checked below must be completed by Noveraloe~ 6, 1986
X
X
Letter of authorization returned to Virqinia Power
~Aquisition of right-of-way and/or State Nighway Permits
Should there be any questions, or if I can be of any assistance,
please do not hesitate to call me at 748-5901, ext. 2036
Sincerely,
Service Representative
o ~
DATE LOCATION
FY 86-87 STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS
AMOUNT
ESTIMATED
INSTALLATION
DISTRICT DATE
7/23/86 Shoremeade Ct/Shoremeade Rd
1,020' Dale 12/01/86
7/23/86 Monza Dr/Monza Ct
1,252' Dale 12/01/86
7/23/86 Stornoway Dr/Marquette Rd
1,449' Dale 12/01/86
7/23/86 Falstone Rd/Stornoway Dr
1,143' Dale 12/01/86
7/23/86 Saldale Dr/Deanwood Rd
237 Dale 12/01/86
7/23/86 4533 Haymarket Ln/(Chge Serv)
214 Dale 12/01/86
7/23/86 Coalfield Rd/Prince Wm. Rd
1,848 Midlothian 12/01/86
7/23/86
8/13/86
Coalfield Rd/Queensgate Rd
End of Bollinger Dr.
1,069 Midlothian 12/01/86
648.88 Midlothian 12/15/86
*Funds taken from 3 Cent Road Fund
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEET lNG DATE
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
Street Light Requests
ITEM NUMBER:
12.F.2.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
BERMUDA DISTRICT:
3518 Luckylee Crescent~'
6100 Keydet Court~ "
Intersection of Malibu Street and Wood Dale Road
DALE DISTRICT:
Intersection of
Seti Court and Cogbill Road
Canasta Drive and Old Zion Hill Road
Omo Road and Cyrus Street
Dorius Drive and Cyrus Street
Omo Road and Canute Drive
Cyrus Street and Phobus Drive
Cyrus Street and Amasis Court
Cyrus Street and MacBeth Court
Omo Road and Lothaire Court
Necho Court and Omo Road
Canute Drive and Leopold Circle
Phobus Drive and Phobus Court
Totila Court and Omo Road
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
ATTACHMENTS: YES X][ NO []
PREPARED BY;-,~ ~/,,'F!
iRichard sh, P.E.
Directo
Environmental Engineering
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR
O49
Street Light Requests
September 10, 1986
Page 2
MATOACA DISTRICT:
Branders Bridge Road and Temple Avenue
Temple Avenue and Varanda Lane
Colonnade Drive and Temple Avenue
O5O
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Bermuda District
DATE OF REQUEST August 20, 1986 TAX MAP 53-9
NAME OF REQUESTOR Bill Faris - Meadowdale Townhouse Civic Assoc.
ADDRESS P. O. Box 34268, Richmond, Va. 23234
PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
AND .
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
.PLACED 3518 Luckylee Crescent
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE ~ OR SET POLE
COMMENTS This light was approved in FY 1985-86, however,
no funding was available, therefore, it is being requested
again. Does not meet criteria.
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
051
.r 7
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Bermuda .... District
DATE OF REQUEST Auqust 20, 1986 TAX MAP 53-9
NAME OF REQUESTOR Bill Faris - Meadowdale Townhouse Civil Assoc.
ADDRESS P.O. Box 34268, Richmond, Va. 23234
PHONE NUMBER - HOME
WORK
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
AND ·
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION.
~PLACED 6]~ ~yd~ O~ur~.
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
OR SET POLE
COMMENTS This light was approved in FY 1986-86, however,
no funding was available~ therefore~ it is being requested
mgmin. D~m not meet criteria.
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
053
i'
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Bermuda District
DATE OF REQUEST August 20, 1986
NAME OF REQUESTOR Mrs. H. McAllister
ADDRESS 3429 Wood Dale Road
TAX MAP 97-16
PHONE NUMBER - HOME 748-5513 WORK
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Maibu Street
AND Wood Dale Road .
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
.PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
055
Hemlock
Castlebury Drive
.'~
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Dale District
DATE OF REQUEST July 30, 1986 TAX MAP 65-4
NAME OF REQUESTOR Ms. Anne B. Palma through Harry G. Daniel
ADDRESS 6349 MacBeth Court
PHONE NUMBER - HOME
WORK 7R6-gq50
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
AND Cogbill Road .
Seti Court
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION.
~PLACED
IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
057
i
CHEST
74
72
15
\
058
.~1 NG~ r~JR~T
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Dale District
DATE OF REQUEST July 30, 1986 TAX MAP 65-4
NAME OF REQUESTOR Ms. Anne B. Palma through Harry G. Daniel
6349 MacBeth Court
ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER - HOME
WORK 786-9350
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
AND Old Zion Hill Road .
Canasta Drive
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION.
~PLACED
IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
IE. LD
51-16
65-8
COUNTY
I
2Pti.
~0
18
16
I,,.5
14
/'3
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Dale District
DATE OF REQUEST July 30, 1986 TAX MAP 65-3
NAME OF REQUESTOR Ms. Anne B. Palma through Harry ~_ Oan~l
ADDRESS 6349 Mac Beth Court
PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK 786-9350
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Omo Road
AND Cyrus Street
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
.PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
LOgZ 'J~
%D sn~O~d
062
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Dale District
DATE OF REQUEST July 30, 1986 TAX MAP 65-7
NAME OF REQUESTOR Ms. Anne B. Palma through Harry G. Daniel
ADDRESS 6349 MacBeth Court
PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK 786-9350
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Dorius Drive
AND Cyrus Street .
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
~PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
063
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Dale District
DATE OF REQUEST July 30, 1986 TAX MAP 65-4
NAME OF REQUESTOR Ms. Anne B. Palma through Harry G. Daniel
ADDRESS 6349 MacBeth Court
PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK 786-9350
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Omo Road
AND Canute Drive .
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
.PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
~0
16
18
I0
14
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Dale District
DATE OF REQUEST
NAME OF REQUESTOR
ADDRESS 6349 MacBeth
July 30, 1986 TAX ]MAP 6%-q
Ms. Anne B. Palma through Harry G. Daniel
PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK 786-9350
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Cyrus Street
AND Phobus Drive .
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION.
~PLACED
IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE #
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
COUNTY
2 pts.
51
12
50
13
49
48
Rd.
67- 81 80 79
Dr.
59
16
47
o5 -4
2/;~8 / 78
5179
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Dale District
DATE OF REQUEST July 30, 1986 TAX MAP 65-3
NAME OF REQUESTOR Ms. Anne B. Palma throuqh Harry G. Daniel
ADDRESS 6349 MacBeth Court
PHONE NUMBER - HOME
WORK 786-9350
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
AND Amasis Court ·
Cyrus Street
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION.
.PLACED
IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
Cyrus
p~obuS Ct
RT. 2BO?
S
bJ
O7O
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Dale District
DATE OF REQUEST July 30, 1986 TAX MAP 65-7
NAME OF REQUESTOR Ms. Anne B. Pama through Harry G. Daniel
ADDRESS 6349 MacBeth Court
PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK 786-9350
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Cyrus Street
AND MacBeth Court
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
~PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
':IELD COUNTY
'65 -3
65-8
3/ZZ/? 7 eLL,,
11/8t~llf
3/2Z/~Z~lf
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Dale -
DATE OF REQUEST July 30, 1986
District
TAX MAp 65-4
NAME OF REQUESTOR Ms. Anne B. Palma through Harry G. Daniel
ADDRESS 6349 MacBeth Court
PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK 786-9350
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Omo Road
AND Lothaire Court .
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
.PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Cr4t~r4a
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
073
IELD
51-16
COUNTY
I
16
18
15
13
k
\
,.
4.
I0
2
R.c"P T I f")
',
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Dale District
DATE OF REQUEST July 30~ i986 TAX MAP 65-4
NAME OF REQUESTOR Ms. Anne B. Palma through Harry G. Daniel
6349 MacBeth Court
ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK 786-9350
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Necho Court
AND Omo Road ·
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
.PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
IELD
. 51-16
COUNTY
I
14
18
14.
65-8
lO
4
,. /
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Dale District
DATE OF REQUEST July 30~ 1986 TAX MAP 65-4
NAME OF REQUESTOR Ms. Anne B. Palma through Harry ~-
ADDRESS 6349 MacBeth Court
PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK 786-9350
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Canute Drive
AND Leopold Circle ·
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
[6
22
\
6
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Dale District
DATE OF REQUEST July 30~ 1986 TAX MAP 65-3
NAME OF REQUESTOR Ms. Anne B. Palma throuqh Harry G. Daniel
ADDRESS 6349 MacBeth Court
PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK 786-93~0
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Phobus Drive
AND Phobus Court
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
~PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
~,UU~ t Y
' IF.,.L U
2 pts.
Rd.
o5 -4
13
15
16
5I
50
,:1.9
47
Dr.
59
08O
65 -7
HILL & DALE DISTRICT
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Dale District
DATE OF REQUEST July 30, 1986 TAX FLAP 65-4
NAME OF REQUESTOR Ms. Anne B. Palma through Harry G. Daniel
ADDRESS 6349 MacBeth Court
PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK 786-9350
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Totila Court
AND Omo Road .
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
$ 5~
15
CHEST
;0
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Matoaca District
DATE OF REQUEST Auqust i3~ 1986 TAX MAP ]75-9
NAME OF REQUESTOR Mrs. W.B.Fo× ~hrnugh ,7~ J_ Mayes
ADDRESS 19312 Temple Avenue
PHONE NUMBER - HOME
520-1677 WORK
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
AND Temple Avenue ·
Branders Bridqe Road
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION.
PLACED
IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
~OUNTY
30B
Creek
19
8/I/80 glf
175-13
38
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Matoaca District
DATE OF REQUEST August 13, 1986 TAX MAP 175-13
NAME OF REQUESTOR Mrs. W. B. Fox throuqh Jesse J. Mayes
ADDRESS 19312 Temple Avenue
PHONE NUMBER - HOME 520-1677 WORK
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Temple Avenue
AND Varanda Lane ·
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
174-16
G4
55
62
!
6O
CHES
49:
SC,~L~ ~ CCLO"ilAL ~ ~!E' ~ST m~
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Matoaca District
DATE OF REQUEST August 13, 1986 TAX MAP 175-13
NAME OF REQUESTOR Mrs. W. B. Fox through Jesse J. Mayes
ADDRESS 19312 Temple Avenue
PHONE NUMBER - HOME 520-1677 WORK
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Colonnade Drive
AND Temple Avenue .
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
IELD
~75-9
72
COUNTY...
2O
21
14
13
Ct,
15
19
2,;
2O
26
27
~544
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE: September 10, 1986 ITEM NUMBER'
SUBJECT: Request for through truck traffic restriction
on Old Stage Road
12.F.3.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OFINFORMATION:
The Board is requested to set a public hearing date to consider
prohibition of through truck traffic on Old Stage Road.
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Dodd has received a petition from citizens living along Old
Stage Road, Lanter Lane, Bermuda Place Drive, and Old Bermuda
Hundred Road to restrict through truck traffic on Old Stage Road
(Route 732) between Ware Bottom Spring Road (Route 898) and Old
Bermuda Hundred Road (Route 618). The development adjacent to
Old Stage Road is predominantly residential. An alternate route
for through trucks would be Old Bermuda Hundred Road to Route
1/301 to Route 10 to Ware Bottom Spring Road.
Based on staff's preliminary study of the request by reviewing
VDH&T requirements, staff does not feel as though the request
would be approved by VDH&T. Reviewing the accident history over
the past 3 1/2 years has revealed that no accidents were reported
involving heavy trucks. According to VDH&T's requirements, the
density of dwellings that front along Old Stage Road is too low
(Continued on Page Two)
R. J.~ McCracken
Director
ATTACHMENTS: YES Igl NO []
SIGNATURE:
O89
Board Agenda Item
Request for through truck traffic
restriction on Old Stage Road
September 10, 1986
Page Two
to help justify the requested restriction. On an average,
approximately 45 daily through truck trips would be needed to
support this restriction. It should be noted that the adopted
Eastern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan identifies Old
Stage Road as a major arterial serving mostly light
industrial/commercial areas.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Board wishes to pursue the restriction, staff recommends
that the Board set as a public hearing date
to consider a through truck traffic prohibition on Old Stage Road
and authorize the advertisement for that hearing.
DISTRICT: Bermuda.
Route 10
V
N
P POSED THROUGH TRUCK
TRAFFIC RESTRICTION ON
QLD STAGE ROAD (Rt. 732)
C
C
15' BUFFE
.-
IIIllllllllllllld
'Th'
'--- Old Bermuda Hundred Road
Proposed Restricted Route
Alternate Route
/
...-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
L.
MEETING DATE:
September 10, 1986
12.F.4.
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJI~CT:
Set Public Hearing Date to Consider Adoption
of an Ordinance to Amend the Code of the County
of Chesterfield by Adding Permit Fees for
Elevators, Escalators, Dumbwaiters and Manlifts
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Elevators, etc. - Permit Fees
As required by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code,
all elevators, dumbwaiters and manlifts are to be inspected
before use by the general public. It is the responsibility
of the owner to provide the Department of Building Inspections
with a copy of an annual inspection report made by an approved
independent inspection agency. Upon receipt of the inspection
report, a Certificate of Compliance will be issued to the
owner who will post same in all new elevators, etc. At
present, there are approximately 110 existing elevators in
the County.
The permit fee was arrived as follows:
Each Certificate of Compliance
Postage
Inspection and Plan Review Time
Staff Time
$0.50
.22
8.00
1.28
$10.00
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Request approval to se~ublic hearing
date of October 8, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. . '~' .~ ' ~-'~
Robert S. Hodder '
Director, Building Inspections
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM ~ N! STRATOR
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF CtlESTERF1ELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING
SECTION 6-4 RELATING TO BUILDING AND RELATED PERMIT FEES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
That Section 6-4 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield,
1978, as amended, is antended and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 6-4. Permit fees.
Annual Certificate of Compliance for Elevators, Escalators,
Dumbwaiters and Manlifts:
Such fees shall be as follows and shall be payable to the
County on or before December 31st of each year for the following
year. The fee shall include the cost of the application for a
permit.
Passenger elevators, ten dollars .............. $10.00
Freight elevator, ten dollars ................. $10.00
Dumbwaiters, ten dollars ...................... $10.00
Manlifts, ten dollars ......................... $10.00
Escalators (per floor), ten dollars ........... $10.00
Note: If the initial certificate of compliance is issued on or
after January 1 and on or before June 30, the fee is one-half
the amount shown. If the initial certificate is issued on or
after July 1, there is no charge for tile initial certificate
which will expire December 31 of the year in which the certifi-
cate is issued.
This Ordinance shall be in full force from and after its
passage as provided by law.
0.9.?
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE: September 10, 1986 ITEM NUMBER; 12.F.5.
SUBJECT: Resolution supporting proposed improvements to the
RMA Expressway System
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION'
The Board is requested to approve the attached resolution
expressing support for improvements to the RMA Expressway System.
BACKGROUND:
The Board requested staff to prepare a report on the improvement
program now being considered by the RMA Board of Directors. The
Richmond Expressway System is currently experiencing capacity
problems at toll plazas, access ramps, and mainline sections.
The section of the Powhite Parkway between Chippenham Parkway and
Forest Hill Avenue currently operates at a level of service E
during morning, peak hours. The Powhite Parkway between
Chippenham and the Downtown Expressway Connector operates at a
level of service D. By 1993-94, if no RMA system improvements
are made the northbound Powhite Parkway section between
Chippenham Parkway and Forest Hill Avenue and the Downtown
Expressway Connector between Maplewood Avenue and the Downtown
Expressway are expected to operate at a level of service F during
morning peak hours. To address these potential capacity
problems, RMA is now considering a ten year improvement program
for the Expressway System.
(Continued on Page Two)
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO
(
PREPARED BY;__~/~ ~
R~ J. McCracken
Director
Transportation Department
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR
Board Agenda Item
September 10, 1986
Page Two
Two improvement programs have been identified in a draft report
to address the ten year needs of the system, a "preferred
program" and a "minimum program". The preferred program consists
of system improvements which will provide a 'C' level of service.
These improvements are as follows:
· Widening the Powhite Parkway Bridge to eight lanes.
Widening of the Powhite Parkway Beltline Connector to six
lanes throughout.
Widening of the Powhite Parkway/Downtown Expressway
Connector to two lanes northbound throughout and two lanes
southbound throughout.
Widening of the Powhite Parkway to six lanes from the
mainline toll plaza to Forest Hill Avenue.
Construction of an additional northbound on ramp from Forest
Hill Avenue with a two lane toll plaza.
Addition of two toll lanes at both the Powhite Parkway and
Downtown Expressway and an additional toll lane at the
Forest Hill Avenue off ramp.
The estimated cost of the preferred program is approximately $12
million and would require approximately a 56% toll increase.
The minimum program would consist of system improvements that
would increase the levels of service of the most critical
mainline sections. However, the minimum program improvements
would provide less than a 'C' level of service for the entire
facility. The minimum improvements are as follows:
· Additional northbound on ramp from Forest Hill Avenue.
Widening of the Powhite Parkway to six lanes from the
mainline toll plaza to Forest Hill Avenue.
Extension of the Powhite Parkway mainline plaza tunnel to
ultimately provide for two additional lanes.
RMA's administration has expressed concern over the potential
increase in tolls that would be necessary to fund these
improvement programs and has requested their consultant to
explore alternative means for financing the improvements. The
consultant's report has not been completed at this time, however,
it is expected in time for the RMA Board to select an improvement
plan at their September 16, 1986 meeting. For any toll facility
Board Agenda Item
September 10, 1986
Page Three
to be successful, it must provide an excellent level of service
to the motorist using the facility, otherwise, they will choose
alternative routes. The traffic studies which have been
conducted by RMA's consultant indicate that improvements to the
Expressway System, including widening of the bridge crossing the
James, are needed if acceptable levels of service are to be
maintained. Therefore, staff would recommend supporting RMA's
improvement program. The RMA Administration has indicated that
every effort will be made to hold toll increases to a minimum.
RECOM~DATION:
If the Board wishes to formally take a position on the RMA
improvement program, staff recommends that the attached
resolution be adopted.
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: AT the
regular meeting of the Board
of Supervisors held at the
Courthouse on September 10,
1986 at 7:00 p.m.
WHEREAS, citizens of Chesterfield County use the Richmond
Expressway System to commute from Chesterfield County to the City
of Richmond, and
WHEREAS, the Richmond Expressway System is currently
experiencing some capacity problems at toll plazas, access ramps,
and mainline sections during peak hours, and
WHEREAS, the RMA has initiated a study to consider
improvements to the Expressway System to relieve this congestion.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County support~ RMA's efforts to
provide relief for the congestion on the Expressway System, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board urges the RMA Board
of Directors to consider all means of financing ~
improvements so that a toll increase~a~be avoided.
Vote:
Certified By:
Joan S. Dolezal, Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE'
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBERt__
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing to Consider Johnston Willis Financing
g'
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
Johnston Willis Hospital is seeking financing for a wellness
facility to be constructed in the Koger Center South. Johnston
Willis Hospital wishes to use approx. $2,000,000 of the proceeds
of bonds issued in 1985 by the Industrial Development Authority
of Henrico County, principally for the benefit of non-profit
hospitals throughout Virginia. As permitted under the tax laws,
up to 5% of the issue could be used for any facility, including
facilities of "for-profit" hospitals. State law as well as the
financing documents, require the approval of the Board of
Supervisors in any county where proceeds are to be spent'. For
tax purposes, the bonds do not constitute "industrial development
bonds" and, therefore, will not affect any quota applicable to
industrial development bonds in either Henrico or Chesterfield
County.
AGI6S13/dle ~
ATTACHMENTS: YES []
The project will result in better health facilities for citizens
of Chesterfield County and will lower the cost of health care,
and be in the public interest, consistent with the purposes of
the Act.
/5~'~L3~lder so. n,~
/ D i_rec~, r -o~f
~ Development
NO ~
SIGNATURE ' __
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENBA
k
MEETING DATE
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
12.G.1.
~A3proval for Police Officer Appointment
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
I respectfully request _the approval of the follc~g applicant to the
Circuit Court Judges for appoint~ent as Police Officer for the County of
Chesterfield effective September 15, 1986.
P~chard A. Mor~ndo
ATTACHMENTS:
YES ~
NO []
~l~nel uOSeph Z. Midian, Jr.
Chief of Police
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RICHARD A. MORMANDO
Police Officer Applicant
Richard A. Mormando was a police officer in this county frc~
October 17, 1983, until February 14, 1986. Since that time he has
been employed by ABC Supply Cc~oany as a salesman. He was reported to
be an excellent officer who did his share plus more while employed by
the county.
Mr. Mormando is twenty-six years old, has a Bachelor of Science
Degree frcm Virginia Commonwealth University and a Master of Arts
Degree from State University of New York at Albany. He has the
r~ndation of his former supervisor.
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
k
MEETING DATE' September 10, 1986
SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
ITEM NUMBER:
12.G.2.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
MATOACA DISTRICT:
Candlelamp East
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO fl
RichardS[" M~Elfish, P.E.
Director
Environmental Engineering
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
Board of Supervisors
Environmental Engineering
State Road Acceptance - Candlelamp East
September 10, 1986
CANDLELAMP LANE: Beginning at the intersection with
Spring Run Road, State Route 654, and goinq southerly
to a cul-de-sac.
CANDLELAMP EAST
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
L.
MEETING DATE'
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
12.G.3.
Resolution of the Board of Supervisors Authorizing the
Replacement of a Coupon for Chesterfield County Bonds
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION '
Central Fidelity Bank, as paying agent for certain of the
County's bonds, notified the County that Frank Cherry, a holder
of County bonds, had lost one coupon from the bond he purchased
from the 1982 Chesterfield County Public Improvement Issue. The
lost coupon was #7, valued at $237.50 and due December 15, 1985.
By submission of an affidavit of loss and an insurance policy
indemnifying the County against double payment on the bonds, Mr.
Cherry has requested Central Fidelity Bank to pay the coupon.
Section 15.1-209 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended,
provides that lost coupons may only be paid or replaced upon
approval by the Board upon presentation of sufficient evidence of
surety to avoid double payment. Under a recent change in state
law, it is no longer necessary that the County obtain the permis-
sion of the State Commission on local debt to authorize the
replacement. ~
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Super-
visors authorize Central Fidelity Bank to pay the lost coupon
based on the affidavit of loss and insurance policy indemnifying
the County against double payment. ThM--~reasurer has reviewed
this request and concurs.
III.
PREPARED BY~ .~'~{:~ ftC9
Steven L. Micas
County Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: YES 1'3
SIGNATURE:
"COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE: , September 10 ~ 1986 ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT:
Request for Bingo/Raffle Permit
12.G.4.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the following
bingo/raffle application and has determined that the application
meets all statutory requirements:
Organization
Ettrick Youth Sports Assoc.
Type of Permit
raffle
ATTACHMENTS: YES D NO O
/85C16
P~EPARED BY~~' ~
Steven L. Micas
County Attorney
SIGNATURE'
COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR
103
Receivpd o4
Address
For
Dept.
Pay-in
Voucher
__$
Total $ ~ (~
5, %.
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA.
PAYER
Date
da,/
76365
APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT BINGO GAMES OR RAFFLES
The undersigned applicant, pursuant to Section 18.2-340.1, et. seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, requests the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County to issue a permit to conduct bingo games .,
raffles ×, or both during the 1986 calendar year. This application is for a new X or renewal ,, .
permit.
In support of this applicstion, the applicant offers the following information under oath:
1 · A·
Proper name of organization: Ettrick Youth Sports Association
Address of organization's headquarters: 3317 Dupu.y Road, Ettrick, Virginia 23803
Address where all records of receipts and disbursements are permanently filed:
Treasurer, Cecile Pierson, 18808 Pine Grove Avenue, Colonial Heights, Va.
23834
D. Name and address of owner of the property described in C above:
18808 Pine Grove Avenues Colonial Heiqhts, Va. 23834
E. Address or ~ddresses where bingo games will be held or raffle drawings conducted:
Ettrick Park ~.d/cr ~+~-~ ~'/"~+ .... ' ~'~-----
NOTE: THIS PERMIT IS VALID ONLY AT THE ABOVE LOCATION·
F. Dates er days of week and times of day when binge games or raffles will be held at above address or
addresses: lP~affle will be dra~T~ at O¢..tober 18, ....1.9,86 footba, ll gam~e.
G. Time patrons are admitted and sales begin: 1:00 ]~,ill .............
A. Date when organization was founded: 1969
B. Has your organization been in existence and met regularly in Chesterfield County for two years
immedi~e~y p~e~ te,mek~9 ~.~i~-appli~ation? .Yes X No
C. Is your organization currently and has your organization always been operated in the past as a non-
profit organization? Yes X No .
D. Internal Revenue Code section under which tax-exempt status was granted (if applicable):
E. Organization's Taxpayer Identification Number:
F. State the specific type and purpose of your organization: Sponsor organized youth sports
proqrams for the .youth 8-13 years of age in the ~i;1;rick area such as baseball,
football~ cheerleading~ etc.
Georqe W, & Cecile L. Pierson,
3. If this application is for renewal of a permit, answer A and B below.
A. Were financial reports filed on time and in compliance with applicable legal requirements?
Yes~ No ·
Gro~s .rL~ce~pts from all sources related to the aperation of bin_g_o~g~.m, es or instant bingo by calendar
quart~'r for the 12 month period immediately prior to the d~te of this application: ........
ls~ qUarter 2nd quarter
4th quarter
Officers of Organization:
President: Willie R. Thomas .
Vice President: Ronald Smith .
Secretary: Ellen Njai .
Treasurer: Cecile L. Pierson ·
3rd Quarter
Address
3317 Dupuy Road, Ettrick~ Virginia 23803
3817 Greenwood Drive, Ettrick. Virginia 23803
1BBOR PJne G~Ove ~Avenpe. ColonJal HeJghCs.
RECEIVED
OFFI~: OF
THE COUNTY ATTOR[~EY
g 6 1986
Member authorized within the organization to be responsible for conducting and operation of bingo games
or raffles:
Name: Cecile L. Pierson . A~drees: 18808 Pine Grove Avemm: Enlnnfial N~igh~; Va_ .
Home Telephone Number 520-1780. Business Telephone Number: 733-6338 or
6. Do you, each officer, director and member of the organization fully understand each of the following:
Am
It is a violation of law to enter into a contract with any person, firm, association, organization
(other than another qualified organization pursuant to Section 18.2-340.13 of the Code of
Virginie), partnership or corporation of any classifiCation whatsoever, for the purpose of organiz-
~llgw managing or conducting bingo games or raffles?
Yes X No__.
The organization must maintain and file with the County Internal Audit Department complete records
of receipts and disbursements pertaining to bingo games and raffles as required by State and County
law, and that such records are subject to audit by thei County Internal Audit Department?
Yes X No .
The organization must remit an audit fee of 1% of gross receipts with the Annual Financial Report
not late~ than November I unless gross receipts are less than $2,0007 Yes X No~.
Dm
The organization must furnish a complete list of its membership upon the request of the County
Internal Audit Department or other designated representative of the Board of Supervisors?
Yes ~ No~.
Any organization found in violation of Section 18.2-340.10 of the Code of Virginia authorizing this
permit is subject to having such permit revoked and. any organization or person, shareholder, agent,
member or employee of such organization who violated Section 18.2-340.10 or Article 1.1 of Chapter
8 of Title 18.2 of the Code ef Virginia may be guilty of a felony? Yes X No__.
Has your organization attached to this application each of the following?
A copy of the organization's charter, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and other legal documents
Yes X' No~.
B. A copy of a resolution of the organization's board of directors authorizing the undersigned to
apply for this permit? Yes X No~.
C. A check in the amount of $25.00 payable to Treasurer, Chesterfield County as an application fee?
Yes X No~.
D. Additional pages where necessary to fully complete this application? Yes~ No~.
8. Have you and each officer of your organization read the attached permit and do you and each of you agree
on behalf of the organization to comply with each of the conditions therein? Yes X No~.
I hereby swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury.as set forth in Section 18.2-434 of the Code of
Virginia, that all the above questions have been completely answered and that all the statements herein
are true to the best of my knowledge, information and beliefs.
.~TNE~ the fol~l~wing signatures and seals:
Signature of ~A;~icant
Address
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
I, '~'i~'~ ~!'~r~:~ '~'P~Vi'~ a Notary Public in and for_the County and State aforesaid, do hereby
certify that ~j~i~ '"~,')'~1~.~ in his capacity as ~>f~ of ~~~~
~t. organization and whose name is signed to the foregoing appeared 'before ~ ~his ~ay'a~
acknowledged, subscribed and swore the s~me before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my
hand this ~ ~day of ~ ~u~ , 19~.
My CommiSsion Expires: ~~ ~ ~~~. ~
~ ' ' ' Notary PubLic
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BINGO/RAFFLE
PERMIT
By Resolution of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors duly adopted on
permission is hereby granted to to conduct
during the calendar year . THIS PERMIT WILL EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31,·
This permission is granted subject to the following conditions:
Except for reasonable and proper operating costs and prizes, no p~rt of the gross receipts derived by your
organization may be used for any purpose other than (i) those lawful religious, charitable, community or educa-
tional purposes for which your organization is specifically chartered or organized and (ii) expenses relating to
the acquisition, construction, maintenance, or repair of any interest in the real property involving the opera-
tion of your organization and used for lawful religious, charitable, community or educational purposes.
Your organization shall not enter into a contract with or otherwise employ for compensation any person or firm,
association, organization (other than another qualified organization pursuant to §18.2-340.13 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended), partnership or corporation of any classification whatsoever, for the purpose of
organizing, managing or conducting bingo games or raffles.
No person, except a bona fide member of your organization who shall have been a member of the organization for at
least ninety (90) days prior to such participation, shall participate in the management, operation or conduct of
any bingo game or raffle; provided however, that the spouse of any bona fide member or a firefighter or rescue
squad member employed by a political subdivision with which the volunteer firefighter or rescue squad member is
associated may participate in the operation and conduct of a bingo game or raffle if a bona fide member is
present. In addition, no person shall receive any remuneration for participating in the management, operating or
conduct of any such game or raffle.
Your organization shall not enter into any contract with or otherwise employ or compensate any member of your
organization regarding the sale of bingo supplies or equipment.
Your organization shall not award any bingo prize money or merchandise valued in excess of the following amounts:
(a) no bingo door prize shall exceed twenty-five dollars ($25.00), (b) no regular bingo or special game shall
exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00), and (c) no bingo jackpot, of any nature whatsoever, shall exceed one
thousand dollars ($1,O00.00)~ nor shall the total amount of bingo jackpot prizes awarded in one calendar day
exceed one thousand dollars ($1,O00.O0). '
Your organization shall not award any raffle prize or prizes valued at more than one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000.00) during any one calendar year. In no event shall your organization join with any other organization
in establishing or contributing to the maintenance of any jackpot.
Your organization shall maintain a record in writing of the dates on which bingo is played, the number of people
tn attendance on each date and the amount of the receipts and prizes paid on each such day. Your organization
shall also maintain a record of the name and address of each individual to whom a door prize, regular or special
bingo game prize or jackpot from the playing of bingo is awarded, as well as the amount of such award. The
organization shall also maintain an itemized record of all receipts and disbursements, including operating costs
and use of proceeds incurred in operating bingo games.
Your organization shall not place or permit to be placed any sign or signs advertising any bingo game on the
premises or within one hundred (100) yards of the exterior of the premises where such bingo game is to be con-
ducted.
Records of all bingo and raffi~"receipts and disbursements shalli be kep~"and shall be {iled ~ oath
annually under
with the County Internal Audit Department on a form furnished by ithat department. Your report shall bP submitted
to Internal Audit not later than the first day of November of !each calendar year for which a permit has been
issued and your report shall be a matter of public record. Each report shall include a record of the gross
receipts and disbursements of your organization for the year period which commenced on the first day of October
of the previous year and ended September 30 of the current year. In addition, if your organization's gross
receipts exceed $50,000 during any calendar quarter, you must file an additional accounting of all receipts and
disbursements during such quarter no later than 60 days following the last day of such quarter.
ANY ORGANIZATION VIOLATING THIS CONDITION SHALL HAVE ITS PERMIT AUTOMATICALLY REVOKED.
No person shall pay or receive for use of any premises to conduct any bingo games or raffles a sum of money in
excess of the current fair market value of the premises and in no event shall such sum of money be based upon or
.datermtned by s ~orc~ntago~ ......... of eh~ procee~ derived from thc bingo games or raffles.
Your organization shall not hold bingo games more frequently than two calendar days in any one calendar week
unless a special permit is granted by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County for more frequent games.
11. Your organization is authorized to play instant bingo as a part of the bingo games; provided however, that:
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
(a)
(b)
Instant bingo may be conducted only at such time as a regular bingo game, as defined in §18.2-340.1(2)
of the Code of Virginia, is in progress and only at such locations and at such times as are specified
in the bingo permit application;
Your organization shall not derive more than thirty-three and one-third percent (33 1/3%) of its gross
receipts from the bingo games by the playing of "instant bingo" or "bingo in any rotation";
(c)
Your organization shall maintain complete and accurate records of the date, quantity and card value of
instant bingo supplies purchased as well as the name and address of the supplier of such instant bingo
supplies. Your organization shall also maintain a written invoice or receipt from a non-member of the
organization verifying any information required by law; and
(d) Your organization shall not sell an instant bingo card to an individual below sixteen years of age.
In addition to the conditions contained in this Permit, your organization shall comply with all provisions of the
Code of Virginia and the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, regarding Bingo Games and Raffles.
The Board of Supervisors may deny, suspend or revoke the permit of your organization for any non-compliance with
the conditions of the Code of the County of Chesterfield or the Code of Vir$inia.
ANY PERSON, SHAREHOLDER, AGENT, MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF YOUR ORGANIZATION VIOLATING ANY OF THESE CONDITIONS SHALL
BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND
DOLLARS OR TO CONFINEMENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL FOR NOT MORE THAN TWELVE MONTHS OR BOTH. A VIOLATION OF CONDITION 1
ABOVE SHALL BE PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONP~NT OF NOT LESS THAN ONE YEAR, NOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR BYA FINE OF NOT
MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS OR CONFINEMENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL FOR NOT MORE THAN TWELVE MONTHS OR BOTH.
TillS PERMIT MUST BE RENEkrED AT THE END OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
THIS PERMIT IS VALID ONLY AT THE LOCATION PROVIDED ON THE PERMIT APPLICATION TO HOLD BINGO GAMES AND RAFFLES.
THIS PERMIT OR A COPY THEREOF MUST BE POSTED ON THE PREMISES WHERE BINGO GAMES OR RAFFLES ARE CONDUCTED. THIS
PERMIT IS NOT ASSIGNABLE.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
By
CHAIRMAN
Attest:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ETTRICK YOUTH SPORTS ASSOCIATION
N~
Section 1 - The organizat~on shall be knoun aa Ettrlck Youth Sports Association.
Section 2 - The adainistr&tive division of the orsanization shall be knovn as
the ~-xecutive Board.
AI~ICLE II
Purpose
Section 1 - The purpose of this organizatim is to promote spo~Cs activities for
youth of the EtCrick Virginia C~nity.
Al~II CI~ III
Hembership
Section 1 - The m.~ershHp of the organization shall be conposed of parents,
relatives, and friends, of, the Ettrick com~unity vho'have actively
participated in scheduled meetings and paid annual fees that have
been desi~nated by the organization.
ARTICLE IV
Officers
Section 1 - The officers of the organization sba1! be President, Vice President,
Correspondin$ Secretary, Recording Secretary, Treasurer, Journalist/
Historian, Financial Secretary, Parlimentarian, Sergeant-at-Ams,
Chaplain and Athletic Director,
Section 2 - The~resident, Vice President, Financial Secretary, Corresponding
,- Secretary, Recording Secretary, Treasurer, Journaliste~Historian,
Parliamentarian, Chaplin and Athletic Director shall be elected
yearly by a majority vote of the quorum present at the meeting. The
Sergeant-at-Arms shall be appointed by the President.
Section 3 - In event of the unexpired term of the President, the vacancy shall be
filled through appointment made by the Executive Board.
Duties of Officers
Section 1 - The President of the organization shall preside at ~he meeting
and foz~ulate the agenda for the meeting.
Section 2 Th~ Vice President of the or~anization shall preside .in the absence
of the President.
Section 3 -The Corre~onding Secretary of the ~rgan±zati~n shall ans~,; my
co~unicaClons and sena ou~ correspondence as directed. She/he
shall notify r~he uenberships of each ueeting.
Section 4 - The Recording Secretary shall take the minutes and repor~ the same
to the organization.
Section 5 - The financial Secretary of the organization shall record all monies
received and disbursements made. He/she shall keep an. accurate
account of financial .~e~bers in the organization and receipt all dues.
Section 6 - The Treasurer of the organization shall receive all f~nds and deposits
8~ae in bank chosen' by the Executive Board. He/she shall keep a
couplets, iteuized account of all monies received and disburse funds
only on an order authorized by the President/Vice President.
Section 7 - Th~ Sergeant-at-Arms of the organization shall maintain order at all
~ meetings of the orgainzation.
Section 8 - The Historian of the organization shall preser~ the facts and events
of ~he organization.
Section 9 - It shall be ~he duty of each officer to deliver to his /her successor
all files and other materials thirty (30) days after the election.
ARTICL~ VI
Meetings
Section 1 - The purpose of the meeting shall be to receiv~ end take action on
reports of officers, committies, to consider and ta~e action on any
o~he~ business that is being presented according to ~he policy of the
organl~zation and elec~d officers in each election year.
Section 2 - No refunds shall be made of membership dues after mo~ies have been
received as dues.
Section 3 - Three-fourths (3/4) of the membership constitutes a quorum.
ARTICLE VII
Standing Committees
Section 1 - A budget committee shall be appointed each year by the president of the
organizaCzon "for the purpose of preparing and recomendtflg a yearly
budset to be voted on ~y the orsanizaCion.
Section 2 - An 'audiCins coumitCee [b~ll be appointed each year by-the president
for ch purpose of-audi~in~, r~e'.books.
Section 3 - The noucLnaCin8 commit:Cee shall be apPointed by the president each
year for the purpose of preparing a slate of of~icers,
Section 4 - The coni4ioners for the sport activities rill be appointed by the
athletic director.
~I~ VIII
Coum~Lsioners and Coaches for Sport: Activities
Section 1 - There shall be a cos--~sioner for each sport
Section 2 - There shall be a coach for each sport activity.
SecC~ 3 - ~s~ere, ~d coaches shall be ~sp~s~ble to the athletic d~cCors.
Section 1 - The fiscal year of the Ettrick Youth Sports Association be~ins the
First day of October each year and ends the
Thirtieth of Seotembeg following.
ETT~ICK YOUTH SPORTS ASSOCIATION
Ettmick~ Virginia 23803
THIS IS TO RESOLVE THAT THE FOLLOWING OFFICERS OF THE ETTRIC~
YOUTH SPORTS ASSOCIATION ARE IN AGREEMENT TO HAVE THE APPLIED
FOR RAFFLE PERMZT AS A FUND RAISING PROJECT FOR THE FALL SEASON
OF OUR YOUTH SPORTS PROGRAM,
Willie Thomas~ President
Ceoile Piemsom~ Treasumem
Geom~e Pieemson~ Sm., Athletic Dimeotom
Rosa Whiter Cheerlemding Coordinator
ETTRICK YOUTH SPORTS ASSOCIATION
ETTRICK, VIRGINIA 23803
ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE
PRESIDENT
I
VICE PRESIDENT
RECORDING SECRETARY
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY
WAYS & MEANS
'PURCHASING AGENT
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS
P.~L IAM~NTARI N
ATHLETIC DIEECTOR
FOOTBALL COMMISSIONER
BASEBALL COMMISSIONER~
L~ COACHES
BASKETBALL CO}~MISSIONE
COACHES
SOCCER COMMISSIONER
q COACHES
CHEERLEADER COORD. !
06/86
ETTRICK YOUTH SPORTS ASSOCIATION
(ID #54-1939315)
OFFICERS
1986-87
PRESIDENT
Mr. Willie R. Thomas
3317 Dupuy Road
Ettrick, VA 23803
H: 734-4861
B: 526-4028
VICE-PRESIDENT
Mr. Ronald Smith
3817 Greenwood Dr.
Ettrick, VA 23803
H: 520-2869
B: 541-5205
RECORDING SECRETARY/CORRESPONDING
(Acting as 27 May 86)
TREASURER: (Acting as 27 May 86)
Mrs Ellen Njai
3324 Dupuy Rd
Colonial Heights, VA 23834
H: 520-7226
B: 771-2243
Mrs. Cecil Pierson
18808 Pine Grove Ave
Colonial Heights, VA 23834
WAYS &MEANS CHAIRPERSON*
PURCHASING AGENT
Mrs. Cecile Pierson
18808 Pine Grove Ave.
Colonial Heights, VA 23834
H: 520-1780
Mr. Lawrence Minter
20403 Ravensbourne Dr.
Ettrick, VA 23803
H: 520-2380
*Also serves as Assistant Purchasing Agent - Concession Stand supplies.
**Also serves as Equipment Manager.
HISTORIAN:
Mr. John LOng
20206 Grandy Ave
Ettrick, VA 23803
H: 526-9562
B: 771-2677
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS
VACANT
PARLIAMENTARIN:
Mr. George W. Henderson
3705 Dupuy Road
Ettrick, VA 23803
H: 526-8614
ATHLETIC DIRECTOR/FOOTBALL COMMISSIONER
Mr. George Pierson
18808 Pine Grove Ave
Colonial Heights, VA 23834
H% 520-1780
FOOTBALL COACHES
Minor Team:
Junior Team:
Senior Team:
CO-CHEERLEADERS COORDINATORS
Mr. Willie R. Thomas 526-4028
Mr. Lawrence Minter 520-2380
Mr. George Pierson 520-1780
Mrs. Roas White
20402 Ravensbourne Dr.
Ettrick, VA 23803
H: 526-8994
B: 734-4208
CO-CHEERLEADER COORDINATOR
Mrs. Ann Boyd
3607 Julep Dr.
Colonial Heights, VA
H: 526-9420
SOCCER COMMISSIONER
Dr. Shaukat M. Siddiqi
21215 Chesterfield Ave
Ettrick, VA 23803
H: 526-2656
(Mr. Willie Crew, Tp 590-1589 is the Football Commissioner for the Chester-
field Quarterback Leage (CQL). If there are concerns about CQL activities,
ie. Referees, etc.,, he will be contacted by the appropriate officer of the
Association.)
(OVER)
BASEBALL COMMISSIONER:
Mr. Finley Mahone III
21500 Court Street
Ettrick, VA 23803
H: 526-7914
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
12,H,l.a.1.
Authorization to Proceed with Condemnation
Water Easement for Woods Edge Road
of a
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION'.
Staff requests the Board to authorize the County Attorney to
proceed with condemnation of a water easement across the property
of the Heirs of John Jeffries.
On August 14, 1986, the following offer was made by the
Right of Way Section to the owners listed below for the purchase
of a water easement for Woods Edge. Road:
The Heirs of John Jeffries
John Anthony Jefferson
Michael Jefferson
Mitchell Jefferson
Shela Christine Jefferson
Yvonne Michelle Jefferson
$85.00
Since staff has not been able to reach an agreement with all
of the heirs, and since the contract for the installation of the
water line has been awarded, it is necessary to proceed with
condemnation on an emergency basis. Staff will continue to
negotiate with the owners in an effort to reach a settlement.
(Continued o~~~~
PREPARED BY; , ~,
ATTACHMENTS' YES I~ NO I"1
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Agenda Item
September 10, 1986
Page 2
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County
Attorney to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis and
exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1
of the Code of Virginia, and that the County Administrator be
instructed to notify the owner by certified mail on September 11,
1986, of the County's intention to take possession of the
easement.
District: Bermuda
Recommend Approval
1.05
!~ii kBLE PERMANENT
EASEMENT
)NSTRUCTION
EASEMENT
+9364
· N
-,b, CD m
I '
O ~,
03
-~ STA. 30 +OI.75 BK. ·
3,0 + 00.00 AHD.
IABLE PERMANENT
' EASEMENT
)N STRUCTION
EASEMENT
32 '+'51.49
--Z
,,..OO31'13
f-
O
O
VARIABLE PERMANENT
EASEMENT
I0' CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT
25+6:3.76
27+01.4§
06.71
4+58.90
35 + 63.00
I,.~Z
-b, ro
! ~c..,
B +28.89
· I]EARINC3, REFER TO VIRGINIA RECTANGULAR
GRID 5YST£M - SOUTH ZONE- 19~.7 N.A. DATUM.
: PERMANENT EASEMENT ENCLOSED tN RED
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ENCLOSED IN GREEN
,JUNE tOo 1986
R. STUART R OYER & ASSOCIATEs
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
RICHMOND , VIRGINIA
50 0 50
~_.~_'"'"'"'"'"'"'~ ~'~Z'--- - - - ,00
PLAT SHOWING EASEMENTS TO BE ACQUIRED
CROSSING THE LAND NOW BELONGING TO
JOHN JEFFRIES. BERMUDA DISTRICT~
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY~ VIRGINIA.
~ 106'
8552-02
4
TYLER
COl L EGE
,\'
132
WALTHAL L
' I I°' ~
620
/
./
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: 12.H.l.a.2.
Authorization to Proceed with Condemnation
Water Easement for Woods Edge Road
of a
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Staff requests the Board to authorize the County Attorney to
proceed with condemnation of a water easement across the property
of the Heirs of Hezekiak and Harry Jones.
On August 20, 1986, the following offer was made by the
Right of Way Section to the owners listed below for the purchase
of a water easement for Woods Edge Road:
The Heirs of Hezekiak and Harry Jones
Hezekiak Jr. and Barbara Jones
Stanley and Queen Jones
Ruth Jones
Ruby Jones
Theda Stepp
Judith Evelyn Jones
Robert Jones
William Jones
$640.00
Since staff has not been able to reach an agreement with all
of the heirs, and since the contract for the installation of the
(Continued~n Nex~ P~ge)
ATTACHMENTS: YES !~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR
108
Agenda Item
September 10, 1986
Page 2
water line has been awarded, it is necessary to proceed with
condemnation on an emergency basis. Staff will continue to
negotiate with the owners in an effort to reach a settlement.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County
Attorney to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis and
exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1
of the Code of Virginia, and that the County Administrator be
instructed to notify the owner by certified mail on September 11,
1986, of the County's intention to take possession of the
easement.
District: Bermuda
Recommend Approval
109
I0' CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT
21+93.64
~,6.56
VARIABLE PERMANENT
EASEMENT
I0' CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT
5+63.76
DI
STA. 28
30 +O0.OOAHD.
VARIABLE PERMANENT
EASEMENT
I0' CONSTRUCTtON
EASEMENT
r-
+ 5L49 '._ Po 3:>
o
35 + 63 O0
.P. ro
8 + 28.89
NOTE: BEARINGS REFER TO VIRGINIA RECTANGULAR
GRID 5¥$TEM -5. OUTH ZONE- 192.7 N.A. DATUM.
NOTE: PERM/'-NENT EASEMENT ENCLOSED IN RED
- CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ENCLOSED IN .GREEN
DATE: JUNE IO, 1986
PLAT SHOWING EASEMENTS TO BE ACQUIRED
CROSSING THE LAND NOW BELONGING TO
HEZEKIAH JONES. BERMUDA DISTRICT,
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY~ VIRGINIA.
DR
TYLER
WALTH A L L
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE' September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: 12.H. 1.b.'
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a request from Virginia Landmark
Corporation for aid in acquiring SeWer Easements for
the Iron Bridge TrUnk Sewer.
C,0UNiY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff requests the Board to authorize the Right of Way
Manager to aid Virginia Landmark Corporation in acquiring two
sewer easements along Great Branch for the Iron Bridge Trunk
Sewer.
Staff has received a request from Mr. E. S. Snead of
Virginia Landmark Corporation to aid him in acquiring sewer
easements across the property of Ernest P. Webb and property
owned by James L. Reynolds and David T. Evans. After extensive
negotiations, Mr. Snead has been unable to reach an agreement with
the owners.'
In addition to the Iron Bridge Development, this trunk sewer
will directly serve twenty other properties including making
sewer available to Goyne Park.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Right of Way
Manager to aid in the acquisition of the easements, provided the
developer executes a contract with the County agreeing to pay for
the costs.
District: Bermuda & Matoaca
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
5'-
AR£,A
LAND FiLL
~ tO
/
;TER
I
I
I
\
\
\
/ O0
Page 41
~E
1.! 4
!
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER;
12 .H. 1.c.
Approval of a Quit Claim Deed for a portion of a Water
and Sewer Easement along Route 1 and 301
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff request the Board to authorize the Chairman of the
Board and County Administrator to execute a quit claim deed for
the western 10 feet of a 20 foot wide water and sewer easement
and a 10 foot construction easement to East Coast Oil Corporation
along Route 1 and 301 at Route 10.
When the sewer contract for the East Coast Station at Route
10 and Route 1 and 301 was done, a water and sewer easement was
dedicated along Route 1 and 301 and Route 10 for future water and
sewer. East Coast also agreed to dedicate an easement along the
southern property line for future sewer if the County would at
that time quit claim any unnecessary portion of the previously
dedicated easement.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman of
the Board and County Administrator to sign a quit claim deed for
the unnecessary portion of the existing easement and authorize
the Right of Way Manager to exchange the quit claim deed with
East Coast Oil Corporation for the new easements.
District: Bermuda
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO []
SIGNATURE:,,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
i
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
TM 116 '
D, EL 1547 -
~5~,4 -567
0
k.t TH:
PLAT
16' ~iTARY SEWER-EASEMENT
T~--~Y CONSTRUCTION EAS,E-
t-'~-:E~'T.' ACROSS THE PROPERTY C~ EAST
C-O. AST OIL CORP. & EAST COAST OIL
~ERSHIP
~- E,~',/IUDA DISTRICT
C~TERFIELD ODUNTY , VIRGINIA
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: 12.H.2.a.
Award of Contract No. W86-104B, Replacement of Steel
Gates at Falling Creek Dam
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff requests that the Board award Contract No. W86-104B
for the replacement of steel gates at Falling Creek Dam to RECO
in the amount of their low bid of $97,110.00. Two bids were
received ranging from $97,110.00 to $119,811.00.
Funds were previously appropriated in the 1986-87 Capital
Improvement Budget.
Staff recommends that the Board award the contract and
authorize the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents on behalf of the County.
District: Dale
Recommend Approval
PREPARED BY; ,/~~~
ATTACHMENTS: YES O NO ]~
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMi NISTRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: 12 .H. 2 .b.
Acceptance of Deed of Dedication off Otterdale Road
Extended from Sommerville Development Corporation
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff requests the Board accept the conveyance of a 60' and
variable width strip of land off Otterdale Road Extended from
Sommerville Development Corporation, and authorize the County
Administrator to execute the necessary deed.
This right of way is necessary for the planned development
of Sommerville. Staff has reviewed this deed of dedication' and
recommends that the Board accept the conveyance of this right of
way and authorize the County Administrator to execute the
necessary deed.
District: Midlothian
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~
NO []
SIGNATURE: ,
C O~UN T~( ADM I N! STRATOR
N/
/'
NORTH OF U.S. ROUTE 50 TO ~: D:DZCA TED TO THE COUNTY OF
J. h' TIIIIIONS ~ A.qSOCIA £ES P. C
Ct~C~:ED BY.. ~.. . ~..
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
12.H.2.c.
Acceptance of Deed of Dedication along Huguenot Road
from Huguenot Forest Associates
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff requests the Board accept the conveyance of a 20'
strip of land along Huguenot Road from Huguenot Forest
Associates, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the
necessary deed.
It is the policy of the County to acquire right of way
whenever possible through development to meet the ultimate road
width as shown on the Plan 2000. The dedication of this right of
way conforms to that plan.
Staff recommends that the Board accept the conveyance of
this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to
execute the necessary deed.
District: Midlothian
Recommend Approval
PREPARED BY; .~~
ATTACHMENTS: YES []
NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR
Pond
YOUNG
HUGUE NIOT *
VILLEG£
C£~
\
7
RICHMOND
~IDLOTHI&N
C HESTEF~-
FIELD
MALL
~OW og,
GEOIZG~ ~..
0
. .PLA1 SHOWING 20' 3TRIP
LOCklED ON ?.kSl
SIDE OF I-tUGUEI, tOI' 12D. TO BE DEDtCb, TED
'L_'. TO THE COLtNTY OF CHE$1'ERI:::tELD
-7- * 'M IDLOIH. t k,Nl DISTglCT - C~L~*"TERF~ELP COUNTY, 'VA,.
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
12.H.2.d.
Acceptance of two deeds conveying surplus property from
the Chesterfield County School Board
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION'
Staff requests the Board to authorize the County
Administrator to sign two deeds from the Chesterfield County
School BOard, accepting them on behalf of the County.
Staff has reviewed the deeds submitted by the School Board
for the conveyance of five surplus parcels, shown on the attached
tax maps, to the County and can find no reason that the Board
should not accept these parcels. If the Board does not wish to
retain any of the parcels for future use they may be declared
surplus and sold.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County
Administrator to sign the two deeds from the School Board,
accepting them on behalf of the County.
District: Bermuda & Matoaca
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO D
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI N! STRATOR
125
2
6 9
49 \,
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
C
Z
-I
...(
Road
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
12.H.2 ._e_.
Acceptance of Deed of Dedication along Jefferson Davis
Highway and Willis Road from Southland Corporation
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff requests the Board accept the conveyance of a 5' strip
of land along Jefferson Davis Highway and a 15' strip of land
along Willis Road from Southland Corporation, and authorize the
County Administrator to execute the necessary deed.
It is the policy of the County to acquire right of way
whenever possible through development to meet the ultimate road
width as shown on the Plan 2000. The dedication of this right of
way conforms to that plan.
Staff recommends that the Board accept the conveyance of
this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to
execute the necessary deed.
District: Bermuda
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI N! STRATOR
RD
IC£ NTRAi.iA
~'~ 29
I
1
,%
/BELLWOOD
RD
Poge 30
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE
SUBJECT:
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
12.H.2.f.
Request to Vacate a Portion of a 16' Water Easement
within Beaufont Mall Shopping Center
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff requests the Board to authorize the Chairman of the
Board and the County Administrator to execute a quit claim deed
to vacate a portion of a 16' water easement within Beaufont Mall
Shopping Center.
A new easement has been dedicated to replace this easement
and the water line has been relocated.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman of
the Board and the County Administrator to execute a quit claim
deed to vacate a portion of a 16' water easement within Beaufont
Mall Shopping Center.
District: Midlothian
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~
NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SOuthErN
I!
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE'
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER;
12.H.2.g.
SUBJECT:
Approval of an Agreement with the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation for Adjustment of
Utilities on Route 288; Project 0288-020-102, C501
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
This agreement provides for adjustment of utilities on
proposed construction of Route 288 from Route 10 to Route 1 and
301. The project is responsible for bearing 100% of the cost for
both water and sewer adjustments.
Staff has reviewed this agreement and recommends that the
County Administrator be authorized to execute this agreement on
behalf of the County, subject to approval of the County Attorney.
District: Dale and Bermuda
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO I~
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEET lNG DATE
September 10, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
12.H.2.h.
SUBJECT:
Consideration of an Agreement for Engineering Services
for Utility Relocation on Centralia Road at Hopkins
Road
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff is requesting authorization for the County
Administrator to execute an agreement between The Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation, Baldwin and Gregg,
Ltd. and the County of Chesterfield to employ~_e~. Baldwin and
Gregg, Ltd. to design the relocation of th~-CQunty water
facilities on project 0145-020-101, RW201, subject to approval of
the agreement by the County Attorney.
The engineering services covered under this agreement will
be 58% State cost and 42% County cost. Funds for the County share
of engineering were appropriated in the 1986-87 Capital
Improvement Budget.
Staff recommends the Board approve this agreement and
authorize the County Administrator to execute this agreement on
behalf of the County, subject to approval of the County Attorney.
District: Dale
Recommend Approval
PREPARED BY;,/-~~ ~
ATTACHMENTS: YES []
NO p'
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM! NI STRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
L.
MEETING DATE* September 10, 1986 ITEM NUMBER: 12.H.3.
SUBJECT:
Report of Water and Sewer Contracts by Developers
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION'
The following water and sewer contracts were executed by the
County Administrator:
S86-112D/7(8)6B2D Roxshire Section 9
Developer: P&L Company
Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc.
Number of Connections: 49
Midlothian
$103,395.00
S86-122D/7(8)6C2D Pre-Con On-Site
Developer: Pre-Con Inc.
Contractor: Gerald K. Moody Inc.
Number of Connections: 3
Bermuda
$43,943.10
S86-123D/7(8)6C3D Creekwood Section G Clover Hill
Developer: Creekwood Corporation
Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc.
Number of Connections: 11 $25,386.00
(Continued on Next Page)
PREPARED BY; .~-~ ~~-~
ATTACHMENTS:
YES 1'3 NO ~
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I N I STRATOR
-/34, /
Agenda Item
September 10, 1986
Page 2
e
10.
11.
S86-127D/7(8)6C7D Chimney House Phase III Midlothian
Developer: Brandermill- A VA. General Partnership
By: Brandermill Management Inc. A
General Partner
Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc.
Number of Connections: 24 $14,780.00
W86-147D Western Reserve Plastics Dale
Developer: Western Reserve Plastics, Inc.
Contractor: Kenbridge Building Systems, Inc.
Number of Connections: 1 $23,720.00
W86-135D Roxshire Section 9
Developer: P&L Company
Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc.
Number of Connections: 49
Midlothian
$60,100.00
W86-159D The Boulders, Beaufont Springs Dr.
Developer: Boulders Joint Venture,
Sigma Development, Inc.
Contractor: Lyttle Utilities
Number of Connections: 1
Midlothian
$34,423.00
W86-162D Chesterfield Commerce Center I Clover Hill
Phase I
Developer: Chesterfield Commerce Center, Ltd.
Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc.
Number of Connections: 0 $8,523.00
W86-167D Abbot's Mill Section 1 Clover Hill
Developer: Mid-Atlantic Financial Group, Inc.
Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc.
Number of Connections: 49 $36,068.50
W86-163D Sachem's Head Phase 2 Clover Hill
Developer: Mid-Atlantic Financial Group, Inc.
Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc.
Number of Connections: 22 $15,917.50
W86-169D Branch's Trace Phase II Dale
Developer: Mid-Atlantic Financial Group, Inc.
Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc.
Number of Connections: 55 $34,659.50
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
R E PORTS
MEETING DATE: September 10, 1986
12.I,1.
Status of General Fund Contingency Account, General
Fund Balance, Road Reserve FUnds and District Road and
Street Light Funds
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO ri
SIG NATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
STATUS OF GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT
September 3, 1986
Date
07/01/86
07/09/86
08/13/86
Department/Description
Original FY87 Budget
Appropriation
Chamber of Commerce proposal for
Richmond SBA 503 Certified
Development Company
YMCA in Chester/Rt. 10 Donation
Amount
Balance
16,860.00
23,501.00
$100,000.00
83,140.00
59,639.00
.14;
Board
Meeting
Date
07/01/86
07/01/86
07/01/86
07/09/86
07/09/86
07/23/86
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
September 3, 1986
Description
FY87 Budgeted Beginning Fund Balance
Add to Fund Balance in FY87 Budget
Reserve for Payment of Future Debt
Interest
Debt Service - reduction of FY87
interest expense due to refunding a
portion of the 1981 bonds
MH/MR - to fund critical needs
Board Miscellaneous - Paint Water
Tank
Amount
+790,300
3,765,500
+ 78,400
85,900
25,000
Balance
$10,317,700
11,108,000
7,342,500
7,420,900
7,335,000
7,310,000
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
ROAD RESERVE FUNDS
September 3, 1986
Board
Meeting Rt. 36
Date Description Ettrick
05/09/84
10/10/84
10/10/84
08/28/85
08/28/85
03/12/86
03/12/86
05/28/86
05/28/86
Route 36 Ettrick - Appropriated
for design contract with VDH&T
$ 150,000
Route 10 - Design work for widening
through Chester
Route 36 Ettrick - Additional funds
for design contract with VDH&T
165,000
Route 36 Ettrick - Transferred General
Funds to Ruffin Mill Road project
(133,000)
Route 36 Ettrick - Use of Revenue
Sharing Funds
+133,000
Route 36 Ettrick - Reduce Revenue
Sharing funds but add back General Funds.
0
Route 10 - Reduce General Funds but add
back Revenue Sharing funds.
Route 36 Ettrick - Appropriate Reserve
Funds.
Route 10 - Appropriate Reserve Funds.
2,500,000**
Total Project Appropriation
$2,815,000
Rt. 10
Chester
350,000
1,485,000'*
$1,835,000
* Funds were reserved in the amount of $4,500,000, 7/1/84 for these projects.
** Chester Project loaned the Ettrict Project $165,000 on May 28, 1986.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
-~1
0
0
ce} 0
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
· RE PORTS
12.I.2.
MEETING DATE:
REPORT ON:
September 10, 1986
ROADS ACCEPTED INTO THE STATE SECONDARY SYSTEM
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO I:::]
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA
D£PARTMI:NT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
August 20, 1986
OSCAR K. MABRY
DEPUIY COMMISSIONER
J, M. WRAy. JR,
CHIEF ENGINEER
J .T. WARREN
DIRECTOR OF OPE RA31{:)N $
JACK HODGE
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
Secondary System
Additions
Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield,VA 23832
Members of the Board:
As requested in your resolution dated July 24, 1985, the follow-
ing additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are
hereby approved, effective August 20, 1986.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
SALISBURY HEATHLAND- SECTION B
Route 902 (Salisbury Road West) - From 0.30 mile
southwest of Route 714 to Route 1338.
0.23 Mi.
Route 1338 (Chepstow Road) - From 0.03 mile west
of Route 3382 to Route 902
0.27 Mi.
Route 3384 (Chepstow Terrace) - From Route 1338 to
a northwest cul-de-sac
Mi.
Route 3385 (Tunsberg Terrace) - From Route 902 to a
southeast cul-de-sac
0.18 Mi.
Sincerely,
Oscar K. Mabr~
Deputy Commissioner
TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHINAY$ & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
OSCAR K. MABRY
DEPtJTY COMMISSIONER
J. M WRAY. JR.
CHIEF ENGINEER
g .T. WARREN
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
JACK NODGE
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
SALLY H. COOPER
DIRECTOR OF RA1L AND P'USL~C TRANSPORTATION
J G, RIPLEY
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING
ALBERT W. COATES, JR.
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
J. W. ATINELJ.
DIRECTOF~ O~ FINANCE
August 22, 1986
Secondary System
Additions
Chesterfield CouDty
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Members of the Board:
As requested in your resolution dated January 8, 1986, the follow-
ing additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are hereby
approved, effective August 22, 1986.
ADDITIONS
LENGTH
CABIN CREEK - SECTIONS C-1 & C-2
Route 2245 (Boones Trail Road) - From 0.02 mile west of
Route 3253 to 0.03 mile southwest of Route 3257
0.22 Mi.
Route 3254 (Conestoga Place) - From Route 2245 to a south
cul-de-sac
0.15 Mi.
Route 3255 (Long Tom Lane) - From Route 2245 to 0.07 mile
south of Route 3256
0.15 Mi.
Route 3256 (Long Tom Court) - From Route 3255 to a south-
west cul-de-sac
0.06 Mi.
Route 3257 (Boones Trail Court) - From Route 2245 to a
south cul-de-sac
0.04 Mi.
Sincerely,
Oscar K. Mabry
Deputy Commissioner
TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
OSCAR K. MABRY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
J. M, %h(RAY. JR.
CHIEF ENGINEER
J .T. WARREN
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
JACK HODGE
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
SALLY H. COOPER
August 21, 1986
Secondary System
Additions
Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Members of the Board:
As requested in your resolution dated December 11, 1985, the
following additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County
are hereby approved, effective August 21, 1986.
ADDITIONS
MANSFIELD LANDING
Route 3340 (Smoketree South Parkway) - From 0.01 mile
southeast of Route 3349 to Route 3341
Route 3332 (Mansfield Landing) - From Route 3340 to a
southwest cul-de-sac
Route 3333 (Mansfield Terrace) - From Route 3332 to a
southeast cul-de-sac
Route 3334 (Mansfield Circle) - From Route 3333 to a
southeast cul-de-sac
LENGTH
0.15 Mi.
0.il Mi.
0.12 Mi.
0.03 Mi.
Sincerely,
Oscar K. M~
Deputy Commissioner
TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
August 20, 1986
OSCAR K. MABRY
DEI~JTY COMMISSIONER
J. M. WRAY, JR.
J .T, WARREN
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
JACK HODGE
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
SALLY H, COOPER
DIRECTOR OF RAJL AND FUBUC ~RANSPOflTATIOfl
J. G. RIPLEY
DIRECTOR OF Pt~NNINO AND FROSRAMMING
ALBERT W. COATES. JR.
[~RECTOR OF ADMINIS~TtON
Secondary System
Additions
Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Members of the Board:
As requested in your resolution dated June 25, 1986, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are hereby
approved, effective August 20, 1986.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
HEATHERIDGE - SECTIONS 1, 2 & 3
Route 3275 (Clivedor Court) - From Route 1421 to a
southeast cul-de-sac 0.09 Mi.
Route 3276 (North Vickilee Road) - From Route 1421 to
0~04 mile southeast of Route 1421 0.04 Mi.
Route 3277 (Battenburg Place) - From Route 1421 to a
northeast cul-de-sac 0.08 Mi.
Route 3278 (Battenburg Court) - From Route 3277 to a south-
east cul-de-sac
0.09 Mi.
Sincerely,
Oscar K. Mabr]
Deputy Commissioner
TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
OSCAR K. MABRY
DEPtJTY COMMISSIONER
J. M. WflAY, JR,
CHIEF ENGINEER
J .T. WARREN
DIRECTOR OF OPE RAllONS
JACK PIODGE
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
SALLY H. COOPER
D~RECTOR OF RAIL AND FtJIIUC TRANSPORTA~ON
J. G. RIPLEY
mRECTOR OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING
ALBERT W, COATES, JR,
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRA~ON
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
August 19, 1986
Secondary System
Additions
Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Members of the Board:
As requested in your resolution dated April 23, 1986, the
following additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County
are hereby approved, effective August 19, 1986.
ADDITIONS
TINSBERRY TRACE -SECTION 5
Route 1264 (Silvertree Lane) - From 0.03 mile north of
Route 1273 to 0.10 mile north of Route 3234
Route 3234 (Silvertree Court) - From Route 1264 to a
north cul-de-sac
LENGTH
0.19 Mi.
0.15 Mi.
Sincerely,
Deputy Commissioner
TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DI::PARTMfiNT OF HIGHINAY$ & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
August 27, 1986
OSCAR K. MABRY
DErNJTY COMMISSIONER
d M, WRAY, JR.
CHIEF ENGINEER
J .T. WARREN
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
JACK HODGE
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
SALLY H. COOPER
DIRECTOR OF RAIL AND PUBUC TRANSPORTATION
J. G. RI PUEY
DIRECTOR OF FLANNiNG AND PROGRAMMING
ALBERT W* COATES, JR*
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
J. W, A3'~NELL
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
Secondary System
Additions
Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Members of the Board:
As requested in your resolution dated May 28, 1986, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are hereby
approved, effective July 1, 1986.
ADDITIONS
PENNWOOD-SECTION 4
Route 3162 (Pennbrook Drive) - From Route 2181 to 0.05
mile south of Route 3163
Route 3163 (Pennbrook Court) - From Route 3162 to a
southeast cul-de-sac
LENGTH
0.21 Mi.
0.10 Mi.
Sincerely,
Oscar K. ~
Deputy Commissioner
TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS& TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
August 25, 1986
OSCAR K. MADRY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
J. M. WRAY, JR.
CHIEF ENGINEER
J ,T, WARREN
DIRECTOR OF OPER~TIONS
JACK HODGE
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
SALLY H. COOPER
DIRECTOR OF RAIL AND PUBUC TRANSPORTA~ON
J. G. RIPLEY
~RECTOR OF PLANNING AND FflOGRAMMING
ALBERT W, COATES. JR.
DIRECTOR OF ADMIMSTRA~ON
J. W. ATWELL
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
Secondary System
Addition
Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Members of the Board:
As requested in your resolution dated November 13, 1985, the
following addition to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County
is hereby approved, effective August 25, 1986.
ADDITION
Route 832 (Robious Crossing Drive) From Route 711 to
0.60 mile north of Route 711
LENGTH
0.60 Mi.
Sincerely,
Deputy Commissioner
TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
~1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RtCHMOND, 23219
August 27, 1986
OSCAR K~ MABRY
CHIEF ENGINEER
J .1. WARREN
JACK HODGE
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERIN(~
Secondary System
Addition
Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Members of the Board:
As requested in your resolution dated February 12, 1986, the
following addition to the SecondarY System of Chesterfield County
is hereby approved, effective August 27, 1986.
ADDITION
INGE WOOD ACRES
Route 2842 (Inge Wood Circle) - From Route 632 to a
west cul-de-sac
LENGTH
0.17 Mi.
Sincerely,
Deputy Commissioner
TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
Page 2
August 25, 1986
ADDITIONS (Continued)
Route 3032 (Ironside Drive) - From Route 3031 to 0.03
mile north of Route 3031
LENGTH
0.03 Mi.
Sincerely,
Oscar K. Mabry
Deputy Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
September 2, 1986
OSCAR K. MABRY
DEPU~ COMMISSIONER
J M. WRAY, JR.
CHIEF ENGINEER
J .T. WARREN
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
JACK HODGE
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
SALLY H. COOFER
DIRECTOR OF RAIL AND PUBUC TRANSFORTATION
J. G. RIPLEY
[~R ECTOR OF Pi.A~MN G AND PflOGRAMMING
ALBERT W. COATES, JR.
Secondary System
Additions
Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Members of the Board
As requested in your resolution dated February 12, 1986, the
following additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County
are hereby approved, effective September 2, 1986.
ADDITIONS
RIDGEFIELD
Route 3321 (Moorwood Ridge Drive) - From Route 647 to
a north cul-de-sac
Route 3322 (Moorwood Ridge Terrace) - From Route 3321 to
a west cul-de-sac
Route 3323 (Moorwood Ridge Court) - From Route 3321 to
a west cul-de-sac
Route 3324 (Moorwood Ridge CirCle) - From Route 3321 to
a northeast cul-de-sac
LENGTH
0.19 Mi.
0.04 Mi.
0.04 Mi.
0.03 Mi.
Sincerely,
Oscar K. Mabry
Deputy Commissioner
TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
August 28, 1986
OSCAR K, MABRY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIEF ENGINEER
J .T. WARREN
Secondary System
Additions
Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Members of the Board:
As requested in your resolution dated December 11, 1985, the
following additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County
are hereby approved, effective August 28, 1986.
ADDITIONS
GREAT OAKS - SECTION 4
Route 3090 (Brookridge Road) - From Route 3092 to
0.08 mile southwest of Route 3160
Route 3159 (Brookridge Way) - From Route 3090 to
a southeast cul-de-sac
Route 3060 (Brookridge Place) - From Route 3090
to a south cul-de-sac
LENGTH
0.36 Mi.
0.04 Mi.
0.03 Mi.
Sincerely,
Oscar K. Mabry
Deputy Commissioner
157
TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES
COMMONWEALTH o[ V IRQINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
August 29, 1986
OSCAR K, MABRY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
J. M. WRAY, JR.
CHIEF ENGINEER
J .T. WARREN
D~RECTOfl OF OPERATIONS
JACK HODGE
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
SALLY H. COOER
DIRECTOR OF R~JL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
ALBERT W. COATES, JR.
DIRECTOR OF ADMrNISTRATION
J. W. ATWELL
Secondary System
Additions
Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P.O. Box 40
Chesterfield,VA 23832
Members of the Board:
As requested in your resolution dated February 26, 1986, the
following additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County
are hereby approved, effective August 29, 1986.
ADDITIONS
HILMAR - SECTION B
LENGTH
Route 1972 (Autumnleaf Drive) - From 0.03 mile west of
Route 3191 to Route 1973 - West
0.27 Mi.
Route 1973 (Winterleaf Drive) - From 0.03 mile west of
Route 3192 to 0.02 mile west of Route 3191 to 0.02 mile
west of Route 1972 ~,
Route 3297 (Elmieaf Court) - From Rou~ee 1792
a
southwest cul-de-sac
Route 3298 t~Graple~af Drive) - From Route 1972-North
to Route 1972~t'h
0.11 Mi.
0.06 Mi.
0.19 Mi.
Sincerely,
Oscar K. Mabry
Deputy Commissioner
TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES